44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 12:16:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I must say that, for the past week, my thoughts have mainly been with Quebeckers and all the communities in Canada that are suffering due to the forest fires. I would also like to highlight the poise, courage and invaluable work of all the firefighters battling the forest fires in Quebec and all those who have come to lend them a hand to get through this ordeal.
However, we cannot say we are surprised by what is happening. Climate events are increasing in frequency and intensity, confirming the forecasts published by experts from all over the world. We need only think of the historic floods in Quebec, mainly in the Lanaudière and Charlevoix regions, the ice storm a few weeks ago, the repeated heat waves, such as the ones that left 60 people dead in Montreal in 2018, or the violent storms that hit Ontario and Quebec a year ago, killing nine. There is a long list of examples, but I want to use my time to also talk about the cost of climate inaction.
The economic and human costs are closely intertwined. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, climate impacts will be slowing Canada's economic growth by $25 billion by 2025. It is almost 2025 now. One of the researchers, Mr. Bourque, said that it is really the public who will pay the highest price and that they will be hit from different sides, either by higher insurance premiums or by direct costs that are not covered.
Extreme weather events have high economic costs. In Fort McMurray in 2016, they cost $3.8 billion. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in 2022, these costs reached $3.2 billion in Canada. Worldwide, in 2022, the cost was $275 billion. What will the current fires cost? More important, however, are the direct effects on people's lives. People who are currently affected will find shelter and refuge, but when they go home, heartbroken, what will they find? Some have also lost their jobs. With the EI system on its last legs, what will happen to those who lose their jobs because outfitters are burning down?
Severe weather also affects mental and physical health. The World Health Organization says that climate change is the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. It is not the first time that I have said this here in the House. On several occasions, I have presented the House with Canadian statistics on the economic impact of health problems caused by air pollution. This week, we are breathing air as bad as the air in cities like Jakarta and Mexico City, and there are not tens of millions of people here.
The health effects of climate change include increased rates of cardiovascular, lung and kidney disease, as well as increased cancer rates. Research has found causal links with the deterioration of the environment: contaminated water, air pollution, soil contaminated with toxic substances, all against the backdrop of constantly rising mercury levels. This amounts to a cost of $34 billion per year for the health care system.
It would be a mistake to think that the problems affecting people on the other side of the globe have little or no impact on us. Let us not forget the forest fires in Australia a few years ago. According to a study that was published in the May issue of Sciences Advances, the smoke from those fires may have even changed weather patterns. What happens at one end of the globe affects everyone.
Here is another example. This week, the UN informed us that the warming of the oceans is causing unparalleled cascading effects, including ice melting, sea level rise, marine heat waves and ocean acidification. The ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 is also diminishing. This shows that there is a connection between extreme weather events in the world and the global weather system, regardless of where the initial trigger event occurred.
The government needs to do more. That was well put, was it not? It shows decorum. However, what I would really rather say is that the government needs to get its head out of the sand and stop making matters worse. It is as though we are standing on the side of the highway and we see a big tractor trailer heading our way at full speed and we just stand there. The truck drives past, the wind from it pushes us back and we fall and hurt ourselves. I think that metaphor accurately describes the government and Canada as a whole.
If we are to be proactive with respect to extreme weather, we have to call a spade a spade. We must stop downplaying the dangers and the impacts of the climate emergency. What is the government doing in response to this challenge? It is continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry. That is what it is doing.
I will give two examples. I talked about this at the beginning of the week and I am talking about it again today. Billions of dollars have been invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline and its expansion. Costs have skyrocketed, going from $7.5 billion to $30.9 billion, even though the Minister of Finance promised not to inject public money. No, she is using the Canada account instead, but that comes from taxpayers.
A few years ago, the Prime Minister proudly said that the profits from the TMX project would be invested in the fight against climate change. We knew that there would be no profits, and today, it has been confirmed. Trans Mountain is the costly crowning touch to the Liberals' failure to fight climate change.
Another example of subsidies is found in budget 2023. Subsidies, or tax credits, which are the same thing, are being provided for false solutions such as carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen produced from natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. These are fossil fuel subsidies by another name. We must call a spade a spade.
The government has powerful mechanisms at its disposal. It has legislation, which is binding. It can provide disincentives in the form of taxes. It can also provide incentives in the form of subsidies.
Canada will pay a heavy price for believing that subsidizing the industry that is fuelling the climate crisis is the right path to take. The federal government is not focusing enough attention on the green technologies that are ready to be deployed to support an energy transition guided by renewable energy. People we meet with have told us that they do not have access to the Canada growth fund.
There is no ambiguity on what constitutes renewable energy, right? However, the government seems to be a bit confused about this, even though it is easy to understand. Let me explain it again: The incentive has to be tied to solutions to the problem, not to funding the problem.
The hydrogen tax credit should be available only for clean hydrogen. The allegedly miraculous technology of carbon capture and storage makes me laugh. It is rather pathetic. Th oil industry has infected governments and earns obscene profits, yet it is looking for a handout for technology to optimize its production. Come on. It could take care of that itself. The industry has known for 60 years how much CO2 it was going to generate.
However, the industry understands all too well how things work. It is adapting its government and corporate relations in light of global net zero targets, with the aim of taking full advantage of energy transition subsidies. The industry is very savvy.
The government gets to keep its hands clean. It has given the industry permission to export its infernal reserves of fossil fuels. Carbon capture and storage technologies are very popular with the government, but they only serve to scrape to the very bottom of the deposits. Believing that this can save anything is a pipe dream of the saddest sort. Manipulating citizens by presenting false solutions is dishonest and dangerous. These technologies are immature, expensive, energy-intensive and ineffective. That is the admission of a government that consents to maintaining the dependence on fossil fuels it has created with taxpayer money. Moving to carbon capture and storage only proves the government's submissiveness to the oil and gas lobbies.
I have not even mentioned the drilling in a marine refuge off the eastern coast of Newfoundland. I do not have enough time to call out everything, so let me end on a more positive note.
With today's motion, the Bloc Québécois is calling on all parliamentarians and the Government of Canada to change course. The investment approach currently being pursued is not working. We missed an opportunity in terms of the postpandemic economic recovery. Our climate targets are for 2030, seven years from now. It is time for a paradigm shift to trigger the real transition.
1502 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:27:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her kind words, but I think she knows a lot more about it than me. She is a long-time activist.
Like her and many others, we lament the fact that Canada is an oil-producing country. Sooner or later, it will have to take the leap, change direction and engage in a meaningful transition. I have lost track of the number of years we have been talking about a transition. It is time to stop talking and get started on the transition.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:29:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He seems very optimistic about what is happening in the United States. It could change completely, depending on who is elected next. I, for one, am not that optimistic.
Now, there was a word missing from his question. He talked about electrifying transportation, but we need to talk about public transportation. That is what is important. That is what is lacking in this country. There is almost no public transport. I once came here by train from Vancouver, and we had to keep stopping to let the oil through. That is not public transportation. Frankly, it is a bit ridiculous. We need public transportation for people who have to travel, and we need to stop always thinking about oil. Of course products and goods have to get through, but it should not always be to the detriment of those who take public transportation.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he asked the member for Beloeil—Chambly the same thing this morning, and that he could not remember it. Unfortunately, I have to say that I do not remember it either. However, when I listened to him this time, it made me question whether this is not something that falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.
The issue of equipment and so on is a matter for Quebec and the provinces, is it not? I will leave it at that because I honestly cannot remember, and there are so many other things to talk about. I have no other answer for him.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this morning, more than 11,000 Quebeckers were evacuated because of the forest fires. Everyone else also felt the impact of the fires, if only by breathing the ambient air. Climate change is here.
We have a duty to support the victims, but we also have a duty to be consistent. The oil and gas sector is the primary accelerator of climate change. We have to divest from oil and gas. We have no choice.
Since we need to get out of this industry, will the government commit to banning any new oil and gas development and putting an end to searching for deposits?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:42:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand, but the government keeps repeating that it could accelerate the fight against climate change if it did not have to fight the Conservatives. That is true, but things would also move more quickly if it stopped imitating the Conservatives.
Not only is it refusing to divest from oil, it is also looking for new deposits at the bottom of marine refuges. It has just authorized BP to drill off the coast of Newfoundland. Even worse, according to Radio-Canada, the Minister of Natural Resources said that if BP finds oil, he could help them develop it by redrawing the refuge's boundaries.
Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change immediately correct his colleague?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
