So V ote

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 1:27:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised by the Conservatives' rhetoric as the planet is literally burning. Canada is ranked 39th for per capita greenhouse gas emissions but 10th among countries for greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to abide by the Paris accord, the average per capita emissions around the world should be two tonnes per year, and yet each and every Canadian emits 17.5 tonnes. Does my colleague not think that there is considerable work to be done and that using market tools could be one solution?

89 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 12:43:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to quote a document, which reads as follows: “We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline...we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Our improvements will include: Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia's policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels”. That comes from the Conservative Party election platform, so it is rather strange for the leader of the official opposition to be rising in the House today to contradict his own political platform. I would like him to explain how he thinks he can lower greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the fossil fuel production.

124 words

Jun/1/23 11:58:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. This is a complex issue because we have different systems. Quebec has had a carbon exchange in place for a number of years now. The funny thing is that the carbon exchange was implemented by Jean Charest when he was premier of Quebec, and he recently ran for Conservative Party leader, so that idea came from someone within their own ranks. We do need to think about it. The important thing is that we take action. The systems may be different, but what I want and what the NDP wants is for all of the provinces to make an extra effort because, right now, we are not doing enough. The federal government has this small measure, but unfortunately, it should be doing a lot more and putting an end to oil and gas projects.

145 words

Jun/1/23 11:57:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting and specific question. Yesterday, I attended an event organized by Stop Ecocide Canada, a group advocating a new legal concept of environmental accountability. An American was there to talk about responsible investment funds and the use of tax measures to effect change. He spoke about the social, environmental and public health impacts that should be taken into account when it comes to the cost of externalities. I think that is in line with my colleague's question. I think that we should incorporate that into our vision and analysis.

99 words

Jun/1/23 11:55:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. Unfortunately, it does not surprise me. I still cannot believe the Conservatives would refuse to use the tools of the market and the capitalist system to change the behaviour of individuals and companies. I agree with the NDP caucus that this tool must be used, but it would work a lot better if the government did not simultaneously do the opposite. It is like stepping on the gas and the brakes at the same time. Rarely does anything good come of that. That is the problem with the Liberals: They are sucking and blowing. Unfortunately, the Conservatives would prefer to do nothing at all.

117 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:44:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who, I am sure, will teach us a lot about this very important issue. The planet is burning. It is not a metaphor. Global warming and climate change are real. This is affecting people. It is killing people. It is making people sick and forcing people to leave their villages and towns. The planet is burning and not thousands of kilometres away, but here at home in our own backyard. Forest fires are currently burning in British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Quebec. What bright idea did the Conservatives come up with? They are saying that we should not put a price on pollution. They are completely disconnected from reality, from what is actually happening here at home and around the world. The ice shelves in Antarctica are collapsing. This is causing ocean levels to rise. If the permafrost ends up melting, it will release an unbelievable amount of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 70 times stronger than CO2. All these phenomena are piling up. The oceans are acidifying and that will also have an impact on climate change. How is it that the Conservatives are coming back for the eighth time in three years, telling us that we should not put a price on pollution, that it would be good to continue the status quo because everything is going so well and this is good for the economy? However, if there is no planet, if there is no environment, there will be no economy. I do not understand why the Conservatives keep hammering away on this issue, supporting an industry that is harmful not only to biodiversity and nature, but also to human beings, public health and our economy. Even insurance companies are sounding the alarm. Insurance companies are not the biggest tree huggers in the world, but they are beginning to realize that there are areas and places that are no longer insurable. They no longer want to insure people's homes because it is too risky. It is too risky, whether for floods, forest fires or landslides. It has come to that point. The Conservatives keep repeating the same old line that nothing needs to be done or we should wait until others do something. If China does nothing, we do nothing. If the United States does nothing, we do nothing. As human beings and citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to take action to ensure that our environment remains healthy, viable and livable for our children and our grandchildren. As Quebeckers and Canadians, we have a special responsibility because we are big polluters. It is true, we have a small population but we are major greenhouse gas emitters. In 2021, Canada ranked as the 10th GHG-emitting country in the world. By population, it is ranked 39th in the world. Thus, we should be ranked 39th for greenhouse gas emissions, but no, we are ranked 10th. We are in the top 10 emitters because, on average, our per capita greenhouse gas emissions total 17.5 tonnes per year. According to the Paris agreement, to perhaps hold the temperature increase to 1.5° or 2°, per capita greenhouse gas emissions must be limited to two tonnes per year, on average. We are at 17.5 tonnes. This shows the gap between how we live and what result we should attain. It is a huge gap. I would like to take this opportunity to urge caution when discussing the concept of averages in connection with climate change. When we tell people about the need to be careful because a global temperature increase of more than two degrees could be catastrophic, they usually react by thinking that two degrees is not that much, and they wonder what difference it could make. They tell themselves, after all, they often wake up in the morning to a temperature of 15°C, only for it to rise by the afternoon to 25°C. That is a difference of 10°C in a single day. In Quebec, temperatures can drop to 35 below in winter and rise to 35 above in summer, a difference of 70 degrees. All this leaves people wondering what a 1.5°C or 2°C rise in temperature really means. They say it is going to alter the planet's ecosystems and, to understand that, we need to go back a bit. When I say “a bit”, I mean a very long time ago. If we go back 20,000 years, it was, on average, 4°C colder than it is today. As a result, Europe was covered by 3,000 kilometres of ice. The planet was uninhabitable, because it was colder. It is easy to see that if, when it was 4° colder, there were 3,000 kilometres of ice, then when it is 4° warmer, a whole slew of areas on the planet would simply become uninhabitable. Human beings, the human body, cannot survive in those conditions. French engineer Jean-Marc Jancovici is quite clear about that. There are beautiful maps that unfortunately show that an additional 2°C would make certain parts of the world uninhabitable, places such as Central America, northern South America, parts of the Maghreb, South-East Asia, parts of India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, where, if it were over 35° with 100% humidity it would be impossible for human beings to survive. Perspiration would no longer be enough to cool a person's body, so they would die. What happens when people are at risk of dying if they stay in their region, town or village? They move to places where it is not as hot, where it is cooler. Global warming will lead to phenomenal levels of population migration across the globe, which could give rise to geopolitical conflict, extreme tension and probably even war. That is why former U.S. vice-president Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize several years ago for his work on the environment and the prevention of climate change. Why would someone win the Nobel Peace Prize when we are talking about the environment? I just explained why, and it might be worth reflecting on. I submitted a written question to the government recently, specifically to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the department responsible for housing, to find out how the federal government plans to handle the arrival of climate refugees. The answer was that Canada has the national housing strategy, that everything is going to be fine and no one needs to worry about it. We have a Liberal government that is a climate change laggard on the international stage. It is incapable of planning for what is coming. Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 2% in 2021. Between 1990 and 2021, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 14% when the goal was to reduce them by 40%. We are way off target. What is more, there has been a dizzying increase in oil and gas production since 2005. The production of oil in the oil sands, which is the most polluting oil in the world, has increased by 215% since 2005 while, internationally, Canada boasts. It attends COP and says that it is a model, that we need to transition, that it is important and we need to pay attention. In the meantime, there is a 215% increase in production in the oil sands. That means that, since 2005, 200,000 wells have been drilled to find oil and gas. The Liberals tell us that things will work out, that we will be able to reach our objectives, yet their actions say the opposite. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is a former founder of Equiterre, an organization that is currently suing him for shirking his responsibilities. Although he claims he wants to be there to change the world and save the planet, he picked up his pen or pencil and signed a ministerial order green lighting the Baie du Nord project, a decision solely within his purview that will ultimately generate hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. On the one side we have the Conservatives, dinosaurs who refuse to take the matter seriously, and on the other side we have the Liberals, saying one thing and doing the opposite.

1419 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:43:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to climate, the Conservatives are dinosaurs. I think that they like oil so much because it is the remains of dinosaurs. They must feel at home there. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government, and especially the Minister of the Environment, who make grand speeches at COPs but then sign an order authorizing a project like Bay du Nord?

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:12:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by my Liberal Party colleague fascinating. He seemed to be suggesting that the Liberal government's record on greenhouse gas emissions is a good one. However, in 2021, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2%. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 14% in Canada since 1990 despite the climate emergency. Why is his government not doing better? It is incapable of meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

74 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 10:43:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always a bit shocked to see the Conservatives, who believe in the free market and capitalism, refuse to put a price on pollution, when that consists in using market rules to change people's behaviour. I find that to be inconsistent with their philosophical framework. In fact, my colleague is saying that if the rest of the world does not take the initiative, we should not do anything. The United States, and specifically the states of California and New England, already participate in the carbon exchange with Quebec. We are already competitive. Why does the member not recognize that?

103 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 155 - Feb/7/23

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/7/23 11:35:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to circle back to a point that I find particularly relevant, and that is the Liberals' fear or reluctance to go after big oil's profits. There is a double standard towards ordinary Canadians. We have pointed out that the oil companies have doubled their profits, that the government continues to hand them subsidies and that it does not dare tax them more, despite pleas from the UN Secretary-General. In my colleague's opinion, why do the Liberals not dare go there, when it is a pretty easy and obvious answer?

105 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 155 - Feb/7/23

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/7/23 11:20:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk a little bit more about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who was attacking the official opposition, saying that it has no plan, that its plan is non-existent. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that, despite the price on pollution, the Liberal government is failing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Is that not a result of all the conflicting decisions, such as Trans Mountain, Bay du Nord and oil subsidies, that are undermining the efforts of this government, which talks out of both sides of its mouth?

110 words

Sep/27/22 4:59:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I feel like we have gone back 10 years. The Conservatives are still talking about the price on pollution and the carbon tax. They cannot seem to get over it. Every time they run out of things to talk about, they come back to this debate that was supposed to be settled. To anyone who takes climate change seriously, this measure is one of the rare tools that the federal government has that works. The Liberal government does not do enough, but at least we have this measure. Without it there is nothing left. We will keep increasing our greenhouse gas emissions and that will be dangerous for future generations. To combat inflation, the NDP has offered other proposals that are much more tangible and help the less fortunate. What does my colleague think of that?

145 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Sep/27/22 4:58:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As I said earlier today, this feels like déjà vu since we are once again discussing the price on pollution and the carbon tax. It seems like every time the Conservatives run out of things to talk about, they bring up this old chestnut. It seems that the page—

62 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Sep/27/22 4:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all agree that there should be a price on pollution. However, everything that the Liberal government does is cancelled out by other decisions it makes that wind up increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I am talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Bay du Nord decision and the increased subsidies for oil companies. How can the Liberals claim to want to reduce pollution but then approve things that increase pollution?

91 words

Sep/27/22 12:07:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we need a federal plan to make targeted investments so that we can transition to renewable energy sources, but we also need a plan to train these workers. We need round tables where all three parties, namely the unions representing the workers, the government and the employers, can work together to make strategic decisions for the future that will lead to a better, more just economy for everyone.

72 words

Sep/27/22 12:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. How can the Conservative Party be unaware that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec? I do not know. Perhaps we should ask the newly appointed Quebec lieutenant of the Conservative Party. I am not sure he has much influence over his leader right now. As for the second part of his question, yes, our party agrees that we need targeted measures for certain economic sectors or communities. I think targeted measures to combat inflation and the rising cost of living and to facilitate the energy transition would also be worthwhile. For example, I am thinking about the electrification of transportation and public transportation, two subjects the NDP is quite fond of.

123 words

Sep/27/22 12:05:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal tax on carbon does not apply to Quebec. Quebec already has its own cap-and-trade system. I think the point is moot. I would say that taxing pollution, putting a price on pollution, works because it changes people's behaviour and the choices they make. They will make a choice that is cheaper, but also greener at the same time. This tax cannot be the only tool. It does part of the job, but it is not enough. We need a comprehensive strategy that is much broader than this simple tax.

96 words

Sep/27/22 12:04:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights the fact that the Conservatives are stirring up a debate and a discussion that are five or ten years out of date. We have moved on. Actually, we need to go further in the fight against climate change. That is why I am reiterating today that we need a plan for a just transition that includes indigenous communities, workers and unions. There needs to be a broad plan to make this transition towards creating the jobs of tomorrow, towards ongoing training for workers, and towards the portability of their retirement plans and pensions to provide support for them and for our communities. We need a plan that is targeted and regionalized according to people's needs. This has yet to be done, and we need it now.

134 words