SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 3:54:33 p.m.
Watch

I remind hon. members that this is not a conversation. The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

17 words

Jun/8/23 3:54:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my riding what people are talking about, alluding to the member's mention of the carbon tax, is affordability. They are talking about competitiveness globally. We are seeing onions come in now from Mexico and Morocco because Canada is becoming uncompetitive. This is about affordability. I think the member for Kingston and the Islands has had four electric vehicles. He could be on his fifth. I am not sure, but he can correct me on that. People in my riding have to wait to buy a five-year-old car right now. They cannot afford an electric vehicle. They are going to have to wait for a 10-year-old electric vehicle. If this is so critical an emergency why does the Prime Minister not park the jet?

131 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/8/23 3:55:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was teasing the member earlier. I always have a good exchange with him and I appreciate his question. The reality of the situation is that I understand there is an affordability crisis out there. I understand that a lot of people are struggling. However, yesterday I got an email from my son's school that told us that kids would not be going outside for recess yesterday as a result of the smoke in the air. He is in grade 1. I do not ever remember that happening when I was a child. I do not want my children to grow up in a world where we have many days like what we had over the last couple of days. Yes, the member is right. There are a lot of people struggling with affordability in particular right now, but we also have to do something about protecting our environment. This comes down to finding a balance. Where is that balance? I think, ultimately, that is where the struggle is.

172 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Jun/8/23 3:56:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you will notice that my voice is a bit hoarse today. I will do my best. I hope that the interpreters can hear me clearly. I mention this because it is directly related to today's topic, unfortunately. This little throat irritation started on Tuesday morning when here in Ottawa we could smell smoke from the wildfires. It got worse, and today my voice is almost gone. It really is quite something. It is extremely unusual to smell that much smog all the way to Ottawa. Today, we see that it has reached New York and other U.S. cities. Americans are acutely aware of what is happening here on the north shore, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Abitibi—Baie-James and northern Quebec. On Monday evening, there was an emergency debate in the House about the forest fires. I plan on using essentially the same speech. That said, I want to take a moment to thank the people who are still on the ground in Quebec: the local authorities, SOPFEU, the Canadian Armed Forces who have sent military personnel, the people who have come to lend a hand. These people are working extremely hard. Our thoughts are with those who have been evacuated from their homes, who had to leave with a few suitcases and without knowing whether they would find their homes intact when they return. Of course, we cannot help but associate the increasingly extreme and intense weather events we are experiencing, such as forest fires, with global warming and climate change. That is more or less the purpose of today's motion. I am extremely pleased that the Bloc Québécois has decided to dedicate its last opposition day in the parliamentary period to an issue that is so important but that I believe is not discussed enough in the House of Commons. There is always another scandal, always something more important to talk about than the pervasive climate crisis. It is still here, which is why we need to talk about it and we need to do more. As I said earlier, this is a motion that is not partisan and that does not seek to trick the other parties. We really want to bring people together. What the motion says makes sense: We have to do more, we have to do better and we have to do it quickly. I spoke earlier with the Minister of Environment, who said that if governments had listened to scientists 30 years ago, we would not be experiencing smoke and forest fires in Canada right now. I agree with him. Today, we have an opportunity to change course. It is not too late. Scientists are telling us that it is almost too late, but that actions still can be taken. I expect the government to not only take action to mitigate the climate crisis, but also to make decisions on climate change adaptation. That is how serious the situation is. A few years ago, we were talking about the climate change that was coming and how we should prepare for it. Today, we are in the thick of climate change, and we need to adapt our infrastructure to deal with its devastating effects, which, for many, are already irreversible. As I said on Monday evening, we seem to be experiencing abnormal events, what with hurricane Fiona, floods and forest fires. However, this kind of thing is becoming more and more normal. It is practically becoming an everyday occurrence. That may well be the case for the coming years. Earlier, I heard my colleague who spoke just before me say that it has become almost unimaginable to think that we will raise our children in this environment. I often hear environmentalists say that they do not know if they want to bring a child into the world, with the planet on fire. They do not think it would be wise to force another human being to go through this. I thought that was quite an intense way of thinking about it, but when it comes to thinking about having children of my own, I do feel that the quality of the air we breathe and the quality of the water we drink have been affected by the actions of the past few years. We can do everything we can to protect our children, but we cannot keep them from breathing the air outside. It is extremely worrisome. I want to give a quick overview of the forest fire situation in Quebec. I know that some of my colleagues have already done that. I want to take this opportunity to commend the member for Manicouagan, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, all from Quebec, who returned to their ridings this week to be with their constituents as they go through tough times. I salute their work. When tragedies are happening in our ridings, it is important to be with our constituents to reassure them and share information. Some people have been reluctant to leave their homes to seek shelter, but we have to repeat the messages and tell them to listen to local public authorities. There are still around 150 active forest fires in Quebec today, including roughly 110 that are out of control and threatening inhabited communities. People are hard at work digging trenches to prevent fires from spreading in villages and municipalities and near businesses. That is the reality on the ground. Experts have been explaining what a normal forest fire season looks like. They are saying that the season is likely to be a little longer and extremely difficult this summer. They say a lot of work lies ahead in order to be able to fight all of them. This is extremely troubling. Let us come back to today's motion, which is fairly simple. I was pleased to hear members of the Liberal party saying that our motion was reasonable and that everyone should agree on it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that he was going to support it and that he personally agreed that we need to stop oil exploration and development. That is a good thing. I wish more members of his caucus shared his opinion. However, that is clearly not the case, because the government continues to issue permits for oil exploration. Antonio Guterres sounded the alarm when he said that we must not implement any new oil projects and that those days are over if we want to have any chance of success. That is discouraging for people. This morning, I read an article by Étienne Leblanc on Radio-Canada. He analyzed climate change denial, which is gaining ground. I found that very interesting. Mr. Leblanc wrote, “Even though more and more extreme weather events are happening around the world, the level of public concern about climate disruption has scarcely budged. Yet climate change denial is gaining ground.” He believes that people become discouraged when governments say that they want to do more on climate change, but then do the exact opposite. He made the link between climate change denial and the fact that people increasingly find it difficult to believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Climate change deniers believe that these events are natural, that they are the whims of Mother Nature, and that humans do not cause or contribute to them. In his article, he explains some of the causes of climate change denial. We have heard at length about the statement by Maxime Bernier, who is the leader of the People's Party of Canada and who was the foreign affairs minister in Stephen Harper's Conservative government a few years ago. Mr. Bernier said that he was sure the forest fires had beem started by environmentalists as part of a plot. We are hearing more and more of these types of claims being made on social media by people with a certain amount of credibility, including some who have even held important government positions at the federal level. The people making these statements are considered to be intelligent. Not only do some people get scared, but they end up believing them. I went on Facebook and posted the speech I gave on Monday evening, in which I talked about the forest fires and the connection to climate change. The comments I got on my post were shocking. I will not repeat every word I read in the comments, but people said that I was nuts, that climate change did not exist, that the fires were not connected to climate change, that the air quality index was very good, that there was nothing to worry about. It seems like some people are living on another planet. We are literally having a hard time breathing, and outdoor sports activities are being cancelled this week, yet these people are not making the connection and do not think that we might need to change our behaviour. Worse still, we do not have governments that encourage people to change their behaviour. I see that our time together is drawing to a close. I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

1556 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Jun/8/23 4:06:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part of this is about preparing our country for the future. I spoke about this in 2020. I wonder if the member could comment on this. Our country lacks CL-215 water bombers. Public Safety has asked the military for help. We do not have a fleet of water bombers; we are short of them. Australia has the polar opposite forest fire season than we do. It would make sense to have shared resources with other countries, preparing Canada for the future. Could my colleague comment on the procuring of water bombers and preparing Canada for what is to come?

102 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Jun/8/23 4:07:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I did not get to the very end of our motion today, but the idea is that there would be some kind of financial transfer. The money for the subsidies that the government gives to the fossil fuel industry should instead be transferred to the provinces so that they can fight climate change, get prepared, and adapt to these changes. Personally, I see that the provinces, Quebec and organizations like SOPFEU are well organized; they are taking the lead and asking the federal government for help as needed. That is the federal government's role. I do not think that it needs to take the lead on this, but it does have to step up if the need arises. If the necessary resources are not there, then we should get them. There is already international assistance on the ground, with over 700 people from other countries, including the United States. As for France, it has sent a hundred people to help out. That is wonderful, but do we need to be better prepared? The answer is “maybe”, but let us send the money to the provinces so that they can take care of it.

205 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 4:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc wants to see all fossil fuel subsidies come to an end. Are there any exceptions in her mind, for example, orphan wells? The government is assisting in getting rid of those wells. Orphan wells are bad for our environment. There is a cost for the government to deal with them. The Bloc considers that a fossil fuel subsidy. Is that a bad thing for the government to be doing? What about fossil fuel subsidies for people who live up north? From the Bloc's perspective, is that a bad fossil fuel subsidy?

96 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Jun/8/23 4:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the problem right there. When the government promises to stop helping polluting industries that are already making billions in profits each year, it always finds a way to get around this promise and still help these industries, saying that it is to help them green their operations. The same can be said about orphan wells: The government says that they need to be dealt with. At the end of the day, the government keeps wanting to give money to these industries. However, it has been proven that these industries are the most polluting and that they are capable of looking after their own affairs. Therefore, I think that these subsidies need to be ended once and for all and that we should support renewables and green energy. That is where the money is needed.

138 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work and her speech. We have an excellent motion before us today. However, based on experience, I fear that the Liberals will vote in favour of this motion and then do nothing. In other words, they are all talk and no action. What would my colleague like to see the Liberal government do once this motion is adopted?

67 words

Action

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Jun/8/23 4:10:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple: The government must completely stop investing in fossil fuels. That is what I want to see happen once this motion is adopted. I want the government's actions to match its words. It is talking about drilling for oil in marine refuges, marine areas that are protected, which is completely crazy. If the government were consistent in its approach, it would not do something like that. We have an incredible opportunity at the moment, because there is a minority government in power. If the opposition parties stood together to hold the government to account, fossil fuel subsidies might already be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, some parties, like the NDP, support the government in its budgetary policies.

125 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:11:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, whom I know personally, and I know that she has lost her voice because of the current situation and the poor air quality. I know she went to bed early yesterday and had her hot milk. I understand that the situation affects everyone. I would like to begin by highlighting the work of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I know this is difficult for her. The fires are not under control. There are evacuations in Chibougamau and Chapais. I know this is a particularly tough time, so I want to say that we support these communities. My faithful squire, the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, and I will be pleased to welcome these people to our region. I know that they are currently travelling to Roberval, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to give him a hand to ensure that these people are properly welcomed, as will be the people from Lebel-sur-Quévillon. When I look at today's motion and the current situation, I wonder what we need to do. What is the best response to support people who have been displaced? Preventing such events from happening in the future is the best response. To prevent them or, at the very least, mitigate them takes some political courage. I have often heard the Prime Minister say that he would be there. It is a phrase he uses often. I have even heard him say they would be there to be there. That is quite something. However, being there means going beyond the rhetoric and actually doing something. I say that because when I hear a Conservative member, I disagree with him, but I know what to expect. I remember that the Conservatives had an opposition day to celebrate oil. They said oil was irreplaceable. That is the vision of the Conservative Party, so I know what to expect. In the case of the Liberal Party, the problem is that, often, the Liberals are a bit like Conservatives who ignore each other. What I mean is that they have the same approach to the oil and gas issue, but they wrap it up in a nice little package. However, the candy inside is the same: unwavering support for the oil and gas industry. This leads me to believe that there has to be a change in culture in Canadian politics. I see oil as such a strong symbol of identity in Canadian politics that no one is prepared to admit that this sector of economic activity creates enormous problems. It is similar to the gun issue in the United States. No one is prepared to say that staking it all on fossil fuels will create problems in the long-term that will cost us a fortune. Let us look at what has happened over the past two years with the approval of the Bay du Nord project and the government's desire, which was again mentioned during oral question period, to drill oil wells in a marine refuge. This led the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that with Guilbeault, we will get our drilling licence. He copied Elvis Gratton's famous phrase, “With Groleau, I will get my liquor licence.” It is just as ridiculous to hear the colonized Elvis Gratton speak about his future based on a liquor licence as it is to hear the Minister of Environment defend his decisions, which are incoherent if he is any sort of an environmentalist—but I'm not the one who came up with the comparison. Let us continue in the same vein as the member for Mirabel. I find that the NDP is paying dearly for its dental insurance, because they have no choice but to support this government's positions and to vote for gag orders. Once again, this made the infamous member for Mirabel say that by spending so much time at the Liberals' feet, the New Democrats are going to get oral thrush, that little problem that can affect our toe nails. When I think of the oil and gas sector, I think of a bottomless public money pit. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. In last year's budget, there was $2.6 billion for developing carbon capture and storage technologies. Businesses said that if we wanted to take that route then 75% of the cost associated with these new technologies needed to be assumed by the governments. What a sham. They are trying to develop low-carbon oil. The government is defending that by bringing in programs. There are two major carbon sequestration projects and 57% of the money funding those two major projects is public money. There is also the emissions reduction fund, which was introduced during the pandemic. In the end, we read in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that this fund did everything but reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector. Then, there is Oil Change International who told us that Canada gives 14 times more in subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy. That is 14.5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy when the average for the majority of G20 countries is barely 2.5. If we, by which I mean everyone but me, take a look at ourselves, we see that Canada is the country with the worst track record when it comes to supporting the oil and gas industry. That is not to mention all of the talk about blue hydrogen. We no longer want to talk about so-called blue hydrogen. We are going to take gas and make hydrogen using carbon capture technology. That hydrogen will supposedly be a source of clean, renewable energy. Only experts in the gas industry could say such a thing. They are taking it even further than that. SMR technologies were designed to meet the needs of the gas industry so that it could use less gas in its processes and sell that gas. We thought that SMR technologies might be the solution. The Canadian federation is caught in a stranglehold because most of the funding allocated to economic development goes to the oil and gas industry. On average, the EDC invests about $14 billion a year in that sector. It is difficult to provide accurate figures because we do not know how the government defines fossil fuel subsidies. During the election campaign, Minister Guilbeault said—

1109 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:19:57 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member that we cannot refer to members by name. The hon. member for Jonquière.

22 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sincerely apologize. I am a respectful man, and yet I still made a mistake. During the election campaign, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he planned to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. This is 2023, and the government still cannot define what it considers to be an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. It cannot even define what a subsidy is. It simply does not have the courage. Speaking of courage, the latest on the list is the much-touted just transition. Apparently, the government no longer wants to use the term “just transition”, because it could be used in a play on words with the Prime Minister's first name. The government now prefers to talk about sustainable employment. What a show of courage. If Canada does not have the courage to use a term, a concept, that is used internationally, how are we going to implement measures that require courage? The government does not even have the will to use the correct term. The cherry on top is Trans Mountain. The bill for that is now $30 billion. I would remind the House that the government's post-COVID‑19 recovery plan, which was supposed to be green, was $17 billion. A single oil project has cost $30 billion. It is nonsense, especially when the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated many times that we would never make a penny on this project. It is a money-losing venture. The government's promise was to take the profits generated by Trans Mountain and reinvest them in clean energy. There will be no profits. They will not exist. We are trapped in this box. I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

292 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent motion. I have just one question. Did the leader of the Bloc Québécois read the motion before my hon. colleague moved it? The leader of the Bloc Québécois, when he was minister, was very much in favour of developing oil on Anticosti Island. He circumvented BAPE three times on development projects. He authorized McInnis Cement, one of the most polluting projects in Canada and he was in favour of the third link highway project between Quebec City and Lévis, which was recently cancelled by the CAQ government. Obviously he will have the last word and will be able to reply, but does the member not see major contradictions between his motion and the positions of his leader?

136 words

Bloc
Quebec

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:22:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the only big contradiction that I see, is that of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the former NDP leader who said that the Energy East pipeline was a win-win-win. Had there been an NDP government, there would have been a pipeline from western Canada to Quebec. That is a bloody contradiction.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:23:12 p.m.
Watch

I would ask members to be careful of the words they use. I give the floor to the hon. member for Essex.

22 words

Essex
Floor

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC)

Jun/8/23 4:23:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as someone who was a firefighter for seven and a half years, I know a thing or two about firefighting. I also know we cannot always have all the resources at our fingertips, but we have other folks around us, from other municipalities, provinces and, quite frankly, across the country, who come to the firefighters' rescue. As we are now seeing U.S. cities filling up with smoke, would the member agree with me that we have to use more of a national strategy and work with our partners in the United States to fight fires on both sides of the border?

104 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:24:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, had my colleague listened carefully to my presentation, he would know that I said at the beginning that we need to work on prevention. If we want to prevent these very intense forest fires, we have to think about more than just how to fight them. We have to think about how to prevent them. If we want to prevent these forest fires, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. That has to be understood. That is the starting point. If we continue to court disaster by producing more oil and gas, we will have to allocate phenomenal amounts of money to fight climate change in the next 20 years. That is what we must deal with. That is the strategy that we must put in place.

130 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on my colleague's last statement. He talked about phenomenal amounts of money. In 2022 alone, $275 billion were needed to address natural disasters around the world. That same year, big western oil companies made $220 billion in profit. Meanwhile, in Canada, we are giving $20.215 billion to support oil companies. Could my colleague comment on this situation?

69 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:25:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it makes no sense. Since 2022, the gluttonous oil and gas sector has been reaping record profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion and TotalEnergies made $36 billion. In 2008, their oil refining margins went from 9.4¢ to 48.2¢. We cannot be supporting these big oil companies with public money. As the member for Mirabel has repeatedly said, at some point, we will realize we have been shafted.

79 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209