44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 10:15:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, right now, in Quebec, we are seeing a level of devastation roughly 11 times greater than the average for the last 10 years. We have not even begun to assess the dramatic economic impact of these wildfires.
Over the next few years, we will likely experience many phenomena that will dramatically worsen the impact of climate change. This is very worrisome. The seasons conducive to extreme events, whether they are tornadoes, extreme tropical storms that have an impact in our area, heat waves, droughts, wildfires or floods, will get increasingly longer, begin earlier and end later. The likelihood of extreme events will increase. The intensity of these events will also increase.
These droughts, heat waves, floods and storms will have a very significant impact on Quebec. They will also affect people around the world. These people will have to try to protect themselves and prepare for the situation. One possible way for them to adapt would be to move somewhere else because the waters will rise, deserts will grow and lands that were once fertile will no longer be. We, the countries that can do so, will be responsible for receiving climate migrants. That will put additional humanitarian pressure on migration issues.
On a billionaire friend’s yacht, people do not feel the water rising. At sea, a glass of champagne in hand, they rise with the ocean. However, when the water slowly rises or suddenly rushes over banks and shorelines, entire villages are destroyed, in places where people were unable to protect themselves. It is in places that could, in theory, protect themselves—such as major cities around the world—that massive and extremely costly infrastructure is needed.
To a lesser extent, Quebec will face similar pressure. Every storm and every event slowly and irrevocably changes and adds to the misery in the world.
Ecosystems are unable to adapt to this climate change. Animal species are more mobile, of course, but they are dependent on plant environments. Plant environments cannot move along with climate change. Plants cannot migrate fast enough to new areas with a climate that is conducive to their growth. The Observatoire régional de recherche sur la forêt boréale at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi is studying these phenomena.
The entire biodiversity of vast regions of the planet, and also of Quebec, is affected. We cannot naively say that the forest will move north, that we will have more space with potential for plant life to grow. It simply does not work that way because things are changing too fast. Within the space of a few decades, we are provoking what has historically taken thousands and tens of thousands of years through changes that others would have us believe are still natural, even today.
The loss of biodiversity is also having an impact. The destruction of economic models comes with this destruction of ecosystems. There is still a massive share of the global and Quebec economies that rely on the growth of plant and animal life. I am talking in particular of fishing and agriculture, and also forestry.
The forests in Quebec are in many ways a resource that is comparable in importance to petroleum resources in western Canada, aside from one small detail: They are a renewable resource. Not only is it a resource that does not contribute to climate change, but it is also a fundamental resource that is still the best way we know to capture carbon naturally and to reduce the phenomena that lead to climate change.
Still, despite the importance of the forests for our economy, for the regions of Quebec, for our very identity as a people and a nation, today we see the effect of climate change. This effect is not direct. Let us not claim that science says certain things that it has not said. We cannot associate the 11-fold increases over the last 10-year average with a particular climate event, but the probability is increased to such a degree that science would never dare to deny again.
This has an even more significant impact because Quebec's money, which should be invested in a much greener and much more sustainable economy for Quebec, is going into western oil, in the form of tax credits, direct subsidies or nonsense such as costly carbon sequestration or, worse, the hypocrisy of wanting to use nuclear energy, which is not a clean energy, so as not to use oil to extract oil.
All of this sends us into a spiral of destruction. Is it not time to put an end to it? Is it not time, given the evidence of the damage caused by climate change, to put an end to all funding of fossil fuels, to rather use this money, especially in Quebec because that is our strength, to ensure a sustainable economy, and to explain to people that environmental challenges are not restrictions on what we can do, but a wealth-creation model that is not only different, but the bearer of increased wealth, especially in Quebec?
As I have said before, we are open to having the necessary amounts that are now invested in oil but that would be invested in the green transition, stay in western Canada, which really needs to engage in this energy transition.
We need to use this money immediately to fight forest fires, help communities in distress, support research to mitigate the consequences of climate change, which, even if we stopped everything tomorrow morning, would continue to exist, and finance municipal infrastructures to meet the challenge.
We must, however, resist the temptation to make this a political instrument for centralization. We are starting to see that when people say that the Canadian military should be the main resource for fighting forest fires. Quebec has the institutions and the expertise needed to fight the forest fires. What do we not have? Because of the fiscal imbalance, we do not have money. It is the tried and true tactic of saying that, since the provinces do not have money and the federal government would like to take over their jurisdictions, everything will be taken over by the federal government, and the provinces will have to rely on the federal government.
That is not what we want. We want our share of the money needed to adapt to the situation to go to Quebec and the provinces. Given the government's moral collapse, this may be an opportunity to give more meaning to the concept of state and to ensure that people actually see that our institutions, democracy and parliaments can still serve the common good with dignity, honour and respect.
By voting this way, we will be taking action.
1130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
