Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable colleagues, I rise to speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry to find solutions to ensure the transition of society, the economy and the use of Canada’s resources in the pursuit of a just, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero future for our country and our planet.

In 2022, Canada’s Overshoot Day, in other words the day when our country used its share of all the resources that the Earth can regenerate in a single year, was March 13. Despite its imperfections, this indicator is easy to understand and reflects the unsustainable nature of our socio-economic system. Canada uses the resources for one year in just two and a half months. However, we used to waste much less. In the early 1970s, Canada’s Overshoot Day was around the end of December, where it should be.

It is in our own interest to become a sustainable nation. We need to be more efficient and careful when we use natural resources.

[English]

Our way of life and our behaviours have pushed the current system to its limits. Overall, there is a positive correlation between waste generation and income level. Hence, it’s our responsibility as a developed, rich nation to redress and set an example.

The global demand for material resources is expected to double by 2060. It will cause environmental damage, including rises in greenhouse gas emissions, waste and associated pollution if we don’t find rapid, smart, sustainable solutions and if we don’t change the paradigm of considering citizens uniquely as consumers in a linear economic system that takes, makes and wastes.

The strain on the global climate system has been observed by scientists for decades, and the cause of planet warming is unequivocally the result of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Current global average temperatures are close to 1.2 degrees above the pre-industrial levels, while Canada has experienced twice this warming and the Arctic three times as much. These changes are leading to the destruction of basic infrastructure by extreme weather events that all Canadians have experienced. Climate change is a systemic risk because it affects everyone, everywhere. Intense heat waves, melting of permafrost, sea-level rise, shore erosion, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes, atmospheric rivers, loss of biodiversity and species extinction are happening here and now. Last year — 2022 — will be known as the year when extreme weather events became the norm and costs of reparations amounted to billions per event.

I recently viewed the film The Issue with Tissue — a boreal love story by Michael Zelniker. I encourage you to watch it. You will see the direct relationship between our consumption habits, the destruction of natural capital and our blunt inaction. Understand this: More than 5,000 wild species are at some risk of extinction in Canada. For example, despite its status as a protected species, the three families of Canadian caribou are at risk of extinction, including the once-mighty George River and Leaf River herds of Labrador and Quebec. Senator Audette can tell you lots more about the disappearance of this species and its importance to Indigenous peoples.

But I’m here to speak about solutions and to say that Canadians are looking and waiting for this chamber to play its role of sober second thought and come up with constructive debate and propose effective solutions to the connected multiple crises that we are all experiencing without leaving anybody behind.

A first solution at hand is that markets address pollution and its impacts. As responsible corporations, they must address the negative externalities exactly as a responsible citizen. They created these negative externalities by providing efficient means to manage them. It is urgent to implement alternative models of production and consumption while addressing the letdowns of our linear system. We must transform to a circular economy where subproducts such as waste and other non-valued materials are reintegrated into the system.

The main principles are actually very simple: use fewer resources; design more durably; ban planned obsolescence; provide service loops, such as repair, that extend within product lifetimes; slow rates of extraction; use less toxic or polluting substances; and improve the collection and management of waste and reprocessing of materials to get the most out of the material by creating value in each stage of reuse. In sum, if a product can’t be reduced, reused, repaired, rebuilt, refinished, resold, recycled or degraded, then it should be restricted, redesigned or removed from production.

A second solution that is dramatically needed if Canada chooses to remain competitive during the ongoing third industrial revolution and knowledge economy is the shift to renewable energy for electricity production.

I was today locked in for the budget. I put out a press release. There is money for electricity — I’m very happy — but we can do better.

The Canadian renewable sector, although thriving in provinces such as Alberta, is, in general, lagging behind the rest of the world. We simply aren’t displacing fossil fuels with renewable energy quickly enough. Most G7 countries have succeeded in decoupling growth from greenhouse gas emissions because they developed and implemented clean energy. Contrary to fossil fuels, electricity from renewables follows learning curves where production costs keep falling dramatically. At present, renewable energy is the safest, cleanest and cheapest, and Canada has the resources to be a world leader. The East Coast alone has enough potential wave power to double our current installed generating capacity.

Dear colleagues, why — despite having the longest coastline, the highest tides and among the highest waves in the world — don’t we use wave or tidal renewable energy?

My office has published a white paper on the best policies for a clean recovery post COVID-19 and a second white paper on sustainable finances aiming at net-zero greenhouse gas emissions before 2050. By implementing similar or adapted approaches to those that have worked around the world, we can not only accelerate the transformation but we can render our economy more sustainable in line with our pressing reality and needs.

Among these approaches, we found several things.

Proposed bills can be viewed through both a climate lens that will consider impacts to future generations and a social justice lens that can ensure benefits and costs of the transition are distributed equitably.

Financial supports for the transition can focus on helping people first and then corporations. When financial assistance is provided to corporations, it should be accompanied by accountability and enforceable measures — verifiable goals that contribute to human and ecosystem well-being.

We can ask if government financial support to development projects protects and regenerates natural capital and ecosystems. We can ask if Indigenous communities have been consulted and if they can be supported in their role as guardians of Indigenous lands and biodiversity.

Fisheries, forestry and agriculture are sectors that still operate under unsustainable approaches. Several fish stocks are disappearing, boreal forests are being clear-cut and agricultural soils are impoverished by overuse of heavy mechanized operations like synthetic fertilization and pesticides. These sectors need to rethink and operations need to be optimized.

We can support actions so municipalities adapt to climate change now by building future-proof critical infrastructure, by building right the first time and in the right places and using natural infrastructure as first lines of defence against flooding and erosion.

Every government investment could go in the direction of building forward better, which coincides with economically and environmentally efficient projects that allow for recouping their costs while serving to reduce inequality.

[Translation]

Dear colleagues, there are many solutions to the problems that we face and can no longer ignore. What we need is the will and the intent to protect our children and current and future generations.

[English]

As President Biden said last week:

A future where we understand that economic success is not in conflict with the rights and dignity of workers or meeting our responsibilities addressing the climate crisis, but rather those things depend on us doing that. . . . Factually.

Colleagues, you know the United States Inflation Reduction Act is a game changer, and we need to step up our game if we don’t want to be left behind.

[Translation]

To conclude, we are hearing arguments about the cost of taking action. I challenge you to justify the economic, financial, societal and moral cost of inaction. In 2011, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicted that the cost of inaction could reach $91 billion a year in Canada by 2050. The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that by 2025, or very shortly, our GDP will have decreased by $25 billion. By 2055, it will be $80 billion to $103 billion lower. Inaction or a business-as-usual approach results in the destruction of our natural capital, which is a significant part of our GDP.

I ask you to consider what you are doing to protect the livelihoods of Canadians and the Canadian economy from the impacts of the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and the financial crisis. I ask you to consider what you are doing to lead the way to a prosperous, net-zero economy.

Thank you, meegwetch.

[English]