Debates of Nov. 24th, 2021

Hybrid Sittings of the House

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I give notice that with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 1, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Hybrid Sittings of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, as much as it was to speak virtually from my home. I appreciate both opportunities, because it is such a privilege to add thoughts to important public debates.

Today we have yet another very important public debate. I suspect a number of Canadians are tuning in and looking for leadership coming from the House of Commons. I want to spend a bit of time on that, but because this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address the House, I would like to give a very special thanks to the residents of Winnipeg North. This is my fifth time back as a member of Parliament, but a certain part of Winnipeg North has elected me as a parliamentarian 10 times: first in the Manitoba legislature, and now here in Ottawa. I genuinely appreciate and value the support of the community and commit to work the hardest I can to serve them every day.

When I think of the issues before us, the potatoes in Prince Edward Island come to my mind right away, as do the drought in the Prairies, health care for the residents and seniors of Winnipeg North and the floods taking place in B.C. There are so many issues. I want to ensure that all members have the opportunity to participate in the debates we are going to have on the issues that are critically important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what this motion is all about. I agree with the NDP House leader that it would have been nice if this motion had passed unanimously on day one. That is the way it should have been. I truly believe that.

I listened to the Conservatives and their cozy cousins from the Bloc saying they do not want a hybrid system. I am concerned that they do not really see the true value of it. I hope to talk about the importance of leadership and why members should give consideration to how they will vote on this motion. I believe there is a great deal of room for support of this motion.

Let us not forget why we are at this point, as the opposition House leader referred to in his remarks on the motion. Not that long ago, 18 months or so ago, Canada found itself facing a worldwide pandemic. It was so encouraging to see parliamentarians from all sides of the House come together. The former government House leader knows that full well. We saw the merit in closing down the House of Commons. He worked with the opposition members to ensure that it was a priority. For those who were not here back then, we literally closed the House of Commons. That was the consensus from all political entities inside the chamber.

However, there was a consensus that we would not let a pandemic prevent us from fulfilling something that Canadians hold dear to their hearts, which is our democracy and freedom. The Parliament of Canada is so valuable that we had to make sure it was able to continue on. It was important to the Prime Minister, to cabinet and to the leader of the official opposition. I believe every member of the House recognized that back then.

There was a much higher sense of co-operation because people realized that Canadians were dying, Canadians were getting sick and the pandemic was hitting us hard. We all as parliamentarians, not as partisan parliamentarians, but as a parliamentarians, had to take action to protect the interests of our nation. One of those actions is what we are talking about today. Even though some downplay the significance, I ask members to remember the important leadership role we all play here in Canada and the expectations Canadians have of each and every one of us.

Hopefully the worst of the pandemic is behind us. I believe it is, but there are still waves out there. There is no reason I have heard that could not be negotiated to enable us to continue on with a hybrid system. I have read the news, followed the media and I have listened to the stories and arguments being presented by some members from the opposition parties.

I would suggest that we revisit the attitudes we had 18 months ago. I know I felt good when I was able to go back to my community and say that we were working collectively not only in the House of Commons, but also with stakeholders, science and health experts, provinces, territories and indigenous communities in order to take on the pandemic.

However, our democracy, our Parliament and the issue of accountability are so important that we had to come up with a mechanism that would enable us to continue our democracy, and we did that with the hybrid system. This system enabled everyone the opportunity to participate in debate, in votes, at committees and with interjections, whether they were matters of privileges, points of order, members' statements or in question period. It enabled us to continue on. There was even the opportunity for the former House leader to ensure there was a mixture of ministers answering on the floor and virtually. I remember that well. It was a process that worked, and it was very effective.

We are asking opposition members to recognize the value of a hybrid system. To say that there is no value to it, or that we do not need it today, goes against the type of leadership Canadians are looking for. Yesterday Manitoba had its throne speech, like Ottawa did. Personally I thought ours was better, but that is a side point.

I called my daughter, as she is an MLA, and asked her how her day went. She said she does not get to go into the chamber until next week. I asked if they were still on the hybrid system, and she said they were. She will be in the chamber next week, but they still have a hybrid system.

That is a Progressive Conservative government in the province of Manitoba saying that there is a need. Heather Stefanson, the newly elected premier, is right because people are watching. People understand the seriousness of the pandemic. We understand it has changed all of our lives in a significant way, but at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is not far off from that hybrid system.

Yes, there are some differences and some unique aspects of ours compared to Manitoba's, but the bottom line is that it appears that all the parties recognize the need to continue with it. I believe that it is not too late for members opposite here to recognize the value of it.

We do not have to think very hard on this because we all know the member for Beauce. He is not going to be able to vote on the motion we are debating right now. He was not even allowed to vote for the Speaker. Although, it might have been a bit of a challenge to get the hybrid system passed before we had the Speaker in place, but the point is that the member for Beauce cannot participate. If there were some sort of significant tragedy in his riding or something wonderful that he wanted to report on, he is not allowed in the chamber to do so. It is not possible for him to participate because of COVID and the pandemic.

The opposition House leader made reference to the fact that tomorrow he is going for his second test because he is following the rules, which is the way to go, but I trust it is because of the member for Beauce. There are a number of members in the Conservative caucus who, because of their proximity to the member for Beauce, had to get some testing done. I do not know about other members, but I believe that the opposition House leader, if he tests positive tomorrow, should be able to be able to continue here, and he would be able do that with a hybrid system.

I would argue that to believe that none of our colleagues, out of 338 of us, will not have COVID over the next number of months might be considered as being irresponsible. In Manitoba, there were two MLAs infected with COVID, and I believe both had been fully vaccinated. One is the leader of the New Democratic Party and another was just discovered recently. Maybe that is one of the reasons they factored in the benefits of having the hybrid system.

Why is it that some members would want to prevent other members from being able to participate in these debates? This is what I do not understand. That is what my colleagues in the Liberal caucus do not understand. This is not some way of escaping accountability. This is all about ensuring that members have the ability to hold the government to account. Whether it is one member or multiple members who are unable to be here for whatever reason, they would still be able to perform their responsibilities.

When we talk about accountability and transparency, yesterday and earlier today someone from across the floor heckled something to the effect that the Liberals have one member who is not vaccinated. Well, that is news to me. To my understanding, every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. If those members do not believe that to be the case, please let me know which member it is, because I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus is fully vaccinated. I also understand that members of the Bloc and members of the New Democrats are fully vaccinated.

Now, I would suggest that there is an issue of transparency. Do Canadians have the right to know which members or how many members of the Conservative caucus are not vaccinated? The government House leader made reference to some statistics regarding the likelihood of someone getting a medical exemption, which is one in 100,000. We honestly do not know if there are 20 Conservatives or two Conservatives. We just know that there are some. We do not know the actual number. The liklihood is one out of 100,000 and there are only 119 Conservative members of Parliament. Statistically, what could that number be? That is hard for us.

One of my colleagues come up to me yesterday and he was genuinely concerned about his health. His primary concern was that some members are not fully vaccinated. I indicated that he should share his concerns with the government House leader. There are members in this House who are genuinely concerned for themselves, let alone having concerns about the people who operate this wonderful institution.

There are many people who make this Parliament work, whether it is security where we first walk in, or the people who make us our hamburger, fries and much more at the cafeteria. There are the translators, the clerks and the people who work on Hansard and have to listen to the speeches. There are so many people. At the end of the day we need to be thinking about the health and safety of all the people who are inside this building.

I would suggest that we, as parliamentarians at a national level, have an important leadership role to play. I know this has affected all of us and how we represent our constituents. Two years ago I did not even know that Zoom existed. Nowadays, I spend a lot of time on Zoom. I used to go to the local restaurant every Saturday for four hours. That is why I would be flying back to Winnipeg every weekend from Ottawa. It was to meet with constituents.

Many of the ways we serve our constituents have changed. With those changes we have to do some things differently. That is one of the reasons I now have Zoom town hall meetings. It is another way I can meet with constituents. Until it is safe, I will not return to the weekly meetings, which I had been doing for 30 years. I will wait until it is safe. In the interim, I am going to have my virtual town hall meetings. I had one just the other day.

Along with those changes, we need to recognize that our role is about more than just serving our constituents in our ridings. It is our role as parliamentarians to participate in votes and a spectrum of other things, but they do not physically have to be done here. A number of years back I asked the then clerk if there was any chance I could be sworn in as a member of Parliament in my own city of Winnipeg. He said that we could not do that. This time I was able to do that. I thought it was a wonderful thing to be sworn in as a member of Parliament there. Things have changed. We need to accommodate that.

I ask all members of the House to go back to the day when there was that high sense of cooperation and a recognition that in Parliament we need to work together to make sure that members of Parliament have the opportunity to be fully engaged. This will not be for forever. We are only talking about having this until June. One of the ways we can ensure that the member for Beauce and other members going forward will be able to fully participate is by passing this motion.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague must understand that there is big difference between being in the House to experience the intensity of the debates and being in front of a screen where you can mute it and wait for it to end. Seeing my colleagues in person is quite different, and I enjoy it a lot more.

My question is simple. If all members of the House of Commons could have been vaccinated, would we be debating this motion today? If all the members who do not have medical issues were vaccinated, would we be considering the possibility of returning to a hybrid format, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be yes. Even if people are fully vaccinated, they still can get the coronavirus. One of the things is that we, as parliamentarians, come from every region of the country. We all fly into Ottawa and then we fly out to our communities. More and more communities are going back to their different types of events. We have to be extra careful.

This would provide an option. I love to speak in the chamber. There is no doubt I love the atmosphere of the chamber, but I also enjoy speaking virtually, because I still am able to get my point across. I hope the member would reconsider that if I do end up speaking virtual, he would not turn the TV off.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election to the Chair, and I thank all my constituents in La Pointe-de-l’Île for putting their trust in me.

My question is this: Given that we can now go to a gym, to a restaurant, to the movies, and even to a hockey game, is the role of Parliament not important enough for us to sit here?

Let us remember that there are not always 338 members in attendance. Most of the time, there are a lot fewer of us.

Also, they want to have a hybrid Parliament in place until June 23. Personally, I think that this is overkill. If a member catches COVID-19 and must be tested, remote voting is an acceptable compromise.

I fail to see why we cannot sit in Parliament, when we can attend a hockey game with thousands of others in the same space.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because of the fine work of so many people, Canada is in a fantastic position; with over 86% of our population now fully vaccinated. I attribute that to everyone from our health care professionals, individuals at different levels of government and that sense of commitment to get Canada in a good space so we can lead the world in getting out of the pandemic. I think we are well positioned.

However, I still believe that having the hybrid Parliament today is a good thing. As I said, there is a sunset clause that would end it in June. We can ensure that every member of the House will be allowed to be fully engaged, whether it is voting or participating in debates, by allowing this motion to pass.

If I understood him correctly, the member seemed a little sympathetic to ensuring that all members be allowed to participate fully. A good way of doing that is by voting in favour of the motion.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected member of Parliament and my first time rising in the chamber, I would like to thank the constituents of Nanaimo—Ladysmith for putting their trust in me.

I am hearing from colleagues that they are fearful while doing their jobs in Parliament, fearful while wanting to do the work of representing the constituents of their ridings. This issue is not about partisanship; it is about supporting elected members of Parliament to represent their ridings, to have a voice, and to provide the tools to keep MPs safe while doing so.

Does my colleague agree that a tool for MPs to do their work safely is in all our best interests, regardless of party affiliation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member 100%, and I congratulate her on taking her seat. As she was speaking, I thought of our health care workers and those who have been confronted by fairly hostile people. There is important legislation that we will have to go over in the next few weeks. One of the ways in which we can ensure and enable every member of Parliament to vote on this important legislation is to pass this motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is our first opportunity for either of the members of the Green Party to speak to this motion, I want to make it clear that we will be supporting it. We very much support a hybrid Parliament.

I just came back from being at COP26 in Glasgow, where no one could enter the hall who was not double vaccinated. The health rules were that we should also keep masked, maintain physical distancing, maintain all public health measures and get tested daily to ensure we were not COVID-positive.

I do not feel safe in this place, even if every member is double vaccinated, because we are too close. We cannot speak if we are not at our very own desks. We cannot vote if we are not at our very own desks. The situation here is not compliant with public health rules across Canada, and I am very grateful that this motion is being put forward.

I deeply regret what happened from March 13 of last year and into the spring. However, we finally had hybrid sessions and we were able to vote remotely. We should follow that practice for our safety and the safety of our communities.

Shame on anyone who does not see the importance of protecting public health.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it has gone in this direction. It would have been far better if we would have had a non-partisan approach to ensure we would have the hybrid in place. That would have been our preferred route. Let there be no doubt on that. Our first priority was to ensure that all members had the ability to be fully engaged, with the importance of health and safety being at the forefront.

Our preference would have been to have the unanimous support of the House to pass it yesterday. That was not possible. Hopefully members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc will reconsider the value of having a hybrid system and come onside, so we can see it passed unanimously. It is the right thing to do. It would be demonstrating strong leadership for the rest of the country.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating you on your re-election and by thanking my constituents in Honoré-Mercier for placing their trust in me a sixth time.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his passionate speech, and I must say that it was an honour and a privilege to have had him as my parliamentary secretary throughout the previous Parliament. If there is anyone who cares about and stands up for our democracy, it is him, especially when it comes to the role of parliamentarians.

Our concern here is that a parliamentarian could catch COVID-19 or have been in contact with someone and not be able to appear in the House to carry out their role, debate, discuss, or vote. Is it not true that the hybrid format would allow that member to continue to carry out their role despite not being able to be in the House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from my former boss.

It is somewhat ironic that I am standing in my place and actually advocating for the member for Beauce. The member for Beauce, under this system, would be able to fully participate and if anyone, including the opposition House leader, came back with a positive test tomorrow, they would not be able to participate, unless we pass this motion.

The motion would enable all parliamentarians on all sides of the House the ability to be fully engaged between now and June. As a parliamentarian, this is the best thing we can do. It also would demonstrate strong leadership to the rest of Canada, that we take this pandemic very seriously. We believe all political entities in the House recognize that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. I appreciate being given the opportunity to give my speech today and again tomorrow. I will look at the glass half full in being able to be here in person after the nearly two years that this place was a shadow of what it should be for Canadians.

The work of the House administration and the Speaker's staff was Herculean. They changed centuries of tradition to allow us to participate during times that we had never seen before and could not have foreseen. Through all of that, we were able to work as parliamentarians and serve our constituents and Canadians as we worked to bring life back to normal.

Our health care workers have done incredible work. I am so proud to be from a riding in which the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit has the highest vaccination rate in the province of Ontario, reporting last week that more than 99% of residents had received their first dose and more than 96% had received two doses. Why did my neighbours and those in the community encourage and support each other to get vaccinated? So we could get life back to the way it was before.

Of course, not everything can return to the way it was right away. We are still wearing our masks when we are close to each other indoors, we have to practise outstanding hand hygiene and we try to keep our distance. However, we have slowly seen the return, because of the steps that folks have taken to slow and stop the spread of COVID-19, of things starting to get back to normal. Public events, sporting events and team sports for our children have come back, and we are doing it safely.

What we have done over the last couple of days here is represent Canadians in a safe and effective way. This is what we are looking to do. Folks in my community are struggling. They are struggling with the runaway cost of the living increases they are facing. They cannot afford a full tank of gas. They have to get half a tank, hoping that will get them through to payday. They cannot afford the regular food that they buy for their families because their dollars are just not going as far.

They are very concerned about the price of propane. In rural areas where people are not heating with natural gas, propane prices are out of control. People are worried and they want to see their representatives ensuring that the government is doing everything in its power to get inflation under control, that the Government of Canada is being an outstanding steward of taxpayer dollars. We really need all hands on deck, all eyes on the prize to ensure that happens.

I was so proud, as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian, to participate in the unanimous decision to take some of the steps that we took so we could continue to meet during this once-in-a-century pandemic that we were facing. However, the situation on the ground has changed. We now have followed the best medical advice, we are following the science and we are able to gather safely. What is regrettable to have seen as a parliamentarian and a Canadian is that the government has taken opportunity to use this pandemic to hide itself from scrutiny of the opposition, from the media and from Canadians.

When members were not in the House, they were not facing the media on their way in or their way out. Ministers would be on the Hill, but not appearing in their seats in the chamber. The tools that we had to bring witnesses and ministers before parliamentary committees were interrupted too many times to count by technical difficulties. Now we do not need to subject ourselves to those interruptions, with rare exception.

Should one of our colleagues, heaven forbid, contract COVID-19 or any other illness, we should return to the time-tested practice our system has used and pair. We talk about collaboration across the aisle, so let us pair with another member. When folks are recovering from an illness, we should not be asking them to dial in and vote from home. No. They should take the time to get well for themselves, their families and their constituents. The pairing mechanism would achieve exactly what the government has proposed.

I look forward to having the opportunity to continue my remarks on this. I appreciate having had a few minutes to speak to it today. I will have more to say tomorrow, and I should note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill when I resume.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member for finishing right on time. It was perfect. He has four minutes coming to him when the debate returns.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a way that would not put any of my colleagues on the spot, I ask, as a gentle reminder to members on both sides of the House, that when they are not speaking, perhaps they could follow the best public health advice and wear their masks while they are seated.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

To all members who are here for the evening and for the duration of COVID-19, if you are sitting in your place, please make sure that your mask is on, unless you are speaking. Then you can remove it during your talk.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

Flooding in British Columbia

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the flooding in British Columbia.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to be the first member to rise this evening to speak to such a crucial issue.

I first want to acknowledge that we are gathering today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

To me, it is clear that we are in the midst of a climate emergency. I just participated in the 26th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow. This was my 12th time participating, and the situation is graver now than it was the first time.

I am desperately concerned that the climate emergency is outpacing any government's actions to take control of the situation, and I want to address this issue while cognizant of the time. I take to heart the remarks from earlier today by my friend and colleague the hon. member for Abbotsford, who also wanted an emergency debate. We want to focus on what has just happened in our home province of British Columbia. However, there is a context here, and any action we take now that ignores the root causes of what just happened invites worse to come. We need to take account of root causes and we need to take appropriate actions.

With the Speaker's indulgence, my intention is to start with the global, move to the national and then focus most of my remarks on the provincial and the local and what we do now. I hope we can approach this issue tonight, all of us members of Parliament from five different parties, in a way that reflects the best of us in recognizing that we have more in common than in difference.

I am looking across the way right now to my friend from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who referenced earlier today that it was in his riding that Lytton burned to the ground in 15 minutes earlier this summer. I do not think we can only look at the floods that just happened. A lot of events have taken place and hit the same communities, particularly the same first nations communities, over and over again within the period of time during which the House was adjourned, from the end of June until reconvening on Monday.

We have to recognize that we are in a climate emergency, as the House did on June 17, 2019. Some of us were in our seats then. Through a motion from the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, the House voted that we were indeed in a climate emergency and had to take account of that. However, nothing has changed. We do not act as though we are in an emergency.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the large scientific body also known as IPCC, has released unequivocal research. It presented a report on 1.5°C in October 2018. The news was so terrible that the IPCC called for immediate action. Three years have now passed, and the situation is even worse than it was in October 2018.

We were told by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change in their emergency report on 1.5°C, which is the target of the Paris Agreement, that we are at desperate risk of missing it. It is not a political target. The reason the IPCC was asked to produce the report they produced was to inform policy-makers, politicians and government leaders around the world about the difference between a 2°C global average temperature increase and 1.5°C. I will not go through all the details of the report. I cannot in the time available. However, as one of the government leaders, the Prime Minister of Barbados, just said a few days ago in Glasgow, 2°C is a death sentence for us; only at 1.5°C do we survive.

What the IPCC sketched out was not that 1.5°C makes us live in a safe world, but that it is one we can survive in. It would allow coral reefs to survive, mostly. It would protect our Arctic, mostly but not entirely. We would experience permafrost thaw, but it would not be a fatal level of permafrost thaw. Over and over again, that report, which is seminal, pointed out that 1.5°C was essential.

Then we had, this summer, the report of the first working group, the sixth assessment report of the IPCC, which was labelled by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as code red for humanity. It said that everything they had warned about in 2018 is happening faster and with greater severity than they had anticipated.

We know globally that we are now on track to shooting well past 2°C, well past the danger zone. This is not about bad weather. This is about whether human civilization can survive. That is what we are talking about. No issue could be more riveting and the stakes could not be higher. Still, on a day-to-day basis we have this ability to function as though there is still time.

Sadly and tragically, the Government of Canada chose to use only part of the IPCC advice, the part saying that if we hold to 1.5°C, by mid-century, 2050, we should be at net zero. I need to enforce this and I need to say it slowly, particularly for my Liberal colleagues, because I am not sure that the government understands the way this information is being manipulated by someone, somewhere.

The IPCC has never said the goal is net zero by 2050 and then we will get through all this and human civilization will survive. They have said very clearly that there is only one pathway to hold to 1.5°C, and it starts with at least 45% reductions globally, which is a lot, against 2010 levels by 2030. If we do not do that, net zero by 2050 is meaningless. It will be too late. We will have taken a very significant step toward the unbearable risks of unstoppable self-accelerating global warming triggered by what some people call points of no return or tipping points. The important thing to say is that we still have time.

Time is running out, but it is not too late. We must act immediately to reduce greenhouse gases and make changes to protect nature, and forests in particular.

We have just barely enough time, and in COP26 we did not do what needed to be done, not Canada, not anyone. As the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, COP26 was not a failure in that 1.5°C, as a possible end point for the global warming nightmare, is possible but it is on life support. That is where we are, so by 2022, and preferably before then, this country needs to do more.

I know I risk being heckled, but at the national level, if we are serious about the climate emergency, this must be said: We cannot be serious about the climate emergency while building the Trans Mountain pipeline. We cannot be serious about the climate emergency while subsidizing fracking and LNG and all of the fossil fuels. We must bring in a just transition act. We must take care of workers. We must make this transition.

Moving from global to national, we know we have a lot of work to do, and I support many of the measures that have been put forward by the government. However, in their totality they are insufficient to ensure that my children alive today will be in a livable world when they are my age. That is something that affects all of us deeply and personally, and I am grateful that we have a chance to talk about it.

As I am talking about the personal side, let me shift to British Columbia. This climate emergency hit really close to home this summer. In British Columbia, the heat dome, as it was called, was more than a heat wave: It killed nearly 600 people in four days. One of those who were affected and did not die is my stepdaughter. She is in her thirties and happened to be at my husband's family farm in Ashcroft, British Columbia, not far from Lytton, where the temperature at the farm hit 50°C.

I do not think any of us here can really imagine what that is like. She said it was like having a hair dryer blowing on her face all the time, outdoors. It hurt one's skin. She nearly died and had brain edema. Another family member was a first responder, pulling people out of shacks and trailers and putting them in ambulances and knowing they would not live.

We have to do a much better job, when we talk about what do we do now and what have we learned. We need health care protocols that are radically revamped, that look at the question of what they do when they find someone whose organs are already cooking. It is not the protocol they were using in the summer in B.C.

We had wildfires from early April until the end of September. That wildfire season in British Columbia saw 1,600 wildfires destroy over 868,000 hectares. That also contributed to how bad the flooding damage was, because the ground had become hydrophobic, meaning it expelled the water that fell on the ground. The ground could not absorb water; the ground repelled it. The flooding was worse because of the fires.

Of course, the flooding was described as an atmospheric river. We learn new terms as we go through this. During the fire season, we learned that there were things called pyrocumulonimbus clouds. Those are clouds that shoot sparks. They create more fires.

We are not in a normal climate situation. We have entered the world of a climate emergency. I should say more, of course. As people know, the flooding destroyed highways. When will Coquihalla Highway ever get repaired? There are massive amounts of damage: 18 highways and five bridges significantly impacted by the flooding; the loss of life; the terrifying experience for people caught in mudslides; the horror of losing farms. I mentioned my husband's farm in Ashcroft. We have, for the second time, taken in climate refugees. In the summer, we took in people who were on wildfire alerts. Now there are people who have lost everything in the floods.

This is unbearable, but there are things we can do. We must be serious about doing them and it is a national effort. We know, from the Speech from the Throne, that there is finally a commitment. I have heard it before, actually. I remember the previous Conservative government promised a national adaptation plan. The goal here is to act to reduce the damage of the climate emergency to the greatest extent possible by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible, making transitions to renewable energy and so on.

There is an impact that is baked into our atmosphere. There are levels of climate damage that we will not be able to avoid, so we have to avoid those levels of climate impact to which we cannot adapt, such as, as I mentioned, runaway global warming that would mean that we could not really survive on this planet as a species. We have to adapt to those levels that we can no longer avoid.

Adaptation involves a lot of elements. Yes, the ministers for public safety, public security and infrastructure must be seized of this. This is a whole-of-government approach. I rarely urge the Government of Canada to consider something that a U.S. administration is doing, but the U.S. President has appointed John Kerry, who used to be secretary of state in the Obama administration, not as the head of his environment department but as a key member of the National Security Council inside the White House.

That is because the President of the United States fully understands that climate change is not and will never be an environmental issue. Rather, it is a threat to national security, kind of like a military enemy from a bygone era.

We are faced with a national security threat that requires a whole-of-government approach. It is particularly important, as I look at the member for Nunavut, that we have to think about what is happening in our Arctic. We have to think like a circumpolar country. We have to know that we have to keep the permafrost cold enough so that it does not thaw. The permafrost contains methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, and if we lost the permafrost of the world we would be releasing four times more carbon than humanity has burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

We know that we have to keep our Arctic cold enough, as Sheila Watt-Cloutier told us years ago. To protect the human rights of the Inuit peoples, we must keep the Arctic cold, and to protect traditional hunting and culture. Also, for the sake of all species on this planet, we need to keep the Arctic cold to keep that methane in the permafrost and keep it from thawing.

There are some really significant drivers here. Let us think about what we do creatively.

In the immediate short term, we need more resources for British Columbia. We need to help rebuild key roads and railroads so that supply chains are protected and the economy recovers. We need to help individual farmers and homeowners who did not have insurance. We need to find a way to help families rebuild their lives on a very personal level. We have to think about rebuilding, retooling and adapting to the climate emergency that we now experience.

We have to think creatively about things that we do not often think about. In this emergency, we needed volunteers jumping into their boats and rescuing people. It is not comfortable for governments to think, “Well, those are uninsured people. Is that really a good idea?” If the people of Abbotsford and Merritt had not shown up and sandbagged key infrastructure, the situation would have been much worse. How do we think creatively about climate adaptation corps to respond to emergencies and create resilient communities where people are deputized to go out and save lives?

A major event happened in my community over Christmas two years ago. There was off-the-charts, climate-induced crazy weather. Large trees were blown down across the roads. It was Christmas, and everybody lost electricity. This happens in major weather events. We lose our land line and cell coverage and we cannot move around, and in this case it was because trees were across the road. People in my community are smart people and know that, when the power is out because trees are down, it is illegal to go out with chainsaws to cut up the trees and help their neighbours, but everybody did it. They took care of each other through Christmas. They are not going to leave someone in their 90s who is living on their own because it is illegal to cut trees to move them off the road.

We need to figure this out. How do we empower people who know how to react in an emergency and create trained, legal, appropriate responses that engage our volunteers? I know the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola will agree with me that there were great acts of bravery throughout the communities with individuals acting, and we need to harness that.

The bottom line is that we are looking at climate emergencies that have killed hundreds of people in the last number of months in British Columbia, with nearly 600 in the heat dome and more now through the floods. What we need to think about is that the global average temperature is now 1.1°C above what it was before the Industrial Revolution. We are trying to see if we can hang on to 1.5°C, which is not a safe zone and will be worse than what it is like right now at 1.1°C.

There is nothing more important than protecting young people, our children and grandchildren, against the major threat of climate change.

We are not doing everything we need to do yet. We still do not act on a day-to-day basis as though we understand that we are in a climate emergency. I would urge the government, since we have already bought Trans Mountain and we have all those workers and all that equipment, to just change the mandate of that Crown corporation and put those people and that equipment to work to rebuild, to repair our highways, and to help protect against the next major climate event.

We know that in the last 24 hours on Cape Breton Island, where I am from, we see roads washed out, and we see roads washed out near Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Labrador. There is no one part of this country that is safe and secure any more than there is one place on this planet safe and secure in the climate emergency.

We have to all pull together, and as the Speech from the Throne said:

“Now, we must go further, faster.”

I am sad to say that I do not see in the Speech from the Throne the things we must do, but we know what they are. Tonight is a good opportunity to put forward those good ideas and together say, “We work for our communities, we work for Canada and we will save the planet.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what the member just made reference to, and that is pulling together.

As we look at what is taking place in British Columbia, we recognize that not only the national government but also the provincial government, municipalities and many other stakeholders all have an interest in making sure that B.C. and the people who are so dramatically affected are lifted out of this and that we help build back.

Can the member provide her thoughts in regards to just how important it is that the different levels of government continue to show that sympathy and provide the support that is so critically important to help these communities in need?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important. It is going to have a big price tag. I was struck when the hon. Prime Minister spoke in Glasgow, and made reference to Lytton. Lytton is still there and it needs to be rebuilt. The people of Lytton are there and it is a major first nations community as well, with scattered first nations around it.

It is important that we leave no community behind in this, but it is not going to be inexpensive. For decades, studies have shown that the costs of ignoring climate change were going to be far larger than the costs of action. We now find ourselves in the unenviable position where we need to do both harder and faster.

Fortunately, rebuilding communities does stimulate the economy, getting all the people possible who can get to work to help farms rebuild. There has been so much loss, a devastating loss, that it is hard to imagine how some families will pull everything together, but they need to know there is going to be a source of funds to get their farm back up and running. They need to know that their home can be repaired, even if the insurance companies say they are not covered for this kind of flood. We are going to have to rethink how we respond to what used to be called natural disasters which are no longer natural.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute my fellow British Columbian for her comments today and her sympathy for all those who have been affected by the flooding in our great province.

The hon. member talked about needing to do things differently. Tonight, I know that we are going to debate lots of different ideas and I do hope we hit some big ideas. For example, I have heard from small municipalities about the DFAA, the disaster finance assistance program, and they cannot afford the 20% that is expected, while senior levels of government are expected to do 80%. What does the member think about that?

The member also talked about empowering communities. The last time the federal government arranged with the Province of British Columbia was in the gas tax agreement of 2014. I think there is an area that we can improve upon. Tim Roberts, who is an area director for rural Keremeos, has suggested that small regional districts and municipalities should be able to use some of the leftover gas tax toward flood mitigation and fire mitigation, because many times there is interface area where there is fuel that can easily be removed if they were to hire students over the summer to do so.

Can the member comment on some of the big ideas, but also some of the small ideas that are so important to help our communities adapt to climate change?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit of working across party lines, I want to salute the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for attending COP26, not just for a couple of days, but for the full two weeks. I saw his comments in the media recently that the nature-based solutions that were talked about at COP are really important.

I would suggest too that students in the summer plant trees restoring what I referred to as hydrophobic soil. On the hill that was burnt off in 2017, the Elephant Hill fire, nothing is growing back because the soil just became baked. The top surface was destroyed by the heat of the fire. We need to get trees, and not just any trees, but trees that are right for that ecosystem. That will help restore our salmon. That will help bring things back. Those jobs and that ecosystem are key parts of responding to the climate emergency.

I just say to his point about about small communities, that absolutely, they do not have the money to come up with 20%. We need to be much more creative of how we are going to help particularly small, impoverished rural and remote communities cope with an increased, and I am afraid to say inevitable, level of extreme weather events that wipe out their infrastructure. We need to be really creative.