Debates of Nov. 24th, 2021

Flooding in British Columbia

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed with the member's question. Here we are debating perhaps the disaster of our lifetime, a historic disaster across southern British Columbia. This is not about a fight over oil and gas. This is about the people of Abbotsford, the Fraser Valley, the Fraser Canyon and the interior of British Columbia who are suffering immensely right now.

They do not want to have a fight right now about oil and gas. What they want is an assurance from the government that it will be there for them and that in the future the government will deliver the kinds of infrastructure investments that will ensure this never happens to them again.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election to the chair.

Since this is the first time that I am rising in this 44th Parliament, I want to take the opportunity to thank the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who placed their continued trust in me. I really appreciate it.

I also want to thank my Green Party colleagues for requesting this evening's emergency debate. I really appreciate the presence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to express my solidarity with everyone affected by the current catastrophe. I want them to know that we are prepared to work with all parliamentarians to ensure that British Columbians get the appropriate support.

As we know, torrential rains have caused flooding in the Fraser Valley region, and it has cost four people their lives. The flooding has also had a major impact on infrastructure. This atmospheric river dumped 300 millimetres of rain on the region in two days, November 14 and 15, and the region is still experiencing bad weather.

We know that the soil can no longer absorb any water. The water is running off instead of being absorbed and it is destroying everything in its path. This is a natural consequence of an imbalance in nature, which stems from the forest fires that ripped through British Columbia a few months ago. On top of that, according to Environment Canada, a new storm is set to hit the region this evening with another 40 to 80 millimetres of rainfall in the forecast.

The flooding in British Columbia could become the most expensive natural disaster in Canadian history. I want to reiterate that our hearts go out to the people of British Columbia. We are far away, but we have seen the extent of the damage and know how much it hurts. I have seen videos of farmers on personal watercraft on what is left of their fields trying to save their livestock. Thousands of animals were left behind and the huge dairy and poultry operations have been hard hit.

The highway system linking southern British Columbia to the rest of Canada has been cut off. The city of Vancouver is cut off from the rest of the country. It is absolutely incredible. A hundred or so indigenous communities have been affected and several are waiting for supplies to arrive via helicopter. I want to commend the teams who are on the ground day and night to provide humanitarian support to the communities affected.

The Deputy Prime Minister announced that the federal government will provide financial support for future reconstruction efforts, and we support that decision.

It is in times like these that we understand the importance of pulling together, of prevention, of reconstruction and of building resilience.

This evening's debate is not about whether this disaster is directly or indirectly related to climate change. The fact is that climate change will lead to more frequent extreme climate phenomena and increase their impact on our way of life and our societies. Sadly, this particular disaster in British Columbia is just a taste of the challenges to come. To address increasingly common extreme weather events, governments have to boost the scale and speed of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. That is the mitigation piece. The same goes for the adaptation piece, which includes things like upgrading infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change.

We need to direct more money and more effort to mitigation and adaptation right away. We should have done it sooner. Right now, we have to focus on cleaning up the mess and standing by British Columbians, but we also need to look to the future and prepare for more situations like this one. We cannot afford not to.

As I said earlier, at this point, it is difficult to say for certain whether these events are directly related to the climate crisis. However, it is clear that the major droughts that caused the forest fires just a few months ago and the current floods are, unfortunately, probably not merely a coincidence.

That said, what should we do now? What can we do to prevent future disasters? That is the question, and the government needs to address this.

I have just returned from COP26, held in Glasgow, Scotland, where everyone was full of good intentions and acting in good faith. We even had a day when the theme was adaptation and mitigation. Although some good things did come out of it and some ambitious promises were made, there was certainly nothing to prepare us in the short term for situations like this. That is why we in the Bloc Québécois want to emphasize the importance of an energy transition.

We know it will cost a lot of money, but doing nothing will cost even more, from a financial and human perspective. We must take advantage of the economic recovery to seek out this more-than-necessary energy transition and build a society that is more resilient to the consequences of climate change, including the frequency of extreme weather events.

In summer 2020, the Bloc Québécois developed a green recovery plan. During the last election, we proposed creating a fund dedicated to protecting shorelines and fighting erosion. We cannot help but be frustrated when the government claims to be a leader in the fight against climate change, but does not in fact apply the changes that are needed to engage in the energy transition and move away from fossil fuels.

Yesterday, we heard the Speech from the Throne. After an election that did not seem necessary, we wondered about the urgency of opening a new Parliament that is not much different from the last Parliament and is facing the same problems it was facing before the election. In the end, we wasted time and in a climate crisis, we cannot say this enough, time is of the essence.

Island nations, developing countries, the poorest countries, those that produce the least amount of greenhouse gases but are ironically the most affected by the effects of climate change, they are all afraid that we are running out of time. The eternal optimists are afraid that we are running out of time, and scientists know that we are almost out of time. We will be out of time if we do not make changes. We will be out of time if we continue in the same direction. We are dreaming if we think that we will be able to cap greenhouse gas emissions, when the Canadian oil industry has announced that it will increase production in the coming years. We are headed straight for a wall and are not doing what needs to be done. There is so much to do, and we were expecting at least something, anything. The generic, empty rhetoric in the throne speech chapter on climate action is not reassuring in the slightest.

I would remind members that Quebec is a leader on combatting climate change. Quebec has what it takes to make the green transition and build a real and resilient green economy. The rest of Canada should take note. Continuing to invest in fossil fuels will not be good for the Canadian economy in the long term. We need to change our ways now.

We cannot talk about adaptation and mitigation without talking about infrastructure. The last few months have proven that the regions of Quebec, like everywhere else, particularly British Columbia, need help adapting to climate change. Shoreline erosion and receding shorelines are one example. Our regions are also not immune to the devastating effects of natural disasters. The fight against climate change must focus on mitigating the effects of these changes and adapting to them.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been taking ongoing action to prevent shorelines from receding and eroding. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members that there used to be a federal program that provided funding for shoreline protection. It was abolished and never reinstated. During the last election, we proposed the creation of a fund to fight erosion with an annual funding of $250 million. The funding must be recurrent and predictable.

In Saint‑Maxime‑du‑Mont‑Louis in the Gaspé, Highway 132 collapsed and was washed away by the ocean. That is the kind of thing that is likely to happen again.

Do not even bother trying to buy a house along the river in Sainte‑Luce‑sur‑Mer in my riding. No insurance company on earth will insure it. They all know it is just a matter of time until the house gets completely flooded. That is what happened in 2010. In Sainte‑Luce and in Saint‑Flavie, which is also in my riding, dozens of houses were flooded and dozens of families displaced. That is what is going on right now in British Columbia. Thousands of people have been affected by these floods.

That is why merely fixing the damage caused by weather events is not enough. We have to prevent that damage in the first place. Unfortunately, the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, $3 billion over 10 years, is not up to the task of building the kind of infrastructure we need to counteract the negative effects of climate change.

The throne speech talked about investing in preventing and preparing for some of the negative impacts of climate change and about a national adaptation strategy. We need to make sure the government works with the provinces and Quebec, not against them. We have to work together.

That brings me to mitigation. People have long criticized the fact that Canada has never met its greenhouse gas reduction targets and continues to hand over massive subsidies to Canada's oil and gas industry rather than investing in renewable energy and developing the green economy.

Unfortunately, the great strength of this government when it comes to climate is its incredible ability to announce targets and make promises to give the appearance of doing something other than funding fossil fuels and other high-carbon industries through our taxes.

It takes more than just using the words “fight against climate change” or “green growth” or “green jobs” to have a policy and a solid action plan to truly help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the transition. The Liberal government needs to find the courage to turn its back on oil and gas.

Annoucing targets without any supporting evidence and indicating intentions does not have any real value. We need measures, action and a credible and transparent plan. We have the promises, but we are still waiting for the plan.

I feel like asking the government whether it is prepared to state that we must no longer authorize any new oil development project throughout the land and we must gradually reduce oil production, whether it believes that all of Canada should follow the lead of the Government of Quebec, which announced the real end of oil and gas?

The Liberals will probably want to respond to that question by repeating their promise to cap emissions in the oil and gas sector. However, their promise does not contain a plan to phase out coal, oil and gas. The Liberals claim that these industries can be environmentally viable by making their production less carbon-intensive. They will surely tell us that this is not within their jurisdiction, but they still bought a pipeline.

That makes me think about the outcome of the Glasgow climate pact. Ten days of negotiations resulted in a pact that does not even mention fossil fuels. Nothing. Not one word or phrase that acknowledges that fossil-fuel development is one of the main contributing factors to the climate crisis. There were, of course, protests, from civil society as well. The words were finally included in the pact, in a nice, long sentence that ultimately does not say much. At the end of the day, the countries committed to “accelerating the phaseout of...inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”.

The phrase “accelerating efforts” does not even compel us to make an actual effort, and the word “inefficient” implies that efficient subsidies exist. That makes no sense. It is discouraging.

Quite honestly, I have to wonder where Canada was when it was time to oppose the last-minute amendments from China and India. I also wonder, as my leader so aptly put it, why the Government of Canada representatives did not show some backbone and stand up and oppose that kind of watered-down statement that legitimizes government aid to the most polluting industries in the midst of a climate crisis. That text essentially tells the governments of nearly 200 countries that that is okay and that we can continue to finance the climate crisis.

That is what came out of a global climate conference, whose goal was to do everything possible to limit global warming to 1.5°C. We will not achieve this if we continue to subsidize oil, gas and coal.

While we are on the subject of the government's climate action, the Liberals have finally committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies after giving the fossil fuel industry $10.7 billion a year, and that does not include the staggering cost of Trans Mountain.

There is always a catch, however. Unfortunately, we have good reason to be concerned about the new forms these subsidies will take. The Office of the Auditor General asked the government back in 2019 to define what it meant by the term “inefficient subsidy”. The Department of Finance still refuses to provide a definition.

This new Liberal promise therefore gives us reason to fear that the new fossil fuel subsidies will now be camouflaged subsidies. What is worse, taxpayers will be giving their money to Canadian oil and gas companies in the name of fighting climate change. How much money will Canada waste helping polluters pollute less when it could be helping innovative companies to create the economy of the future?

Canada's grey-hydrogen strategy and the dubious promises regarding carbon capture, use and storage technologies have already made it clear that the government's inaction is going to come with a hefty price tag.

We are already paying millions of dollars to develop untested technology that will be implemented years from now when it is too late to help Canada meets its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target. All of that to produce so-called greener oil and gas rather than making the real ecological and energy transition.

If that is what fighting climate change means to this government, then we need to learn, starting today, to see these costly quick-fix proposals that the government is spending money on in the name of fighting climate change for what they really are. These investments are just new camouflaged subsidies for the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Are they ready to make a real energy transition? If so, can they commit, right here in the House, to ending Canada's gas, coal and oil industry for good? Are they willing to say that green oil does not exist? That is the kind of thing we would like to hear.

As I said, we need to show solidarity with British Columbia now more than ever. The federal government hopefully knows what it needs to do to help that region in the short term, but it also needs to implement a plan now to prevent extreme weather events like this one, which will become more and more frequent in the future.

I reiterate the Bloc Québécois's willingness to work with parliamentarians to immediately provide the support needed and to come up with the solutions that must be implemented in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a certainly a pleasure to rise. I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for her sympathy with British Columbians who are going through a very difficult time.

While the focus of this debate should be on that, she did bring in a bit of a wider scope. Before I ask my question, I want to say that I agree with her. The government, in the throne speech, talked about an adaptation strategy that would be due in 2023. This is the same government that promised in 2019 to plant two billion trees. My family has planted more trees than the government from that initiative.

The member has mentioned the Bloc does not support the use of subsidies to oil and gas developed in Canada. Does she and the Bloc believe that carbon capture utilization and storage count as a subsidy?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I appreciate what he said. Surprisingly, we do actually agree on many points.

When the Liberal government announced its plan to plant two billion trees, it was written down somewhere. There was not much written in the throne speech, so it is a little difficult to read between the lines and see any indication of what this plan and this adaptation strategy will look like. How effective are the subsidies that help polluters pollute less? Unfortunately, they are not very effective. I think we need to invest today in green industries, renewable industries, that will help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think we can lower our emissions if we continue investing taxpayer dollars in these technologies. We do not yet know whether that will work or be effective. We do have some solutions. Quebec is a great example given the electricity it produces, especially with water and wind. We have solutions, and we could certainly put them to good use while supporting the workers in these industries.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to make a few points.

She talked about coal. She should know that Canada now has legislation to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030. She should also know that it took us just a few years to implement one of the planet's highest prices on pollution. Our price is higher than Quebec's, British Columbia's and California's. Next year, it will even be higher than the European Union's, whose system was introduced about 15 years ago.

I would like to know if she is aware that our government has invested a historic $25 billion in public transit in this country. Across Canada, 300 public transit projects are currently under construction, and another 1,000 are in the approval process.

As to fossil fuel subsidies, our government has pledged to eliminate them two years earlier than all our G20 partners. The G20 target for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is 2025. Our target is 2023. No other G20 country has committed to doing it before 2025.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I am aware of all of these investments that have been made in recent months and years, and I commend them. I think that Canada has a good international reputation. It even announced that it would stop spending Canadian taxpayers' money on foreign oil and gas projects. We would like the government to do the same here, in Canada. We are worried about these hidden subsidies. It means that the government plans to continue favouring the “polluter paid” principle instead of the polluter pays principle.

We want to stop helping the polluters pollute. Our only focus should be the net-zero strategy. We need to rethink production methods and put a cap on production. That is what we must focus on, in spite of everything that was announced. We are in a climate crisis.

What the government announces is never enough. We must do more.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your position.

As a member from Alberta, I want to share the strong sense of solidarity that people in Alberta feel with British Columbians. We obviously have a close and special relationship with B.C. Many families cross that provincial boundary and there are a lot of people who travel back and forth on a regular basis.

Since many members have spoken about the issue of climate change, and I know this is a tense time in Canada for many reasons, it is very important that all members of Parliament be committed to having these debates in a way that respects the rule of law and that opposes any form of violence. Unfortunately, we have an environment minister who has shown in his past track record that he does not have a respect for the rule of law when it comes to engaging in these conversations around the environment.

I wonder if the member from the Bloc will take this opportunity to condemn, in particular, the horrific comments made by David Suzuki, saying “pipelines will be blown up”. Could we have a clear consensus in the House that the way forward on these issues is through peaceful dialogue and discussion rather than through law-breaking or violence?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Bloc Québécois will always want the Liberal government to do more when it comes to climate change. Given the choice between the Conservatives and the Liberals, I think we can be optimistic about the appointment of the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change because of his past experience. He knows exactly what needs to be done to cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I do not agree with everything my colleague said. I think there remains a lot to be done. David Suzuki has said a lot of things, including at COP26, about what has been done in Canada.

In 2015, after his election, the current Prime Minister said that Canada was back on the world stage to fight against climate change. A few years later, he bought a pipeline. Canada's actions on climate change are questionable. However, I think that despite the past, we can be optimistic about what is next.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government spends as much money every three months on oil and gas subsidies as it plans to spend on its disaster mitigation and adaptation fund for the next 10 years.

True, the government is committed to a transition, but it is a transition to fossil fuel energy. Their excuse for maintaining these subsidies is that they are effective. The Liberals should have started eliminating the subsidies from the start of their first term, but that did not happen. I would like my colleague to tell me how the $10 billion or $11 billion that goes to the oil and gas companies every year could be used to support a clean energy transition.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel, who I believe is speaking in the House for the second time. He is doing a great job and is very familiar with this issue. I want to thank him for sharing his knowledge with our caucus. We are really lucky to have him.

When I saw the word “inefficient” preceding the words “fossil fuel subsidies” in the Glasgow Climate Pact, I wondered what it was doing there. It is like saying that there are some fossil fuel subsidies that are efficient. I will repeat what I said earlier. We cannot continue to help polluters pollute. We need to invest taxpayers' money in the energy transition, renewable energy and solutions that will help us in the future.

We cannot eliminate the use of fossil fuels overnight. We are aware that we need to start by putting a declining cap on production and that we need to do it in co-operation with workers in that industry. The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with them and wants to help them make that transition. We will be there for them.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you. It is good to see you in the chair.

For the NDP, one of our biggest concerns is the fact that we see a Liberal government that says a lot of great things that people believe but it does not take the next step into action. When we look at what is happening in British Columbia, where we are seeing communities, indigenous communities, being completely isolated now because of this terrible weather incident, we know that it is just going to continue to grow because of climate change.

Could the member speak a little about what we need to see in terms of action?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We asked different stakeholders that very question at COP26, a few days ago.

A number of announcements were made during the conference, a number were made by Canada during the previous Parliament, and a number were made by the Liberal Party during the election campaign.

They made announcements, they made commitments and they promised millions of dollars. Now we are wondering where the plan is or how it will be implemented. How are we going to achieve this?

We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we want net zero, but where and how do we start?

We need to know. The industry also wants to know. Workers' unions want to know so that they can, we hope, help workers through the potential transition.

We need a meaningful and transparent plan to help us be more resilient and launch that much-talked-about transition.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby South.

I would like to open by saying that my heart goes out to all British Columbians who have suffered hardships over the past days and weeks. Some have lost their loved ones in landslides. Others have lost homes, farms and their livelihoods. Some were stuck in vehicles for hours or days, waiting through the dark and the rain, fearing that at any time another landslide might come down and engulf them.

I thank the first responders and volunteers who have helped those on the highways, the brave members of 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron who flew Cormorant helicopters in very dangerous conditions from Comox to pluck marooned motorists off Highway 7 between Agassiz and Hope, and the workers and volunteers who have struggled to save homeowners, rescue livestock, maintain and rebuild the dikes and pumps that were essential to keeping the losses to a minimum.

I want to give a special shout-out to the gurdwaras, the Sikh temples around southern British Columbia, that got together and organized free food and aid to communities across the region.

From November 14 to 15, an atmospheric river poured rain into the mountains of the B.C. coast. This is normally a wet time of year in coastal British Columbia, but 20 rainfall records were set that day and several sites received an entire month of rain in 24 hours.

The rain fell on mountain snowpacks, on soil saturated by previous storms and, in some cases, soils and forests damaged by widespread fires the previous summer. Mudslides and debris flows roared down the steep mountain slopes to the roads and rail lines below and rivers swelled to overwhelm bridges and other infrastructure.

In a short period of time, all the highways and rail lines connecting Vancouver to the rest of Canada were damaged or destroyed. The Coldwater River flooded the town of Merritt. The Tulameen River took out homes along its path and then met the Similkameen River to flood the Town of Princeton. Over 100 first nation communities were impacted throughout the region.

The Nooksack River in northern Washington State overtopped its banks, its waters finding the low ground of Sumas Prairie in Abbotsford, flooding some of the best farmland in the country. A series of mudslides on Highway 99 west of Lillooet buried cars and trucks, killing at least four people, with a fifth still missing. Two landslides along Highway 7 between Hope and Agassiz trapped hundreds of motorists in the darkness. Some of the highways were simply buried in mud, rocks and trees, but the Coquihalla Highway, the major freeway connecting the coast to the interior of British Columbia, was simply destroyed in several places. The Nicola River, fed by the swollen Coldwater took out large sections of Highway 8. Both the CN and CP Rail lines through the Fraser Canyon were badly damaged. The Trans Mountain pipeline had to be shut down.

All the critical supply chains between the south coast of British Columbia and the rest of the country were severed. Prairie grain shipments to the Port of Vancouver stopped. Three-quarters of our grain is exported through that port and almost all the goods imported into Canada from Asia come through Vancouver as well. That came to a shuddering halt. Perishable goods, including vegetables and milk, that are usually trucked to the interior of British Columbia on a daily basis disappeared quickly from store shelves throughout my riding and the rest of the region.

This one-day rain event has laid bare many of the weaknesses in our supply chains and our transportation strategies.

What does the future hold? In the immediate future, British Columbia is bracing for two more atmospheric rivers. One is beginning to hit the coast as we speak here tonight and another one is scheduled to arrive on Friday. These storms will likely not be quite as wet as last week's devastating storm, but with soil saturated and flood water still present, they could easily bring more landslides and raise the flood waters again.

We have heard about the flooding that is happening right now in Atlantic Canada.

What does the government need to do? We have heard so much about climate action, and rightly so. We have to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to limit the impact of climate change, but the global temperature increase we have seen to date is locked in. If we dropped our emissions to zero tomorrow, we would still be facing a future with increased flooding, catastrophic fires, heat domes and rising sea levels.

The unfortunate truth is that we will continue emitting greenhouse gases for the next three decades at least, and these climate change impacts will only get worse. Therefore, we must also greatly increase our ambition in funding climate adaptation, getting ready for the changes that are locked in.

Most climate adaptation funding from the federal government flows through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, which disburses a few hundred million dollars every year. It is chronically oversubscribed and therefore greatly underfunded. This disaster we are speaking of this evening will cost billions of dollars in rebuilding costs alone. The Abbotsford dikes may cost $1 billion just by themselves. It is almost, by definition, a fund to rebuild after disasters rather than prepare communities to avoid disasters.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Insurance Bureau of Canada have reported that the annual infrastructure costs of climate change in Canada right now are $5.7 billion every year. The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices estimates that the present annual cost of flooding impacts alone in Canada are about $1.3 billion, and that will rise by 10 times over the rest of this century.

We need to have meaningful investments for adaptation and we need to provide adequate supports for individuals in communities that have been devastated. Federal and provincial governments have downloaded a lot onto municipal governments when it comes to infrastructure construction and maintenance. These local governments need real help to rebuild dikes, roads and other infrastructure, and they need a dedicated fund to help pay for forward-looking plans to strengthen infrastructure, so it is ready for the climate of 2050 and 2100.

The Coquihalla Highway is only 35 years old and was basically destroyed in one rainfall event.

We have heard of “build back better”, but when it comes to this infrastructure, we have to build back stronger with bigger culverts, higher bridges and better designed dikes. We need to look for nature-based solutions, planning for future flood events by allowing rivers to spill their banks in places where damage will be minimal, ensuring that mountain forests above communities and critical infrastructure are healthy enough to intercept rain and hold moisture in their soils.

We have to redesign our buildings. Over 500 people died in last summer's heat dome in British Columbia. They were almost all low-income people living in apartments without air conditioning. We will have more heat domes, and we cannot see a repeat of this carnage. We need to act now to ensure low-income people across the country can live in housing with affordable and effective heating and cooling. We could provide those buildings with heat pumps that could effectively heat and cool the homes with clean electricity. We need to FireSmart neighbourhoods that are at the forest interface to reduce the chance they will be destroyed by catastrophic wildfires.

The way forward will be difficult, and I know from experience that these climate disasters are absolutely devastating to the people who have lost their homes and livelihoods. In my riding, the city of Grand Forks flooded in 2018. The aftermath of that flood and the rebuilding process have been very painful for the community.

The citizens of Lytton are experiencing the same pain and frustration, and I know the towns of Merritt and Princeton face a similar prospect. Therefore, we must plan for this uncertain future and ensure that communities have funds necessary not only to rebuild after natural disasters, but to adapt to climate change before being impacted by future weather events.

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

Mr. Speaker, my neighbouring member of Parliament and I, as British Columbians, stand together and appreciate the fact that we have an emergency debate to discuss these issues.

At the tail-end of his speech, the member did talk about the experience of Grand Forks. I was wondering if the member could please give us a little more background on exactly what happened and also how the community is doing and what things we can use as lessons learned to apply to this situation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for allowing me to expand on that. Something we should be doing is learning from these disasters. They are very painful and the least we can do is learn lessons from them.

In the case of Grand Forks, much of the downtown area and a low-lying neighbourhood on the other side of the Kettle River were flooded and the city and the surrounding regional district applied for funding. They received $20 million from the federal government and another $40 million or so from the provincial government to help rebuild the city.

They decided to ensure this would not happen again. They redesigned the dikes along the river to flow so that if the river flooded, and the really low areas almost certainly would flood again, there would be no homes there. They had to buy out the people who lived there. It was very divisive and painful for the community. People had to give up their homes and often, because the funding was not as adequate as a lot of people thought it should be, they did not have enough money to buy another home in the city. It was very difficult for the city council and very difficult for the people involved.

To ensure people do not have to go through that again, we have to look at designing our cities so neighbourhoods will not flood in the first place and use innovative ways to ensure we can make our communities safer in the future.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and I send my full support to people in the Abbotsford area. My stepson has embraced the Vancouver area and British Columbia. It is one of Canada's major agricultural areas, and I have been fortunate to visit. I come from an agricultural riding myself, so my thoughts are with the farmers who have lost so much in this disaster.

My colleague spoke a lot about the importance of investing in infrastructure to prepare for the inevitable climate storms that are sure to come.

Does he think the best way to prevent this from happening is to invest directly in combatting climate change? I am talking about investing money into infrastructure, which Quebec and the provinces have been calling for. They are in the best position to know what to do and how to respond to a climate disaster. Is the best option not, as I mentioned, to invest money directly into climate change and to get us started on a transition?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question was should we spend federal monies directly or should we flow them through the province. In fact, the way it is done now is that they go through the province. The money I just talked about in rebuilding Grand Forks was a partnership between the federal government and the province, but the money went to the province and the province then co-operated with the city as to how to spend that. That is how a lot of infrastructure funding in Canada works. The money from the federal government goes to the province and the province decides how to spend that.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everybody for being here for this emergency debate. I want to thank the member who spoke previously, a colleague of mine from the New Democrats who brought this motion forward, as well as others who brought it forward.

What is happening right now in British Columbia has laid bare the reality that the climate crisis is not a problem for the future. It is another example of how the climate crisis is a reality we face today. I am certain we have seen enough examples that we no longer believe this is just a question of making sure our children inherit a future and an environment that is safe. We have seen extreme weather and the forest fires in B.C. We have seen hotter and drier summers across the country, which have left many communities ravaged by forest fires.

Now the floods in B.C. are devastating communities. We have heard some of the examples of what is going on. We are seeing communities that are entirely washed out. There are parts of the Lower Mainland that were completely disconnected from other communities. We are seeing infrastructure completely destroyed. Homes have been destroyed. People are being displaced. Farms have been destroyed. This is the devastation of the climate crisis.

Sadly, the reality is that this is not an exception. This is becoming the norm. Right now our thoughts are with the communities that are impacted, and we are pushing for as much help as possible to be delivered; communities are working to get back to a place where they can continue to be connected and they can get the roads fixed. However, we need to start looking at what we can do if this is going to be normal, if this is going to be what we expect. As my colleague said, even if we tackle the climate crisis and we limit and reduce our emissions, there is some climate change that has already been baked in. We are going to see a rise in temperature. We are already seeing it, and that means extreme weather will become more common.

What do we do about it? First, let us look at the impacts. Actually, it is not just in B.C. Right now we are talking about the incredibly horrible impacts in B.C., but as we speak there are extreme weather patterns happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. The community of Channel-Port aux Basques in Newfoundland is completely cut off as well. The roads have been washed out. Trans-Canada highways have been washed out in Newfoundland. In Nova Scotia, Cape Breton has just right now, in the past couple of hours, been hit with an incredible weather pattern. They are saying it will take days or weeks for their communities to return to normal.

The entire country, the entire world is being gripped with extreme weather, which means more rainstorms and flooding, and drier and hotter summers. What we need to do is acknowledge that we have to take on this climate crisis with the urgency it demands.

We have not seen that urgency on the part of the Liberal government. The urgency of the need to respond to dire climate crisis means we need to start acting immediately. We need dramatic and bold steps to reduce our emissions. We need to invest in renewable energy. We need to invest in these communities.

My colleague laid this out, but I want to be very clear on this. We need three things to be enhanced. First is our emergency preparedness. We need the federal government to play a stronger role in this. We need to respond more quickly to these extreme weather circumstances and these disasters. We need disaster mitigation. We need to make investments ahead of time so that we are not just responding to a crisis but instead investing in communities to make sure they are more resilient and built in a way that they can withstand what is becoming more and more common. If extreme weather is more common, if extreme rainfall and flooding are going to be more common, then we need to build the infrastructure so these communities are more resilient.

We know there is aging infrastructure, and that aging infrastructure is being directly impacted by the extreme weather. I was just in Nunavut, and Nunavut has a water crisis. Right now, the early indications are, again, that it is a direct result of the climate crisis. Warming temperatures and permafrost that is no longer frozen, that is warming, have resulted in shifts in the water supply infrastructure, which has created a contamination of hydrocarbon in Nunavut. The water is poisoned in the largest community in Nunavut. Again, this is a direct result of the climate crisis.

We are being impacted across the country. We are being impacted across the world. We need to start acting.

One of our biggest pushes is that we need to see the federal government take a more active role, making those investments to build more resilient communities. B.C. needs help. We need to be there in solidarity, and I appreciate some of the comments in the chamber expressing solidarity with the people of B.C. That is greatly appreciated. We need to take care of our fellow Canadians and we need to make sure we are doing everything possible to prevent this from happening in the future.

I want to take a moment to talk about some of the incredible stories of support and solidarity. My colleague mentioned some folks in the Sikh community who stepped up and provided food and relief. We see, as Canadians, in difficult times, incredible stories of courage and incredible stories of support from folks who helped out those in need.

I want to acknowledge everyone who provided those supports. I want to acknowledge neighbours who looked out for their vulnerable community members, for vulnerable seniors. I want to acknowledge and thank people in the community who provided food and shelter to those in need.

I want to acknowledge the frontline workers, the workers who provided supports to those who needed to be evacuated and the workers who provided supports to those who needed health care supports. I also want to acknowledge all the communities that are right now housing evacuees from communities that cannot go back to their homes. There are countless people across the province who have been evacuated and are being housed in neighbouring communities; the generosity, open arms and warmth of those communities has to be acknowledged. I want to thank everyone across the country and everyone across the province who has provided that support and provided that help.

Our response to this crisis is important, so I am going to encourage the Liberal government to do everything possible to provide the support to rebuild the highways, the bridges and the infrastructure that have been damaged. Again, I want to make a strong push. What we have seen from the government when it comes to the climate has often been a lot of pretty words, and I hope this horrible disaster makes clear the price of nice words and the cost of inaction.

It is not good enough to talk about the climate crisis. It is not good enough to say one cares. It is not good enough to stand up in the House and say one had the best plan in the last election. Put it into action. Let us see some concrete action. Canadians are demanding it. People across this country are demanding action. They are witnessing the impact of a climate crisis in their lives right now, and they are saying, “Do something about it.”

Canadians are fed up. They are frustrated. They do not want to see more empty promises; they want to see concrete actions. We want to see the investments and a real plan so that we can tackle the climate crisis. We want to see an opportunity to use this recovery as we move forward past the pandemic, as an opportunity to create jobs in communities that need this infrastructure to be rebuilt, to create local jobs, to improve the infrastructure and to build jobs of today and of tomorrow.

While we are up against a horrible disaster, and in times of disaster we are focused on the tremendous loss, there is an opportunity here for us to do something that will build a brighter future. There is an opportunity for us to make investments in clean energy and in better infrastructure. There is an opportunity for us to take this horrible time and this disaster as motivation to do the right thing, to fight for the today and the tomorrow for our children, and to take every step possible to ensure that we protect our communities, our people and our future.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair. I guess there will be no more fisheries committee for you.

We have heard an impassioned plea from the hon. member for government to step in and do things, and government can indeed do that. One of the things we have to be mindful of is the continuity of effort. This reminds us that governments are there at the pleasure of the people. If the people decide a government is not doing the right thing or if they disagree with it, they change governments, and anything that had been done to that point might be thrown away.

What is the hon. member's assessment of the working through process that Canadians are doing? Of course we need to adapt, and nobody will disagree, but are we also ready to do those things that in the future will not keep us adapting? Are we ready to actually address the root causes of the things that are causing the difficulties we are facing right now? Where does he see the public, Canadians, on that issue?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we need now is a two-pronged approach. We need to immediately invest in the infrastructure needed to make sure communities are resilient. We also need to make sure we are doing everything possible to fight the climate crisis.

We know that this is also a global problem, but if we do not do our part in Canada, if we do not end fossil fuel subsidies, if we do not invest in renewable energy and if we do not have a plan for workers, we are not in a position to then encourage countries around the world to provide support and leadership for other countries around the world to do their part. What we need to do right now is immediately invest in resilient community infrastructure that can help these communities deal with the extreme weather that is becoming more common more often. We also need to make sure we are investing in every solution possible to fight this climate crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations on seeing you in the chair as the Deputy Speaker.

I would say this to my hon. colleague from Burnaby South. If we are prepared to do everything possible, and this is a politically difficult question for my hon. friend, that would require the federal NDP leader to be prepared to disappoint the Alberta NDP leader by cancelling the Trans Mountain pipeline, and the provincial premier, Mr. Horgan, by cancelling LNG pipelines and subsidies and banning fracking. Is the hon. member prepared to commit to doing that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything possible while we are in this chamber to do our part as a country. We know there are billions of dollars of federal subsidies right now that continue to flow to the oil and gas sector. That is money that should go toward renewable energy. That is money that should go toward creating a plan for workers. That is money that should go toward fighting the climate crisis. We are going to do everything we can in this House and this chamber to ensure we are using all of our resources toward solving the problem, building a brighter future and protecting communities right now.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate and discussion tonight, and it has overwhelmingly been dominated by the theme of climate change. I agree that climate change was a significant factor at play in this disaster, but we have seen evidence and proof brought before us that this was in many ways also a man-made disaster, because of negligence and lack of investment. The most shocking thing I heard is that the Sumas Prairie dike system was created 100 years ago.

When did we as a country stop building the critical infrastructure needed to go forward as an economy with safe communities? When are we going to bring back that sense of building this nation again, so we can get this country moving?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt this is a human-made problem. The climate crisis was created by human activity. It is going to take people coming together and the government investing in solutions to improve the infrastructure. Absolutely, we need to build more resilient communities. That is something we need to be aware of, and the federal government has to play a role in building those more resilient communities. The climate crisis has been caused by us and we have to do our part to stop it.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your role in the Speaker's chair.

I will be sharing my time this evening with my neighbour and friend, the member for Surrey Centre.

This is my first speech in the House of Commons since 2019, and it is good to be back. I am proud to say that I am visiting the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation from the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsqui and Semiahmoo first nations.

I would like to begin by thanking the voters of Cloverdale—Langley City for returning me to Parliament. I must thank all the volunteers who helped me over many months. I would not be sitting here if it were not for them. I would also like to thank my wife, Elaine, and children Kai, Hattie and Kalani for always supporting me.

I am pleased that you, Mr. Speaker, granted this emergency debate. I am thankful to so many of the B.C. members of Parliament for being here and being part of this important discussion, but also to colleagues from around the country.

I want to also offer my support to the members who are most affected by this recent tragedy in British Columbia. In the areas of Abbotsford, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I know it has been particularly devastating to communities. Anything I can do from this side of the aisle, I am here to offer that support to them.

The devastating flooding in B.C. last week was heartbreaking to watch and continues to weigh on my mind as this Parliament begins. This is especially true for the four individuals who lost their lives, two of whom were parents of a toddler they were on their way home to see, and for those who are still missing.

Considering how to avoid loss of life in the future should be the first priority as we rebuild. Henry Braun, mayor of Abbotsford, one of the worst-hit areas, estimated that the damage caused to his city will cost at least $1 billion. This is the cost to just one city in this region. The most recent estimate for the total damage in B.C. is over $8 billion.

The economic impact to our infrastructure and to farmers, including half of B.C.'s dairy farmers, as well as to businesses and to personal property is distressing. The scale alone should be cause for concern regarding our economic future. We need systems to mitigate economic disruptions during extreme weather.

The loss of animal life must be considered as well. Thousands of animals, including tens of thousands of poultry, drowned from the flooding or died from being stuck in transports with no access to farms or feed. For farmers this is costly and for our domestic food security it is disruptive, but it is also a sad state of animal welfare. Farmers and farm animals need emergency procedures for protecting animal welfare during these events.

The losses to our critical infrastructure, particularly bridges and segments of railroad, are causing shortages in key household goods. Gasoline is being rationed. Some of the infrastructure will take months if not years to repair, posing challenges for our communities, provinces and country. Many of these routes move goods between Canada's biggest port, the Port of Vancouver, and the rest of the country.

For our food security and supply chains, how to withstand another event such as this needs to be central to the reconstruction of this infrastructure. I must acknowledge how my constituency managed during the flooding. While Cloverdale—Langley City is close to Abbotsford and many of the hardest-hit areas, it avoided the devastating flooding this time. However, residents faced property damage that, as we emerge from COVID-19, is another economic hurdle to overcome. Fortunately our government is already investing in climate adaptation.

In 2019, our government invested over $76 million in Surrey, Delta and the Semiahmoo First Nation to implement a comprehensive flood adaptation strategy to increase resilience for over 125,000 residents in our region. Some parts of my riding are playing an important role in food security, including Heppell Farms. Working sandy loam soil, their crops withstood the rains and will be able to provide for the greater region as we experience losses in B.C.'s interior.

The effects of the flooding go far beyond the Lower Mainland, though. Much of B.C.'s coast was impacted by flooding last week and is again, as I speak, experiencing further downpours of rain. With the next three storm events in the coming week expected to also be atmospheric rivers, we do not know what the next round of rainstorms could bring.

Communities in the interior, including Merritt and Princeton, were also negatively affected. Extreme weather events are not restricted to B.C., either. Atlantic Canada is simultaneously being subjected to unprecedented rainfall and the Prairies have suffered terrible droughts this year. Recovering from these events will take commitments from all levels of government. Inaction will continue to cost society.

Insurance claims will drive up insurance costs, and in some areas, insurance is not available if property is on a flood plain. This puts pressure on governments to help homeowners rebuild following these types of catastrophic weather events.

No human life should ever be lost. Farm animals need to be protected, as does personal property. With loss of life, economic impacts, animal welfare and supply chains in mind, the catastrophic flooding last week is the most recent, and perhaps the most significant, illustration of how necessary climate adaptation, mitigation and resiliency are to Canada.

Our country is warming at twice the rate of the global average. In the Arctic, it is three times the rate. Preventing warming past 1.5°C will mean for us 3°C and in the Arctic 4.5°C. These effects are why our government is ready to move faster on climate initiatives than we have before. We demonstrated that this year with our ambitious targets of a 40% to 50% reduction in our emissions, and at COP26 by committing to end thermal coal exports by 2030, to cap and reduce the oil sector's emissions to net zero by 2050, and to cut our methane emissions by 30% no later than 2030. Without these actions, the $8 billion cost of a single extreme weather event will be more frequent and more costly. Eight billion dollars is about 3% of my province's economy.

It is simply not sustainable to be unprepared for extreme weather and climate change. Our government is addressing this directly by including Canada's first-ever national adaptation strategy in the Speech from the Throne. Reconstruction of infrastructure will need to include funding to ensure that future infrastructure can withstand extreme weather events such as the one we recently experienced in British Columbia, and likely stronger ones. Our national strategy will need to include processes for protecting businesses and farms, including their animals. It will need to support stronger implementation of warning systems to avoid loss of life. Also, we do not fully understand the devastating impacts that this and similar weather events will have on things like the wild Pacific salmon population.

The floods last week were devastating, and indeed catastrophic. There is no other way to describe them, but they serve as a terrible reminder of the urgency and fortitude with which our government and every MP here must act to implement strong climate action and avoid such events in the future.

Our government has committed to assisting British Columbians with recovering and preparing for future extreme weather events, but the work is not yet done. Let us work together to ensure all Canadians are protected from future weather events like the one we are seeing right now in British Columbia.