Debates of June 8th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind folks again that we cannot say who is here and who is not here, now or in the past.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is serious that we are still faced with a Conservative Party that does not accept that a hotter and drier climate is directly contributing to worsening forest fires. We have to tackle the climate crisis if we truly want to make sure communities are safe. The Conservatives are still struggling to understand that concept.

The Liberals talk about that and have the power to actually do things but are not doing them. They have the power to make things better, the power to end fossil fuel subsidies, invest in clean energy and reduce emissions, but they are not doing that.

On top of that, we have the power to have a national response with proper funding and training to equip a national forest firefighting team and that is not being done. That is what we are up against.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a fan of podcasts and one of them is a Canadian podcast called The Hurly Burly Shakespeare Show!. A few months ago, the guest on the show was a so-called well-known NDP adviser to both the federal and provincial NDP. The first question the host asked was, “What do you think the Liberal government will be remembered for?” The famous NDP adviser to the federal NDP and many provincial NDP parties said that it will be remembered as the first government in Canada to take climate change seriously.

I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, sadly, as I mentioned, the only two parties that have been in power in Canada have been Conservative and Liberal. The bar has been set very low for the Liberal government to be the government that has done the most. That is not a compliment to the government.

It is a testament to how poorly governments in the past have responded that the government's inaction and lack of real urgency are considered the most aggressive approach to the climate crisis. That is a sad state of affairs. That is a sad testament to where we are. We have to do a lot better.

As I said in my speech, this cannot be the best that our country can do. The inaction from the Liberals and disbelief from the Conservatives that we even have a climate crisis cannot be the best that our country has to offer. I believe we can do a lot more and we need to do a lot more.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, in budget 2023, the Liberal government promised to invest $80 billion to prevent global warming, but that funding is available to the oil and gas industry. I would like to know how my colleague feels about that. Where does he think we should urgently invest those funds?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the Liberal government giving billions of dollars to oil companies that have made huge profits, record profits, in fact.

We must force the government to invest more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must invest more money to encourage clean energy and invest in businesses that are tackling the climate crisis. We must not give money to oil companies that are making record profits. We must force the government to do what is necessary.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important to rise in the House to speak on this extremely important issue. I have the pleasure of following the leader of the NDP, who gave a truly inspiring and highly informative speech. I think that it should be shared with all parliamentarians and all Canadians and Quebeckers as well.

We are currently seeing, experiencing and feeling the impact of the climate crisis and climate disruption. For days, the country has literally been on fire. We can smell it. This week, the air in Ottawa smelled like smoke, like a campfire. The impact of the wildfires burning in the Prairies, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec has major repercussions on our communities and our societies.

In Quebec, nothing like this has ever been seen before. Yesterday, there were 140 out-of-control fires. People on the north shore and in Abitibi had to be evacuated. Entire cities, including Chibougamau, are at risk. Tens of thousands of Quebeckers are being forced to leave their homes and seek shelter elsewhere because the planet is literally burning. It is no longer happening in Australia, Siberia or somewhere else in the world. It is happening here, in our own backyard.

People are seeing the real effects of climate disruption. They are seeing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions being so high that some areas get too hot, while others get colder, and that some areas get a lot of rain, causing flooding, while others do not get enough, causing drought. This climate disruption has an impact on our ecosystems and living environments and on people everywhere.

With the smog in Montreal and the smoke in Ottawa, people in frail health, seniors and people with respiratory conditions like asthma are suffering right now, and they will keep suffering in the years to come because it is not over.

Unfortunately, it is not over because previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal, did not do what needed to be done to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. That is why, today, Canada is lagging way behind the international community, at the back of the pack in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We are not an example of what the rest of the world should do. Instead, we are an example of what not to do.

Obviously, we cannot say that a particular forest fire is directly attributable to climate change or climate disruption. For years, however, the IPCC, the UN and all the scientists have been telling us that disasters such as forest fires, floods and droughts will become more frequent. There will be more and more of them, and each event will be more serious. We can therefore conclude that forest fires growing in number and intensity are a direct result of climate change. All the scientific reports and all the IPCC reports have been telling us for years that this is what is coming, that it will happen and that we have to prepare for it or change how we do things.

Unfortunately, we did not change how we do things. We still act according to the old economic model of natural resource extraction and pollution. Canada has been doing this for years and has not changed.

Canada ranks 39th in the world in terms of population. Of course, there are China, India and the United States. However, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, we find ourselves in the top 10. We are the 10th-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, when we are 39th in terms of population. I realize that it is cold and that we have to keep warm. Everyone agrees on that. However, we are not the only northern country. Scandinavian countries are also in the north and need to keep warm, but they are not in the same ranking.

There is the Paris agreement; we can hope, but I do not think we will get there. In order to limit global warming to 1.5°, every human being on the planet would need to emit an average of two tonnes of GHGs per year.

Right how, the average Canadian emits 17.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases, when the goal is to reach two tonnes. So when people tell us that Canada is not an important player, that things are not so bad, that we should wait for China and the United States to act, I say no. We have a collective responsibility as Quebeckers and as Canadians because we are major emitters of greenhouse gases. This is due in part to our lifestyles. We buy very heavy cars that consume a lot, even for electric cars. Indeed, due to the materials needed to manufacture an electric car that weighs 2,000 kilograms, we still emit a lot of greenhouse gases.

In addition, Canada is an oil and gas producing country and the Liberal government uses public funds to encourage, subsidize and pay for increased oil and gas production. That is entirely inconsistent with the Paris agreement, which Canada signed and agreed to. At some point, there must be consistency in our actions.

The official opposition tells us that climate change happens, that the climate changes all the time regardless, and that production must be increased. The Conservatives tell us that it is enough to reduce the carbon intensity per barrel of oil. The Conservatives' plan for years has been to reduce the intensity per barrel of oil.

It is like telling a smoker that the amount of tar in each cigarette will be cut in half so they will have less impact on their lungs. That is great news, but if they smoke two packs a day instead of one, that will have no impact. There will be just as much tar in their lungs before and after. Still, that is the Conservatives' plan. They advocate the use of technology so that each barrel of oil is a little bit cleaner, but two or three times more will be produced. The result is the same; absolutely nothing changes.

For their part, the Liberals say that we really need to reduce pollution. They believe that putting a price on carbon will solve the problem. It is all well and good to put a price on pollution and a price on carbon. However, if, at the same time, we buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is a bottomless financial pit, with tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, pretty words and a carbon tax will not change much. If the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, who was previously an environmentalist and an activist, signs a ministerial order to approve the Bay du Nord project, to approve a new operation that will produce billions of barrels of oil near Newfoundland, the carbon tax will not change a thing. At the same time, we are doing something completely contradictory that does the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

In an article published in La Presse, Patrick Lagacé tells us about the Bay du Nord project, which the Minister of the Environment has authorized. If we took 100,000 motorists and put them on bicycles tomorrow morning, that would not be enough to offset the environmental impact of the Bay du Nord project. The project was postponed for three years, which was not the Liberals' decision. However, the Liberals authorized the project, which will still begin later.

In addition, the government is subsidizing oil and gas companies time and again, which fully contradicts our international commitments and the urgency of the situation. I repeat, the urgency of the situation is staring us right in the face. It is before our eyes, in our mouths, in our noses and in our lungs. Today, people must take their suitcases and leave their villages to flee forest fires, while the Liberal government is not doing enough to fight climate change and is being completely inconsistent.

I had the opportunity to represent the NDP at two COPs, the international climate change summits. During the last COP in Egypt, the Liberal government invited oil companies to join Canada's pavilion to talk about climate change. That is where the Liberals are today. They must take responsibility for their decisions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, to have these conversations, we need to find common ground and we need to deal in facts. For example, I find common ground with NDP members when they talk about not subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. I think perhaps we need to more aggressively implement those reductions. I also think we have to accept the facts, and some of the facts the NDP is presenting are slightly misleading. The reality is that GHG emissions in Canada went down by 9% between 2019 and 2021. That is second best in the G7. It also happened, and this is very important, while our economy continued to grow, as we may get comments that there was a pandemic at that time.

I am wondering if the member would like to reflect on the fact that we are making serious moves forward. Our GHG emissions have gone down, and we have been second best in the G7 over the last two years despite our economic growth.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty funny to hear the Liberals tell us that greenhouse gas emissions went down in 2020-21. Something happened during that time: the COVID-19 pandemic. The economy slowed down to roughly zero. Of course greenhouse gas emissions went down. There was no economic activity.

Now that the pandemic is over and economic activity has resumed, greenhouse gas emissions have increased. That is what needs to be said, contrary to what my Liberal colleague is saying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am hearing members who are trying to continue to participate even though they were not recognized. I would ask them to wait to be recognized.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that fallacy in my question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate, not a point of order.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable. I was sitting pretty close to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, but I could barely hear what he was saying because the other member was shouting so much. That being said, let us move on to more serious matters.

I very much appreciate the NDP's position on today's motion. Its approach to the climate emergency is quite similar to the Bloc's. I am pleased to see that we have common ground. However, the NDP is supporting the government's budget, which commits billions of dollars to the oil industry.

I understand that the NDP is getting something out of it, including dental care, and they are very proud of that, but is that not a high price to pay to support a budget that once again allocates billions of dollars to this industry we are denouncing today?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his extremely relevant question.

The NDP is indeed proud to have secured gains that will benefit Quebeckers, such as dental care for seniors and teenagers and housing for indigenous communities. We are making progress on these fronts, but we are also continuing to put pressure on the Liberal government and to condemn oil subsidies. Under the agreement that we negotiated, we will be able to reduce oil subsidies and invest in renewable energy. The two are not mutually exclusive. We do not necessarily want to trigger an election, because we have achieved real gains for people. However, at the same time, we are able to criticize the government and ask it to do more on climate change and to invest in renewable energy.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague. Like him, we recognize that climate change is real and that action is needed. Humans played a role in creating climate change, and so we have a role to play in turning the situation around. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce pollution. The path that these people are taking is different from ours. I respect it, but it is different.

The government has been in power for eight years, and it wants to increase the carbon tax. We have to wonder whether this will produce any real results. According to an analysis by UN scientists at COP27, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Why continue down this path that does not take us to the top, but instead places Canada among those countries at the bottom?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is quite true that Canada, under the Liberals, ranks 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I agree with him that this is an admission of failure.

However, we cannot blame this solely on the carbon tax or the price on pollution. It is a good tool, a market-based tool, that provides incentives to pollute less. When it is the only tool we have and we do things that are inconsistent and contradictory, we end up with a failure and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that I still do not see what the Conservative Party's plan is for achieving better results.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I must say that, for the past week, my thoughts have mainly been with Quebeckers and all the communities in Canada that are suffering due to the forest fires. I would also like to highlight the poise, courage and invaluable work of all the firefighters battling the forest fires in Quebec and all those who have come to lend them a hand to get through this ordeal.

However, we cannot say we are surprised by what is happening. Climate events are increasing in frequency and intensity, confirming the forecasts published by experts from all over the world. We need only think of the historic floods in Quebec, mainly in the Lanaudière and Charlevoix regions, the ice storm a few weeks ago, the repeated heat waves, such as the ones that left 60 people dead in Montreal in 2018, or the violent storms that hit Ontario and Quebec a year ago, killing nine. There is a long list of examples, but I want to use my time to also talk about the cost of climate inaction.

The economic and human costs are closely intertwined. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, climate impacts will be slowing Canada's economic growth by $25 billion by 2025. It is almost 2025 now. One of the researchers, Mr. Bourque, said that it is really the public who will pay the highest price and that they will be hit from different sides, either by higher insurance premiums or by direct costs that are not covered.

Extreme weather events have high economic costs. In Fort McMurray in 2016, they cost $3.8 billion. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in 2022, these costs reached $3.2 billion in Canada. Worldwide, in 2022, the cost was $275 billion. What will the current fires cost? More important, however, are the direct effects on people's lives. People who are currently affected will find shelter and refuge, but when they go home, heartbroken, what will they find? Some have also lost their jobs. With the EI system on its last legs, what will happen to those who lose their jobs because outfitters are burning down?

Severe weather also affects mental and physical health. The World Health Organization says that climate change is the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. It is not the first time that I have said this here in the House. On several occasions, I have presented the House with Canadian statistics on the economic impact of health problems caused by air pollution. This week, we are breathing air as bad as the air in cities like Jakarta and Mexico City, and there are not tens of millions of people here.

The health effects of climate change include increased rates of cardiovascular, lung and kidney disease, as well as increased cancer rates. Research has found causal links with the deterioration of the environment: contaminated water, air pollution, soil contaminated with toxic substances, all against the backdrop of constantly rising mercury levels. This amounts to a cost of $34 billion per year for the health care system.

It would be a mistake to think that the problems affecting people on the other side of the globe have little or no impact on us. Let us not forget the forest fires in Australia a few years ago. According to a study that was published in the May issue of Sciences Advances, the smoke from those fires may have even changed weather patterns. What happens at one end of the globe affects everyone.

Here is another example. This week, the UN informed us that the warming of the oceans is causing unparalleled cascading effects, including ice melting, sea level rise, marine heat waves and ocean acidification. The ocean's capacity to absorb CO₂ is also diminishing. This shows that there is a connection between extreme weather events in the world and the global weather system, regardless of where the initial trigger event occurred.

The government needs to do more. That was well put, was it not? It shows decorum. However, what I would really rather say is that the government needs to get its head out of the sand and stop making matters worse. It is as though we are standing on the side of the highway and we see a big tractor trailer heading our way at full speed and we just stand there. The truck drives past, the wind from it pushes us back and we fall and hurt ourselves. I think that metaphor accurately describes the government and Canada as a whole.

If we are to be proactive with respect to extreme weather, we have to call a spade a spade. We must stop downplaying the dangers and the impacts of the climate emergency. What is the government doing in response to this challenge? It is continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry. That is what it is doing.

I will give two examples. I talked about this at the beginning of the week and I am talking about it again today. Billions of dollars have been invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline and its expansion. Costs have skyrocketed, going from $7.5 billion to $30.9 billion, even though the Minister of Finance promised not to inject public money. No, she is using the Canada account instead, but that comes from taxpayers.

A few years ago, the Prime Minister proudly said that the profits from the TMX project would be invested in the fight against climate change. We knew that there would be no profits, and today, it has been confirmed. Trans Mountain is the costly crowning touch to the Liberals' failure to fight climate change.

Another example of subsidies is found in budget 2023. Subsidies, or tax credits, which are the same thing, are being provided for false solutions such as carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen produced from natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. These are fossil fuel subsidies by another name. We must call a spade a spade.

The government has powerful mechanisms at its disposal. It has legislation, which is binding. It can provide disincentives in the form of taxes. It can also provide incentives in the form of subsidies.

Canada will pay a heavy price for believing that subsidizing the industry that is fuelling the climate crisis is the right path to take. The federal government is not focusing enough attention on the green technologies that are ready to be deployed to support an energy transition guided by renewable energy. People we meet with have told us that they do not have access to the Canada growth fund.

There is no ambiguity on what constitutes renewable energy, right? However, the government seems to be a bit confused about this, even though it is easy to understand. Let me explain it again: The incentive has to be tied to solutions to the problem, not to funding the problem.

The hydrogen tax credit should be available only for clean hydrogen. The allegedly miraculous technology of carbon capture and storage makes me laugh. It is rather pathetic. Th oil industry has infected governments and earns obscene profits, yet it is looking for a handout for technology to optimize its production. Come on. It could take care of that itself. The industry has known for 60 years how much CO₂ it was going to generate.

However, the industry understands all too well how things work. It is adapting its government and corporate relations in light of global net zero targets, with the aim of taking full advantage of energy transition subsidies. The industry is very savvy.

The government gets to keep its hands clean. It has given the industry permission to export its infernal reserves of fossil fuels. Carbon capture and storage technologies are very popular with the government, but they only serve to scrape to the very bottom of the deposits. Believing that this can save anything is a pipe dream of the saddest sort. Manipulating citizens by presenting false solutions is dishonest and dangerous. These technologies are immature, expensive, energy-intensive and ineffective. That is the admission of a government that consents to maintaining the dependence on fossil fuels it has created with taxpayer money. Moving to carbon capture and storage only proves the government's submissiveness to the oil and gas lobbies.

I have not even mentioned the drilling in a marine refuge off the eastern coast of Newfoundland. I do not have enough time to call out everything, so let me end on a more positive note.

With today's motion, the Bloc Québécois is calling on all parliamentarians and the Government of Canada to change course. The investment approach currently being pursued is not working. We missed an opportunity in terms of the postpandemic economic recovery. Our climate targets are for 2030, seven years from now. It is time for a paradigm shift to trigger the real transition.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend from Repentigny for her speech. She is an extraordinary activist.

This is my first opportunity to speak this afternoon. I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for raising this issue today. It is a good opportunity to have an important debate. I completely agree with the Bloc on this. The Green Party will obviously be voting in favour of the motion.

I would like to briefly ask my colleague whether she agrees with the Green Party that the federal government needs to state very clearly today that it is not open to allowing new oil development projects anywhere in Canada.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her kind words, but I think she knows a lot more about it than me. She is a long-time activist.

Like her and many others, we lament the fact that Canada is an oil-producing country. Sooner or later, it will have to take the leap, change direction and engage in a meaningful transition. I have lost track of the number of years we have been talking about a transition. It is time to stop talking and get started on the transition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The reality is that we are seeing other countries make the energy transition. Canada has vast potential, whether in terms of solar energy or geothermal energy. At the same time, we know that the U.S. market is increasingly closed to fossil fuel exports. However, U.S. states and cities are becoming increasingly open to clean energy imports.

The NDP considers it important to create an electrical grid like the one in Europe to facilitate clean energy exports. The member just discussed this topic very eloquently. Would she agree that upgrading the electrical grid is important to permit such exports?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He seems very optimistic about what is happening in the United States. It could change completely, depending on who is elected next. I, for one, am not that optimistic.

Now, there was a word missing from his question. He talked about electrifying transportation, but we need to talk about public transportation. That is what is important. That is what is lacking in this country. There is almost no public transport. I once came here by train from Vancouver, and we had to keep stopping to let the oil through. That is not public transportation. Frankly, it is a bit ridiculous. We need public transportation for people who have to travel, and we need to stop always thinking about oil. Of course products and goods have to get through, but it should not always be to the detriment of those who take public transportation.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question earlier this morning to one of the Bloc members, and they had no idea of the bill I was speaking about, so hopefully they have had some time since then to research it a little. The bill I was speaking about is my private member's bill from the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-365, which sought to increase the recognition of the significance of theft and vandalism of firefighting equipment.

The leadoff statement in the motion today is to show solidarity and express support for those affected by the forest fires. Why did the Bloc members, en masse, vote against the bill that would have seen increased recognition of theft and vandalism of firefighting equipment?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he asked the member for Beloeil—Chambly the same thing this morning, and that he could not remember it. Unfortunately, I have to say that I do not remember it either. However, when I listened to him this time, it made me question whether this is not something that falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

The issue of equipment and so on is a matter for Quebec and the provinces, is it not? I will leave it at that because I honestly cannot remember, and there are so many other things to talk about. I have no other answer for him.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, once upon a time in Abitibi and James Bay country, in my home, there were forest fires caused by climate change.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my party's motion today. Under the circumstances, this is an important motion to debate. I will be talking about what people in Abitibi and James Bay are going through.

The forest fires raging in Quebec are further proof that the federal government must stop subsidizing fossil fuels and accelerate the fight against climate change. In my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, as in many other parts of Canada, fires are raging, threatening many communities. Thousands of people have had to leave everything behind and evacuate immediately. All of these fires are affecting air quality, threatening infrastructure and undermining our collective efforts to fight climate change.

The events of the past few days have made it clear that extreme weather events are a huge burden. They have shown us how high the human and economic cost can be. This situation forces us to rethink our climate change adaptation plans and redouble our efforts to prepare for the future and build a resilient society. We must scale up our efforts to adapt so we can help municipalities and the regions build resilience to natural disasters by creating an environmentally sustainable economic future.

I do not want to rehash last Monday's emergency debate, but since I had to be in my constituency at the time, I did not have a chance to take part in it. I will therefore use some of my speaking time to provide an update on the current situation in my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The Abitibi and James Bay region is facing an extraordinarily difficult situation because of the forest fires. Thousands of hectares have burned and our forests are dying. People are confused about what to do. It is important to say that the situation is still very dangerous.

Last week I went to Chapais, where the risk of fire was high. The situation has since improved. The next day, the risk was high in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, where the Nordic Kraft pulp and paper mill is located. There could have been a very serious explosion, because of all the chemicals in the plant. The entire town of Lebel-sur-Quévillon had to be evacuated. In just a few hours' time, 2,500 people were evacuated to Senneterre and Val-d'Or. We can imagine the consequences.

People have to leave their homes in a hurry, and sometimes they even have to leave their animals behind, because they do not have time to pack up everything they need, given the stress that they are under. These people need support. They are not always able to assess what is going on, because right now the situation is worsening, not by the hour, but by the minute.

It is important for me to say that my heart goes out to all those affected by this situation. It is very difficult. It is a matter of survival.

It is also important to stress that people need to stay out of the forest. They need to avoid travelling and discarding cigarette butts, or driving around in all-terrain vehicles just because they are on vacation.

We know that outfitters are suffering at this time. I was there with the people of Lebel-sur-Quévillon. It is my hometown, the place where I grew up and spent my youth. When people found out that they had to evacuate, they were stunned, but they had to act quickly.

I commend the mayors who are having to evacuate with their people. I commend all the municipalities that are taking in those who are affected. I am referring to Senneterre, Val-d'Or, and Roberval. In Chibougamau, 7,500 people had to be moved because the road between Senneterre and Chapais was impassable. Quick action was needed in such conditions.

Simply put, my riding is the largest in Quebec, and it is on fire. The towns are completely surrounded by fire. Val-Paradis is a northern Quebec village in my riding, not far from La Sarre. This village also had to be evacuated. I would like to thank La Sarre for taking in the people of that community. We always thank those who help out. We are short of firefighters, but help is on the way. We would also like to thank everyone and all the families who are providing support and taking in the disaster victims.

As I said, I was right there on the ground. I came here because as a parliamentarian, it is important for me to inform members of what we are going through right now because of climate change. With the fires that are raging right now, my region is absolutely feeling the effects of climate change. I am here not so much to talk about examples as to talk about the reality.

Right now, in my riding, just in the Chibougamau area, 78,000 hectares of forest have burned. In the Senneterre area, 132,000 hectares have burned. Let us imagine that forest. In terms of distance, it takes five hours to reach Val-d'Or from Ottawa. It takes four hours to go from Val-d'Or to Chibougamau. Let us imagine the immense forest surrounding our cities, the beauty we had that is no more.

We are also talking about businesses that are barely hanging on. We are talking about people who are concerned and wondering whether there will be work. We are talking about miners and forestry workers. Take, for example, Chantiers Chibougamau, which responded to the concerns of Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon and worked hard to dig a trench so that the fire would not spread to the factory or the town.

There has been a lot of collaboration. About 30 indigenous people from the Anishnabe Nation of Lac Simon and the Pikogan community are going to work as volunteer firefighters to support us. It is important to mention that.

I am also talking about communities. For example, the community of Lac Simon had to be evacuated to Val‑d'Or. Many of those people have pets. The SPCA took care of those animals. Volunteers went to care for the animals and get them out. When times get tough, it affects everyone. It affects individuals, families, the municipality and the general public, because people are worried. There are also major wildfires in Alberta. My son lives in Edmonton and I must say I was very worried about him.

What are we doing as parliamentarians? What we should do is protect our environment. We cannot wait until it is too late. Unfortunately, we may be at that point. We must work together. It is not about pointing fingers. We must work together and make progress on environmental issues. Earlier, my colleague mentioned a few aspects that we need to develop together. We must stop talking and take action.

Climate change is exacerbating the conditions that lead to fires, such as drought, wind and lightning. All this also results in other extreme weather events such as landslides and flooding.

I will take this opportunity to express many thanks to all the mayors in my riding; I cannot say it enough. I have been in touch with these very competent people. All the crisis welcome centres in my riding are efficient and effective. With everything we are going through right now, I take my hat off to them and I congratulate them all.

However, I am no fool. I know that all the fires currently raging in our forests are not just the government's fault. I know that not all wildfires are caused by climate change, but are also a natural part of the forest life cycle. Still, it seems cynical for the Liberal government to be claiming, since it was first elected in 2015, that it believes in a climate emergency and is participating in the global effort to fight climate change. The truth is that, since 2015, it has been spending billions of taxpayer dollars to keep Canada's oil and gas industry on life support, including Canada's tar sands, the source of the dirtiest oil in the world. The government has gone off track.

The Bloc Québécois is asking parliamentarians and the government to stop investing in fossil fuels and, instead, to introduce incentives that encourage the use of renewable energy.

In closing, I would like to say a last word about my riding. I want to underscore the monumental efforts being made by the people working on the ground as we speak, including firefighters, volunteer organizations and everyone associated with them. Once again, I commend them.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on this important subject.

My heart is with all those who are having to evacuate and for what they are going through. These events are deeply traumatizing. We need to think about the supports that will be necessary in the days, the months and the years ahead. I do not want this to be our new normal. I do not want my kids to not be able to have clean air to breathe or to be anxious about what crisis or disaster our communities will face next.

What are the mental health impacts of the climate crisis? What supports are we going to need, moving forward, to ensure we have these resilient communities?