Debates of June 8th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Transportation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Northern Affairs.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speak about how much the Liberal government is doing.

People in my riding of York—Simcoe are on the outside looking in. I am going to give the hon. member a couple of examples. He spent about five minutes talking about oceans, but the member's government did not support my Bill C-204, which was to stop the export of plastic waste for final disposal. Basically, the Liberal government said that it was not happening. The funny thing was that The Fifth Estate tracked containers going to Thailand, which proved it, and asked the environment minister why the Liberals did not vote for it. It would be a sign, to stop dumping plastics into the lake and burning plastics.

Also, I alluded to waiting since 2015 for the Lake Simcoe cleanup. Where is the cleanup fund for Lake Simcoe? Here we are, eight years later, and there is no money for Lake Simcoe. I am happy the member is getting the water agency in Winnipeg, even though we asked for it in the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe. Whether that is due to a by-election happening there now or not, I do not know.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, talking about cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess, let me draw a comparison.

Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, and containers of garbage were being shipped from Canada over to the Philippines, where they were left to rot. It caused such a stink that the people in the Philippines were telling Canada to take back its garbage. The then president Duterte said, and I think he meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, he would declare war on Canada to have it take back its garbage.

Not to worry, we avoided that by ensuring there was a place for us to take back the garbage, and we did. It was somewhere in British Columbia. They took care of the garbage and did a fine job.

We are used to cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that his government has invested heavily in infrastructure. As with any type of investment, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Among the billions of dollars invested in infrastructure, there are the investments made in Trans Mountain. At the outset, Trans Mountain was supposed to cost $7 billion. So far, it has cost $30 billion in public money. It is a project that is bad for the environment and that is incurring losses.

Everyone makes mistakes. It happens to every government.

With the information we have today, if it were to be done all over again, does he think the government should make that investment, and does he think Trans Mountain was a good investment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member needs to be a little more patient because at some point Trans Mountain will be divested.

Whether it is indigenous entrepreneurs or others who ultimately take over Trans Mountain, I believe that Canada as a community would be better off because it was the right decision to make at the right time. At the end of the day, I ultimately see a great deal of benefit.

This is the big difference. As a government and as the Liberal Party, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We need to work with all the different stakeholders out there to make sure we all benefit.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I am very worried about the people in northern Alberta. I am very worried.

I think of my friend, Chief Allan Adam and the people in Fort Chipewyan, who have been evacuated from Chipewyan Lake. I am very concerned about them. I appreciate the concern the member expressed.

However, I do have to say that my worry, always, with the Liberals is that they are very good at saying they are going to do something, but they are not always very good at actually doing that thing. There has been awful lot of discussion about what they have signed and what is in the budget, but ultimately, we have a government that is the worst in the G20 in investment in green technology.

The Liberal government invests 14 times more in the oil and gas sector than it does in renewable energies. I am wondering how he could stand in this place to say that he is concerned about firefighting, and how he could stand in this place to pat himself on the back for the work the Liberal government is doing, when Canada is literally the worst in the G20 and we are investing 14 times more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I do not believe what the member is saying.

Let me emphasize the next point. The member would argue that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. Yes, we are subsidizing them and we have a tangible commitment to get out of that subsidy. However, we should keep in mind that a high percentage of that subsidy is going to deal with orphan wells. Orphan wells are a bad thing for our environment and it is not good for the government to just ignore that problem. We have to deal with it, and that means spending money.

If we are spending money, the NDP says that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. I would suggest that we are protecting the environment, because orphan wells are bad for it. We need to deal with them. It would be irresponsible of government to ignore orphan wells.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the words of the motion say “stop investing in fossil fuels". The member for Winnipeg North just shared with the member for Mirabel that we need more patience for TMX. We need more patience for what? To cut down more old-growth forest, to waste billions more dollars. This is what the UN Secretary General calls moral and economic madness.

We do not need patience; we need urgent action so that our kids do not live in climate hell.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Green Party has a very unique position in the House in the sense that it is the only party that would say it is time for us to disassemble, to take apart our pipelines. The Green Party genuinely believes that we need to get rid of the existing pipelines. The Conservative Party says that no one cares about the environment, just build, build, build, even though it was not very successful at it, but that is what it will say.

As this government has clearly demonstrated, if we work with Canadians on the environment and the economy, there is a way we can manage all of it in an appropriate fashion.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, in response to a question asked by my colleague from Repentigny, who wanted to know why the government was issuing permits to oil and gas companies to allow them to drill in the habitat of the right whale, an endangered species, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said they were not drilling licenses, but only exploration licenses.

That surprised me. The Liberals claim they do not want to drill, but they issue permits so companies can go see if there is any oil to be found. The question I wish to ask the member for Winnipeg North is simple. What is the point of issuing exploration permits if, at the end of the day, they do not want to extract the oil? Is that not a flagrant contradiction?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was here when the question was posed. The parliamentary secretary provided an answer to the member. Tomorrow, we are back at it, and I would encourage the member to ask the follow-up question of the parliamentary secretary.

The minister responsible for oceans talked about this, that when we became government, 1% of the oceans were protected. Today it is almost 15%. In 2025, it will be close to 25%, and we are shooting for 30% by the year 2030. I see that as a good thing. I hope that will help the member sleep tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, does the hon. parliamentary secretary understand that marine-protected areas only protect the fish that are in the sea? There is nothing in the marine-protected areas legislation that would prevent grey water dumping from cruise ships and other emissions from various boats. When the Liberals say how great a job they have done, there is skepticism by other people who say it is not what they have done.

I want the member to think about when he is portraying things—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a few seconds to answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to advocate for those types of things to be banned outright, as the member seems to be implying. The government needs to continue to work with the B.C. government, other stakeholders and different industries. I am very much interested in what specifically the member is ultimately trying to recommend.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we speak, forest fires are spreading, especially in northern Quebec, even though firefighters are demonstrating great courage as they work to put them out. This is a worrisome situation with disastrous consequences for the inhabitants of the municipalities that had to be evacuated on an emergency basis in recent days.

I want to salute the great solidarity shown by my colleagues from Manicouagan, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Abitibi—Témiscamingue towards the people of their ridings who have been through a lot in recent days.

Despite the rain and the suspension of the evacuation order, there is still a state of emergency in Sept‑Îles, and we know that there is presently a great deal of concern in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Jamésie in northern Quebec.

Yesterday, by the late afternoon, more than 12,000 people had been evacuated in Quebec, with almost 14% of them from indigenous communities. That number continues to grow.

Tuesday evening, Chibougamau, the biggest town in Jamésie, and the Cree community of Oujé‑Bougoumou declared a state of emergency and ordered the evacuation of 7,500 residents, including those in cottage country.

Early yesterday, over 450 people—after having spoken with the mayor of Roberval, I think it is now almost 700 people—were being sheltered at the sports centre in Roberval. This has been a stunning effort by the residents of Lac‑Saint‑Jean and the people of the Saguenay since evacuees from Chibougamau started flowing in on Tuesday night. Frankly, the demonstration of solidarity has been spectacular.

Roberval's mayor, Serge Bergeron, who, I would point out, was my opponent in the last electoral campaign as the Conservative candidate, is a remarkable man and a wonderful human being. I applaud his incredible solidarity and the solidarity of the citizens of Roberval who quickly rallied in as many ways as possible to lend a hand to the families who had to leave their homes.

Adversity brings out the best in human beings. I can say with assurance that we did witness that in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Right now, in my riding, we can see solidarity and the best of humanity. I have had the honour of representing this riding since 2019. I was very moved by what happened. The wonderful engagement we see attempts to assuage the fears of people who are afraid of losing their homes, their property and sometimes even some of their companions, such as the animals that live with them. Frankly, it is difficult for most people, but there is solidarity that may bring some comfort amidst all that is happening.

Teams from the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de Saguenay-Lac‑Saint‑Jean are on site to support evacuees. Professionals are there to support them in any way they can. People are extremely anxious. I know, because I have been on the phone the last few days. I spent countless hours on the phone. People are anxious, but at the same time, they remain positive and help each other a great deal. There are fires less than 20 kilometres from their town. Our hearts go out to them, sincerely.

Given the urgency of the situation, the Town of Roberval immediately set in motion its emergency protocol and an internal crisis task force, involving the town's administration, the municipal councillors and emergency preparedness. The interesting thing is that there was a simulation a few weeks ago in preparation for a disaster scenario. Their team was prepared to act quickly. The scenario became reality. I note the fact that an exercise was held in preparation.

This massive wave of support shows once again how much people come together in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. People were lining up to volunteer. People spent nights setting up cots. Social media is overflowing with offers for a place to stay. Stores opened earlier to accommodate people. There are pharmacies, dentists and grocery stores. There are people who wanted to help and still want to help out of pure humanism and that is really nice to see. It is nice to see even though the situation remains alarming.

That is why, in light of the evacuations, our leader, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, moved a motion in the House of Commons to ask the House the following: to “stand in solidarity” with all those affected, to acknowledge “that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events”, to recognize that the “federal government must do more” and “invest more in the fight against climate change”, to demand that the “federal government stop investing in fossil fuels” to the detriment of renewable energy sources. Naturally, all of this must be done while respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces.

Again, the situation is alarming. Experts agree that the worsening climate crisis will increase the number and intensity of forest fires in Quebec over the next few years. According to Christian Messier, professor of forest ecology at UQAM and the Université du Québec en Outaouais, the worst is still yet to come.

We know that the boreal forest is an ecosystem that is historically conducive to fires. Global warming is making the situation worse. The regions most affected will be Abitibi-Témiscamingue, James Bay and northern Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. As we are seeing now, the north shore, Mauricie, Gaspé and even the Laurentians are not spared.

Ironically, forestry and forest management are among the solutions of the future to fight climate change. The forest industry is most well-positioned to transition to the green economy. Those are not my words. That is what the experts are saying.

Nevertheless, federal funding for forestry, as my colleague from Jonquière so aptly put it, is a pittance compared to what our good federalist friends are giving to the auto industry in Ontario and to the western oil industry. As my colleague from Mirabel so aptly put it, with a bit of humour, but in a serious way, when we look at the federal government support for the auto industry in Ontario and the oil and gas industry in the west, it seems that we are getting shafted. I completely agree with the member for Mirabel.

It is not like the government has not gotten an earful from my colleague from Jonquière and I about our priorities for Quebec's forestry industry. I urge the federal government to clear the wax out of its ears. What is happening right now should be more than a wake-up call. In fact, the forestry industry is a prime industrial sector for the green economic recovery, with strong economic potential and an indispensable role in the fight against climate change.

Another major win for Quebec when it comes to the environment is Hydro-Québec. Interestingly enough, contrary to a number of provinces in the rest of Canada, Hydro-Québec has never required any federal assistance.

For some time now, the climate deadline has been forcing us to abandon fossil fuels. The clock is ticking, but the federal government is holding us back. At some point, we are going to have to open our eyes, stop talking, and start doing something. No one can predict the future, but if the Quebec government had all the power, it would certainly find it easier to go ahead with its own projects, its clean projects.

Looking at Quebec's history, its love of the St. Lawrence and wide open spaces, its aversion to fossil fuels, I get the impression that making Quebec a country would allow Quebeckers to be greener and to take control of their environmental future.

As we know, right now, when something falls directly within its jurisdiction, the federal government can take action in environmental matters without the agreement of the provinces. It can also decide to continue funding the oil and gas industry. In fact, Quebec is reluctantly helping to fund fossil fuel development in western Canada. Each year, Quebeckers see their taxes go to Ottawa. Billions of dollars are gifted to oil and gas companies in western Canada.

Ultimately, this makes it impossible for us to be as green as we would like to be within Canada. That alone, for me, for my children, for our children, for future generations, is a damned good argument for Quebec independence.

In closing, I would like to say this to those who have had to leave their homes in the last few days, to all those affected, directly or indirectly, by the fires, to the crews working to put out the blazes, and to all Quebeckers: Let us stand together in these uncertain times and let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois is with them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member speaking about forestry practices being really important in preventing forest fires. I know that Quebec has had a carbon tax for a number of years now. What percentage of the carbon tax in Quebec is allocated toward adaptation and prevention, such as was mentioned in his speech?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I do not know the exact percentage, but someone is telling me that 100% of that money is used for green energy projects. I think that we have a model that works, that makes sense, that is realistic, that takes into account climate change, and that enables us to work for future generations.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I found to be very compassionate, because it focused on the people who have had to be evacuated because of the wildfires and whose lives have been turned upside down.

There is one thing that I think we do not talk enough about and that is the loss of expertise necessary to build water bombers in Quebec and Canada. Canadair and then Bombardier used to build water bombers in Montreal. Now, they are no longer manufactured here. It is a bit like what happened with COVID‑19. Canada is no longer able to produce vaccines because we no longer have any plants that can manufacture them.

We are no longer building water bombers at this time. We need to borrow them from other countries, which makes us dependent on those countries. I know that my colleague likes independence. Does he think we should have the capacity to build our own water bombers?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only do I love independence, but I love Quebec independence. I know that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie votes for a pro-independence party provincially. He is bound to one day join us on this side of the House.

As for water bombers, the problem is that the federal government has never had any policies to support the aerospace industry. Once again, a Quebec industry has been sidelined, like forestry, in favour of Ontario's auto industry and western Canada's oil and gas industries.

The New Democratic Party made a deal with our friends in the Liberal Party to get dental care. I figure that natural disasters cost us a lot of money every year because of climate change. If they had done a climate change deal instead of a dental care deal, we would have saved money and could have used it to create the dental care program. I wonder if the dental crisis is a greater problem than the climate crisis right now. I do not think that it is. Unfortunately, the New Democrats decided to support the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, our Conservative colleague mentioned our carbon exchange and the emissions permits we have in Quebec. When we sell emission units, a large part of the money, if not all, goes into Quebec's green fund and is used for various investments to make us more resilient to climate change and better able to adapt.

Would my colleague not say that, in the western provinces that rely on oil, instead of complaining about the federal carbon tax, they should seize the opportunity to implement similar mechanisms to ensure that those provinces could also, independently, take charge of their own transition? Would it not be more constructive and rewarding for them to do that?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to get involved in western provincial politics, but it seems that I have to. Unfortunately, successive governments in western Canada have never had a vision for the future. When things were going well in the western provinces and they were making a lot of money by reselling oil, instead of investing in diversifying their economy for the future or in social programs, they decided to cut taxes, thinking the good times would last forever. That is unfortunate.

Let us look at what is going to happen with Trans Mountain. The government invested $30 billion in Trans Mountain and not a single penny will be returned to Canadians. In fact, we are going to lose money. We would have had the opportunity to invest that money elsewhere, including in the diversification of the western provinces' economies. We would have been happy to take part in that. Unfortunately, that will not be the case, and that is all the more reason for Quebec to be independent, because we want to stop subsidizing an industry that is doomed to failure.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you and all of my colleagues.

I want to take a moment to send my best wishes and thoughts to everyone affected by the forest fires right now. I am thinking of the community members who are supporting all those who are helping with the evacuations as well as my colleagues, the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Manicouagan and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I know that they are with their families and they travel a lot. They are supporting initiatives on the ground. It is very touching to see them get involved like that. I want to offer them, as well as the people affected by these fires, my full support.

Those who know me well know that I grew up in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. Today, the town has been completely evacuated. I spent my childhood in James Bay. The latest images I have seen are extremely disturbing. Visibility is significantly reduced. Some of my family worked at the Nordic Kraft plant in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, which is currently surrounded by trenches to prevent the flames from reaching the building. The town has experienced serious economic hardship, but the plant recently reopened. The economy is getting back on track. I want to tell all these people that I am thinking of them and that the Bloc Québécois is thinking of them. We offer them our full support and our thoughts.

We are nearing the day's end, and much has been said. As a final point, I would like to talk about dependence. We have been talking all day about dependence on oil, fossil fuels and cars. I was wondering how I could contribute to this debate. As members know, I always try to be constructive. It occurred to me that not much has been said today about the second type of dependence, or addiction, which is a very serious disease in Canada. I am talking about addiction to oil money within the public sector.

The reality is that if we were not so addicted to oil money, if certain provinces were not so addicted to oil money to be able to deliver quality public services, if certain political parties were not so addicted to oil money and the oil lobby in order to function, if the Canadian government was not so addicted to the oil money it collects through corporate income tax, if there had not been so much development in the banking sector, which has grown significantly in Calgary in recent years, we would not be where we are today.

However, we are in a situation where it always seems like the transition will be extremely costly because we need oil money so badly. There are many examples of this, and it is serious. This short-term, short-sighted attitude is serious. In the good years when the price of a barrel of oil is high, above $100, provinces like Alberta have made the choice to live solely off oil. For example, they had very low income tax rates for individuals, at 10%, with one level of tax administration.

Some provinces have no sales tax. They complain about the carbon tax, but they do not have a provincial sales tax. These provinces are extremely dependent on fossil fuel royalties. Accordingly, when there is a market low, these provinces are very hard hit and want to continue producing more oil, even if it brings in little profit. When the market is strong, the provinces want to rake in surpluses. That is why these provinces are against any kind of transition.

I will read some quotes that indicate how far we are from the transition. I am quoting politicians. The first is from May 2023. The politician in question said, “we don't want to see actual production cuts as an effort to achieve emissions reduction. So let's be very clear: we're not going to be endorsing production cuts”.

That is goes completely against the recommendations for the transition of the International Energy Agency and the IPCC report.

This same politician said, “As we engage in more and more work to effectively reduce emissions, there's likely room for production to increase”. Rachel Notley of the NDP in Alberta said this during the election campaign. That shows just how deeply rooted the problem is.

We know that the current leader of the federal NDP was at odds with Ms. Notley in that regard at some point. We have to give him that. We must be honest. The leader of the NDP in Alberta finally said that she disagreed with the current NDP leader and that they would produce more oil.

This did not stop the federal NDP from supporting the Alberta NDP, going door-knocking with them and being pleased that they were elected in Calgary and Edmonton. The day after the election, their parliamentary leader was ecstatic to see that this oil and gas party got tons of seats in Calgary and Edmonton, in violation of the rules of the House in the middle of question period. We could hear chants of “Calgary” and “Edmonton” in the House. Next we might have seen them stand up and shout that they too were oil and gas people, just less transparent about it.

Ms. Notley said in 2023 that she disagrees with the idea that we should not partner with oil and gas companies when they are in a position to have such significant weight in our economy. Imagine the addiction. She says she disagrees that we should get out of oil, which contributes so much not only to Alberta's economy, but also to Canada's. That is where we are. When left-wing parties are in favour of oil and gas in the west, then it should come as no surprise that we are having a hard time advancing the idea of the transition.

We therefore have the International Energy Agency saying that there is no need for new oil and gas projects and we should not develop any. We have a government with an environmentalist for Minister of Environment . I sincerely believe he is an environmentalist, but Canada's sick addiction to oil money is so deeply entrenched that he has no other choice but to give in and agree to Bay du Nord and its 3 billion barrels of oil.

The Prime Minister promised trees during the election campaign. He promised to plant about two trees for each new barrel of oil he authorized. That gives us an idea of the number of barrels he is allowing for.

Jean Chrétien, at the time, said that if he had given as much money to Quebec as to the tar sands, he would have won every Quebec seat. This mentality is ingrained in the Liberal Party. Let us take Trans Mountain as an example.

There is something called the sunk cost fallacy. It is a cognitive bias, a situation where so much energy and money have been poured into something that does not work that people keep pouring money into it. They feel so bad about investing in a project that does not work that they keep investing. For some, it is their relationship as a couple. For the Liberals, it is their relationship with the oil in Trans Mountain. At first it was $7 billion, and then it was $9 billion, and then it was $13 billion, and now it is $30 billion. That is what the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North told us earlier. It is going to go up to $40 billion, $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion. He is telling us to just be patient until they realize that it is a bad infrastructure investment. People have to own up to their mistakes.

That is Canada, because we have parties that always think in the short term.

I have a message for the Conservatives, who have the shortest-term view of the bunch. Unlike the NDP, who voted today for a budget that contains $25 billion in oil subsidies and are not ashamed to say that they were proud to do so, the Conservatives are at least honest. They talk about the cost of living and about the carbon tax. They talk about people struggling to make ends meet.

I would like them to know that, according to the people at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who are not environmental extremists, Canadians lost $3.1 billion in insurable property in 2022 because of weather events and all the natural consequences of global warming. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that the amount will increase going forward. Who pays for that? It is their constituents, the citizens, the people who go to the gas station and pay the carbon tax. In Fort McMurray, the recent fires caused $3.58 billion in damage. It is the most expensive disaster in Canadian history.

I believe that the Conservatives want the best for people, but I think they are only thinking as far as tomorrow morning. They are not thinking about next year, 10 years from now, 15 years from now or future generations. I think they are good people who have the potential to open their eyes, to try to be less short-sighted, to think about future generations and to realize that every additional step towards more extraction is another step towards a huge liability that they will pass on to future generations.

I respectfully encourage them to take a constructive look at the motion we moved today. We did it for our children and for theirs.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel seems to be extremely concerned about what is happening with the NDP in Alberta. I find that really interesting.

I would like to bring his attention back to the environment and to what is happening in Mirabel, more specifically in Kanesatake, where, for years, there has been an illegal dump. Foul-smelling, toxic water is leaking from that dump, and it is having a real impact on people's health.

Residents of Kanesatake recently organized a press conference to denounce the ping-pong game between Ottawa and Quebec on this issue. Many MPs were invited to participate. Both levels of government keep passing the buck, and the problem in my colleague's riding is not being resolved.

I attended that press conference, as did the deputy leader of the Green Party. The member for Mirabel was invited, but he refused to attend. Why?