Debates of Nov. 5th, 2024

Public Accounts

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question about the environment. About three or four years ago, the government signed an agreement with the City of Montreal to continue to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway.

If the government cares about the environment and is so focused on emissions, what about having clean waters and clean waterways down in the St. Lawrence? How can they continue to allow the City of Montreal to dump raw sewage? How does that help our environment? That agreement is signed for another 20 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, imagine if we had a Stephen Harper government that had invested in infrastructure in the same fashion that we have invested in infrastructure. Montreal might not have to do that dumping and the property taxpayers of Montreal may not have seen the same increase in taxes they have seen.

At the end of the day, as we continue to invest in infrastructure, including building better water treatment facilities across the country, the Conservatives' track record on infrastructure has been dismal. Ultimately, they also have to take some of the responsibility for a lot of the things that we are experiencing today, because they refused to take action back then, when action was necessary. Infrastructure was not just created when we came into government. We have invested in infrastructure like no other government before us, in terms of real dollars, but I can say that the biggest disappointment on infrastructure was likely Stephen Harper. By the way, the member's current party leader was in that cabinet and was parliamentary secretary to the prime minister at the time.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are gathered today to talk about a report that I found very interesting when it was tabled more than two and a half years ago, in 2022. It was studied at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Unfortunately, I would have preferred that we discuss a more recent report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, because things have changed, and not always for the better.

Let us take a look at what the report said.

The report states, “Canada has failed to translate these commitments into real reductions in net emissions. Instead, Canada's emissions have continued to rise. Meanwhile, the global climate crisis has gotten worse.” That has not changed. Everyone agrees that that was the case in 2022 and it still is today. The report adds that the country's greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions “have increased since the Paris Agreement was signed, making it the worst performing of all G7 nations since the 2015 Conference.” That is the overall picture painted by the report tabled by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Now let us look more specifically at the various lessons contained in this report.

First, it talks about the need for “stronger leadership and coordination” to end polarization on environmental issues and ensure a degree of consistency. Clearly, this has not been done.

Second, the Canadian economy remains dependent on sectors that emit a great deal of greenhouse gases, such as the oil sector. I do not want Alberta members to jump all over me—we already hear enough from their premier. Canada is an oil country, and thus a polluting country on a global scale. The commissioner stated in his report that “Canada's economy is still dependent on emission-intensive sectors”.

In its strategy to combat climate change, the Liberal government provided a green support during the pandemic to help oil and gas companies make their operations more environmentally friendly. However, according to Environmental Defence Canada, the federal government awarded over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry in 2020 alone. After the pandemic, despite the assistance for the transition, the oil and gas sector continued to collect subsidies. The result is that the sector's emissions continued to rise. I will return to this.

The third lesson we learned is that “adaptation must be prioritized”. If we eventually realize that the fight against climate change and mitigation measures are not working because of a failure to impose a carbon tax or to ensure that the highest-emitting industries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, we must resign ourselves to this fact and turn toward climate change adaptation policies. This is indeed a must.

To that end, Ottawa will have to stop collecting all the money without redistributing it intelligently and will have to give the money to the municipalities, because in many respects it is they who will incur the costs of climate change in dealing with new floods, water and resource treatment or management, increasingly severe storms that will destroy municipal infrastructures, and so on. They will need help. In fact, the Union des municipalités du Québec released a report indicating that the climate change expenses municipalities incur will go up by 12%.

The fourth lesson is that “Canada risks falling behind other countries on investing in a climate-resilient future”. I think we can drop the word “risks” here. Perhaps that was the case in 2022, but today Canada does not risk falling behind other countries. It already has. It is perfectly clear. Canada is a G7 laggard and everyone knows it.

The fifth lesson is about “increasing public awareness”. The public must be made more aware of the fight, but also of the adaptations needed to deal with climate change. Not much was done. Among the few measures taken, there is one that is so absurd that I feel the need to point it out to the House. A provincial minister paid a gas-powered truck to drive 24-7 to protest the cap proposed by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Members will soon find out which province I am referring to, because instead of funding her province's education system and rebuilding Jasper, the premier paid a truck to come here to Ottawa to burn gas just to say we should stop putting caps on things, that we should continue to emit GHGs, that it is important and that polluting the planet is a constitutional right.

It is absolutely ridiculous, I must say. How can Albertans allow their premier to do things like that instead of looking after her people?

The sixth lesson is that “climate targets have not been backed by strong plans or actions”. That has not changed, either. As far back as 2009, G20 countries, including Canada, agreed to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, we are still waiting for information about how this commitment will be put into practice. We got amazing commitments in 2009, and the it was radio silence until yesterday, when the minister finally made a somewhat controversial announcement. I will get back to that later.

The seventh lesson is that “enhanced collaboration among all actors is needed”. This is nothing new, and I cannot say that there has been any improvement there either. If the federal government is to finally understand that there are provincial and municipal jurisdictions, it must begin by acknowledging that it should not collect all the money and redistribute it in the provinces' jurisdictions with strings attached. That is not how that works. The government needs to start working with the provinces and Quebec and with the municipalities to give them back the money owed them. Municipalities must be able to do what they need to do without strings attached.

The eighth lesson learned from the report refers to an “intergenerational crisis”. We have heard that term a lot lately. People talk about intergenerational equity. As a young mother, I really wonder what kind of a planet we will be leaving to our children. There is a question of responsibility here. Our responsibility is to care for our seniors and think about the future. One does not preclude the other. We can help seniors by increasing OAS and stop subsidizing the oil industry at the same time. It is a win-win situation. We are helping future generations as well as seniors: a miracle solution, apparently.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced that he wanted to put a cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector. I applaud the initiative. I think it was a long time coming. It was addressed by the G20 countries in 2009. However, we are basically continuing to subsidize an industry, hoping that it will change, hoping that it will adopt greener technologies. We have finally come to realize that emissions do not decrease by themselves and that we need to stop giving the oil and gas industry subsidies. They make enormous profits. Finally, they themselves need to change to ensure a green and equitable transition.

Equiterre was at the committee meetings where we discussed the report. We invited the organization, which was consulted by the commissioner for sustainable development. Its representative, Mr. Viau, told me at the time that we had to wean ourselves from our economic dependence on the oil and gas sector and make a fair and equitable transition. In particular, he mentioned that he was afraid that Canada would put all its eggs in one basket and invest in carbon storage. I think he can predict the future. In 2022, he knew very well that Canada would opt for this bogus solution to give the oil and gas industry a reason to keep polluting.

The answer we recently got from some of the provinces is frankly shameful. How can anyone look in the mirror and say that they want to continue polluting the planet? Seriously, how can a person like that sleep at night? Are they thinking at all about other people?

Let us talk about the Constitution. Those who say that this type of thing is anti-constitutional are wearing blinders. We are talking about climate change. Climate change has no borders. Here is a tip for those people who do not understand how things work. A tonne emitted here will have the same impact here as in China, France and everywhere else. The same applies to a tonne emitted in China. It is everyone's business.

The responsibility for climate change is an individual one. Just because a country has an oil industry and is sitting on reserves of black gold does not mean that it is relieved of that responsibility. We really need to look at what we are doing not only as citizens, but as legislators as well. We have a responsibility to future generations.

Let us talk a bit about what was said. Let us talk about the reactions to the cap on emissions in the oil and gas industry and the fantastic slogan. Frankly, there is not much difference between “axe the tax” and “scrap the cap”. It is a different version of the same thing. It is really shameful. Anyone who uses facile slogans thinks people are stupid. Anyone who uses facile, three-word slogans is saying that people do not understand the subtleties of climate change. It is shameful.

We know that the costs associated with climate change are enormous, so this is a matter of responsibility and intergenerational fairness. The studies and the economists are unanimous. Yes, we still need oil, but that is because we still have not come up with a real plan to wean ourselves off the oil and gas industry.

Quebec is leading the pack at this. I could go on and on about how well the cap-and-trade system has worked. We have reduced our per capita emissions. Our reductions are far and away the best in Canada. It would be a big problem if a country were to institute an entry tariff to offset its emissions. There is no risk that such a thing would happen in the United States, but the European Union is considering this option very seriously as a way to avoid importing goods from heavily polluting countries. If that type of policy is put in place, Canada will really be a problem, and Quebec will have one more reason to leave Canada once and for all, not that we need another.

According to a study commissioned by the Union des municipalités du Québec and carried out by WSP and Ouranos, it will cost Quebec municipalities at least $2 billion more per year. That is what I was talking about earlier. Their total spending for adapting their infrastructure to climate change will increase by 12%.

Let us just talk costs. Since 2010, the costs of weather-related disasters have amounted to 5% to 6% of Canada's annual GDP growth, up from an average of 1% in previous decades. A report by the Canadian Climate Institute titled “Damage Control: Reducing the Costs of Climate Impacts in Canada” estimates that by 2030, Canada could experience annual losses of $35 billion in real GDP. Speaking of GDP, the real GDP losses due to climate change are in the tens of billions of dollars.

I myself worked on an Ouranos study commissioned by the Quebec government. The Quebec government had asked us to calculate the cost of climate change. That was just before the Paris accord. This was in a past life, about 10 years ago, but we are still in the same dynamic because not much has changed. The costs and sectors that were analyzed were things that we may not think about every day.

Of the two major sectors, health and infrastructure, let us look at health. Heat waves are becoming increasingly common because of climate change, and they mostly affect seniors. Every year, people die as a result of heat waves. Long-term care homes still have not been adapted to address this issue. There are still major issues with air conditioning in some places. No adaptations have been offered for seniors aging at home. They are paying the price.

Then there are zoonotic diseases, which are transmitted by vectors that are spreading because of climate change. One example is the West Nile virus, which is transmitted by mosquitoes. Because of climate change, mosquitoes now arrive earlier in the year and leave later. They are also moving northward. Since they carry the West Nile virus, in some cases, the disease is spreading more widely. Another example is Lyme disease, which is increasingly occurring in Quebec. That is because of climate change.

Lyme disease is spreading because temperatures are rising and carriers are moving northward more and more. We were not really prepared to recognize the symptoms of Lyme disease, because it is a new disease for people living further north in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Lastly, there are allergies, which are also costing the public more and more. When people suffer from severe allergies, they are less productive.

Now let us turn to infrastructure. I do not think there are many people in the House who can say that they have not seen more flooding. Extreme weather events have increased and are very costly. Look at what is happening in Valencia, Spain. It is a disaster. Officials are still searching for bodies after the city was hit by torrential rains. Closer to home, Quebec also experienced torrential rains the night of August 9 that caused a lot of costly damage. We do not know what the insurance companies are going to do about the tens of thousands of vehicles that were lost and the houses that flooded. This is costly. It costs money, and it is something we can see with our own eyes. These events are going to get even more frequent.

Then there is shoreline erosion due to rising water levels. We are going to see more erosion and have more roads, houses and people to relocate. That costs money.

Lastly, there is the permafrost. For the first nations living in places where the ground is normally frozen, climate change is causing the ground to thaw, and their houses have to be completely rebuilt because they are falling down. We know how big a problem housing already is on some reserves and in some places where first nations people live. Climate change is only making the problem worse. We still hear people saying that it is unconstitutional to think about the future of Quebeckers and Canadians. I cannot understand that.

We have come to realize that, despite its grand promises and the good intentions of some of its ministers, who I believe are sincere, the Liberal government still has not managed to do much. The carbon tax will unfortunately be an election issue, not so much in Quebec, but in the rest of Canada. It is a shame, because it should be obvious when we look at Quebec, which has a cap-and-trade system that is working. Has Quebec performed less well economically? The answer is no. On the contrary, before the pandemic, Quebec had the highest growth rate in Canada, even with a cap-and-trade system.

Greenhouse gas emissions can be delinked from the economy. Carbon emissions and economic growth can be decoupled. That is what is known as absolute decoupling. Quebec and France have both shown that it is possible, but Canada is very far off. The Liberals promise the sun and moon but never keep their promises, while some Conservatives do not even believe in climate change and think we should continue to pollute. They look in the mirror and tell themselves they have the right to pollute. Things are looking pretty grim.

All I can hope for, especially when it comes to the environment, is that Quebec gains its independence once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I think of the energy needs of Canada going into the future, I cannot help but reflect on how we can use greener policies. With Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord, we can think of the power generation potential from using our coastlines, the billions of dollars of investment that would be attracted to that and the thousands of jobs, which would be of great benefit to Atlantic Canada. However, I do not quite understand why the Bloc voted against the Atlantic accord. We talk about reducing emissions, and I would suggest that this is one of the ways we can achieve net zero by 2050.

Can the member explain why the Bloc opposed Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I hear the word “Atlantic”, I think of Bay du Nord. I think about the fact that the government sometimes alters the boundaries of marine reserves to allow oil exploration and drilling to take place there. When I hear the word “Atlantic”, I think about the financial assistance that Ottawa is providing for further oil exploration. When I hear the word “Atlantic”, unfortunately, I do not think “making progress in fighting climate change”. I think “backsliding”.

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

Madam Speaker, oil company heads continue to receive massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars. That was the case when the previous Conservative government was in power and it remains the case today with the Liberals in power. It makes no sense when we consider all the things we could be investing in to really change things up. For example, investing in green energy would create far more jobs.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the NDP that it is ridiculous to keep providing oil companies with billions of dollars in subsidies.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I am as outraged as he is, perhaps more, about the subsidies being given to Canada's oil and gas industry. As I mentioned, these subsidies came to about $20 billion in 2022 alone. It is absolutely ludicrous that this government cannot scrape up $5 billion a year to help seniors but continues to hand over $20 billion to the oil and gas industry, which is making exorbitant profits at the expense of future generations. I think that is an utter disgrace.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on her excellent speech, which was very clear and included some very insightful points. A few times, she brought up a very important issue, namely local infrastructure. We see billions of dollars being handed to oil companies, which will use these subsidies to continue polluting. We also see what is going on in the municipalities. The member referenced the floods in August. Berthier—Maskinongé was hit very hard. The vast majority of our municipalities suffered severe damage. This calls for investments, so the government needs to free up the money and decentralize it.

Does my colleague think this is a good idea? How can we ensure that it is truly decentralized and paid out with no strings attached? The people who know what needs to be done are the mayors, not the paternalistic Canadian government.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which actually gives me the opportunity to point out that, although the federal government touted its recent budget measures aimed at helping municipalities, that funding comes with strings attached. For example, it said that it wanted certain funds to be used for water treatment, but municipalities may have other needs, unfortunately.

The federal government's obsession with centralizing everything and thinking that, ensconced in its ivory tower, it knows better than mayors what their municipalities need is completely crazy. Basically, what the federal government needs to do is stop centralizing everything. Unfortunately, it collects way too much money, and it needs to give that money back to Quebec and the municipalities so they can really fight climate change.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I often agree with my hon. colleague, and I recall what we witnessed when the environment commissioner presented to our committee, of which I am a former member, sadly.

This report in particular was highlighted because there was an attempt to break the consensus on the science around climate change and the impacts of climate change. That is why the commissioner came out with it. There are no recommendations according to the report, but there are some “lessons learned”. Here are three that I would like the member to comment on: “Climate change is an intergenerational crisis with a rapidly closing window for action”, “Climate targets have not been backed by strong plans or actions” and “Canada risks falling behind other countries on investing in a climate-resilient future”.

What is the member's message to young people who are right now feeling despair and apathy from the lack of action by the government on this serious issue?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I really miss seeing him on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. His successor is fantastic, but I think the member for Edmonton Griesbach and I did great teamwork together.

Concerning his question about the three lessons learned that he mentioned, I touched on them a little in my speech, but I am going to focus primarily on the lesson learned about the intergenerational crisis that climate change is causing. I mentioned it in my speech, but, as I see it, it is essential that we, as legislators, take responsibility and reflect on the future and on young people, who feel concerned and anxious over climate change.

I want them to know that I am deeply sorry. I would really like their votes to count, maybe even more than other votes. At the very least, they should go and vote. Voting is really important because we desperately need a government that will make the environment a priority once and for all. If that is not possible, I encourage young Quebeckers to keep on rallying around the Quebec sovereignty movement.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, silence sometimes speaks louder than words. So far in this debate, we have not heard any official opposition members comment on my colleague's speech. However, they always have a lot to say when we are talking about oil.

Why does my hon. colleague from Terrebonne think they are staying silent?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a sign of either a total lack of interest in climate change, at best, or utter contempt for the issue, at worst. Perhaps the official opposition's general sentiment is a reflection of the fact that they are in denial. It is really unfortunate, because I would have liked to continue educating them on the subject.

The course I teach at the Paris School of Economics, which deals with integrating environmental and social issues into economic analysis, could be very useful to them.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is a simple one. The government has a terrible record. Of course, it is one of the worst in the OECD when it comes to reducing GHG emissions. It has not hit an international target yet.

Why does the Bloc Québécois vote with this party over and over again and keep these members in government, destroying our economy along with them?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my esteemed colleague, whom I appreciate, may not have been following the news.

The Bloc Québécois is prepared to bring down the government and to trigger an election. In our opinion, however, and this needs to be said, a Conservative government would be no improvement, especially when it comes to environmental matters. We think it would be a disaster.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for what is a very important debate on the climate crisis that everyone across the globe is facing. We share this planet. We share a future. Our children, of course, will have to share the consequences of decisions made in this place, but also decisions made in all of our lives. In this report, the environment commissioner has made it very clear that we are approaching a detrimental future. I would like to quote from the report. It states:

Despite commitments from government after government to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the past 3 decades, Canada has failed to translate these commitments into real reductions in net emissions. Instead, Canada’s emissions have continued to rise. Meanwhile, the global climate crisis has gotten worse.

This is a serious warning from the independent commissioner of the environment for our country. Canada is one of the largest countries in the world. If the climate crisis is one that impacts land, we are to be greatly impacted. In the north Arctic regions, we see issues of melting ice that are dramatically impacting the ecosystems there, making it so that generations of Canadians may no longer ever get to see a polar bear. Right now, indigenous hunters are in the season of trying to find moose in my part of the country and they are finding it more difficult to because of the rapidly changing environment. People in urban centres have been choked by smoke at increasing rates, something that generations before had not experienced.

I hope this question unites all of us as colleagues: What do we do about this rising concern? What I have heard from the Liberals is that things are fine. Meanwhile, a planet is on fire. They are giving billions of dollars to oil resource companies and most of them are foreign owned. That is in addition to a Conservative Party that wants to wield power, and is using the climate crisis and the rejection of the science as a way to get there.

New Democrats are often found in this tough position of being brokers of a better morality in this place and I hope a better future for all of us. We pose that question in the hopes of an optimistic reality or future and I think, given the circumstances of all of us being in the same place, if we could put aside our partisan differences, this would be one of the issues we would do it for. That is my greatest hope in this debate. I think Canadians will continue to judge us on the remarks we make in this place for many generations to come.

There will be a moment in our history when our children look back at the transcripts of when we debated these things, including today. Everything that we say will be quoted by generations in the future. That could be generations who are suffering from the reality of an impacted climate in which they cannot breathe, cannot find clean water or are having difficulty paying for food because the cost of living would increase so greatly. This is because of the mysterious but very present reality of the impacts of climate change that continue to unfold in front of our eyes. We still have not even faced the greatest consequences of this immense challenge.

On top of all this is the question of affordability. There seems to be a conflation in our country, brought on largely by partisan politics that are trying to achieve an environment and a future with low emissions, simultaneous to a healthy environment, clean water and honouring the treaties we have made with indigenous people to protect this place. There are also the very real and tough discussions around how we can create and protect good jobs, and how we make certain that Canadians continue to put food on the table.

People, particularly in Alberta, and particularly Conservative politicians, are attempting to put people at odds with one another on this question. They attempt to put at odds a worker's future to bring in a paycheque, with the fact that if they do agree with climate change, they are going to impact their own industry. This kind of false dichotomy hurts workers, and it hurts our children most.

I am a former oil and gas worker, and I know this sector very well. I grew up in the northeast part of Alberta working in the Cold Lake oil sands. I know exactly what it is like try to get a paycheque to feed a family. I know how difficult it is for thousands of northern Alberta workers, thousands of indigenous people, and, of course, our children who are asking questions of when or if we will stop, and whether or not their future is truly worth it. This is an area where workers have to take a central role. Workers' jobs and their livelihoods need to be protected. It is very clear. This is the most important priority in this work.

If we are to truly address the climate crisis, we have to address a few major topics related to this crisis. My number one point today will be on the financialization of natural resources, publicly owned resources, of megacorporations that are depriving Canadians the opportunity for a better future and, of course, better jobs. The question I want answered is: Who is benefiting from the extreme fossil fuel development in Canada?

In Alberta, at one point, we had a very noble premier, I think one of the most popular ever, and his name was Peter Lougheed. Peter Lougheed created Crown corporations. When Texaco came to Alberta and threatened Albertans by saying it would pull out all of its assets if Albertans did not let it absolutely destroy everything it wanted without having to clean it up, he said no, Albertans would do it themselves. He created some of the lasting Crown corporations we still have today.

Unfortunately, consecutive Conservative governments would sell off those oil companies. Even worse, at the federal level, we saw Stephen Harper green-light the largest purchasing of a foreign state-owned entity of a Canadian asset, which is the Canadian natural resources takeover by Chinese-owned Nexen, green-lit by Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

The question is: Who is actually benefiting from our oil production? It is certainly not the rural communities that have much of the development in their backyard. I know that from experience. My dad, a worker in the oil sector, died. He got killed on a lease site because of the lack of safety or concern by some of these oil companies. We see municipalities in Alberta still today being deprived of basic taxation. I am a Canadian taxpayer and, as my colleagues in the chamber would know, if I do not pay my taxes, I get a phone call from the CRA and it makes sure I pay. Those penalties are swift, brutal and severe. However, an oil company in Canada, not even owned by Canadians, gets a pass in Alberta. It gets a pass on surface taxes that are owed and the dues paid to rural municipalities.

If I had the opportunity to canvass my colleagues, I would ask whether anyone knows the amount of unpaid taxes and tax liability owed to Canadian municipalities. Whether it is the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement; St. Paul, Alberta; Two Hills; High River; Paddle Prairie; or even larger municipal centres like Grande Prairie, we are seeing huge debts building up because the oil companies do not want to pay their fair share. They owe a quarter of a billion dollars in unpaid municipal property taxes to date.

Guess what a quarter of a billion dollars could have gotten those rural municipalities? It probably could have gotten them better roads and better municipal services. They could have maybe held a festival or a fair. They could have even tried to challenge the very real reality that is facing municipalities when it comes to homelessness. However, instead of those resources being paid by oil companies going to municipalities that desperately need them in our small rural communities in Canada, that money is being pocketed by oil barons and CEOs who have made record profits.

I want to back up a second. In Canada, we often talk about the oil sector as if it is in great need of Canadian support and more financialized public dollars when they are making the largest profits they have ever made in their entire history, in an oil boom that is unseen and unmatched. The fact that these companies, in addition to making record profits, are unwilling to invest that money back into communities is a shame. Worse yet, they are taking first nations to court and, on top of that, not even helping workers.

l will give an example. In Alberta, the Labour Relations Board held a hearing alleging unfair labour practices by a company enjoying the fruits of massively profitable oil and gas products. The president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 said, “They’re asking for concessions when [the oil and gas sector] is making record profits—we’re not going to take a $7 rollback when inflation is at six per cent.” That is a shocking reality. If people talked to workers, they would find that some of these companies are attempting to reduce wages. People who make less than $20 an hour were asked to take a $7 rollback. When those workers said no, that they deserved a fair share from the labour that they were doing on behalf of this country, the company fired them. Can colleagues imagine? It is shameful that the company would fire every single person at that camp because they would not accept a $7 cut in their wages on top of the fact that inflation is at 6%.

Are first nations being served by these massively foreign-owned oil companies that were sold off by Stephen Harper? No, they are not either. We are seeing some of the worst environmental catastrophes in Canada's history taking place right now. For example, in Fort McMurray, the 2016 wildfire cost us $9 billion in direct and indirect financial, physical health and environmental impacts, including being a regional hub for first nations. Many families are still reeling from this. The first nations then lacked the important goods and services that they relied on. Moreover, 80% of majority indigenous communities in Canada are located in fire-prone regions. This is something we have to consider as we plan our future.

We know that, between 1980 and 2021, 16 communities in Canada were evacuated five or more times. All but two of those were first nation reserves. This is a serious situation that is being faced annually, predictably, by community members, whether we are in a rural municipality or a first nation, including workers. They are just not working for regular working Canadians.

We have the largest profits in this sector that we have ever seen, but we are seeing the worst outcomes on our streets. In the last three years, we have had the highest price of oil that we have seen in many decades. We would think that if we saw high oil prices, we would see huge investments in new jobs, hospitals, roads and social services. However, we are not seeing that. What we are seeing is that the companies, rather than investing in production in Canada, are at a time when they must pay out their shareholders. They have admitted this; the six major oil companies have all said that. All of their profits are being paid out to the shareholders, many of whom are foreign shareholders, no longer Canadian. It is a shame.

The Liberals have made this even worse. On top of the fact that we have this major profitable oil sector that is not giving good jobs, increasing wages for our workers, cleaning up the mess it is making in first nations communities or paying its taxes, the Liberals are giving it billions of public dollars. The billions of dollars given to a profitable sector could otherwise go to health care, housing or an enhanced employment insurance program. It could otherwise be invested in helping support a diversified economy. We need jobs in our country, but we also need jobs with companies that pay well; that are not going to give us a $7 rollback when they do not need us anymore; that are not going to say “too bad, so sad”, but they will not pay municipal taxes to our little community so that we can have a seniors bus; and that will not say no to cleaning up the mess when they pollute huge water reserves.

What do we say to companies that say this to Canadians, that are bullying Canadians out of $7 an hour or out of taxation amounts that would be used for supports in their municipality, in their little village or hamlet? What do we say when they tell first nations they will go to court rather than discuss their rights? These are all facts related to this very problematic industry.

It is true that workers have to be put first in this process, which is why the Alberta Federation of Labour, for example, has proposed an industrial strategy. As a country, during the post-World War II era, Canada had to learn how to retool our economy following war. When we had to fight fascism overseas in Europe, we retooled our economy. By the way, we still have to fight fascism today; its evils persist across our country and across the globe, and we must continue to fight. However, we planned our economy. How did we do it? We raised the largest merchant navy on the globe. Canadians did that.

Remembrance Day will be here soon. It is time for us to remember that. As Canadians, a small little country, we raised the largest merchant navy on the globe.

Right here at home, the governments of our country worked together. They built hundreds of Crown corporations and put every single man and woman to work in our country. We produced stuff. We built factories. We invented stuff the world had never seen before. Canadians did this because we had planned properly for the kinds of needs that our economy had to meet. Right now, our economy does not need to make more profits for billionaires.

Our economy needs to return value to every working person in this country. In doing so, we must fight the climate crisis and unfair labour practices. We must protect the rights of first nations communities to see their lands and their resources developed in a way they see fit, which includes the right to say no.

It is important that, as we think about the climate crisis, we speak to young people right across this country who are demanding justice. They are right behind us. If we do not speak to young people today, right now, we will suffer their anger. We will rightly suffer their accusation of inaction. We will greatly betray a generation that is yet to come because we did not act sooner and, as honourable members of the House, could not put aside our partisan differences to see what is a national challenge ahead of us. This challenge will take every single one of our children's breath if we do not act. It will take their future from them.

I would argue and suggest that we must endeavour to look at all solutions at this time. Solutions proposed by all hon. members in the face of this crisis are needed; they are worth debate in this place and, even better, implementation. We have to have hope.

I have hope that we, as colleagues, can come to a position where we bring together labour, management and those most affected by the climate crisis. I hope that we bring them together in a great coalition towards ending this unjust future and that, together, we build a process that protects jobs and brings in the workers most affected. I was laid off when I was in the oil sector and things got tough. Rather than letting the many workers we have in the resource sector get laid off, we ought to work with them to make certain that workers' skills, which are the best skills on earth, are put to good use. They should not just be getting and fighting for a good paycheque but also fighting for our future, for their kids and for all of us.

That is what workers want. Workers want to be part of the solution. They do not want to be part of the problem. Right now, we have companies that are controlling, exclusively, the labour that is greatly needed to transition to a diversified economy that would create future jobs for everyone. What I mean by this is that we need these companies to see the workers they employ just as I see them, as the key and solution to having better paycheques, to having a better economy and to combatting the climate crisis.

We need to do the work of making certain that we have the best skills; I believe my province has them, and a lot of hon. members in the chamber may say the same thing. I deeply believe that Alberta has the best labour force around the globe. We have the skills, the technology and the training. Precision drillers, for example, drilled many of the wells right across the province to make certain that homes are heated.

However, times are changing. It is time for such groups as precision drillers to expand their work, to use the skills they have gained over the course of history and the production of oil toward the production of new, innovative technologies. These will bring wealth, prosperity and good, stable jobs to Canada.

That is the power of our labour in Canada. We can build that future. We can build that reality. We owe it to our children, to workers and to each other in this place to treat each other with more dignity when it comes to a very serious challenge that every single one of us is facing.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that very impressive speech. I share his views.

We are sitting here and debating this because the opposition is feigning concern for the climate crisis and for what is happening. I am very curious as to why the NDP is continuing to allow this filibuster to continue, and I wonder why it continues to support the Conservative Party and what that party is doing to actually prevent us from moving forward and taking real action on issues such as Bill C-73. I am sure the member would agree with me that this is an incredibly important bill to fight climate change and to protect our environment. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to consider that fact very seriously. The reality Canadians are facing right now is that our House of Commons is deadlocked, meaning that solutions such as those for the climate crisis cannot come to the floor. That is a shame, but what is a greater shame is the fact that we have a very serious motion relating to the breach of the privilege of parliamentarians.

The majority of the House of Commons has come together and said that we must release documents pertaining to the very severe and extreme instance reported by the Auditor General of the breach of trust by SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. When a breach of trust takes place by one of our colleagues, particularly in the House, we must seriously consider what will relieve that breach of trust. The Conservatives brought forward a motion seeking to remedy that serious breach of privilege, with which I agree. I was the member who studied SDTC on behalf of New Democrats, and both the issue and the condemnation of it have been severe.

I agree with my fellow party members and the House of Commons, including the Bloc Québécois, that we should unite towards the release of these documents, which will give light and transparency to the reality of what happened. However, I take full note of the member's concern about the delay in the House.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the member on public accounts. I too am an alumnus of the public accounts committee. My question, though, is really designed to educate the electorate as we get nearer to an election.

We have seen that those on the other side of the aisle are quite strongly for the carbon tax. In fact, they want to quadruple it, despite its limited impact on GHG gases and the negative impact on the economy. We are clearly against the tax. We want to axe the tax. The NDP has been less clear.

Could the member be unequivocal and say whether the federal New Democratic Party supports a consumer carbon tax, yes or no?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my unequivocal answer is that, yes, of course we support a consumer price on pollution. How the Liberals have done it, though, has been to divide the country. For example, we just recently saw a carbon exemption for the eastern provinces. What does that mean for the western provinces and other provinces? It means that they have citizens who are concerned about the unfair application of what was supposed to be a unifying process for the country.

I agree that we need to have a different process for carbon pricing. I believe that is a serious solution to a serious problem. However, we have to make more certain that those who pay should be those who pollute. The Liberals got that wrong.

Let us assume the better nature of the Liberals here and that they wanted to do the right thing in this case. What they did was to flip-flop on their own policy, which is something they accuse everybody else of. The Liberals have broken the consumer pricing mechanism in Canada on carbon prices.

As my hon. colleague knows, Erin O'Toole ran on a carbon price as well. Therefore, I would ask the same question, but I am confused about whether he agrees with his own platform or if he agrees with the statements he has been making in the House.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an amazing speech, as always. Everybody is talking about the workers in the oil and gas sector. I really appreciated what you shared, both from your personal experience working in the sector and the impacts it had on your life with your father. You spoke a lot about how both Conservatives and Liberals are letting the big polluters off the hook around not paying taxes. Everybody talks about the taxpayers, yet we know that both the Liberals and Conservatives are letting their corporate buddies off the hook.

What impact does this have on the communities most affected by oil development?

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

I want to remind the hon. member to refrain from using “you” or speaking directly to the members, rather than through the Chair.

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre is a stalwart for residential school survivors; she is championing a very important bill to deal with denialism. She also champions the very real impacts faced by indigenous communities in resource development areas, particularly the direct connection with women. The impacts of resource development on women are often very harmful.

In relation to the impacts that are made by the lack of payment by these oil corporations to rural municipalities, we cannot actually finance or address serious issues such as the violence faced by women who are living around a resource development sector. We can imagine solutions in little communities. Even in Fort McMurray, there is a women's centre that has proposals to support women in that community to recover from what are higher rates of domestic violence and sexual assault than found in almost any other region. That member sat at the committee for women, which studied that very important finding. Such organizations could be supported if these oil companies paid their fair share and paid their taxes like everybody else.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague delivered an excellent speech.

To begin, I would like to read him a passage from the report stating that the country's greenhouse gas emissions “have increased since the Paris Agreement was signed, making it the worst performing of all G7 nations since the 2015 Conference”.

I think that there is an interesting precedent that a standing committee of the House of Commons can expressly state this in its report.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. Does he think it is a good idea? Is he proud? Is he ashamed? How can we remedy the situation for the future of our next generations?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we failed a whole generation. We signed the Paris accord a long time ago and the Kyoto accord. So many accords have been signed, giving hope to a generation that maybe the biodiversity that so many generations have experienced, with the beautiful air, the clean water, the immaculate forests and the right to live, would continue into the future.

What we are seeing now is a catastrophic reality. We are seeing the highest rate of extinction of species, which is simultaneous to the loss of clean water on top of global economies feeling the pressure of a climate crisis that is not being taken seriously. From floods to wildfires, we are seeing the direct impacts today. In Fort McMurray, $9 billion in assets were lost.

I am ashamed that the government has failed to respond appropriately, both to the commitments made by the international community, our international partners, and to Canadians here at home. COP is coming up soon. It is time for Canada to get serious about the reality facing our planet and our species, and have the courage to know that as one of the largest countries on earth, we face and will face the largest impact.