44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 23, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill C-226, which was introduced by the leader of the Green Party. I believe she once again holds what I would call a historic title, one she deserves. She took a few breaks during her career and her party has taken a few breaks, but I think that everyone recognizes that the leader of the Green Party, the member from British Columbia, is the embodiment of the Green Party across Canada.
The title of the bill is an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.
I want to set the record straight right away. We are all in favour of fighting against racism. Racism is a scourge, a problem, a cancer in all societies of the world. We need to address it. We are also all striving for greater justice, a better balance and better opportunities for everyone in society. Anytime we have been in office and have had the pleasure and good fortune of honouring people's trust, we have always focused on and achieved those objectives, while recognizing that in some ways this is a never-ending battle, because we must always strive for greater justice.
We recognize that climate change exists, that it is the result of human activity, and that, for this reason, humans must invest in reducing the impact of climate change. Of course, we also recognize that the right to live in a healthy environment must exist. In fact, this is reflected in Bill S-5.
The take-away from what I just said is that we all agree on the goals: striving for less racism and more justice, addressing climate change and ensuring we live in a healthy environment. The path we are proposing to get there, however, is quite different and, from our perspective, far more realistic and responsible.
I say this because for the past eight years, the Liberals have been governing by spending a lot of time lecturing everyone about climate change. They have been insulting us at every turn, as if we have done absolutely nothing. However, under our watch, the energy sector, for one, saw greenhouse gas emissions drop by 2.2%.
The government certainly enjoys lecturing others on the environment, but what has it actually accomplished over the past eight years? The news is not good. It did not achieve its targets, except recently and only because the Canadian economy, like the global economy, slowed down during the COVID‑19 crisis. That is why emissions fell. Under their stewardship, the Liberals never managed to meet any targets whatsoever.
Need I remind anyone that they were very proud to say, back in 2018, when signing the Paris accord with 195 other countries, that Canada would be a leader?
I clearly remember the founder of Equiterre, now Minister of Environment and Climate Change, saying that he was finally proud to be Canadian because the Canadian government was going to take action. Unfortunately, the Canada of this Liberal government is not one of the 13 or 14 countries that hit the Paris targets.
It was quite a damning assessment to get during the recent COP in Egypt, which, as we know, is an ideal place to talk about climate change and bring the world together. Where did Canada rank? It is 58th out of 63 countries. The UN ranked 63 countries. After eight years under the Liberal government, what is Canada's rank? It is 58th out of 63.
In a lecture-giving contest, the Liberals would most certainly rank first. In terms of achievements, however, they are 58th out of 63. That is their record and their signature. The Conservatives—who are attacked daily by these people on the environment—are not the ones saying this. No, it is the UN, which made a neutral, objective and, above all, non-partisan scientific observation. What result has this Liberal government obtained for Canada? It is 58th out of 63.
What is their magical solution? They tax. According to them, taxation will reduce pollution. It does not work that way. Pollution has increased on their watch. The Conservatives' approach is completely different. Our approach to climate change has four basic pillars, which I will explain. The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in high-tech solutions through favourable tax policies.
The people who emit pollution know why and how they emit it, and they are the ones who can lower emissions, because the objective is always the same: to reduce pollution. It is not to meet numbers and percentages pulled out of thin air. It is to reduce pollution.
Yes, we have to reduce it. When will we achieve a great reduction? Will it be this year? What will we do on January 1? We have to continue. It is a never-ending story. A government led by the member for Carleton, a Conservative government, would address it correctly with concrete solutions based on new technology.
The second pillar is “green light to green energy”: no more red tape, no more paperwork. We are fast-tracking the green light project, green light to green energy. This is exactly what we want.
I will give the following example. The current Government of Quebec, which was re-elected with a strong majority, is pondering the possibility of creating new hydroelectric dams. If, by chance, that is what it wants to do, we will respect the Government of Quebec's will to generate electricity with new dams. Contrary to the legislation passed by the Liberals here, we will not conduct a second environmental review of the project like they want to do. We think that the experts in Quebec are capable of assessing the environmental impact. There is no basis to assume that the people in Ottawa are better than the people in Quebec, yet that is exactly what the Liberals want to do. We will use the accelerated process and will not repeat what others have already done. We will give the green light to green energy.
That brings us to the third pillar. Let us be proud of being Canadian when it comes to the environment. We have here, in our country, a considerable amount of expertise in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it comes, for example, to traditional energy, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy and wind energy. Let us be proud of being Canadian. Let us export our expertise. Let us always be the first to defend Canadian energy.
As a Quebecker, I, like everyone else, saw that a report from the school of business Hautes Études Commerciales found that, last year, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of gasoline. I do not see that as positive or negative; it is simply a statement of fact. What bothers me is that 47% of that energy comes from the United States and 53% of it comes from Canada. Canada is a producer, so why do we have to send billions of dollars to Texas and Louisiana? I have nothing against Texas and Louisiana, but I know that neither of those states contributes to equalization. I checked this morning, but perhaps things have changed since then.
Finally, the fourth pillar, which is at the core of all of this and the foundation on which everything must be built, is first nations. We need to work together with first nations to make them partners in our country's major environmental and economic prosperity projects.
About a month and a half ago, in Vancouver, our leader, the member for Carleton, launched a broad, positive consultation with first nations. That is the key to the solution. We must partner with the first nations that contribute to and approve these major environmental projects, which are needed to tackle the challenges of climate change. It has to be done in partnership with first nations.
That is why we believe that the best way to combat racism is to partner with first nations, who were subjected to racism in the past under horrible circumstances, to the great shame of our country.
Members will recall that, in June 2008, the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, acknowledged the terrible wrongs that the Canadian government had committed against first nations over the course of more than 100 years at residential schools by delivering an apology in this place. That was the right thing to do. Now, it is in the past. The future must be built on prosperity, and we must put an end to racism, which is unacceptable.
There is no clear definition of environmental racism in my colleague's bill, nor is there any mention of the economic impact that it might have. Overall, we believe in what the member is proposing. Yes, we need to fight racism; yes, we need to advance justice; yes, we need to address climate change; yes, we need to live in a healthy environment, but the path proposed by the member is not the path we believe needs to be taken. What we want are concrete, immediate, realistic and responsible solutions with a real impact on the fight against climate change.
1547 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her hard work and her abiding passion. She is the epitome of environmental activism. We do not always agree, but I welcome her contributions.
The French Revolution introduced the concepts of liberty and equality and, in its wake, started a movement in support of those concepts. Since the liberties of some groups sometimes clashed with the liberties of others, there was inevitably a reckoning around the imbalance that was created among the various parties, an imbalance that lead to inequality.
There is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to the people of Canada. Some citizens experience inequalities in their relationship with the environment. While we recognize that inequalities do exist, we cannot at this point conclude that these inequalities are attributable to race alone.
The Bloc Québécois supports the intention expressed in the title and preamble of Bill C-226, a bill that seeks to advance environmental justice. If Parliament is to pass new legislation, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject or central concept, so to speak.
The living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in—and I am thinking here of drinking water, for one—are unacceptable. Governments must live up to their responsibilities in that regard. That is why we think that the House is justified in expressing its desire to act against the environmental inequality and discrimination covered in Bill C‑226 and why we think that it should study these phenomena in greater depth in order to understand the mechanisms and explore possible solutions.
I would now like to talk about three assumptions.
The first is that, if Parliament is to pass a new law, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject and central concept, the foundation on which we build, the starting point.
Second, there is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to certain populations in Canada who are facing inequalities in their relationship with the environment.
Third, the living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in, including their access to drinking water, are unacceptable, and governments need to live up to their responsibilities.
Before I talk about environmental justice, it is important to talk about justice itself. What is justice? Although everyone talks about justice, it is not an easy concept to understand or define. Is justice equality? Is it equivalency? Is it legality? Is it equity? What is justice?
To learn about and understand a concept, there is nothing like a bit of exploration to figure out what we are talking about. The concept of comprehension is interesting in and of itself. The roots of the word are cum and prehendere, which means “grasp the whole”. Comprehending means grasping the whole.
In a debate like this, we cannot have tunnel vision or a partial vision of the whole. Equality means we are all the same. Equivalence means we are all equal. Legality implies conforming to a standard. What do we do when there are no standards? The reason for our debate today is to determine whether there will be a standard.
In the absence of guidance, what we need to strive for is equity. Equity is the fair assessment of what each individual should get. I would add that it is the fair assessment of what each individual should get, but without letting ideology get in the way. Equity is a more perfect form of justice because it considers exceptions. When we introduce a rule or a law, we are essentially drawing a straight line between two points. However, by drawing a straight line, we are excluding people who are near the line, but not on the line. As a result, they are excluded often. Equity adapts in order to do justice to the greatest number of people, to do justice to everyone.
This bill strikes a good balance and includes some compensation. Our objective should be to ensure that Bill C-226 provides equity to all and does justice to all.
Before concluding, I would like to flag three major problems with Bill C‑226.
First, the bill will probably not have any significant impact on the populations affected by pollution that the bill's proponents say they want to help. We are skeptical.
Second, the proposed pan-Canadian approach is not in line with Quebec's reality and goes against the clearly expressed will of Quebec's National Assembly.
Third, Bill C‑226 focuses less on advancing real environmental justice and more on introducing the concept of environmental racism into Canadian discourse and law to secure an ideological victory in order to serve a cause.
In conclusion, I will reiterate what was said by my esteemed and irreplaceable colleague from Mirabel, whose community is going through a disastrous situation with respect to environmental injustice. His riding includes the neighbouring municipalities of Oka and Kanesatake, where the tension could be cut with a knife.
There is a recycling company that is depositing toxic and hazardous materials, or allowing them to be deposited, in a landfill located on indigenous territory, yet the federal government is not doing a thing about it. It is not lifting a finger. By failing to take action, Ottawa is allowing the residents of the nearby municipalities of Oka, Saint‑Placide and Saint‑Benoît in Mirabel to be called racist for complaining about the landfill located on indigenous territory, when they, too, are victims of this inaction. Residents are legitimately afraid to drink the water or to use it for their crops. The situation is serious.
In this case, we need to put things in perspective and not call this environmental racism when it basically boils down to inaction and deliberate indifference on the part of the federal government and the RCMP. I mention the RCMP because the media has repeatedly reported and proved that Kanesatake is controlled by criminal groups and that the band council is not taking action.
This is a clear case of environmental injustice, and the federal government already has the means to act in this matter. The people of Oka are entitled to clean drinking water too. Something needs to be done soon.
1068 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people and to have the opportunity to talk a bit about this very important issue.
First, I want to thank Dr. Ingrid Waldron for her tireless work on this file. When it comes to addressing environmental racism, she has been a strong advocate. We would not be discussing this bill today if it were not for her work and the work of other amazing advocates. People who have shared their lived experiences are doing incredible work to address these issues.
I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, not only for bringing this private member's bill forward but also for being a champion on environmental racism. I want to acknowledge former MP Lenore Zann for presenting this bill in the last Parliament and for her work and presentation of a similar bill in the Nova Scotia Legislature.
It is important to reiterate that this work comes from dedicated activists, researchers and advocates. I am incredibly grateful for their dedication and the knowledge they continue to share.
I want to touch on an environmental disaster that is currently unravelling. Since May 2022, Imperial Oil has been covering up spillage in an oil sands tailings pond site, where 5.3 million litres of water have spilled out of the tailings pond, leaking into the forest, lake and rivers nearby. For perspective, that is about twice the volume of an Olympic-size swimming pool of toxic water.
For months, members of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation have been hunting in these forests, fishing in these waters, breathing the air and harvesting food from this area without knowing that there were dangerous toxins. Chief Allan Adam has said, “Had this happened south of Calgary or right in Calgary, they probably would have notified everybody. It probably would shut down all the water systems...and they probably would have fixed the problem a lot quicker”.
I find it appalling that the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, along with other first nations and Métis nations, were kept in the dark while an oil company knowingly polluted their land and waters. I believe that Chief Adam was correct in his assessment that this would not have happened in a major city. I want all members in this chamber to ask themselves if they could see this happening in Calgary, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or even Victoria. We all know that it would not, so why is it happening in indigenous communities?
Why is it that rich CEOs think they can get away with polluting indigenous lands and profiting from it? It is because they know that governments will let them. This was clear just a few weeks ago when Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in the environment committee and voted to delete the words “tailings ponds” from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The situation happening in northern Alberta is shocking, but it is familiar to many communities. In fact, it has been an ongoing theme in Canada's history. Africville, Nova Scotia, was a community of primarily Black residents that existed there from the early 1800s to the 1960s. Africville was not only denied amenities but also forced to deal with hazardous infrastructure. A dump was placed there, along with an infectious disease hospital. In the 1970s, the Nova Scotian government forced the relocation of the people of Africville.
Chemical Valley is another example. The area is home to 40% of Canada's chemical industry. The pollution from this industry impacts everyone in the surrounding area, but especially the people of Aamjiwnaang. Aamjiwnaang First Nation is dealing with things like skewed sex ratios, where there are more boys being born than girls. There are significantly higher hospitalization rates. There are higher rates of asthma, heart disease, high blood pressure and chronic headaches. How can we expect people in communities like Aamjiwnaang First Nation to live in dignity when they are forced to deal with the devastating health consequences of environmental racism?
I was so disappointed that the government voted down multiple amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act asked for by the Aamjiwnaang First Nation for enforceable air quality standards. Fifteen thousand people die in Canada each year because of air quality issues, and this was a key request.
I also want to share the words of Eddy Charlie, an indigenous residential school survivor and advocate in my riding, who raised the issue of the Crofton mill using the water from the Cowichan River: “For thousands of years the Cowichan people have relied on fish foods from the Cowichan river and the animals like deer, wolves, cougars and bears—to keep the forest around the rivers healthy. When predators hunt they take their kills into the forests and provide food for the plants and they grow strong. When wolves and cougars or bears stop going to the river the forests suffer. The mill in Crofton has for years lowered the river so much that salmon are no longer returning to their natural spawning grounds.” He said, “Please get someone from the House of Commons to address this. Huy ch qu.”
We need to listen to Eddy, and to other indigenous voices. I have spoken to others who have expressed concerns around logging in the area around the Cowichan River. When it comes to indigenous people's relationship to their land, air and water, the reality is that environmental racism continues to impact communities, and often their voices are not heard by policy-makers.
While this bill is an important first step, we also need an office of environmental justice, with funding for impacted communities. We need enforcement of environmental regulations. For decades, first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, as well as Black and Brown communities, have been outspoken about how their rights have been violated, how they face higher rates of illness due to pollution, and how their voices have been ignored.
This bill is a small step, acknowledging the problems we face and committing to a national action plan. I hope and I urge my fellow members of Parliament to support this important step.
1043 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:00:50 p.m.
- Watch
If I am to recognize the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, it would be for her right of reply.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is good to have a right of reply when I started the speech by saying I was quite sure I would forget someone if I tried to thank all the people who have helped the bill. I also want to make sure to thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who was the seconder on the day this bill came forward for first reading, back in February 2022.
I also want to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Victoria, for reminding me of the suffering. I visited Sarnia, and I remember standing with the people of Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Their burial ground is behind barbed wire and fencing, because on all sides are the refineries and the pesticides and the chemical plants. Also, for the non-indigenous people of those neighbourhoods, it is not uncommon, and the mayor complains about it from time to time, to suddenly have “shelter in place” warnings. People have to go into their homes and close all the windows, because outdoors is no longer safe.
There are so many stories here. I hope that we get the bill through, that we get it through the other place and that it gets royal assent before another election. Dates are uncertain as to future elections. It would dash the hopes of so many people if we do not see this through. When it goes to the other place, I will be very grateful. I am not sure what the protocol is for thanking the senator who will be the sponsor in the next place. To avoid any protocol problems, I will wait until that senator stands in the other place to take control of the bill at first reading there. We have strong support in the Senate for this bill, but we also know the other place can find its own routes and sometimes things are not navigated as smoothly as we might want, not that everything runs smoothly every moment here.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues, very grateful for what I hope will be a strong vote of support. At this point, what I mostly want to say is that this is the work of many hands. Earlier, I used the metaphor of midwives. There are many who have helped, and we hope that there will be a delivery of a piece of legislation that is not a bumper sticker, that is not a one-day wonder, but that actually makes change.
We need to make serious, radical changes in our environmental policies in order to create an environmental justice system. That is the goal of our efforts here today.
I still hold out hope that those who said they would not vote for the bill might change their minds. In any case, we have done good work here today and I thank all members.
479 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to now rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:05:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 29, at the expiry of time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:05:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate tonight arises from a question I asked regarding the impact of climate disasters on our country and specifically on our municipalities, and how the federal government must step up to help in a significant way.
We are living the effects of climate change because the chemistry of carbon dioxide and the physics of the greenhouse effect are locked in. We are trying, as we must, to reduce our carbon emissions to make sure we can get to net zero as soon as possible. However, even if we got there tomorrow, and it is clear we will not, we would still face the catastrophic fires, record-setting rainfall events, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather we are now seeing every year. That could go on for centuries, so we must adapt to these changes. They impact our farms, forests and water supplies.
The most immediate impact from extreme weather events is on our built environments, such as homes, businesses, highways and railways, destroying livelihoods and, tragically, sometimes taking lives. Almost by definition, impacts on our built environment are impacts on municipalities, and it therefore falls to municipalities not only to clean up and rebuild after these disasters, but increasingly to plan for the future and build resilient infrastructure. Communities simply cannot do this by themselves. What little capacity they have to raise funds for capital expenditures is quickly swamped by the scale of work that confronts towns and cities after floods and fires.
In 2018, the city of Grand Forks, in my riding, was flooded. After a couple of years of hard work and painful decisions, the city came up with a plan to rebuild in a way that would minimize the chances of a future disaster. That plan was budgeted to cost over $60 million for a city that regularly raises only about $4 million in property taxes. Luckily, the Province of British Columbia and the federal government came through with promises to pay most of that. However, in the past five years, costs have continued to climb and the city is still very much stretched to meet the fiscal challenges of that catastrophe.
The federal government has relied on the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to provide money to municipalities through the provinces for disaster support. This fund has long been oversubscribed and underfunded. In last fall's national adaptation strategy, the federal government provided a top-up to DMAF, which was welcomed news, but it is still nowhere near enough. There must be more invested in adaptation projects that actually prevent future problems rather than just building back better after disasters. Analysis suggests that every dollar invested in adaptation saves up to $15 in the future. It is a huge return.
The minister tells me that the government will be providing up to $5 billion to B.C. after the 2021 atmospheric river event. We have to at least contemplate spending a similar amount in municipalities across the country every year to prevent future damage to infrastructure and livelihoods. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is calling for the total $2 billion top-up to DMAF, and long-term stable funding for projects of all sizes. I believe that long-term funding for adaptation must be at least $2 billion a year. Otherwise, we will continually face enormous cleanup bills that will get larger every year.
563 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that Canadians know that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our country and, indeed, the world. We continue to see the devastating effects in communities across the country as we endure fires, floods and severe storms at an increasing rate, as the member mentioned.
It is essential that we do all that we can to anticipate and mitigate disasters related to climate change; limit damage to persons, property and livelihoods; reduce cleanup costs; and get affected communities back on their feet more quickly. The Government of Canada continues to work with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners to make communities more disaster resilient.
The $9.2-billion green infrastructure stream of the Government of Canada's investing in Canada infrastructure program is providing support for climate change mitigation, adaptation, resilience, disaster mitigation, and environmental protection. The Canada community-building fund provides permanent indexed funding to provinces and territories, which can, in turn, direct this funding to municipalities to support local infrastructure priorities. The five-year, $1.5-billion green and inclusive community buildings program will help to construct more community buildings and improve existing ones, while making them more energy efficient and resilient.
In 2018, the Government of Canada launched the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, which remains a key federal program for resilient infrastructure with a total program envelope of over $3.8 billion. The fund has, to date, committed $2.29 billion toward 81 infrastructure projects that directly help communities, such as the member's community, to better prepare for and withstand the potential effects of natural disasters, prevent infrastructure failures and protect Canadians.
Recently, the Government of Canada introduced the country's first national adaptation strategy through the collaborative process with provinces and territories, indigenous partners and private sector, non-governmental organizations, adaptation experts, and youth. This landmark strategy establishes an overarching division and principles for climate resilience to set our transformational goals, objectives and targets, all which will guide the actions of the government, the private sector, civil society and individuals in Canada.
The historic, whole-of-society approach to climate adaptation includes $1.6 billion in new federal funding to help protect communities across the country and introduces 84 specific measures to address the effects of climate change. The national strategy provides a framework for resilient infrastructure needs, such as roads, bridges and waste-water treatment.
The result will be healthier communities, enhanced biodiversity, nature conservation and a more climate-resilient economy. It will complement the adaptation work and strategies of provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. We will continue to advance our shared priorities as we work with partners to build a climate-resilient country.
451 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has been moving in the right direction, but it must show a lot more ambition to really make a difference, and to really help Canadians and Canadian municipalities adapt to these extreme weather events. I will be watching next Tuesday's budget closely to see where the government will be acting and how much priority it will be putting into climate adaptation.
I know it is always hard for governments to make big investments that might not pay off in the current election cycle, but that is what Canada needs from the federal government now. We need these dedicated funds for adaptation projects in every community. It will save money. It will save livelihoods, and it will save lives.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:13:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just add that, as the member said, climate change is affecting communities throughout our country. It is important that we work with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners as we develop strategies for this.
The member pointed out in the first half of his speech that he has seen investment in his community from the federal government and the provincial government. In my community, I have seen investment in shoreline reconstruction along Lake Ontario as a result of increased weather patterns and weather effects.
This is something that the government is seized with. We will continue to work on it, and I look forward, as he does, to future announcements that the government will make, perhaps next week with its budget for 2023.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:14:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical moment. This week, the IPCC issued a final report, a final warning. It says, in no uncertain terms, that we must act now or it will be too late.
One of the report's authors noted, “The message in terms of urgency...is stop burning fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible.” They explain that we are at a crisis point, not because we are lacking some important technology or some important information but because “the sense of urgency has been lacking in the places where the important decisions are made”.
In Canada, that place where important decisions are made is here, in the House of Commons. The government lacks the urgency. It lacks the commitment and it lacks the courage to take the action we need.
The Liberals say they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet they continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. They are handing over billions of dollars to rich oil and gas executives.
I continue to call on the government to end subsidies to oil and gas, and instead invest those billions into clean energy, into climate solutions.
In the United States, the Biden administration has committed to spending $60 billion on clean energy manufacturing. This goes directly into building solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. These are proven solutions.
Climate scientists agree that renewable energies are the best tools we have for reducing our emissions, yet the Liberals are instead giving massive tax breaks to oil and gas companies for unproven technologies that keep the fantasy of increasing oil and gas production alive.
The reality is that the current carbon capture projects in Canada capture only less than 1% of our emissions. The Liberals say that carbon capture technology is one of the many solutions they will use when it comes to fighting the climate crisis, but it happens to be the oil and gas industry's favourite solution. The Liberals' friends at McKinsey have published multiple articles touting CCS as a low-risk piece of the decarbonization puzzle, but according to the IPCC, carbon capture is one of the most expensive and least effective tools.
In fact, the report names wind and solar energy as the most effective solutions for reducing our emissions. If we want to meet our 2030 targets, there is a logical way forward: invest our tax dollars in renewable energy and make the oil and gas industry pay for its own carbon capture and storage.
Experts are already warning that the Liberals' tax credit on carbon capture and storage will be a fossil fuel subsidy, more handouts to an industry making record-breaking profits.
In a report on fossil fuel subsidies, Canada and Saudi Arabia were named the worst performers, handing out the most money to these companies as they make more profit than they have ever made before.
We have now learned that Saudi Arabia lobbied to elevate the role of carbon removal in the latest UN climate science summary report. We also know that Canada lobbied to emphasize the importance of carbon capture in the last IPCC summary report, which begs the question, why is the Liberal government acting like a petrostate when Canada has a diversified economy?
Why are the Liberals doing the oil and gas lobby's dirty work? Why are they making Canadians pay billions to clean up the oil and gas industry's emissions?
574 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member should know the countless number of initiatives the government has taken with respect to climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. The member should also know that the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change talked about a portion of that being specifically about carbon capture.
I will read to her the exact quote. It says, “A net-zero energy system...can only be achieved with a broad suite of technologies. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage...is only a group of technologies that contributes to both reducing emissions in key sectors directly and removing CO2 to balance emissions that are challenging to avoid—a critical part of 'net' zero goals.” That is from the report, specifically.
The member should also know, and it is interesting because this did come up in the debate earlier today, that the finance committee did make a recommendation to the government to do exactly what she was saying, which is to reduce the fossil fuel subsidies and to put that money into renewable transition, specifically as it relates to a cleaner environment and a cleaner energy supply.
When it comes to reducing the fossil fuel subsidies specifically, it might not be as quickly as we would like to see it. In my personal opinion, I might agree with the member more than she thinks, but the reality is that the government has been reducing the amount of fossil fuel subsidies over the year. The problem is that when the NDP members talk about this, they specifically include, in that calculation, money that is being used for abandoned or orphaned wells. The reality of the situation is that, although I would have loved to see the companies that abandoned those wells deal with them, they have not. A lot of them have left, so it becomes society's responsibility to deal with those wells, despite the fact that we let those companies get away with it in years and decades gone by.
When we talk about fossil fuel subsidies, I think it is disingenuous to do what the NDP does and include the money that is being used to deal with orphaned wells in that as a subsidy. If we exclude that, it clearly shows that the subsidies have been declining year after year and are on target to meet what the minister and the department have been proposing for the last number of years.
407 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:20:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, even without the orphaned well cleanup, there are billions of dollars being handed out to profitable oil and gas companies every year. The member did not answer my question about why the government is doing the oil and gas lobby's dirty work. Perhaps, since I have the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader here, I will ask another question on another topic.
The recent allegations about foreign interference are incredibly serious. They further erode confidence in our electoral systems, and the Liberals, today, voted against a public inquiry. They do not seem to see the damage they are doing to individuals and also to communities that are at risk of being stigmatized. We need a transparent, independent public inquiry. At this point, it is the only way to get to the bottom of this.
Will the member commit to pushing for a transparent, independent public inquiry?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
I know there have been a couple of instances where members have brought in issues and then asked different issues as they come here. We have ruled that we would rather members stick to what they have booked, so I will leave it to the discretion of the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer or not.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem answering that question. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the ruling.
I have been very clear. I said in a speech earlier today in the House that when the issue first came to light, being on the procedure and House affairs committee, I initially asked myself why we are not having a public inquiry. It makes the most sense. However, expert after expert and witness after witness who came before the committee told us the best place to deal with highly classified information is not in the public domain. They full-on said they cannot provide any more information to a public inquiry than they can to that committee because of the sensitivity of the information. It is not the answer I was hoping to hear, but it is an answer that makes sense, and it is an answer that I think warrants consideration.
Having said all of that, the Prime Minister has appointed a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to look specifically at this issue. If the former governor general, the expert looking at this, determines the best way forward is a public inquiry, the Prime Minister and this government have said that they will accept that recommendation. We will leave it in the hands of an expert, in the incredibly well-deserved position that the former governor general was given, to make that determination.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:23:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the current government to stop the delays and its unexplained reluctance to shine a spotlight on foreign interference. Foreign operatives have been interfering in Canada's political system, in party nomination processes and in election campaigns to place Chinese Communist sympathizers in the provincial legislature and the House of Commons. Media have seen reports indicating that Liberal Party officials and elected representatives have been involved. We are also aware of reports that have involved a member of the federal cabinet.
The situation is not new. The Prime Minister, various cabinet ministers and senior members in the PMO were briefed about foreign actors and individuals who are complicit in illegal activities. However, the response from the Prime Minister has been to deflect this serious issue and delay doing anything.
Now, he has finally taken some action by appointing a special rapporteur to investigate foreign interference. However, it is not exactly clear what investigatory powers have been given to Mr. Johnston. While an individual of impeccable character, perhaps with the exception of his bad choice of charitable boards, Mr. Johnston will be handcuffed and saran-wrapped if unable to investigate the inner activities of the Liberal Party's elected and non-elected members. It would be unimaginable for the special rapporteur to have no authority to fully investigate the stated primary beneficiary of foreign interference: the Liberal Party of Canada. Why, then, has there been such reluctance by the Prime Minister to have a full independent public inquiry?
In other countries, there would not be a special rapporteur. There would be a special prosecutor who would have full investigatory powers, including interviewing political party members, subpoena powers and powers to examine documents.
Why is the government allowing Canada to become a doormat for foreign powers? Why is it extending protection to those who have deliberately interfered in our country's democratic processes? How is it possible for the Prime Minister to turn a blind eye to thugs who have intimidated and threatened Canadian citizens of Chinese heritage in the greater Vancouver and greater Toronto areas? How can the government ignore shady and undeclared financial contributors and buses of instant just-add-water Liberal nomination supporters and paid volunteers to assist China's chosen candidates to get nominated and elected to all levels of government?
The goals of the foreign operatives are simple: Their first goal is to infiltrate political parties, assisting selected candidates to obtain elected positions from which they could support Beijing's interests. Their second goal is to defeat opposition nomination candidates and/or elected representatives who are not favourable to Communist China, or prevent them from being elected.
Is the Prime Minister's continuing reluctance to do something in the face of such mounting evidence a result of being worried about what may come out of a full inquiry? Perhaps he is troubled by the growing suspicions being cast on cabinet, caucus and party members. What is worrying our Prime Minister? What has made him turn a long blind eye? Would not the mounting evidence and allegations of foreign interference provide valid concerns to the Prime Minister? Is he worried about political fallout from the interference and his reluctance to do something? Is he worried that others in his party will be implicated?
Obviously, one must protect Canada's intelligence service networks and their methods of acquiring information, but when the network starts leaking information to the media about foreign interference, it kind of suggests they have lost faith in their political masters and their ability to do something about foreign interference.
599 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member should try to educate himself on the difference between evidence and allegations.
The member used the term “mounting evidence”. Those were his words. There is no evidence to date. As a matter of fact, the RCMP has said that it does not have any active investigations ongoing. What there have been are allegations. If the member is unaware of the difference between allegations, information and intelligence versus evidence, he should really take the time to educate himself on that.
What I think is even more remarkable about the member's speech is the massive misunderstanding of the reality of the situation when he opened his speech by saying that the government has done virtually nothing. That is categorically false. As a matter of fact, this government is the only government that has ever done anything on this issue.
I will inform the member what we have done since 2015. We introduced Bill C-76, which was a bill that tightened up financing rules and tightened up on opportunities for foreign interference specifically. The Conservatives, who this member seems to be cozying up a lot to lately, actually voted against that.
The other thing we did was install a special panel of experts who have the ability to monitor, in real time, what is going on during a writ period. They have the opportunity to assess, make decisions, inform parties, gather intelligence from political parties and take action when necessary. That is a panel that never existed before. Most importantly, after the election is over, a third party prepares a report based on the panel's information. That third party concluded, both after the 2019 and 2021 election, that the elections were done in a free, fair, open and transparent manner and were not influenced by foreign interference.
Finally, on the member's issue about the public inquiry. Perhaps the member did not hear my answer to the impromptu question from the NDP member just before him, but I laid it out very clearly. On the experts that the member gave a lot of credit to in his speech, and he sang the praises of CSIS saying that we have to respect its processes, I can tell him that CSIS came to the PROC committee and specifically told us that the place to do this is not in a public inquiry. We have the established organizations, such as NSICOP, which is another thing this government put together, that specifically looks at, and has the ability for parliamentarian oversight over, highly classified information. That is the best place that we were told it should go.
However, notwithstanding that, and understanding the incredible position and incredible attention that Canadians are seized with on this issue, the Prime Minister went a step further and said that even though our experts were telling us that a public inquiry is not the best place, we understand that we need to put this in a non-partisan environment and will allow a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to determine what the best path forward is. As I said to the previous member, if it is determined that the best way forward is through a public inquiry, the Prime Minister has already said that we will accept that recommendation and proceed with it based on his advice.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:31:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a party line being towed here. The problem is, what party line, the Liberal Party's or the Communist Party of China's?
I call upon the government to step up and provide strong investigatory powers through the special rapporteur so that Mr. Johnston can unearth names and evidence of foreign interference in Canada, especially in Vancouver and Toronto during the last two elections.
Canadians deserve and demand to know what is going on. They want to see concrete action taken to protect our political and democratic processes and institutions from foreign manipulation.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
