44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑325. I would like to say from the outset that we will be voting in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. I am confident that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will make a constructive contribution. I will begin my speech with a summary of the bill. I will then go over Quebec's requests. Lastly, I will briefly go over some highly publicized cases, such as the one involving Marylène Levesque.
First, the bill would create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release for certain serious offences with a maximum sentence of two years, or at least in relation to a summary conviction. It would require the reporting of the breach of conditions to the authorities, and it would amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.
The reality is that judges have the discretion to impose a community-based sentence, but are not obligated to do so. Judges must weigh a series of factors before handing down a sentence. Crown prosecutors could also agree with the defence on a community-based sentence if they felt that the circumstances warranted it.
The bill is short. It contains only three clauses and amends two acts, namely the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Clause 1 of Bill C‑325 adds a subsection to section 145 of the Criminal Code. It adds a criminal offence after subsection 5 for the breach of conditions of conditional release; for the breach of a condition of parole; and for breach of a condition of a release on reconnaissance. As mentioned in Bill C‑325, schedules I and II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act include a wide range of offences, from child pornography to attempted murder. The intention is to tighten up the legislation for breaches of conditions of parole or statutory release, which is the almost automatic release after completion of two-thirds of a sentence. However, there is no evidence that Bill C‑325 is necessary, since the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, already has the power to revoke parole. For example, a sexual predator in Montreal recently had his parole revoked by the PBC for breach of his conditions.
Subclause 2(1) of Bill C‑325 replaces paragraph 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which specifies that a sentence may be served at home for certain offences, to simply disqualify a sentence from being served in the community for any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years or more. The current paragraph 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code states that a community-based sentence cannot be handed down for the following offences: attempt to commit murder, torture, or advocating genocide. Bill C‑325 is therefore much broader than paragraph 742.1(c), since many offences now carry a maximum sentence of 14 years, such as altering a firearm magazine once Bill C‑21 receives royal assent.
Subclause 2(2) adds two new paragraphs after paragraph 742.1(d) to specify that a conditional sentence, that is, a sentence to be served in the community, cannot be imposed for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, that involved drug trafficking, or that involved the use of a weapon. In addition, a community-based sentence cannot be imposed for the following offences: prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking, abduction of a person under the age of 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, and arson for a fraudulent purpose. That is a pretty broad list, and we will have to see in committee whether certain offences need to be added or removed.
Clause 3 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It states that, if a parole supervisor discovers that an offender on conditional release has breached their parole conditions, they must inform the Parole Board, the Attorney General and the police force with jurisdiction where the breach occurred of the breach and the circumstances surrounding the breach.
It is important to note that, contrary to what the Conservatives suggest, judges have discretionary power to give individuals community-based sentences. It is not automatic, and judges must factor in the risk of reoffending and the consequences of a sentence served at home.
Second, the Bloc Québécois intends to introduce a bill that addresses problems with Bill C‑5. The member for Rivière-du-Nord talked about the upcoming introduction of a bill to close some of the gaps in Bill C‑5. According to my colleague, conditional sentences should be not be allowed for most sexual assault cases and gun crimes, and he will be introducing a bill in the coming weeks to reinstate minimum sentences for those crimes. While Bill C‑5 was up for debate, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion condemning its controversial provisions. My colleague's bill is based on that motion.
The motion accused Ottawa of setting back the fight against sexual assault. The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord had already moved an amendment to the bill that would have retained minimum sentences while giving judges discretion to depart from them in exceptional cases, with justification. This amendment was defeated, but the Bloc Québécois ended up voting for Bill C‑5 anyway, since it also provided for diversion for simple drug possession offences. As justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord intends to call for the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new bill that, in his opinion, could satisfy both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know that he has spoken about this a few times.
Third, I will talk about a few cases to provide some food for thought in this debate. A man who assaulted a sleeping woman benefited from the leniency of a judge who sentenced him to serve his sentence in the community, even though he himself was prepared to go to jail.
On Monday, a Crown prosecutor expressed outrage that, after eight years of legal proceedings, a sex offender was let off with a 20-month sentence to be served in the community. In his words, the federal Liberals “have a lot to answer for to victims”. Since the passage of Bill C‑5 in June, it is once again possible to impose a conditional sentence, or a sentence to be served in the community, for the crime of sexual assault, which had not been allowed since 2007. The Crown prosecutor blames Parliament for passing Bill C‑5, which reintroduced conditional sentences.
The other highly publicized case is that of Marylène Levesque. Coroner Stéphanie Gamache determined that an electronic bracelet with geolocation could have prevented Ms. Levesque's murder in January 2020 in a Quebec City hotel room. The coroner recommended that all offenders convicted of homicide tied to domestic violence should be required to wear the device upon release as part of their correctional plan. As a result of pressure from Quebec, the matter has now made its way to Ottawa. I even had an opportunity to study the bill on the device at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women following pressure from Quebec. It was a recommendation in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, on rebuilding trust in the justice system. Some progress has been made on advancing the issue in Ottawa through the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Following Marylène Levesque's murder, Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada reviewed their practices and adopted a series of measures to ensure better monitoring of offenders. However, the coroner ruled that this is not enough. It is not just a question of electronic bracelets, either. According to the coroner, the correctional plan of the murderer, Eustachio Gallese, should also be reviewed in order to identify what elements may have led to his lack of accountability.
This could help prevent another similar tragedy. In her report, coroner Gamache wrote that the comprehensive correctional intervention plan prepared for this offender was a resounding failure. Marylène Levesque's murder occurred less than a year after he was granted parole. At the time, Eustachio Gallese was on day parole for the 2004 murder of his ex-wife. His parole officer had given him permission to visit erotic massage parlours once a month, but in reality, according to the police investigation, he was going up to three times a week. In short, an electronic bracelet with geolocation would at least have made it possible to detect these lies and subterfuges and to take action before it was too late. That is what the coroner argued. This bracelet allows for better monitoring, but that is not all.
In conclusion, for all these reasons, this bill must be referred to committee. We need to go back to the drawing board and rise above partisanship. The Bloc Québécois intends to make a constructive contribution to this debate.
We have made a lot of progress in Quebec, and we have done a lot of thinking. I hope to have the opportunity to come back to this, but on Thursday evening, I celebrated the 50th anniversary of the community organization Joins-toi, which works to help people who have committed crimes re-enter society. Working to reintegrate people and offering them alternatives to the criminal lifestyle is an intrinsic value that we cherish in Quebec. At the event, we heard about all the progress that has been made thanks to the community and to dedicated stakeholders who believe in restorative justice. This is a model that Quebec has done a lot to develop. I would like to pay tribute to the entire Maison Joins-toi team. I hope that I will have another opportunity to commend its members and highlight their work, as I was able to do on Thursday on the occasion of this milestone anniversary.
1742 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the debates on Bill C‑325, which I introduced last spring, are drawing to a close today.
I am pleased to see that, following the tragic events that have taken place and the serious cases brought to our attention, the Bloc Québécois has finally decided to support Bill C‑325, even though it voted in favour of Bill C‑5 at the time. I agree that amendments to the bill in committee are necessary. In fact, committees are specifically mandated to improve bills and make them fairer for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP colleagues are clinging to a short-sighted position that makes no sense.
I have done my job with Bill C-325. Moreover, all the parties in Quebec's National Assembly—including the more right-wing parties, the centrist parties and the left-wing parties like Québec solidaire—have asked that Bill C-5 be amended because it just does not work. No one in the House would characterize the Bloc as a right-wing party. Bloc members are not nasty right wingers; they lean more to the left than to the right. However, they thought things through, saw that there is a problem and acknowledged that changes need to be made. That is why they are willing to help me move Bill C-325 forward. However, the Liberals and NDP are stubborn. There is nothing we can do.
During debate, we talked a lot about Marylène Levesque's murder. At the time, I was the one who moved the motion in the House that launched the investigation by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I was a member. We investigated everything surrounding Marylène's murder, the work of the Parole Board of Canada and the flaws in how the entire situation was managed.
With Bill C-325, I am proposing common-sense improvements. For example, right now, there are no consequences for offenders who fail to abide by the conditions of their release when on parole for serious crimes. When we ask people on the street about this, they say that people who do not abide by the conditions of their release should be arrested, but that consequence does not exist. Everyone thinks it only natural to create a new offence to cover such situations. That is just common sense, and it is what I am proposing in Bill C-325.
Some are saying that professionals found that the law put in place by Bill C-5 was good. I took the time to meet with many groups, and I can say that police officers are calling for improvements. I am thinking, in particular, of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and the Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Ville de Québec.
Victims groups are also calling for improvements. Here, I am thinking of REAL Women of Canada, Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, Maison des guerrières, Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents and the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association. No one can say that these are nasty right-wing groups that just want tough laws. These are groups of people who represent victims. When I showed them my bill, they told me that it was just common sense and that that is what needed to be done. Victims are afraid because offenders on parole do not abide by the conditions of their release and people are not incarcerated, as they should be. Bill C-325 seeks to resolve this problem, and I will never understand why the Liberals and the NDP do not get that.
From what I have heard in the first hour of debate today, the rhetoric has changed a bit. What I understand is that people here cannot allow a Conservative bill to go any further. That is what I understood, because people do not want to support it. I thank the Bloc Québécois for agreeing to go further. When we can agree on issues everyone benefits, and I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois for doing that today.
I also understand that Canadians are fed up with this government, because for the past eight years we have seen the result: a 32% increase in violent crime. When Bill C‑5 was introduced, criminals thanked the government, telling themselves that they could continue to commit crimes without fear of going to prison, thanks to the Liberals who protected them. Is this the justice we expect to have in Canada? Do the victims of these criminals expect something else from a federal government? Yes.
There is still time for members to change their minds, since the vote will take place on Wednesday. That leaves two days, or 48 hours. I urge my colleagues to think about Canadians, about people who are afraid, and to stop thinking that the goal is simply to create tough measures. As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports us, and the bill can be amended. I see no problem with that. The goal is to protect people, and that is what I wanted to do with Bill C-325. I hope the two parties opposite will change their minds by Wednesday afternoon.
931 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 2:05:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, producer Guy Latraverse, nicknamed the “father of Quebec show business”, passed away last Saturday after a lengthy illness.
The unforgettable Saint-Jean sur la montagne in 1975, the legendary 1 fois 5 show, Diane Dufresne's Magie rose at the Olympic Stadium, we owe them all to Guy Latraverse. We must also acknowledge the courage he had to speak publicly about mental health issues, having lived with bipolar disorder all his life.
In this, as in so many other areas, he was a trailblazer. As an outspoken separatist, his first passion, as his sister Louise so eloquently pointed out, was Quebec. Propelling our artists a little higher, a little further, was his way of promoting Quebec. As such, his contribution to our national pride is unparalleled.
Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones. Thank you for everything, Mr. Latraverse; Quebec owes you so much.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 3:02:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is pushing aside the Quebec winners of a competition for designing the monument to commemorate the mission in Afghanistan. It is relying on public consultation. In fact, the experts at Léger studied that consultation. According to them, it in no way respects the scientific process. According to Léger, the results cannot be interpreted as the opinion of armed forces members. It is wrong to use these data as though they represent the general population.
The government's efforts to push Quebec aside are also wrong. Will it award the contract to Daoust?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 3:04:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it was Leger that said that. Leger is the leading polling firm, and its experts are saying that the federal government's survey was unscientific and that the results are unusable. Even Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court justice, had to intervene last Thursday to ask the federal government to abide by its own rules. The situation has reached that point. I know the government is desperate to shove Quebec aside at any cost, but for God's sake, there has to be a limit.
Will the government abide by its own rules, listen to Justice Arbour and award the contract to the Daoust team?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 3:11:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, SMEs and in my riding and across Quebec are a real economic driver. That is why it is so important for the government to support them at key moments in their economic development. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec could tell us how the government is supporting SMEs, including those founded by women and also by indigenous women.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 3:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the past eight years of Liberal management have been nothing but one scandal after another.
We just found out that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into ArriveCAN, which cost Canadians $54 million for nothing. Botler, a Montreal company, was the one that blew the whistle. A senior Liberal government official strongly advised Botler to work closely on an IT contract with the same company that worked on the ArriveCAN app. That company was GC Strategies, a two-person concern with no office and no IT skills. What Botler uncovered is similar to something seen in Quebec before.
After eight years of sticking their heads in the sand, are the Liberals going to tell us who exactly is getting richer every time they award a contract?
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate it.
As I said earlier, the main purpose of this bill is to regulate the energy industry in marine environments in eastern Canada. Understandably, this mainly concerns oil and gas development, which my party and I regularly denounce here in the House, but also, as other colleagues mentioned, future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely, offshore wind power off the east coast.
This is a bill that continues offshore oil and gas development, at a time when Canada should be looking to withdraw from oil and gas. The government has clearly stated this intention.
As my Bloc Québécois colleagues mentioned, our main concern with this bill is the continued failure to meet marine biodiversity conservation requirements for renewable energy development in eastern Canada.
As I said earlier, tightening the rules around oil and gas development could be a good thing, but these rules should simply no longer exist, just like offshore oil and gas.
From an energy transition perspective, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector needs to decline rapidly. It is simple: No new offshore exploration or oil development project should be authorized, regardless of any special conditions. That is the path Quebec is currently taking and the maritime provinces should take note.
In 2022, Quebec put a firm and definite stop to oil and gas exploration and development in its territory by passing an act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities. As such, every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. We are talking about roughly 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three licences to produce brine and two storage leases. Quebec has become the first government in North America to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development in its territory. It has also been part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance since 2021. I was at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland when Minister Charette made the announcement. I have to say that it is truly a source of pride for Quebec.
In joining this alliance, Quebec joins Denmark, Costa Rica, France, Greenland, Ireland, the Marshall Islands, Portugal, Sweden, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wales, and Washington State, who are all working together to phase out oil and gas production. California, New Zealand, Chile, Fiji, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Colombia are also associate members or friends of the alliance, and although they are not perfect in their energy production, they also want to do more and do better. Of course, Canada is conspicuous by its absence from this alliance.
Phasing out oil and gas production is not part of the Government of Canada's short-, medium-, or long-term plan. It is disheartening. These days, even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a former environmental activist no less, can be heard practically boasting that Canada is a major petro-state. What I find troubling about these statements is that the minister does not seem to want to improve Canada's situation. We hear about cutting and capping greenhouse gas emissions, but not one word about capping and cutting oil and gas production. That is more than disheartening; it is worrisome.
It is especially worrisome considering the summer we just went through. We had unprecedented wildfires, torrential rains, hurricanes and rising ocean temperatures. Rather than seeking to do more to combat or at least better adapt to climate change, the government is telling us it wants to increase oil and gas production, one of the main factors behind air pollution, likely the biggest one. It is unbelievable.
It is even more unbelievable when we consider the fact that Canada failed in its duty to protect marine ecosystems when it authorized dozens of new drilling projects in ecologically sensitive environments, including drilling inside marine refuges. It is easy enough to understand that offshore drilling threatens marine life. For example, the sonic cannons used to explore the seabed interfere with blue and right whales' communication, sense of direction and foraging activities. Unfortunately, both are on Canada's endangered species list.
Exploration is noisy, yes, but extraction is risky. Accidents will happen, too, and spills have extremely serious ecological consequences, as we saw with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in April 2010. Need I also remind the House that regular activity alone brings dangerous pollution levels for wildlife?
Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in these marine refuges. The Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an independent body.
I would like to remind the House that the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government is responsible for protecting natural environments. For years now, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been promoting the development and exploitation of marine oil and gas. Every year, the board issues a call for tenders and auctions off new exploratory drilling permits.
Every year, the Bloc Québécois speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change. The boards, including the Department of Natural Resources itself, are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which are two contradictory goals. This bill will not fix that problem. It will not prevent the development of the non-renewable energy sector.
I get the impression that, with Bill C‑49, the government is taking us for fools, but we are not stupid. As my colleague from Jonquière already explained in the House, changing the names of the two acts and the two boards to remove the word “petroleum” is greenwashing pure and simple.
We need to face the facts. Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador intend to double Canada's oil production by 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. To reach this objective means launching 100 new drilling projects by 2030. One hundred new drilling projects is a lot.
A few weeks ago, in the middle of the week of the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit, the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that they intended to open thousands more square kilometres of marine environments to oil exploration projects. That was right in the middle of the Climate Ambition Summit week. I am sure the contradiction is not lost on anyone.
Canada was also slapped on the wrist in New York when the UN under-secretary-general for global communications called out the Prime Minister by describing Canada as “one of the largest expanders of fossil fuels last year”. Far from an honour, this distinction is an embarrassment.
The Minister of Environment defends his leader by saying the following:
The federal government has no jurisdiction over the use of natural resources. What we have said and what we are doing is taxing pollution from the oil and gas sector and all other industries.
What the government has the opportunity to do through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is not open up thousands of square kilometres of marine environment to oil development projects. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, some of the areas identified by the government for exploration are part of a marine refuge set up to protect biodiversity.
Who set up this marine refuge? The Liberal government itself. This is where we reach the height of irony. This marine refuge was set up by the government in 2019 to meet its international commitments to protect marine environments. According to the federal government, this is an ecologically and biologically important area that supports great diversity, including several species in decline. Using fishing gear that would touch the sea floor is prohibited, but if we follow the government's logic, it will be possible for oil companies to drill exploratory wells there.
That is kind of where we are headed with the government. It is not the path to take when it comes to climate change and the climate crisis. I invite parliamentarians to reflect on this issue.
1388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the future member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. When massive wind farms are planned for the very rich fishing grounds that exist in her future riding around the Gaspé peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, who will she stand with? Will she stand with big wind energy or will she stand with the fishing industry?
My second question is this: I wonder if my hon. colleague would be willing for Quebec to pay back the equalization payments it has received from provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta that were derived from the oil and gas industry.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑49 by saying that this attempt to remove the term “petroleum” from the names of the boards was just more smoke and mirrors from the Liberals when it comes to the environment. In Quebec, we do not need to double oil and gas production.
Could my colleague explain to me why, from coast to coast to coast, there is so much need for oil and gas exploration and for production to be doubled when, in reality, we should be investing in the energy transition? Perhaps he can tell me about his part of the country.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C‑49 at second reading. The bill amends the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. I will briefly talk about the bill, then I will talk about Quebec's choices and, lastly, I will talk about Ottawa's poor choices.
First, under bilateral accords, the federal and provincial governments jointly manage oil and gas resources in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Bill C‑49 amends the federal implementation acts for these accords. I will go over the key changes. Bill C‑49 builds on the existing petroleum regulatory scheme to establish a new regulatory scheme for offshore renewable energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The Minister of Justice defines renewable energy projects as follows:
An offshore renewable energy project means any work or activity that relates to the exploitation or potential exploitation of a renewable resource to produce an energy project, that is not conducted by or on behalf of a government or educational institution.
Parallel to the legislative amendment, there are two regional assessments under way for offshore wind energy development: one in Nova Scotia and one in Newfoundland and Labrador. These assessments will provide information and analysis regarding future offshore wind energy development activities that would be governed by the amended development legislation.
The government is presenting Bill C-49 as an operation to develop offshore renewable energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. According to the government, “the global offshore wind market alone forecast to attract one trillion dollars in global investment by 2040.” It is worth noting that the goal of developing wind energy is linked to the goal Canada set out in its hydrogen strategy, which aims to supply countries, including Germany, with clean hydrogen.
Second, as mentioned in a December 2022 note on exploratory drilling and marine biodiversity, we know that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed and seismic surveys interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.
While exploration activities may be noisy, development activities are risky. While accidents can happen and spills have a serious environmental impact, as was the case with the explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April 2010, even regular activities create a dangerous amount of pollution for wildlife. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the federal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in the very marine refuges it created.
Since the pandemic, the Liberal government has been repeating that the economic recovery depends on a strong, resilient and innovative oil industry, even though the Bloc Québécois has been presenting alternatives since the summer of 2020 through its green recovery plan—I would even go so far as to talk about a green finance plan. I have to give a nod to my colleague from Mirabel who has worked hard on this file. There is something to this.
Speaking of environmental risks and the oil industry, I want to repeat the wise words of the member I used to work for. He used to say, “It is not a matter of whether an accident will occur, but when.” Sooner or later, we will have to repair serious environmental damage.
During the pandemic, the federal government accelerated the environmental assessment process to authorize 40 exploratory drilling projects east of Newfoundland and Labrador in an area frequented by endangered species. Environmental groups initiated proceedings against the federal government because the regional assessment process for exploratory oil and gas drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was incomplete.
Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels per year, which will require 100 new drilling projects by 2030. That is a lot.
Ottawa approved Norwegian oil company Equinor's Bay du Nord megaproject off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite protests from environmental groups, Bay du Nord appears to be the first of many new oil projects, since new licences were recently auctioned off for oil exploration in over 100,000 square kilometres.
It reminds me of “Drill, baby, drill”. In early November 2022, four oil companies spent $238 million to win auctions for exploration work over an area of 1.2 million hectares. The licences were granted by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador. Its mandate is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources.
In July 2020, Canada joined the Global Ocean Alliance, a U.K. initiative that now includes 73 states that are committed to defending before the UN the goal of 30% global marine protected areas by 2030. One of the key issues in the COP15 negotiations is to include in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework a commitment to protect or conserve at least 30% of the world's oceans through the establishment of highly and fully protected marine areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Let us just say that, with these projects, we are wondering how Canada will manage.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change cannot assume their leadership role at the UN Biodiversity Conference and advocate for the protection of the oceans while authorizing and promoting the development of the oil and gas industry in sensitive marine areas. As I have indicated, the Liberal government authorized oil exploration in the very marine refuge that it itself had created. How could this government have any credibility when it comes to ocean conservation?
According to the department's own words, the Northeast Newfoundland Slope marine refuge is “an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area that supports high diversity, including several depleted species”. The Liberal government has authorized drilling in that very marine refuge. However, even BHP, the oil company behind the project, recognizes that the marine region is home to many species of fish, birds and marine mammals, 36 of which have been designated at risk.
According to the Liberal government, marine refuges where there are exploratory activities can still count towards Canada's marine conservation objectives until actual extraction and production takes place. In light of scientific knowledge about the dangers of exploratory drilling, this makes no sense. It also flies in the face of international marine conservation standards.
Once and for all, Quebec is putting a stop to oil and gas exploration and production inside its borders. We have made our decision. While the federal government carries on like this, Quebec has officially started its energy transition. On April 12, 2022, the Quebec National Assembly passed an act ending exploration for petroleum and production of petroleum and brine and to eliminate government funding for these activities. This new law prohibits oil and gas exploration and production while revoking all licences active Quebec. It also provides for the closure of wells drilled under these licences and site remediation. The Quebec ministry of natural resources will conduct hydrogeologic studies and perform the monitoring and control activities required to ensure that the work does not harm the environment.
Since August 23, 2022, oil and gas exploration and production has been banned in Quebec, and every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. There were 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three authorizations to produce brine and two storage leases extant in Quebec. Quebec made a clear choice. Furthermore, holders of a revoked licence must permanently close the wells drilled under their licence and restore the sites. Quebec is the first first North American jurisdiction to ban oil and gas exploration and production in its territory. Quebec is part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, or BOGA, a coalition of governments that are committed to the same goal. Quebec is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.
Third, I want to make a comparison. In 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador's oil production was 282.7 thousand barrels per day, or 5% of Canada's overall production and 24% of Canada's light oil production. Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest producer of crude oil in eastern Canada and is the third-largest oil-producing province in Canada, after Alberta and Saskatchewan.
In conclusion, let us work on this bill in committee. We can talk about it there. The Bloc Québécois is ready to collaborate in the true spirit of the energy transition.
1498 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages.
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted.
Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49.
Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we want the bill to go to committee because we want to have this kind of discussion on the clauses. We still have too many questions. We would like to present amendments and proposals.
My colleague mentioned Quebec, but as I said in my speech, Quebec made a clear choice to get away from oil and gas. What we are talking about is Bill C-49. While we are still talking about possible investments in oil and gas, Quebec has decided to make a much greener choice and to truly get away from oil and gas and ban these projects.
I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. They will no doubt deliver a great presentation in committee, putting forward proposals and defending Quebec's environmental interests.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:51:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was excellent, as his speeches always are.
We have seen demonstrations in recent days that have included unacceptable actions and slogans. That kind of thing has no place in a country like Canada, and I say that as a Quebec sovereignist.
I have a question for my hon. colleague. Is it not important for us all here in the House to be united, not divided? Is this not the time for all the representatives of Canada's 338 ridings to band together, stand shoulder to shoulder and ensure that no one tries to score political points on human tragedies? Instead, we need to unite, lead by example, and perhaps prevent certain acts in our communities that have no place here.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 8:23:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, as a Quebec sovereignist I want to say that Canada is not a global military or economic power, but it has a history of leadership in international human rights. One need only think about Brian Mulroney during apartheid or of Lester B. Pearson and the peacekeepers. I will give only those two examples to keep things equal between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
It has been a long time since Canada has played that sort of role on the world stage and now an opportunity is presenting itself. We need to resume that leadership role and make this our mission. As I was saying earlier, everyone here, the 338 members from all parties, even the independent members, must unite in calling for this humanitarian corridor, which is so important for saving human lives. That is something tangible that we can do. We would save lives. In order to do that, Canada needs to unite, all of the politicians here in the House must unite and ask Israel to set up a humanitarian corridor to bring in international aid.
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 9:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Alexandre Look, a 33-year-old from Montreal.
His mother told RDI that her son had called, over video, at about 11:15 p.m., Quebec time. He said, “Mommy, we're in the middle of a terrorist attack.” His father added, “We witnessed our son's murder.”
Young Alexandre took refuge in a shelter with about 30 other people. According to reports, survivors who were with Alexandre Look in the shelter explained that he tried to block the entrance, which had no door. That is when he was fired upon by militants. One of the survivors had this to say about Alexandre: “I swear to you, he was our shield. If he hadn't been there, we'd all be dead.” This Montrealer gave his life to save others.
Shir Georgy, 22, Ben Mizrachi, 22, Adi Vital-Kaploun, 33, and Netta Epstein, 21, were all Canadians.
These are Canadians murdered in cold blood, each with a heartbreaking, terrifying story, Canadians taken hostage, each with a heartbroken and terrified family. I spoke to a father. His voice still rings in my ear. His daughter was kidnapped and he lays awake at night wondering if she is alive or dead.
There are Canadians in Gaza, hoping to come home, hoping to find safety. There are Canadians in Israel, hoping to come home, hoping to find safety.
There are families, many families from my community in Outremont, who found themselves in Israel for the Jewish holidays. As I am sure many members of Parliament understand, who have heard from families with loved ones, I have been immersed night and day, day and night, in one thing. That is the safe return of our Canadians. I cannot describe the calls with sirens in the background, babies screaming and parents asking for help; parents asking to get on a plane.
Our utmost priority has been the safe return of all Canadians whether they are from Gaza, the West Bank or Israel, whether they are Muslim, Jewish or Coptic Christians, like those who flew home on our military plane just a few days ago.
Our government will continue to devote itself to keeping all Canadians safe. For me that means two things: bringing our people home and keeping our country free from the hateful rhetoric and violence that flourishes anywhere and everywhere whenever we pit one community against another.
I have been horrified by the explosion of hate here in Canada and around the world; in Germany there are apartment buildings where Jewish people live that were marked with a star of David, a horrific echo of Nazi persecution; in Australia, a crowd of so-called protesters shouted “Gas the Jews” over and over again, and in the United States, a Palestinian boy, a boy just six years old, was fatally stabbed 26 times.
In Montreal, less than 48 hours after the massacre in Israel, a demonstration was held to celebrate the terrorist attack by Hamas as an act of resistance. A few days ago, some young people from the Université de Montréal shared their fear with me. Some are being harassed. Some begged me to appeal to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal on their behalf. Worried parents fear for the safety of their children. That is happening here at home, in Montreal.
The position that Canada has taken is that of all western democracies. It is the only position that could allow the rules-based order to survive. It is to defend one's territory and defend one's people against terror. Should a terrorist organization enter our country's borders and attack Canadians, would we not respond? Yes, we would.
Do Palestinians in Gaza who had nothing to do with the massacre by Hamas have the right to access food, water and fuel? I want to be crystal clear: Without a doubt, they absolutely do. Should there be a humanitarian corridor? There absolutely should. Should there be safe passage to neighbouring countries such as Egypt? Of course there should be. However, as a Canadian government, our priority is to defend Canadians, and we too were attacked.
Canadians have been taken hostage by this terrorist organization; Canadians have died at the hands of this terrorist organization. Those responsible need to be stopped, because if anyone in this House of Commons aspires to peace, hopes for a just and lasting resolution and dreams of a two-state solution and of a Palestinian state living side by side with an Israeli state, then Hamas must be destroyed.
779 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
