44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
- May/15/23 3:00:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain pipeline project continues to be a drain on public money. It is gobbling up money at an alarming rate. When the government bought the pipeline from Kinder Morgan, the estimated cost of expansion was $7.4 billion. In 2020, the estimated cost was $12.6 billion and in 2022, it was $21.4 billion. Today, the estimated cost is $30.9 billion and Trans Mountain continues to push for more.
When will it end? How deep into debt will the federal government drag the public for the sake of dirty oil?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 3:01:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not only is expanding Trans Mountain at our expense an economic failure, it is an environmental disaster. To recoup all the money thrown at this project, the Crown corporation is going to have to ship a lot of oil for a long time. Trans Mountain expects to have a capacity of 890,000 barrels of oil per day after the expansion.
It is going to take a lot of oil days to pay back a $30.9-billion debt, but who will take care of our environmental debt?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:46:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We are both members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
He talked about the right to a healthy environment. Although that right has been added to the government's mission, the bill does not create a true right. In Quebec, that right was incorporated into the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in 2007.
Does my colleague think that it is time to have the courage to open the Constitution to formally include this right in the charter?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:02:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I will also salute my colleague. We work together on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The Senate proposed a number of amendments to the bill regarding pollution prevention. To my utter dismay, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against those amendments.
It is often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, whether we are talking about health or not. Should the same thing not apply to the environment?
Planning for pollution would enable us to prevent disease.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:17:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I see that the committee is here in full force to talk about Bill S‑5.
I have to say one thing. I do not share the committee chair's enthusiasm for the passage of Bill S‑5 or the great progress it could bring about.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, but without much enthusiasm. In our opinion, this bill makes only a small step, not great strides.
The Senate made some worthwhile amendments, but the government and the official opposition did not support them.
I know that my colleague does not share my assessment of the work that has been done. The Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that we missed an opportunity to do a lot more for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:34:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, because he touched on the fact that all the parties here have had sometimes similar and sometimes different positions on the environment. When we worked on Bill S-5, the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois all had more or less similar amendments because we relied on experts from all the environmental groups. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against the suggestions we put forward based on the input of environmental groups. We feel that it was the industry's ideas that prevailed. Yes, it is important to listen to the industry because it has experts, but it is also important to have representatives from environmental groups who are also experts.
Was too much emphasis put on the industry's agenda in our analysis of Bill S-5?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:47:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, my colleague started his speech by paying special tribute to the work of non-governmental organizations. However, most, if not all, of the amendments that were moved by the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, based on input from the environmental groups, were brushed aside by the government and the official opposition.
I think a lot remains to be accomplished if we hope to really modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and protect the public's health and the environment.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 6:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the right to a healthy environment is set out in the bill's preamble. Therefore, it does not apply to other laws.
Does my colleague believe that the government lacked the courage to establish a real right to a healthy environment in its modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
