44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/19/23 10:10:35 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition that deals with the pressing issue of the climate crisis. Specifically, the petitioners zero in on the government's commitment to ban the export of thermal coal.
Coal, and particularly thermal coal, is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. As Canada has, unfortunately, a sorry record of increasing greenhouse gases since we pledged to cut them, the petitioners call on the government to take the necessary measures to regulate the export of thermal coal under the existing legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Amendments that went through the House in Bill S-5 are not considered in the petitioners' motion here, which I will read. Petitioners wish that the government act expeditiously to put thermal coal on the priority substances list and then, as quickly as possible thereafter, to add it to the toxic substances list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to allow the Minister of Environment to take the steps to regulate it and for the Minister of Health to also take steps under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to stop the practice which has been continuing from the Port of Vancouver. As ports along the west coast of the United States ban the export of thermal coal, U.S. thermal coal is moving out of our Port of Vancouver.
The steps that the petitioners wish us to take would expedite the government's living up to a pledge the government made in 2021.
249 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 is welcome. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have long had embedded within the legislation aspects of the Atlantic accord that make it a duty of these offshore boards to increase offshore petroleum production. I do not see those sections being removed. It is certainly welcome to see a focus that allows the offshore petroleum boards to actually promote and regulate offshore wind energy production, which is truly green.
Meanwhile, we still see subsidies pouring into fossil fuels. We still see that the government is intent on completing a pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, which we own, and it is a horror and a scandal to waste $31 billion on a project intended to produce more greenhouse gases out of the oil sands. We still are putting money into the proven failure of carbon capture and storage, which is yet another disguised subsidy to fossil fuels.
Would the government be open to amending Bill C-49 when it gets to committee to ensure that it takes away the embedded preference of petroleum over renewables?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland is probably the only one in the House who will not be surprised by what I am going to say, which is that Bill C-69 was not in the interests of environmental assessments in Canada. It was so poorly designed. It was all discretionary. There were no timelines.
The only thing that made environmentalists think it was a good bill was that Jason Kenney called it the anti-pipeline act. It could just as easily have been called the pro-pipeline act because it is discretionary and lacks the basics that have been in our environmental assessment law since the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney brought forward a very good environmental assessment act.
My hon. colleague from Lakeland knows that we will disagree on the notion that we want to expand oil and gas demand across the world and that there is any such thing as responsible oil and gas. There are only fossil fuels, and burning them destroys our future.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for my colleague from Miramichi—Grand Lake, I had not heard over the course of the summer that he faced health challenges. I had a stroke in June and this is my first opportunity to speak of it in this place since we resumed. I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, all the members from different parties who sent me notes of encouragement. As they can see, I am recovering well, but I am still not allowed to fly to Ottawa, and not allowed to fly anywhere, so I am glad I can participate virtually. For my friend from Miramichi—Grand Lake, it is good to see him back and I hope he has gotten through his health challenges.
I just do want to correct the record. The member spoke of marine protected areas as if they stopped development. From the point of view of the Green Party, we would love it if that were the case. The Minister of Natural Resources has said recently that even the interim protected areas offshore Newfoundland would be removed if the oil industry that is currently exploring there were to find oil. The government would just get rid of the protected area so that it could exploit oil there. Therefore, I will agree with members of the Conservative Party to this extent, that the Liberal ministers speak out of both sides of their mouth.
I support this bill. Let us hope we move wind energy and offshore wind energy and try to catch up with the rest of the world. We are a long way from being in the lead on this.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the hon. colleague for Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot move to my question without personally thanking him for his really kind email this summer sending prayers after my stroke. I am so grateful.
In the debate all day today I have heard Conservatives say that they do not like C-49. I have been specific about the thing I would like to see changed, which is to go back to the original Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum board acts and remove the conflict of interest that exists that promotes petroleum. However, I do not know, and I have not yet heard from my Conservative colleagues what it is that they want changed in C-49, because it is good legislation and we need to move it forward.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it is important we move rapidly to develop our offshore wind resources, but I dispute the minister's statement that it is a matter of opinion how fast we move in transition.
I ask if he has looked at the most recent report from the United Nations. The climate summit is occurring there tomorrow. It is very clear the world is not on track and that what we will experience in terms of extreme weather events in the future if we do not take dramatic action before 2030 will make this summer's events look like a Sunday picnic of perfect weather. We are right now on the cusp, standing on the edge of too late, and we are acting as though we have time for this leisurely transition. We do not.
I would ask the hon. member if he would reconsider and have the Prime Minister's cabinet reconsider, listen to climate scientists, cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline, ban fracking and do those things that are required. They are not easy, but they are required.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Sarnia that it is important to distinguish the measures that reduce emissions, or at least provide a break with respect to growing emissions, from the global phenomenon. Overall, Canada's record is one of failure under successive governments to reduce emissions. In Copenhagen, the previous government under Stephen Harper promised to reduce emissions, but it failed to do so; emissions went up. Similarly, in Paris in 2015, the government under the current Prime Minister pledged to reduce emissions, but they have gone up.
The individual use, particularly by the Province of British Columbia, in bringing in place a carbon price initially held emissions and reduced them. That was contaminated by the provincial NDP government when it changed the way our revenue-neutral carbon tax worked in B.C.
However, the global phenomenon of increased emissions and global warming has what is referred to as a feedback loop. This is something the member for Sarnia—Lambton did not identify. Burning forests add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but those burning forests are themselves caused by the carbon dioxide we already added to the atmosphere. One cannot attach that to a policy tool used in one jurisdiction and call it a failure. We really need carbon pricing, and it needs to go up.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Tip O'Neill once said all politics is local, but in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and the climate crisis, it is rather the crucible of events. We have the extreme traumatic event of Hurricane Fiona that impacted Newfoundland and Labrador so strongly. People from that province now take a different view about the climate crisis; it is personal.
This is a really exciting opportunity. Onshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador may lead to green hydrogen. Offshore could be huge. However, the federal cabinet thinks it has to have a sop for Newfoundland and Labrador so it approved the Norwegian Crown corporation Equinor with Bay du Nord, which is an abomination in the face of the climate crisis.
Can the hon. member suggest that we perhaps could get policy coherence from the government, say no to Bay du Nord and move more rapidly on onshore and offshore wind?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am so happy to see my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot. I am going to hone in on something he said in his speech about transportation needs, because it is critical.
Because of having a stroke, I could not take a plane to Ottawa, and as I needed to pursue foreign interference, I took the train. I thought of him while crossing the trestle bridge over Battle River. I thought, “I know who the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot is.” I want to let him know exactly how often one can get public transit from Vancouver to Kamloops. It is a shockingly poor two times a week that someone can get Via Rail out of Vancouver to get to Kamloops and Edmonton.
By the way, we took the train back and we were stopped. Edmonton was as far west as we could go because Via Rail cancelled the train due to the fires, so we rented a U-Haul truck out of Edmonton and drove to Kamloops. It is a long story, but would the hon. member join our passenger rail caucus so we can do everything we can to boost accessibility, for particularly low-income Canadians, to reliable public transit in rural and remote areas because all of the buses packed up and left? Any comments would be welcome.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 6:59:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for taking the tone he has taken, as did the hon. member just now, that we need to see more evidence and that we need to know. These charges are grave. I am as alarmed and aggrieved as any member in this House. I would have liked to have, right away, in response to the Prime Minister, extended condolences, support and deep sympathy for the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Unfortunately the official opposition chose to deny me the unanimous consent to speak then, but that does not stop me from thanking them for taking the very sober tone that we need to see the evidence.
Would the hon. member's leader reconsider the offer to have top-secret security clearance so that those of us who are leaders of opposition parties in this place, but particularly the leader of the official opposition, have access to materials that are classified and top secret? I ask, because I think, especially given the gravity of these recent revelations from the Prime Minister that the Government of India may have committed murder on Canadian soil, we need to see all the evidence. Does this House leader believe the leader of the official opposition might reconsider rejecting the opportunity to get top-secret security clearance?
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:36:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, information came to light from the hon. Minister for Emergency Preparedness, speaking to CBC News. He said that the Prime Minister told us what he told us yesterday because he had reason to expect that this was going to come out in the media, and he wanted to make sure the House was notified before it came out as a media leak.
I find this aspect of what we are debating tonight deeply troubling. The allegations of foreign interference from the spring, in relation to the People's Republic of China, were also based on leaks in the media from CSIS operatives.
I wonder if the hon. member has anything to share about how the Prime Minister knew this, and if this, again, was a leak to the media. It could only be from the RCMP or CSIS. Could my hon. colleague shed any light on this?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:07:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I have a question for my colleague and friend from Rivière-du-Nord.
The matter is clear. We now understand that the victim of this terrible murder, Mr. Nijjar, had been warned by police and by CSIS that he was being threatened and was not safe.
I am going to say this in English. It is late.
I am very troubled that our security forces and the RCMP were unable to keep Mr. Nijjar safe. As to this aspect, I wonder if my friend from Rivière-du-Nord has any thoughts or comments. It strikes me as a failure of our security services, and I wonder if he feels the same.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:32:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, it is an honour to rise in this place virtually to join the debate. I want to start by thanking members for the opportunity to have this speech but also to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast are grappling with something deeply shocking. It was only yesterday that the Prime Minister stood in this place. I was, as I think all of us were, completely astonished with what he said and the implications of what he said for rule of law and for the notion, which we have been grappling within this place since the spring, of foreign interference, initially in our electoral process but now also the alleged foreign interference by governments in the most deeply alarming and troubling violation of sovereignty and of decency and morality.
We really do lack for words, which is rare in this place. However, I do want to be mindful that the Prime Minister chose his words carefully and so will I. We do not yet have facts that say that the state of India was involved directly in the killing of a Canadian. The Prime Minister said, “Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar.” I want to stay with those words and try to keep my remarks within the bounds of what the Prime Minister has told us we know and we can talk about, and not assume that we have all the facts because we do not.
However, I do want to say how deeply we wish to share our condolences and sympathies with the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. It is clear now his son has been talking with the media. Not only was his father warned that his life might be at risk, but a recent media story says he met regularly with—
338 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:34:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, in forming my thoughts, I find this a very difficult topic because we have had allegations of foreign interference and now nothing could be more disturbing, troubling and unacceptable than the murder of a Canadian on Canadian soil. However, we have obligation as parliamentarians to stay calm and to allow the investigation to take place. We must, and I think we all are united in this, insist on justice being done and that the perpetrators be found.
I have questions at this point, as we stay calm and seek the facts. What on earth is going on with our security agencies that they were unable to keep Mr. Nijjar safe on Canadian soil? They had warnings. They knew. That is a question that I have in my mind, and I hope that we can get to the bottom of that as well. We need to know for a fact whether the Indian government was involved in killing a Canadian. We need to know, and we do not know that yet.
I am reminded of the Air India inquiry. The Air India inquiry, of course, looked into the 1985 bombing, which is the single largest terrorist attack ever in Canada. It killed 329 people. However, Mr. Justice Major's report, and I remember this with great clarity, told us that we could have averted that bombing if only CSIS and the RCMP had communicated with each other to avert the attack. Now we know that in June Mr. Hardeep Singh Nijjar was murdered and our security forces had advance warning, but they did not prevent his killing. I want to ask some of those same questions. Were they talking to each other? What steps were taken? What steps were not taken?
I am also quite shocked by the news that has come out through the CBC from comments made by the Minister of Emergency Preparedness that the Prime Minister chose to tell us this yesterday because otherwise the information was going to be in the media. Therefore, once again, we are drawn back to not a suggestion but the reality that in our security agencies we have people who think it is okay to leak information to the media. I go back to the report of the Right Hon. David Johnston, former special rapporteur. We know how that went, but Mr. Johnston made it very clear that we have to find out who leaks information from our security agencies because it brings Canadian security information and our security forces into disrepute with our Five Eyes partners. Security agencies need to understand—
433 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 9:38:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the question is, what is our role as members of Parliament? That is one thing I put that lens on in trying to figure out what I was going to say this evening. We can always comment on what we know about Prime Minister Modi and his anti-human-rights record and so on. However, what do we really know, and what, as parliamentarians, should we have a responsibility to oversee?
I think we need to pay a lot more attention to what is going in CSIS and the RCMP. We have not focused on the RCMP much in the House, and it may seem unrelated for some members. However, the mass casualty report points to an agency that has deep rot and real problems. We can look at CSIS, and I do not understand how we could allow the people in CSIS to call themselves whistle-blowers when they violate national security legislation, apparently with impunity. Apparently someone has done it again. We need to look at that.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 10:16:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, as the leader of a much smaller opposition party, for me it is a moment for solidarity. I really appreciate the fact that I am able, through great good luck, to immediately follow my friend from Burnaby South, the leader of the New Democratic Party, to echo his words that we need to show solidarity, and that every Canadian from every ethnicity and every part of the world who has found their way here to our country needs to feel welcomed and know they are valued. Of course we recognize that we are on lands that we have stolen from indigenous peoples. The majority of the Canadian population came from somewhere else.
I have found the speeches from colleagues and friends about their own journeys and their families' journeys to these shores to be very moving. We do unify as Canadians. I just want to thank the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party for his words.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
