44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I went and read the 2019 report by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I was not sitting on the committee back then, but I could see that a lot of the people who were committee members at that time are still members today. If they supported the contents of the committee's 2019 report, I hope they will still be receptive to its contents in 2023.
To be honest, I would say that the committee's recommendations are not really included in Bill C‑52, despite the hard work done by a lot of people. As my colleague mentioned, witnesses came and gave evidence, including the citizens' group Les Pollués de Montréal‑Trudeau, and Longueuil's Comité anti-pollution des avions. I am sure that the committee met people from other places who were also experiencing soundscape issues.
Unfortunately, Bill C‑52 only provides for a single committee to cover four airports. It is pretty lacklustre compared to what the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities proposed.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 2:35:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague often neglects to mention a whole range of important facts. The price on pollution is an important component of a broad approach to fighting climate change. It is done in a manner that addresses affordability concerns. Eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back than they pay.
With respect to home heating oil, it is a specific case. We are focused on ensuring that we do it in a manner that will help us drive the fight against climate change while ensuring affordability for Canadians. It is a responsible and thoughtful approach to public policy, something we never hear from the Conservatives.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 2:56:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party pretends to offer certain principles and if people do not like those, they have other principles.
In the 2008 platform of the Conservatives, it states, “We will work...to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution.” In their 2021 platform that they all ran on, they said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.”
Given the flip-flopping on that side of the House, how do Canadians believe anything those folks say?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 2:58:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. The Harper government did not meet any of the environment targets it had. We are on track and are 85% of the way to meeting our 2030 targets. We have six years left to get there, and we will meet the interim 2026 targets. We are meeting our targets when it comes to climate change, protecting nature and phasing out plastic pollution.
Conservatives do not believe in any of this. They want to increase pollution in Canada, but not us on this side of the House. We are working for Canadians, for the health of Canadians, and for the future of our kids and our grandkids.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois has pointed out, Bill C‑52 gives the Minister of Transport a lot of freedom to proceed by regulation. That is raising many concerns among stakeholder organizations. As lawmakers, it allows us less control in performing our opposition role or in monitoring whether what is there is good, while giving the Minister of Transport too much power to introduce measures.
Will this really permit the creation of an advisory committee on the issue of noise in communities located near airports? Are the airports really going to prepare a plan to limit pollution? If the minister proceeds by regulation and if we have less power as lawmakers, we will not be able to properly carry out our opposition role.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about these drawbacks.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 3:51:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought up very good points. There is a lot of ambiguity with this, because we do not know how much power the minister would grant himself or herself, nor what kinds of rules or regulations would need to be followed.
Also, is it going to truly protect not only the rights of air passengers but also the rights of the public, as she mentioned, with respect to noise pollution on the ground?
There is so much in the bill that needs to be addressed at committee, and I look forward to it being sent back to committee as quickly as possible.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
