SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 290

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 18, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24
Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to offer my deepest condolences to the entire House of Commons staff and to the loved ones and family of the staff member we lost last week. I was going to say that I am pleased to debate Bill C‑375. I had planned a speech in good faith to recognize the positive aspects of this bill. However, I think it is a shame that when I asked the bill's sponsor a question earlier, he immediately responded with a partisan attack. I think that is a shame at a time when we are seeing mayors in Quebec stepping down because of the hate they receive from the public. When politicians express hate toward each other, that inspires the public to express hate toward their representatives. I think it is terrible when, instead of being respectful and asking and answering questions reasonably, people in politics here immediately get partisan. I think that is unfortunate, and I just wanted to mention it. I will still deliver the speech I prepared because this is a bill that seems useful to me. As the member explained, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Impact Assessment Act so that, in certain cases, the federal process will not apply to a designated project. It is not a question of exempting projects from the environmental assessment process, but rather of replacing the federal process for a designated project with a provincial one, within the framework of that province's laws. Of course, certain conditions would have to be met. First, the minister responsible, such as the Minister of Environment, and the provincial government must enter into an agreement about the designated project. In order for the federal act not to apply to a designated project, the provincial process must apply. Moreover, the process must, at the very least, be designed to “determine the effects that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the projects, including effects within federal jurisdiction” and to “identify mitigation measures for the adverse effects of the projects”. There are other provisions in the bill, notably to establish the conditions for the agreements between the minister and a given province. The agreement must be published in the Canada Gazette. The public may file comments. Within 60 days, the minister must table a report that summarizes how any notices of objection were dealt with and must publish the final agreement. At first glance, as I was saying, this bill seems useful in that it tries to improve coordination between the provincial and federal governments and promote provincial government autonomy in environmental protection matters. That is a good thing. We therefore support the bill in principle, and we would like it to be studied in committee to ensure that the proposed amendments provide an adequate framework for the non-application of the Impact Assessment Act and that the rights and prerogatives of each level of government are upheld. More specifically, what we would like to study in detail are the differences between the amendments to the existing act and the amendments proposed by Bill C‑375. As I mentioned earlier, the act already provides for an exemption or for part of the impact assessment to be delegated to a provincial government. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has the authority to delegate part of the impact assessment to a provincial government or an indigenous governing body. Obviously, that raises questions. As I asked the member earlier, if this already exists, why introduce a bill about it? The response was that it exists, but the government is not necessarily using it. As I understand it, what we should do is change the wording of the act from “may” to “shall”. It would be as simple as that. In that case, the provincial process would prevail. I really appreciated my NDP colleague's question about why the act was not amended when it was studied a short time ago. The Impact Assessment Act was updated, and an amendment could have been made at that time. I wonder why the Conservative Party did not do that. The committee will be able to ascertain the precise differences between the existing and proposed processes, as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of one process versus the other. In addition to these questions, there are three main reasons why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. First, we are already campaigning to ensure that all projects, including those under federal jurisdiction, comply with Quebec laws and municipal bylaws. Second, insofar as Quebec's environmental assessment processes are more rigorous and better adapted to the public's expectations, it is obvious that the provincial processes, and in this case, Quebec's, should prevail. The environment would simply be better protected, and the social and economic needs and aspirations of Quebeckers would also be better served. Finally, it is important to avoid the kind of absurd situations where, as I was saying earlier, impact assessments are being carried out under federal law when a project has already been rejected under a provincial decision following a provincial impact assessment. That was the case, as I mentioned, with the GNL Québec project. Members will recall that, in September 2021, the Bloc Québécois had to demand that Ottawa put an end to the federal environmental assessment for the construction of a gas plant in Saguenay after the Government of Quebec rejected the project. Once the Government of Quebec rejects a project, I do not see the point of the federal government conducting an impact assessment. Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec were clear. They did not want it, so I do not see what interest the federal government had in continuing with the process. I want to make it clear that, when it comes to the environment, the Bloc Québécois supports the ongoing improvement of laws and policies at all levels of government—federal, provincial and even municipal—that help to better preserve the natural environment. Health and environmental protection are obviously priorities for our party. Every day, in our work as parliamentarians, we defend Quebec's environmental laws from intrusions by the federal government. We propose meaningful action to reduce the environmental impacts of human activity and to properly protect our ecosystems. We also advocate for every level of government to respect each others' powers and jurisdictions, including the ability to legislate to improve environmental governance in the targeted areas of jurisdiction. Within the confines of its constitutional jurisdictions, the federal government must take responsibility for protecting the environment. The government has two tools it can use: taxation and regulation. The federal government is simply being asked to use those tools. It is being asked to fully assume its responsibilities on environmental protection, but without acting in a way that contravenes the environmental laws and policies of Quebec. What is more, when it comes to environmental policies, Quebec's laws are often stricter than Canadian laws, especially since Quebec's land belongs to Quebeckers. For the most part, its occupation, use, development and protection are governed by the laws and regulations of Quebec and the municipalities. The same goes for all the Canadian provinces. However, the federal government often gives itself the right to circumvent Quebec's laws for activities in areas under its jurisdiction. Certain activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by our laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction, for example, wharves, harbours, airports and telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to comply with Quebec's laws when it comes to federal activities and work in the province. That is in keeping with our work to defend Quebec's environmental sovereignty. We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported the unanimous declaration of the Quebec National Assembly, which adopted a motion in April 2022 affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported that motion. Neither the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada nor the NDP supported this desire for environmental sovereignty. We saw that during the various votes on environmental measures that were held here in the House. In general, what we are saying is that, when it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. So much the better if this bill seeks to give the provinces and Quebec more autonomy when it comes to environmental protection. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill so that it can be studied in committee.
1487 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24
Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)
  • Mar/18/24 11:45:33 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to this important issue. Today Canada is feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. Just a few weeks ago, the Government of Alberta announced that the wildfire season had begun. This was announced in February. Never in my life would I have imagined that wildfires would start in the middle of winter; yet, to anyone who has been paying attention, it is not too much of a surprise. Western Canada has been subject to a multi-year drought because of climbing temperatures. The climate crisis is here. Since 2019, the Impact Assessment Act has been an important tool for civil society to use to advocate for strong environmental protection. There have been significant gains made through this act. For example, the Vista coal mine expansion in central Alberta was delayed because advocates fought hard to have the project undergo an environmental assessment to address several concerns from citizens. The Ring of Fire in Ontario has received regional assessment for all projects. This is important when we consider the delicate ecosystems that exist in these regions. There are many benefits of the Impact Assessment Act that cannot be ignored. Despite these benefits, we can also see that the act has many issues. This is why the NDP voted against the Liberals' bill in 2019. One of my greatest concerns about the Impact Assessment Act is that the timelines set by the government regarding public consultations are inadequate. Extraction projects often take place near first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and they deeply impact these communities in a variety of ways. Some of these impacts can include issues related to access to traditional medicines; effects on the ability to hunt, fish and gather; health impacts from pollution; and social impacts from the demographic changes in the communities from new workers. Meaningful consultation with impacted communities is an essential piece of implementing reconciliation. As it currently stands, the Impact Assessment Act places timelines on indigenous consultations. To me, this is not in line with the spirit of reconciliation. Indigenous governments and communities should have the time they need to consider the impacts on projects that would affect them. If a nuclear plant or pipeline were built near one's home, would one not want to consider all the different possible impacts it could have before agreeing to support it? How is it fair to demand a short timeline on such things when these projects have such serious consequences for communities? When the Impact Assessment Act was amended, I believe there was an opportunity to allow for more meaningful consultations with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, partners and nations. One option would be to amend the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations to allow the impact Assessment Agency to stop the clock upon indigenous peoples' request and work with indigenous authorities to ensure recognition of their laws and decisions. Another option could be to prioritize indigenous co-operation regulations that legally recognize the inherent jurisdictional authority of indigenous nations and groups and respect this decision-making authority throughout assessments and decisions. Every level of government owes it to indigenous peoples to provide avenues of meaningful consultation. When projects undergo environmental assessment and threaten indigenous health, culture, heritage and livelihoods, we cannot expect the current timelines to address this, especially when we consider the diverse needs of different nations across the country. We must ensure that there is proper consultation and meaningful collaboration that uplifts communities. Ultimately, the Liberals failed to prioritize reconciliation with indigenous peoples when they first wrote this piece of legislation. There are amendments that my colleague could have presented to address this important issue. The Liberals like to talk a big game about standing up to oil and gas giants, but when it comes down to it, the legislation they present is littered with loopholes and exceptions for the oil and gas sector. This is like all the legislation they present. At the same time, the Conservatives seem trapped in a totally different reality, unable to acknowledge the fact that we are living in a climate crisis, let alone to create a plan to address it. It is not surprising that, in this debate today, we heard people shouting back and forth, arguing about whether it was the Conservatives or the Liberals who built more pipelines. When it comes to advocating for strong environmental protection, the truth is that the NDP is the only party willing to take on the biggest polluters head-on. We are the only federal party that has called for a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry. During a cost of living crisis, the country's biggest polluters should be paying their fair share, not exploiting people. We have also called for a more rigorous cap on oil and gas emissions to reach our Paris Agreement targets. We have been pushing the government to move on the sustainable jobs act, so it is implemented as quickly as possible. The transition to a clean economy cannot leave workers behind. By embracing bold and progressive policies that uplift communities instead of catering to the fossil fuel industry, we can create a more sustainable future for all. The Impact Assessment Act is an important tool for making sure that our air, waters, homes and environments are clean and healthy. The reality is this: The current Conservative leader has said that, if his party were to form government, it would scrap this legislation entirely. Its members believe that oil and gas companies can build projects without environmental assessments. I will remind my colleagues that this is the same industry that knowingly poisoned waters near the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and other first nations and Métis communities in northern Alberta, when tailings pond water seeped into the environment at Suncor’s Kearl tailings site. It is despicable and untenable to leave this industry to its own devices. In addition, we cannot ignore the reality that greenhouse gases do not know provincial boundaries. We must continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and a key component of the original Impact Assessment Act is acknowledging the impact that greenhouse gases have on our environment. While we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, we must uphold this important piece of the puzzle. It is crucial that provincial governments and the federal government continue to consider greenhouse gas effects in all projects, not just ones that undergo environmental assessment. We are in a climate crisis. As policy-makers, we owe it to future generations to continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, address pollution and consider this in all environmental assessments. We cannot afford to ignore it. Increasing global temperatures are having an immense impact on our country, which is felt in our communities and economy. We often hear that fighting climate change is expensive, but it would be even more expensive to ignore it. Fighting wildfires costs the federal government $1 billion every year, with this number expected to increase as wildfire seasons become longer and more intense. This does not even account for the cost of wildfires in terms of our health care system. The urgency of our cause cannot be overstated. Climate change is not a distant threat but a present reality. We have witnessed the devastating consequences, from wildfires ravaging our forests to heat waves killing hundreds of people in British Columbia. The toll on human life and livelihoods is equally profound, with marginalized groups bearing the brunt of environmental injustices. Amidst these challenges, we have to find hope by embracing bold, progressive policies, where economic prosperity and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. The time to act is now and the NDP is ready to lead the charge. As we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, I urge my colleagues to consider the undeniable impacts and costs of the climate crisis, as well as the possibilities that exist for combatting it. It is important to make sure that we also hold the Liberal government to account, not only for the injustices that it continues to perpetuate on indigenous communities but also for its inaction when it comes to keeping our communities safe. I want to thank the member for starting this discussion. I urge all my colleagues to hold this piece of legislation responsibly.
1399 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border