So V ote

Jun/14/23 6:00:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-219

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on a subject is important as the environment and our vision for the future of the planet and our country for our children and grandchildren. The bill introduced by our NDP colleague deserves our attention. First of all, we feel that the key element of this bill is that it ensures that people can live in a healthy environment. It is a principle we share, of course, and one we shared in Bill S‑5, as the member stated earlier in response to a question from the member for Terrebonne, my Bloc Québécois counterpart. The bill we are currently studying certainly does go much further than Bill S‑5 in protecting the environment and ensuring that people can live in a healthy environment. We recognize that. As we see it, however, the bill goes too far in the judicial area. This is a delicate issue. Ultimately, we believe that the judiciary must enforce laws, and that elected representatives of the people must make the laws and vote on them. This is a fundamental principle. Based on the wording of the bill, we think that the judiciary will become the legislative authority. This is where our visions differ. Ultimately, we do not believe that the role of judges is to decide how laws are made, but rather, to decide how they should be enforced. It is the role of the legislator, the elected representatives of the people, to establish legal frameworks. This is not to say that the bill should be scrapped. On the contrary, it contains some positive elements that could serve as inspiration for other legislation and other parliaments. These strong elements could be used to create an even more forceful argument in support of the need for people to live in a healthy environment. We recognize and support this principle. This gives us the opportunity to discuss the environmental issue. We all know that climate change is real and that it directly affects peoples' lives. Humans contributed to climate change, so they have a responsibility to take steps to reduce the impact of climate change and, essentially, reduce pollution. Members will recall that just a few days ago, on Monday afternoon, the deputy House leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable read a motion that was unfortunately rejected by the Liberal government, a move we vigorously condemn. The motion included all the elements of our vision for the environment. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Liberals. I will read the motion moved by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable: That the House: (a) stand in solidarity with and express its support for all those affected by the current forest fires; (b) acknowledge that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events, such as floods, tornadoes, forest fires and heat waves; (c) recognize that the federal government must do more to combat climate change, prevent its impacts and support communities affected by natural disasters; (d) call on the federal government to take concrete action in the fight against climate change, which is at risk of becoming increasingly expensive for both the public and the environment. That text outlined our vision concerning climate change. It unequivocally stated that we acknowledge that climate change exists, that it has an impact on the extreme weather events that we are experiencing, that it makes them worse and that it is our duty, as parliamentarians, to take concrete steps to address that situation. It is unfortunate that, for the sake of petty partisan politics, the government rejected our motion. The Liberals simply had to say yes. I cannot believe that they had anything against a single word or sentence of that motion. However, they could not acknowledge that we Conservatives are thinking about this issue. I understand them, in a way, because they have nothing to be proud of. After eight years of this government, where does Canada stand on the world environmental stage? I would remind members that, after being elected in 2015, the Prime Minster was proud as a peacock to stand up at the Paris climate conference and say, “Canada is back”. Eight years later, Canada is way back. It is not me saying it, it is the UN itself. In November, at COP27 in Egypt, the United Nations tabled a report containing a scathing indictment of this Liberal administration. The report assessed the 63 most industrialized countries and scored each country on effectiveness in fighting climate change. Scientists from around the world who were brought together by the UN gave the following report on the Liberal government that has been in power for eight years. Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in terms of fighting climate change. It is not the Conservatives saying that, it is UN scientists who said it in a report. Since the UN released that report, I have asked for unanimous consent from the House over a dozen times, if not more, to table that scientific UN document. Once again, the Liberals in power decided that that UN assessment should be swept aside and that they should continue as if nothing were wrong. The problem is that they talk a good game but cannot deliver. That is also why Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change that recently marked its 30th anniversary, decided to sue the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, because it feels that the government is good at rhetoric, but not so good at fighting climate change. Once again, it is not the Conservatives saying that, it is Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. On May 6, 2022, he was sued by Equiterre, the group he founded. The government has chose to fight climate change with taxes. That is not the road we want to take. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who I just questioned at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, confirmed that the Liberal approach of creating a second carbon tax on clean energy, as they themselves have stated, will have a direct impact on every family in Quebec. Quebec families will need to spend an average of $436 more because of that double carbon tax. In other words, Quebec families will have $436 less in their pockets because of that double carbon tax. People really do not need that when we know that interest rates are rising. We know that everybody is struggling right now. Creating a new tax during a period of inflation when people are struggling is absolutely ridiculous. I would go so far as to say that only the Liberals could come up with such an idea. Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about hope. We Conservatives want the government to put in place concrete, realistic and responsible measures to tackle climate change. If the Liberals do not, we will. The fundamental principle to consider is the need to reduce pollution. That will take concrete action. What does that mean? It means reaching out to polluters and asking them to cut their pollution as much as possible. It is a bottomless pit, but that is okay. If we somehow manage to lower our pollution by 20% in one year, I say bravo. However, what is to be done on January 1 to reduce the impact of pollution on our environment? For that, we must rely on research and development, new technologies and tax incentives for businesses to invest in them. Real, concrete measures are needed to reduce pollution. Then, the green light needs to be given to green energy. In Canada, we have tremendous solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy potential. We can develop our green energy potential even further. To do that, however, the government would have to be willing to move forward and not constantly throw up roadblocks every time we come up with an idea. Under Bill C-69, which was passed in 2019 with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, the federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects in Quebec. That is crazy. If the Government of Quebec wants to propose a hydroelectric project, it should get every facility to move forward, but the federal government gave itself veto power with the surprising and disappointing backing of the Bloc Québécois. In addition, our Canadian know-how must be exported. Our natural resources must be exported. It is unfortunate that rare metals like lithium, cobalt and other similar elements are currently being mined in countries where human rights are unfortunately not respected. We need to promote Canadian potential. The fourth part is more than just a pillar; it is the foundation of our whole vision. It is that all this needs to be done in partnership with first nations, as our leader said at a press conference in Vancouver three months ago.

1535 words

All Topics

May/29/23 1:13:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member began his speech by talking about Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment and about how Quebec should have full power over environmental matters within its territory. My question is this. The Bloc Québécois avoided saying much of anything about independence during the past two election campaigns, but this weekend, it talked about little else. Why did this party, which claims to be more separatist than ever, support an amendment by the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the independents that is a direct attack on a provincial jurisdiction? More importantly, how is it that, on June 13, 2019, in the House, this member and other colleagues behind him voted in favour of Bill C-69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric dam projects in Quebec?

146 words

All Topics

May/29/23 1:01:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, we just have to look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberal government, people pay more taxes and we still have more pollution. These are the facts. This is why the Liberal carbon tax does not work.

41 words

May/29/23 1:00:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons. The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act. If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

125 words

All Topics

May/29/23 12:58:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, let me pay all my respects to the quality of the member's French. We have all worked to learn a second language. When I talk about a second language, I am not talking about French. I am talking about the second language after our mother tongue language. For as long as we need natural resources, including fossil resources, and for as long as we need oil, I will always stand for what is right for Canada, just as I support hydroelectricity and everything that comes from our country's natural resources. Can we be proud to be Canadians? Yes, we can and we must. The same goes for all natural resources.

114 words

All Topics

May/29/23 12:56:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am fully prepared to recognize, and that is the hon. member's love for Quebec and Quebeckers. I know that he knows—as I said a few moments ago in a parliamentary committee—that Quebeckers do not exist in a vacuum, that they live on planet Earth and that, last year, according to a study by the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil. Today's reality is that Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year. I am more than willing to hear all the arguments about getting rid of oil, because it is terrible, because it is this or that. Yes, but the fact is that Quebec consumes 18 billion litres of oil. In addition, 47% of that oil comes from the United States. The last time I checked, neither Texas nor Louisiana contribute to equalization.

163 words

All Topics

May/29/23 12:54:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the member that this is the first time I am hearing about this. I will take that under advisement, because I do not want to treat it like an insignificant detail. On the contrary, little things like that are what is hurting our environment and we need to take the work seriously. Because we do need to take this work seriously, it would be very hypocritical of me to start pleading on behalf of that beautiful little orange butterfly. It would be like if I were talking about blue jays. Out of respect for this issue, for my colleague, for the House and for myself, I will not just rattle off any old answer, but yes, we need to be careful. I understand very well the political spin that my colleague is putting on this, seeing how the Minister of Environment, the founder of Équiterre, is currently being sued by Équiterre because he decided to develop the full potential of Canada's natural resources through projects like Bay du Nord, which we applaud. Beyond that, I will take the member's suggestion under advisement and come back to it another time.

199 words

All Topics

May/29/23 12:51:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it? We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential. Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.

196 words

May/29/23 12:30:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate. As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill. Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain. This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more. That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do. The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward. I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation. The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that. Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined. The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well. There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did. In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Équiterre with a few friends. As we know, Équiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them. However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction. The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view. In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre. He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022. Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that. I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items. In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me. What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture. We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill. Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s. That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite. Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality. The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation. These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences. This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.” Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for. When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources. This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject. Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s. Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say. In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.” Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country. The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill. In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015: “Canada is back. Canada is back."? Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right. The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

2930 words

All Topics

May/29/23 12:20:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in today's debate. I am also very pleased to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, again. I have a lot of respect and esteem for him. I will give him a moment to put his earpiece on properly so that he can hear the interpreters. Incidentally, I would like to thank them for doing such a great job. Before raising a substantive issue, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, the government has made a mistake. It is a logistical error, but it is annoying. We are here in the House to debate a bill on the environment, Bill S-5, on which the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard. At the same time, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is meeting to debate another issue. To my knowledge, this is the first time that an issue is being debated in the House and in committee by the same MPs. I think that this is an oversight on the part of the government House leader. I encourage him to be more careful in future. My question for the hon. member is as follows. On January 30, in committee, the member and his party voted in favour of a motion moved by the Conservative member for Calgary Centre. The motion sought to withdraw an amendment that had been proposed by Senator McCallum. When the NDP presented its amendment here in the House two weeks ago, however, the Liberal Party voted in favour of it. That is the exact opposite of what it did in committee. Why take both sides on the same issue?

289 words

May/3/23 5:10:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say to address the question raised by my colleague from the NDP. Just to be very clear and very appropriate on this, I think it is a work in motion. Yes, I think that this bill addresses some issues, some specific issues, and maybe not enough for some people. That is fine. We are working forward to adapt it, to modify it and to improve it if necessary.

75 words

May/3/23 5:08:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's contribution. We were elected at the same time in 2015 and, no matter what anyone says, there is always a special connection between members who were elected the same year. I want to acknowledge her support and her efforts when it comes to the environment. I recognize that and I commend her. Once is not a habit. Yes, there have been times when we voted with the government. It may have happened more often than she thinks or perhaps less often than she thinks. We did it because we were looking for consensus. It is important to balance the needs of environmentalists with the reality of the businesses that will have to work within these laws. If we implement measures that are so severe, harsh and brutal that businesses are unable to achieve the targets immediately, then it is an exercise in futility. I recognize that we have worked with the government at times, but we feel that this was a bill that needed to move forward. Yes, we offered our support and co-operation, but we have also been very critical, as I was earlier, of this Liberal government's environmental record over the past eight years.

208 words

May/3/23 5:06:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate working with the hon. member and all the other members of the environmental committee. That was my first hard work, I would say, on this issue since I was appointed on the climate change issue. I am very proud to be the shadow minister on this issue. Yes, I do agree. Things are moving so fast in our world right now. We see climate change and we have to address it as soon as possible, but the technology and the impact are moving very fast. This is why we need to review it. We spent the last, I would say, quarter of a century before reviewing the law that had been adopted in 1999. For sure, we do not have to wait another 24 years to address it. This is why I think we should have a time frame that will let people analyze what is right, what is working and what we have to fix, to be sure that we apply all the good rules to correct the situation.

175 words

Context: House Hansard - 172 - Mar/23/23

May/3/23 4:55:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on Bill S‑5, dealing with the important issues of the environment and climate change. As hon. members know, I have the pleasure and privilege of being the official opposition critic on the environment and climate change. I was named such by the leader of the official opposition and member for Carleton, and so I take the lead on these matters. We all recognize that climate change is real, that humans played a role in climate change and that humans therefore have a role to play in addressing climate change and mitigating it as much as possible. I also want to remind members that this bill is at its final stage. We will support the spirit of the bill. We believe it represents significant progress in dealing with environmental challenges. We have been waiting for such a bill, and rightly so, since the first version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1999. It has been nearly a quarter century, or exactly 24 years, since there has been an update to this environmental protection legislation. It needed to be done, it has been done and we are happy about that. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that this bill is not new. It was introduced two years ago as a House of Commons bill, Bill C‑28. The work was under way, good progress was being made and, all of a sudden, it had to be abandoned. Why? Because the Liberal government, or rather the Prime Minister — I was told that many in the government and in that party did not entirely agree — in the middle of a pandemic, at the start of the fourth wave of COVID‑19, decided to trigger an election that cost Canadian taxpayers over $600 million, only to end up with about the same result. Consequently, we lost over a year on this bill, which found its way back on the agenda through a side door, let us say. I am not saying that there is a main door and a side door. Let us say that the two doors are equally important: the door of the House of Commons and the door of the Senate. Oddly, the government decided to introduce this new bill by knocking on the Senate door. That is their right, but it is still surprising. We are now at the last stage after having heard 80 witnesses and studied about 100 briefs. The bill, with its 60-or-so pages and dozens and dozens of clauses, received very little consideration in committee, in the Senate and here. As I said earlier, these are steps forward that are welcomed by environmental groups and by industry. Before I go any further, I just want to make a small observation. Earlier, I heard the leader of the Green Party rightly point out that she finds it regrettable that, in our parliamentary system, independent members cannot bring forward amendments or take part each day in parliamentary committees to improve the rules. That may indeed be a bit troubling to see, as we are all elected, but the rules are the rules and they must be respected. We know the rules. I should mention another situation that may seem a bit unfortunate for Canadian democracy, but those are the rules. In 2019, the Liberal Party obtained fewer votes than the Conservative Party. Who formed government? The Liberal Party, because they had more members. In 2021, the Liberal Party obtained fewer votes than the Conservative Party, but the Liberal Party formed government. Why? Because they had more members. People who observe democracy in the true sense of the word will wonder how those who obtained the most votes do not form government. It is because our rules are established in that way. We, the Conservatives, are a party of law and order, and we respect the rules. Are we happy with the situation? Of course not. Do we follow the rules? Yes. We do our work properly. The same goes for all independent members. Let us now go to the issue and substance of this bill. As I said earlier, this bill is not brand new. It was tabled two years ago, but we had an election. This bill would refresh an old bill from 1999 that was debated and adopted by the House of Commons. That is why we have to refresh it. I would like to mention three fundamental aspects. The bill is so thick I could talk about this for hours. Essentially, the bill stipulates that everyone has a right to a healthy environment. This is a major breakthrough. At the same time, the concept of what constitutes a healthy environment is open to debate and interpretation, and needs to be defined. The bill proposes a 2-year period for developing a legal framework that establishes exactly what constitutes a healthy environment. The first stage is a step in the right direction, and we welcome this progress. The bill acknowledges the importance of vulnerable populations. These vulnerable populations must be taken into account when it comes time to develop or approve new projects with environmental impacts or to assess the potential toxicity of certain projects. The bill also provides for the creation of a mechanism for regulating chemical substances. Some might call them toxic substances, but we prefer to speak of chemical substances that can be assessed in some way or another, but that must be effectively regulated by this bill. This is why I think the bill is going in a good direction. It is not the end of the road, but it is a good direction. We have to recognize that some green activists are very positive about it, and recognize that we can do something more and that this is not enough. We also have to recognize that industry people sometimes see things as tough but think this a good way to address the issue. That is why this is a step in the right direction. It was eagerly awaited by environmental groups and industry folks who managed to work together at times and against one another at other times. That is democracy for you. This is the bill we ended up with. This bill is another great reminder that this government is heavy on rhetoric but pretty light on concrete results. Let us not forget that not so long ago, on April 20, 2023, the commissioner of the environment tabled five reports in the House that were not very positive. The reports were specifically about the government's concrete achievements. The commissioner, Jerry V. DeMarco, made a rather stinging mention of the Prime Minister's very ambitious goal of planting two billion trees by 2031. What a laudable commitment. How beautiful and exciting, emotional even, since he made it in the company of the person who was attracting the most attention worldwide on the environment. The Prime Minister actually used that individual to make an announcement that he considered historic, important and sensible for the future of the entire planet. He promised to plant two billion trees. Once again, we see a lot of rhetoric and a lot of images, but very few results. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying it, it is the environment commissioner who has said that the tree planting program will not reach the objectives set by the government. This same commissioner also stated that a good number of the regulations made and implemented by the government cannot measure actual effectiveness. It is fine to announce regulations that are supposed to be ambitious, rigorous and demanding, but the ability to assess results is lacking. There is a lot of talk and few concrete results. The environment commissioner also stated that the government was not doing enough for species at risk. A COP15 conference was held in Montreal. I want to salute the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who, as we know, was an ardent environmental activist. He hosted the entire world in his backyard, because his riding is very close to where the conference was held. Protecting certain environments was one of the topics addressed at this conference. That was a good thing, so I say bravo. That said, the environment commission said that this government is not doing enough for species at risk. I also could have talked about the report released by the UN at COP27, which found that, under this government, Canada is ranked 58th out of 63 countries. Canada, after eight years of Liberal governance, is ranked 58th out of 63 countries for environmental protection. As my time has expired, I will happily and resolutely answer any questions.

1468 words

All Topics

Mar/23/23 6:35:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-226

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill C-226, which was introduced by the leader of the Green Party. I believe she once again holds what I would call a historic title, one she deserves. She took a few breaks during her career and her party has taken a few breaks, but I think that everyone recognizes that the leader of the Green Party, the member from British Columbia, is the embodiment of the Green Party across Canada. The title of the bill is an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice. I want to set the record straight right away. We are all in favour of fighting against racism. Racism is a scourge, a problem, a cancer in all societies of the world. We need to address it. We are also all striving for greater justice, a better balance and better opportunities for everyone in society. Anytime we have been in office and have had the pleasure and good fortune of honouring people's trust, we have always focused on and achieved those objectives, while recognizing that in some ways this is a never-ending battle, because we must always strive for greater justice. We recognize that climate change exists, that it is the result of human activity, and that, for this reason, humans must invest in reducing the impact of climate change. Of course, we also recognize that the right to live in a healthy environment must exist. In fact, this is reflected in Bill S-5. The take-away from what I just said is that we all agree on the goals: striving for less racism and more justice, addressing climate change and ensuring we live in a healthy environment. The path we are proposing to get there, however, is quite different and, from our perspective, far more realistic and responsible. I say this because for the past eight years, the Liberals have been governing by spending a lot of time lecturing everyone about climate change. They have been insulting us at every turn, as if we have done absolutely nothing. However, under our watch, the energy sector, for one, saw greenhouse gas emissions drop by 2.2%. The government certainly enjoys lecturing others on the environment, but what has it actually accomplished over the past eight years? The news is not good. It did not achieve its targets, except recently and only because the Canadian economy, like the global economy, slowed down during the COVID‑19 crisis. That is why emissions fell. Under their stewardship, the Liberals never managed to meet any targets whatsoever. Need I remind anyone that they were very proud to say, back in 2018, when signing the Paris accord with 195 other countries, that Canada would be a leader? I clearly remember the founder of Equiterre, now Minister of Environment and Climate Change, saying that he was finally proud to be Canadian because the Canadian government was going to take action. Unfortunately, the Canada of this Liberal government is not one of the 13 or 14 countries that hit the Paris targets. It was quite a damning assessment to get during the recent COP in Egypt, which, as we know, is an ideal place to talk about climate change and bring the world together. Where did Canada rank? It is 58th out of 63 countries. The UN ranked 63 countries. After eight years under the Liberal government, what is Canada's rank? It is 58th out of 63. In a lecture-giving contest, the Liberals would most certainly rank first. In terms of achievements, however, they are 58th out of 63. That is their record and their signature. The Conservatives—who are attacked daily by these people on the environment—are not the ones saying this. No, it is the UN, which made a neutral, objective and, above all, non-partisan scientific observation. What result has this Liberal government obtained for Canada? It is 58th out of 63. What is their magical solution? They tax. According to them, taxation will reduce pollution. It does not work that way. Pollution has increased on their watch. The Conservatives' approach is completely different. Our approach to climate change has four basic pillars, which I will explain. The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in high-tech solutions through favourable tax policies. The people who emit pollution know why and how they emit it, and they are the ones who can lower emissions, because the objective is always the same: to reduce pollution. It is not to meet numbers and percentages pulled out of thin air. It is to reduce pollution. Yes, we have to reduce it. When will we achieve a great reduction? Will it be this year? What will we do on January 1? We have to continue. It is a never-ending story. A government led by the member for Carleton, a Conservative government, would address it correctly with concrete solutions based on new technology. The second pillar is “green light to green energy”: no more red tape, no more paperwork. We are fast-tracking the green light project, green light to green energy. This is exactly what we want. I will give the following example. The current Government of Quebec, which was re-elected with a strong majority, is pondering the possibility of creating new hydroelectric dams. If, by chance, that is what it wants to do, we will respect the Government of Quebec's will to generate electricity with new dams. Contrary to the legislation passed by the Liberals here, we will not conduct a second environmental review of the project like they want to do. We think that the experts in Quebec are capable of assessing the environmental impact. There is no basis to assume that the people in Ottawa are better than the people in Quebec, yet that is exactly what the Liberals want to do. We will use the accelerated process and will not repeat what others have already done. We will give the green light to green energy. That brings us to the third pillar. Let us be proud of being Canadian when it comes to the environment. We have here, in our country, a considerable amount of expertise in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it comes, for example, to traditional energy, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy and wind energy. Let us be proud of being Canadian. Let us export our expertise. Let us always be the first to defend Canadian energy. As a Quebecker, I, like everyone else, saw that a report from the school of business Hautes Études Commerciales found that, last year, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of gasoline. I do not see that as positive or negative; it is simply a statement of fact. What bothers me is that 47% of that energy comes from the United States and 53% of it comes from Canada. Canada is a producer, so why do we have to send billions of dollars to Texas and Louisiana? I have nothing against Texas and Louisiana, but I know that neither of those states contributes to equalization. I checked this morning, but perhaps things have changed since then. Finally, the fourth pillar, which is at the core of all of this and the foundation on which everything must be built, is first nations. We need to work together with first nations to make them partners in our country's major environmental and economic prosperity projects. About a month and a half ago, in Vancouver, our leader, the member for Carleton, launched a broad, positive consultation with first nations. That is the key to the solution. We must partner with the first nations that contribute to and approve these major environmental projects, which are needed to tackle the challenges of climate change. It has to be done in partnership with first nations. That is why we believe that the best way to combat racism is to partner with first nations, who were subjected to racism in the past under horrible circumstances, to the great shame of our country. Members will recall that, in June 2008, the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, acknowledged the terrible wrongs that the Canadian government had committed against first nations over the course of more than 100 years at residential schools by delivering an apology in this place. That was the right thing to do. Now, it is in the past. The future must be built on prosperity, and we must put an end to racism, which is unacceptable. There is no clear definition of environmental racism in my colleague's bill, nor is there any mention of the economic impact that it might have. Overall, we believe in what the member is proposing. Yes, we need to fight racism; yes, we need to advance justice; yes, we need to address climate change; yes, we need to live in a healthy environment, but the path proposed by the member is not the path we believe needs to be taken. What we want are concrete, immediate, realistic and responsible solutions with a real impact on the fight against climate change.

1547 words

All Topics

Oct/24/22 5:38:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, consultation does not give veto rights, which is why we have to work together hand in hand and be sure that each and every person who is involved in a project are partners in its prosperity. Again, I will give the great example of the agreement of the Government of Quebec and first nations in 1975 for the James Bay project. It was huge. It was almost half a century ago, and we may have achieved that kind of agreement before, but as far as I am concerned, this was the most efficient deal that we had between a government and first nations. We did that in 1975, but just 10 years before, in 1965, the Quebec government gave $50,000 to first nations, and that is not the way to do it. However, 10 years later, we achieved great things. Yes, as long as I will be here, and as long as we have those kinds of projects, I will always work hard to ensure that first nations—

172 words

All Topics

Oct/24/22 5:36:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a doctor, and I am very pleased to see him here in the House of Commons. Based on the member's question, I think we have a responsibility, first of all, as citizens. Do we need to have access to something that is polluting? This is what we have to keep in mind. Do we need it, or can we do things differently to reduce our footprint of pollution? Yes, government has a responsibility, as does business, and scientific people can help us to make a good choice, but first and foremost, as Conservatives, we believe in the individual freedom of choice of the people, and this freedom of choice also calls for responsibility. As citizens of the world, we shall be very protective of our environment.

132 words

All Topics

Oct/24/22 5:34:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, first of all, we would like to see what the amendment is precisely. I am quite sure the member would do it correctly, and we will study it very seriously when he tables the amendment. Obviously, when we talk about a toxic situation, we do not want to see people having access, freely, to some difficulty. There is a lot of debate on that, but first and foremost, we have to study it based on the scientific proof. The more scientific proof we have, the more research we do, the better we are. When we talk about the environment, there are great steps that we have moved forward on in the last decade and in the last century, and I really believe that, in Canada, we have the scientific people to achieve great things together.

137 words

All Topics

Oct/24/22 5:32:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with my colleague's question, but I am a bit upset that he did not use the word “skeptical”. Generally when he hears a Conservative member, he says he is skeptical, so I am a bit upset, but I think he will have another chance. Obviously I am just teasing my colleague. The question he raises is very important, especially when it comes to pipelines. The member must know that Jason Kenney did not invent pipelines. There have been pipelines in Quebec since 1942. Do members know how many kilometres of pipeline there currently are in Quebec? The answer is nearly 2,000. Do members know that there are currently pipelines under the St. Lawrence River? There are not just one, two or three. There are not just five, six, seven or eight, either. In fact, there are nine. Does the member know that, in 2012, Quebec launched a brand-new pipeline? That pipeline is not in a so-called remote region, with all due respect to the people who do not live in city centres. This is a St. Lawrence pipeline that starts in Lévis and goes to Montreal, spans 248 kilometres, 630 different lands and crosses 26 waterways in the St. Lawrence River. This pipeline has been in place since 2012 and operates so well that no one is aware of it and no one talks about it.

239 words

All Topics