Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 105 of 330
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Raj Saini Profile
2021-05-06 21:47 [p.6862]
Mr. Speaker, I think the concerns will be resolved by making sure that the pipeline is built to standards above what are required today. If Line 5 gets shut down, we will see the environmental impacts of putting 15,000 trucks and 800 railcars on the road. There will be a higher chance of spills and a higher chance of accidents on the road. We will see a huge disruption across the border and a thickening of it. Other products will be delayed. Trucks will be all over the road.
If we want to talk about the environment, we know there has never been a spill on this pipeline. We recognize that to get to net zero, we need to make sure that we incentivize our transport industry to either go electric or minimize the impacts. This pipeline serves all of those purposes, especially for the environment.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-05-06 22:20 [p.6867]
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. One thing I am concerned about tonight's debate is that we are not talking enough about solutions to this issue. We are not hearing good ideas coming forward as to how to alleviate this logjam. We are also not talking about why this has come about.
This is about fear. This is about the Governor of Michigan and her constituents being concerned about a spill. We know that Enbridge has a track record of a spill in the Kalamazoo, along with other breaks. We have also seen President Biden kill Keystone XL. We have seen the Norwegian government withdraw the money from their sovereign wealth fund. These are all signals that we are not doing enough here in Canada to tackle climate change and do our part.
Why do the Conservatives continue to argue in defence of tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas companies, instead of calling on them to do a bigger and better part? Why are they not calling for more stringent environmental regulations to build trust with the Governor of Michigan—
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-05-06 22:21 [p.6867]
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague.
I am sure he knows that Canada has the highest standards for producing petroleum and natural resources. We have to be proud of that and do what we can to sell the proudness that we have for our natural resources.
Yes, I am proud, as a Canadian, of the petroleum industry and the hydroelectricity in Quebec. We have to be proud of ourselves and say to everybody, especially to the Americans, that here in Canada we have the highest standards in producing our natural resources. Be proud.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-05-06 22:52 [p.6871]
Madam Speaker, I do not think that Canadians are fully aware of the reputation of Enbridge across the United States.
After the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill in 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board reviewed the occurrences of that spill. The head of the inquiry actually said to the media that Enbridge had a culture of negligence, and that they resembled, at the time of that spill, a bunch of Keystone cops.
We have a problem in defending, and we will have to defend, that we need to get the products to Sarnia and are cutting a corner getting from Alberta to eastern Canada by ducking through the United States. I would maintain that as a Canadian concerned for the safety of the Great Lakes and the environmental risk there, we have a problem because I do not trust Enbridge either.
That pipeline is old, and when—
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I can hardly respond to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in five seconds. That is an impossible task.
However, she does make a point, and I take it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-05-06 23:54 [p.6880]
Madam Speaker, I am afraid many members have not been able to distinguish between why some pipelines are opposed on climate reasons and others are not. Despite what many members have said in this place, there are pipelines in use that do not expand fossil fuel production, unlike Keystone, energy east and TMX, which are all about the export of raw bitumen to other countries to be refined elsewhere. The Line 5 pipeline is not being opposed by environmentalists on either side of the border because of climate constraints. It is being opposed by people who are concerned that a pipeline built in 1953 and maintained by a company with a terrible record for leaks poses a threat to the Great Lakes.
I would ask my hon. colleague this. It is very important for the Canadian government to make its views clear, but we must be realistic. Another pipeline is needed—
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I hear what my hon. colleague is saying. I am not involved in those direct negotiations, but what I have heard from Enbridge is that it is proposing some mitigation measures to ensure the pipeline is safe.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-05-03 15:33 [p.6536]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and signed by 12,920 Canadians.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about protecting British Columbia's endangered old-growth forests from logging. They note that old-growth ecosystems provide immeasurable benefits, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and cultural, recreational and educational value.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and first nations to immediately halt logging of endangered old-growth ecosystems, fund the long-term protection of old-growth ecosystems as a priority for Canada's climate action plan and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, support value-added forestry initiatives in partnership with first nations to ensure Canada's forestry industry is sustainable and based on the harvesting of second- and third-growth forests, ban the export of raw logs and maximize resource uses for local jobs, and ban the use of whole trees for wood pellet biofuel production.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Robert Oliphant Profile
2021-04-30 12:07 [p.6473]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two treaties.
The first is entitled “Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”, done at Bonn on October 17, 1991; and amendments to “Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”, done at Baltimore on April 6 to 17, 2009.
The second treaty is the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, done at Sharm el-Sheikh on November 22, 2019, known as the “Final Acts 2019”.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-04-30 12:12 [p.6474]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners are concerned about the logging of old-growth ecosystems in British Columbia. They note that old-growth forests provide immeasurable benefits, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity and cultural, recreational and educational values.
The petitioners call upon the government to work with the province and first nations to immediately halt the logging of endangered old-growth ecosystems, fund the long-term protection of old-growth ecosystems as a priority for Canada's climate action plan and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, support valued-added forestry industry initiatives in partnership with first nations to ensure Canada's forestry industry is sustainable and based on the harvesting of second- and third-growth forests, ban the export of raw logs, maximize resource use for local jobs and ban the use of whole trees for wood pellet biofuel productions.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-04-27 11:16 [p.6218]
Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition this morning from residents throughout Saanich—Gulf Islands and beyond the constituency, recognizing the climate crisis, recognizing an urgent ecological crisis in species extinction, and calling on the government to bring into place federal legislation to ensure that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment.
View Terry Beech Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Terry Beech Profile
2021-04-27 14:00 [p.6238]
Madam Speaker, it is important to address complex issues like climate change head-on, not just for the benefit of our children but for all future generations on this planet. Our government has taken more action on fighting climate change and protecting the environment than any other government in Canadian history and we will continue to increase our ambition to do more.
We have introduced legislation to ensure Canadians have a right to a healthy environment, we have put forward a detailed plan to exceed our 2030 emissions targets and we are creating a credible path to becoming a net-zero emissions nation. In addition to our revenue-neutral price on pollution, we have invested more than $100 billion on building a clean and green future.
I would encourage everyone to read Canada's ambitious and transparent plan for the climate, as it is now one of the most detailed plans in the entire world. For details on what we are doing in Burnaby and north Vancouver, please read my quarterly reports, which are available at terrybeechmp.ca.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act respecting soil conservation and soil health.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud not only as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but also the NDP critic for agriculture and agri-food, to introduce this private member's bill. Healthy soils are the foundation of sustainable food production, enhanced biodiversity and clean air and water. Healthy soils are also key to our fight against climate change, as good agricultural practices can unlock their huge carbon sequestration potential.
The bill I am introducing today sets up a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to conserve and improve the health of our soils. The strategy will help maintain, enhance and rebuild the capacity of soils to produce food and fuel for years to come, and it will encourage farmers and other land users with research, education, training, knowledge transfer and best practices. The bill would also recommend the establishment of a national advocate for soil health and will formally recognize both World Soil Day on December 5, and National Soil Conservation Week in the third week of April each year.
Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank my neighbour and colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for seconding the bill. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in making this strategy a reality for our hard-working Canadian farmers.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-04-26 15:55 [p.6184]
Madam Speaker, I speak to colleagues today from the traditional territory of the W_SÁNEC nation. It is a deep honour to be a member of Parliament for such a place. Hych'ka Siem.
I am going to start with a reflection on the historical nature of this budget and with a thought that comes to us from the late Jane Jacobs, one of the most remarkable thinkers in Canada and a great urban planner. In her last book, Dark Age Ahead, she mentioned that we as a society seem to have collective amnesia.
What I am going to say next will probably result in some heckling. I apologize for that. I mean I apologize for possibly provoking heckling, not for heckling, as I have never heckled.
I do find it important, as we look at this budget, which has, finally, a historic commitment to child care, to look at the last chance we had for child care, the last chance we had to actually live up to our Kyoto targets and the last chance we had to make substantial progress toward reconciliation.
I am speaking of the 2005 achievements that were brought to an end. I am not going to refer to the political parties or the leaders at the time, but I will say that those opportunities were snatched from us by our first-past-the-post electoral system. This is why I say that, and I will just preface this by saying I was not a member of any political party at the time. I was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada. When I think of November 28, 2005, I could weep. I have wept.
We had a really good plan to reach the Kyoto targets. When I speak of collective amnesia, this include the Liberals, whose plan it was, but who seem to have completely forgotten that this was a historic reality. We had a very detailed budget from Ralph Goodale as finance minister. The minister of environment at the time was Stéphane Dion. It was found that it would have gotten us to within striking distance of 6% below 1990 levels. We now stand, in our last reported emissions, at 21% above 1990 levels.
Ken Dryden was the minister who delivered the child care plan, which was phenomenal. It had something that we do not have now in that it had signed agreements from 10 provinces. It really mattered. Members can ask Martha Friendly. It mattered, and it also had funding.
We also had five major indigenous organizations in this country representing first nations, Métis, Inuit, native women and so on working on a very strong agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, of $5 billion over five years. It was never enough, but it was a good start. These were all brought to an end because of first past the post and because of looking ahead at what would happen if a minority government was supported again.
Earlier in this House there was a bit of a debate between the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Kingston and the Islands about the budget that year. Let us be clear. The budget that year did carry. Paul Martin's government did not fall on the budget. The budget, as some of us will remember, was brilliantly rewritten by Jack Layton. The budget included close to $5 billion in increased social spending, money for affordable housing and more money to end global poverty. It actually would have put Canada on track to hold to 0.7%, to meet that target known as the Pearson target. As I said, I could weep.
The budget passed, but then the Conservatives under Stephen Harper engineered the fall of the government by putting forth their own non-confidence motion, with the support of the other two parties in this House today, the Bloc and the NDP. It brought down the government because of first past the post. This is because, if an opposition party is looking forward, it really does not want the Liberals to be all that popular, and it would be popular if it were delivering on Kyoto, delivering on Kelowna and delivering on child care.
If it were not for that fateful vote on November 28, 2005, our emissions would now be measured against 1990 levels, not 2005 levels, and we would not be 21% above 1990 levels. We would be below them. Child care would have been a reality for Canadian working mothers and, I should say, parents, as dads take responsibility too, but as we know, it is mostly moms. Child care would have been a reality for the last 15 years, not five years away, as the new Minister of Finance states. I believe she fully intends and is fully committed to delivering on child care, but as a provincial jurisdictional reality, the money will not be enough without the agreements. We have to hope that child care deal gets done, but we would have had it for a very long time.
Here we are with this budget, and what do we like about it? Again, I have to say that if this budget is back to the future, we will never get those years back. It was a political calculation that it was worth defeating Paul Martin's government to put Stephen Harper in place because everybody, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, would do better later on.
We will never get those years back, so now where are we?
I am sure that I can speak for the other members of the Green caucus, and we are all very pleased to see the child care funding. We want to see that succeed, and we would love to support that. However, this budget is missing pharmacare. Why are we not moving ahead on pharmacare? The Hoskins report is sitting there gathering dust.
What happened to guaranteed livable income? We heard the Liberal convention and the NDP convention both support having a basic income, and that means a guaranteed livable income. It is not here at all.
What happened to speaking to the opioid crisis that is taking lives across this country? Where is decriminalization? Where are the really significant plans to deal with the opioid crisis? What about those who are really being left behind here. Youth and post-secondary students, and people living with disabilities are being left behind. There is nothing for people who are dealing with low income and renting their places. There is so much missing here.
What of overseas development assistance and that one little promise from 2005? We have not heard anybody in the government talk about 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance since. This budget does very little on overseas development assistance, a surprisingly small amount. NGOs and those in the development community have asked for at least put 1% of what industrialized countries are putting into COVID relief to be put into overseas development assistance. This does not come close. It comes to less than half of one per cent, and it is spread over many years. We know the developing world is going to face a food crisis as a result of COVID. There is a need for more help than ever to developing countries, and, yes, there is an increase, but it is not nearly adequate.
There is money for the Canadian water agency, which is terribly important, but years ago, in 1986, when I worked in government, there was the Inland Waters Directorate, which is essentially what the Canada water agency is now being created to replace because it disappeared through cuts through years. It had over 1,250 employees and I think a budget of $16 million, if memory serves. Just a drop in the bucket is going into this new agency. It needs far more than $8.5 million a year for two years. That is just not adequate.
On climate, the budget itself says it will get us to 36% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is debatable. There is a lot of spending in here that is really laudable. I love the green bonds idea. That is great. It is very exciting to see $4.4 billion go into what they are calling “deep home retrofits” to do more with renewable energy, but there is a lot in here that is masquerading under titles like “clean technology”, but it is dirty technology, such as small and medium nuclear reactors. If we are making hydrogen, that is great, but we have to make sure it is 100% from renewable energy, not from fossil fuel sources.
The big elephant in the room is how we can have a budget that claims to do something about the climate crisis, but that keeps the subsidies in place, the billions of dollars a year, to produce more fossil fuels while promoting and building, as a Canadian Crown corporation, a pipeline to deliver a product that does not have a market, is uneconomical and threatens to destroy ecosystems all along the route it is being built.
It has already been halted because just last week they realized they were cutting down trees and endangering the habitat of migratory birds. They were, in fact, destroying the habitat of migratory birds. Our Crown corporation, which is our tax dollars at work, is building a TMX pipeline that should never be built and which is a direct threat to the climate. The Parliamentary Budget Office says that if this project has any more climate limitations imposed upon it, it will lose billions of dollars, and that was before this budget, which does have new climate limitations.
There is much to like in this budget. There is much that one would want to support, but how do we get around knowing that, if we are serious about holding onto a livable world for our kids, we have to reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly? We have to reduce them more rapidly than even the new announcement of 40% to 45% below 2005 by 2030 the Prime Minister made at President Biden's climate leaders summit last week. Our fair share is a minimum of 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. This budget, as much as there are good measures in it, and I have mentioned only some of them in relation to climate, there are others that are—
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
2021-04-23 11:21 [p.6090]
Madam Speaker, on April 22, 1970, the very first Earth Day took place, bringing millions of people together as a way to create awareness surrounding the real and critical issues of climate change and global warming. Over 50 years later, we continue to educate and mobilize our efforts to help bring positive environmental change.
The federal government is taking the necessary steps to help bring meaningful change and reverse the effects of climate change. Here in Brampton and the Region of Peel, our federal government has invested in 43 new electric vehicle charging stations and most recently announced the single-largest federal investment in the history of my riding of Brampton East to help create Brampton's largest transit maintenance facility. This facility will be equipped to transition to a fully electric fleet and help Canada reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
We can all make a difference in protecting our beautiful earth when we unite together. Let us all do our part to protect our earth for this generation and many generations to come.
Results: 91 - 105 of 330 | Page: 7 of 22

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data