Robert Sopuck

[The Environment, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will saddle job-creating resource development projects with unnecessary red tape, bureaucratic hurdles, political interference, and complex processes before these projects can proceed. In fact, the proof is in the pudding. There was a headline last week, “Suncor to shun major new projects amid Canada's 'difficult' regulatory environment”.

The Liberals fail to understand that energy projects in Canada are designed with the best environmental standards. Why is the Liberal government continuing to jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians and hundreds of communities that rely on our natural resources?

[The Environment, February 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has to answer for her decision to eliminate the national wetland conservation fund. Since 2014, the fund has supported projects that protect and enhance thousands of hectares of wetlands. Wetlands are vital for sequestering carbon, improving water quality, creating fish and wildlife habitat, protecting endangered species, and managing watersheds.

Conservation groups across Canada are outraged by what the minister did, and now know that these Liberals are phony environmentalists. Why would the government eliminate the national wetland conservation fund, which has delivered such important benefits for Canada's environment?

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Edmonton West for his perfect recitation of the Liberal malfeasance. I was proud to be part of the previous government, which fixed Liberal campaign financing laws. We made sure that only personal cheques could be issued. We put an upper limit on it, as well as not allowing corporate or union donations. It was a very robust system of checks and balances.

I am proud of the recent fundraising efforts of the Conservative Party of Canada. We blew away the opposition due to the efforts of our party and our volunteers. Again, our message is certainly getting through and people are responding.

My friend from Edmonton West gave a terrific recitation of all the things, the cash for access, the Prime Minister's visit to a billionaire's island, and so on and so forth. I would like to ask him a simple question. What is it about the Liberals that causes them to behave this way?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP22): (a) what are the first and last names of each delegate; (b) which organization did each delegate represent; (c) what is the total cost for using government aircraft to transport delegates to and from Marrakech; (d) broken down by each delegate who stayed in Marrakech, how many days and on which dates did the government cover the costs; (e) what were the total costs for the delegation, broken down by (i) cumulative total, (ii) air transportation, (iii) accommodation, (iv) food and per diems, (v) other transportation, (vi) carbon offsets, (vii) other expenses broken down by type; and (f) what is the estimated size of the carbon footprint as a result of the delegation?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to raw sewage since October 1, 2016: (a) how much raw sewage has been dumped in Canadian waters, broken down by river, lake, ocean, and other body of water in which the sewage was dumped; (b) of the sewage dumps in (a), which were approved after October 1, 2016, what was the date on which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change approved the sewage dump; (c) what studies, if any, have been done or are ongoing regarding the impact of dumping raw sewage; (d) what were the conclusions of any such studies, completed since October 1, 2016; (e) what are the dates, titles, subject matter, and file numbers of any memos or documents related to the dumping of raw sewage; and (f) what are the dates, titles, subject matter and file numbers of any correspondence between the federal government and provincial governments or municipalities concerning raw sewage?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2017]

With regard to the decision to split Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada into two separate departments: (a) what is the itemized cost breakdown of all costs associated with the change; (b) who between the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is considered the senior Minister for the portfolio; (c) according to the decision-making structure of the organization, which Minister has the ultimate decision-making authority; and (d) if the ultimate decision-making authority is divided amongst the two Ministers, what are the various areas of responsibility of each Minister?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 20th, 2017]

With regard to boil water advisories on First Nations reserve land: (a) how many boil water advisories were in place as of September 27, 2017; and (b) what are the details of each advisory, including for each the (i) location, (ii) number of people subject to the advisory, (iii) reason for advisory?

[Cannabis Act, November 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was astonished to hear my colleague opposite talk about the health benefits of marijuana. Here is the position of the Canadian Medical Association:

The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in smoked form.

Children and youth are particularly at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development.

I would like to focus, however, on the government's claim that somehow legalizing marijuana will put paid to the illegal trade. A perfect policy experiment just happened in the last decade or so, and that is the case of cigarettes. Cigarettes are legal. They are so-called controlled. They are kept out of the hands of children, and so on. However, the illegal trade has not only flourished, but it has expanded, and that is because, as the taxes on “legal” tobacco are increased, it is very easy for organized crime to undercut the so-called government cigarettes. The exact same thing will happen with marijuana. The government wants to increase the tax. It will make the price so high that organized crime will easily—

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech and his years of service in law enforcement. He is truly a tremendous addition to our caucus, and his wise counsel is very important to us.

Is there any test available to determine the concentration of drugs in a person's body?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, let us take a forest that has been harvested. It looks bad initially. In fact, a clear-cut has been described as a bad haircut, but haircuts come back. What happens in forest succession is that an old forest starts to become a young forest. The biodiversity in a young forest is significantly greater than it is in an old forest. What I mean by biodiversity is the number of plant species. What happens when the biodiversity in a forest increases in terms of the number of plant species is that the number of wildlife species increases as well. Species that people really want, such as ruffed grouse, moose, white-tailed deer, and many songbirds, prefer young forests. The creation of young forests from forestry is actually a good thing, under the proper management regimes.