Debates of Oct. 8th, 2024

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily know the details. What I can say is that I made reference to the amount of money the Government of Canada is investing in infrastructure, which is second to virtually no other government in the last 40, 50 or 60 years.

Part of that infrastructure investment looks to the provinces to identify priority areas. I would be very surprised if we did not see some of the money flowing through provinces or municipalities that ultimately are there to, either directly or indirectly, support the issue that the member raised. Even the investments in bridges can be an indirect benefit for the St. Lawrence River, as an example.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his commitment to the riverways, not just the St. Lawrence but also the Red River, the Fraser River and rivers across the country. An additional issue of concern, from my perspective, regarding commercial and recreational vehicle traffic is the issue of noise and its impact on the marine ecosystem. Our government has taken a lot of measures and made a lot of investment through the ocean protection plans, but I believe more needs to be done to study the impact of noise on the marine environment.

Not just whales are at risk, like southern resident killer whales on the west coast in the Salish Sea and whales elsewhere; fish and plant life that those fish depend on are also impacted by noise. Therefore, what are the member's thoughts about the commercial benefit of Canada being a leader in changing the vessel engine and propeller design to reduce noise to help our ecosystems right across the country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had made reference in my main comments to the Fraser River and, whether it is the Fraser River or the St. Lawrence River, how important the rivers are. I truly believe that Canadians as a whole understand the importance of our riverways. When we look at what the public's expectations are, and that bar continues to rise, I think that technology is going to play a very important role.

The member is accurate in her assessment in terms of the degree to which a propeller and its construction can make a difference, let alone the engines and propulsion systems that are put into place, all of which can make a significant positive impact. That is why I would suggest that we do need to have a broader discussion on the issue. Quite frankly, the best place to have that discussion, at least in great detail, is likely in a standing committee. I would encourage members who are truly interested in the commercial, residential and recreational use of our riverways to see that it would be a wonderful study for a standing committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have a little reminder to just try to keep our questions and our answers as short as possible so everyone can participate. There were a few interactions that were four minutes or longer. I do not really want to interrupt while people are speaking, but if that continues I will start cutting people off to make sure we can all participate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise in the House, but it is an even greater pleasure today because I am sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, no doubt an excellent member and a great colleague as well.

I want to clarify something. The concurrence debate was brought by one of my fellow members. We hear the member for Winnipeg North consistently say that this is somehow inappropriate. He says that it should have been brought up in question period, which evidently it was three times; that it should have been an opposition day motion; or that it should have been brought up in committee.

It was studied in committee. It is completely legitimate within the process, and it is a debate that needs to happen. While I may not agree with my colleague 100%, it is a completely legitimate debate that is important not only to folks in his riding but also to people up and down the St. Lawrence Seaway. Shoreline erosion, ironically, as the member for Winnipeg North raised, is an issue that is from coast to coast, with various rivers, lakes and otherwise.

In 2019, which happens to be the year I was elected, I spent a particularly large amount of time talking to residents in my surrounding neighbourhoods. There was flooding taking place. The highest recorded level that Lake Ontario had ever been at was in 2019. This was right on the heels of the record-setting flooding in 2017.

I was with a resident who was literally in ankle-deep water, who told me that their yard, where they played with their grandchildren, extended 50 yards farther out, so they lost 50 yards of their property. I spoke to another lady who was well into her 80s, who told me that she had not had a good night's sleep in weeks because she did not know whether this would be the night that her basement or her house flooded, as she could hear the lapping of Lake Ontario drawing closer and closer. She lived in terror, thinking that her house would soon be flooded.

Therefore, shoreline erosion is a real and significant issue that merits debate, and I thank my colleague for bringing forward the concurrence debate.

I will talk a bit about the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Of my wife's two grandfathers, one started on the lakers in Thunder Bay, and the other one started in Gaspé. They travelled up and down the waters, eventually settling down in Niagara. That gave them the opportunity to work at a job, see the world and eventually start a family. I am, like the member for Winnipeg North, or my children are at least, here because of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the tremendous importance it has in our economy.

Let us look at what the study says. It confirmed what we knew already: Shoreline erosion in Lake Ontario, the Great Lakes and many places elsewhere in the country is a significant issue. Let us look at the facts. It was a Liberal government in 1998 that cut the shoreline protection program, so it is a consistent theme that Liberal failures have created problems. It was just like when the Liberals cut health care in the 1990s under Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin, yet somehow they provide the misinformation, and I would rather use the other word, to be candid, that they are not making cuts.

However, it is the reality that Stephen Harper dramatically increased funding for infrastructure following the 2008 economic crisis. It is also a reality, a fact, that Stephen Harper increased health care funding. According to all of the misinformation we hear repeatedly from the other side, we would think the opposite were true.

When we look at the problem of shoreline erosion, I think there is agreement on all sides that we need a multilateral partnership. It is particularly complicated because, as one of the other members said today, it also involves the United States of America. We need to have our American partners, the federal government, the provinces and municipalities on board. We also need private stakeholders, such as residents, communicating what they want to get done, as well shipping.

I would agree with my colleague. It is undeniable that shipping causes shoreline erosion, or a part of it. Shipping, and let us call a spade a spade, is important to our economy as well. We all need to look at everything and come up with an approach to move forward to protect the residents, protect our economy and to grow a better and bigger Canada as we go forward.

The shoreline erosion problem has been discussed for years and years, yet there has been no action by the Liberal government. One of the things I disagree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on is that he seems to believe the Liberal federal government can solve this problem. I would like to take the member down memory lane and look at some of the problems it tried to fix over the the last nine years.

The government told us that housing was too expensive and that we needed more affordable housing. What has happened? The price of housing has doubled and even tripled in some parts of the country. It told us that there was too much addiction and drug use and that it would tackle that. What do we see in our streets today? Crime and chaos. It told us it would balance the budget, that it would be “a teeny-tiny little deficit”, as former prime minister Stephen Harper said, and now we have a massive deficit and debt.

Do members, and not just my friend and colleague from the transport committee, really believe that after nine years the government can fix anything? Former U.S president Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” Far be it for me to change a quote of the great Ronald Reagan, but we do need to Canadianize it to “The 10 scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the Liberal government, and I'm here to help.”

I can imagine a world where the government were to authorize itself billions of dollars to fix the shoreline erosion problem. What would happen? Just like every other problem it tried to fix it would get worse. There would also be Liberal insiders, consultants and a lot of paperwork. A lot of Liberal insiders would get very wealthy, just like with SDTC and a myriad of other programs, the consulting scandals, all of these scandals. However, nothing would actually get done, because this is a government of mismanagement, overspending and a complete and utter lack of results.

I have a little secret. The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that Liberals judge the success of a program by how many billions of dollars they can spend and how long it can last, whereas Conservatives judge the success of a project or a program by whether there is success. When Conservatives cut the carbon tax, we will also fix many different problems. We will have a carbon tax election and elect a common-sense Conservative government that will restore powerful paycheques, make Canada the freest country on earth and ensure that the promise of Canada is restored.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague, who now sits on the committee with me, the opportunity to comment on certain remarks, particularly those made by the parliamentary secretary. Like my colleague, he also mentioned in his intervention that the seaway and shipping are part of Canada's way of life. The economic benefits are incredible. Yes, shipping supplies Quebec, Ontario, even part of the United States in the Great Lakes region, and other regions. It is like a gold mine. We cannot shut it down. We need it.

However, it is causing collateral damage. Unfortunately, unlike the benefits, which extend everywhere—in Ontario, Saskatchewan, probably all over Canada and the United States—the problems are mostly in Quebec. Why is it that the people benefiting from it, even elsewhere, are not fixing the problems? The problems are affecting people's lives. Given the scope of the benefits, should those people not be compensated?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that shoreline erosion in the St. Lawrence Seaway is a real and significant problem. I would caution my friend that emboldening this or giving billions of dollars in additional funds to the Liberal government would not solve the problem. It would grow bureaucracy and help Liberal insiders. At the end of the day, it would make Quebeckers worse off. We need solutions that help Quebec and grow its economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this may be a bit off topic, but definitely relevant to the speech the member just gave. He indicated that Stephen Harper increased health care costs. I have heard a number of Conservatives say that. That is somewhat misleading, because it was Paul Martin's government that got the health care accord, which secured 6% increases for a 10-year period of time. The Harper government just happened to take the reins of power after the health care accord was signed, which is why we have record-high health care payments today. It was not because of Harper. In fact, when the health care accord expired, the first thing he did was to reduce the percentage increase, I think from 6% to 3%. The member can confirm that, but I am sure that is fairly accurate.

Would the member not agree that there is a great deal of benefit with these significant-sized ports, such as employment opportunities and so forth?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that after the dramatic draconian cuts to health care by Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper increased health care. In fairness to Chrétien, the reason he had to cut that was because of the massive debts and deficits, driven up by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We have these repeated patterns of Liberal spending over and again.

However, I would agree, and I will leave this on a positive note, that there is tremendous opportunity, particularly with transporting Canadian energy outside our ports and railways, to expand our trade throughout the world.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the shoreline protection program and criticized the Liberal government for cutting it, but Stephen Harper was in power for 10 years and did not re-establish it.

The member claims that the idea that the Conservatives made cuts is somehow untrue. I was working in organizations supporting women who experience intimate partner violence. I know the Harper government made cuts. Canadians know that the Conservatives make cuts.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that is a sincere and authentic question and I appreciate it.

After the last nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, we have seen record levels of gender-based violence, criminality and domestic violence. We need to get back on track. We need to get our country fixed. We need to get our loved ones home. We need to ensure that women are protected.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to talk about this important study by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that addresses the St. Lawrence River, where I have lived since I made my home in Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies. I was raised in La Pocatière, along the St. Lawrence River. I have spent my entire life along the St. Lawrence River. I have watched the St. Lawrence River's shoreline, especially the south shore, change over time.

For years and even centuries, the shoreline has been transformed by nature, by the tides—because we have very high tides back home—and by ships. Obviously, whales and the entire coastal environment are also impacted by maritime operations. Maritime operations were very extensive during certain years a long time ago.

The shoreline has long been eroding. Let us be clear. I understand that mayors were consulted for the study that was carried out. I was mayor of La Pocatière. One way or the other, municipal officials of the past and present can attest to the problem.

I will give a few very clear examples. In my riding of Montmagny, shoreline erosion is a serious problem in Cap-aux-Oies, home to the Pointe-aux-Oies campground. In fact, the city of Montmagny worked with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to begin stabilizing the shoreline. If no action is taken, the campground may not disappear, but it will inevitably lose some of its sites in the long run because of the serious shoreline erosion.

Despite Montmagny's ongoing relationship with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Quebec government, the matter has still not been settled. In fact, our situation in Quebec is unique. We have always wanted more autonomy, and we have it when it comes to the environment, so, inevitably, the environmental specialists in Quebec and the environmental specialists in Ottawa do not always agree on the situation or the potential results of certain efforts. For that reason, we often find ourselves in situations like the one in Montmagny, where we cannot find a solution. We are trying—I got involved to some extent—to put the pressure on to find a solution, since there is already money available in the grant programs for Montmagny to do the work. Money for the work, therefore, is not an issue here, and neither is it an issue in many other cases because the money is there. Consider the federal government's climate change adaptation program or the green municipal fund. A lot of work is already paid for.

I would like to note that a few years back, not that long ago, there was the Projet Résilience côtière, led by Université du Québec à Rimouski. The laboratory involved focused on the dynamic behaviour and integrated management of the coastal zone. Obviously, the coastal zone includes the part of the St. Lawrence that runs in front of my colleagues' ridings, in the Sorel region, among others. I will take the time to read the description of the laboratory to give members an idea of what was done in the past.

The Laboratoire de dynamique et de gestion intégrée des zones côtières (LDGIZC) at Université du Québec à Rimouski led a research-action project entitled “Coastal resilience project: developing tools for adaptation to coastal erosion for the municipalities in Quebec's maritime regions”.

As far as I know, Quebec's maritime regions are also part of the Great Lakes and the entire corridor that runs through the narrower regions where boats create wake that causes shoreline erosion.

The project ran from January 2017 to December 2021. It ended nearly three years ago. It helped develop a tool enabling the coastal municipalities to collect information to eventually carry out the work.

I am raising this point because work to build coastal resilience and counter the effects of shoreline erosion has been ongoing for several years. I served as the mayor of La Pocatière from 2005 to 2009, and even back when I was the vice-warden of the Kamouraska regional county municipality, I can guarantee that we were already having problems with shoreline erosion. We still do, and always will. However, work and research were already under way at the time. A lot of money has already been invested in research.

The problem here is not a lack of funding for research. The problem is that the Liberal government, which has been in power since 2015, never takes action. It does research and it funds research. That is not a problem. However, when it comes time to to implement the solutions proposed based on the research findings, the government cannot seem to get anything done.

The problem is not a lack of funding. The federal budget has increased by $151 billion, with 100,000 new public servants being hired. That is not the issue. There are people who can do that. It is not really a problem. I think that the problem we are having right now is that the public service has grown so large that the relationship between Ottawa and Quebec, in particular, has become a lot more complicated when it comes to environmental issues, and Quebec and Ottawa do not always have the same solutions.

Let me give another very clear and important example. There are about five marinas on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, from Berthier-sur-Mer in my riding to Île Verte. The north side of the St. Lawrence does not necessarily have erosion problems, because it is much deeper. The rocks are right there.

On the south shore, however, there are large, very flat, muddy stretches. Marinas get mud coming into the area. As members likely know, these areas are often surrounded by rocks to protect the boats from the waves and turbulence of the river. As a result, a lot of silt accumulates inside these marinas. In Rivière-du-Loup, in particular, there is an extremely short period in which to dredge the silt, which is a problem. It is a very significant problem because it is a question of protecting beluga whales and other marine species. The silt does not come from the sky, it comes from the St. Lawrence River. It is in the river. It just collects in certain places. What is more, most of the boats in marinas are sailboats. They cause little or no pollution, so the silt is not contaminated. It can be put back in the river.

All the issues are like that. The war between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, with Fisheries and Oceans imposing such major restrictions, is costing boat owners a fortune. They want to be able to take out all that silt and put it back in the river. Dredging, that is what I am talking about.

Anyway, about the St. Lawrence River shoreline, it is not nearly as wide there as it is where I come from. In our region, the river is 12 to 15 kilometres wide. The closer it gets to the ocean, the wider it is. It is even wider in the gulf, so there is a little less impact, and those impacts are naturally occurring, not caused by ships. I understand that, in my colleague's riding, in his region, erosion is caused mainly by passing ships and their wake. I understand that my colleague wants to improve the situation and protect the shorelines in his region. Of course he does. It is also part of his job to listen to the people in his riding.

I believe that, as we speak, money is available and proposals are out there. If we want to do research in this area, universities are willing to do it. Funding is available. All these things are already available. I do not think we should be adding new committees and new business. I also think we need to work with Quebec to get projects going as soon as possible, but those projects have to be easy, quick and efficient.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the way my colleague's speech ended. I think that his riding would also benefit from general collaboration. The thing we need to realize about shoreline erosion is that action taken in one place can be detrimental to three neighbours upstream and three neighbours downstream if it is not done properly.

What we need is a concerted effort that includes comprehensive planning covering the St. Lawrence Seaway, each structure and each side effect. I think we need this, and I think that the federal government has to take responsibility. The St. Lawrence Seaway generates several billion dollars of revenue each year. Over 150,000 tonnes of goods move through it annually. I think the seaway brings in enough revenue that we can afford to help and take care of the people who live along its banks.

I would like the member's response to that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's statement. A study entitled “Coastal Resilience Project: developing tools for adaptation to coastal erosion for municipalities in Quebec's maritime regions” looked at 24 regional county municipalities, or RCMs. We would have to confirm which RCMs were involved, but it covered 123 municipalities and 10 indigenous communities. The only indigenous community in my riding is the Maliseet nation in Cacouna. This inevitably goes beyond the territory of my riding. The member is absolutely right to say that if you intervene in one place, it can cause collateral damage somewhere else.

What I am saying is that this challenge already exists. Maritime Quebec already exists. No one is reinventing this. It already exists in Quebec City, where there used to be a ministry responsible for it. I think it is still there. There are ways of working collaboratively with Quebec, with Fisheries and Oceans, and with local stakeholders, such as municipalities. The solutions are there, but the government has never wanted to implement them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the member just indicated, whether it is the Fraser River on the west coast, the Saskatchewan River on the Prairies, the Red River, the Assiniboine River or the St. Lawrence River, with regard to the shorelines, where the federal government can step up to the plate, it should and it has. It is important for other jurisdictions to also step up to the plate because of the economic benefits, recreational benefits and residential benefits. We would have a healthier river system if, in fact, we had co-operation. I would not want to advocate that the provinces play no role. That seems to be what the Bloc is doing today

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my colleague is from Winnipeg North. I do not understand why the Liberals cannot find someone else to answer our questions, considering the number of members they have in Quebec and who represent regions along the St. Lawrence. I am thinking about the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine, who is also the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Why is a member from Winnipeg, in the middle of the country, responding to us about the St. Lawrence? I honestly do not get it. There are certainly a number of Liberal members, not just one, from near the St. Lawrence.

To answer the question directly, we have no problem with the Province of Quebec. Quebec is also working on this. I think that the member said it earlier: consultation is important. There is no sense in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Everyone needs to work together.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has fought to have invasive carp eliminated before getting into Canada's tributaries and lakes. New Democrats fought to get the first microplastics ban passed in the House of Commons, which was then made into regulation. As well, we have fought to get some of the programs to deal with phosphorus.

One of the ones I have yet to get finished and still want to work on, and on which I want the members' opinions, is an action plan for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, for the rise and also the falling of the water levels that take place, so we would know where to dredge, where we would do remedial action and so forth. That would take collaboration between the cities, the provinces and the federal government in the United States. It would also provide a list of business items to make sure our waterways are protected not only for the environment but also for the economy to remain strong.

I wonder what the Conservatives' position is on that suggestion, in terms of creating a business plan to deal with the rise and the fall of water levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. In fact, this has come up in various speeches. When it comes to Canada's economy, 80% of materials are transported by ship. There is already an economic plan for all of this. It already exists. I have been hearing about the importance of marine transportation across Quebec and Canada for 30 years. Experts are already working on it. We must continue to work together to ensure that we never have to face a cut in these services one day.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak today about reducing the impact of commercial shipping on shoreline erosion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The report sheds light on an important issue, an issue that impacts not only the environment but also the livelihoods and safety of thousands of Canadians living along the shores of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The erosion of our shorelines due to commercial shipping is a serious concern in communities, and witnesses who appeared at committee made it clear that action is required to protect our natural ecosystems and that the people who live and work on these waterways deserve protection.

For decades, the waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have played a central role in our economy, supporting commerce, transportation and industry. However, this same activity, particularly commercial shipping, is now one of the main factors driving shoreline erosion. The narrow passages of the St. Lawrence River and other parts of this corridor are particularly vulnerable to erosion caused by wakes from ships and other human activities.

I think it is important to remember that erosion is not just about losing land; it is about the loss of infrastructure, homes and livelihoods. It is about communities like Saint-Ignace-De-Loyola, where residents are witnessing their properties crumble away year by year, due to waves created by commercial vessels. The impact of the commercial shipping industry is not just an environmental issue; it is a public safety issue and it is a threat to their way of life.

The report makes one thing abundantly clear: The federal government has failed to take a leading role in addressing shoreline erosion. Many witnesses from various communities, municipalities, indigenous communities and environmental organizations pointed out that we need a coordinated multi-stakeholder approach that involves all levels of government, but the leadership must come from Ottawa.

New Democrats echo the calls in this report for a shoreline protection program. This program was cancelled in the 1990s. Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to re-establish the program, which provided critical support to shorelines along the St. Lawrence. By reintroducing this program, we can bring together provincial and municipal governments, indigenous groups, industry leaders and scientific experts to develop real, sustainable solutions to erosion.

I want to take a moment to recognize the important initiative introduced by my colleague the MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. His bill granting rights to the St. Lawrence River is an important and bold step when it comes to rethinking our relationship with nature. By granting legal personhood to the river, we would acknowledge the intrinsic value of our natural ecosystems and their right to thrive. This bill is not just symbolic; it represents a fundamental shift toward environmental justice. If passed, it would give the river a voice, empowering communities and environmental advocates to take legal action on its behalf when ecosystems are threatened. The St. Lawrence is the lifeblood of our environment, our history, our communities and our future. We must recognize its right to exist, flourish and regenerate. The bill is a critical piece of the broader movement to protect the river from the very threats outlined in this report.

Despite the urgency of these issues, however, the Liberal government has dragged its feet. Year after year, we hear promises of environmental action, but its cancellation in the 1990s of the shoreline protection program, which was not reinstated under the current government or under the Harper government before it, is just one example of its failure to protect our vital ecosystems.

The Liberals have failed to act on erosion, failed to regulate commercial shipping and failed to listen to the communities that are most affected. On the west coast, I have been calling on the government to enact a mandatory 1,000-metre vessel buffer for endangered southern resident killer whales and to address the dumping of waste and effluent by commercial ships. The government continues to speak about environmental action and about climate action, while failing to implement critical protections for our waterways and shorelines.

We can no longer afford half measures, patchwork solutions or more studies with no follow-up. The time for action is now, and the federal government must be held accountable.

Many of the solutions to protect our natural environment and protect our communities are outlined in this report, and they are not in opposition to economic growth or to industry. It is about striking a balance between development and environmental sustainability. That is why the NDP will always work to ensure that workers in industries like commercial shipping are part of the solution, and why we believe that the companies themselves, the industries that benefit from the river, must contribute to preserving it through programs like the recommended fund for riparian restoration, which would be financed by commercial users of the corridor.

We know that the Conservatives are always pushing for deregulation and cuts, and they show a disregard for long-term environmental impacts and the failure to invest in future sustainability. The Conservatives claim to be in support of fiscal responsibility, but how can we be fiscally responsible if we ignore the environmental costs and the costs to communities that will continue to grow, putting communities and ecosystems at even greater risk?

To wrap up, I want to re-emphasize that we need action, not just more studies. I want to re-emphasize that this report is not just about studying the problem; it is about the action that is needed by the federal government. Now is the time to take that action. Re-establishing the shoreline protection program, passing the bill to grant rights to the St. Lawrence River, investing in research and sustainable solutions, regulating ship speeds and holding industries accountable are all necessary steps for protecting our shorelines and protecting the communities along them.

I urge the House, and in particular the government, which has the power to do this, to take the recommendations in this report seriously and act swiftly to protect our shorelines, our ecosystems and the Canadians who depend on them.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. We sit on the environment committee together.

One interesting issue with regard to shoreline erosion is the changing winds that have come with climate change. The member and I, sitting on the environment committee, have been looking at the Jasper wildfires, and one issue that has emerged is that we are experiencing unpredictable winds like never before because of climate change, which impacted the fire in Jasper.

I am wondering if the member would like to comment on the impact of climate change on shoreline erosion as an additional factor in shoreline erosion above and beyond vessels travelling through the St. Lawrence.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on the environment committee. It is a pleasure working with him.

The impact of the climate crisis on our shorelines is immense. It is immense when it comes to the St. Lawrence River, but it is also immense when it comes to the shorelines on the coast of my home province of British Columbia. We know that rising sea levels and the increasing impacts of climate change are going to have a devastating impact on the infrastructure along the coast of Vancouver Island in my community of Victoria.

We need to take bold action to combat the climate crisis, and we also need to invest in communities to create climate-resilient spaces and communities that can thrive with the changing climate. However, I do not think acknowledging that is enough, and I hope the member heard in my speech a call to action. It is not enough to study these things; we need the government to act.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members always want to throw everything at climate change, as in the forest fire example the Liberal member just brought up. The Liberals forget that they did not give $500 million to add more firefighters and do more forest prevention exercises. In Jasper, the brush was not cleared the way it was supposed to.

It is the same situation when it comes to shoreline erosion. In my riding, we have been trying to get action since 2016 on very serious issues. We know the solutions that are needed, but the government just says it is seized with them. That is an engineering term we use. When a motor is seized, it means it is not moving. That is what we are seeing from the government.

I wonder if the member is seeing similar inaction in responding to the issues on her coast.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely see a lot of Liberal promises and Liberal inaction. We see broken promise after broken promise when it comes to the climate crisis and environmental protection. I would also say that the Conservatives seem to have thrown up their hands altogether, either denying that climate change is real or saying we somehow cannot do anything about it.

We need to take bold action that matches the scale and urgency of the climate crisis, but we also need to do everything we can to protect communities. Danielle Smith and her provincial Conservative government have had a detrimental impact on our ability to respond to wildfires. We heard from witnesses just yesterday about the recruitment and retention problems related to paying wildland firefighters $22 an hour and not giving them health benefits or cancer coverage. It is no wonder we don't have the resources and people. We are not supporting the heroic efforts of our firefighters.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is very involved in the fight against climate change. We know that, in some areas of Quebec, climate change is responsible for significant shoreline erosion. As my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères explained, 70% of erosion between Montreal and Sorel, for example, is caused by commercial shipping. All of the experts agree that the government needs to take action and fulfill its responsibilities in its own areas of jurisdiction. However, the government has still not taken action.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really important question. It is why I focused my speech on the recommendations from this report.

We heard a very clear call to action, and the Liberal government has failed to take responsibility for erosion. I remind Canadians listening, and especially the government, that erosion is not just about the loss of land; it is about the loss to communities of their livelihoods and ecosystems. It is a loss to communities.