Debates of Oct. 9th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to take the high road. The Bloc Québécois is used to being the adult in the room.

This evening, those who are watching at home are seeing two parties sling mud at each other and accusing each other of having the most scandals to its name. That is what our democracy looks like in 2024 with these two parties that are both hoping to govern.

I have a clear and simple question for my colleague. There is one party that people can trust. It is a party that does not have a long list of scandals to its name. That is the Bloc Québécois.

My colleague has been talking about common sense. I would like it if he could tell us that the Bloc Québécois is made up of people who can be trusted. We are not here to try to govern. People can trust us, and we will ensure that these people steer clear of any scandals.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to acknowledge that we on this side of the House do want to govern. We do want to bring fiscal accountability and common sense and trust back into the stewardship of our government finances. I will take the member at his word that he also will support efforts to bring back trusted stewardship to public finances and to get to the bottom of all of these scandals. I appreciate the sentiments that he has expressed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to comment that continuing this debate to bring these documents forward, to demand that the Prime Minister provide the documents, is the business of His Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue until they provide the documents or until a carbon tax election is called.

Given that there are so many cases of conflict of interest in SDTC, and that it funnelled money to its own companies, should it be made to pay back the money so that other companies, which legitimately qualified and for which the program did run well for many years until the government took over, can get the money and get their businesses and technology off the ground?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been admonished by the Speaker for being too long-winded, so let me just say yes, but—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the good Canadian citizens watching the debate at home, or here in the gallery, would be forgiven if they thought, listening to my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington's speech, that the motion were somehow about getting the documents. The motion is a very good one. It has nothing to do with getting the documents; it has to do with referring to committee the matter of the Liberals' refusal to give the documents. At committee, I assume we could get some answers for Canadians about the scandal. That seems like important work to me.

It reminds me of a quote from Jerry Maguire: “You had me at ‘hello’.” We want to vote on the Conservatives' motion to send the matter off to committee, hold some hearings and get the answers. Why do they seem so insistent on not taking “yes” for an answer? How many times are we going to have to stand here and say, “You had us at ‘hello’. Let us go to committee. Show me the money.” That is right: Show me the committee and let us get the answers for Canadians as soon as possible.

Why do Canadians have to wait, through this circus of a debate, to get the answers they so rightly deserve?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, and this is going back a week or more, the Speaker's ruling was to turn over all the documents. We are here because the government has not turned over all the documents. That is the business of the House and the business of the loyal opposition. We do want justice for Canadian taxpayers. We are not directing the RCMP what to do with those documents; that is not our place. However, the Speaker, not His Majesty's loyal opposition, has ordered the handing over of all the documents. That is what we are doing here.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his fine speech and congratulate him on being the favourite MP of the Speaker's sister-in-law. That is a great honour that I am sadly not fortunate enough to have.

At the beginning of his speech, he reminded us that the Chrétien government set up 15 or so foundations like this one. To me, there is a design flaw to these foundations. In other words, the government puts all kinds of money into foundations without any oversight. This was done voluntarily. This invites potential wrongdoing, as seems to have happened here.

In 2005, auditor general Sheila Fraser wrote a scathing report on this approach. Is it not time to put an end to these foundations and their design flaws?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is in a similar vein as the one the member's colleague asked. What the member is asking for are proper processes with proper oversight and proper accountability. Absent in the government has been any sort of government ministerial accountability. Should there be proper processes in place so funds are not misappropriated? I absolutely, fully agree with that. I can count on, on the basis of the two interventions from my Bloc friends, their supporting the next government as it puts the proper processes in place.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we are here today discussing this privilege motion, which has effectively paralyzed Parliament because the Liberals refuse to give up unredacted documents because they are afraid of what those say. Frankly, they are fully aware of what they say. If they were not concerned about the contents of the documents, they would have allowed us to resume the work of the House many days ago and would have kept a consistent story. It has been quite interesting, actually, how many different stories we have heard from the government on this.

I had a really cool conversation this summer with someone, and they explained to me that they were a business owner with a couple of different businesses. There were some complications, and they had a family member who got sick. After their family member got sick, they decided that they were going to hire an employee to handle a bunch of the books. They hired someone they already had on staff whom they thought they could trust because they were a family friend. However, over the course of more than a year of employment, this family friend, who was an employee, siphoned off cash from the business.

This was not a small amount of cash; it was actually quite a large amount of money. They were trying to figure out why their GST numbers were not balancing at the end of the year, so they had an accountant look into it further. As they started to dig through it, they realized that the employee had siphoned off a large amount of money and were faced with a dilemma. This was a family friend and an employee who had been with them for a while, but this was a large amount of money they needed to recover.

They decided they had one of two options, so they went to this employee with the two options: either the employee paid back this money or the employee could deal with the RCMP and they would go to small claims court. They said that if the employee paid them back, they would just pretend it was all good. The employee would no longer work for them regardless, but those were the options. I remember hearing this story and thinking at the time that it was really heartbreaking because their child was sick and they admitted they lost a bit of oversight over their business because they were focused on other things.

It is clear that the Minister of Industry, as he has even said, did not sufficiently monitor the contracts. Well, that is his job. The minister's job is to make sure that the government's money is being spent properly. He does not have the excuse of a sick kid taking over his contracts or his ability to do his job. He is in this job. This was his responsibility.

The NDP-Liberal government continues to put up different arguments about how we are violating charter rights, saying that somehow the right to misappropriate government money while Liberal insiders get rich is worth more than the constitutional rights conferred on Parliament to have these documents. We have seen this multiple times after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. The list of scandals, as many of my colleagues have listed off, is large. There are so many scandals at this point that it is hard to keep them straight.

I will get into a space that I think is really important. It does not matter what happened. The Liberals know that people got rich and got money through conflicts of interest that they should not have had, and they refuse to provide documents to the RCMP. They are the employers, and this is perhaps the ideological difference between Conservatives and Liberals. We believe that every single person who works for the Government of Canada or a subsidiary of the Government of Canada is an employee of the Canadian people. As the representatives of the Canadian people, when Parliament votes and decides that we must have documents to send to the RCMP, the Government of Canada is acting on behalf of its employers, who are the Canadian people.

It appears that the Liberals believe that the employer is the Liberal Party of Canada, and that unless the Liberal Party of Canada says that it is okay, they are going to continue to block these documents from being released. However, they did release some of them, which is the interesting part of this. The production order had a whole list of documents, and the Liberals complied with a part of it, but it was heavily redacted. They effectively took a big, black permanent marker and crossed out large sections.

As every single different argument has been put forward by the government, I am assuming that I have some understanding as to possibly what is right and what is wrong, but the reality is that they are hiding. Like any parent will say, the most nervous a parent gets is when their child goes quiet and hides, because they know that there is possibly going to be a good answer, but 99% of the time it is going to be something really bad, or something that is going to require a lot of cleanup. What this government is doing by blocking and refusing to comply with this order shows that it is afraid of what those results are. The Liberals are the only ones who know what those unredacted documents look like. If they thought they were okay and that there was no problem, they would just turn them over to the RCMP.

We are not saying, “Give me, the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, these documents that have potentially personnel information and private information.” We are not saying to hand it over to every single parliamentarian. We are asking to have them unredacted and sent to the RCMP so that if there is a problem, the RCMP has all of the available information, can look into it and potentially go after that. That is the crux of this issue. The fact is that the Liberals continue to fight. I ask: Why is this a problem?

The Auditor General found that this government has turned this into a complete and total slush fund. There was $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of any green technology. So, that is $58 million to completely ineligible projects that were connected to Liberals. Then there was another $334 million, over 186 cases, to projects for which board members held a conflict of interest. So, $334 million and 186 cases where groups that had conflicts of interest got money. There was $58 million to projects that did not ensure that contribution agreements and terms were met. This is not just incompetence; this is negligence. It is approaching fraud, if it is not already at fraud. This is very troubling.

We have Canadians right now who are lining up at food banks, who are having a hard time putting groceries in their shopping carts and putting food on the table to feed their families. We have families who never thought they would need a food bank lining up at food banks and having to eat that piece of humble pie so that their children get meals. We have people who are skipping meals in Canada because of out-of-control inflation, out-of-control interest rates, and because, after nine years of this Liberal-NDP government, everything has become broken. Their out-of-control spending has led to ever-increasing inflation.

I often think about inflation, because my dad used to talk about how things were so inexpensive when he was little. Basically, during my entire childhood, a chocolate bar was the same price from when I was like four years old, when I remember going to the grocery or convenience store and getting a chocolate bar, to when I was an adult at 16 years old and working in a convenience store for the first time. So, when my dad used to say, “This used to cost 25¢ when I was a kid”, it made me think that he was really old, only to realize that he lived through wild inflationary times and out-of-control interest rates that impacted the cost of living for his generation, which made it really difficult for people in his generation to initially buy a house.

In fact, when my dad bought his first house, he told me, interest rates were 18%, and that was because of the fiscal policies of Pierre Trudeau. My dad was lucky to have a good job in Fort McMurray and managed to save money while renting a house until he could pay cash for a house, which is something no one can even imagine as feasible today because the cost of living is so high.

Most young people today do not even see themselves being able to save up enough money for a down payment on a house, and that is because of the absolute train wreck of fiscal policies of the Liberal-NDP government. Time and time again, the government continues to fail Canadians. Its job is to look out for Canadians' best interests, and yet here we have yet another example of extreme incompetence, or worse.

We have a minister who did not sufficiently monitor contracts that were given to Liberal insiders. I really question whether the Liberals are being serious about what their job is. We have been very clear on this side. Every single Conservative speech has asked that they release the documents to the RCMP so we can go back to our next piece of business here. The fact that they continue to block any possibility of this moving forward is part of the problem.

So many whistle-blowers came forward. It was not that the government found this out through government audits. This was found because of a whole bunch of whistle-blowers and the diligent work of my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets going through the books. The part that really is frustrating to a lot of Canadians is that $334 million and 186 different conflict of interest cases should be enough to stop everything. However, with the Liberals, it is just enough for them to keep going and pat themselves on the back for all of their successes, that if they just taxed people a little more, it would stop forest fires, and if they just did a little more, somehow everything would get better.

Canadians know the way to make life better is to have a carbon tax election and elect a common-sense Conservative government that can get our economy back on track. After nine years, Canadians have had more than enough of the NDP-Liberal government spending their children's and grandchildren's futures into absolute poverty.

I am very proud to be here today as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a position that means holding the government to account. Conservatives are not oppositional for the sake of opposition. We are charged, through our parliamentary system, with holding the government accountable for its actions. Right now, it is not showing any accountability or transparency, nor is it showing Canadians the work they deserve. I and many of my colleagues will continue the charge to hold the government accountable on this failed policy and these failed spaces.

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

Having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration of the privilege motion at the next sitting of the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National Defence

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in this place, and tonight I am here to talk about an unsatisfactory response to a question. That is what we do at the late show.

It was on May 10. Actually, I will back it up. On April 1, the government raised rents for Canadian Armed Forces personnel who live on base. It raised the rents on base housing. This was at a time of an affordability crisis for all Canadians, a housing crisis that exists all across Canada, and a crisis of morale, recruitment and retention within the Canadian Armed Forces, which has left the Canadian Armed Forces with 16,000 vacancies. Because of this, the defence committee actually moved a motion unanimously and reported back to the House asking the government to reverse the rent increase.

The motion was to not proceed with the rent increase, but it was on May 10 that I asked the government if they would, given the unanimous report from the defence committee, along with the general crisis of recruitment, retention and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the crisis of housing across Canada that affects all Canadians, reverse the rent increase that the government placed on our Canadian Armed Forces personnel on base.

The response that I got from the government during that afternoon question period was a non-answer. The parliamentary secretary did not answer the question at all. She went on kind of an arrogant rant about not taking lessons from the other side on the Canadian Armed Forces, so she did not answer the question. She just deflected and ignored it, but it is worth returning to the point that the defence committee itself, of which that parliamentary secretary is a member, unanimously voted to call on the government to not increase the rent on the forces personnel.

However, the parliamentary secretary can actually be heard at the meeting instructing her own side to just vote for the motion, saying that it was not binding as it just gets reported to the House and that it did not really mean anything.

This is the level of doublespeak that we see from members of the Liberal caucus. They will literally vote at a committee to urge their government to take a particular course of action, but just shrug their shoulders and know that it is not binding and that the government will not do it. It does not hurt them to unanimously vote. They would not have the courage to oppose the motion if they actually agreed that it was only fair to raise the rent on our troop. Instead, they went ahead with that.

There is a cost-of-living crisis in this country, and it affects the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are down 16,000 personnel. There are 10,000 more who are undertrained. These are the best of the best. I have met our troops. I have seen them deployed, and they just want to serve. They are the best, and they are let down by the government constantly.

This base rent increase might seem like a trivial matter. It might seem small, but it is not, and the government could signal to the forces members that they support them by not increasing their rent.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to how we are supporting our Canadian Armed Forces members.

Let us be quite strong in saying that I think, collectively, that the member opposite and I believe that CAF members are the backbone of our defence team. They are responsible for defending us, our values and our country. It is our responsibility as elected officials to eliminate as many unnecessary challenges as possible for CAF members and their families, such as by ensuring that, when military families relocate, they do not face additional and unnecessary burdens because they are dedicating themselves to serving our country.

We are committed to supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families so they can have affordable, safe and comfortable housing. We have a variety of initiatives and investments under way to meet the housing needs of Canadian Armed Forces members and their families.

We are already committed to investing $475 million over 10 years to build and renovate military housing across our country. This funding will help support our plan to construct approximately 650 new units over the next five years on bases with the greatest housing demands, such as Borden, Esquimalt and Gagetown. However, we know that more needs to be done. That is why, through Canada's updated defence policy, “Our North, Strong and Free”, we are committing an additional $295 million over the next 20 years to the military housing portfolio. This funding gives us the resources to continue building and upgrading existing housing. It would also help us establish a Canadian Armed Forces housing strategy to guide our housing efforts in both the short term and the long term in order to help CAF members and their families.

Child care services are another critical factor. I heard it mentioned a lot while I was touring the military bases. Child care is a priority for military families.

In our defence policy update, we invested $100 million to improve access to affordable, on-base child care. These investments will enable the Government of Canada to provide Canadian Armed Forces members and their families with affordable, safe, and comfortable housing now and in the years to come.

The Government of Canada has also put a number of safeguards in place to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces pay fair and equitable rents across Canada, whether they live on or off base. For example, the Canadian Forces housing agency reviews and adjusts housing costs annually to reflect changes in the local rental market.

The Canadian Armed Forces housing strategy has also placed a 25% cap, based on gross household income, for CAF members currently living in military housing.

To become more responsive to the needs of CAF members, last July, our government replaced the post living differential, the PLD, with the new Canadian Forces housing differential, the CFHD.

I can go on and speak about the initiatives that we are taking, but I also want to take this opportunity, as always, to thank the wonderful people here in Canada. I want to thank our members and their families for their efforts here at home and also abroad. I know we will be there supporting them.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in May, I asked the parliamentary secretary if the government would reverse the rent increase, yes or no? She did not answer the question then. I have repeated and revisited the question. She spoke for four minutes without answering it. Therefore, we will just take it as no: The government is not interested in reversing the rent increase it placed on the CAF. Fine, that is its choice. It comes amid a recruitment and retention crisis, in which we have repeatedly heard at committee that the horrific condition of base housing is a factor in people leaving the forces. She spoke in her remarks about the commitment to build 600 units over five years. There are 7,000 people on a waiting list right now for housing. That answer is not going to cut it.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I smile because I am trying not to be too political here on the late show.

This is about sending a clear message to our Canadian Armed Forces that we have its back and will continue to invest. We understand the challenges it is facing, and we will deliver on our initiative to improve the housing conditions on military bases.

Carbon Pricing

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the overtaxed people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Like the overtaxed Canadians across the country, residents of the Ottawa Valley want a carbon tax election now.

The socialist-separatist coalition has made its position plain for all to see: There will be no relief for Canadians until the Marxist members secure their pensions. The need for an election and an end to the wacko government has never been greater. The government has lost touch with real Canadians. Just look at how the minister responded to my question last June about scrapping the carbon tax. Instead of defending the carbon tax, the minister tried to “change the channel” by bragging about the Liberals' higher capital gains tax. Canadians are angry about higher taxes and the Liberals' bold new policy is to increase taxes.

The Liberals have adopted the motto “Beatings will continue until morale improves.” The taxes will go higher until their polls improve. The government has lost touch with reality. Its members have trapped themselves inside a simulation. That is not a reference to The Matrix or a metaphor.

Statistics Canada built a tax simulator; anyone can download it for free. It is widely used by academics, banks, businesses, parliamentary budget officers and even the finance department. It simulates the impact of tax changes. The Liberals put their carbon tax in the simulator and it spit out the number 80/20. The simulator said that 20% of Canadians would pay more in carbon taxes than they receive in climate bribes. The simulator said those 20% were mostly the top 20% of income earners. Any time a simulator spits out a ratio like 80/20, it should set off alarm bells. 80/20 has its own Wikipedia page for a reason.

These technocratic-loving Liberals forget that sometimes a statistic can be both accurate and true while being completely fictional and entirely false. There is a good chance the parliamentary secretary who was selected to respond shortly was handed a speech that includes a phrase like, “The average household gets back more than it pays.”

In Canada, the size of the average household is 2.51 people. I do not need to conduct a door-to-door census to tell members there is not a single household with that number of people in it. The Liberals will tell us the average household is doing great under the carbon tax, that the average household gets back more than they pay. The problem is that the average household of 2.51 people does not exist. It is a statistical fiction, just like the government's mandate.

More Canadians voted for Conservatives in the last two elections than voted for the Liberals, yet these Liberals have arrogantly behaved as if they won a majority. They kept increasing the carbon tax. They have increased taxes on property and capital. They tax our work. They tax our energy. If we try to catch a break to relax, they increased the taxes on alcohol, tobacco and cannabis too. We cannot even watch a movie without paying their Netflix tax now. Just to rub the salt into the wound a little harder, on top of the Liberal carbon tax, the video streaming tax, the beer tax and the new digital services tax is the GST, because nothing says Liberal like charging a tax on a tax.

If there was ever any doubt the Liberals are out of touch, I expect this parliamentary secretary to put those doubts to rest. They will either invoke the simulation to claim the fictional average household is doing great, or they will resort to climate alarmism and try to convince Canadians higher taxes will fix the bad weather. Maybe they might even do both, but that proves they do not listen to Canadians.

It is time for a carbon tax election now.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the member gets a gold star, because she actually mentioned something so important: The average household gets back more than it pays.

The Conservatives seem to be obsessed with the idea of a secret cover-up, but there is none. We have always fully cooperated with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and will always do so. Our government has been clear: The vast majority of Canadians receive more money back in their pockets with the Canada carbon rebate. The member just said it. I am so happy that she knows this.

We are responding to the growing climate emergency the world is now facing, and Canadians are seeing it as well. From wildfires to increasingly frequent heat waves, floods, droughts and hurricanes, Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that we need to take climate action now. Carbon pricing is an essential start-up to curb emissions, because it cannot be free to pollute.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of Canada's carbon pollution pricing system confirmed that the majority of households receive more in Canada carbon rebate payments than they face in direct costs due to pricing. Low- and medium-income households benefit the most. This is so important: Anyone who lives in a rural area or a smaller community receives a 20% top-up to their Canada carbon rebate, reflecting the fact that they may face higher costs and have fewer short-term options to reduce their emissions.

Do not take our word for it. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has explained that carbon pricing contributes no more than 0.15% of inflation per year, a tiny fraction of the high inflation we have seen. Economists estimate that carbon pricing contributes, at most, just 0.33% of grocery price increases.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is a proven method of reducing carbon emissions, and it continues to be the simplest, most effective way to fight climate change. That is exactly what we are doing. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are focused on proven, evidence-based solutions to the most pressing issue facing Canadians. The federal government released Canada's 2024 national inventory report, which shows that Canada is on track to meet our emission-reducing goals for 2026, and also on track for 2030.

Carbon pricing works, and it has been shown to be the most cost-effective way of fighting climate change. The opposition clearly is not interested in what we have to say, but would they listen to Premier Moe? In May 2023, Premier Moe said that Saskatchewan actually considered alternatives to the federal carbon pricing but found that they were all too costly.

Our government is committed to taking action on climate change, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need a dump truck to remove all the trash I just heard. Conservatives do not support the Liberal carbon tax. Provinces do not support the Liberal carbon tax. Canadians do not support the Liberal carbon tax. Even the tax-happy socialists in the NDP do not support the carbon tax. Canadians are not as stupid as Liberals think they are.

Unlike the government, Canadians know how far they drive to work, how much they spent in gas last week and how much they paid to heat their home. Canadians know they pay more in carbon taxes, because they passed math class, unlike the government, which struggles to put two and two together. Unlike the Liberals, common-sense Conservatives will listen to Canadians and axe the tax. It is time to have a carbon tax election.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that, as a government, we remain committed to fighting climate change while putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Experts agree that putting a price on pollution is the most cost-effective way of fighting climate change. Climate change is real, and unlike the Conservatives, who are trying to avoid the conversation on the world stage, we as a government have a plan and will continue to deliver on our plan to fight climate change and bring real measures of help to Canadians.

The Environment

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here I am again at the end of the night, the last person here, fighting again for coastal people. Well, it is me, you and the parliamentary secretary, but I would rather be doing other work.

For three years, the Liberal government has allowed a company in Union Bay to break apart not a boat but a massive ship that is extended into the water, over the high tide line, and onto land. This would not be allowed anywhere in the world. Even countries that have extremely poor environmental regulations, like Bangladesh, would not allow this type of activity. It is unbelievable that this company is breaking apart a boat that has contaminants in it without a self-contained floating dry dock.

Something we can do in Canada is break apart ships in a responsible way, and there are companies doing that. I am going to talk a bit about those companies, but they are doing it in the right way because they are following the rules. When a company breaks the rules, we would think the federal government would enforce the regulations we have in place or, if we did not have regulations, would create them, but not in this case.

This company in Union Bay is in operation despite the objections of the Province of British Columbia, which has issued two abatement orders, and local communities. The Comox Valley Regional District has an injunction against the company to stop its harmful activity. They are waiting for a court date. The Tla'amin, the Qualicum people and the Comox people have all voiced their opposition to what is taking place. As I said, nowhere in the world would anyone allow this type of activity.

When I brought this question to the House in June, the provincial government at the time had issued an abatement order because the company was discharging effluent at 15 times the limit for copper. When I raised this question earlier in the week, it was because the province issued a second abatement order. This time it was 100 times the limit for copper and 13 times the limit for zinc. The Liberals say the federal government's baseline is not as low as the province's, but is it 100 times lower than the province's when it comes to copper and 13 times lower for zinc? Is that what we are dealing with?

This is absolutely absurd. What is it going to take for the federal government to finally step in? I have asked the minister about this, and her reply is that she is dealing with it; it is an abandoned and derelict vessel and she is getting good at that. She cites the ocean protection plan. This is not an abandoned and derelict vessel. This is a massive ship being deconstructed.

I want to highlight a couple of things. There is a lot I have to say on this and I will keep coming back if I have to. There was some lobbying done by Seaspan. We would think a reputable company would be concerned about all levels of government being concerned about this operation. We found out through an FOI request that it lobbied the province, and the owners of this company, as far as I know from the research we have done, are foreign owners.

We know the Liberals and the Conservatives are corporate-controlled parties, but the depth of this is deeply concerning. Is this what is going on? Is Seaspan putting pressure on the federal government so that it does not take action? Is that what is happening? Coastal people deserve to know.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. Certainly, when I think about the seriousness, I want to make sure I respond accordingly.

The Government of Canada recognizes that safe recycling processes are vital to ensuring the careful and secure handling of environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and ozone-depleting substances. Canada aims to ensure that ships are recycled safely at the end of their operational lives without causing unnecessary risk to human health and the environment. Ship recycling in Canada is recognized as the most environmentally sound method to dispose of ships that have reached their end of life. Many provisions affecting ship-recycling facilities are governed by the provinces and territories, such as environmental and waste management and workplace occupational health and safety.

Overall, Canada has some of the strongest laws and regulations across federal, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, and we remain committed to working with all levels of government to make sure Canada's ship-recycling facilities remain among the safest in the world. The Canadian Coast Guard has received numerous inquiries about vessels that are intended for deconstruction at the Deep Water Recovery recycling site in Union Bay.

The Coast Guard has undertaken several assessments of the area where the vessels are awaiting deconstruction at Deep Water Recovery. If pollution enters the marine environment from a land-based spill, the Coast Guard will report the pollution to the emergency management ministry in British Columbia and provide assistance as required. The Coast Guard has reminded the deconstruction company of its responsibility under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to prevent any release of oil or other pollutants from reaching the marine environment.

The Government of Canada is taking actions to reduce the number of vessels of concern in Canadian waters and minimize their impact on coastal communities, the environment and the public. Under the oceans protection plan, as of January 2024, the Government of Canada has removed 584 wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels across Canada. The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act was adopted in 2018 and came into force in 2019.

The objectives of the act are to strengthen owner accountability and to enable more proactive government action to address the risks posed by problem vessels. Under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, an owner is prohibited from allowing their vessel to become a wreck due to failing to maintain it. Under Canadian law, vessel owners are responsible for their vessels at all times. They must take all actions necessary, including repair, salvage and prevention or cleanup of leaking fuel and oil. Vessel owners must contact the Coast Guard if their vessel is sinking, has sunk or is a threat to discharge marine pollution.

When it comes to this, we will continue to be good stewards for protection of the environment and our marine life.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the oceans protection plan they are talking about sure is not protecting Union Bay or Baynes Sound, which produces 50% of B.C.'s shellfish. It is like some kind of bad joke. This is not about abandoned and derelict vessels. This is a massive ship being broken apart in the water, on the high tide line, on the shore. This is a massive boat without a self-contained floating dry dock. This is insanity.

This is not about safety and the strongest laws in the world, which is what the parliamentary secretary just talked about. Is she kidding? Has anyone from the government actually gone there to see this and meet with the first nations and local governments?

This is producing 100 times the copper effluent, 13 times the zinc, according to a provincial abatement issued. The corporate influence is what is going on. The government needs to respond to the people of Union Bay and of coastal British Columbia and of Vancouver Islanders, especially. It needs to show up.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not take this as a joke. I am sorry to hear the member feels this way, and I want to thank him for his advocacy.

Ship recycling is a complex multinational industry. It has also been a growing area of focus for the International Maritime Organization, which has been working over the course of the last two decades to support safe, environmentally sound ship recycling worldwide. Canada maintains some of the strongest rules globally for ship recycling, and as a member state of the International Maritime Organization, Canada has contributed to the important work to improve ship-recycling practices worldwide.

As the government has stated before, many of the legislative provisions that govern safe and environmentally responsible ship recycling fall under provincial jurisdiction. We are committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that we have the safest recycling facilities in the world.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:09 p.m.)