Dan Albas

[Judges Act, November 16th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly review the documentary. I appreciate the member's intervention today in talking about many of the cases, both close to her riding as well as across the country, where there is a tendency in these things to cause shame. There are better ways, and this bill is part of it.

I have one thing I would like to ask the member. The bill would correct where there is a set of standards right across the country. Every jurisdiction, every province have their own administration of justice. There is an issue that we found at the industry committee in the last Parliament, where Crown copyright allows courthouses a fair amount of control over which documents are made public and to whom they are given, whether they are online or whether people have to go in themselves and request those documents.

We could also be discussing how we could make the system more open and available to our citizens. Does the member believe that we should also be looking at other ways to improve our justice system to ensure that every Canadian receives the same level of justice, whether it be from a more informed judiciary or from a more informed citizenry?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 16th, 2020]

With regard to the government's 2019 election commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) how many trees have been planted to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of trees planted to date by (i) province, (ii) municipality or geographical location; (c) what are the total expenditures to date related to the tree planting project; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by item or type of expenditure?

[Climate Change Accountability Act, November 4th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening about the bill sponsored by the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

The stated objective of this bill is to ensure that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement. That is definitely an objective that I support and my leader has pledged that the Conservative Party will fulfill it.

In fact the Paris targets themselves are Conservative targets. During my first mandate, the previous Prime Minister consulted every province on their reduction capacity and settled on a reduction of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That was presented as Canada's commitment under the Paris Agreement and continues to be the target today. This work was done in collaboration with the provinces and it focuses on maintaining economic opportunities. Furthermore, the Paris commitments are on all points in line with what my party stands for: environmental protection that is not at the expense of the economy, and respect for provincial jurisdictions and expertise.

Unfortunately, since this agreement was signed, the Liberal government has not taken any significant action to meet these targets and instead has led an ideological and divisive campaign. The Prime Minister said that we are on track to meet the 2030 objective. During the last campaign, he said several times that Canada was on track to meet the objectives.

That is not true now, and it was not true then. He now claims that they will exceed our objectives but he refuses to provide details. They cannot even achieve the bare minimum, yet they promise to exceed the targets without providing any reason other than a promise. That sounds about right for this Liberal government.

Let us look at the facts. The latest report from Climate Transparency shows that not only is Canada not on the right track to meet its Paris commitments, but we are also among the least prepared countries of the G20. Climate Action Tracker ranked this government's measures as “insufficient” and the government's own projections, which are surely the most charitable, say that Canada is not even close to meeting its objectives.

Let us look at where we are right now. Even with the massive spending on programs such as electric vehicle subsidies, even with the Liberal government's total destruction of our oil and gas industry and even with the federal government's complete refusal to co-operate with the provinces and instead favour a top-down approach, Ottawa knows what is best. We are not even close to meeting our targets.

We are now in a position where the government did not keep the Paris commitments made by the Harper government. However, the Liberals expect us to believe that everything is fine and that they are even going to exceed those targets. We should not ask questions because the Liberals simply cannot tell us how that will happen.

We therefore have a bill from a Bloc Québécois member. As I already said, I support the stated objective of developing a responsible plan to meet the Paris Agreement commitments made by the Harper government. In that sense, there are many aspects of this bill that I like and support.

It is a very intelligent idea to not merely legislate targets but instead focus on creating a plan. As we all know, Parliament cannot bind Parliament.

As such, enshrining targets in law with no plan to achieve them essentially has no legal force and would amount to nothing more than virtue signalling.

Fortunately, this bill calls on the government to create a framework and to present it to the House, where it can be studied and debated. We know the Liberal government detests parliamentary scrutiny. It even shut Parliament down to avoid scrutiny. As such, this bill's move to force the government to present a plan is welcome.

I am always in favour of greater parliamentary oversight. I like the requirement for the environment commissioner to review the plan. In addition to mandatory parliamentary review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I like that the plan called for in the bill requires specific measures to achieve the targets and assess progress.

However, there are provisions in this bill that I find hard to accept. The Paris targets were negotiated with the provinces and supported by every party here, but the commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 was not among them. I am therefore surprised to see this concept in the bill when its stated objective is to comply with the Paris Agreement, which does not include a net-zero emissions target.

It is troubling that the bill is linked to our international commitments under the Paris Agreement and that it states at the outset that Canada is committed to an ideological goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Whether 2050 is the right date should be debated in the House and should be the subject of extensive consultations with the provinces. The date of 2050 appears to have been chosen because it is a round number chosen by other nations, contrary to the Paris targets, which were based on science and consultation.

A promise in a Liberal platform is not the same as a well-established and agreed-upon target. This commitment requires further debate and study, and it is simply inappropriate to include it in this bill. I would have more confidence in the bill if it focused on the Paris targets, which all parties support, rather than an ideological commitment like achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

I hope the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is listening to these concerns and is prepared to make a few changes.

I think we can agree on many areas where we are on the same page, but that means focusing on science, not ideology. We agree on the Paris targets and want to see a plan brought forward by this government to get us there. Let us move forward with that.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, over my time in this place, I have developed a great passion for Private Members' Business. In the 41st Parliament, I was successful in having my own private member's bill passed. Even though my bill was passed and supported unanimously, I am also aware of the tremendous amount of time and effort it takes to move a private member's bill forward, even when one has a bill that is supported.

Today, I will be speaking to the bill from my colleague for York—Simcoe, Bill C-204, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, final disposal of plastic waste.

I commend the member for his efforts to introduce a much-needed and practical bill that I believe should be unanimously supported in this place. After all, who could possibly oppose the exportation of Canadian plastic waste to become a dumping ground in other countries?

As many have said about this bill, supporting it would be a no-brainer. After all, we have all watched in recent years as Canada was embarrassed when our waste ended up as garbage piling up in other countries. In one high-profile case, Canadian taxpayers, at great expense, shipped our garbage back to Canada. I do not believe the person or persons responsible, who financially cashed in creating that costly embarrassment to Canadians, were ever held accountable. All too often, that is the problem.

We hear this Liberal government often say that there needs to be a price on pollution, yet in many cases, the people paid to properly dispose of it simply ship it off to dump it in other countries and it becomes their problem. It should not be that way.

It has been reported, “The federal government has previously dismissed calls to introduce a ban on all plastic waste exports, saying shipments since have 2016 required export permits on items considered “hazardous.”” and “Since 2016, no request for export permits for plastic waste were requested or issued.”

We also know that despite these changes, plastic waste continues to be shipped to other countries. How? Through mislabelling. It is not unlike what happens at many local landfills. Some items are free to dispose of, typically items that can be recycled, and others carry costs. Typically general waste costs more to dispose of. The operators of many landfills must literally actively monitor those disposing of waste to ensure that general waste does not end up in recycling piles. They must also ensure that toxic waste does not end up with the general waste. However, when we seek to ship plastic to another country, the Liberal government thinks that everyone is going to apply for a permit, knowing full well that export inspections are few and far between.

The bottom line is that if someone has ill intentions, the current approach from the Liberal government does not have sufficient safeguards to stop profiteering from exporting plastic waste. That is what this is really about. Individuals who are typically well paid to properly dispose of plastic waste seek to increase their profit by shipping that waste to other countries, and it is just not right. Why would we not seek to ban that, precisely as my colleague for York—Simcoe has proposed in his bill?

On a slightly different note, I am going to share a story with this place, because I believe it deserves to be heard. It is from my former riding, the community of Penticton.

A company named Appleton Waste was paid by many citizens of Penticton and area to properly pick up and collect garbage that would be transported and dumped at the local landfill. There was only one problem. The company did not pay its bills to the operator of the landfill, which was another local government, the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen, or RDOS as we call it in the region. Because the bills were unpaid, the RDOS had to suspend service to Appleton Waste.

Unfortunately, this did not stop the company from continuing to pick up waste and charge their customers for it. Instead, it made a deal that ultimately resulted in 5,000 tonnes of waste being dumped on lands within the Penticton Indian Band. The arrangement was that this was going to be a transfer station before the waste was hauled off to somewhere else. How did it end? The company disappeared, but a massive pile of waste became a serious problem for members of the Penticton Indian Band to deal with, and it was not even their own waste. It came from the citizens of the city of Penticton.

I mention this story because we all know the federal government, more specifically Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, is supposed to safeguard the interests of aboriginal communities to prevent these types of situations from occurring. That of course is often the problem in Canada.

When Ottawa fails, others are left behind to clean up its mess. It is no different than when Ottawa fails to stop the exportation of plastic waste, despite having this regime change requirement for an export licence. When garbage profiteers do an end run around the process, it is the other countries left to clean up the mess. It is just not right. We have an opportunity here to send a message.

Let me read the key part of what is being proposed in this legislation, “It is prohibited to export plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal.” It really does not get much simpler than that.

For the “yes but what if” crowd who would look for reasons to oppose, I would point out that the bill also makes clear:

List of Plastic Waste

(1.3) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 7 by adding or deleting from it any type of plastic.

This gives the minister in charge, through an order in council, and not even a change in legislation, the ability to define what is and what is not plastic waste for the purposes of complying with the bill. Technology can change. Maybe what is plastic waste today may be recycled tomorrow or something else. We can hope. Technology is always changing.

Either way, the bill would fully allow the minister to change the definition in whatever way makes sense given the circumstances. We all know that, sadly, there are those who will not apply for an export permit. Does anyone seriously doubt that, save for a small group of people within the Prime Minister's Office?

Before I close, I will simply add this. There will come a day when each of us will be somewhere in life that is not in this place. However, I expect none of us will ever forget the great honour of the time we have to collectively spend here. When each of us reflects upon that time, will we want to be remembered as members of Parliament who took a stand against exporting plastic waste to other countries or as MPs who were whipped into voting against something that we all knew was the right thing to do?

Once again, I want to commend the member for York—Simcoe for introducing a much-needed and well-constructed bill. I will be voting in favour of his program to support banning the export of Canadian plastic waste to other countries.

[Okanagan Nation Alliance, October 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, last week a truly remarkable thing occurred. For the first time in roughly 50 years, sockeye salmon have returned to Okanagan Lake. In the 1950s and 1960s, flood control work, which included dams, the channelling of rivers and other irrigation water system infrastructure, destroyed the natural salmon habitat. It has taken over a decade of hard work by the Okanagan Nation Alliance to rebuild and restore this precious river system so it can again be navigated by sockeye salmon. These are very important first steps to restoring indigenous fisheries in our region.

The Okanagan Nation Alliance was created in 1981 and includes the Okanagan Indian band, Upper Nicola Indian band, Westbank First Nation, Penticton Indian band, Osoyoos Indian band, the Lower and Upper Similkameen Indian bands, and the Colville confederated tribes with respect to areas of common concern.

I would ask all members of this place to join me in recognizing the hard work and success of the Okanagan Nation Alliance in reaching this historic milestone.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, October 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and to deliver on behalf of my caucus some of the sentiments we share on the motion before us.

First of all, let me thank the sponsor of the motion for his advocacy on all issues related to fresh water. I recently joined the environment committee and I look forward to discussing this as well as other areas of interest. When I was first named the Conservative critic for environment and climate change, I stated that I would like for us to focus on things we can agree on and not exclusively focus on areas of disagreement.

I believe all Canadians and therefore their parties want to see tangible results on the environment, whether it be increasing critical habitat or decreasing emissions while returning hope to people who are right now without work.

We all represent Canadians with all kinds of different backgrounds and experiences. I think that we are united in our appreciation for these sometimes personal stories about the lives of these people who influence our work as parliamentarians. These stories shine through and speak to our shared values, challenges and aspirations.

I would like to share a story with the House. When my great-grandfather José Albas came to Canada from Spain with his wife Amanda and his two young children, he was only supposed to be stopping by here on his way to Argentina to work. However, life happens, as they say, and after struggling for many years, they ended up raising mink on the shores of Lac La Biche, Alberta, where the family fished to support their farm.

This livelihood did not make them wealthy, but it provided a stable living, in stark contrast to their earlier attempts at farming in other regions. My grandfather Joseph worked on the farm and eventually took over when his father died from an infection after being bitten by one of his animals. The work was hard, but my grandfather was not afraid of hard work. He relished in it. That all changed one day.

I heard conflicting reports of overfishing and some sort of discharge, and in fact, the article “Two Fish, One Fish, No Fish: Alberta's Fish Crisis” traces the history of fishing on Lac La Biche. It says, on page 14, “To add indignity to the mortal injury of overfishing, by the 1950s the essential watershed integrity that supported the lake and its fish populations had been compromised.” This was written by author Lorne Fitch.

They eventually had to abandon their mink farm, which I believe is now part of a golf course. It ended a delicate balance in the 1950s for my family and for many others, but in my mind, this story demonstrates how important our water can be, how sensitive these ecosystems can be and how harmful this damage can be to the creatures that live in the water and those who depend on it for sustenance, including local first nations and surrounding families like my own.

The motion put forward by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis calls for an extremely in-depth and expansive study of all aspects of Canada's freshwater policy. It is clearly stated to be a precursor study to the government's promise to bring in a Canada water agency.

To start with, I dislike members of a committee using House motions to control what the committee does. Before my colleagues across the way start saying my party did so with a motion recently, that was only necessary because their party was filibustering in committees and trying to stop important work. Whenever possible, committees need to determine their own operations, timetables and schedules.

Since the member for Lac-Saint-Louis also sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, he already knows that study proposals from all parties deserve special attention, and his motion as written would prevent them from happening.

I hope that, in committee, all parties will have the opportunity to carry out a study of their choice. I also hope that these studies will be short enough so that everyone will have a chance.

It is not just that. It may be literally impossible to meet the 30-day deadline. Our committee is already conducting a study from the member for Repentigny. The minister will be appearing next week. The report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development looked at this, and the restrictions imposed by the House administration limit the number of meetings that we can hold.

With respect to the intent of the motion itself, I too have concerns about freshwater protection and management in our country. Our survival and the survival of our communities depend on sources of safe, clean water. In my riding there are many rivers and lakes, such as Okanagan Lake and Nicola Lake.

The members for Kelowna—Lake Country, North Okanagan—Shuswap and I have repeatedly advocated for protections for the lakes and rivers in our regions. I personally raised with the minister the ongoing threat of invasive aquatic species to our freshwater lakes, species such as zebra and quagga mussels that continue to threaten our natural environment and way of life. Sadly, the Okanagan does not receive anywhere near the supports to address these challenges as other regions, particularly the Great Lakes.

I wish to continue to push for solutions to these threats. In the event the study occurs, that will be an important aspect to consider.

Another area of serious concern that relates to this motion is the impact from flooding events. Due to climate change, once-rare flood events are now much more common. One only has to look at my riding and region to know this is the case, particularly in the Nicola and Okanagan valleys. Serious flood events have become an annual challenge for many in my area, and obviously throughout Canada. Therefore, studying flood impacts, mitigation policies and infrastructure that deserves attention would be an effective use of our time.

It has been said that water policy and water infrastructure is an area of tremendous importance that the public rarely sees. For municipal governments, it is always a top issue. The needs to build water and waste-water infrastructure are never ending, yet this kind of infrastructure is expensive and is not as obvious to the public so it is often overlooked.

There may be certain advantages in having a coordinating body and that is something worth studying as well. Also, being able to examine the continued policy of the Liberals to allow huge amounts of raw sewage to be dumped into our water sources is essential.

It is abhorrent that this continues to happen in Canada with the approval of the Liberal Minister of the Environment. The Conservatives have long been opposed to the dumping of sewage into our waters, and the motion would give us an opportunity to examine the government’s ability to address it.

However, I have serious concerns about the motion, particularly with the creation of a Canada Water Agency. The Constitution assigns much of the jurisdiction over freshwater resources to provincial governments.

Creating a national agency to oversee and regulate all freshwater policies in Canada would clearly violate provincial jurisdiction. For example, Quebec and my home province of British Columbia have extensive hydroelectric power systems. They are provincially regulated, but if the federal government decided that it now controls freshwater management, it could interfere with provincial authorities.

Ontario will lose its voice in the International Joint Commission, which manages the Great Lakes, as the federal government takes over, and Manitoba will lose its authority over flood management.

If this motion were to pass, I look forward to speaking to provincial representatives at committee who can share the good work they are doing and the lack of need for the federal government to completely take over, in addition to provincial jurisdiction, a Canada water agency would have serious implications for reconciliation with indigenous people.

These are the issues I very much look forward to study at committee if this motion passes muster by this House.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. Again, I thank the member opposite for his contribution and sponsoring this motion tonight.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, October 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by the member, as well as the work he has done on the environment committee in this Parliament and in previous ones, and his advocacy on freshwater issues.

In his speech tonight, the member talked about a variety of things. There are so many facets to freshwater protection that occur in a country as large as Canada. One thing I did not hear a lot about was first nations, particularly concerns about treaty rights. I am from British Columbia. Many treaties have not yet been negotiated.

The member talked about respecting provincial jurisdiction. What about treaty rights? What about first nations, especially in my area of the Okanagan? Many of the Indian bands, particularly the Penticton Indian Band and the Osoyoos Indian Band, have a very strong connection with the water and protecting salmon.

I would like to hear what the member has to say in regard to his motion.

[Judges Act, October 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the west coast is a proud British Columbian as am I, and I thank him for his speech today.

We recognize in this particular bill that there cannot be inequality across this great country. Someone may be impacted if a particular judge does not have the familiarity or the sensitivity to wade through very difficult issues, and that is what this bill seeks to address.

Further than that, there is a question of the chicken-and-egg argument. Some people believe that justices should remain isolated and decide how to deal with their system versus it being done by elected politicians such as us.

I have a concern, as did the member of Parliament for Windsor West, about Crown copyright and how Crown copyright defers to the institution to decide how it will make its information known. This is specific because, in some parts of the country, provincial courts will give out information widely available on the Internet, while some others will not. That affects access to the public knowledge of justice.

Does the member agree that there are other things that we, as politicians, need to raise so the system can see its gaps and respond?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member probably did not have the opportunity to hear my speech when we debated that bill.

The Conservative Party will not stand in the way of Canadians who need the benefits. However, with all due respect to this place, we come here to represent our constituents and when the government prorogues Parliament, it denies its own members and ours, whether it be the Bloc, the NDP, or Conservative, the ability to represent our constituents. We had a scheduled sitting on August 22 when we could have debated this. There are a number of things in that bill—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, there are two copper mines in my area and I support what they do. They do it with excellence and they also bring money into Canada that would not normally be here with respect to investment and ongoing resource development. That is really important.

Before we talk about extending certain tax treatment, the same that is being done right now with electric vehicles, the government said that for three years, $100 million a year would go toward subsidizing companies that switched to electric cars. First, we do not have a business case. The Liberals have spent 80% of that budget in one year. We know the adoption of it is up, but are we taking vehicles off the road or are we giving wealthy Canadian families a third or fourth vehicle to trot around in, while still having other cars burning other sources of fuel? Is there a valid business case? Are we seeing people removing a combustion engine from the road and going to an electric vehicle? We should not just be subsidizing rich people.

We could go toward a lot of priorities, but any recovery effort we make should be as broad as possible and we should always remember it is the taxpayers who want to see good value for money. We should not just jump to the next stage without considering if we are doing well with the programs we already have.