Earl Dreeshen

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, that is my personal view, and of course I was not speaking specifically of ozone depletion and that sort of thing. Things have been done to deal with different aspects of this, and looking after our water, looking after our air and looking after our soil are the three things that are environmental. Taking the CO2 in our glasses and saying we should tax it because it is a pollutant does not make sense. We can look at the rate of carbon dioxide now and look at how much is put into greenhouses to get plants to grow properly. That is the aspect we need to look at. Anybody who believes we are just going to take something from 1850 and analyze how things are going to take place is not getting to the point.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, of course the climate has been changing. That is the point I made when I said that we went from about two miles of ice on top of Montreal 10,000 years ago to cutting the St. Lawrence River and all of that. We know that it is changing. The point being said is that this means the man-made part is accelerating it. That is the discussion we are having, and I want to make sure we understand that because I am talking about both. I think that is really the critical point here.

The other thing I am saying is about the stories we listen to that say water is going to be 10 metres higher. Rich guys are still buying mansions on the oceans, insurance companies have not gotten to the stage where they are putting an extra premium on that and mortgages are still for 40 years, so not everybody is taking the things being said as 100% accurate.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it takes 500,000 pounds of earth to make that 1,000-pound battery, and it is not without toxicity.

It is very interesting when I hear the government say how it is going to handle this. It says we have all these rare-earth minerals here in Canada, so is it not a great idea for us to use them rather than buying this technology from China? Of course, I will leave that there.

Here is the issue. How can we ever expect to produce the batteries required with the rare earth minerals we have when we have a government that restricts all development? We can look at the bills that have been presented to stop oil and gas. We will have exactly the same bills to stop people from having mines in their communities, and it will go from there. We have heard this sort of thing from the members of the NDP. They are standing up for jobs, but they say not to bring any of this into their regions. That is the problem we have.

As far as being able to recycle batteries goes, it is great, but to put another battery into a vehicle takes $10,000 just to get the car to a spot where the new battery can be put in it. Yes, it would be great if we could recycle it, maybe using storage banks and that type of thing, but I believe all of those things have to be thought about. That is why I said we must measure this entirely, from the first shovel to dig it up to the last shovel to cover it up. In no way am I suggesting that this is not something we should measure.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, since it is up to a minister who has a very shaky track record, it is important that I discuss that. However, I will attempt to put all those statements in context, because, of course, we think about the minister and what he has done. It is a new generation of Greenpeace that he was part of. Patrick Moore has completely looked at that group and said the only thing green about it is the money it has brought in, and that comes because of the antics of the group. Therefore, it is important that previous Greenpeace people and previous people who were involved in the environment look and advocate for a common-sense management of our environment, where we would be 180 degrees opposite to the eco-activists who are now influencing all left-wing parties here in Canada. That is the point I had wanted to make on that particular issue.

When I was on the environment committee and, now, as a member of the natural resources committee, I have talked about the need to recognize the contribution that Canada can make to the world. Europe is begging Canada to help stabilize its energy needs. For Europe, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has solidified the need to have stable energy partners. Further to that, people in many countries in Europe are seeing the light, evaluating their previous policies and pivoting to return to traditional energy resources. Germany is bringing coal plants back online to meet its energy demands. The Netherlands has temporarily shut down wind farms because of their impact on migratory birds. They are doing a few other things that are hurting their farmers; this, I am sure, is something that we could speak about in another debate.

Last summer, I attended the OSCE meetings in Birmingham, England. We were there to discuss food security, energy security and security in Europe. Certainly, the energy security topic was hotly debated. The Canadian government delegation was led by ideology. I had the privilege of working with other European parliamentarians to push back on this ideological rush to unreliable energy sources at a time when our allies need to be assured that we have stable energy.

Ideology corrupts science. One does not start with an ideological position, look for markers that can be manipulated to support one's position and then proclaim that the science is settled. That is not what science is all about. However, the minister and his people seem to do that just about every time they develop a plan, regulation or new environmental bill.

Domestically, the government seems to believe that its greenhouse gas targets will be met primarily through the three items of a rapid expansion of EVs, a reduction in fertilizer use and the eventual phasing out of Canada's oil sands. These beliefs are so far out of touch. Sadly, there will be major repercussions for Canada and the world because of these short-sighted policies.

As we move forward as a nation, we should ensure that every action we take is measured. I have spoken many times about this at environment and natural resources committees. Perhaps because of my 34 years as a math and physics teacher, I believe that whatever technology we consider, we should measure the impact from the first shovel we need to dig it up to the last shovel we need to cover it up.

EVs require much more energy to produce than ICE vehicles. There are environmental impacts from rare-earth mineral excavation and chemical processing for any electrical components. Even revamped electrical grids will never be fail-safe. Windmills require hydrocarbons for both manufacturing and maintenance. Used solar panels will need to be disposed of properly. Fortunately, as Canadians, we have the know-how to meet the challenges that we face.

We should be looking for solutions that are tailored to the uniqueness of the communities in which we live. This means we need to celebrate our strengths rather than exaggerate our differences. It means recognizing indigenous leaders who want a future for their young people in a resource rich country and do not want to be dictated to once again by a government that claims to know best. This eco-colonialism is something we have to be cautious of, because we are looking at a government that says as long as we do things its way, it can help us out. That is one of the issues that I believe are so critical.

When I speak to leaders in our indigenous communities, I hear that they are looking for opportunities for their young people and their communities. When they hear governments say they do not want things done that way or that they are shutting things down because they have better jobs for people, that is where the frustration comes in.

It also means caring for each other, giving workers the best opportunities to grow and succeed and fulfilling our role as responsible energy suppliers on the global stage. That is one of the concerns I have. As I said in an article:

When I was first campaigning in 2008, a local energy worker who had worked all around the world told me how proud we should be of Canada’s energy sector and its environmental record. He stated that the only ones close were the Australians, and that was only because they were aggressively implementing Canadian state-of-the-art technology.

The quest for excellence is still part of the Canadian oil and gas industry’s DNA, but there have been hurdles, perhaps well intended, that have lessened the industry’s ability to remain on the leading edge. Limiting the access of oil and gas to world markets through federal legislation, denigrating the industry at international fora, and advocating against investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector have had consequences.

What the industry needs is certainty. A strong, supportive government is not what international players see. What they see are investors seeking opportunities elsewhere. With the energy disaster that is taking place in Europe, our potential energy customers see confusion from this government; we have a world-class product to sell, but leave the heavy lifting to others.

The Canadian industry needs an updated and modern CEPA. The inclusion of the NDP amendment that encroached on provincial jurisdiction was opposed at committee by the Liberals, but at the last minute, they flipped-flopped to support it, leaving this bill open to more jurisdictional court battles and uncertainty.

The history of the environment minister is a case in point of activism and the damage that is done because the Liberals just do not care who they hurt. Most Canadians are aware of the minister scaling structures to get arrested to make his point, but they probably do not know that he also trespassed on the modest home of then premier Ralph Klein, and in doing so dramatically upset Ralph's wife Colleen, whom I knew personally. He has no remorse and still to this day is proud of his actions, and the Prime Minister rewards his reckless criminal behaviour while Liberal members, along with their NDP coalition partner and the opportunistic Bloc members, just sit back and smile. I would have thought that a regional party like the Bloc would have voted against further provincial encroachment, but they voted in lockstep with the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Alberta has always had pristine water, fresh air and fertile soil. We produce the cleanest oil and natural gas in the world. That is why the Lougheed government embarked on a program to get natural gas to every rural resident possible. That could happen for all of this country if we would think our way through this problem.

Alberta, through the oil sands, has financed and carried this country through some tough times. In fact, the oil and gas sector is the feedstock for the products that will be covered under CEPA, as well as the feedstock for every other type of energy source that this world needs. However, as I mentioned before, the minister and the government do not care who they hurt or how they damage industries or interprovincial relationships.

The last-minute support of the NDP amendment, among the other reasons I have outlined, is why I will not be supporting this bill.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of modifying clause 9 with the view to safeguard provincial jurisdiction with respect to regulating mining tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing.

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to the government's attempts to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act with Bill S-5.

CEPA has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1989. Through Bill S-5, the government is attempting the first major update since CEPA's inception. However, as members might be aware, Bill S-5 does several things, and some are better than others. I would like to take a minute to run through some of what this bill proposes to do.

Bill S-5 adds language to CEPA that recognizes every Canadian's right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right. Within two years, the minister is required to develop an implementation framework as to how that right to a healthy environment would be considered. Bill S-5 also puts language into CEPA that highlights the government's commitment to implement UNDRIP and recognize the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance. Bill S-5 also aims to create a stronger regime for substances that are identified as toxic under CEPA and are of the highest risk by creating a schedule, schedule 1, to replace the list of toxic substances.

The industry impacted by CEPA has concerns about the list of toxic substances. While the word “toxic” is being removed, the substances to be regulated are still referred to as “toxic”. The plastics industry, for instance, would have an objection to this, in my opinion.

Bill S-5 also sets out the criteria by which the government would look to manage or regulate a substance. Essentially, the bill would create a watch-list. Bill S-5 also claims to allow for environmental risk assessments for drugs to be done solely under the food and drug regulations, and it removes the duplication of such monitoring under CEPA as well. This would be a first, I think, in the government's history, where it has actually tried to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden. Bill S-5 also allows any person to request that a minister assess whether a substance can become toxic; this is toxic in itself. It is very concerning to me, because it could open the government to thousands of requests, and frivolous requests at that.

The environment minister is a very ambitious minister. He likes to create all these plans that say a lot but do very little. He sets targets to be achieved, and he misses them time after time. The minister has a poor track record of meeting targets. Asking him to ensure that the assessment processes are correctly in place and to develop the framework for what a right to a healthy environment looks like, while trying to meet net-zero targets, is a big ask.

Bill S-5 does a lot of potentially complicated things. Moreover, the minister has difficulty drafting a substantive action plan for the environment. How are Canadians to trust that the minister will get these things right, when his track record shows us otherwise? More importantly, how can the industry trust this?

When we speak of the environment, we need to speak of some of the things that are being said. Back when I was a young lad in the early 1960s, I remember we had a civil defence system that was made up of volunteers. This had to do with the fact that we were just a few years out from the Second World War, and there was a concern about nuclear bombs. These things were scaring us at that particular point in time: the missile crisis and the nuclear bomb attacks.

In the 1960s, we were talking about global climate cooling, and we had everybody scared then as well. In the 1970s, we spoke about acid rain and concerns existing around that. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was all about global climate warming. In the year 2000, it was Y2K. Since global warming and global cooling did not seem to match what was happening in reality, we now simply talk about climate change. When we think about the environment, we think about the things that have to be done.

In the seventies, when I was going to university in Edmonton, I remember that there was this choice: One could take the electric trolley or stand out there and smell the diesel exhaust. Being a farm kid, I kind of knew what that was like, but nevertheless, it was important for us to make choices and recognize the difference. It was decided that the electric system would not work under those circumstances, so it went directly to diesel buses. Now, of course, we are going back. We are trying to take a look at electricity, providing we could get a grid that could handle it.

I mention that because it has been 60 years of catastrophic snake oil salesmen predicting different things that could happen. They have predicted how, in 10 years' time, we are going to have cities flooded, how we are going to have all these issues and how animals are going to go extinct. We hear that all the time.

Every once in a while, I go to Drumheller. I take a look at a sign above the canyon there saying that, 10,000 years ago, we were under a kilometre of ice. If one wanted to talk to the Laurentian elites, Montreal actually had two kilometres of ice over top of it at that time.

Things change; the climate changes. That is how we got our rivers. I know I deal with the effects of climate change right now when I have to go out into my field and pick rocks, because that is how they got there. These are the sorts of things we have to realize. Things do change.

I think back to Greenpeace leader, Patrick Moore, the founder, and his push was in nuclear power—

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is so important. If someone who works for a small community organization wants to lobby the government, the person has to register. To think that someone might be on our soil from another country and could have come without any type of scrutiny is just unreasonable.

We see a model. We see what Australia has. We understand that the United States also has this. Australia is very close to China, and it sees a lot of the problems and issues that are associated with that. The U.S. has constantly been back and forth, especially on some of the things I have mentioned as far as patents are concerned, and it takes this rather seriously. I think that is the least we can do.

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the discussion we are having is simply about how the government has reacted to the fact that a member of Parliament has been pointed out and his family has been forced to suffer. However, it is not just members of Parliament. If we allow that to continue to happen, it makes it easier for the regime to continue some of the outrageous things it is doing at the provincial level and the municipal level.

I saw some of the documentation being presented around the small town of this individual, and basically it was all lies. Fortunately he topped the polls, but the point was that nobody believed that any of it was true. That is one of the things we all have to be aware of. It is so important. Folks like the gentleman I am speaking of have contributed so much to our country, and they want to do that and be away from the dictatorship and oppressiveness of the Chinese Communist regime.

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lethbridge for sharing her time with me and, of course, for her great words.

I would like to take some time this evening to comment on the point of privilege from my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Let me start by expressing, not just for this House but for all Canadians, the admiration that I have for the hon. member. There is no finer gentleman to have ever graced these halls.

Last week, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills spoke in this House about the intimidation tactics of the People's Republic of China and how these tactics are being deployed against many Canadians of Chinese descent in diaspora communities across the country. That motion went further, emphasizing that such tactics have been widely reported and well established through House of Commons committee testimony. It was also reported by Canada's security establishments that families of members of Parliament had been subjected to an intimidation campaign orchestrated by various actors out of Beijing's consulate in Toronto.

The hon. member articulated the need to create a foreign agent registry, similar to the registries of Australia and the United States of America. Of course, with the myriad of intimidation infractions that the committee had heard about during previous elections, the member discussed the establishment of a national public inquiry on the matter of election interference in the name of Canadian sovereignty.

The next main point related to the unbelievable development that the People's Republic of China was operating police stations here on Canadian soil. The realization that this was only considered because we were alerted by the Americans does not really give us a strong sense that the Liberal government is on top of things. The final point was the need to expel all the diplomats from the People's Republic of China who were responsible for, and involved in, these affronts to Canadian democracy.

Much has been said of the interactions and interventions made by senior members of the Liberal Party in their attempt to sweep a serious international transgression under the rug once again. To put blame on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was the lowest of lows. However, to his credit, at least one Liberal recognized that his usual partisanship was offside and apologized to the member. That was the member for Kingston and the Islands.

My educational background is in mathematics, science and agriculture. China's contribution to mathematics, science, engineering and health over the last 3,000 years has been phenomenal. Sadly, the 112 years that have elapsed since the creation of the PRC during the Chinese Revolution in 1911, and the subsequent fall to Communism of mainland China in 1949, have placed an iron grip on the once-proud Chinese people.

This closed society has taken away so many remnants of the past. Whether it was an array of binomial coefficients, the standard conversion of rotary and longitudinal motion, or ploughshares of malleable cast iron, China was the first of firsts. However, over the centuries, these contributions have become as much a surprise to the Chinese people as they are to westerners. The reason I mention this is that there is a definite distinction between the genius of the people of China and the oppressive Communist regime of the People's Republic of China.

How do we deal with a dictatorship that has used its massive authoritarian rule over its own people and then chooses to use the same tactics on other foreign nations? My feeling is that we stand up to them and do not back down. We have seen the consequences of capitulation around the world, whether they involve taking over such infrastructure as ports, exploiting foreign natural resources using child or slave labour, or de-engineering patented products to compete against original designers.

Such actions should not be rewarded. However, because China supplies us with many products, we tend to turn a blind eye to these transgressions. The most serious of these is their mocking of environmental standards as they flood the world with products; countries like Canada give them a pass while, sadly, treating them like a poor country cousin in need of charity. This current action is but one more transgression to which the free world must react.

We now know that CSIS was aware two years ago that family members of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills were being targeted by the Chinese Communist government because of his role as a member of Parliament. We know that there were election irregularities where members of the Chinese diaspora were being targeted and told not to vote for particular candidates during the last federal election. I know an amazing entrepreneur and community advocate of Chinese descent who was targeted in the last municipal election in my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View, where lies and disinformation were commonplace. It is a real problem.

Why must we address the actions against our esteemed colleague as a question of privilege? If we are weak when it comes to our actions, this will never end. Any one of us could be subject to these tactics. The results would be the silencing of the voice of the people. If our government does not take this seriously and chooses to minimize these actions because it has an affinity for the present Chinese government, whether out of admiration or fear of reprisal, then this truly becomes a question of privilege.

The Prime Minister, his cabinet and his Liberal caucus all need to take stock of their actions. The Prime Minister and cabinet chose to abstain on the question of Uyghur genocide by the Chinese government. He lectures Canadians as to the bar that the term “genocide” must reach to be accepted internationally while seeing no problem using such terminology against our own ancestors. Is that the real reason for abstaining, or was it fear of reprisal from a Chinese government that had helped fund certain pet Liberal projects? If the government is in any way compromised and is not taking actions because of that, we also have a serious problem.

Two years after the government became aware of an MP and his family being targeted, it took a full week for the government to do the bare minimum and do what it should have done long ago. This Beijing operative should have been ejected when his intimidation actions became known to the government. For the government to rise and oppose the Conservative motion that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills presented perhaps shows its unserious commitment to our democracy. This must never happen again.

[Conservative Party of Canada, May 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister are plagued with scandal and ethics violations. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet because of his inflationary deficits and carbon tax.

The good news for Canadians is that the next Conservative government has a plan to bring home lower prices. We will end the government's inflationary deficits and scrap the carbon tax. Conservatives will bring home powerful paycheques for Canadians by lowering taxes and clawbacks, to reward hard-working Canadians. Led by the leader of the official opposition, Conservatives will bring home freedom from foreign interference because this Prime Minister will not.

Canadians know that our leader and our caucus stand for the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, Canada.

[Giant Axonal Neuropathy, May 2nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, May 2 is Curly Hair Day. Giant axonal neuropathy is a rare childhood genetic disorder; it affects the nervous system, and it is terminal. There are 73 cases of GAN in the world. Two such cases are in Alberta. One of these is our grandson, Julian.

There are international pilot projects that could offer unique research therapies for this and other genetic conditions, but what we lack is the ability to seamlessly coordinate such projects.

One of the symptoms that led to the diagnosis of GAN for Julian was his tightly curled hair. This marker, which is so obvious in this disorder, sparked an initiative called Hannah's Hope Fund, which calls for May 2 to be Curly Hair Day. To support these children and their families in the struggle for a cure, I encourage members to think about them every May 2.