Patrick Weiler
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, British Columbia · Liberal · Canada
“If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships.”
“I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss.”
“Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada's whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada's broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations.”
“It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster.”
“At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices.”
“On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned.”
The complete record
Every one of 160 lines we hold for Patrick Weiler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“The next act the Conservatives propose repealing is the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. This piece of legislation, which was enacted in 2018, just formalizes what has been a half-century-long agreement of Canadian government after Canadian government. It is in place to do something very important; it is about making sure we are protecting some of the most dangerous waters in our entire country. When the Conservatives talk about why it needs to be repealed, they always bring up the northern gateway project, as if the act were the piece of legislation that caused that project not to proceed. In fact that project was so poorly put together, and the consultation with first nations was so deficient, that nine first nations challenged it in court and had it overturned.”
“This is because what it replaced was the CEAA 2012 legislation, which was so poorly written that projects, after getting approved, would just find their way into the courts and be hung up for years and years. When the Conservatives call the bill the “no more pipelines act”, I think it is really telling. They do not want to talk about what would replace it. If we do not have any environmental assessment legislation, how would we even look at any different projects? Would everything just get approved no matter what? Notably they do not talk about any of the other major projects we have that could really grow our prosperity. There is no talk of things like a national electricity grid and what that could do to open up prosperity in many parts of the country, reduce electricity costs and open up new sectors.”
“I think it would be helpful to go through a number of points within the proposed sovereignty act to really point out what it means. Among other things, the act proposes repealing the Impact Assessment Act, which, for those who do not know, is a piece of environmental assessment legislation that rationalizes the work that Canada needs to do to ensure that projects are going to mitigate the environmental impacts they have. It allows for better first nations consultation and in fact imposes strict timelines on government reviews of those projects. Frankly, since this legislation was brought in, the reviews of those projects have improved not only in quantity but also in efficiency.”
“However, much to my disappointment, when I actually read what was in the so-called sovereignty act, I saw that rather than dealing with these very important issues, we are getting a rehash of the same tired Conservative policy playbook that encompasses no more than a wish list of the oil and gas industry to gut Canada's environmental protections. Rather than making Canada more sovereign and looking into the future, what the Conservatives are proposing would actually further shackle us to the United States and a world that no longer exists. Rather than working to unite the nation, what has been proposed is to bully and steamroll all who disagree with them. We know that this plan has failed before and would fail again, but now is not the time to be going down that same road and playing these fruitless games.”
“When I heard that the Conservatives wanted to speak on a sovereignty act today, I was very excited to see if we could have a real debate about some of the major issues we have to grapple with to deal with the rupture in the global order and, frankly, the threat we have coming from south of the border, including among other things how that changes how we deal with our national security when we may not be able to rely on the United States. How can we unite our nation? How can we work with provinces? How can we work better with first nations in a spirit of partnership? How can we build our ports to access new markets? How can we buy more Canadian products? How can we have a clear-eyed plan to drive prosperity not only today but also deep into the future?”
“Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise today for the first time in the calendar year 2026 to speak on behalf of the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I wish all members of the House a very happy new year. I am looking forward to working in a spirit of collaboration as we get this year under way. I very much hope things will be different this year. Certainly things started off the right way. I heard the shift in tone from the Leader of the Opposition in response to the seminal speech from our Prime Minister at Davos. I heard the very gracious words that he shared and the commitments to pass some very important pieces of legislation for Canadians.”
“Through food-security programs, waste reduction initiatives, community education and strong policy leadership, Squamish CAN is reshaping local food systems and strengthening the region's resilience. I congratulate the executive director, Krystle tenBrink, and the entire Squamish CAN team for this well-deserved honour and for their continued work to build a healthier, more sustainable future for our community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Squamish Climate Action Network, Squamish CAN, on receiving the 2025 Edible Communities Sustainability Award for outstanding leadership in community-driven climate action. The network's impact is felt across the region. Its self-sustaining downtown school farm gives residents and students hands-on experience with regenerative agriculture, distributes fresh food throughout the community, and supplies healthy produce to local schools. Its edible school gardens and indigenous plant garden created in partnership with Squamish Nation elders deepen ecological learning in the classroom and embed cultural knowledge in the community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2025-26: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. The committee has considered the votes referred and reports the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, we certainly need to invest in our trade infrastructure. There is a deepwater port in my riding in Squamish, and we need to make sure we can access these new markets, get more free trade agreements and find alternative markets to the U.S. That is really critical. As we are building these relationships, it is not just selling to new markets, but it is also making sure we can bring in new tourists. The new change to have group travel coming from China is massive, because that is one of the biggest markets for our country, with some of the biggest spenders. That will be really critical for our local economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, softwood lumber is a very important industry in British Columbia, too. Before the budget, we announced programs worth $1.2 billion to support this sector. It is very important to find new markets and to have new products that we can use in Canada and sell to the world. I think this evening's debate is a good way to look at how we can do more. However, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has already said that there will be more measures soon. I think these measures will make a big difference to British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and the other provinces.”
“The budget does exactly that, with investments in public infrastructure and in the kinds of industries that are going to drive our growth going forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with many of the pretexts of the member from Sarnia—Lambton's question. For such things as the consumer carbon tax, it is one of the most economically efficient ways of reducing emissions. It is also a measure that was actually a Conservative climate measure. Unfortunately, it was politicized by the Conservative Party. Frankly, that is too bad for our country. In the budget, there are major investments made to increase the productivity of our country, which is incredibly important given the economic uncertainty we are living in right now. We need to make sure we are creating opportunity for Canadians of all stripes, and particularly Canadians in my generation.”
“The Minister of Industry 's recent statement that we will be hawkish on competition further speaks to this, but with all of these new responsibilities, the commissioner does not have the ability to enforce all of them. That is why the third party private right of action is key. Things can take years to go through this process, and they are very opaque. The private cause of action already has a high bar to meet to utilize it, including that it needs to be in the public interest. Litigants cannot get judgments, and they can have costs awarded against them. With that, I think it should be removed.”
“I think both moves are a mistake, but especially the latter. While clearer guidance from the Competition Bureau on the acceptable methodologies would have been helpful, there are countless methodologies out there, such as ISO, ISSB, the GHG protocol and many others. If this measure is removed, it really puts the onus on government to finally finalize the long-promised sustainable finance measures, such as mandatory climate plans for companies and other climate-related reporting for businesses. Thankfully, the budget commits to moving forward in this. The latter is the most concerning. In recent years, we have given the Competition Bureau significant new responsibilities and tools to tackle them with.”
“These changes were prompted in part by some things we are seeing in our society, such as bus ads in which we see advertising saying that, somehow, liquid natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When this change to the law came into effect last June, we saw an immediate impact. We saw a number of companies putting disclaimers on their advertising. We saw other companies, such as the Pathways Alliance, taking down all of their communications, including such claims as that they are working to achieve net zero. In the budget implementation act, division 43 of part 5 amends these changes to remove the requirement that this substantiation be done in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. It also removes the third party private right of action at the tribunal.”
“In the remainder of my speech, I would like to touch on an area in which I believe the government missed the mark, and that is with the proposed changes to the greenwashing provisions. Last year, through amendments that were brought forward and passed through the finance committee and that, in fact, were passed unanimously in the House, we expanded the false and misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act to cover the environmental claims that businesses make with respect to their operations in their entirety. These changes now require such companies to be able to substantiate these claims using one of the many internationally recognized methodologies that are out there.”
“We are seeing that things like this can help support more snowcats and groomers for the tourism sector, more heavy machinery for the construction sector or more equipment for the clean-tech sector, which is a fast-growing sector in my riding. Further to that point, the budget makes changes to the SR&ED tax credits to provide tax incentives for companies doing research and development. I have heard how important this program is from constituents, and how those investments have helped many early stage companies, including in Squamish's clean-tech hub, to get off the ground. The changes in the budget implementation act would expand the eligibility for what these credits can go to, as well as the total amount.”
“I want to mention just a few. By making some changes to the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, we are bringing in what is called a productivity superdeduction. This temporary measure would allow businesses to immediately write off investments in such things as machinery, equipment, vehicles, digital systems and other productivity-enhancing technology at an accelerated rate. This is incredibly important right now because we are seeing lower investment in capital and equipment per worker in our economy than we are seeing south of the border, in the U.S. Especially with the tariff-induced uncertainty, we need to do all we can to drive investment in improving our productivity. Locally, in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we rely on small and mid-size businesses that depend on modern equipment.”
“The end result was a huge amount of lost government revenue and a loss of jobs in Canada. This very much hit home in my riding given the number of individuals involved in the boat construction industry. (1220) It also hit the tourism industry, because we are seeing less investment in the purchases of new vessels for such things as whale watching tours, water taxis and others. Since the budget announced that this would be removed, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments that have been promised and companies, such as those in the aerospace sector, promising about 600 new jobs that are directly tied to this change. Budget 2025 creates and extends a number of measures that would drive productivity growth in our economy, such as the removal of the ones I just mentioned, through incentivizing private sector investment.”
“Thousands of Canadians were being caught in a filing requirement despite never being the target. By repealing it in its entirety, this is no longer going to be an issue. Second, Division 3 of part 3 would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of aircraft and boats. The luxury tax was brought in to put an additional tax on boats, planes and cars. Again, this sounds like a good idea, because why would we not want to tax luxury goods for the rich? It was clear from the beginning that this tax was going to be a disaster, and to no one's surprise, that is exactly what it turned out to be. Just as in other jurisdictions that tried this, people decided to purchase other items that were not subject to the tax, like an additional home; delayed the purchase of items; or just bought them from another jurisdiction.”
“This measure is having an unintended impact on communities like Whistler, where the municipality has zoned certain areas to be short-term rentals and has required them to be that way by covenant. In fact, the municipality has sought foreign direct investment to build up the accommodation capacity to welcome visitors. The end effect is that we are taxing the investors we sought for an objective that could never be achieved. After several years of lobbying to get an exemption for this, including getting a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Finance, these measures have now been repealed. I want to say a special thanks to Barrett Fisher, Dave Brown, Louise Walker and so many others for making this a possibility. In the end, it was found that administering the program actually costs more than the revenue that it was bringing in.”
“In order to implement the budget, Bill C-15 changes a few dozen laws, and I want to use the remainder of my speech to discuss several of the key measures in this mix. First, Bill C-15 would get rid of a handful of populist measures that may have sounded good, but in practice were hurting our communities. Division 2 of part 3 would amend the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future years. The UHT has been in effect for three years and has the noble goal of taxing property owned by non-Canadians that is not being used productively and not being put into the long-term rental pool. To see houses empty during a housing crisis rightly causes Canadians to be angry.”
“The budget has key investments, like $13 billion for Build Canada Homes so we have an agency to build affordable housing at scale using prefabricated and modular designs; $51 billion in spending for public infrastructure, with a focus on housing-enabling infrastructure; $6 billion in new trade infrastructure for things like ports; and an additional $10 billion for the Canada Infrastructure Bank so we are able to make important investments like, for instance, building out the pan-Canadian grid, which includes the investment that was announced last week for the north coast transmission line. Importantly, the budget makes buy Canada the default for any government project to ensure that Canadians and Canadian companies are going to benefit from it.”
“This is a budget that is designed to spend less on government so Canadians can invest more. This will be done by reducing spending on government by about $60 billion over five years to create the fiscal room to get investment in Canada from both the public and private sectors. The measures in this budget are geared to driving $1 trillion in investment over five years to build the infrastructure we need as a country to diversify our trade internally, building on our work to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, and externally, leveraging the 50-plus free trade agreements we have around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-15 , the budget implementation act, and what it means for my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. First, I want to say a few things about budget 2025, a plan to build Canada strong. It comes at a time when Canada's economy is being deeply impacted by American tariffs. It is estimated that these tariffs are going to shave about $50 billion off our GDP, which works out to about $1,300 per Canadian. With this budget, we are focused on protecting the sectors that are most impacted by U.S. tariffs, including forestry, which is so important to my province of British Columbia. The demographic that is most impacted right now is young people, and this budget has investments that are going to create 175,000 jobs for young people.”
“That is something that all levels of government and all members of the House should be able to agree to, because this is about a core value, personal responsibility, and ensuring that the polluter pays for actions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that this is something that requires multiple levels of government jurisdiction to address. The province has taken some actions, as well, to deal with marine pollution. It is very much something that we can work together on. We all realize that this is an issue. If it is in the water, it is typically the federal government's jurisdiction. When it washes ashore to land, we engage the provincial jurisdiction. We need to work closely together. This is about getting ahead of those problems and stopping the issue from getting worse, stopping more and more derelict vessels from being out there. It is also about making sure that we are holding the folks and companies that are causing marine pollution responsible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This amendment seeks to correct a problem created by a court decision. The penalty and the prohibition were always intended as a strict liability offence. The court's interpretation of the law altered its application. This amendment restores the original intent: Any act committed deliberately or by negligence will henceforward be prohibited.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. With the changes proposed in the bill, there would be an obligation for the seller to take steps to ensure that they are not selling to someone who they know does not have the means to maintain it or properly dispose of it. There are a lot of ways that one can do that, such as properly disclosing the current condition of the boat and ensuring that the seller can also provide in written format how they can maintain it as well. This is one way of dealing with the loophole that is there. Subsequent to that, the seller of the boat would have no responsibility beyond that, because of course, what could they do at that point? This is really addressing a critical loophole that was created when we introduced the prohibition of abandoning boats. This is something that we need to do to close that loophole.”
“The clean coasts act would respond to exactly that, so I invite all members to support this pragmatic step, to stand with coastal communities, to honour the people who have been calling for action for years, and to ensure that our oceans remain clean, healthy and productive for generations to come.”
“These two regulations are long overdue, and I call on the government to act urgently to finalize them. Furthermore, on the west coast, there is still no dedicated facility for dismantling or recycling end-of-life vessels. We need to change this. We need to make it both easy and affordable for boat owners to properly dispose of their boats. Pairing this with legislative reform, we can make a lasting difference of addressing the root causes of marine pollution rather than only its much more costly symptoms. In conclusion, I want to add that a recent poll by Glacier Media shows that nearly 97% of respondents are in favour of stricter regulation of marine dumping and derelict vessels.”
“I would also like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill and for his long-standing advocacy on dealing with the issue of derelict vessels, which absolutely plagues his riding as well. We would not have the WAHVA framework were it not for the private member's bill that former fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan brought forward. More locally, the former MP for my riding, John Weston, has also long been a champion of this issue. We all care about clean coasts and know that the bill alone will not solve the problem. We need a modernized vessel registry system so we can effectively identify vessel ownership, and we need a sufficient and sustainable source of funding through the vessel remediation fund to remove and dispose of vessels for which we cannot identify the owners.”
“Groups like the Dead Boats Disposal Society show that Canadians are ready to act. They need the federal government to back them up with the right tools. I would also say that the issue is not partisan. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in its bipartisan report on abandoned and derelict vessels, offered important recommendations to address the issue, including thoughtful suggestions in the Conservatives' supplementary report. I want to recognize the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies , the Conservative Party critic for fisheries, for his work in this space and particularly for the recommendation that I deeply agree with and that the government should adopt: to require boat sellers rather than boat buyers to register the transfers of boats.”
“Provincially, jurisdiction extends over the inshore seabed and shorelines, and municipalities are left managing the impacts within their boundaries. The result is too often a finger-pointing exercise, with no single body clearly accountable for prevention and enforcement. Communities like Sechelt have seen what happens when this patchwork approach fails: Pollution worsens, vessels sink and coastal communities and taxpayers bear the cost. The clean coasts act is about ending that cycle. It focuses on prevention, ensuring that responsibility could not be passed from one owner, one jurisdiction or one ministry to another. There has already been strong leadership from local organizations and from volunteers who are stepping up to do the work that should not fall to them.”
“(1815) This is about getting ahead of the problem and dealing with it in a much cheaper way, but those efforts can succeed only when the laws that underpin them are enforceable. The clean coasts act would provide that clarity, ensuring that both CEPA and WAHVA work effectively. This is not a radical reform but a practical fix that would deliver results on the water and better value for taxpayers. Protecting our oceans is not just a national duty; it is a shared responsibility across every level of government. Right now, responsibility for derelict and abandoned vessels is scattered. Transport Canada oversees navigation safety, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages small craft harbours, Environment and Climate Change Canada responds to pollution, and the Coast Guard steps in during emergencies.”
“Without accessible disposal options, many vessels are stripped for parts and then left to deteriorate in the water, leaking pollutants into the nearby ecosystem. The clean coasts act would close an important loophole. It would prohibit the transfer of a vessel to anyone the seller knows lacks the means to maintain it safely and would ensure that accountability follows a vessel throughout its life cycle so ownership cannot be off-loaded to avoid responsibility. The clean coasts act would build on progress that Canada has already made in oceans protection. It would strengthen existing tools rather than creating new ones. Through the oceans protection plan, we have improved spill response and habitat restoration and have provided funding to remove sunken boats through the abandoned boats program.”
“In Porpoise Bay, that danger became real when a man who was living on an unseaworthy vessel tragically lost his life when trying to reach the shore in a small dinghy. Beyond the danger to human life, these vessels pose ongoing navigation hazards and increase the risk of waste being dumped into coastal waters, factors that degrade the water quality in the surrounding region. In speaking with organizations like the Coastal Restoration Society, which has removed over 100 derelict vessels from B.C.'s coastline since 2017, I have heard first-hand how costly it is to remove these vessels once they have sunk. Safely removing a single 45-foot wooden vessel can cost upward of $40,000, costs that small port authorities and boat owners simply cannot afford, and this is on the cheaper side.”
“These transfers are easy to find. Residents have shared screenshots of online listings on platforms like Craigslist, where boats are offered for a dollar or free to a good home. In some cases, the same sites advertized “off-grid moorage” or “tie-ups on makeshift floats”, inviting others to live on the water without proper facilities, order, permission or oversight. Some might ask who would voluntarily take on this type of liability. Too often, it is some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the unhoused simply looking for a roof over their head. They have more immediate things to worry about than the cost of properly disposing of a vessel. Some might ask why this is a problem. These vessels are often not seaworthy and are at risk of sinking.”
“It would encourage better maintenance, safety protocols and planning, saving both money and our oceans. By placing accountability where it belongs, on those in control of the vessels that could cause harm, the clean coasts act would make prevention the rule rather than the exception. The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, passed in 2019, was an important step forward. WAHVA made it an offence to abandon a vessel, rather than what someone should be doing in these cases, which is properly dispose of it. Incredibly, this was not prohibited before then. In creating this new prohibition to abandon a vessel, we created an incentive for people to avoid it. Some vessel owners now try to sidestep accountability by transferring boats, usually at the end of their useful life, to people who they know cannot maintain them.”
“It placed the burden on the public to prove intention rather than on the polluter to demonstrate responsibility. The clean coasts act would correct that imbalance. It would establish a strict liability framework that would shift the onus of proof from the Crown to the polluter. Under this model, if a vessel releases pollution into the marine environment, the owner or operator must prove that they took all appropriate steps to prevent it. They must do what a reasonable person would do in the same situation and simply act responsibly. This is what was always intended by the act, and this bill clarifies that that would be the case going forward. This is not about criminalizing accidents. It is about ensuring that those who operate in our waters meet the highest standards we expect of them.”
“This means that even when careless acts, omissions or poor maintenance lead to dumping in our oceans, individuals or companies can escape responsibility. (1810) The 2015 Marathassa oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay makes this very clear. A newly built bulk carrier leaked more than 2,700 litres of bunker oil into the ocean, coating nearby beaches, marine life and shoreline habitats. The cleanup costs were in the millions of dollars. It took weeks and involved volunteers, municipalities, first nations and the Coast Guard. Even after all these efforts, we know that the oil spilled continues to have a long-term impact. Despite dumping oil into the bay for days, the ship's owners were ultimately acquitted of all charges. This case revealed a critical flaw.”
“Cleanups across British Columbia's coasts can cost thousands of dollars per kilometre. These are costs borne not by polluters but by local residents and volunteers. These are not isolated frustrations; they are symptoms of a system that reacts only after the damage is done. While communities such as Gibsons, Sechelt and Bowen Island see these impacts up close, the same legal gaps are evident on a larger scale. When pollution reaches the ocean, the effects ripple far beyond one bay or harbour. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is the most important environmental law in Canada. It protects people and the environment from toxic substances, but given how the court has interpreted the marine dumping provisions of CEPA, only intentional discharges into the ocean are now prohibited.”
“Don has spent years pumping water out of sinking vessels at his own expense because he knows that once they go down, the cost is 10 times greater to deal with them, which ultimately falls to taxpayers. I thank Don for all that he does. Beyond derelict boats, other forms of marine pollution are also taking a toll. Along the coast, we see styrofoam from decaying docks and aquaculture facilities that are breaking apart into thousands of small fragments that spread across beaches and into fragile habitats. Community groups, such as the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society, Átl’ka7tsem/Howe Sound Marine Stewardship Initiative and the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, as well as their volunteers, dedicate countless hours to cleaning up what stronger laws could have prevented from entering the ocean in the first place.”
“The same children who may have spent their weekends searching for shells now spend their time picking up plastic and broken foam that washes ashore For Elaine, who runs a small waterfront bed and breakfast that was once featured in The New York Times as one of Canada's most scenic coastal getaways, this has become an economic issue as much as an environmental one. Guests no longer see a pristine bay; they see a flotilla of abandoned boats and improvised structures. Tourism suffers, and all the local businesses that depend on it do as well. When governments are slow to act, people like Don McKenzie, a 90-year-old marina operator, take matters into their own hands.”
“Coastal residents see the cumulative impact of marine pollution, derelict vessels and infrastructure that is breaking down. Nowhere is this happening more than in Porpoise Bay, where long-time residents, such as Angelia, have watched this decline unfold over their lifetimes. She grew up swimming and digging clams with her family, but today, she does not believe she will ever swim there again. The bay, where her neighbour's grandchildren now play, is scattered with derelict boats and floating debris that leach oil, fuel and waste into the water. What was once a clear, healthy inlet has become clouded with pollution and garbage from decaying vessels.”
“The legislation strengthens Canada's ability to prevent and respond to marine pollution by closing two critical gaps in our laws: First, it clarifies that marine dumping is a strict liability offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to prohibit the transfer of vessels to individuals the seller knows does not have the means to maintain or dispose of them safely. Together, these two measures will deter the reckless behaviour that endangers our coasts and ensure that those who pollute our oceans, not the public, are responsible for cleaning up their waste. These amendments respond directly to challenges that coastal communities, particularly in British Columbia, face every day.”
“They have written letters, raised petitions and met with every level of government, saying the same thing: Our laws and policies are simply not getting the job done. They want us to do something about it. They know that our oceans are for the common benefit, but they are not a common dumping ground. They are frustrated because they see what happens when governments act too late when a vessel sinks, fuel leaks and community bears the cost of a problem that should have been prevented. That is why I am honoured to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-244 , the clean coasts act.”
“moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-244. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, as one of the 5.5 million Canadians who has the privilege of living on Canada's coast, I know it is not just where we live; it is part of who we are, from learning about the life cycle of salmon as a child to fishing in our rivers and oceans and experiencing the incredible feeling of seeing a whale in the wild. It is what brings residents and visitors together, drives our economy and puts food on the table. Today, these same coastlines face mounting pressures from marine pollution and abandoned and derelict boats. Coastal residents see these impacts every single day.”
“Mr. Speaker, money laundering, fraud and financial crimes fuel organized crime, undermine confidence in our financial system and contribute to serious challenges, such as the opioid crisis and rising housing costs in British Columbia. Our government has taken decisive action in recent years through major legislative reforms, but the sophistication of these crimes means that we must remain vigilant and we must do more. Can the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions update the House on how our government is strengthening enforcement to better detect and disrupt financial crime? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”