Ellis Ross
Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians think of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, they think of LNG and the port of Prince Rupert. These projects are important, but they are only part of the story.”
“Madam Speaker, the member gave a knowledgeable speech in terms of democracy and the way this place is supposed to work. In fact, when I came here, the Liberal government had a minority government, and things were working. It was getting comments from all the MPs in this place, and there was compromise and amendments in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is basically democracy that translates from the House to committee. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all agree with part 1 of this bill. There is no question about that. It is 9:30 at night, and after this, the committee will sit again.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very passionate speech. As opposition members, we propose to improve these types of bills with amendments. The Liberals characterize these amendments at committee stage as obstructions, yet all we are trying to do is make the bills better.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9 . I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems.”
The complete record
Every one of 288 lines we hold for Ellis Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the Liberal government has been doing for the last how many years, since I have been watching, anyway, in terms of not really looking after the average Canadian and not looking after low-income Canadians. If we look at the budget, for example, there are not many residents in my riding who can afford a $100-million yacht or a $100-million jet. Those poor billionaires who are maybe looking at the market for a second jet are going to be happy about this, especially corporations like Brookfield. This is just an elitist budget looking after elitists.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery as to why the Liberal government will not go 100% of the way, in terms of taking the Conservative ideas to reduce the pressure on families. It is a mystery. All the government seems to do is water down Conservative ideas and take 50% of what we did. The carbon tax is a great example. The government is keeping the industrial carbon tax and keeping the International Maritime Organization's tax and then telling Canadians that this is somehow going to make our lives more affordable, when, in reality, we all know that it is not going to make a difference.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could not care less about what the member is disappointed in. Why does he not come to talk to the people in my riding who cannot afford a loaf of bread? What does he say to that? Why does he not get around the spin and the rhetoric of the budget and Bill C-4 , and actually do something of substance to reduce costs like the Liberals promised? Right now I am judging the member and his Prime Minister on the prices at the grocery store, which the Prime Minister said he would reduce. He said to judge him by the price of groceries. I am passing judgment on you right now. What do you plead, guilty or not guilty?”
“What is so shameful about this is that the Liberals have known for years that people are suffering and struggling. Low-income people and seniors are hoping to see some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of affordability, but they are not seeing it. They are hearing more rhetoric. We have not even talked about the idea of either printing more money or borrowing more money and dumping it into the economy without addressing the goods and services that go into that. I thought that, as a banker, the Prime Minister would know better. Apparently he does not, so laymen like us from small communities are trying to point out that this is not the way to run a country; it is the way to run a country into ruin. It is a shame that this is coming from a first world country like Canada, which used to be a leader in affordability and freedoms.”
“They think that if they keep saying the word and the phrase over and over, Canadians will believe this. I did hear this as a statement coming from previous Liberal ministers: that if we say over and and over something that is not true, Canadians will ultimately believe it is true, but we have to keep repeating it. I can say right now that the costs and the unaffordability crisis Canadians are facing are real. I know people in my riding who know that the costs are real and that the unaffordability crunch is real. When an elder in my riding has a shopping cart with two items in it, expired items at 50% off, it is not the food she wants. It is not nutritious, but it is what she can afford. This is Canada. I could see this maybe happening in a third world country.”
“Why do this to a country? Why do this to the next generation, who cannot really imagine buying a house in Canada and building a home? In B.C. alone, in September, food prices increased by 3.9%, with beef jumping 17.8% and coffee and tea increasing by 26%. The Business Council of British Columbia reported that costs have risen 23%. What does the Liberal government say about the costs and the taxes? It says they are imaginary. I can say that the two million people lining up at food banks do not think these costs are imaginary. They do not think the idea that they cannot afford to live, to eat, or to pay their energy bill is imaginary. The costs are real. I do not think the 700,000 kids who are lined up at food banks think this is imaginary. The only ones who think it is imaginary are the Liberals.”
“First-time homebuyers really cannot afford to buy the construction of a brand new home. They are usually buying homes that were built 30 or 40 years ago. This would work if Canada was building houses, but Canada is not building houses. Now, the government is taking unprecedented moves where Liberals are promising to build houses when really it is the private sector that has been building houses in Canada for the last 100, 150 or 200 years. It was not a problem until the Liberals brought in policies to crunch Canadians in affordability in all sectors. (1745) We would not need this if the policies were not in place, and now the Liberals are trying to unwind them. The Liberals' 10 years of policies created these issues, and now they come to the table and say, “We have the solutions to the issues we created.” Why do this to Canadians?”
“On top of this, the Liberal government basically admitted today that it is going to support the International Maritime Organization for a carbon shipping tax. However, it will not say how that is going to affect Canadians who want to purchase goods and services in Canada. I do not like the carbon tax, but in this case, when the Liberals support an international shipping tax, unlike the carbon tax, that money is going to leave Canada and it is not going to come back. It is going to go to a foreign agency, and who knows what it is going to do with it, at a time when Canadians are trying to decide whether or not they should skip a meal or pay the energy bill. That is an absolute shame. I heard my colleagues talking about housing affordability and about first-time homebuyers.”
“How did it turn around? The Liberals are the ones who are burning the planet by driving their family all around Canada and jumping on jets to go to Brazil for an environment conference of all things. The Liberals pulled off a sleight-of-hand trick. They pulled off taking the carbon tax off for fuel, for example, which Conservatives wanted, and overnight that created savings for Canadians, but they kept the industrial carbon tax. We just got through talking about that in committee today where a farmer told the Minister of Environment that the industrial carbon tax on farmers is not imaginary. It is real. The farmer sees it when he is purchasing fertilizer or purchasing equipment. The farmer cannot absorb these costs, and so it has to be transferred down the line to average Canadians.”
“It is not bad for the Liberals to steal Conservative ideas, as long as they take 100% of the idea and not water them down. If they were to water down the ideas, they would not actually be making life more affordable for Canadians. It is political spin, or rhetoric, and it would not achieve what Conservatives wanted to do in the first place, which was to make life affordable across the board for all Canadians, not just those who would get a tax break buying a $100-million jet. Take the carbon tax, for example. I watched CPAC when the Conservatives were hammering the Liberals to get rid of the carbon tax: Axe the tax. However, the Liberals would not hear of it. They would accuse the Conservatives of burning the planet if people took their family for a drive in a car. Anybody who questioned the carbon tax was a climate change denier.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong . Like a few members, I am brand new here. This is my first term as an MP, but I was an MLA back in B.C. for seven years. I was also a chief councillor for six years, and previous to that, I was a councillor for eight years. A lot of the issues we talk about are very similar to what I have done in the last 20 years, but I have not really seen what is happening here happen before in my previous political life. What I am talking about is the Liberal government basically borrowing, or stealing, ideas from the Conservative platform. Whether it is stealing or borrowing, it is all in the same vein to try to get life more affordable for Canadians, which is the short title of Bill C-4 , the making life more affordable for Canadians act.”
“Mr. Speaker, again I rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley lawful firearms owners. Alberta does not endorse the firearm confiscation plan. Ontario police do not endorse the confiscation plan. In fact, the safety minister himself, the guy who is in charge of the firearms confiscation plan, does not support his own plan. On behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley lawful firearms owners, I say that they want the Liberal gun grab to stop because it is misdirected and is not addressing crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, LNG Canada and Chevron's Kitimat LNG project got efficient approvals mainly due to pre-consultations, which the Liberal government has not done. Instead, the Liberal government proposed to do consultations over Zoom, over video calls, to deal with constitutionally protected rights and title. Now the Liberals say it is up to Alberta to get consent, which is wrong. This is Canada's responsibility. When will the Liberals deal with constitutionally protected rights and title honourably, because it is too late to deal with pre-consultations?”
“Mr. Chair, no, I have not. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister even asked his own Liberal government to go down to the United States. It is not like what former prime minister Harper did in 2006. Nothing has been done, because they do not care. There is no burning issue to go down there to talk to President Trump.”
“Mr. Chair, the Liberal government has no idea what it means to lose a job, to live in poverty or to live on welfare. The Liberal answer is that they are going to come up with a program to soften the blow, when Canadians want to actually pay their own way. They want good-paying jobs, and we had that in B.C. We had it in Canada. We had good-paying jobs. What does the Liberal government say? Instead of elbows up, it is “Who cares?” There is no “burning issue” to talk about with the President of the United States. That is a shame.”
“Mr. Chair, better yet, I would love for these corporations to reopen the mills that they shut down in Vanderhoof, Fort St. John, Merritt, Bear Lake, Port Alberni, Fraser Lake, Surrey, Houston, Terrace, Chetwynd, Midway, Powell River and Mackenzie. Once they reopen those mills, then we will have a conversation with the corporations.”
“Mr. Chair, I think we should address the trade agreements first. The United States is our biggest trading partner. By the way, the government fails to mention that, in 2006, Harper not only got a softwood lumber agreement in 80 days, but also recovered $4 billion in duties collected by the U.S. government. This government has failed in not addressing the softwood lumber agreement and is failing in not collecting the duties the United States is currently holding onto.”
“There is a hidden tax through the industrial carbon tax and another hidden tax with the International Maritime Organization, which the government intends to vote in favour of. It does not having the courage to tell Canadians face to face about this international tax. The taxes would not go to a Canadian organization. Canadians need help. They need jobs. They do not want handouts. I come from the Indian Act. I worked for 20 years to get our band away from Indian Act funding. Its paternalistic nature actually makes people dependent.”
“The Liberals are talking about investments. That is not investment. They are introducing new money. It is not the same as printing money, but the concept is the same: When we bring in new money without addressing the GDP, inflation goes up. This is what we are taught in high school. I am surprised the banker does not know this, but what does the Prime Minister say? When the Liberals are talking about investing $500 million of Canadian taxpayer money in a space agency in Europe whose campus, just by coincidence, is owned by Brookfield, he turns around and tells Canadians they have to sacrifice, meaning they have to sacrifice their jobs as mill workers, auto workers and steelworkers. Canadians have to sacrifice, and by the way, they have to pay more taxes.”
“Brookfield has the luxury of hiding $6 billion in a tax haven in Bermuda. A lot of us do not have that luxury. A lot of the people in B.C., especially in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, are burning through their savings. This is not right, and it is not fair for the Prime Minister to say, “Who cares?” and that there is no “burning issue”. Why did the slogan change? The Liberals went from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” which is so insensitive, especially in Canada when we are talking about two million people now going to food banks, 700,000 of them children. This should not be happening in a first world country like Canada. We are rich in resources, but we are poor in leadership. That is sad. That is a shame. We owe the next generation better than that, and I am not even talking about the generational debt the government has incurred.”
“We should be doing more manufacturing, but anywhere from 15 to 30 mills have shut down in B.C. alone in the last seven years. That affects families. The student who wants to graduate from where she went to school her whole life has to think about moving and leaving her friends. Corporations can get up and leave any time they want. In fact, a lot of them move to the United States for lower taxes and fewer regulations. People cannot do that. Corporations can, and the banker Prime Minister knows this. He is the elitist banker. The Prime Minister says that it is not a “burning issue” to talk with the President of the United States regarding trade. That is being out of touch. That is not having any sympathy or any empathy for the Canadians who rely on jobs, whether they be in mining, forestry, LNG or pipelines.”
“Mr. Chair, it is an honour but sad to stand up to speak on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. My riding has been affected by mill closures for the last seven years at least, and when the Prime Minister talked about the last time he spoke to President Trump about a trade deal, his response was, “Who cares?” I would ask the Prime Minister to talk to all the workers who have lost their jobs, talk to all the families that need the support of these jobs, talk to municipalities and communities, and talk to society to see if they care, because I definitely care. In fact, I had to dust off my old speaking points from the B.C. legislature from when I was arguing the same thing. We need to save jobs, not shut down the forestry mills in B.C. What happened with the mills shutting down B.C.? We exported more raw logs overseas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very knowledgeable speech. I had a tough time keeping up with her. It is a very complicated subject, but the premise of it is pretty basic given the crimes being committed. We hear Liberals trying to equate sexual crimes with gambling crimes. There is a specific victim when we are talking about women and children being victims of sexual crimes. I do not want to leave the House with the idea that we should be diluting that just because of the status of an immigrant. Can my colleague elaborate on the victims, especially as we are talking about murdered and missing women and violence against women, which the Liberals profess to stand up for?”
“Mr. Speaker, I sit here and listen to the questions coming from the Liberal side of the House. They are always talking about investing in Canada and Canadians, but they fail to mention their investments in Europe, specifically $500 million to the European Space Agency. By coincidence, the campus is owned by Brookfield, which is connected to the Prime Minister of Canada, and there are more examples of the Liberals hiding their investments internationally while people in Canada are suffering and going to food banks. Could the member expand on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that it was a very eloquent speech, but the Liberals put a lot of focus on the Charter of Rights, and we have not yet heard one comment about the victims nor the charter rights of the victims. When we talk about situations that hit home, such as when a repeat offender who molests a 12-year-old boy is released on bail and then sexually assaults a three-year-old girl who has to go to the hospital, and the news is full of these stories, does the member still agree that the Charter of Rights rises above the three-year-old victim's rights or her well-being, or those of the 12-year-old boy who was molested?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, there is chaos and panic in B.C. Everybody is complaining, and everybody is blaming each other. The public is blaming Richmond's counsel. Premier Eby is blaming the court. The government continues to stay quiet. This was only the second time I have heard the government say anything about this case. The first time, it was a staffer. It has always been the Crown's duty to deal with rights and title issues. That is clear in the 2004 Haida court case. Does the Prime Minister have any statements to make to Canadian citizens regarding the Cowichan ruling?”
“Mr. Speaker, Premier Eby says the court decided not to provide Richmond homeowners with notice of the Cowichan court litigation, but the Cowichan lawyers said the judge in the case said the parties were free to provide notice of this litigation to private landowners years ago. This includes Canada as represented by the Attorney General. Canada has been and still is missing in action. Why is the Prime Minister being so quiet at a time when people are anxious about their homes and looking for answers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. Ottawa does have a role to play. In fact, if that were not the case, why did it impose this drug experiment in B.C., decriminalizing heroin, cocaine and up to 2.5 grams of fentanyl? We know that 2.5 grams of fentanyl could kill a normal person. Ottawa does have a role to play in the drug crisis we are facing.”
“Mr. Speaker, coming from a small first nations reserve, I understand mental health and drug addiction, as well as substance abuse issues. We tried to battle that as much as we could without government support. There was an experiment in B.C. to decriminalize drugs, between Ottawa and B.C. It was a disaster. By the way, as an MLA in the B.C. legislature, I tried to fight as hard as I could to get treatment centres in our region. We were rejected, even though indigenous leaders were the ones putting together the plans. We have a huge problem across Canada, and it is a shame that the Canadian Liberal government does not recognize this and try to address it head-on.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree. In fact, if we want to be the best-performing country in the G7, we have to be functioning at all levels. Infrastructure is a key point. We cannot be the best-performing country if we do not take the people along with us, and that includes the economy, social issues and health. I totally agree with the member.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is parallel to what we did in my small native village, which was in worse shape than what Canada is facing right now in terms of the social issues. We would not have cut the social programs. We would have fixed the root causes. We would not have added to it, as the Liberal government has done. In fact, what the Liberals are saying is, “Hold my beer. We are actually going to double down on what we have already done to the Canadian public.” I cannot support that.”
“I have not even talked yet about the Arctic sovereignty that Russia, China and the United States have their eyes on. The government has a sovereignty clause in there, but it does not mentioned the Northwest Passage, which Russia has aimed its eyes on for shipping goods and drilling for oil and gas. We are a mess. This budget proves it. That is why I cannot support the budget put forward for 2025.”
“China has 100% tariffs on canola oil, peas, pork, seafood and canola seed. The list goes on. I am not a banker. I did not even graduate high school, but I am pretty sure I could have gotten a better deal than this. What is the strategy of allowing an ad by the Ontario government to air in the United States to anger it even further and have it stop all negotiations on trade? Can the Liberals please explain to me the strategy behind that? By the way, after the Prime Minister saw that ad and allowed it to air, B.C. was going to do the same. It later declined, saying it was going to align itself with Canada's strategy on trade. What is the strategy? The strategy so far is putting so much pressure on Canadians that it is stunting our economy.”
“That will limit the Liberal government's plans to turn Canada into an energy superpower and turn us into the best-performing country in the G7. By the way, if we want to be the best-performing country in the G7, we have to outperform the United States, the largest economy in the G7, if not the world. We are going to have to do 100 times better than what we are doing now. The government is going to have to get rid of the legislation that limits our economy if we want to be that energy superpower or a well-performing country in the G7. It cannot do it by allowing all these tariffs to take hold in our economy. From the United States alone, the softwood lumber tariff is 45%, reciprocal tariffs are 25% to 35%. There are steel tariffs. The list goes on. India has imposed 30% tariffs on yellow peas.”
“I want to talk briefly about the decriminalization experiment that happened when I was an MLA in B.C. It turned B.C. into a haven for drug use; federal dollars were even used to purchase hydromorphone and distribute it unmanaged and unchecked. It started making its way into our general population. This experiment the Liberals used on British Columbians, which Oregon actually got rid of because it did not work, is going to take decades to recover from. This is going to be a generational issue for leaders and legislatures. This experiment was not needed, not when Oregon had already tried it and, when it failed, got rid of it. Contrary to popular opinion, the emissions cap is not gone. If all the other mechanisms mentioned in the budget fail, the emissions cap will be enforced on the Canadian resource economy.”
“(1020) As seniors and middle-income people flock to the food banks, over two million in Canada, 700,000 of which are children, the Liberal government proudly gets up and talks about its contribution to food banks instead of fixing the root cause. The Liberals have stunted the economy. They have increased taxes, with more on the way. There is a packaging tax. Everybody is talking about how the packaging tax is going to increase costs at the grocery store. There is another tax coming that the government failed to talk to Canadians about, the International Maritime Organization's carbon tax on shipping. It is not official yet, but it is Canada's intention to vote in favour of this shipping tax that will raise the cost of goods and groceries for Canadians.”
“The amount of money being spent on this program, the $742 million, could go toward programs for Canadians. It could go toward seniors and youth. It could go toward our economy. It could pay down our debt, God forbid. It does not make sense for people who inherited firearms, people who purchased firearms or people who are sport shooters to turn their guns in on a voluntary basis and receive $1,300 per firearm, especially when some of these firearms are a lot more expensive than that. The cost of groceries is up, and it is going to keep going up. The Prime Minister said he wants to be judged based on prices at grocery stores. The verdict is in: He is guilty of doing nothing. In fact, as prices go up, the usage of food banks increases.”
“The Liberal government has criminalized law-abiding citizens overnight, the citizens who lawfully and legally registered their guns, got their PALs and obeyed the law. This one piece of legislation turns them into criminals overnight. This includes indigenous people as well, such as indigenous hunters and indigenous sport shooters. If people do not abide by the legislation, they could face up to five years in prison for an indictable offence. For a summary conviction, it is up to two years less a day. This is the penalty for law-abiding citizens. The elbows-up strategy is missing Trump and hitting law-abiding Canadians. This does not make any sense. If we are going to crack down on crime, we should go after criminals. Criminals do not register their guns or get licences.”
“I want to talk about specific items in the budget that relate directly to my constituents in Skeena—Bulkley Valley. One is the firearms confiscation program put together by the Liberal government. The overall budget for this program is $742 million, and the budget actually earmarks $38.7 million for the pilot project in Cape Breton. The Liberal minister responsible for this program said that it will not work, that it is a political stunt and that he would bail his tenant out of jail if these provisions actually affected the tenant renting his property. I think everyone is aware that the Liberal minister responsible for the confiscation program does not even support the program. I want to talk to Canadians about the penalties.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up and make my first budget speech on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It is quite the auspicious event because this is everything that the Prime Minister promised not to deliver. The Prime Minister promised less spending and more fiscal responsibility but reversed that once elected. Budget 2025 has brought Canadian debt up to $1.35 trillion. That number is pretty hard to visualize for the average Canadian, let alone a new MP. The interest payment on this debt for 2025-26 is $55.6 billion. That is more than the health transfer agreement. That is more than what the Canadian government collects in GST. For all the younger people watching this, because it is going to be their debt, this budget adds $10 million to our debt every hour.”
“Canada is actually a seller of boats. British Columbia is a seller of boats. It is mostly done through surplus auctions. Canada would be in the same boat—”
“I do not know how a buyer would ensure that the new owner could actually maintain a boat. We do not do that with vehicles or anything else. It is going to be interesting to see how the government or the regulator would ensure that that happens. I can see it being a legal mess. I can see it going before the courts. Unless there are some provisions that would come out in the regulations later to show the steps that a seller would have to take to ensure that the buyer is not reckless. By the way, a lot of boats purchased in Canada come from the United States. That presents different problems. There are already different rules to be followed when purchasing boats from the United States. Now the seller in the United States would have obligations when selling a boat to someone living in Canada. That becomes a different issue altogether.”
“It goes directly into the ocean. They are under threat of fines coming from the provincial government. At the same time, Prince Rupert does not have the funds to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. They are in a really tough spot. I grew up on the water, purchasing boats on my own behalf, as well as for friends and family. It is an interesting concept to say that the onus should be on the seller to basically ensure the new owner or prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to own a boat, and that before the buyer can purchase a boat, the owner has to ensure that prospective buyer has the ability, resources or intent to manage a boat. That is an interesting concept. I do not know how that would be done. Are they interviewed? Is a credit check done? Is their bank account checked?”
“First nations and non-first nations all want to see a cleaner environment, whether it be terrestrial or marine. In fact, the record in my community over the last 20 years reflects that in all categories, whether we are talking about dumps or marine spills. During the preliminary oil and gas days, for proposals in our territory, we tried to engage with the idea of getting involved with the spill response. We wanted to be partners with Canada and B.C. to be the first responders in case of a spill, whether it came from industrial activity or residential activity, even on the highways, or even sewage. Sewage is a big issue on the west coast of British Columbia. Prince Rupert, for example, has been begging the provincial and federal governments for some help because they have no primary treatment of their sewage.”
“It is first nations like my band that struggle with this cost and with trying to figure it out. We had the same problems the member talked about. We had a problem with ownership and trying to track down who the owners were, to try to offset some of the costs the council was paying out. (1830) At that time, we had no money. We were broke. We were trying to find some way within our Indian Act agreement to pay for these derelict vessels, not only to take them out of the water but also to clean up the damage. That is really hard to do when there is no money. Most of the time we had to let these vessels just sit there until we could figure out a way to keep them from being a risk, let alone trying to clean up the damage. The intent of the bill is good.”
“When we look at some of the existing processes, such as the oceans protection plan the member mentioned, the $300 million that was earmarked for the oceans protection plan has removed 791 vessels to date to get the polluting factor out of our marine environment. However, there are still 1,355 derelict vessels on the list from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that are backlogged. We still have a long way to go. When we think about that and quantify it, with upwards of $300 million for these vessels, we need a better way to implement and enforce the existing regulations. We have to make it easier. I agree with the member that it has to be a coordinated effort among the provincial government, the federal government, the municipalities and first nations, which are burdened with the cost and the pollution we are talking about.”
“that we realized we could kill two birds with one stone. We could make the standards for environmental protection higher for marine, terrestrial and air, not only in the environmental assessment process but within existing permits. Being a small community, we still deal with vessels sinking today, not only in the Douglas Channel but also at our docks. The dock we are talking about in my village is actually owned by the federal government under the small harbours act. We really thought the existing regulations were going to not only help prevent vessels from sinking, but also help us remediate and get these vessels to stop polluting our waters. That was not the case.”
“More deeply, we went into industrial degradation with air, land and water. The more we dug into it, dating back to the 1970s, the more we realized that regulations and legislation had empty promises. They were not really living up to the limitations that had been put on by the permits and the regulators, whether it be in Canada or B.C. In fact, by the time we got to the consultation in 2003, we realized that permits were basically rules to be broken. If a company could not abide by the limits put on it by a permit, the permit limitations would be expanded. We fought really hard to get the provincial government and the federal government to live up to the regulations and permitting requirements. In some cases we succeeded and in some we did not. It was not until we started to engage fully in environmental assessments by Canada and B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the floor for this bill, Bill C-244 , an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I come from Kitamaat Village, which is at the head of the Douglas Channel on the west coast of British Columbia. I grew up around marine activities, hunting and fishing, but there was no recreation. We have had a private port for the last 70 years, but apart from the pulp and paper tankers, the aluminum tankers carrying bauxite and ore and those carrying methanol, we have not really seen marine activity or even been part of it, for that matter. As a small first nation community, we were trying to deal not only with derelict vessels sinking, but with the topics the member just talked about, such as spill response.”
“Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 actually highlighted two projects that made the budget a lot less gloomy: the Trans Mountain expansion and LNG Canada in Kitimat, my hometown. The Haisla Nation backed that. The member talked about building and building, to build, baby, build, but today the Premier of B.C. said no to a pipeline being built. If Alberta proposes a project, is the project dead based on Premier Eby saying no?”