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 5 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was incredible, very insightful and very heartfelt. When I was an MLA in B.C., starting in 2017, we were arguing the same points to the B.C. government. The B.C. government was blaming the federal government, and now we hear the federal government saying that we need more co-operation. It is a back-and-forth blame game. Could we have gotten ahead of this if, four years ago, the federal government had listened to Conservatives' recommendations?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible honour to present a petition for the first time on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Before I get into the petition, I would like to thank all my Conservative colleagues for, over the last year or two, presenting similar petitions on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I am here to say that I will take it from here, but I thank them for presenting those petitions. This petition is calling on the government to stop the firearms confiscation program that is currently being implemented in a pilot program in Cape Breton. The essence of this petition is basically for the government to stop targeting law-abiding citizens with the gun confiscation program and actually go after criminals. On behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I am thankful for this honour.”
“We always get mixed messaging with all the measures that come out of the government, and all the Conservatives want to make sure of is that we do this in a very common-sense fashion with fiscal responsibility and practical solutions, because Conservatives' goal is simple: We want to protect Canadians, strengthen our economy and preserve the natural beauty of this country for generations to come.”
“It was in the constitutional authority Canada has to actually get this done in the national interest, and everybody, to a certain degree, agreed. However, the very next day the government came around and said it would not do something without national consensus, without defining what “consensus” meant. They did not talk about whether they meant provincial or municipal. They did not talk about regional districts. They did not talk about any of that.”
“It seems to make sense that with this high level of expertise Canadians have, we should be able, with existing resources, to do a better job of predicting floods and droughts and to prepare not only our entities to actually combat this and deal with it, but also regular Canadians. I agree that the impacts are stressful for Canadians, both mentally and with the cost attached to them. Anything we can do to actually limit that suffering is a good thing, as long as there is no overreach and as long as there is no extra taxation. I have also heard the idea that somehow this would not encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I go back again to Bill C-5 , which talked about how we would build major projects in a fast-tracked fashion, and they would be fast-tracked within two years.”
“As Conservatives, it is our strong belief that this can be done within existing entities using existing resources and that the government could do it more efficiently without adding more cost to the taxpayer and without increasing the affordability crisis we are facing right now. More taxation is not the answer. I have listened to the answers and the questions coming out of this chamber regarding Bill C-241 , and it has always been pointed out that we already have some of the strongest environmental standards in Canada, if not in North America, both provincially and federally.”
“Nobody is immune from environmental disasters, so I think what Canadians want is to ask whether this is going to be an open and transparent process, in terms of getting Canadians' interests into the bill and making sure it not only does what it says it is going to do, but that there is no government overreach, such as what we have seen in other measures carried out by the government. Is it going to be rolled out in a way that does not provide more cost to the Canadian taxpayer? Most Canadian taxpayers are already limited out. They cannot afford any more taxes. We talk about the affordability issue in this chamber every day. We are talking about how mothers and dads cannot afford groceries. Even if someone works in a grocery store, they cannot afford groceries.”
“I know we are talking about forecasting for floods and disasters, mainly for better insurance purposes. I have talked to different people about what this could mean. Everybody agrees that it is a good idea to do this, but it is a duplication. (1805) Is the private sector already doing this, especially in terms of insurance for flood protection or farming? Can we do better? Yes, we can do better, and I sincerely hope we are going to do better, but it cannot be a top-down approach. It has to be inclusive. There are many people and organizations that are affected by these disasters, as my colleague pointed out. We are talking about indigenous people. We are talking about people who live close to rivers. We are talking about farmers.”
“and Canada, specifically the Haida court case of 2004. I just got off a call with the Ontario chiefs, who talked a lot about the chemical valley and Sarnia. They are clear that they do not want to oppose development, but they do not want the past to be repeated and they get ignored. They feel that talks with the commercial sector were going fine until Bill C-5 was enacted, and now they are feeling ignored. They feel they are being ignored because there seems to be a way to get to the finish line without talking to these chiefs about their treaty rights and title or their aboriginal rights and titles, which are two distinctly different topics. In terms of environmental issues, the point I would like to make is that this is not new for first nations. For many first nations, we have to address environmental issues first.”
“Today is a 180° turnaround in the environmental considerations we are talking about versus what we were doing 20 or 40 years ago. I heard my colleague from the government side talk about what Bill C-241 is not. It would not be an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, for example, and it would not negatively affect aboriginal rights and title. Consultation would be carried out. First nations and Canadians have heard this before. It would not be right to not address this directly. Like a lot of MPs in the chamber, I have gotten a lot of emails from and had a lot of Zoom calls and meetings with first nations that are specifically worried about Bill C-5 , for example, and how it is going to be rushed through for major projects and ignore the case law that was established in the courts of B.C.”
“In understanding what environmental standards meant and what environmental assessments were, I found there was a logical way to address environmental impacts, both past and proposed. Quite honestly, I found myself very ignorant of how that tied into our society, Canadian society, and aboriginals living in our region. This is where I first came across the term “balance”, and the standard of living versus environmental issues. It has been a very tough battle over the years to try to maintain that balance, especially when we consider that first nations, for the last 100 or 150 years, have been excluded not only from the economy but, to a large extent, from the society of Canada. It has been a very long journey to try to rectify those two provisions of the Indian Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to open by saying what an honour it is to be back where I started, on the environment file. I was the environment critic for the Liberal Party back in British Columbia as an MLA. Back in 2003, my main goal was to remediate the environmental damage done to my territory by industrial development. That led me down different pathways. It led me to aboriginal rights and title, for example. It led me to economics, permitting and environmental assessments. Some may remember that in my territory, we had an aluminum smelter plant, a pulp and paper mill and a methanol plant. Back in the fifties, sixties and seventies, environmental standards were not a priority, not just in Kitimat but all across Canada, and maybe even North America for that matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an incredible speech regarding deficits. I think the Liberals missed the point of what he said. I was in the situation of remedial management and third party management, and it was very humiliating. It was for one year of unmanageable deficits. It was very humiliating, and that is why I went after an economic base. What is third party management, and what would happen if Canada was subject to the same rules that many first nations chiefs and councillors are subject to?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government cannot make up its mind. On one hand, it says it is unjust, and then it says it is the greatest deal in the world. It needs to make up its mind. There are mills closing all across B.C., including Skeena Sawmills in Terrace and Canfor in Houston. West Fraser's shutdown left hundreds of my constituents out of work in an already weak economy. Our communities are hurting. Since the Prime Minister took office, softwood lumber tariffs have doubled, putting even more Canadian jobs and communities at risk. When will the Prime Minister do what he promised and stand up for our forestry mills and for the communities and families who depend on these jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. B.C. forestry workers have already been hard hit, but it is going to get worse. The Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win with the U.S.A, but softwood lumber tariffs have doubled since he took office. Instead of keeping his promise to Canadians, he is promising to invest $1 trillion in the U.S. economy. How many more B.C. lumber workers will lose their jobs because of the Prime Minister's failures?”
“Mr. Speaker, I referenced the approval of LNG Canada, but we have met with the departments, and it is clear that there are no outstanding permits or authorizations needed for LNG Canada. I am assuming that phase 2 needs an approval in terms of emissions. Is this why LNG Canada phase 2 has been added to the major projects list? Is there going to be a decision on the emissions from phase 2, from phase 1 or from both?”
“Mr. Speaker, basically, yes, we supported it, but we wanted to put protections in, which we debated and we got in. By the way, I do not blame the first nations for their distrust of this, because one day, the government said first nations do not have a veto. I suspect it got that out of the case law, specifically, the Haida court case of 2004. However, the very next day, when it got political push-back, it said it would not do anything without first nations' consent. It then added it would not do anything without national consensus. In both cases, this was not defined. I think we all agree that we all have to build up the economy. We have to get away from the tariffs, and we have to actually rebuild our economy for the sake of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the provisions of a treaty already define what the government is supposed to do, not only in terms of the federal government but also in terms of the provincial government and the first nations as well. It defines what their roles and responsibilities are now. This has always been a one-way street, though. First nations have always gone to governments and asked if they can implement the treaty as outlined in the treaty. They asked if they could do that, and it has always been ignored. My point about appointing a treaty commissioner is to ask, is this another level of bureaucracy the government intends to ignore?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the Haida court case of 2004 clearly defines. I will make it clear: It is the community that owns the rights and title; it is not a collective of first nations. It is not even their leadership, unless the community itself decides who the leadership will be. By the way, the Liberals talk about respecting aboriginal rights and title interests. Why did you approve Bill C-48 when you knew full well that Nisg̱a’a Treaty Nation opposed treaty implementation? You did not say anything about that in your press releases, and you still have not addressed it.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. In fact, it was the Liberals' speeches that actually guided me toward economic development issues, such as forestry, mining, and oil and gas. I agree with my colleague that, over the last 10 years, I have not seen the Liberal government giving respect to first nations members regarding their rights. By the way, I am talking about the rights as defined in the Haida court case from 2004. As Conservatives, we fully respect and will honour that court case. I can tell members that. It actually has all the answers, as opposed to what is being proposed by Bill C-10 .”
“Mr. Speaker, development of resources, such as forestry, mining and LNG, has actually brought in a lot of revenue, employment and training. I already mentioned that, to me, the Indian Act has become irrelevant and archaic, except for the funding agreement. We segregated Indian Act programs and funding into Indian Act bureaucracy through departments of my band council. However, we created a new structure to deal with government, any kind of development and politics. That really turned it around for us. This was in a short time frame. Within 10 years, we basically no longer needed Indian Act funding. The social issues started to decrease on their own with no intervention from our band council, or government for that matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, the principles are important, but not to the point of ignoring the Haida court case from 2004 or ignoring treaty first nations. The government is using UNDRIP as a cover to say that Bill C-48 is basically needed. It is not needed, especially when first nations are trying to resolve poverty. I put this back to the member: How does the government's UNDRIP legislation resolve poverty?”
“All we are saying to the government is to do its job and not create another level of bureaucracy for a message to come from the commissioner to the government to tell it to do its job. First nations want to build Canada, just as everybody else does. Canada should just do its job.”
“It is easy to tear down. The Liberals have already torn down our economy by saying no to oil tankers on the west coast of B.C., even though there are tankers coming down the west coast of British Columbia on a daily basis from Alaska to Washington state. There is no mention of that. By the way, Washington state will refine some of the oil it gets from Alberta into gas, diesel and jet fuel and sell it back to Canada for incredible profits. The United States has become an energy superpower for exporting oil and gas for domestic purposes and export. Where do they get a large part of their supply? They get it from Canada, at a discount. Treaty first nations are there; they have been begging for the government to stop ignoring them.”
“There were 18 projects in B.C., and all but three left. The Liberal government is talking the reverse side of it now, saying that we need an economy, we need LNG and maybe we will become an energy superpower, but it is not going to talk about how it will do that. The government says that it will build oil pipelines but that it is not going to build oil pipelines. All this mixed messaging, wordsmithing and truth spinning is going to hurt Canadians. This existential crisis that Trump created is not an opportunity for more politicking. It is a time to think about us as a country. Where did we come from? It is a pretty messy picture when one talks about where we came from in terms of aboriginal interests. I acknowledge the past and understand the wrongdoings, but I learned a long time ago that it is better to build a future.”
“We did not have the luxury of spinning the truth, or at least I did not. Maybe I did have the opportunity, but I did not go down that road. Yes, a lot of my policy decisions were not liked, but I was doing what I did for a reason. There were issues I wanted to resolve. I also wanted to leave a better place for my descendants. It turns out that LNG Canada was a good decision, even though politicians rejected it. For decades, the B.C. NDP made outrageous claims about why LNG was bad. They were saying that if LNG was approved, Victoria would be under water. The Liberals said that there was no business case for LNG and told that to Germany. Meanwhile, we were waving from over here, saying, “Hey, wait a minute. We have LNG in Canada, in our territory.” We had Chevron, which was chased out. That was a $30-billion project. It was chased out.”
“(1225) Other countries have proven what happens when decisions are based entirely on politics. We think the cost of living is bad now, but if we go to a place like Venezuela, which bases its entire system on politics, it is now selling its resources for pennies on the dollar. People there need a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread. Governance is serious stuff, and I do get the politics. I understand it, but if we keep making political decisions and not thinking about the present day and future of our country, Canadians will pay for that for decades, for generations. We are talking about treaty implementation. When I was a treaty negotiator and a chief councillor, it was made clear to me that decisions are to be made based on seven generations in the future.”
“First nations want better medical services just like everybody else. They want better highways and better schools. Treaty bands are subject to taxation. They do not want higher taxes, and if they do submit taxes, they want to see those taxes being used responsibly, just like non-aboriginals in Canada do. Therefore, somehow the new-found idea of partnership with the first nations in economic development for Canada, coming from the Liberals, sounds disingenuous given the past 10 years, but it is more important than ever. It is more important because as we go into a limited economy stifled by legislation and regulations, combined with unmanageable deficits with no plan to pay off the debt, Canada is going down a dangerous road. I can say, as an aboriginal coming off reserve, that I cannot believe there are not more people talking about this.”
“The leaders did it not just for the glory of signing a treaty; they thought they could build a better future for their people, and they are doing a great job. At the same time, every modern-day treaty agrees to abide by the laws of B.C. and Canada. This is called the paramountcy of laws. They are agreeing to that, meaning that if someone goes onto treaty territory of a modern-day treaty, they are not going to come into a brand new country with the old set of laws regarding speeding or crimes. They trade their undefined rights and title for that because they want to be a partner. Most first nations leaders see that the issues we are facing as aboriginals are the same issues all Canadians are facing right now. We are in this together. Like a judge said, let us face it: None of us are going anywhere.”
“They have a specific parcel of land, and in their past practices it might have been subject to ceremonial purpose, food gathering, hunting or fishing. They get it, but they are also looking at the ravages of poverty, especially on reserve, and even, for that matter, off reserve, so first nations have been pushing for economic development in all sectors as much as they could. Who stops them? The Liberal government stops them with its legislation. I already outlined the Nisga'a Treaty, with the government's partner that has a higher level than just consultation of aboriginal rights and title because it has defined rights and title. The first nation signed a constitutionally protected document with Canada and B.C. that said that the Nisga'a Nation is a partner of Canada and B.C.”
“Why, then, have they opposed economic development for the last 10 years? Why did they create Bill C-69 ? Why did they create Bill C-48 ? We have already heard energy experts saying that we cannot be an energy superpower without oil and gas, that our dependence as a country on the United States, taking our own gas at a discount, is not only going to limit our ability to diversify our economy but will also limit us in becoming an energy superpower. First nations are already there; we have been there for the last 20 years. If we look at the Haida court case of 2004, we see there is a specific clause that says there is an economic component of rights and title that must be respected. That is in relation to the land. First nations get it. They have to make a trade-off, and they have been willing to make that trade-off.”
“Either way, first nations leaders are still trying to resolve one central thing: How do they resolve poverty and all the violence that accompanies it? This is not new. I became treaty chairman in 2003. I used to go to the summit meetings in Vancouver, in Musqueam. They were talking about this back then, not only in terms of implementing a signed treaty but actually in terms of the provisions that we were negotiating at the time. I do not see how a commissioner would change this, when it would be just another office to pass the message on to government that “hey, government, you are not doing your job”, which is what it boils down to. (1220) Liberal members have been getting up and talking about a new era of partnership and building an economy to combat Trump's tariffs.”
“That goes for water, sewers, administration and health, so first nations are continuously trying to make up the difference. By the way, under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a deficit, it will get punished. There will be clawbacks, by a cessation of programs, for example. However, here is the thing: In certain funding agreements under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a surplus and it is not entirely under the criteria of what government expects, it also gets punished. First nations cannot win under the Indian Act agreement, so it is no wonder they are trying to find a way out, whether that is by leveraging their aboriginal title to be engaged in economy to create their own source of revenue, or by signing a treaty.”
“Treaty bands get government funding as well, but there are provisions where they have to develop their own source of revenue, which is really hard to do. If we think about a typical band with maybe 800 people on reserve and 800 off reserve, its funding agreement probably amounts to $7 million or $8 million a year; I have been away from council for quite a while, so I am not quite sure, but the provisions of the treaty expect them to replace that funding and be independent of government funding. There are also extra costs, because Indian Act funding is formulated in such a way that first nations do not really get the entire cost covered by Indian Act funding. If they need $100, the Indian Act will provide $70, and they have to figure out the rest.”
“For treaty bands, unless they are gifted with location as an asset, it is really tough to implement a loan by themselves without an economic base. For some treaty bands that are close to urban centres, an economic base is not that much of a problem, especially if land values are high, such as in Vancouver. However, for remote bands that sign on to a treaty, there are provisions in the treaty where, at some point, they are going to have to get off government funding. The whole point of signing on to a treaty is to formalize an agreement between Canada and B.C., but also to get away from Indian Act funding. Everybody talks about dependence. Well, for the most part, the Indian Act is irrelevant; nobody is going to enforce those archaic provisions, but the funding agreements still hold first nations dependent on government funding.”
“They are moving from a place of undefined aboriginal rights and title that requires consultation, and they think they are moving into an arena where they are going to be treated as an equal partner to Canada and B.C. (1215) The Nisga'a Nation, in my region, has had a treaty for over 20 years. Its members were the first to complain of the tanker ban that restricted their economic future. They are a treaty partner of Canada, but Canada did it anyway. To be clear, the Nisga'a were not supporting the transport of oil; they just thought that the treaty outlined specific roles and responsibilities between their treaty nation and the Government of Canada. That is all they wanted. They expected more, because the provisions of the treaty said so.”
“I believe that part of my job is to describe what is happening here in terms of legislation, and to describe how it affects the individual, which is extremely hard. A lot of people think, “Implementation of treaty is such a great thing. They are going to create a commissioner.” Well, a commissioner has no authority. What the commissioner would do is take the decades of complaints from first nations, formulate them into a report and give it to government. Then, if government repeats its past behaviour, it will ignore the report or come up with some type of word-salad speech, just for the perception that it is actually doing something, when really, first nations leaders are coming to the table in good faith, not only to resolve their issues but also to sign a treaty.”
“More importantly, we resolved poverty and unemployment. All those social issues, including the violence of poverty, started to go away. I am incredibly proud of that. In fact I would love to see some type of report done on that. My band is not talking about the social issues that many other first nations are talking about anymore, just because we engaged in the economic fabric of Canada and B.C. However, it is the politics that have held us back, the legislation created in places like this and in Victoria that many people do not understand and do not follow. I do not blame them, especially today. They are out there trying to make life more affordable and trying to find a job, especially our young people, who are reaching higher levels of unemployment. They have their own issues.”
“I have heard the awakening speeches from the Liberal members that talk about social issues tied with economic development issues, which is great. I am glad they have finally woken up to that reality, especially in first nations regions, because we have been talking about that for the better part of 20 years. Before the 2004 court case came along, first nations really did not have a seat at the table. It was the Haida court case of 2004 that defined the role of the Crown in dealing meaningfully with aboriginal rights and title interests, even if it had not been proven. By the way, the Haisla first nation, where I come from, intervened in that court case. The Haida court case turned things around for my band. We went from being one of the poorest first nations communities in B.C. to being one of the wealthiest and most successful.”
“That term is used loosely all over Canada, especially by politicians, for everything under the sun, but when we look at case law, we see that “reconciliation” has a meaning: It is how to marry aboriginal rights and title interests with Crown interests, meaning legislation and regulations. Under undefined rights and title, which is what we are finding in cases like that of Cowichan, for example, it is complicated, I will admit, but a treaty defines rights and title in a very prescriptive manner, including implementation. There are implementation provisions in modern-day treaties. Why would we create another position, another level of bureaucracy, when implementation is already spelled out in the modern-day treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about the creation of a treaty implementation commissioner. Here is some background. I was the chief councillor of the Haisla Nation Council for six years, and prior to that, I was a councillor for eight years. During that eight-year period, I was treaty chairman under the B.C. treaty process; I was negotiating the treaty, so I read all the announcements over the last 20 years, went to all the meetings and read all the reports and the different positions being created to address very simple issues. For those who do not understand the treaty and how it has evolved, the treaty is basically a formal agreement signed between B.C., Canada and first nations, and has evolved to formalize aboriginal rights and title, and underneath that, case law that established, in the courts of B.C. and Canada, reconciliation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member talk about economic issues tied in with social issues, because that is what first nations have been talking about for the last 20 years, at least. It is nice to see the Liberals kind of waking up. We are talking about Canada's economy as well, which the member also mentioned. The Nisga'a have had a treaty with the government for 20 years. They opposed Bill C-48 , the tanker ban, but the Liberal government ignored them. Is the ignoring of treaty bands, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, going to continue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was a negotiator for my small native band, as well as a chief councillor, so I understand the frustration of the leaders. However, it seems to me that the first nations leaders are saying that the government-to-government relationship is not working because the government is not listening and not implementing a treaty. The government's response is, “Let's create a treaty commissioner.” Is there any chance of a commissioner's getting treaty implementation done, versus a leader's having gone directly to government for the last 10 years at least to try to solve that exact issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, treaties have evolved. Foundationally, defining aboriginal rights and title is a main part of treaty negotiation, versus extinguishing them. Given that the Liberal government is going to appeal the Cowichan court ruling, is there a reason aboriginal rights and title are not mentioned in Bill C-10 ?”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for the last few days now. I hear the other side of the House talk about this when Conservatives talk about the rapes of children and toddlers, the murders and assaults, and women not wanting to walk the streets at night, including members of the Liberal government. The response is always the same. They say we are always sensationalizing or dramatizing the incidents. I guarantee members that if the parents of that toddler came in right now, they would not think of it as sensationalism; they are left with trauma. When did all of this start? I was an MLA for seven years and we were complaining about it back in the B.C. legislature.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals now want to change the story. They want to deflect. They want to talk about grocery prices by looking at what analysts say, what farm yields are and what the weather is doing. That was not what the Prime Minister promised. The Prime Minister did not say he would follow the analysts, the yields or the weather patterns. He said to judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Would the member agree that the Prime Minister is failing not only on that measure but also on a number of different measures, including trade, the economy and jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal promise was to reduce or control grocery prices. That was the promise. The government printing money or producing deficits and, as a consequence, borrowing money to cover those deficits increases inflation. Does the member agree that increasing the government deficit and debt will increase affordability pressures, including grocery costs, which the Liberals promised to control?”
“Mr. Speaker, I recognize all the work that has been done by first nations all across Canada. It is very progressive, but it all comes down to what the benefit is to the people. My colleague from Alberta knows the benefits as well. There are a lot of first nations in Saskatchewan. If we want to take a look at the real benefits, we can take a look at the status quo of first nations that do not have economic development. It is always the same saying, which is that there is nothing to do there and there are no jobs. An emissions cap would take away the future of first nations and Canadians in general.”
“Mr. Speaker, I invite members to Kitimat, and I will show them the benefits that have accrued not only for first nations members in my community, but also along the pipeline route and down channel. One of the concerns we had, and one of the decisions we made when we started getting into real LNG development, was that we wanted to get away from the Indian Act. We wanted our people to build their own lives. We wanted to be independent. I am very proud to say we accomplished that. There are a number of first nations in our communities in B.C. that are on the same path. The development that went to Alaska instead of B.C. would have contributed to first nations' health and safety, and it would have contributed to B.C. and Canada overall. We sure missed an opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, and I am not the only one who thinks that Canada already has the highest environmental standards in North America, if not the world. As I have said for the last 10 years, we cannot have this conversation in isolation. We are not the biggest polluters in the world. China, Russia, the United States and emerging economies have no environmental standards. They have no emissions cap. They have no carbon tax. Yes, let us keep doing what we are doing with environmental standards, but let us take a bigger lens and look at the rest of the world if we are going to look at the global situation.”