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 6 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I definitely can. We need to stop the politics with LNG because it provides benefits to aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike. It increases GDP. I will say, there are no permits or authorizations needed by the federal government to approve phase two. It is all approved, and we just found that out today in committee. What is Canada fast-tracking? There is nothing else to approve.”
“having a clean, green record, we import electricity. We are not going to become an energy superpower if we put more limits, such as the industrial carbon tax, on Canadians, because they will trickle down to Canadians. We will not become an energy superpower if we put unreasonable limits on emissions. We have good, robust regulatory standards, but there has to be a balance of what is good for the average Canadian and first nations, what is good for our country, and what is good for the environment. We have not had that conversation yet. I am hoping to have that here today.”
“Germany came here for LNG because they are in a crisis of their own, given the war in Ukraine. What did we do? We said, “No, there is no business case for LNG, but we will sell you hydrogen.” That is what Germany left with. The world still needs energy. It still needs and wants resources, and Canada is rich in energy and resources, but we have artificially restrained our exports, not only for the international market, but also for our own domestic needs. There are a number of projects in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that propose using natural gas to produce electricity. They have been there for years in energy-deficient areas. Given that B.C. imports electricity from the United States, we should be looking at this seriously. The United States uses natural gas and coal to produce electricity, but with B.C.”
“We are talking about an oil and gas emissions cap, and somehow we are in a new era with a new Liberal government, but everybody in Canada has known for years that over 90% of oil and gas product goes to the United States at a discount. What does the United States do? It uses that product for domestic and export purposes. The United States is an energy superpower. The United States never thanks us for supplying it with a good-quality product at Kmart prices. Poland was smirking at us, almost laughing at us, regarding how we export our oil and gas to the United States. I do not know about anyone else, but when another country laughs at us because of our policies, our legislation and our regulations, I would say that would actually contribute to our conversation about nation building and emissions caps.”
“We are trying to address housing, but I ask what is in it for the next generation, when we are exporting all our product, all our services and all our jobs to the United States. In B.C., they shut down the log industry. That means a number of mills all across B.C. closed down. Where did they go? They went to the United States. These big corporations can come and go at their will. It does not matter to them. They have different interests in different countries, but the worker has to find a different employment income. The family has to think about whether their children will graduate from the school that they grew up going to. The municipality has to think about its tax base. Everybody else benefits because of bad Liberal policy.”
“(1345) I am not sure if members are aware, but we do not have services on reserve. We do not have hospitals. A lot of us do not have water. We depend on non-native communities for services, so it only stands to reason that we would want to see our own communities and our non-native communities succeed, for those medical services, those highways and those schools. I think this is a relevant conversation, given the nation-building conversation that we are currently having and the existential crisis that the United States has put us in. We have a lot of work to do, not only in emissions, but also in what we are leaving for future generations. We are addressing affordability. We are trying to address that.”
“A first nation has to talk not only about air impacts, which is what we are talking about today with the emissions cap being imposed, but about impacts to water and land. If anybody can talk about that, it is Kitimat Village, because it has had industrial development for 70 years. One would think that a territory that has been so degraded by industrial development would say no to development. In fact, it is the opposite. It engaged to make the standards and regulations higher, and it did so to uplift not only its people, but all the other first nations along the pipeline route that were experiencing tanker traffic down channel and the non-native communities that surrounded it. As a judge once said, and I am paraphrasing, we are all in this together and none of us is going anywhere.”
“We have this new aha moment of listening to Canadians and first nations, but when the Liberals imposed the tanker ban, their treaty partner, the Nisga'a people, opposed it for the reasons I just outlined. Plus, they thought they had a partner in Canada to breathe life into the treaty. Lax Kw'alaams opposed it because it had not been fully consulted and thought the tanker ban was going to put a limit on the future of its people. People only need go to Kitimat. If they want to talk about emissions, permits, environmental assessments and the quality of life, they should go to Kitimat Village. We have talked about these issues for the last 20 years, and it is a hard conversation given the opposition from political parties and environmental groups.”
“Those who have not experienced poverty, exclusion or the Indian Act have no idea how important a job is to somebody who has never experienced one, let alone a group of people who want a better future. First nations leaders have gotten it from both ends. They have gotten opposition from a Liberal government that has not wanted to entertain oil and gas projects over the last 20 years or have gotten it from environmental groups that oppose them, yet the simple, fundamental underlying factor is how to address poverty and the violence of poverty. I have not heard an in-depth conversation in either this House or the provincial legislature about how bad that is. We talk about crime, drugs and violent crime, and that is what first nations leaders have been trying to address.”
“I have heard all the reasons from all the different members, and none of the reasons have changed for me, but for some reason, the Liberal government has woken up to listening to the people of Canada and what Canadians want. Back in my region, in my province, Canadians and first nations have been asking for this for 20 years. If we think about the LNG projects in B.C., there were 18 major projects in 2018. All but three have left Canada with all the investment. One major project was $40 billion, and the next one in Kitimat was $30 billion, and the $30-billion project left B.C. That is lost investment. As a first nation community, we had to learn about environmental assessments, permitting and economics, but it never escaped us that our people needed a future outside of the Internet.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I have not had the chance to do this, so I would like to thank all the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the EDA for all its work and all my supporters and volunteers. I would especially like to thank my family. I have been doing this kind of work for 20 years, as a councillor, chief councillor, an MLA and now an MP, and it takes away from family life. My wife is in Ottawa today. I got her to come and join us. It is quite the accomplishment to get our spouses to join us. I would not say it is timely that we are talking about emissions and major projects in Canada. As I said, I have been doing this for 20 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, the current regulatory authorities have no idea how projects would get assessed through the Major Projects Office. They have no idea whether or not the standards and regulations that are formed inside the impact assessment authority, for example, are going to get implemented. Is there a plan to implement the current environmental standards through the Major Projects Office, and if not, why not?”
“Mr. Speaker, as an aboriginal, I face the same issues that the member is talking about in my own community and in a lot of different first nations communities all across Canada. Really, what we are talking about is a long-term commitment to doing something better. I presume the hon. member is talking about a stopgap measure in the meantime. “In the meantime” means toddlers getting raped in their beds during a home invasion. We have a criminal in Winnipeg who is suing store owners for loss of income because he got beaten up. We have a homeowner being charged with assault because he tried to defend his home and family. If this is a stopgap measure, then what does the member recommend we do in the short term to stop the violence and the rape and the assault?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was an MLA as well. Seven years ago we started to hear about the crime in our communities, and that is when I first started to hear the blame game: B.C. and the provinces blaming Ottawa. Now I come here and the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives. The Liberals have been in government for ten years. I also hear the idea that somehow they need a consultation to relax their soft-on-crime legislation. The stories we have heard in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the last seven years are horrendous. They are horrible. Why did the Liberals need so much time to consult, when all the records, victims and families are there? Why did they spend seven years consulting, when really all they had to do was repeal Bill C-75 , for example? When is the blame game going to stop?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I know my colleague has already questioned consultation and accommodation duties. In terms of this bill, either the Liberal government understands the case law and ignores it or does not understand the case law to begin with. Consulting on a bill has a specific definition of process for over 600 first nations. It is not simply a matter of sending an email or sending a letter and hoping for the best. It has to be followed up on. It is an elaborate process that costs money and time. I will be watching for this with my colleagues in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, first nations, under the Indian Act, are forced to understand good governance, and that includes transparency and accountability. In fact, under the funding agreements, if there is a deficit in first nations territory, they get punished. If there is a surplus, under the Indian Act they get punished. When we are trying to understand self-governance and trying to understand self-determination, transparency and accountability always rise to the top. We talk about scandals here. I have been here a month and I have not seen transparency and accountability in any of the questions we have asked the Liberal government. I agree with my colleague. Where is this going to end up?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is basically federal Liberal legislation, and we all understand there is a crisis. I will speak on my own behalf. I voted for it because I believe in the economy and I believe in a strong country, but I need to see more details. I have to go back to my riding and explain why there will be exemptions coming to environmental assessments. I have to explain why there will be no environmental assessments by the federal government but there will be for provincial governments. I have to explain somehow that first nations, which have a right to carry out their own environmental assessments, may or may not be heard. We still have more questions on this.”
“It has to know what is happening with Bill C-5 and the future for the next five, 10 or 20 years, because exemptions are going to be a big issue.”
“The best way to do that is to engage in an environmental assessment. Usually, aboriginal rights and title run parallel to environmental assessments, both provincially and federally, but if there is no environmental assessment, then what is the process? How will aboriginals ensure that projects are done to the highest standards? We have always bragged that Canada has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do we ensure this with Bill C-5 going forward? There are many questions here, but the Liberal government just proposed closure, meaning we will not get to debate this bill in full. It was tabled last week. I have never come across a bill this extensive and we only have a week to debate it. Not everybody is going to get up and get a chance to talk on behalf of their riding. Canada has to hold the government accountable.”
“What are we going to do when a $30-billion project comes down the pipe, or a $40-billion project? None of this makes any sense to me, except that there will be no environmental assessment for a major project unless, the way I see it, we find ways to cut corners. Where are we going to cut corners? We are already going to do it with the environmental assessment, but surely we are not going to cut corners with aboriginals on aboriginal rights and title, consultation and accommodation. There are a lot of first nations that understand this process, but what is number one to the first nations in my area is to address the environment first. That is what we do, and we use our rights and title to do it. We understand there are jobs, money, training and everything associated with a project, but we have to address the environment first.”
“For a major project, I recommend to proponents that they better have $50 million of disposable money just to get their certificate, with no guarantee they would get their certificate. Bill C-5 is now saying the government will forego an environmental assessment and give an exemption if it is politically acceptable to it. That would cut down on time and money, but how many groups will be lobbying the government to get on that exemption list? How will the government ensure that the lobbying is done openly, transparently and fairly? We just went through a debate about contracts issued to a company to the tune of $60 million-plus where processes were in place to ensure there was no fraud or corruption with respect to the contracts being issued. We still have not gotten that resolved.”
“That took a lot of work. When first nations say that they strengthened the permitting regulations and environmental assessments and used rights and title to do it, it cost first nations a lot of time, money and political capital, because we were trying to balance economics with the environment and the welfare of our people over the next 50, 100 or 150 years. It was difficult. In Kitimat Village, we reached a happy medium where everybody benefited, not just first nations. Even our neighbouring first nations benefited, but on the basis of the processes in the province of British Columbia and Canada. We figured it out. Yes, environmental assessments cost money, an incredible amount of money.”
“We could do all the work we want and still not receive an environmental assessment certificate, not to mention what will happen if we have a harmonized environmental assessment with the provinces. There are so many different ways to say yes and no. (1250) Now we are getting that from B.C., which will say no to pipelines, so what we are talking about here is almost a waste of time. If we do by some miracle get to a point where we get a pipeline approval, we are going to end up in court, because there are a tremendous number of gaps proposed by this bill. They were in place when I started in council in 2003, back when we were trying to figure out not only how we make our way in a new world as first nations, but how to strengthen the environmental standards in B.C. and Canada and get B.C. and Canada to live up to the conditions in a permit.”
“We are now talking about Bill C-5 , which would basically exempt major projects from environmental assessments at the federal level, but it would not reduce or eliminate them at the provincial level. It is yet to be seen how much time would be reduced. There is no word on how the federal government will actually replace the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title, which are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. These processes have been in place, in formation over decades, but now, in one day, we are going to wipe that all out. We are going to say, “No, we don't need an environmental assessment.” I agree that environmental assessments take a lot of money. They take a lot of time, and they are risky.”
“Bill C-69 , that extensive bill with all those words in it, actually shut down the building of pipelines. There was also Bill C-48 , the ban on tankers coming off the west coast of British Columbia. The weakened state we are in, and the reason Bill C-5 is on the floor in the first place, is because of tariffs. However, I will go further and say that Canada has lost its place in the geo-energy world, the geopolitical world and the geo-economics world, and it was all self-inflicted. I mean, forget about the tariffs for a second and just think. Without a strong economy, we have a weak country. That is just basic, simple math. It is just common sense, and first nations understand this.”
“The environmental assessments are responsible for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, being built in Kitimat to the highest standards, with transparency and accountability. Everybody understood what was going to happen, because there were federal and provincial authorities involved. More importantly, what strengthened that process was aboriginal rights and title. All first nations from Prince George to Kitimat were part of that process. We all got it; we understood it. There was an emergency of sorts back then, a crisis. Aboriginals were in poverty, and the violence of poverty goes along with that. Now we have a new crisis, but nobody on the government side is talking about some of the conditions that led to this crisis in the first place.”
“We had one computer in our condemned band office, which used to be a residential school. It was hard. It took years to understand this, and nobody in my organization could really explain to me the full extent of what an environmental assessment was. Now, I am back. Over the years, I used to think about all this information in my head being useless, because I thought nobody cared and I could not use it anymore, and then I end up here, talking about the same things I was talking about in 2003, but this time it is flipped. Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 is in two parts. One is about breaking down provincial boundaries, and I will not be talking about that. I will be talking about the second part, the exemption from environmental assessments in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University . This is my first speech in the House, and I would like to thank all the supporters from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. This takes me back to how I got started in politics in the first place. It is ironic, because as a first nations member in Kitimat, where I come from, I got my start on the environment file, meaning that we were trying to repair the damage done to our territory over the last 70 years: damage to the river, damage to the forest and damage to the air. That took up the bulk of our time. At that time, I had to research what an environmental assessment was, what a permit was and what aboriginal rights and title were. This took me years, as a labourer, at a time when the Internet was not readily available to us.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that tariffs actually made Bill C-5 as presented to the floor. None of this really matters until we streamline all the legislation, regulations and jurisdictional issues currently in place. My question is on process. As the government negotiates with the U.S.A. on trade, does the government negotiate provincial resources first, and then consult with provinces, or does the government get provincial consent before negotiating trade based on provincial resources? Which is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, diversifying our trade has been the goal of the current Liberal government, but an article posted last night by The Economist states that the United States will be granted first right of refusal on Canadian minerals. Before going to Washington, Mr. Carney asked officials to list the Canadian products that Mr. Trump needs the most. Rare earth elements and critical minerals topped that list. It looks like the Liberals want to give first right of refusal on our critical minerals, limiting our ability to sell to the world and to diversify our economy. Is the Prime Minister negotiating guaranteed access to Canada's minerals to United States— Some hon. members : Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, economists and most bankers know that investments go to countries where they are welcomed. For 10 years, the Liberal government has sent clear messages that investments in oil pipelines are not welcome in Canada unless they are destined for the United States at a discount. What is next, Canada's mineral resources? Surely the Prime Minister knows that no one is building a pipeline in Canada with Liberal anti-energy laws in the books, or is it the Prime Minister's plan to keep Canadian oil and gas in the ground?”
“As the newly elected Conservative MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I want to thank the Conservatives for starting this new path of reconciliation 17 years ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2008, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to indigenous people for Canada's past role in the residential school system. Residential schools were a component of a system that created the issues that we are still trying to resolve today. I spent years reading Haisla archives on how first nations were treated and excluded conditionally from Canada's society and economy. I fully acknowledge our past. It is one of the biggest reasons I strive to build a better future for Canada overall. This is what I believe reconciliation should represent, and we are closer than ever before, with first nations charting their own destinies as individuals from all walks of life are presented with opportunities to build their own lives. In short, reconciliation should mean bringing two groups back together.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government would reduce project approval from five to three years, but the environmental assessment already states that certificate decisions will be decided upon within one year of environmental assessment commencement. Is there a reason that the one-year approval process laid out in the environmental assessment is being ignored?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal government does not believe in a first nations veto, but does this apply to the approval of an environmental certificate under the “one project, one review” model or even Bill C-5 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, before we get started, I want to notify the Chair that I will be dividing my block up three ways. Roughly 97% of Canadian oil gets to the U.S.A. by pipeline. Does the environment minister agree that Canada should build new pipelines to get Canadian oil to non-U.S.A. markets?”
“Mr. Speaker, even the B.C. NDP has removed its decarbonization policies for LNG export facilities. This is not politics. Even Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer forecast a $20.5-billion reduction in GDP and potential job loss of 54,000 full-time jobs under this energy production cap. Canada's loss is America's gain. Again, will the Prime Minister scrap the Canadian job-killing and Canadian economy-killing energy production cap, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, over nine years, the Liberals' anti-energy laws have weakened our country, to the benefit of the United States. Canadian oil and gas piped to the United States provides jobs and revenue for Americans, not Canadians, and get this: It is at a discount. Canada's energy potential has been stalled by anti-energy laws from the Liberal government for close to a decade. Will the Prime Minister scrap the job-killing and economy-killing energy production cap?”