Gord Johns
Courtenay—Alberni, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, we recall that the United Nations special rapporteur warned that Canada's temporary foreign worker program can create conditions resembling modern-day slavery. Last month, the San Group, a company operating in Port Alberni, was fined $429,000 and banned for two years for serious violations involving migrant workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted earlier, a Port Alberni company was fined $429,000 for its violation in its treatment of migrant workers, and it was given a two-year ban. Clearly, two years is not enough. The company operates other companies, and the rumour is that it actually has temporary foreign workers working for them as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government's removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides.”
“Temporary foreign workers are often hired without the labour market opinion having been done in the right way. Workers who are looking for work are not getting hired. We hear in my riding about abuses of workers by employers, but there is no follow-up. There is nothing. When workers are in trouble, they are not supported.”
“I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government's pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada's public agricultural research system?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for allowing that to happen. Today is Brain Injury Awareness Day. It is an honour to table this petition on behalf of the families impacted by 165,000 new cases annually of brain injury in our country.”
The complete record
Every one of 557 lines we hold for Gord Johns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“Often the federal government does not provide the funding that is needed, so they fall between the cracks. Even when local governments or local organizations want to spearhead a project to make sure there are no veterans in their community or anywhere in Canada without a place to live, often the gaps collide. There is an opportunity right now for the federal government to show leadership. One thing about this motion is that it is non-binding. What we heard from my Conservative colleague, which I wholly support, is that we are talking about doing a study in six months' time on a non-binding motion. This could be in the fall economic statement.”
“I have raised this in the House many times: Any government buildings or any government lands that are to be used for housing, something that we have supported and we do support, should be prioritized for Canada's military veterans, RCMP veterans and, of course, indigenous peoples, who, again, are overrepresented in terms of homelessness in this country, the first peoples of these lands. We have seen the breakdown many times when veterans groups, organizations or legions try to access funds to build veterans housing. Constantly, what we find out, and we can see where it has happened in Ontario, is that when a group wants to get housing going, even when a municipality comes forward saying it has land, the provincial government says that veterans are a responsibility of the federal Government of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this motion has come forward to inspire the conversation around the veterans in our country. First, I will highlight that clearly everyone in the House, and all Canadians, agree that no veteran should be living on the streets of this country. Any man or woman who served this country should be prioritized when it comes to housing. They should not be left out on the streets. However, we do have concerns around this motion. We know that this is a real problem. Veterans are overrepresented when it comes to homelessness and homeless people on the streets of our great nation, but so are indigenous peoples. We have been flagging this.”
“Madam Speaker, when the previous Liberal government brought together the top executives of the big grocery chains that have been price gouging Canadians since the pandemic, they showed up with no plan. The grocery executives offered nothing but pictures of their weekly sale flyers and were held to no accountable commitments. The meeting was all for show, and while the government pat itself on the back, it walked away with nothing to show for it and no relief for Canadians. Regarding Bill C-19 , helping people matters, but without an excess profit tax, families pay twice: once at the store and again through taxes. Does my colleague not agree that it is time for an excess profit tax to make those who are profiteering off people pay their fair share?”
“We must condemn racism wherever it rears its ugly head in Canada, support education and the hard work of reconciliation, and stand with survivors today and always.”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me today in expressing solidarity with the Nuu-chah-nulth people of Tseshaht First Nation after two incidents of racist vandalism at the “Every Child Matters” orange bridge in Port Alberni in just one week. Swastikas and hateful slurs defaced this important site of remembrance. This was not random vandalism. It was an attack on survivors, on indigenous families, on Jewish communities and on the truth of what happened at the Alberni Indian Residential School. For generations, indigenous children were taken across this bridge from their families. Painting it orange was an act of remembrance, education and reconciliation. Hate will not erase the truth. I thank the many volunteers who repainted the bridge and showed our community's resolve.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all want small, medium and large businesses to win. We all want that, but when the only winners, when it comes to groceries and food prices, are the big corporations, and the only losers are everyday people across this country, something has to be done. The member highlighted and claimed that Canada has the highest grocery prices in the G7. Guess what else we have? We have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7. Big grocery stores are posting record profits. Does my colleague not agree that there needs to be a threshold when it comes to profiteering by big grocery stores? This is a time when we need to work collectively on solutions. She is right that the government says it brought the big grocery stores together to work on dealing with the inflationary costs happening on food, but nothing has happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about grocery store prices doubling. Well, guess what else doubled: margins from the big grocery stores. They are posting record profits. My colleague talked about the Liberals' bringing the big grocery stores together to have a conversation, but nothing has happened. This requires government intervention and an excess profit tax. Does my colleague agree that there needs to be a threshold, that the big corporations profiteering on the backs of everyday people need to be reined in, and that an excess profit tax would do just that?”
“The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to take urgent action by legislating parity between physical and mental health in Canada's universal public health care system; ensuring timely access to evidence-based, culturally appropriate and publicly funded mental health and substance use services beyond hospital and physician settings; and, finally, establishing the Canada mental health transfer to sustainably fund these services, including an initial investment of $4.5 billion to the provinces and territories. Petitioners are clear: Canadians deserve a health care system where mental health is treated with the same urgency, priority and respect as physical health.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table a petition on behalf of Canadians deeply concerned about the worsening mental health and substance use crisis across our country, a crisis that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioners note that too many Canadians are unable to access timely mental health or substance use supports. They point out that when care is not available in the community, people are left to rely on overcrowded hospital emergency rooms or primary care providers. Untreated or inadequately treated mental illness carries enormous social and economic costs.”
“Third, petitioners call on the government to prioritize this made-in-Canada solution, leveraging Canadian engineering and protecting lives, communities and the environment. They cite that wildfires Canada-wide have increasing intensity and cost, demanding bold, timely action. I want to thank Jim Abram and the 699 Canadians who signed the petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table petition e-6823, which is sponsored by Jim Abram from Quadra Island and is signed by over 699 Canadians. Petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to partner with the private sector in collaboration with potential first nations partners to retrofit a portion of Canada's retired CC-130H Hercules fleet to turn them into large air tankers for wildfire suppression. Second, they call on the government to deploy these aircraft under a national wildfire response shared with provinces and territories, and, where appropriate, international humanitarian and emergency missions, and to consider the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre for managing deployment under a transparent cost-sharing framework with initial operating capability by the 2027 wildfire season.”
“Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree with any supports to help people with the cost of living, but one thing we have never heard from the Liberals and will never hear from Conservatives is about the runaway, out-of-control corporate greed. We are seeing big grocery stores post record profits. There is no mechanism so that the big grocery stores do not increase prices the day before this benefit comes into play. All the Liberals need to do is charge an excess profit tax on big grocery stores. Is there a threshold for the Liberals on the out-of-control corporate greed that is now becoming normalized? We see Loblaws with $2 billion in profits last year alone. The minister says that there is nothing we can do here in Canada. Well, there is: an excess profit tax.”
“They urge Canada to insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian and international humanitarian and medical workers. They further ask that Canadian funding be withheld from any mechanism that does not respect humanitarian principles and that all Canadian aid to Gaza be delivered exclusively through internationally recognized humanitarian channels. Again, this petition reflects the voices of 1,500 Canadians who want our country to stand firmly for human life, international law and the protection of civilians.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-6751, sponsored by John Mayba from Port Alberni and signed by over 1,500 Canadians who are deeply concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and Canada's obligations under international law. The petition highlights that under the Geneva Convention and Canada's own Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, Canada is required to uphold international humanitarian law and ensure that aid is delivered in a neutral, impartial and independent manner. The petitioners call on the House to clearly reject the current model of militarized aid delivery in Palestine and to demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian organizations, including UNRWA and the World Food Program.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am raising this issue again because in two months, core federal support for friendship centres will run out. In Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, I saw how the Pulaarvik Kablu Friendship Centre delivers life-saving mental health, addictions and on-the-land programs. In my riding, the Port Alberni and Wachiay friendship centres are lifelines, providing food, housing, safety, culture and belonging. Indigenous populations are growing, friendship centres are beyond capacity, and budget 2025 offered nothing. This is not reconciliation. This is abandonment. When will the government commit to renewing this funding with long-term, secure and stable support?”
“There are different sizes of farms. There are different farmers' needs, but these organizations represent a lot of farmers. They are being ignored, and I hope that the government will come clean on what it is proposing to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I stand alongside these incredible organizations, which I talked about earlier, representing small farmers. They are calling on the government to abandon these proposed regulatory amendments, to protect farmers and to support farmers' rights through real action and not empty words. From what I just heard, I do not feel the government is going to do that, but it needs to come clean, explain its rationale and listen to the impact this is going to have on these farmers. The ask of the stakeholders, who represent hundreds of thousands of farmers who grow our food, is simple: Will the government show, through concrete action and not empty words, that it respects a farmer's right to the age-old practice of collecting and saving their own farm seed, and abandon these harmful regulatory changes?”
“I stand alongside these incredible organizations in calling on the government to abandon the proposed regulatory amendments, protect farmers and support farmers' rights through this real action, not empty words. I look forward to the response.”
“The CFIA wants private investment in plant breeding to become more profitable by taking more revenue from farmers. Canada should provide more support to our public plant breeding system, which benefits farmers and the public. Farmers' privilege is key to food security and Canada's sovereignty. Ensuring that farmers can reproduce crops on their own farms, even if supply chain or climate impacts restrict the supply of propagating material, is critical. I should note that this letter was sent to the whole of cabinet, including the Prime Minister . In all sincerity I say that I have a copy of that letter with me this evening if the government needs a copy. I hope the parliamentary secretary is prepared to address these concerns in a more fulsome way than was done during question period in October.”
“The co-signatories on the letter feel the government's response to this issue was inadequate and is not reflective of a government that purports to take farmers' concerns seriously. They note that the government failed to provide a thoughtful response that properly acknowledged the validity of the points made in the e-petition, including forcing farmers to buy seed and/or propagating material annually, which would increase production costs, allow plant breeders to raise prices, prevent access to new varieties that are not available commercially, and prevent farmers from adapting their crops to changing climatic conditions on their farms. They also state that removing farmers' privilege for new fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties would unfairly encroach upon farmers' age-old practice of using farm-saved seed.”
“Earlier this month they wrote to the agriculture minister expressing their disappointment with the government's response to the e-petition and, once again, urging the government to abandon its proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights regulations removing farmer privilege to certain crops. That letter from the National Farmers Union was co-signed by many other major agricultural stakeholder groups from across Canada, including the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network, the Canada Organic Trade Association, the Canadian Organic Growers, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, FarmFolk CityFolk, Friends of the Earth Canada, Growers of Organic Food Yukon, Manitoba Organics, Organic Alberta, SaskOrganics, SeedChange and Young Agrarians.”
“It would undermine the age-old practice of farmers' using farm-safe seed, forcing them to buy seeds or pay royalties year after year. That is what the CFIA's proposed regulatory changes would do to the people who grow Canada's fruit, vegetable, ornamental and hybrid varieties. I am rising again tonight on the issue because in the government's response to my e-petition 6778, which was signed by more than 6,000 Canadians, it missed the mark and left the farm community perplexed about whom the government is actually trying to help with its changes. It is certainly not the hard-working farmers who produce our food. The National Farmers Union has been banging the alarm bell on this issue, and I want to thank its members for their tireless advocacy and for keeping this important issue at the forefront.”
“Mr. Speaker, on October 3, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would abandon the government's proposed regulatory changes to the plant breeders' rights in favour of supporting the rights of farmers who save and re-use their seed. The parliamentary secretary rose and responded that consultations have happened, which completely dodged the question. Less than a week later, on October 9, I rose in the House to present a petition signed by more than 6,000 Canadians who want the same answer to the same unanswered question. Amending the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, as the government has proposed to do, would be, as I said in October, harmful and reckless. It would force farmers to purchase seed annually, and it would drive up production costs, restrict access to new varieties and undermine the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change.”
“They point out that the dedicated funding for retrieval, prevention, repair and recycling works, creating skilled jobs and partnerships with indigenous communities, small businesses, coastal people, fishers, harbour authorities and recyclers, especially in rural and remote areas. Petitioners are calling for the government to reinstate and expand a permanent multi-year ghost gear fund with streams for rapid retrieval response, prevention and innovation, including gear marking and tracking; whalesafe and ropeless pilots; end-of-life management, repair and recycling; community capacity; and indigenous guardian programs.”
“Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to present petition e-6795, which is sponsored by Chloe Dubois from Ocean Legacy Foundation. The petition has been signed by 659 Canadians who are deeply concerned about ghost gear: abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear that is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution. They are concerned that the Liberal government killed this very important program. Petitioners note that ghost gear kills fish, marine animals and species like wild salmon, seabirds and turtles; damages habitats; and creates microplastics and even hazards for navigation and active harvesters, which hurts coastal communities, our way of life and our economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians deeply concerned about the delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza. Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to restore aid for UN agencies and NGOs such as UNRWA and the World Food Programme, to permit safe entry for Canadian health care and humanitarian workers, and to ensure that all Canadian aid is delivered through internationally recognized, neutral and independent channels.”
“The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-206 , the development of a national strategy on brain injuries, in order to improve awareness and prevention and to ensure better access to treatment, rehabilitation and recovery supports for Canadians living with the impacts of brain injury.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table two petitions. The first is a petition from Canadians who are calling for urgent federal investment on brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment. Petitioners note that brain injuries can occur in many ways, from accidents to illness and strokes, and often result in serious physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural effects. They further point out that brain injuries are frequently linked with other challenges, including substance use and homelessness, creating additional barriers for people affected. It is estimated that 1.6 million Canadians are living with a brain injury today, yet there is no coordinated national response.”
“Meanwhile, they are using a taxpayer-funded pipeline, the TMX, which costs taxpayers $34.5 billion, and we cannot find a buyer for the pipeline. Why are the big oil and gas companies not buying it? It is because of corporate welfare on the backs of the public. The government has its priorities out of order—”
“Mr. Speaker, that would almost be funny if the Liberals were not blaming the avian flu for driving up grocery store prices, which is harming people. This is the kind of answer that I expected today. We will never hear the Liberals or the Conservatives willing to take on corporate greed. They will place blame everywhere else. Meanwhile, companies such as Loblaws have had record profits, a couple of a billion dollars. This is not because of the avian flu. For big oil and gas, Canadian Natural has had $6 billion in profits, Enbridge has had $5 billion in profits, Suncor has had $5 billion in profits, Imperial Oil has had $4 billion in profits and AltaGas has had $3.5 billion. We are seeing record profits for the five big oil companies.”
“Will the Liberal government finally include an excess profits tax in the upcoming spring economic statement? Will it stand up for Canadians instead of corporate boardrooms? It is time to act, because Canadians simply cannot afford more excuses. This place is starting to feel like a corporate boardroom. This is the opportunity for the government to show Canadians they matter and that they are a priority ahead of the big corporations.”
“The result is fewer choices for Canadians and more power for large corporations to raise prices however they want. Under successive Conservative and Liberal governments, this is what has happened. Even in the U.K., Conservative governments recognized that profits had grown out of control. The U.K. introduced an excess profits tax on oil and gas companies, a measure that raised over six billion euros in just two years and helped support households struggling with the cost of living. New Democrats want businesses to succeed. We want everyone to win. We believe in innovation, investment and good jobs. However, success should never come from gouging Canadians or driving families into debt. Therefore, again I ask: How much profit is enough? Is there a threshold?”
“Imperial Oil made nearly $1 billion last quarter and more than $5 billion last year. Then what did it do? It laid off nearly 1,000 workers. All of this happens while abandoned wells sit unrepaired, environmental liabilities grow and communities are left to deal with the costs. Profits are privatized, but the cleanup is a public expense. We now have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7 and the highest corporate profits in our history. At the same time, Statistics Canada reports that the gap between the richest two-fifths and the poorest two-fifths of Canadians has reached the widest point ever recorded. This is what happens when we normalize out-of-control corporate greed. Corporate consolidation only makes it worse. Rogers swallowed up Shaw for $26 billion. RBC bought HSBC for $13.5 billion.”
“A 2023 study found Canada has the 10th-highest median price per gigabyte of data globally, higher than every country in Europe except for Switzerland. Canadians pay up to 26 times more for data than people in France do, yet Bell still made $6.3 billion in profits and laid off 700 workers. This is not a result of healthy competition; this is what happens when a handful of powerful corporations are allowed to dominate a market. At the grocery store, families are expected to pay about $1,000 more next year just to feed their households. Meanwhile, Loblaws made more than $2 billion in profits after settling a $500-million case for fixing the price of bread over 15 years. At the same time, food bank usage has hit record levels nationwide. Families are forced to choose between rent and groceries. In the oil and gas sector, it is the same story.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being bled dry at the pump and the grocery till, on their phone and Internet bills, and by mortgage and credit card payments that keep climbing. People are doing everything they can just to get by, but every month it gets harder, not easier. While families struggle to keep their heads above water, the biggest corporations in this country are posting record profits. RBC made $16 billion, Rogers made $1.7 billion, Loblaws made over $2 billion, and Imperial Oil made almost $1 billion in the last quarter alone. The question is fair: How much profit is enough? Is there a limit? When will the government actually take some action? Across this country, Canadians are getting a raw deal. Our phone bills are among the highest in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, actually the provincial NDP took the Liberal government to court. It tried to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline, for good reason: It did not make any sense. It still does not make sense. The federal taxpayer is on the hook for $34.5 billion to build that pipeline, and the government cannot find a buyer. What does the government want to do? It wants to build another one. We all know where this is going to go; it is going to end up on the backs of everyday Canadians instead of investing in real climate action. The government members talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say that they are going to have consultation. Consultation is not supporting free, prior and informed consent. They talk about consultation, but consultation not consent. If they will stand in the House and say that they will support free, prior—”
“I really applaud the work the Bloc Québécois members have been doing in standing up for climate action. This is something we need to be happening right now. There are pipeline wars between the Conservatives and Liberals at a time of a climate crisis and wildfires raging out of control. It reminds me of an arms war, but instead it is a pipeline war in the middle of a climate crisis. Where is the action from the government?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The government spent $34.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. What has happened? There have been record profits: $6 billion in profit for Canadian natural gas, $5 billion in profit for Enbridge, $5 billion in profit for Suncor and $4 billion in profit for Imperial Oil, which laid off 900 staff and made $4 billion in profit last year. AltaGas made $3.5 billion in profit. They made all this money, but they cannot even afford to buy the TMX pipeline. Now the government is putting forward the idea of building another pipeline on the backs of Canadians instead of investing in clean energy, which would be much more affordable and quicker in tackling climate change and would create a long-standing future for our country, a much more sustainable future with true energy security.”
“Mr. Speaker, it puts economic opportunities on the north coast and projects at risk. That is exactly what the MOU does. The Liberals keep saying that there is no pipeline without support from indigenous nations and British Columbia, but the Building Canada Act, the one they keep citing and rely on, requires consultation only if nations say no. There is nowhere in the act that gives first nations the right to stop the project. It actually protects it. Maybe the Liberals can explain why they talk about consent in public but remove it from the fine print when they put forward MOUs like the one they tabled, where it actually matters.”
“Canada can and must do better than this. We can build a future rooted in partnership, sustainability and shared prosperity. Our workers deserve better than boom-and-bust politics, our ecosystems deserve protection, and first nations deserve respect, the right to consent and genuine nation-to-nation decision-making. For all those reasons we will be voting against the motion today and are against the MOU that the government put forward.”
“Instead of inflaming regional division and undermining reconciliation, the federal government should be meeting directly and respectfully with Coastal First Nations and the Province of British Columbia. The Prime Minister promised that no project would be imposed on a province or on indigenous peoples. Both British Columbia and Coastal First Nations have said no. It is time to honour that promise, not weaken it under pressure. New Democrats oppose the motion, and we will oppose it with a vote. We will vote against it because it ignores science. We will vote against because it ignores economic reality. We will vote against it because it undermines marine protection, climate responsibility and indigenous rights. We will vote against it because it puts ideology ahead of national unity and long-term prosperity.”
“New Democrats unequivocally support free, prior and informed consent. Without the consent of indigenous rights holders, the project does not have legitimacy. Without consent, there is no reconciliation. The indigenous rights and title holders most affected by the proposal have already said no repeatedly, publicly and without ambiguity. The opposition motion and the Liberal MOU further claim that the proposal involves so-called low-emission bitumen. We should be honest with Canadians: Bitumen remains among the most carbon-intensive forms of oil on the planet. Relabelling it does not change the climate map. Global heavy crude demand is projected to decline in the decades ahead. The motion would pursue a project with no confirmed proponent, no secured market, no private financing and no consent from those whose territories would be at risk.”
“The MOU that the Liberal Prime Minister has put forward is the same; it undermines our confederation by threatening the goodwill that first nations bring to major economic projects. Northwest B.C. alone represents roughly 40% of Canada's shovel-ready major nation-leading and nation-building projects, including LNG facilities, critical mineral development, port modernization and clean energy corridors. Coastal First Nations supports projects that respect its rights, protect the environment and share benefits fairly. Crude-oil tankers will never be part of that vision. The motion before us and the MOU that the Liberals have put forward also claim that indigenous consultation must be respected, but let us be absolutely clear: Consultation is not the standard; consent is the standard.”
“Coastal First Nations has made it abundantly clear: It not interested in equity stakes in a bitumen pipeline or in financial compensation for catastrophic risk from a bitumen pipeline, and it has built its own sustainable economy that is working. New figures from Coast Funds show that an initial $60 million in economic development capital has generated over $1 billion in regional economic impact, creating more than 1,400 permanent jobs and supporting over 140 businesses. This is prosperity rooted in conservation, renewable energy, ecotourism, sustainable fisheries and long-term community wealth, not short-term extraction and global speculation. The Premier of Alberta's rhetoric about oil pipelines and tankers does not strengthen our confederation.”
“There is no proven technology capable of recovering bitumen once it disperses under water. That is not speculation; that is what spill science tells us. For Coastal First Nations, for British Columbia and for anyone who cares about fisheries and oceans, that risk is simply unacceptable. A single major bitumen spill on the north coast would wipe out sustainable fisheries, cultural livelihoods and marine-based economies that have been built over thousands of years. Meanwhile, the coastal economy that first nations have built is not theoretical. It is real, it is growing and it is rooted in stewardship.”
“Assembly of First Nations has passed a formal motion opposing the proposal and calling on all levels of government to abandon the project and to instead support sustainable first nations-led solutions that respect indigenous title and ensure the survival of the land and its people. The Assembly of First Nations has echoed that position nationally, stating clearly that economic incentives, co-ownership promises and piecemeal consultation do not replace free, prior and informed consent. (1620) There is something else that has not changed: The science has not changed. It remains a scientific fact that bitumen cannot be cleaned up in marine environments. When it spills, it sinks and mixes with sediments. It coats the seabed, and it smothers salmon habitat, herring spawning grounds, shellfish beds and the foundation of the marine food web.”
“Yes, the people who would be most affected have declared this position with unmistakable clarity for decades. Today, Coastal First Nations, representing nine first nations along the north coast, the central coast and Haida Gwaii, has reiterated its nations' position as rights and title holders, in a firm and unequivocal statement that they will not consent to crude oil pipeline or oil tanker projects in their coastal waters. They have made it clear to Canada and Alberta that the project identified in the motion and in the MOU is the same pipeline carrying the same product to the same place. That was rejected in 2012 under the Harper Conservatives, and nothing has changed today with the Prime Minister and the Liberals. At the same time, the B.C.”
“coast, and we know the impact it had on the north coast. If the pipeline envisioned in the motion were built, up to 225 supertankers per year, each carrying up to two million barrels of bitumen, would move through narrow coastal channels and off the shore of Vancouver Island and the north coast. The scale of risk would dwarf both Nestucca and Exxon Valdez . A spill hundreds of times larger than Nestucca would be physically impossible to clean up along our remote, rugged coast, especially given the behaviour of bitumen itself. The moratorium did not appear overnight; tanker restrictions had been voluntarily in place for more than 30 years before Bill C-48 ever became law. Industry, insurers, scientists and governments across Canada and the United States long understood just how sensitive, dangerous and irreplaceable this region truly is.”
“In 2019 the federal government passed the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Bill C-48 , to protect the Great Bear Rainforest and the Great Bear Sea on behalf of all Canadians. We have also been here before on the B.C. coast in a far more literal way. In January 1989, the Nestucca barge rammed its own tug off Washington state after a cable snapped. The U.S. Coast Guard ordered the leaking barge towed out to sea. There were 5,500 barrels of oil spilled, oil that floated just below the surface and could not be tracked or contained. Days later, to everyone's horror, it washed ashore near Tofino in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni. That spill was devastating, and it was considered small. Just months later, the Exxon Valdez oil spill released 257,000 barrels of oil, nearly 50 times larger, enough to contaminate virtually the entire length of the B.C.”