The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15
House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was emissions.

Last in Parliament April 2025, as NDP MP for Victoria (B.C.)

Lost her last election, in 2025, with 25% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees of the House October 8th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak today about reducing the impact of commercial shipping on shoreline erosion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The report sheds light on an important issue, an issue that impacts not only the environment but also the livelihoods and safety of thousands of Canadians living along the shores of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The erosion of our shorelines due to commercial shipping is a serious concern in communities, and witnesses who appeared at committee made it clear that action is required to protect our natural ecosystems and that the people who live and work on these waterways deserve protection.

For decades, the waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have played a central role in our economy, supporting commerce, transportation and industry. However, this same activity, particularly commercial shipping, is now one of the main factors driving shoreline erosion. The narrow passages of the St. Lawrence River and other parts of this corridor are particularly vulnerable to erosion caused by wakes from ships and other human activities.

I think it is important to remember that erosion is not just about losing land; it is about the loss of infrastructure, homes and livelihoods. It is about communities like Saint-Ignace-De-Loyola, where residents are witnessing their properties crumble away year by year, due to waves created by commercial vessels. The impact of the commercial shipping industry is not just an environmental issue; it is a public safety issue and it is a threat to their way of life.

The report makes one thing abundantly clear: The federal government has failed to take a leading role in addressing shoreline erosion. Many witnesses from various communities, municipalities, indigenous communities and environmental organizations pointed out that we need a coordinated multi-stakeholder approach that involves all levels of government, but the leadership must come from Ottawa.

New Democrats echo the calls in this report for a shoreline protection program. This program was cancelled in the 1990s. Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to re-establish the program, which provided critical support to shorelines along the St. Lawrence. By reintroducing this program, we can bring together provincial and municipal governments, indigenous groups, industry leaders and scientific experts to develop real, sustainable solutions to erosion.

I want to take a moment to recognize the important initiative introduced by my colleague the MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. His bill granting rights to the St. Lawrence River is an important and bold step when it comes to rethinking our relationship with nature. By granting legal personhood to the river, we would acknowledge the intrinsic value of our natural ecosystems and their right to thrive. This bill is not just symbolic; it represents a fundamental shift toward environmental justice. If passed, it would give the river a voice, empowering communities and environmental advocates to take legal action on its behalf when ecosystems are threatened. The St. Lawrence is the lifeblood of our environment, our history, our communities and our future. We must recognize its right to exist, flourish and regenerate. The bill is a critical piece of the broader movement to protect the river from the very threats outlined in this report.

Despite the urgency of these issues, however, the Liberal government has dragged its feet. Year after year, we hear promises of environmental action, but its cancellation in the 1990s of the shoreline protection program, which was not reinstated under the current government or under the Harper government before it, is just one example of its failure to protect our vital ecosystems.

The Liberals have failed to act on erosion, failed to regulate commercial shipping and failed to listen to the communities that are most affected. On the west coast, I have been calling on the government to enact a mandatory 1,000-metre vessel buffer for endangered southern resident killer whales and to address the dumping of waste and effluent by commercial ships. The government continues to speak about environmental action and about climate action, while failing to implement critical protections for our waterways and shorelines.

We can no longer afford half measures, patchwork solutions or more studies with no follow-up. The time for action is now, and the federal government must be held accountable.

Many of the solutions to protect our natural environment and protect our communities are outlined in this report, and they are not in opposition to economic growth or to industry. It is about striking a balance between development and environmental sustainability. That is why the NDP will always work to ensure that workers in industries like commercial shipping are part of the solution, and why we believe that the companies themselves, the industries that benefit from the river, must contribute to preserving it through programs like the recommended fund for riparian restoration, which would be financed by commercial users of the corridor.

We know that the Conservatives are always pushing for deregulation and cuts, and they show a disregard for long-term environmental impacts and the failure to invest in future sustainability. The Conservatives claim to be in support of fiscal responsibility, but how can we be fiscally responsible if we ignore the environmental costs and the costs to communities that will continue to grow, putting communities and ecosystems at even greater risk?

To wrap up, I want to re-emphasize that we need action, not just more studies. I want to re-emphasize that this report is not just about studying the problem; it is about the action that is needed by the federal government. Now is the time to take that action. Re-establishing the shoreline protection program, passing the bill to grant rights to the St. Lawrence River, investing in research and sustainable solutions, regulating ship speeds and holding industries accountable are all necessary steps for protecting our shorelines and protecting the communities along them.

I urge the House, and in particular the government, which has the power to do this, to take the recommendations in this report seriously and act swiftly to protect our shorelines, our ecosystems and the Canadians who depend on them.

Committees of the House October 8th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the shoreline protection program and criticized the Liberal government for cutting it, but Stephen Harper was in power for 10 years and did not re-establish it.

The member claims that the idea that the Conservatives made cuts is somehow untrue. I was working in organizations supporting women who experience intimate partner violence. I know the Harper government made cuts. Canadians know that the Conservatives make cuts.

Committees of the House October 8th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, but I did not hear a reference to the shoreline protection program. The report outlines a clear recommendation to re-establish the program. It was cut in the 1990s. It has not been implemented by Conservative or Liberal governments. Why has the Liberal government failed to re-establish this important program?

Committees of the House October 8th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for his advocacy on this. It is so important that we not only acknowledge but also actually reduce the impact of shipping on these important corridors.

My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has also put forward a bill that would grant legal protections, rights of nature, to the St. Lawrence River. We are facing a climate emergency, which is having devastating impacts; we also know that human activity and other economic activity is having an impact on these areas.

Can the member speak to his support, or not, for the idea of granting rights to nature and to the St. Lawrence River?

Financial Institutions October 7th, 2024

Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly disappointing that today, when I asked the minister a valid question about his government's plan to label fossil fuels as sustainable, his only response was misinformation about the NDP and carbon pricing. Two weeks ago, when I asked him if the Liberals would put a hard cap on emissions and make the biggest polluters pay what they owe, he responded with misinformation about the NDP and carbon pricing. Yes, the Conservatives are misleading Canadians on the carbon tax and the rebates, but the Liberals have also pitted communities and whole regions against each other and allowed loopholes that let the biggest polluters off the hook.

New Democrats have repeatedly said that there should be a price on pollution, but we are critical of how the Liberals are doing it. We think the biggest polluters, the oil and gas companies who are raking in record profits, should be paying more, but the Liberals' fetishization of the consumer carbon price seems designed to distract from their capitulation to big oil. It shows that Liberals—

Financial Institutions October 7th, 2024

Madam Speaker, Canadians are increasingly worried about the broken promises, half measures and watered down policies of the Liberals. Time and time again, we see the government exempt companies that are making record profits while their emissions go up and up.

This summer, we heard from concerned environmental groups that the government was going to once again walk back its promises when it comes to delivering a strong, sustainable finance framework. We were appalled but not surprised to find out the government was looking at including fossil fuels in its sustainable labelling system. This means the government believes that some fossil fuels are considered sustainable. This is completely unacceptable. It is greenwashing the actions of the big banks, it is greenwashing fossil fuel companies and it begs the question of why the Liberals are doing this greenwashing dirty work for them.

Canadian banks are already among the worst in the world when it comes to funding the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas sector is now the only sector in the Canadian economy that is increasing its emissions, not reducing them. For that, it is being rewarded. Recently, the Competition Bureau and Ad Standards have been investigating greenwashing in advertisements about the claims made by big oil on clean gas. If the Liberals include fossil fuel subsidies in the taxonomy, they will join oil and gas lobbyists in misleading Canadians. Also, reports show that when emissions are included from production, processing, pipeline transportation, liquefaction, shipping, and regasification of gas, exporting it will not reduce global climate emissions, as the oil and gas industry claims, but will make global warming worse over the next three decades.

The Conservatives and big oil love to point to China's coal use as the reason we need to continue expanding oil and gas in Canada, yet the amount of wind and solar power under construction in China is now nearly twice as much as the rest of the world combined. According to recent reports, new research shows that fossil fuels could displace this renewable energy.

The Liberals are listening to the misinformation spread by Conservatives and oil and gas lobbyists. Maybe this should not surprise me, because the government has met with oil and gas lobbyists over 1,200 times. That is nearly five times a day. Our planet is burning, and the Liberals continue to listen to oil and gas lobbyists instead of climate experts.

Environmental experts are saying they would rather see no sustainable finance taxonomy than one that includes fossil fuels. Greenwashing the sustainable financing labelling system is the wrong choice. Can the member confirm whether the government will be once again caving to the interests of big banks and big oil and gas? Will it make loopholes that allow fossil fuels to be labelled as sustainable?

Privilege October 7th, 2024

Madam Speaker, it is an egregious use of funds. Just on a basic principle of responsible government, it is appalling. For someone who cares deeply about tackling the climate crisis, I find that it is doubly egregious when it means that the government is not actually tracking whether this money is making a difference.

My concern is that the Conservatives keep putting up speaker after speaker. I would like this to go to committee, so we can hold the government accountable and get to the bottom of this.

Climate Change October 7th, 2024

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their government to do more when it comes to the climate crisis, but the Liberals are so deep into the pockets of Canada's worst polluters that they plan to label fossil fuels as sustainable.

The Liberals are caving to the interests of big banks and big oil instead of protecting Canadians. Oil and gas profits are going up, their emissions are going up and they want to greenwash fossil fuels.

Why are the Liberals helping them?

Situation in Lebanon and Israel October 1st, 2024

Mr. Speaker, we must address the unfolding crisis in Lebanon. It is crucial that the government condemn the horrific civilian casualties across Lebanon, Gaza and Israel, and Canada must do more to support peace in the region

People in Lebanon are terrified. There are 45,000 Canadians, many of whom are unable to travel or to return to Canada as our country has offered limited evacuation assistance. I have heard directly from constituents whose families are hearing bombs ringing in their ears, and some cannot find flights out; they are being denied travel documents.

We need to create pathways for families who are desperate to reunite with their family in Canada. Many have noted the difference between the government's response to those fleeing Gaza and to those fleeing Lebanon.

Can the member speak to the need for an equally urgent response to those who are fleeing the conflict?

Business of Supply October 1st, 2024

Madam Speaker, we are hearing, on National Seniors Day, the Liberals say they are friends to seniors while they are saying no to increasing the amount that pensioners aged 65 and older would get. It has been shown that, over the next five years, as the member mentioned, it would cost $16 billion. That is half of what the Trans Mountain pipeline cost.

Could the member reflect on how the Liberals keep saying yes to building pipelines that benefit oil sands CEOs but no to seniors who are struggling right now with the cost of living?