Martin Champoux, Drummond
“I oppose this bill. It removes the ban on large oil tankers along the north coast of British Columbia. That coast is home to fragile marine life that would be damaged for decades if oil spills there. First Nations and local communities oppose lifting this ban, and our existing pipelines already send most of our oil to the United States. We should keep the ban in place.”
“Madam Speaker, before I start, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who are proudly wearing the poppy as we begin the annual poppy campaign to remember those who gave their lives and fought for our values and freedom. This is my annual reminder. This year is the second year that I have the honour of serving as the honorary president of the poppy campaign in my riding of Drummond. The poppy is worn over the heart, above any other medal or pin. The member pin that many of us wear must be worn below the poppy. I repeat this every year. I think that these details are important for veterans and for those who care about matters of protocol. Before I begin my speech on Bill C-264, I would like to congratulate the new Quebec minister of natural resources and forests, Nathalie Bisaillon, on her appointment. Ms. Bisaillon is also the MNA for the new riding of Marie-Lacoste-Gérin-Lajoie, part of which is located in the federal riding of Drummond, which I have had the honour of representing since 2019. I welcome Nathalie Bisaillon to her role as MNA and minister. I will be very pleased and honoured to work with her on both regional and national files. We are here today to talk about Bill C-264, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, which seeks to completely do away with the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. The first thing we need to know is that we are only debating this bill today because the Prime Minister himself committed in his memorandum of understanding with Alberta to adjusting the oil tanker moratorium should a new bitumen pipeline between Alberta and British Columbia ever move forward. In an effort to protect so-called Canadian national unity and look like Captain Canada to the United States, the Prime Minister opened the door to abandoning the moratorium that protects marine diversity in British Columbia. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives have thrown themselves headlong into this. If the Liberals think that Bill C-264 is a trap, they are quite right. The problem is that it is a trap they themselves set when they signed the MOU with Alberta in November 2025. The bill we are debating today deals with regulating vessels carrying crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports and maritime facilities located along British Columbia’s north coast. These substances are considered “persistent” because, if they end up in the environment or marine ecosystems, they remain there for a long time. As the term suggests, they can persist for decades, and communities end up stuck with them. The issue at hand, therefore, is the risk of oil spills along the coast of British Columbia, specifically in the waters extending from the Alaskan border to the northern mainland coast opposite the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The moratorium exists because British Columbia’s north coast is considered to be one of the most productive and least disturbed temperate marine ecosystems on the planet. An oil spill would pose a direct threat to marine biodiversity and to the many species that depend on this coastline. The Great Bear Sea is a 102,000-square-kilometre marine area extending from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaskan border. It is one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world. Home to species and habitats like the migrating humpback whale, orcas, sea otters, seabirds, salmon, ancient glass sponge reefs, kelp forests and seagrass meadows, it is simply a treasure. Crude oil and persistent oil have been slowly degrading these ecosystems for decades. In their efforts to ideologically support increased shipments of Canadian oil sands exports, the Conservatives want to remove any potential obstacle to their industry’s development, regardless of the ecological risk or damage posed to precious marine ecosystems like the ones I just mentioned. The current moratorium, however, applies only to northern British Colombia, whereas current exports are located in the south and are therefore unaffected by the moratorium. What, then, are they trying to accomplish? Bill C‑48 was tabled in Parliament on May 12, 2017. The bill was introduced by the late Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation at the time, and was studied during the 42nd Parliament. It was passed and received royal assent in June 2019. The regulation of marine shipping is part of Canada’s oceans protection plan and its broader commitment to protecting 30% of oceans by 2030 pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the commitments that were made in Montreal in 2022 at COP15. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act imposes a moratorium on tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil from stopping along the northern coast of British Columbia. Vessels carrying cargoes of less than 12,500 metric tonnes are permitted in the moratorium area. The act includes an enforcement and sanctions regime that includes charges and fines of up to $5 million, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is important to understand that this moratorium was added to the voluntary tanker exclusion zone that has been in place since 1985 and that was negotiated with the United States. Oil tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington were required to sail west of the zone. What is more, since this was a voluntary exclusion zone, it was never introduced into legislation. The Canadian government has been talking about a tanker moratorium off the coast of British Columbia since 1972. Before Bill C-48 was passed in 2019, the legal status of the moratorium was a source of debate and confusion, so the moratorium resolved a legal and historic ambiguity and helped to ensure the protection of B.C.’s northern coast. Why lift the oil tanker ban? What would be the point of that? When the Prime Minister ventured to suggest lifting the oil tanker ban in November 2025, his decision was harshly criticized by the British Columbia government. The new government that just took office this weekend will likely have a different attitude. It completely changes the situation, but it will not necessarily make things any easier, because the first nations also strongly oppose that decision. The next few months in particular will likely be full of heated discussions. The Prime Minister’s Alberta escapade has been viewed as a sign that the government has abandoned its commitment to protecting nature. The message from British Columbia and first nations has been clear. Protecting the environment on B.C.’s north coast does not hinder the economy, but rather helps it grow. The rapid expansion of the oil sands industry and increased exports in the 1990s were bound to lead to more marine transportation and put more pressure on marine ecosystems. The Trans Mountain expansion tripled the existing pipeline capacity and added an extra 590,000 barrels a day of shipping capacity. In fact, it was Justin Trudeau who claimed that the goal of his pipeline, funded by $35 billion or $40 billion dollars in public funds, was to diversify export markets, but the vast majority of exports go to the United States. The United States remains the primary destination for Canadian crude oil. That country received 93.8% of all Canadian crude oil exports from May 2024 to April 2025. Of Canada’s total crude oil exports to the United States, 92.8% flow through the existing pipeline network. I think this is all show and no substance. Why do I bring up the removal of the oil tanker moratorium? It is because challenging the moratorium on oil tankers helps fuel the dream of the Conservatives, and the neo-conservatives who now sit on the Liberal benches, to build new pipelines. That is why, in the Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding, alongside the Prime Minister’s pledge to increase Alberta’s oil and gas production to meet Canada’s export targets, there is already a proposal to amend the moratorium on oil tankers. It states the following: If an Alberta bitumen pipeline is ultimately approved under the Building Canada Act and provides opportunities for indigenous co-ownership and shared economic benefits, Canada confirms that it will enable the export of bitumen from a deep-water port to Asian markets, including if necessary through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. This sentence is still on the Prime Minister’s website even today. The reason we are here today debating Bill C‑264, which proposes to tear apart an entire piece of legislation against the wishes of first nations and against the wishes of the government then in power in British Columbia, is that the Prime Minister himself launched the debate and invited us to join him in that. Once again, we can agree that the new government now in power in British Columbia may not object quite so strenuously. The Prime Minister of Canada opened the door and the Conservatives walked right in. In doing so, he is continuing to destroy his own political party’s weak environmental record.”
Madam Speaker, before I start, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who are proudly wearing the poppy as we begin the annual poppy campaign to remember those who gave their lives and fought for our values and freedom. This is my annual reminder. This year is the second year that I have the honour of serving as the honorary president of the poppy campaign in my riding of Drummond. The poppy is worn over the heart, above any other medal or pin. The member pin that many of us wear must be worn below the poppy. I repeat this every year. I think that these details are important for veterans and for those who care about matters of protocol. Before I begin my speech on Bill C-264, I would like to congratulate the new Quebec minister of natural resources and forests, Nathalie Bisaillon, on her appointment. Ms. Bisaillon is also the MNA for the new riding of Marie-Lacoste-Gérin-Lajoie, part of which is located in the federal riding of Drummond, which I have had the honour of representing since 2019. I welcome Nathalie Bisaillon to her role as MNA and minister. I will be very pleased and honoured to work with her on both regional and national files. We are here today to talk about Bill C-264, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, which seeks to completely do away with the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. The first thing we need to know is that we are only debating this bill today because the Prime Minister himself committed in his memorandum of understanding with Alberta to adjusting the oil tanker moratorium should a new bitumen pipeline between Alberta and British Columbia ever move forward. In an effort to protect so-called Canadian national unity and look like Captain Canada to the United States, the Prime Minister opened the door to abandoning the moratorium that protects marine diversity in British Columbia. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives have thrown themselves headlong into this. If the Liberals think that Bill C-264 is a trap, they are quite right. The problem is that it is a trap they themselves set when they signed the MOU with Alberta in November 2025. The bill we are debating today deals with regulating vessels carrying crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports and maritime facilities located along British Columbia’s north coast. These substances are considered “persistent” because, if they end up in the environment or marine ecosystems, they remain there for a long time. As the term suggests, they can persist for decades, and communities end up stuck with them. The issue at hand, therefore, is the risk of oil spills along the coast of British Columbia, specifically in the waters extending from the Alaskan border to the northern mainland coast opposite the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The moratorium exists because British Columbia’s north coast is considered to be one of the most productive and least disturbed temperate marine ecosystems on the planet. An oil spill would pose a direct threat to marine biodiversity and to the many species that depend on this coastline. The Great Bear Sea is a 102,000-square-kilometre marine area extending from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaskan border. It is one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world. Home to species and habitats like the migrating humpback whale, orcas, sea otters, seabirds, salmon, ancient glass sponge reefs, kelp forests and seagrass meadows, it is simply a treasure. Crude oil and persistent oil have been slowly degrading these ecosystems for decades. In their efforts to ideologically support increased shipments of Canadian oil sands exports, the Conservatives want to remove any potential obstacle to their industry’s development, regardless of the ecological risk or damage posed to precious marine ecosystems like the ones I just mentioned. The current moratorium, however, applies only to northern British Colombia, whereas current exports are located in the south and are therefore unaffected by the moratorium. What, then, are they trying to accomplish? Bill C‑48 was tabled in Parliament on May 12, 2017. The bill was introduced by the late Marc Garneau, Minister of Transportation at the time, and was studied during the 42nd Parliament. It was passed and received royal assent in June 2019. The regulation of marine shipping is part of Canada’s oceans protection plan and its broader commitment to protecting 30% of oceans by 2030 pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the commitments that were made in Montreal in 2022 at COP15. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act imposes a moratorium on tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil from stopping along the northern coast of British Columbia. Vessels carrying cargoes of less than 12,500 metric tonnes are permitted in the moratorium area. The act includes an enforcement and sanctions regime that includes charges and fines of up to $5 million, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is important to understand that this moratorium was added to the voluntary tanker exclusion zone that has been in place since 1985 and that was negotiated with the United States. Oil tankers travelling from Alaska to Washington were required to sail west of the zone. What is more, since this was a voluntary exclusion zone, it was never introduced into legislation. The Canadian government has been talking about a tanker moratorium off the coast of British Columbia since 1972. Before Bill C-48 was passed in 2019, the legal status of the moratorium was a source of debate and confusion, so the moratorium resolved a legal and historic ambiguity and helped to ensure the protection of B.C.’s northern coast. Why lift the oil tanker ban? What would be the point of that? When the Prime Minister ventured to suggest lifting the oil tanker ban in November 2025, his decision was harshly criticized by the British Columbia government. The new government that just took office this weekend will likely have a different attitude. It completely changes the situation, but it will not necessarily make things any easier, because the first nations also strongly oppose that decision. The next few months in particular will likely be full of heated discussions. The Prime Minister’s Alberta escapade has been viewed as a sign that the government has abandoned its commitment to protecting nature. The message from British Columbia and first nations has been clear. Protecting the environment on B.C.’s north coast does not hinder the economy, but rather helps it grow. The rapid expansion of the oil sands industry and increased exports in the 1990s were bound to lead to more marine transportation and put more pressure on marine ecosystems. The Trans Mountain expansion tripled the existing pipeline capacity and added an extra 590,000 barrels a day of shipping capacity. In fact, it was Justin Trudeau who claimed that the goal of his pipeline, funded by $35 billion or $40 billion dollars in public funds, was to diversify export markets, but the vast majority of exports go to the United States. The United States remains the primary destination for Canadian crude oil. That country received 93.8% of all Canadian crude oil exports from May 2024 to April 2025. Of Canada’s total crude oil exports to the United States, 92.8% flow through the existing pipeline network. I think this is all show and no substance. Why do I bring up the removal of the oil tanker moratorium? It is because challenging the moratorium on oil tankers helps fuel the dream of the Conservatives, and the neo-conservatives who now sit on the Liberal benches, to build new pipelines. That is why, in the Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding, alongside the Prime Minister’s pledge to increase Alberta’s oil and gas production to meet Canada’s export targets, there is already a proposal to amend the moratorium on oil tankers. It states the following: If an Alberta bitumen pipeline is ultimately approved under the Building Canada Act and provides opportunities for indigenous co-ownership and shared economic benefits, Canada confirms that it will enable the export of bitumen from a deep-water port to Asian markets, including if necessary through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. This sentence is still on the Prime Minister’s website even today. The reason we are here today debating Bill C‑264, which proposes to tear apart an entire piece of legislation against the wishes of first nations and against the wishes of the government then in power in British Columbia, is that the Prime Minister himself launched the debate and invited us to join him in that. Once again, we can agree that the new government now in power in British Columbia may not object quite so strenuously. The Prime Minister of Canada opened the door and the Conservatives walked right in. In doing so, he is continuing to destroy his own political party’s weak environmental record.