Debates of Jan. 31st, 2013

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is so right.

In 2004, when the WHO struck its commission on the social determinants of health, I was very proud to have appointed Monique Bégin and Stephen Lewis to represent Canada on that panel.

I was also very honest when I went to the launch of that commission in Santiago, Chile, to explain the third world conditions that our first nations, Inuit and Métis live in. It was viewed to be very unusual for a country not to be going and saying everything was perfect.

That commission was only going to look at the south. I implored it to come to Canada as well. They did come, mainly to British Columbia. They saw some good examples but also some bad examples and heard from our first people. It is really important, what was brought out.

The disaggregated data is what we have to work on. We need whole of government solutions, through all jurisdictions, if we are going to fix this. The government is denying these gaps exist. It cannot fix what it will not admit. That is the problem—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen intently to my friend down the way.

For her to suggest that government is not acknowledging gaps is simply false. Of course there are gaps. That is why we are trying to do what we are trying to do. That is why we are trying to do it collaboratively and co-operatively. It is not easy when not everybody has the same view of what that means.

We have talked about nation-to-nation negotiations and nation-to-nation dialogue and so on. What is the hon. member's definition of that? Does that mean Canada to first nations, 631 different times? How does she envision that nation-to-nation dialogue happening?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to explain to the hon. member that he needs to have a look at the press release and press conference of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, which took place at exactly the same time the Assembly of First Nations and National Chief Atleo were meeting in Gatineau on education.

The minister actually tried to show that the per student funding for students on reserve and off reserve was the same if not better. Every single first nation chief knows that is not the case. By misrepresenting that, by throwing in the departmental numbers plus the money bands have to pay to send their students off reserve to high school, he can pretend there is not a gap. That is what the government does all the time.

To answer the question on nation-to-nation dialogue, I would commend to the hon. member dusting off the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, commissioned by Prime Minister Mulroney, and for him to look at the work done around the Charlottetown accord. Even in the Kelowna accord, there was going to be one member, one vote—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks, I said that for hundreds of years, people have sought to annihilate aboriginals. Everyone knows the residential school story.

I would like to thank the member for her passionate speech, but I would like to know why, during all the years, all the decades the Liberals were in power, they did not close aboriginal residential schools. Surely people were asking them questions, were telling them about what was going on.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. It is too late.

Still, negotiations between the federal government and the church began under the auspices of the Liberal government. It took too long. The negotiations were nearly complete when our government fell. My own view is that the NDP is responsible for killing the Kelowna accord and the Kyoto protocol and for harming children.

Considering the Prime Minister's apology, I am very sad about residential schools. Residential schools were not part of the accord. I am very sad about that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

I rise today to deliver my first speech as the member of Parliament for Victoria. I am anxious to contribute to this historic debate on the plight of aboriginal peoples, but before doing so please permit me to begin by sincerely thanking the people of Victoria for giving me the opportunity to serve in this role.

As everyone in this place knows, there is no greater honour or privilege than to serve our fellow citizens. Being part of the Canadian democratic process up close and personal as a candidate recently was without doubt one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life. I did so with the support not only of my family but also with the help of virtually hundreds of dedicated and selfless volunteers. I want to pay tribute to them for their tireless work because I will never forget that without them I would not be here today.

I must also acknowledge the constant support of the former member of Parliament for Victoria, Denise Savoie, who was so well respected on both sides of the House. Not only was she a very successful Deputy Speaker, but her behaviour in this place was also a true example of the kind of civility and respect I desire to follow. On the basis of conversations with countless members, I can say for sure that she will be greatly missed in this place.

I wish to place my remarks today in context and tell members a bit about why I am so honoured personally to speak about the continuing quest of aboriginal people for justice.

I had the opportunity to work for governments, industry and first nations in consultation efforts before becoming an MP. I was a treaty negotiator for over a decade on Vancouver Island, representing the Province of British Columbia, and I have visited virtually every first nation community on Vancouver Island. I also worked with first nations and Inuit in Nunavut, as well as first nations in northeastern British Columbia in negotiating economic development agreements. I think this work has given me some familiarity with the sense of desperation that marks the lives of so many of our fellow citizens, not only those who live on remote reserves but also those who live in poverty in our major cities.

There is probably little value in repeating the litany of shocking statistics that we all know so well: the suicide rates, the dropout rates, the infant mortality rates, and the deplorable conditions of those living in communities like Attawapiskat or closer to my home in Victoria, the Pacheedaht First Nation.

In trying to come up with solutions, I also believe there is little utility in bringing up the failures and disappointments of the past. It does not help to bemoan the fact that the Kelowna accord was never implemented or that so little seems to have been done with the sweeping and excellent recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Instead, Canadians of good faith must work together urgently to seek fresh solutions, solutions that are grounded in the work of the past and the blueprint of the Dussault-Erasmus report, but only as a point of departure, because the time for action is certainly long overdue. Fresh ideas are desperately needed, grounded in the recognition of the constitutional rights of first nations to meaningful consultation and recognition of a nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and first nation peoples.

It is about the word “respect”. All first nations I have been privileged to work with constantly remind us of the need for respect. For example, the language of the Nuu-chah-nulth people uses the word eesok to connote that concept of respect. First nations have demanded that we establish a new relationship grounded on this bedrock principle of respect.

There are two things I would like to speak to today in this context that are essential to meaningful, ongoing economic development that will work for the Inuit, the Métis and first nation peoples in Canada. They are consultation, and the recognition of self-government. The Conservative government simply must do a better job on consultation.

We all know the constitutional duty to consult and, where appropriate, to accommodate aboriginal and treaty rights. However, it is not through endless lawsuits that the concept of consultation will be determined. It is not through these rote exercises of counting how many meetings one attended or seeing who was there, tallying it up and seeing if a court will later say it was satisfactory. That is not what it is about. It is about respect. It is about communication and it is about establishing long-term relationships. These are the three things that will ultimately make the difference.

Courts are not going to accept going through the motions and lots of words. They have not in the past. They will insist on meaningful consultation and, as they have reminded us recently, this is grounded in the honour of the Crown. This will always be the touchstone of our relationship with first nations going forward.

As the recent Idle No More movement and aboriginal leadership has so passionately argued, the current government has weakened the environmental protection laws on which first nation communities depend.

The regrettable omnibus budget bills have failed to take into account treaty rights, the basis of the historic relationship between the Crown and first nation people.

In some parts of the country, notably British Columbia and the north, there were no historic treaties, and so it is section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that is the basis of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title, as enshrined.

Aboriginal communities simply have a right to participate in the management and disposition of lands and resources over which they have asserted claims, even if those claims have not yet been recognized by the courts or finally resolved.

In more modern times in British Columbia, the duty to consult and accommodate has simply not been observed by the government. For example, the application by Enbridge to build its bitumen pipeline from the oil sands to Prince Rupert has attracted vociferous opposition from first nations across the province. They are joined by the majority of non-aboriginal British Columbians in saying they oppose this deeply flawed proposal.

The vast majority of first nation communities have said no to this kind of dangerous pipeline and tanker project, as have the people of British Columbia by majority. The risks we are being asked to assume are simply unacceptable. As a recent candidate in a coastal community like Victoria, there is enormous opposition to this project by aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike. I think it is time for the government as well to say no to the kind of shortsighted development that Enbridge represents. It simply has to do a better job with consultation.

Turning to self-government, what does that mean? It means, according to Stephen Cornell of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, three things: that jurisdiction counts, self-government matters, that effective governing institutions are essential and that these governing institutions must be appropriate for the cultures in which they are situated. In short, good government matters.

That is why I would like to salute the excellent work being done by Miles Richardson, former president of the Haida nation, who is now working as a senior associate with the Institute on Governance. The objective is to improve governance arrangements for first nations so they can be more effective partners in economic development.

As I mentioned, the government institutions have to be culturally appropriate and have the support of the people. As Professor Cornell states:

Institutions that match contemporary indigenous cultures are more successful than those that don’t.

In conclusion, I know that the Conservatives will simply say that budget 2013 is all about job creation and economic development and that first nations will benefit as other Canadians do. That is the mantra.

However, without the real application of the constitutional requirements of meaningful consultation and a recognition of self-government and government-to-government relationships, this economic development will not occur and will not be meaningful on the ground of first nations.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech.

I have two questions for him off the top. First, this is an opposition motion. It calls for joint work by all of us here in Parliament to improve the economic outcomes for aboriginal peoples. How does the member opposite, new to the House, square that objective, set in a motion by his party, with his opposition to the building of pipelines? Is it really by shutting down the development of Canada's natural resource sectors that we will improve economic outcomes for aboriginal peoples? That is the first question.

Second, would the member acknowledge that consultation and treaty relations have advanced under this government as never before, in that we have concluded 400 such agreements with first nations in only seven years?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member says that this party and this member is opposed to the building of pipelines, that grossly overstates what I said. I had reference to only one pipeline, a pipeline that has been, if not universally, by a vast majority of people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, rejected in British Columbia. It has been rejected because the kind of consultation that the government has undertaken has simply fallen short of the mark. That seems to be the key point to make in this regard.

Consultation has to start with the kind of meaningful recognition, the kind of respect of which I spoke during my remarks that I find lacking. Yes, there have been a process because the courts have demanded that there be process that is meaningful and that progress has occurred. It is simply not adequate as Idle No More and other first nation leadership have made so obvious to the government of the day. Yes, there has been a process and progress. Has that been adequate? Absolutely not.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Victoria on his inaugural speech, which was wonderful, informed and inspiring. I also want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her motion which we are debating today.

As the opposition finance critic, I have very close knowledge of the omnibus bills that the government has brought in to implement budget measures which include a vast array of legislative changes that have absolutely nothing to do with budgets. It gets to the fundamental issue the member for Victoria raised about respect, respect for democracy, respect for the process of Parliament and ultimately, as he said in his speech, respect for first nations.

I know he was not here through much of the budget debate, but could he comment about the importance of respect for first nations and what that means for strengthening democracy in Canada, that nation-to-nation respect?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bills address matters far beyond the purview of a normal budget measure. That is well known to all Canadians and a precedent that would seem to me to be retrograde.

The kind of legislative changes to environmental legislation, which are so critical in protecting the land, air and water on which first nations depend, integral to their culture, is something that obviously was faulty. The courts have said increasingly that legislation can also attract the kind of duties to consult and accommodate. The fact in particular, as I emphasized the treaty rights, not just aboriginal land rights, not just aboriginal rights that are founded in section 35, but the historic treaties on which first nations joined Canada and the royal proclamation of 1763 and the basis on which they became part of our national fabric, they were simply ignored in that process.

It is a matter before the courts and I would say the courts would find likewise. I suggest this lack of consultation applies to legislation of this kind when it is so integral to first nations, their culture and their way of life.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my colleague, the newly elected member for Victoria, who I know has a proud history of work with aboriginal people. It is certainly a pleasure to work with him in the House.

It is an honour for me to rise today to speak to the NDP motion, a motion that truly reflects the principles of the NDP and a motion that also truly serves as a test for the government.

This opposition day motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, and supported by all of us really goes beyond the day-to-day actions of the House and the day-to-debates of the House. It gives the chance to the House, to the government, to other opposition parties, to stand with us and recognize that we need to change course, that Parliament needs to change course and that first nations, Métis and Inuit people deserve better from Parliament.

We are recognizing the broad-based demand for action, and that is fundamental to who we are as New Democrats, recognizing that the people who have started Idle No More, who have been part of the rallies, who have been part of the flash mob round dances, who have been part of the workshops and information sessions, who have been to Parliament, demanding meetings with ministers and, of course, with the Prime Minister, are saying that things need to change.

I am also honoured to rise as the MP for Churchill in support of the motion. I have the pleasure of representing 33 first nations across northern Manitoba and many Métis communities.

I come from a vibrant part of Canada, with tremendous diversity, with a very rich history and tremendous opportunity. However, there is no question that the challenges we face in the north are tremendous, and those challenges are even greater and more extreme for many aboriginal people in northern Manitoba.

Aboriginal people in northern Manitoba and across Canada face extreme levels of poverty and high unemployment. In my consistency alone, 42% of aboriginal people have less than a high school diploma. Many of them live in conditions that can only be characterized as third world.

In fact, we know that at the international level, first nations in Canada are rated 63rd on the United Nations' human development index. That reality is not just in numbers. It can be seen clearly if one visits any of the first nations in northern Manitoba and so many across Canada. People will see substandard housing, with 10, 15 and over 20 people sharing one home because there is inadequate housing. People succumb to illness, like the basic flu, in much greater numbers because there is no running water in their communities. Young people reach the point of wishing to take their own lives and many unfortunately we lose to suicide because they feel they have no hope and nothing to live for. So many people from communities unfortunately fall through the cracks and end up in the correctional system, making it so Canada has some of the highest rates of indigenous people in its correctional system, disproportionate to the number of indigenous people in Canada.

As many of us know, this is the result of a dark history of colonization and oppression. Unfortunately, government after government, at the federal level, have not managed to break free and chart a new course. Despite promises to do the opposite, they have shown, through their actions, that they are willing to continue the paternalistic, colonialist relationship that has been around for so long.

One need not look any further than the last few years in Parliament. The Prime Minister of Canada rose and gave an apology some years ago for the atrocity of the residential school experience.

I remember being at the offices of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, the head office of the northern chiefs, and sharing with so many people who were moved, survivors, families of survivors, non-aboriginal people as well, by this apology, an apology that I am proud our late leader Jack Layton helped realize.

Instead of truly standing by those words of changing course and committing to a new relationship with first nations, Métis and Inuit people, the government did more of the same.

Bill C-38 and most recently Bill C-45 came up with a tremendous attack on treaty rights of first nations people and aboriginal rights more broadly. There was a lack of consultation at every step along the way, particularly when it came to control over treaty lands and the lands that aboriginal people hold title to.

Aboriginal peoples' voices, despite the constitutional responsibility to consult, were silenced and ignored by the Conservative government.

One wishes that was the end of the story. However, in the last few years there have been unprecedented cuts to organizations and institutions that truly speak on behalf and with aboriginal people. I would like to mention some of those: Sisters in Spirit; the First Nations Statistical Institute; the Aboriginal Healing Foundation; the National Centre for First Nations Governance; the Assembly of First Nations; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; Native Women's Association; the National Aboriginal Health Organization; Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada; and the list goes on.

In the fall of 2012 we heard that tribal councils and aboriginal political organizations, like in my region, the Keewatin Tribal Council, the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, MKO, SCO, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, would be cut disproportionately.

These are the voices of aboriginal people. These are institutions that look out for housing, education, advocate on behalf of communities, work in conjunction with band councils and fight for aboriginal communities that are, in many cases, remote and do not have a voice at the table.

The other side of the coin is that first nations, Métis and Inuit people have had enough. There is no better example than the last few months in our country, where we have witnessed what is singularly one of the most historic events in aboriginal people and their leadership in recent history. We have seen an unprecedented approach to fighting back against the government through the Idle No More movement, through the leadership and courage many leaders have taken, and through immense sacrifice.

I want to take a moment during my speech to recognize two people I can call friends: Grand Elder Raymond Robinson of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, who joined Chief Theresa Spence on Victoria Island to commit to a hunger strike in order to call the federal government to action, and Wilson Hartie from Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, who also was on a hunger strike, calling for the Prime Minister to act. These two men, their families and their communities took a stand. These two men made an ultimate sacrifice, asking all of us to act.

I also want to recognize the organizers of Idle No More in my home community, in Thompson: Lisa Currier, Clint Saulteaux, Val Charlette and the many people who helped to raise awareness and to worked with young people who said, “We've had enough”.

The opposition day motion today reflects those voices. Not only should the budget of 2013 commit to economic outcomes for first nations, Inuit and Métis people, but the government needs to commit to action on treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of aboriginal Canadians.

This has gone on long enough. We have a chance to stand with aboriginal people across the country and make history, to chart a new course that respects the treaties and truly honours the anniversary of the royal proclamation of 250 years, which we will celebrate this year. This is a chance to do much better and show the international community that in a country as wealthy as Canada its first peoples must live in dignity.

I want to share the words that both Wilson and Raymond shared with me on many occasions. They said to me, “I'm doing this for my children and my grandchildren. I'm not doing it for politics or for attention. I'm doing it for things to change”. I want to thank them. In their words and honour, I would like to ask the government and Parliament to finally change course, support the opposition day motion and commit to building a better day with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Churchill for her speech, but also for her continued excellent work on the aboriginal file. I know that in the days when the funding was sunsetting for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the member for Churchill led the charge to try to have that funding reinstated, and that is just one of many things she has undertaken over the years that I have known her in this House.

My question for the member is specifically on relationships. We have heard today the government members get up time after time and talk about the bills they have put forward and the schools they have built and the investments in education. Yet what we know is that over the last months and years, what we consistently heard from first nations, Inuit and Métis is that the Conservative government does not get it. In fact, over the last several weeks we have had people from coast to coast to coast do teach-ins and round dances and blockades, trying to bring to the Conservatives' attention that their approach is simply failing.

Could the member comment on how this really does need to be a reset of a relationship, that it needs to be a relationship built on respect, on trust and on true partnership? Could she comment on how she sees that relationship moving forward?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, a strong advocate and somebody who is doing tremendous work to bring us to this opposition day motion that we are debating today.

It really is, at its most fundamental level, a discussion of relationships. Earlier this week I spoke to an activist who said that one of the most important things, when we talk about working with indigenous people, is truly the sanctity of relationships and a relationship of respect. Unfortunately, the federal government has broken any initial trust that may have existed. Certainly many people in my neck of the woods would not believe the Conservatives anyway.

However, the government does have a chance to press the reset button, to sit down and listen and to commit to a longer-term plan that is founded on treaty implementation and on respecting treaty and aboriginal rights, and that ultimately recognizes that, when building a relationship founded on respect happens, only then can we move forward. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have yet to show that kind of a commitment. One way of beginning to show it would be by supporting an opposition day motion, but the reality is that first nations, Métis and Inuit people want to see action. They want to see investments made when it comes to education. They want to see a discussion on resource sharing. They want to see a discussion around sustainable development and protecting the environment and treaty lands. Unfortunately, the current government is not there.

Certainly, many people I have the pleasure of working with are proud of the NDP's leadership and its solidarity with aboriginal people in this country, and I look forward to the day when we can be in a position of government, where we can truly implement the kind of relationship that aboriginal people in this country have deserved for so long.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 5, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that we see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Hydroelectric Project

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, a government loan guarantee to the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project is: (a) an important part of a clean energy agenda; (b) an economically viable project that will create thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth; (c) regionally significant for the Atlantic region, which will benefit from a stable and sustainable electricity source for decades to come; and (d) environmentally-friendly, with substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions through the displacement of power from coal-fired and oil electricity sources.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth for the benefit of all Canadians. Our desire to foster the development of major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance and to create long-term economic growth and energy security for all Canadians was outlined at the outset of our majority Conservative mandate.

With these goals in mind, we are very pleased to see that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are moving forward with the Lower Churchill River projects, which are being undertaken by Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown-owned energy corporation, Nalcor Energy, and by Emera Inc. of Nova Scotia.

As members know, the Lower Churchill River projects comprise the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric generating station and three transmission lines: one between Muskrat Falls and Churchill Falls, another between Labrador and the Island of Newfoundland, and a sub-sea transmission line connecting Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

These projects offer substantial economic and environmental benefits to the entire Atlantic region. The clean, renewable hydroelectricity that will be generated by the Muskrat Falls could reduce carbon emissions by up to 4.5 megatonnes every year. In fact, once the projects are fully operational, the Newfoundland and Labrador electricity supply will be 98% emissions-free.

This will further contribute to Canada's already impressive supply of non-emitting electricity. As all members know, three-quarters of our current electricity supply is produced by non-emitting sources, and much of it comes from hydroelectric projects. Indeed, the projects will allow Newfoundland and Labrador to achieve complete energy independence using a clean and renewable source.

As well, the power generated from Muskrat Falls will contribute to Nova Scotia meeting its renewable energy targets and displace coal-fired electricity generation in that province.

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4.5 million tonnes annually, which according to estimates is the equivalent of approximately 1 million cars off the road, the Lower Churchill project will also generate $1.9 billion in revenue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This brings me to the motion that we are debating today. Clean energy is an important issue to my constituents, as it is to all Canadians across the country. In my role as the chair of the all-party clean tech caucus, I feel that a motion affirming our government's support for these renewable projects is appropriate.

Private member's Motion No. 412 offers all members of the House an opportunity to express their support for the Lower Churchill River projects, both in terms of what they mean for greenhouse gas reductions in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and in terms of their enormous economic potential.

The benefits of these specific projects include energy self-sufficiency; a clean, renewable and reliable source of electricity that will lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as coal- and oil-fired power generation are displaced; stable electricity rates for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; thousands of jobs created during the construction phase; economic spinoffs for other industrial sectors; and a maritime transmission link that will provide stable, sustainable energy throughout the region.

The Government of Canada has agreed on the terms and conditions for a federal loan guarantee, giving these vital energy projects a solid endorsement, and today we stand by this endorsement. Muskrat Falls will help meet the energy needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the electricity needs of many Nova Scotians.

The Government of Canada believes that the Lower Churchill River projects are fully justified for the following fundamental reasons. They will provide enormous economic and environmental benefits as they are truly in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Nova Scotians and in fact all Canadians.

Unfortunately, in yet another attempt by the opposition to stop development of any kind, the leader of the Green Party has spoken out against this project saying that it should be reconsidered because renewable forms of energy other than a large hydroelectric plant should be pursued.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has looked at other options for new sources of energy. They carefully considered the potential for wind power and they looked at the possibility of natural gas generation. However, every analysis of these options favoured the development of hydro power. It is reliable. It is a steady and secure source of clean energy and is available at an affordable cost, which is exactly what the lower Churchill River projects will deliver.

Furthermore, the member should know that her statements have been contradicted by the findings of several independent third-party analyses commissioned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and by Nalcor. Numerous analyses indicated that the projects are economically viable, even with the increased cost estimates, that they will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that they will create jobs across Atlantic Canada. Specifically, the lower Churchill project will result in an average of 1,500 jobs during each year of construction, with a peak employment during construction of approximately 3,100 people.

For these reasons, on November 30, 2012, the Government of Canada announced an agreement with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, on the terms and conditions for a federal loan guarantee for the lower Churchill River projects. This project will further benefit all of Atlantic Canada.

Nalcor intends to use 2 million megawatt hours of renewable energy from Muskrat Falls to replace the 490 megawatt Holyrood oil-fired plant. In addition, the connection to the North American grid, coupled with the increased backup capacity resulting from the projects could strengthen opportunities to further develop other renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. These projects will certainly contribute to the Government of Canada's objective to reduce Canada's greenhouse gases by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, comparable to U.S. efforts.

It is well-known that Canada is halfway to meeting our goal due to the measures and regulations implemented by our Conservative government. The project will also bolster Canada's good standing internationally as a world leader when it comes to energy. In fact, the International Energy Agency recently called for a doubling of the world's hydro power by 2050 in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Canada, with operations such as the lower Churchill River projects and other hydro developments in Manitoba, Quebec and B.C., is in a very strong position to help support this ambitious environmental goal.

In conclusion, there is no question that renewable energy is a large part of Canada's economic advantage in the global economy. There is no question that Canada's status as the world's third largest producer of hydroelectricity puts us in a position to continue to lead in the development of hydroelectricity. With this in mind, and with the many benefits that it will bring to Canadians, I strongly support private member's Motion No. 412 and our government's commitment to these projects. I look forward to the day when the ribbon is cut on the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric power generating station and I look forward to all members of the House supporting Motion No. 412.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that Canada could become a world leader in renewable energy. The NDP believes that the federal government must make this transition a fair one for all of the provinces, including Quebec.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Why is it that the governments of this Prime Minister and his Liberal predecessors ignored the economic opportunities of a green transition for too long?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is all about jobs and growth in the economy. This opportunity is not only about jobs and the economy, but about a cleaner environment as well. It is a win-win situation.

This particular opportunity is regional development. It is accorded to all provinces to work hand in hand. This development would have regional significance for power in the region. We invite all provinces and regions to get together to create similar opportunities.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians currently pay the highest electricity rate in Canada. High electricity rates are a job killer. They hurt our competitiveness and make it difficult for many Nova Scotian families struggling to make ends meet.

As the Utility and Review Board conducts its review in Nova Scotia and considers various options for hydroelectric power, if it is determined, for example, that there are also opportunities to access Hydro-Québec power through an upgrade of the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick connector, which we are told would be about $200 million, would the federal government provide a similar loan guarantee to that connection?

It is absolutely fundamental that Nova Scotians have access to the most competitive hydroelectric power. We certainly want access to hydroelectric power and we want the best deal for Nova Scotian ratepayers. Will the federal government, in the same spirit as this private member's motion, also potentially upgrade the connection between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to access Hydro-Québec power as part of this?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my previous answer, our role as government is to create jobs and economic development. If we can further environmental concerns in the process, that is great. We are providing this regional development in a way that all provinces and regions are welcome to produce whatever proposals they have. Hydroelectric power is the most affordable, greenest and cleanest power. That is why we want to move in this direction.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has said already, this project is important to all Canadians, especially those in Atlantic Canada.

Also, as the member mentioned, from the first Speech from the Throne on our majority Conservative mandate, we will support any clean energy project that is economically viable, substantially lowers GHG emissions and is of regional or national significance, and certainly this project is that.

Can the member please share with the House the expected benefits of this particular project?