House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was service.

Topics

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the hon. member for Churchill.

We are committed to ensuring that first nation youth have the skills they need to enter the workforce and benefit from participating in the economy.

To help achieve this goal, the first nation and Inuit skills link program is one of two programs that our government administers under the first nations and Inuit youth employment strategy. The skills link program provides many different aspects, including wage subsidies for work placements and mentorship for youth who are not in school, to enable them to develop the valuable skills necessary to ensure full participation in the workforce. It includes work experience specifically in the field of information and communications technology. It includes activities designed to support aboriginal entrepreneurship. It also includes training experiences that support youth in acquiring skills needed for work placements. It includes career development information, including awareness and support activities like career fairs and leadership projects, career planning, and counselling activities. It also includes activities that promote interest in science and technology among aboriginal youth, including science camps, computer clubs, and activities that connect science and technology to traditional aboriginal knowledge. As members can see, there is a diverse amount of opportunities contained within the skills link program for aboriginal and Inuit youth.

In Manitoba, we have arrangements in place to deliver approximately $4.5 million to support skills link and summer work experience projects for 64 first nations and organizations this fiscal year. The skills link program aims to promote the benefits of education as key to labour market participation and to help first nation and Inuit youth overcome barriers to employment.

Another objective of the program is to introduce youth to a variety of career options and help youth acquire skills by providing stipends for mentored work experience, as well as support the provision of mentored school-based work experience and study opportunities such as co-operative education and internships.

Ultimately, we expect participating first nation and Inuit youth to have enhanced employability skills, increased awareness of the benefits of education, enhanced ability to make employment-related decisions, increased appreciation for science and technology as a viable career or education choice, improved attitudes toward the transition from school to work, and an increased ability to participate in the labour market.

These objectives and expected outcomes are consistent with, and support, our government's youth employment strategy skills link program. We will continue to invest in aboriginal youth through these innovative programs.

Our government is focusing on funding projects that generate tangible results. We will continue to support the delivery of essential programs and services through organizations that get results, contributing to the improved living conditions and economic development of aboriginal peoples, while respecting Canadian taxpayers.

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time my colleague has taken to share that message.

I know very well what the skills link program is about. The reality is that the government has committed funds that have not flowed at this point, we are talking about six months down the line, from that initial application.

I noticed the significant figure he mentioned in terms of Manitoba. My question, and what a lot of people are asking, is this. If the money has not flowed to two programs in the constituency that has the highest per capita indigenous population, where did that money go? Is there perhaps a political agenda here; that ridings represented by government members are having their programming approved rather than programs in ridings held by opposition members? I hope that is not the case. I would ask my colleague to look into these two cases to make sure that it is the youth who are being prioritized rather than political agendas.

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will commit to look into those two particular programs.

The only political agenda going on here is the fact that our government puts millions of dollars into the youth employment strategy for all Canadian youth across the country, including significant dollars for Inuit and aboriginal youth, and that member and her party consistently vote against that money. Therefore, they are asking where the money is to support these programs after they have voted against the money when it was placed in the budget in the first place. That is the political agenda we are seeing here.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue that now more than ever needs immediate action if we wish our children and our grandchildren to have a healthy planet and healthy lives.

Plus, rising carbon pollution is threatening our prosperity. I say pollution, because that is what it is. If a pollutant is anything that has harmful effects when introduced into air or water, then greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are pollutants, if there ever were any.

Instead of reducing this pollution, Environment Canada's own numbers show that we are on track to blow way past our 2020 emissions target of a 20% reduction and will release 734 megatonnes of greenhouse gas pollution in that year. That is a far cry from the government's own watered down target of 612 megatonnes. Much of that increase will be from the oil and gas sector, which the government first promised to regulate in, wait for it, 2009. Four environment ministers and five years later, industry is still waiting for rules that would give us carbon reduction and the energy companies certainty.

Today science is telling us that we have only a couple of years left to turn things around. The answer is not complicated. Most agree that a polluter pay approach is the fairest and most effective way to lower emissions. We pollute, we pay. It is simple. Implementing it is simple too. We just put a price on carbon emissions, as many other countries are already doing.

Putting an upstream fee on emissions as they come out of the ground will mean that only a handful of sources need to be regulated, and we will avoid the need for a huge bureaucracy measuring emissions from every smokestack and tailpipe in Canada.

Yes, this rising fee will mean carbon-intensive energy will cost more, and that is the entire point. Because of this price signal, the market would use less and would turn to less carbon-intensive alternatives. Conservatives claim to believe in market forces. This is the most efficient, market friendly way to reduce emissions.

We can eliminate the impact on most families by making it completely revenue neutral so that every dime collected from the fee is returned directly to Canadians to do with whatever they choose. If they use less energy, they will actually make money. If they do not, they will not. It is up to them.

The system is called fee and dividend, and I hope members will recognize that it is a much better option than cap and trade or a carbon tax. I know what some will say: putting a price on carbon by any method is a carbon tax, and that will kill jobs. No, fee and dividend would create new jobs. Let us not forget that under this definition, the government's own regulatory approach is a carbon tax.

Let us admit up front that no party wants a policy that kills jobs. However, do revenue neutral policies to internalize the price of emissions cause economic harm? We have one of the world's best answers to that question right here in Canada. B.C. implemented a carbon tax, and the sky did not fall.

In contrast to taxes, under revenue neutral fee and dividend, the government keeps none of the fee. Fee and dividend has the greatest potential to reduce emissions, being simpler and business friendly, and it would provide the best incentive of all for renewable energy alternatives: price. That is why the Citizens Climate Lobby is pushing hard for it.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, our government takes the challenges of climate change seriously.

For this reason, our government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our approach is achieving real reductions while providing regulatory certainty, driving innovation, and leveraging capital stock turnover to avoid locking in long-lived, high-emitting infrastructure.

We are aligning certain sectoral policies with the United States, given the degree of economic integration between our two countries. This approach allows Canada to maximize progress on reducing emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness.

We began implementing our approach by addressing two of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in this country: the transportation and electricity sectors.

In the transportation sector, we worked with the United States to put in place harmonized emission standards for new passenger automobiles and light trucks up to the 2016 model year vehicles, and issued proposed regulations for later model years. With these regulations, it is projected that the 2025 model year vehicles will produce 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than 2008 vehicles. We have taken the same approach to improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, such as full-sized pick-ups, semi-trucks, garbage trucks, and buses.

As a result of these regulations, greenhouse gas emissions from the 2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%.

In the electricity sector, our government's coal-fired electricity regulations further strengthen Canada's position as a world leader in clean electricity production. We have introduced a tough new regulatory performance standard for coal-fired electricity generation. With these regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units.

The fact is that no other government has done as much to reduce greenhouse gases as ours. As I mentioned, our approach is generating results, and Canadians can be proud of it.

As a result of our actions, Canada's 2020 emissions are projected to be about 128 megatonnes lower than what they would have been under the Liberals. It is important to note that this is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity generation plants.

Our government will continue to focus on a pragmatic approach to climate change that will reduce emissions while continuing to create jobs and encourage the growth of Canada's economy. We will achieve all of this without imposing a $20-billion carbon tax on Canadians as proposed by the opposition and the NDP.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, most MPs in this House, on both sides of the aisle, want to do what is best for Canada. We know that our job as MPs sometimes means making tough decisions, decisions we cannot avoid any longer. Looking at the government's own numbers, every MP knows we are not doing enough, whether or not their party will allow them to admit that publicly. Each of us knows that inaction on climate change will be far more expensive than taking action. We must pick our poison.

In Canada, so far the debate has been sadly polarized, like tonight, between cap and trade, which the U.S. is never likely to adopt, or a carbon tax, which political parties do not want to touch. Let us take the good advice of the Citizens Climate Lobby and support fee and dividend as the simpliest, fairest, and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a business-friendly way.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that since 2006 our government has taken action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a more sustainable environment through more than $10 billion in investments to support green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies, and the production of cleaner energy.

We are seeing successes. Greenhouse emissions have decreased while the economy has continued to grow. I think that is the first time that has ever happened. Canadians can also be proud of the fact that per capita emissions are at a historic low of 20.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person, the lowest level since tracking began in 1990.

We are committed to our approach, and it is working. Canadians can be sure that we will continue to oppose the NDP's $20-billion carbon tax.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

January 30th, 2014 / 6:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised that my question to the Prime Minister on December 5 just before our Christmas break was viewed by whomever categorizes my late show questions as one relating to natural resources, as I really feel it deals with first nations rights and the responsibilities of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The reality is that the question I raised deals with a critical issue in general and a very disturbing issue in particular.

On December 5, I asked my question of the Prime Minister. This was coincidentally the same day the Prime Minister created his own special task force and asked Mr. Doug Eyford to prepare a report on forging partnerships and building relationships with first nations in relation to proposed west coast energy projects.

When that report came out, it made it very clear what everybody already knew. The Supreme Court of Canada had made it abundantly clear that the federal government, provincial governments and corporations dealing with first nations rights and territories have a strong constitutionally protected requirement to fully consult in a meaningful way with first nations before participating in resource development on their land.

Mr. Eyford's report contained four points. He urged the Prime Minister to build trust, foster inclusion, advance reconciliation and then take action.

What I raised with the Prime Minister was the distressing case of what took place on Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi'kmaq community near Rexton, New Brunswick. The first nation community was dealing with an energy proposal, the non-conventional issue of hydraulic fracking. The community of Elsipogtog was widely supported by people in New Brunswick and adjacent communities, who were also concerned and did not want fracking. They were concerned about their groundwater.

The protests that led to arrests were against SWN, a Houston-based company, that wanted to do hydraulic fracking and seismic testing. This testing was supported by the New Brunswick premier but not by the people of New Brunswick and not by the Mi'kmaq people. Exploration testing was to be done without consultation with Elsipogtog and Mi'kmaq first nations in contravention of numerous court decisions, most notably the Marshall decision, which dealt specifically with Mi'kmaq first nations' rights. This first nation has unceded territory. No treaty could possibly be produced that would allow what has been going on in New Brunswick with the pressure for hydraulic fracking on first nations territory.

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

In the context of the increasing tensions in New Brunswick in the fracking protests there, does the Prime Minister recognize that he is legally bound by our Constitution to ensure that the Mi'kmaq of Elsipogtog are fully consulted in advance of any fracking on their unceded territory?

The Prime Minister responded by saying he understood his obligations and in fact had just received the report to which I referred moments ago from Mr. Eyford.

I remain deeply concerned about this incident as a representative of British Columbia and the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety about what could be coming if there should be, God forbid, a pipeline approved over first nations' territories where British Columbians and first nations do not want it.

If the example of what has taken place at Elsipogtog were to be played out in British Columbia, I would be deeply concerned. There was neither consultation nor was there an attempt to build trust, good relationships or reconciliation. Instead there were the violent RCMP arrests on what had been up to that moment a non-violent protest. We need an explanation.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is aware that fracking is mostly under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am happy to say that our government always strives to meet its constitutional obligations.

Aboriginal consultations are a key part of our responsible resource development initiatives. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our government is working to strengthen aboriginal involvement in Canada's resource sectors.

Canada's resource industries already employ some 32,000 aboriginal people, more than any other sector of our economy. This level of employment will only increase as we see more and more projects come forward. Indeed, over $650 billion worth of projects have been proposed, the majority of which are near or on aboriginal lands. These projects could have an enormously positive impact on the prosperity of aboriginal communities.

The member opposite has been clear in her opposition to resource development. I hope the member opposite will excuse me if we follow a different path.

Our government wants to ensure that we develop our resources responsibly to create jobs while ensuring that the environment is protected. Our government's plan for responsible resource development is improving Canada's regulatory system by reducing red tape and modernizing processes, while strengthening environmental protection and enhancing consultations with aboriginal peoples.

As my colleague mentioned, we are taking action. Douglas Eyford, Canada's special federal representative on west coast energy infrastructure, recently provided the government with recommendations that will support greater aboriginal participation in resource development. The themes of the Eyford report--trust, inclusion, and reconciliation--can guide all parties in building further the relationships that will underpin responsible resource development and the participation of aboriginal peoples. The report by the special federal representative is a solid basis for sustained engagement with west coast aboriginal people. It recognizes an opportunity for aboriginal communities to realize long-term benefits and to be partners in west coast energy development.

Our government has been, and currently is, engaging and will continue to engage with aboriginal communities on concrete ways to move forward on the recommendations in the report.

The Eyford report builds upon previous initiatives taken by our government to support aboriginal participation in the resource sectors. For example, in 2012 the federal budget provided more than $690 million for skills development, education, and infrastructure. In addition, our plan for responsible resource development includes a commitment to ensure that consultations with aboriginal peoples on natural resources projects are more consistent, accountable, meaningful, and timely.

The plan includes, first, the integration of consultations with aboriginal peoples into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes; second, the provision of $13.6 million over two years to support aboriginal consultations on projects; third, the designation of a lead department or agency as a single crown consultation coordinator for each major project review; fourth, negotiation with provincial and territorial governments to better align government processes and improve the involvement of aboriginal peoples; and fifth, the promotion of positive and long-term relationships with aboriginal communities to facilitate greater participation of aboriginal peoples in the direct and indirect benefits of new resource projects.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I did reference Mr. Eyford's report. However, it is clear from the events in Elsipogtog that it has certainly come too late for that relationship. There has been no consultation advanced.

While it is true that fracking is a provincial responsibility, the federal environment commissioner, in his fall 2012 report, found that for the parts that are federal, such as tracking toxic chemicals used in fracking, Environment Canada did not even have a full list of those chemicals used, and it always remains a federal fiduciary responsibility to ensure that first nations' rights are not being infringed upon through resource development.

As for the question of going forward in British Columbia and my opposition to resource development, I do not oppose resource development. I oppose the reckless, untrammelled rapid development of oil sands for the sole purpose of shipping out raw product. If the bitumen were being processed in Alberta, I think our discussions would be very different. However, all pipeline proposals are for raw bitumen mixed with a diluent that has to be purchased from Saudi Arabia.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, as our government has stated repeatedly, we will ensure that aboriginal consultations fully meet our duty to consult and are open and meaningful. We will continue meeting with first nations groups to strengthen the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and first nations.

Resource projects give aboriginal communities the potential to turn the high cost of isolation into a huge advantage of proximity. In fact, most mines and exploration properties in Canada are located within 200 kilometres of an aboriginal community. There are 400,000 aboriginal youth under the age of 15, representing a major wave of potential new entrants into the labour market, and over the next 10 years it is expected that Canada's resource sectors will need to hire thousands of workers.

The scale of economic activity is enormous and it is estimated that there is a potential of $650 billion worth of major resource projects in Canada in the next decade. Such development would create thousands of new jobs. Right now, the resource industries make up about one-fifth of our national economy, creating and supporting more than 1.8 million jobs across our great country. In addition to the good jobs they provide, the resource industries generate over $30 billion in royalties and tax revenues, funds that support schools, hospitals, and other vital services for all Canadians, including aboriginal communities.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)