House of Commons Hansard #155 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consultation.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
In order to form government, Conservatives promised Canadian families that they would help create 125,000 child care spaces. In the years since, they have created none, and now the Conservatives are attacking their own workplace daycare policy, unilaterally cancelling a critical subsidy that allowed a non-profit daycare to operate in a federally owned building.
Why have the Conservatives abandoned families that need access to affordable child care?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, we have done the opposite through our significant, in fact enormous, increases in the Canada social transfer to provinces. They have been able to use part of those funds to create over 175,000 additional daycare spaces, compared to 2006.
Last month the Prime Minister announced that this government will be increasing the child care tax deduction that will provide further assistance to families using institutional child care, in addition to which, of course, the child tax benefit package will deliver, on average, $1,200 in incremental benefits to families with children in a way that respects the choices they make.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are not going to build the 125 spaces they promised, they could at least stop shutting them down.
Last week, Ottawa lost Tupper Tots, a non-profit daycare, because the government killed the federal workplace daycare policy.
Right now, dozens of parents in Ottawa are desperately scrambling to find care for their children. There are nine other similar sites and centres across Canada, four of them in Ottawa.
The question is: Will the government work with those of us who want to preserve these child care spaces and make sure there is child care for these families and others?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the precise subsidy to which the member is referring. I can tell him, however, that the government is increasing the child care tax deduction, which will assist parents who pay for institutional child care.
Of course, we have announced billions of dollars in additional support for families with kids, including through the child tax benefit. All together, these benefits will amount to about $1,200 in incremental support for the average family with pre-school children. That is considerable support that respects the choices of families.
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada is ranked number one in the G7 for our support for scientific research and development in our colleges and universities. Science powers commerce, creates jobs, and improves the quality of life for all Canadians.
Can the Minister of Industry please update the House on the exciting announcement the Prime Minister made in Markham earlier today?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, today in Markham, the Prime Minister announced the Canada first research excellence fund. This follows through on our commitment in the budget to support Canada's universities.
I think, as are all Canadians, we are incredibly proud of the universities we have and the great work they do, such as the world-class engineering schools at the University of Waterloo and University of Toronto, the brain research centre out of the University of British Columbia, the pediatric AIDS research that is being done at McGill University.
We want to take this research that is being done across the country and boost it, so that Canada will continue to lead the world in academic research and be proud of these great institutions.
The Prime Minister made this announcement, $1.5 billion over the next seven years, and we are going to continue to lead the world.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Prime Minister appointed Mark McQueen as the head of the Toronto Port Authority. The federal guidelines that govern the political activities of Governor in Council appointees clearly state that public office holders should not participate in political activity. Under the guidelines, contributing money to political parties at any level of government is explicitly forbidden. In 2008, Mr. McQueen donated more than $1,000 to the Conservative Party. This is a violation of the rules.
Will the Prime Minister immediately dismiss this port authority member, and will the party give back the dirty money?
Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the guidelines state that public office holders must consult the guidelines to ensure that political activity does not impair their ability to discharge their public duties. In this particular case, Mr. McQueen's Twitter feed is personal in nature, and the exchange in question with the member opposite stems from a long-standing pre-existing relationship
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, by allowing Canada Post to eliminate home delivery, the Conservatives have been willing accomplices. While the city of Laval has been talking about adapting its services to the needs of an aging population, Canada Post and the Conservatives are making things harder on seniors.
Next year, the people of Chomedey, Îles-Laval, Laval-Ouest, Laval-sur-le-Lac, Sainte-Dorothée and Fabreville will lose their home delivery services. Why is the government cutting our public services?
Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the government is doing no such thing. Canada Post is obviously an arm's-length crown corporation that makes its own decisions. It is confronting a problem where 1.2 billion fewer letters are being delivered in 2013 than in 2006. In order meet that, Canada Post came up with its five-point plan. The member should be well aware of those particular steps.
By the way, it was not so long ago that the FCM examined this particular issue by way of a motion and defeated it by nearly two to one.
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Through our government's investments, we are ensuring that northern Ontario is well positioned to reap the benefits of economic development. However, many small communities in northern Ontario have limited capacity to undertake economic stimulus projects.
Could the President of the Treasury Board share with this House what our government is doing to create jobs in northern Ontario communities of all sizes?
Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for the great job he is doing representing his constituents and representing the values and interests of northern Ontario. I share with him in that capacity, as well.
In fact, the hon. member for Kenora, the minister responsible for FedNor, is in Sudbury as we speak, making another announcement for community investment, for jobs and opportunity in northern Ontario. That is what we do. We are there for communities.
While the other side is trying to find new ways to create a new long gun registry to go after law-abiding duck hunters and farmers, we are looking after the real interests of northern Ontarians, and we will continue to do so.
Jonathan Tremblay NDP Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve has been recognized by UNESCO since 1988. This is a unique conservation site that helps the region grow and helps put it on the map.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives cut funding for this reserve in 2012. Now, it could lose its international status and recognition. The people of Charlevoix are working together to maintain this recognition. Will the minister help the reserve or will he ignore Charlevoix and biodiversity in Canada?
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to protecting our environment. Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected wildlife areas, three national wildlife areas, two national parks, and a national historic site.
We are committed to our national sites, and it is a shame that the NDP does not support this action.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be heading to the COP 20 climate negotiations taking place in Lima, and I know that the eyes of the world are on those negotiations to come up with—
The EnvironmentOral Questions
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor, and I would like to be able to hear the question.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, thank you. I was having difficulty being able to put forward what I believe is the common will of everyone in this place. It is, apparently, the avowed desire of the Prime Minister to see a comprehensive, legally binding treaty—or at least comprehensive involving all nations around the world—for climate action.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Would we agree, when numbers get bigger over time, that something is rising? We keep hearing that greenhouse gases are falling in this country, but they do not meet that definition.
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about international agreements, we have stated consistently that, in any agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all major economies and emitters must do their part.
Recently, we saw the U.S. and China, who account for 39% of global greenhouse gas emissions, get together and have some discussions. Canada only emits 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2012, for example, to answer the member's question, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were roughly 5% lower than 2005 levels, while the economy grew over 10% during the same period. It will continue to do this without a job-killing carbon tax.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again this week, the NDP, as official opposition, has proposed practical changes and policies to the Canadian people.
Last evening, we had a vote on proportional representation, to bring in a fair and just voting system. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party voted against our motion, even though the public is becoming increasingly interested in this issue.
The other offer this week was the historic motion offered by my colleague from Vancouver East, which the NDP brought forward to finally put into place adequate compensation for victims of thalidomide, which passed overwhelmingly from the House, and on which we will hopefully be seeing action within the next few days.
There are only 16 sitting weeks in the life of the government, 16 sitting weeks before Canadians can put an end to the current government.
My question for the government House leader is quite simple. What will the government put on the agenda next week for the Canadian public?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.
Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.
On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.
After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.
Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.
Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.
The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.
Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.
Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.
After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House. Today we are speaking to Senate bill S-6, An act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
It is interesting that the bill is coming before us the week that the Yukon Supreme Court just struck down the efforts by the Yukon government, another right wing government, to ignore consultation, ignore environmental due process, ignore first nations in its push and attack on the Peel valley watershed. The supreme court said that it cannot do that. There is a social licence issue here when we are looking at development issues, and the court has thrown it back.
This is a pattern, and we are going to talk about it in the bill. The government thinks it can get ahead of social licence by just bringing in omnibus legislation, by stripping regulations, by doing things in the back room in order to kick-start mega development projects on which it has failed to do its basic due diligence and consultation, especially with first nations, who have enshrined constitutional rights under section 35. In doing so the government ends up creating a situation like the one we have now.
The government's militant advocacy of the big oil agenda has created a backlash across the country. It is a backlash where people say “You stripped the waters act of 99.999% of the lakes and rivers in our country so that the pipelines could get through without having to worry that there are basic protections in place.” Then it goes into the communities and they are saying “Are you kidding me? You're going to run bitumen through my town when there are no shut off valves on either side of the lakes and rivers?”
I represent probably one of the largest mining regions in Canada, if not in the world. When I talk to the mining companies in my region they get it. They understand the importance of having what we call “treaties on the ground”. We need to have the support of the local communities. Some of the ways to do that is by meeting environmental standards and through first nations consultation. Talk to anyone in the Ontario mining industry today about the possibility of getting a project off the ground, and they will say that without that consultation, it is not going to happen
We see a bill come forward like Bill S-6 that is unilaterally rewriting Yukon's environmental and socio-economic evaluation system. It is ignoring the issues of first nations consultations. It ignores the incredible economic value of the landscape and natural resource beauty in Yukon. This is another attempt to bypass the people of the country and create consensus on what development should look like. I believe it is only going to end up in another failure and impasse, going all the way back to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline days of these mega projects. If they are not done in a balanced manner, they are not going to get done at all.
Having travelled across the country from one end to the other, having done some of it in the back of a cheap little mini van with a band and other times as a sitting politician, I have never seen a section of the country that has taken my heart as much as Yukon. I love St. John's, Newfoundland, and my family roots—
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let the member throw me off. I have been in Cape Breton. However, everywhere I have gone, my wife asks, “Is it as pretty as home?” I say in response, “It's nice, but it's not home.” When I went to Yukon for the first time, my wife asked me, “Is it like home?” I said, “Well, this is the one place that might actually move my heart.”
Fortunately, where I live in the incredible Cobalt—Temiskaming region, with the beautiful white pines at Temagami, there are incredible opportunities for canoeing—not that I canoe, by the way. If I cannot see it from a car window I do not go there. However, I encourage everyone else to come. I will stay where I am in northern Ontario. However, there is something magical about Yukon.
I say this in all seriousness, because when I am in Yukon and I go to the hotels and see all the people who fly over from Germany, when they come to Canada, their idea of Canada is about these incredible natural resources. They come to Yukon. They fly in from Japan and from all over the world.
Therefore, when we balance the incredible natural resources, we also have to balance the other interests. We certainly know that in my region, which is a very heavy mining region. It has the deepest base metal mine in the world, the Kidd Mine. It was discovered in 1964. It has pretty much the largest gold mines in operation. Hollinger Mines is just reopening now. My grandfather, Charlie Angus, was killed at Hollinger Mines. It was the largest gold mine in the western world. After a hundred years, it is being reopened. Dome Mine is still running. No matter how rich they are, these are finite resources.
We have to find ways to ensure value added. We have to ensure that when we develop these resources, it comes back. I have to admit that in Ontario, the Conservatives have not been very bright on this. Their idea of the north is that it is some kind of colony: the north gets the money and it goes down south. When a mine shuts down, they tell us in the north, it is too bad, so sad, we were never meant to stay.
However, we can do things better. In Yukon, with the spirit of the people there, the incredible natural resources and their sense of community, they have a right to have an active say in whether development will occur, and whether it will occur in mining, hydro development, in oil and gas, or if the land will be maintained in its natural state. That was the fight about the Peel valley watershed.
Bill S-6 would dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment that was developed in the Yukon, by Yukoners, for Yukon. There has been a complete lack of consultation with first nations, which is not surprising for the current government. The Conservatives just do not understand that these are constitutional obligations; they cannot get over it and they cannot get under it.
The Conservative government, with the full assistance of a local Conservative MP and the senator from Yukon, is forcing a pro-southern-resource agenda down the throats of Yukoners. That is what I heard when I was last in Whitehorse regarding what was happening in the Peel valley. Conservatives see this watershed and they know that there is incredible value in it.
Yukoners do not like that they are being sold down the river for the benefit of companies that are going to be fly-by-nighters, which might be here today but could be gone tomorrow.
There are a number of amendments in the bill that the people of the Yukon we have been talking with have been discussing and certainly the incredible workers of the New Democratic opposition in Yukon as well. The amendments would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to provide binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. Yukoners are like northerners, so the idea that a minister in his office gets to decide what they are going to do is just not on.
Here is another one that is just typical of these guys. It would introduce legislated time limits for assessments. Conservatives wonder why their pipelines are going nowhere. Regarding public assessments, now people have to write and apply to be able to be part of the public consultation, and the government gets to decide whether people will be accepted. No wonder the National Energy Board is coming up with big blanks time and again. Using the same strategy they are using with the National Energy Board, the Conservatives want to be able to introduce these legislated time limits for assessments. We have certainly seen in northern Ontario that when they do that and ignore due process, there will be a backlash, because they are not respecting social licence.
It would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to delegate any or all of the responsibilities to the Yukon government. There are federal responsibilities here because these are federal lands, and also because of the fundamental legal obligations that the federal crown has to first nations. They cannot delegate those away just because they figure that the local government is going to be more amenable to ignoring their legal and constitutional obligations.
It would create broad exemptions for renewals, amendments, permits, and authorizations. I have seen that with the attempted development of resource projects. In our region in northern Ontario, we have seen that once they get a permit and it becomes a rubberstamp, they can vastly expand an operation and its impacts. They need to be able to go back to the people and say what the impact is.
The people of Yukon have lived there. The newcomers feel as passionately about it as the original people of the land. This is their land. They will always be there. The mining companies are going to come and go. They will change ownership and some of them will make money and go on and become another company or go bankrupt, but the resource they are playing with is the resource of the people of Yukon.
We have seen a number of really strong voices on this issue. I have enormous respect for Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson and her passion for the people of Yukon. What is sorely missing is a willingness to engage in an open and honest manner. We need a relationship built on dialogue and respect rather than lawsuits and secret negotiations, which again is the fundamental pattern that is undermining development projects across Canada.
Conservatives believe that if they ignore consultation and public processes and do things through backroom regulations, lo and behold there will be all these pipelines and mining projects. I can say, from being on the ground in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, that if there is no social licence, that project is not going ahead, full stop. That is the end of it.
I have an editorial from the Yukon News. The title is, “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”. This is from June 13, 2014. It states:
A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour
—that is not parliamentary, but I am just reading it—
for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are Senator Daniel Lang and [the] MP [for Yukon] who are supposed to ensure that the interests of Yukoners are represented in Ottawa. Instead, they’ve kept the public out of the loop, other than [the member for Yukon] uttering vague generalities about the forthcoming changes without offering any meaningful specifics. Shame on them.
That is a direct quote from the Yukon News.
We need binding policy direction, and we need it from the federal minister to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. We need to make sure that the Conservatives are not undermining the basic rights of protection and consultation through the devolution process.
The government always brags about consultation but ignores the voices of the people who are mostly directly impacted. We have heard the Council of Yukon First Nations Grand Chief Ruth Massie say there was not adequate consultation and that if there is not adequate consultation before this bill is passed, the council will take legal action.
Once again, we see a government that decides that if it ignores its legal obligations, it somehow just might get away with it. The Yukon supreme court this week said no way, that it is not going to happen, so the Peel planning process has to start again.
There have been numerous pieces of legislation that the government has been warned do not meet the constitutional requirements of this country, but that have been forced through anyway and turned back. This is not how to develop resources in this country.
Before the election in 2004, I had the great honour to work with the Algonquin Nation in the La Verendrye park region of Quebec and up through the Abitibi region. At that time, the communities watched as millions and millions of dollars of development, hydro resources, forestry, and mining left the territories. No one local was ever hired. The only way they ever got attention was through blockades, threats of injunction, and protests.
The people in the community asked what would happen if they could put their resources into negotiating and building a relationship with the forestry companies so they could benefit from their territories and have them recognized as unceded lands. No treaties were ever signed, including for the Algonquin lands in northeastern Ontario. They said that if they put their efforts into consultation and building a relationship, communities and the regional economy might start to develop.
That conversation took place 14 years ago in northern Quebec and northern Ontario in the Algonquin communities I worked in, and in the 14 years since I have seen how dramatic the change has been. The mining companies get it. They will now go to communities and have discussions. It is not always easy. We have a long way to go and a lot of problems to work out, but we are a lot further down the road than we were.
I see northern communities like Timmins, Kirkland Lake, and Black River-Matheson that are dependent on mining resources. They get it that if they are not talking in partnership with the Mushkegowuk Cree, the Wabun Tribal Council, and their Algonquin neighbours, the development will not happen.
I ask my hon. colleagues on the government side why they are ignoring the pattern of the refusal to consult, the undermining of environmental regulations, and the stripping of local authorities and local people of consultation in order to pursue a mining, fracking, or oil agenda that is going to be defeated in the courts, just as it was defeated this the past week in the Yukon supreme court, and just as it has been defeated with Kinder Morgan and Burnaby Mountain. It is the issue of a social licence.
I want to go back to Bill S-6. There are parts of this bill that are largely housekeeping, which can be part of any bill. The fact that it would dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process developed in Yukon for Yukoners is a non-starter for the New Democratic Party. New Democrats are not going to go there, because we are on the side of ensuring sustainable development, development that is long term and based on the principle that we have been given.
We have incredible resources in our country, and these resources have to be treated with the respect they deserve. Instead, we see this kind of gambler's economy.
I was talking with a Yukon MLA about the attitude of the Yukon government and the similarity with the Conservative government on the belief that if it could get the resources as fast as it could and get them out of the ground as fast as possible, and these are finite resources, that somehow everything would be better off and that we should not worry about the economic impact or the environmental impact. That is not a reasonable way to do development.
I would like to point out, as well, that in my region we have the Ring of Fire. It is part of the great region of Timmins—James Bay. It is another incredible resource. The Ring of Fire is sitting there among some of the poorest fourth world communities. There is Webequie on one side, with Marten Falls and Ogoki Post on the other. These communities have been left out of the economic development plans from the beginning.
We have an enormous resource to do it right, but it has to be done in consultation. Nothing will happen in the Ring of Fire without the input of the Matawa people and then down river from them the Mushkegowuk people. Then I go into the non-native communities, and I hear the same message, that they want this thing done right.
Coming from a mining family on both sides and representing mining towns and living in a town where half the men in my community travel around the world working in mining, if we asked them about the Ring of Fire, they would say that if it is not done right, then we should leave it in the ground. If there is no value-added plan, it should be left in the ground. One miner said to me that this was the capital for our children's future. He asked why they would strip the bank account now to make some easy cash.
Instead of moving on in a nation-to-nation relationship on the idea of respect, the government believes that it can just change the regulations and everything will be fine. It might get taken to court. If the government does get taken to court, it will lose.
If we look at the legal precedents in terms of all the decisions about the legal rights of the first nations people in this land, it is an unbroken string of victories. It defines more and more, from Taku River, with the second Haida decision, and the Delgamuukw decision. We have been moving on.
Each of these rulings make it clear, and they are boxing government in more and more. Part of the reason the courts are acting in this way is because of the lack of good faith from the crown. The honour of the crown is continually undermining and abusing its fiduciary responsibilities.
I will go back, before I go on to Yukon, to my region and Treaty No. 9. When Treaty No. 9 was signed, it was to share the land. There was a promise of education. At the time of the signing, Ontario was an economic backwater and Toronto was just a little town then.
Treaty No. 9 resources turned Ontario into an international economic powerhouse. It was the hydro, gold, copper, iron and the forestry from Treaty No. 9 that created the Ontario economy, which was the juggernaut of the 20th century.
What did the people who signed the treaty get out of that? They got put on these internal displacement camps. All their economic rights were stripped. It does not say anything in the treaty about having their economic, cultural, religious and education rights stripped, or that they would be made wards of Duncan Campbell Scott who came north to sign the treaty.
There needs to be a day of reckoning on this. The communities I am in say that the reckoning is the respect that we move forward with. We cannot fix the past. None of us can. Knowing what has happened and knowing our obligations, we can move forward.
When I look at a bill that will fail the fundamental test of legal duty to consult, that treats the people of the region as though their voices will be less valued than the voices and interests of southern mining, I am seeing another bill that will be challenged in the courts. Like the Peel Watershed decision in the Yukon court, it is another bill that is eventually going down in defeat, and we will be back at square one.
The only thing that will come from this is bad faith. People I know in the resource industry do not want bad faith. They want peace on the ground. I hear that all the time. They want negotiations. They get the idea that if people in the local regions are not happy, then the project will not move forward.
