Debates of Nov. 30th, 2016

Natural Resources

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we recognize that on big decisions there will be people on both sides of any important decision. We made a decision based on national interest to create good jobs and to make sure that we are consistent with reducing climate emissions by reducing the amount of oil by rail, for example. This is our commitment to Canadians: we will grow the economy in the national interest and protect the environment for generations to come. That is what we succeeded in doing where the Conservatives failed.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not succeeded yet.

The CBC receives more than a billion dollars a year from taxpayers. Now it is looking for an extra $400 million a year. That would mean another $46 for every man, woman, and child in this country, money that Canadians cannot afford. We are already $30 billion in deficit, and we cannot afford to keep spending. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadian families that they will not be on the hook for this, do the right thing, and just say no?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives have demonstrated that they do not understand the importance of cultural industries, of artists, and of creators, not just to Canadian identity but to growing the economy. The fact is that investing in the stories that bind us together as a nation, in both official languages, ensuring that Canadians understand each other's lives and experiences, is at the heart of the mandate of the CBC. Listening to Canadians is exactly why we are on this side of the House, and the Conservatives are stuck in opposition.

Natural Resources

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken passionately about reconciliation with first nations and a true nation-to-nation relationship. The words we use matter but the actions we take matter more.

With 59 first nations saying they were not meaningfully consulted on Kinder Morgan, how can the Prime Minister believe he has the social licence to proceed?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be people on both sides of a major decision. The fact that 39 different indigenous communities signed agreements worth over $300 million in benefits to them from the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and the fact that a number of indigenous communities are disappointed that we turned down the northern gateway process, shows that both sides have been listened to.

We made decisions in the best interests of Canadians.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister led many people to believe that he would do things differently than Stephen Harper did. He led many people to believe that he would never approve an energy project using the same flawed review process as Stephen Harper did. Today, many Canadians feel betrayed and misled.

Can the Prime Minister honestly tell them that things would have been different if Stephen Harper were still in power?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. By imposing a carbon tax across the country, by establishing an ocean protection plan that is unprecedented in Canada and elsewhere in the world, and by demonstrating that we understand the importance of working constructively with the provinces to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets, we have shown that we understand that the environment and the economy must go hand in hand.

The NDP has never understood that choices need to be made to create good jobs. In order to protect Canadians and their families, we need to protect the environment while creating jobs.

Indigenous Affairs

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, true reconciliation requires true consultations.

True reconciliation also means not taking first nations to court needlessly.

A Manitoba judge has struck down a pernicious requirement that residential school survivors must somehow prove the perpetrator's intent in cases of sexual assault of children.

Will the Prime Minister withdraw this despicable appeal that is making it even harder for residential school survivors to receive long overdue compensation?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a solemn commitment to create reconciliation with indigenous peoples across this country. The fact is that the investments we have made, the work we are doing to support indigenous communities, to protect children and to keep doing the good work that Canadians expect of us and that indigenous communities expect of us, to partner in respect and in a positive approach, is what we are going to continue to do.

Democratic Reform

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is this. Will 2015 be “the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”? Yes or no?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to ensure that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. That is why we are working with parties across the House and Canadians across this country to figure out how to best improve our electoral system. There is a broad range of opinions out there.

I very much look forward to the report of the committee tomorrow and to the consultation that we have launched directly with Canadians to weigh in on the values that they have. I encourage Canadians to look to their mailboxes next week and participate in the national survey, so we can hear their views on electoral reform.

Softwood Lumber

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, consultations with U.S. partners confirm two important things.

In 2006, we had a softwood lumber agreement thanks to prime minister Harper's very strong political will to resolve the matter.

The government of this Prime Minister was not firmly determined to renew the softwood lumber agreement and that has put us in a weak position.

The Prime Minister did not keep his word to resolve the softwood lumber agreement issue within 100 days of President Obama's visit, so can he resolve it now?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the softwood lumber agreement expired under the previous government.

Canada is prepared for any eventuality, and we will fiercely and proudly defend the interests of Canadian workers and producers. In the past, the courts have always ruled in our favour and we are confident that they will continue to do so. I will continue negotiating with Ambassador Froman in Geneva this weekend.

We are looking for a good agreement for Canada, not just any agreement.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement expired during the election campaign after 10 peaceful years for the forestry industry thanks to our former government.

It should come as no surprise that seven ministers of the current government opposed the softwood lumber agreement in 2006, when they were members of the official opposition.

Is this matter finally going to be taken seriously so that an agreement that is good for our 300,000 or 400,000 forestry workers is signed?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to protecting the Quebec and Canadian forestry regimes, and we will continue to include them in all our negotiations. We are convinced that the Canadian forestry industry operates in accordance with international rules. I was pleased to speak with Luc Blanchette, the Quebec minister of forests, wildlife and parks, last week, and I look forward to meeting with him again next week, together with the Quebec minister of economy, science and innovation, and my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources.

We are working on behalf of Canada and Quebec.

Natural Resources

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister tried to have it both ways on pipelines. He supported the Trans Mountain pipeline because of the science, the evidence, and the conditions imposed by the independent National Energy Board regulator. He said that the Liberals would not accept any political arguments against Trans Mountain. Then he killed the northern gateway pipeline, and the thousands of jobs that go along with it, based entirely on political arguments.

Why was the exact same independent regulatory process that was so good for Trans Mountain so bad for northern gateway?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the TMX and Line 3 projects received government approval because they met our standards on the environment, but not all pipelines meet these strict criteria.

The Government of Canada has directed the National Energy Board to dismiss the application for the northern gateway pipeline. After consultations, it has become clear that the project is not in the best interests of the local affected communities, including indigenous people.

The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline, and the Douglas Channel is no place for tanker traffic.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are completely making it up as they go along and have abandoned the scientific, evidence-based decision-making process.

The Prime Minister made a political decision to overrule the scientific, evidence-based decision of the NEB. There was nothing in the NEB's decision that said the northern gateway pipeline could not be built safely. This project would have created tens of thousands of jobs right across the country.

Why does the Prime Minister think his political interests are more important than the livelihoods of Canadian workers, and why did he kill these jobs?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we accomplished more in one year than they did in a decade. We listened to Canadians about how the environment and the economy go hand in hand—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I know that people feel very passionately about these topics, but the idea is that we allow each side to have their say. I am having a much easier time hearing the questions than the answers. It should be easy to hear both, as both are important.

Please listen to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these projects will create 22,000 direct, good-paying jobs for Canadians, including Albertans, and generate billions of dollars for our economy.

On this side of the House, we are supporting Canadian workers, and I encourage members opposite to join us.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the decision to reject northern gateway was based on politics and not evidence, and in doing so, the Liberals decided to pick winners and losers. Now, the losers today are the 31 first nation equity partners who were counting on these jobs for some opportunity for their first nations.

Pipelines are the safest way to transport oil, and so I have a simple question. Exactly what scientific reports did the Liberals use to confirm that Trans Mountain is safe but northern gateway is not?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that strong action on the environment is good for our economy. It makes us more competitive, fosters innovation, and reduces pollution. With the approval of these projects and with our announcement of the tanker moratorium, we are moving in the right direction.

These projects will create thousands of good-paying jobs for Canadians and generate billions of dollars for our economy.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 31 first nations and Métis communities, who are equity partners in the northern gateway pipeline, did not mince words. They said, “We are profoundly shocked and...deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister...would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development.” They went on to say that this decision “will eliminate significant financial and social benefits committed to our communities”.

They negotiated in good faith. Why are the Liberals robbing them of the opportunity for future prosperity?