Debates of June 19th, 2017

Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a larger issue, though, about the Liberal track record of creating uncertainty and ongoing regulatory changes for natural resources right across the board, whether it is for Yukon, LNG, pipelines, or energy development. I think all members in the House believe in the duty of the crown to consult in a robust and comprehensive regulatory process, balancing local concerns, first nations concerns, environmental concerns, and economic opportunities.

I hope, as we go forward, the Liberals become more unequivocal about their support for natural resources development right across the board for all Canadians, all the opportunities and prosperity that will provide for future generations, and the importance of natural resources development for all economies across Canada.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounded like the entire Yukon was doomed as I listened to the member's speech. I would like an explanation. I know of many regions in the country where there are strict environmental and social assessment rules and the economies in those regions generally go very well. I would like the member to point to examples or experiences where these kinds of rules exist and the economies of those regions have gone bust.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the track record of Canadian resource development, from LNG to pipelines, to oil and gas to mining is world class. Alberta, in particular, but Canada, in general, had long track record of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory assessment processes for all kinds of natural resources development, which always involved consultations with first nations people, as is the duty of the crown, as well as with stakeholders, assessments of economic opportunities, and balancing environmental sustainability. That is the very thing about Canada. We produce natural resources development in the most sustainable and responsible way in the world.

Not only do we export needed products across the globe, as well as technology and expertise, we also offer the world a decades-long track record of exactly how to do regulatory assessments in a way that is predictable, stimulates economic opportunities, prosperity in jobs for future generations, and unlocks the potential for natural resources development. It is only the left that seems confused about whether Canada has a strong regulatory process. We always have. We do in mining and all kinds of other energy development.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a litany of potential disaster on our natural resource development across the way. The Liberals are changing the assessment processes, bringing uncertainty to both natural resource development and environmental protection, putting political opinion and spin ahead of science, mocking first nations by refusing to respect transparency laws that are already in place, and playing games with people's lives through a carbon tax.

Does the member think the divisiveness being caused by the government is going to be more or less than the divisions caused by the Prime Minister's father?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the disconnect and the anger at Ottawa from the people I represent is greater and stronger than it has ever been in my lifetime. I would say that this Prime Minister is following down the exact same path as former prime minister Trudeau, his father, by pitting regions against regions, sectors against sectors, provinces against provinces, and people against people.

I hope that one day the Liberals will actually walk the talk about uniting Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As much as we are enjoying ourselves, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find it the will of the House to call it midnight at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Infrastructure

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a need for the federal government to listen to questions rather than mindlessly repeat Gerald Butts/PMO hive talking points, which are an insult to all Canadians.

In this case, the government member in his canned, mansplained response was confused about his own party's budget. If he had read the federal budget, on page 89 of the budget document, he would have seen it clearly states the budget would:

Transfer remaining uncommitted funds from older federal infrastructure programs to municipalities through the Gas Tax Fund in 2016-17.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. members that adjournment proceedings are in place, and there are members speaking. It is nice to see everyone get along and be glad to get out, but maybe just let us finish up in peace and quiet. Then we will get out of here faster.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the so-called uncommited funds from Conservative legacy programs were accumulated without raising taxes and when the federal budget had been balanced.

When the Liberal Party took office in November 2015, there was $837 million available for transfer to municipalities across the country. According to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, less than five months later, on budget day, $805,887,514 had disappeared. This left $30.1 million, which was transferred to the federal gas tax fund on March 31, 2017.

My question for the minister was this: Where did the money go? The talking point claimed, without answering the original question, and I quote from Hansard, March 10, 2017:

We have fulfilled that promise to transfer over to the gas tax funds the appropriate amounts allocated.

In fact, the federal government's own press release announcing the transfer of $30.1 million is dated March 31, 2017. The March 10 response was clearly intended to mislead the House, as the transfer occurred after I asked my question. More important, it did not address the question of the missing $805 million.

How else is the government misleading Canadians about infrastructure spending?

In response to an Order Paper question, the Liberal Party said, in November 2015, that $194,164 was available to be transferred to Prince Edward Island through the gas tax fund. By May 5, 2017, that figure had been changed to $12. By the government's own figures, the March 2017 transfer figure was then changed to $228,652.

Newfoundland and Labrador figures contain the same discrepancies. The original figure provided by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities was $1,404,252. That figure was then changed in response to another Order Paper question to read $1,012,269. It then claimed that $380,931 was available for the gas tax transfer, a substantially reduced figure from the $1,366,972 number that had already been provided by the federal government on a different document.

The figures provided by the Minister of Infrastructure for the Province of Quebec showed $208,416,418 available for transfer. This figure had been reduced down to $6,014,015 on the day of the federal budget.

In another sleight-of-hand response to another question to the government, the $208 million was changed to $104,783,324, with $5,844,612 the now revised amount available for transfer to municipalities through the federal gas tax fund.

Do members see the pattern? None of the figures add up.

Now we get to Ontario. The first figure provided as being available to transfer to municipalities through the federal gas tax transfer was $558,678,458. Four months later, the figure is $13,327,279. By the following year, the first figure had been reduced to $548,900,914, and the amount on budget day had been changed to $13,778,243.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is dedicated to ensuring that its investments support the infrastructure Canadians need and use every day.

Infrastructure Canada has worked closely with partners to expand eligibility requirements and accelerate the funding being delivered under its old programs and to quickly move forward with new programs to support projects across the country.

When we took office in November 2015, $837 million was lying dormant in outdated funds that were several years old and had not been allocated to infrastructure projects. Unlike the previous government, we have been working closely with the provinces and territories to identify projects and allocate those residual amounts before March 31, 2017. In one year, we were able to allocate more than $800 million from those old programs to infrastructure projects right across the country.

For instance, we contributed $47 million in federal funding to widen Highway 417 from Maitland Avenue to Island Park Drive in Ottawa. We allocated $21.9 million in federal funding towards renovating Saint Joseph's Oratory in Montreal. We also contributed $54 million in federal funding towards the construction of Le Diamant theatre, in Quebec City. The remaining $30 million from past programs was transferred to agreement holders at the end of March to allow Canada's communities to invest that money according to their priorities.

Since its introduction, the gas tax fund has provided more than $7 billion for municipal infrastructure projects in Ontario alone.

This permanent source of funding continues to offer local communities the flexibility to make strategic investments across 18 different project categories, including public transit, roads, culture, sport, and recreation. By funding the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and the building of new construction, the gas tax fund boosts local employment and growth of the middle class.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with provinces, territories, municipalities, and key stakeholders such as the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to ensure our municipalities continue to receive the support they need in a streamlined fashion and a consistent, coherent fashion to build strong and vibrant communities.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, so where did the missing infrastructure funds for Ontario really go if not the federal infrastructure bank, the pay-to-borrow scheme?

The $805 million missing federal infrastructure dollars were found sitting in Toronto buried in a line item as, and I quote from the 2016 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, unassigned “federal contributions to provincial infrastructure”.

The Liberal Party of Toronto received one big fat cheque from the Liberal Party in Ottawa for the missing $805 million, which was apparently used to deceive the provincial taxpayers of Ontario about balancing a budget.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal gas tax fund is predictable, flexible, long term, and stable funding that is crucial to community infrastructure. Municipalities have the flexibility to direct federal funding toward projects they identify as a priority.

Transferring the remaining $30 million from old programs to the federal gas tax fund is an effective way to support municipalities' investments.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with provinces, territories, and municipalities, as well as with key partners such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Union des municipalités du Québec to ensure that these people have the support they need to build and fulfill their needs and to build strong, stronger, and inclusive communities.

The Environment

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last time we had this conversation, we were talking about the government's willingness to support members of my community on Gabriola Island within my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in their opposition to the proposal for five new commercial deep sea anchorages. These are causing great concern in my community, as is evidenced by the hundreds of petition signatures I have tabled in the House.

Gabriola Island is my home along with thousands of other people in my community. I feel strongly about it, especially given that the proposal to establish new anchorages is to facilitate exports of thermal coal from Wyoming, which no U.S. port would allow to exit through their ports. The port of Vancouver, despite universal opposition from surrounding British Columbia municipalities, agreed to facilitate their exports.

It has no visible community benefits. It threatens our community and our coastline and is creating great anxiety. We do not want the Minister of Transport to approve these anchorages. Not going forward with these anchorages would have multiple benefits.

First is the respect for the rights of indigenous people. It is Snuneymuxw First Nation territory. The environmental overview assessment described the process as inadequate. It said, “the lack of public and First Nations consultation leaves potential for significant effects to occur within social components...”

Second, we could save our coast from an oil spill. Five years ago when I was chair of Islands Trust Council, three bulk carriers within Plumper Sound dragged their anchors and came very close to landing on the shoreline. The Department of Ecology oil spill coordinator on the Washington State side, Dale Jensen, said that damage to fuel tanks on a cargo ship that size could have oiled the islands on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

Third, cancellation would give time for the industry to fix its reputation in existing anchorages. Plumper South, Protection Island, and Cowichan Bay all experience ongoing visual diesel smoke, generator noise, and excess light pollution. Industry has not chosen to mitigate any of those consequences. Again, this is all downside, no upside for these communities.

Fourth, it would allow decisions to be based on science, facts and evidence. The Conservative Party having gutted the Fisheries Act means the habitat impact on fisheries in our area has not been assessed.

Fifth, it would protect species at risk. We both have glass sponge reefs, amazing treasures of the deep ocean in the Salish Sea, which are not fully mapped and explored. This is also a transit and feeding area for the southern resident orca whale, which is listed as endangered or threatened under the Species at Risk Act.

It would build Canada's reputation as a country that is willing to act on climate change and it would support many elected bodies opposed to the anchorage establishment.

Will the minister assure residents of Gabriola Island and users of the Salish Sea that he will not approve the five bulk commercial anchorages off Gabriola Island?