House of Commons Hansard #299 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.

Topics

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #673

Department of Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion.

Net NeutralityPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 168 under private members' business.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

Net NeutralityPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Net NeutralityPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #674

Net NeutralityPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

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

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight in the House to return to a question I asked on February 5 of the Prime Minister.

February 5 should not seem like so long ago, but it was when conversations about Kinder Morgan were less tinged with hysteria than they are today. It is a shame that we have distended into sort of a tit-for-tat competition without regard to the facts.

I want to focus on facts. That was what I did in my question on February 5 for the Prime Minister on the use of the figure of 15,000 jobs being at stake in building Kinder Morgan, that this was an exaggeration. Even Kinder Morgan had never suggested that. Therefore, I have decided, in the four minutes allowed to me, to put forward the five top whoppers of claims about Kinder Morgan that are not factually correct, and hope I have time to add some facts about what is correct.

First, 15,000 thousand jobs is something that is repeated often. I do not know where it came from. Kinder Morgan's submission to the National Energy Board put forward that its project would create a grand total of 2,500 jobs a year for two years. It never asserted more than that, and it asserted 90 permanent jobs. There is no multiplier factor I can find that comes to 15,000 permanent jobs. It is 2,500 jobs a year in construction for two years.

Second, repeated quite often is the idea that this pipeline has been operated by Kinder Morgan since 1953, shipping dilbit with no problems. However, there are two problems with that statement. In 1953, the pipeline was run by a different company, TransCanada, and it was shipping a different product, crude, not dilbit. When Kinder Morgan took it over and bought it in the early 2000s, starting about 2004-05, very small amounts of bitumen mixed with diluent started to be shipped. This is the substance that has specific problems, and it is very different from crude.

The third point that keeps being claimed is that dilbit is just like crude and anyone can clean it up. We know that this is not true because of a spill that happened at an Enbridge pipeline at Kalamazoo, Michigan. This was the first time that even people like me who were dubious about pipelines realized that shipping diluted bitumen was an entirely different matter from shipping crude. The dilbit in the Kalamazoo River separated, the diluent floating to the surface and making the neighbourhood surrounding it sick. It was the symptoms of human illness that alerted Enbridge that it had a pipeline break, because it had systematically shut off all the alarms as they went off in the control room. Then the bitumen sank to the floor of the river.

The studies on bitumen and diluent fall into different categories. The studies done approximating ocean conditions, such as at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Halifax, show that in ocean water with sand, bits of seaweed, and so on, when the diluent separates, the bitumen forms oil balls around particulates and then it sinks. However, if they fill a tank full of fresh water in Alberta and add in salt and do the studies there, they are able to report that bitumen mixed with diluent will float, at least for a while, until the diluent floats away.

Fourth, the next big whopper is that there is a $73 billion benefit to the Canadian economy over 20 years. That comes from a study by a company called Muse Stancil. Kinder Morgan submitted it in the NEB process. It was thoroughly reviewed by economists working for the City of Vancouver, who found that it was fatally flawed. This conclusion was also reached by a Minnesota public government review of a report by the same company. It found that its assumptions and data were unrealistic and unreliable.

Fifth, in my last seven seconds, is the claim that we lose $40 million a day, which is totally false.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I am going to have to do this evening, as I am filling in my for my esteemed colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I listened with interest to the member's remarks and her efforts in myth-busting with respect to Kinder Morgan. I do not know that she cited sources for any of this information, but what I do know is that this government has taken a very rigorous approach to its approval of pipelines. It has taken a science-based approach. We are, in fact, debating further enhancements, but this government, in a surfeit of caution, added a layer of suspenders and a belt, so to speak, to the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline by appointing a review panel. That review panel, coupled with the NEB approval, led the government to approve this pipeline, and I think the rest is history.

There are certainly ferocious arguments being made on the side of environmentalists. There are certainly ferocious arguments being made, for example, by Conservatives in favour of the pipeline. We choose to take these projects on their merits, using science and evidence, and based on the knowledge that the environment and the economy are not a choice. We can have the prosperity generated by a modern natural resource industry, one that has multiple points of access to global markets and that does not leave hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars on the table, or jobs on the table, or take money out of the Canadian economy.

We choose to have that growth, all the while making sure that there are environmental safeguards that go with the construction of such projects. There is also the more general framework on climate change our government is putting forward, whereby we tax carbon pollution, taxing something we do not want and hopefully seeing a return. The proceeds of that will foster activities we do want, whether it be innovation in the green economy, whether it be income, or whether it be other sorts of things, as provincial governments and others see fit.

I think we have struck a very useful, constructive, and productive balance with respect to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I do not know that the arguments on either side of the extremes of this argument are particularly helpful. We have a science-based, evidence-based approach that seeks to reconcile the environment and the economy, create prosperity for Canadians, create jobs in our energy sector and beyond, and make sure that Canada retains its leadership role as a participant in the war on climate change, and more generally, as a leader in the vanguard of environmental protection the world over.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will go to sources in the time I have remaining.

The source that there would not be 15,000 jobs but 2,500 jobs over two years comes from Volume 5 of the submission of Kinder Morgan to the National Energy Board. I also direct the parliamentary secretary to the submissions from Unifor and the Alberta Federation of Labour that Kinder Morgan threatens jobs, information the NEB refused to hear.

Second, that Kinder Morgan has been shipping only since it was created can be found on any site. To the point that the dilbit cannot be cleaned up, I refer the hon. member to the report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel and the American Academy of Sciences.

To the question of the exaggerated claims of financial benefit, I refer him to a report from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the evidence from Vancouver, which can be found in an article by Andrew Nikiforuk in The Tyee, on April 11th, entitled “Kinder Morgan's Blackmail”. The sources are hyperlinked to that article.

Last, for the $40 million a day, google Robyn Allan: Scotiabank report a fantasy. The member will find all the sources there.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Obviously, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

I, too, have a couple of sources. The TD Bank has calculated that Canada's reliance on oil exports to the United States has cost the Canadian economy $117 billion over the last seven years. If we apply even conservative inflation estimates and project into the future, we have forgone, and will continue to forgo, billions of dollars in tax revenues that could be used to fund an oceans protection plan. These are tax revenues that could be used to build hospitals and schools, tax revenues that could be used to help Canadians in need, and indeed, tax revenues that could be used to help with reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people.

On that, I would also point out the 43 indigenous communities that have signed millions of dollars in benefit agreements along the pipeline's route. This is an important issue.

Canada PostAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, when I asked a question regarding harassment in the Canada Post workplace in February, the minister assured me that she was doing everything in her power to address the issue. However, when I attended the CUPW spring educational conference at the end of April, the members were quite vocal about the fact that harassment was still one of the biggest issues plaguing them in the workplace. There appears to be some light on the horizon, albeit if not late in its timing, for those already suffering the effects of bullying and harassment. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers reported on May 9 that some incremental first steps had finally been taken on the part of the minister, who assured them that there would be follow-up. I do hope that is the case.

During committee hearings on Bill C-65, a union representative described a culture of harassment that is deep-seated and systemic. New Democrats are committed to supporting workers in finding a resolution to reduce incidences of bullying and harassment in all workplaces. As the NDP critic for Canada Post, my primary concern is to address this dysfunctional culture within the corporation. We have witnessed a steady deterioration in the working conditions of postmasters and assistants, including reduction of hours, post office closures, and other issues that contribute significantly to the potential for stress and unhealthy conflict in the workplace. CPAA members report mental health issues related to this particular situation and things like absenteeism, which is second only to musculoskeletal issues. While workplace conditions are not always the cause of mental health issues, a culture of bullying and harassment certainly does nothing to alleviate workers' stress levels. It just makes sense to work to create an overall cultural change at Canada that improves working conditions and reduces stress with meaningful and concrete solutions.

To quote the Government of Canada's Department of Employment and Social Development from November 2, 2017, on the release of the report entitled “Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace public consultations—what we heard”:

Harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable. Period. The Government of Canada made a commitment to Canadians to take action to ensure that federal workplaces, including Parliament Hill, are free from these types of behaviours....

Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace negatively impact not only the person experiencing these behaviours, but also their families, coworkers, and their employers.

The release goes on to say that the government is committed to taking meaningful action to address the full spectrum of harassment and sexual violence at work and will be announcing next steps in the near future. I am encouraged to hear that Jessica McDonald, Canada Post's new CEO, has initiated discussions with the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association to discuss bullying and harassment in the workplace. It appears that she is attempting to find the root of the problem, and a solution as well, and that she is open to working with the unions. This gives me cause for hope.

The time for addressing these issues is now. We cannot afford the cost of bullying and harassment in the workplace. We cannot afford it in human terms; nor can we afford it in dollars and cents, because the bottom line is that this kind of disruption of work costs us all. Therefore, I am waiting to hear from the minister.

Canada PostAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this very important issue. I can perhaps shorten the length of the wait.

I too was happy to join the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in meeting with the national president of CUPW and several of his colleagues to discuss this very issue. They presented us with a number of specific allegations and, of course, also made a number of general observations with respect to harassment and bullying in the workplace.

This is something that we take very seriously. In announcing our new vision for Canada Post, where we kept our promises around home delivery, where we kept our promise to renew the board of Canada Post, and kept our promise to change the leadership at Canada Post, we also made sure that we put the accent on improving the labour-management climate at Canada Post. We frankly agree that a healthy workplace is the sign of a healthy corporation, and that all sides, labour, management, and others, have an obligation to work together to create a harmonious work environment, free of bullying, free of harassment, for everyone.

Canada Post is committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace, free from harassment, conflict, and violence. We must adopt a systematic approach to addressing reported cases of harassment. Canada Post is committed to addressing these cases quickly, professionally, and discretely.

Canada Post has implemented and is actively promoting workplace policies that reinforce this commitment. Employees have been provided with access to a toll-free hotline, managed by a third party, and are encouraged to call to report any kind of workplace incident.

As the Prime Minister said in Winnipeg, harassment, threats, and bullying are never ok, in any workplace in this country. He takes harassment at a Crown corporation, within the responsibility of the federal government, extremely seriously, as we all do. We are at a critical time in our society, during which sexual harassment is finally a top priority.

That is why our government introduced Bill C-65. This bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, will create a more robust regime that better addresses harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces, including, of course, Canada Post. This legislation is part of a comprehensive strategy focused on three main goals: to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring; to respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur; and to support victims, survivors, and employers in the process.

We are very proud of the progress we have made at Canada Post and working with our partners in the labour unions. We want to ensure that Canada Post continues to have a bright future. That is why we have renewed the board of directors. That is why we are renewing and will continue to renew the management of Canada Post. As well, that is why we are proud to stand here to say that we are with the employees in their desire to have a harmonious and productive workplace at Canada Post and, indeed, everywhere.

Canada PostAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. In its election promises, the government led voters to believe that it would restore lost postal services, and has done nothing of the sort.

I do know that Canada Post workers, represented by CPAA and CUPW, will be eager to hear that progress is being made on the part of the corporation and that the government is committed to addressing and preventing bullying and harassment in the workplace. It is very important because the workers, their livelihoods, and their families depend on it.

Bills are only lip service until there is determined and dedicated action. I have promised the workers at Canada Post that I will work as effectively as possible to change the reality in their workplace. Canada is a country of incredible prosperity. We can deliver the mail, we can deliver financial services, and we can do it effectively if the government will just listen.

Canada PostAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention on this issue and, indeed, on the future of Canada Post.

We too are committed to a bright future at Canada Post. We too are committed to workplaces free of harassment and bullying. We too are taking measures, including the passage of Bill C-65, hopefully very soon, and other active measures that will govern workplaces to make sure that we have a climate of respect, collaboration, and harmony in Canada Post and beyond.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, in one of my first questions as the NDP's agriculture critic, I decided to put the government on the spot regarding the words it says in the House with regard to protecting our supply-managed sectors and trying to match those words with its actions. The premise of my question was that if the Canada-EU free trade agreement, commonly known as CETA, created a breach in our supply management sectors, the CPTPP threatened to blow it wide open.

I think that all hon. members, especially those who have agricultural sectors in their ridings, are quite aware that there are three main pillars to supply management: import control, producer pricing, and production discipline. I liken it to a three-legged stool. The stool simply will not stand up if just one of those measures is not kept in control. For example, if import controls are weakened, this will have an impact on the other two pillars.

Under the CPTPP, we know that certain percentages of market access to foreign countries have been guaranteed for our supply-managed sectors, and people in those sectors are starting to raise the alarm. It is all well and good for the Minister of Agriculture to stand in the House and claim that the Liberal Party was the one that brought in supply management and is there to defend it, but I go back to the earlier point of actions meeting words. There is a bit of concern on this side of the House, and among some of the major players, that while the Minister of Agriculture means well in his words, he may not be the one fully driving this agenda and other members of cabinet are in fact undermining his position.

If we look at some of the myths that exist out there about supply management, artificial pricing and limiting the supply are probably the two biggest myths. I acknowledge that out there in the punditry this is a bit of a political football. However, I think that the critics are a bit distant from the consumer and they lack a holistic view of farming and agriculture today. I am privileged to represent a few farmers from the supply-managed sectors in my riding. In fact, the former president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, Mr. Wally Smith, is a constituent of mine, so I know this sector very well.

If we look at pricing, the big factor here is what happens in the United States. If they overproduce or underproduce a commodity such as eggs, the prices fluctuate. That is really what causes the major detractions from the Canadian price. As far as limiting supply is concerned, supply management does not limit supply. It is really all about monitoring the supply and trying to make sure that producers are matching the demand.

Members do not have to take my word for it. They just have to look at some of the statistics and what some of the major stakeholders are saying about the government. Mr. Pierre Lampron, the president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, said:

On the one hand, the Canadian government has repeatedly stated that it wants a vibrant, strong, and growing dairy sector that creates jobs and fosters investments; on the other hand, it continues to carve out pieces of our domestic dairy market, first through CETA, and now through the CPTPP.... The Government must understand that in continuing to make these concessions, they are putting the Canadian dairy sector in jeopardy.

It goes across the sectors. If we talk to Chicken Farmers of Canada, the egg producers, and so on, we would find similar quotes.

What I am looking for today is for the government, through the parliamentary secretary, to match its actions with its words. I will let the parliamentary secretary respond, and I hope to hear something good from him.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jean-Claude Poissant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way with whom I had the pleasure of travelling two weeks ago as part of a cross-Canada study on how to increase our agricultural exports to $75 billion.

The government fully understands the importance of the agriculture and agrifood sector to our economy, our trade, and to our workers and their families. That is why promoting Canada's agricultural trade interests is a priority for our government.

On average, roughly half of our agricultural production is exported. We are the world's largest exporter of canola, flax, pulse crops, maple syrup, and wild blueberries, and the third largest exporter of wheat and pork.

Canadian agrifood exports are increasing by about 10% every year, and the goal set in budget 2017 is to expand exports to $75 billion a year by 2025.

Negotiating and concluding free trade agreements help in achieving that goal by providing access to new markets, enhancing regulatory co-operation, and promoting better integration with our trade partners. Upholding Canada's supply management system is every bit a priority.

Supply management is the system that our producers chose for themselves, and it has been working well for over 40 years. Canada's dairy, egg, and poultry producers and processors are vital to our country's prosperity and growth and are an integral part of Canadian agriculture.

When I was young, I lived on a dairy farm, that of my ancestors. I have a very clear memory of when I was seven and eight years old. We milked the cows and put the milk in cans. When the truck came by to buy the milk, the driver could give us the price he wanted or he could decide not to take all of the milk. It was in those years that farmers got together to ask the government of the day to implement a supply management system. I know what I am talking about. It was after that happened that Canada's dairy producers were able to prosper.

The development of markets and the protection of supply management are not mutually exclusive. Canada is developing new markets for its products throughout the world, while defending the interests of Canadian industries, including those under supply management. Over the years, Canada has successfully concluded ambitious free trade agreements with major trading partners and has sought to negotiate new agreements while maintaining the pillars of supply management.

That has been our message all along, and we will stay on that message at the negotiating table.

We will keep working to sign good deals, not just any deal. We will defend our national interests and stand up for Canadian values.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister or the parliamentary secretary in defending supply management, but I just want to see the actions of the Government of Canada matching up those words.

I do not have much time, but I want to leave the House with a great statistic from 2015. In the United States, there are 199 egg producers who represent 99% of the overall supply, versus 1,014 in Canada, who produce 100%. If we look at the size difference of our countries and the fact that Canada is able to have over 1,000 egg producers all thriving because of supply management, I should think that this speaks to the strength of the system and how we can keep the small family farm thriving.

The parliamentary secretary can be sure that I will be doing my duty as the NDP's agriculture critic in holding the government to account on its words, and I thank him for his words tonight.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude Poissant Liberal La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite.

As I said, we are protecting supply management, and that has not prevented Canada from signing quite a few free trade deals and negotiating new ones. Supply management is integral to Canadian agriculture, and I can assure my colleagues that we will protect and defend it.

The government is also working to open new markets and promote Canadian producers' interests by negotiating new free trade agreements and modernizing existing ones because trade is crucial to keeping our agriculture and agrifood industry successful and competitive.

When negotiating trade deals, Canada has always been steadfast in promoting supply management. The government has always supported—

Agriculture and Agri-FoodAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order. 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 7:37 p.m.)