Debates of Jan. 30th, 2019

Natural Resources

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in the late show this evening to address a question I first raised on October 3.

It relates not only to the threat of climate change, but also specifically to whether in reviewing the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, otherwise known as the Trans Mountain pipeline, which Canada now owns, the Government of Canada would not think it was appropriate to ensure that the climate impacts were also studied while the project is forced into overtime hours and a new review because of the failure of both the federal government and Kinder Morgan, the proponent, in the conduct of the first hearing.

We all know that on August 30 of last year, the permits granted to Kinder Morgan were struck down by the Federal Court of Appeal on multiple grounds for failures of the federal government and failures of Kinder Morgan itself.

Now that we are reviewing the project afresh, particularly with regard to its marine impacts and respect for indigenous nations, I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be appropriate for us to do with Kinder Morgan the same thing that the Liberal government did with Energy East, which was to say that we want to look at the upstream effects of the project on our greenhouse gas emissions.

His response was essentially that we have already done this. He said, “Direct and upstream impacts were reviewed under our interim principles, announced in January 2016.” It is to this so-called inclusion of climate impacts from the interim principles that I will address my follow-up this evening.

Those interim principles, as many members in this place will recall, were to deal with stepping back from a campaign promise made by the Prime Minister as the leader of the Liberal Party in 2015, which was that no project could be approved based on the flawed process of the National Energy Board, a process so flawed that no pipeline could be approved through that process.

The Liberals stepped back from that promise by saying that they were going to go ahead and were not going to restart the process as they had promised, but were going to create interim principles, one of which was to look at the climate change impacts.

In November of 2016, a report was released by Environment Canada. It is around 50 pages. It is not the result of a hearing at which other organizations or other scientists could testify, although written comments were accepted, and it is wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of 2019, when Kinder Morgan is now being reassessed.

It is inadequate for two reasons.

First, it is outdated. It is outdated because it was conducted more than two years before the IPCC issued its special report on the imperative that we hold to 1.5° Celsius and not go above it and the findings of scientists globally that we cannot afford one more additional piece of fossil fuel infrastructure and still hold to 1.5 degrees.

It is also outdated because the Government of Canada now owns this pipeline and is determined to build it. This is directly relevant to the finding on greenhouse gases in the interim study done by Environment Canada, for this reason: It measured it based on market forces. It said that if the price of a barrel of oil was below $60, money cannot be made on it, so the project will not be built.

Now we are way outside market forces. The Government of Canada inexplicably and monumentally stupidly has bought a $4.6-billion pipeline that Kinder Morgan paid $550 million for and is intending to build it whether it makes money or not.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her important question.

I listened carefully to her comments. First, I would like to point out that our government shares the member's commitment to fighting climate change. That is why we are implementing our national climate plan, which includes over 50 commitments to address climate change.

With regard to the Trans Mountain expansion project, as the Prime Minister said when he answered the member's original question in early October, direct and upstream impacts were reviewed under our interim principles, announced in January 2016.

In our interim principles for major projects, our government promised to assess the direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions of such projects. We kept that promise for the Trans Mountain expansion.

Our interim principles were put in place in order to provide more certainty for proponents and restore the confidence of Canadians.

In response to the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling, we asked the National Energy Board, or NEB, to reconsider its recommendations on the Trans Mountain expansion project to take into account the effects of project-related marine shipping. We are acting in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling to find the best path forward for this project.

As part of this targeted review, we asked the NEB to consider our government's efforts to protect southern resident killer whales through a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan.

To ensure that the NEB has the expertise and capacity to consider all of this evidence and to advise the government, we have appointed a special marine technical advisor to support the NEB. As I said, I think this is an important job. He is building on the work that has already been done and is addressing the issues raised by the Federal Court of Appeal. Our objective is to find the best path forward for this project.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Oh dear, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

Did the hon. parliamentary secretary hear my four minutes, when I went through the same things he talked about and explained why they were completely inadequate, completely outdated and completely missed the point?

The point is this: Greta Thunberg, a Swedish schoolgirl, has been trying to wake us up to the reality that our house is on fire. She says to the elder generation, “Don't tell me we should have hope. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel when I think about my future and how it's disappearing.”

If there was ever clearer evidence that the current government does not understand urgency, it is this debate tonight.

The urgency is this: we have to hold to 1.5° Celsius. We know that. The scientists have told us that. We pledged to do it in Paris, but the document referred to by the parliamentary secretary is out of tune, talks right past that point, and is deaf, dumb and blind to urgency.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, now that we are just repeating ourselves, let me repeat what the Prime Minister said:

...the review the NEB will undertake is related to the recent court decision on marine scoping.

That is the main point of this review: fill in the gaps identified by the Federal Court of Appeal. As the Prime Minister also said, direct and indirect impacts were reviewed under the interim principles we announced in January 2016.

Our objective is to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project moves in the right direction, an objective that Canadians and the courts have come to expect of us.

Canada Post Corporation

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

Madam Speaker, I begin my comments by thanking the councils and municipalities in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that contacted me to directly question the federal government's mismanagement of labour relations at Canada Post.

During question period, I asked the minister responsible for Canada Post a very important, clear and direct question regarding the democratic process in Canada. My question related to the municipal mail-in ballot many rural municipalities held in their communities for municipal elections.

In an all-too-familiar pattern that starts with the Prime Minister, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North chose to insult Canadians, living in rural municipalities and using mail-in ballots, who were expressing their concern through me when I asked my question. In classic Liberal non-sequitur, the government spokesperson on this issue made a confused reference to the collective bargaining process.

The question from Canadian rural municipalities was whether the federal government would use taxpayer-owned resources to ensure the democratic process in municipalities was not disrupted by the federal government's inability to manage the collective bargaining process with postal workers. This is not the first time the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has insulted Canadians in her role as a Liberal cabinet minister.

Many organizations, secular and religious, in my riding and across Canada were outraged when the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North put extreme ideology ahead of common sense by requiring Canada summer job applicants to sign an attestation requiring Canada summer job program applicants to hold the same views as the political party in power. Ironically, the minister was trying to hide behind the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when most reasonable Canadians held the view that making organizations, particularly faith-based organizations, sign such an undertaking to qualify for government funding actually contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The mere fact that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government would force large segments of the Canadian population to be purged from applying to a federal program because they refused to violate their right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression, which includes not being coerced into something they are fundamentally opposed to, neatly sums up why the government must be defeated. That position is an affront to democracy.

By insisting that applicants for student summer job grants sign an attestation in support of abortion, the divisive election campaign the Prime Minister is so eager to engage in, if Gerald Butts' tweets are any indication, has already started. In what reasonable Canadians hope was a major backdown, Canadians will not know if that obnoxious requirement was actually changed until they see the list of successful applicants for the 2019 Canada summer jobs season.

Question period is the only time Canada's official opposition has the regular opportunity to serve our necessary role in the democratic process to make the Government of Canada accountable to Canadians. When the Prime Minister or a representative of his party choses to avoid accountability, the insult is to all Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made a reference, early on in her comments, to collective bargaining. I know it is somewhat obscure for the member, having gone through 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, who showed nothing short of distain for organized labour and collective bargaining in this country while they were in power. We saw that time and time again. A record four times they used back-to-work legislation in their last Parliament, and there were two other occasions when they had it on the shelf. They were ready to pull it off the shelf during labour disputes. It was pretty much a template for back-to-work legislation: insert labour organization here and insert date here. We saw it time and again.

We saw bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Might I add that the government the member was part of did not even have the courage to submit them as a government. Conservatives put them through the back door through private member's legislation and brought them to the House to try to put it to organized labour in this country. Yes, we have a different approach to organized labour and to collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is something this government believes in, and back-to-work legislation is an absolute last resort. We know that Canada Post and CUPW had been in negotiations for over a year. There was no sign of a settlement. There was no indication that a settlement could be reached. We had time and time again sent in mediators and arbitrators. At the end of the day, we knew that the rotating strikes being undertaken were hurting the Canadian economy, and we knew that we had to take action to make that situation right.

CFIB identified in a survey that it impacted almost two-thirds of Canadian businesses. During that critical time of the year, I know that in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso, businesses that make their stake between November and Christmas in the export sector were being impacted not just by delays in the mail but by the uncertainty that was being created by the rotating strikes. That is why we ended up taking the initiative, and as a last resort, tabled back-to-work legislation.

We know that the piece of legislation we tabled was considerably different from the legislation tabled by past the Conservative government, where there was a prescription for a resolution. We put in an arbitrator who would look at factors around health and safety issues and gender parity on wages. Those were issues we felt were imperative, and that is where the situation lies now, in the hands of Elizabeth MacPherson. We thought it was the best way forward, not just for the corporation, not just for the workers, but for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I take my role to encourage openness and transparency in the Canadian democratic process very seriously. ln fact, as a consequence of my concern about openness and transparency in the democratic decision-making process, I am proud to confirm that tomorrow, during Private Members' Business, the House will be discussing my private member's bill, Bill C-278, an act to amend the Lobbying Act, for greater transparency and reporting on foreign income for lobbyists.

I encourage Canadians watching this debate to tune in tomorrow while Bill C-278 is being debated. I invite the government's representative to take this opportunity right now to apologize to all Canadians, with a promise to do a better job answering their questions and concerns when a member of the official opposition asks a question on their behalf.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would have hoped that my colleague, who I have spent a fair amount of time in this House with, might have taken the opportunity to apologize to organized labour in this country for the affront the Conservatives placed on them over the 10 years they were in power, for the disregard they showed collective bargaining in this country over their 10 years in power.

We believe in a tripartite approach to labour relations. We believe in collective bargaining, and that is how we will go about our business as long as we are in government.

Dairy Industry

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, 60% of Quebec's agricultural production operates under supply management. Supply management is absolutely crucial to 6,900 dairy, egg and poultry producers who could not work or make a living without it. My riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is home to many of these farmers.

From an economic standpoint, I have to wonder how the government can unscrupulously turn its back on our local farmers in favour of American megafarms or European or Asian farmers.

The deal with the U.S., the one with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership combined cede close to 10% of Canada's agricultural market, especially in the dairy sector.

The Prime Minister was in my riding on January 18 and he himself told concerned farmers that he is going to compensate them 100%. I must say, I am very skeptical.

I would remind the House that when it comes to market access, the concessions from those agreements represent losses in milk sales worth $450 million, or about $41,000 per farm.

Faced with all this uncertainty, many farmers have put off investments they wanted to make to update their equipment. Young farmers, especially, are telling me that they would rather produce than be compensated for not producing.

With what we gave up to the European Union, we are letting 17,000 tonnes of fine cheese onto the Canadian market. That is 25% of our market. While the government allows European producers to fatten their wallets, our farmers are taking to the streets in frustration. Our farmers are still seething.

Since they do not feel like their voices are being heard, I will relay their comments. Jacinthe Guilbert, a farmer from my neck of the woods who was recently named female farmer of the year, told me that these bad deals will cost her more than a month's wages every year. She said that on top of the losses caused by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0, the bills keep coming in, and it is tough going. She told me that 6,000 farms in Canada could disappear. They will surely include farms in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We are hearing this message all over the country.

From a public health perspective, I have to wonder how the government can turn its back on Canadians by letting quality standards fall so far. By failing to demand reciprocity of standards, it is letting in products that do not meet our domestic standards.

For example, the Union des producteurs agricoles identified issues related to growth hormones allowed in the United States, hormones that may lead to serious illness in cows. Given that not all states, let alone all farms, use the same products, how can the government ensure that milk with hormones will not reach the Canadian market? Simply put, it cannot. That is just one example of animal health and welfare standards, and I have not even talked about the environment.

From a social and regional development perspective, I would like to know how the government can fail rural regions so badly. As everyone knows, supply management supports greater land use. It is vital to our regions. Opening up our market means that only a few Quebec farms will be resilient enough to survive. Will the government act to prevent socioeconomic decline in some of our regions?

When the member for Laurentides—Labelle says that there is always a chance we could lose agricultural land and farmers, I do not get the impression the government intends to act. So that's it? We resign ourselves to giving up part of our market to the Americans? I look forward to hearing what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has to say.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a beautiful riding rich in agricultural diversity.

The Government of Canada fully supports dairy, egg and poultry farmers, as well as the supply management system. Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers and processors contribute to countless other industries, help support local economies, and create prosperous and dynamic rural communities.

Promoting trade and upholding our supply management system are not mutually exclusive. We just concluded two of the most important agreements in Canadian history, namely the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement and the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership. We have also seen our agreement with the European Union come into force.

All these efforts benefit the Canadian economy, the agri-food sector and farmers. We did all this while protecting our supply management system. The United States tried everything in its power to dismantle our system, but we managed to preserve it, protect it and defend it. The USMCA upholds the three pillars of supply management: production control, price control and import control.

Transparency provisions are common in free trade agreements and do not compromise Canadian sovereignty in any way. They also do not interfere with Canada's ability to change our milk classes as we see fit.

The provisions do not apply only to Canada. The USMCA will require Canada and the United States to inform people and hold consultations regarding various aspects of the milk pricing system.

The government fully supports the dairy, poultry and egg industries, and we are working together to assess the impact that the USMCA will have on those sectors. In order to mitigate the effects of more open access to the dairy, egg, and poultry markets, we have repeatedly said that will we fully and fairly compensate those affected by the agreement.

On that point, the government recently formed working groups with dairy, egg and poultry farmers to discuss the new agreements and collaborate on developing strategies to help them adapt, innovate and remain competitive. These working groups meet regularly and are making good progress. We look forward to meeting with them again to discuss the results of their work. I want to reiterate that the NDP leader said that it was a good agreement given the situation.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, in their defence, the Liberals are saying that they defended and preserved supply management. Should we be happy that it is all but dead? For crying out loud.

They are proposing to compensate producers for their losses by providing compensation on a lottery or draw basis. Of course producers participated in the working groups, but they had already gone ahead and innovated and made investments. That is already done.

I see this as just more lip service. The reality is that producers are seeing the impact on their farms. Two weeks ago, I attended the agricultural fair. Thousands of farmers converged on Saint-Hyacinthe. I was able to talk to many of them over three days. They are still angry. I believe it is important to realize the extent to which every agreement further undermines our family farms.

Will the government recognize the economic significance of the agri-food sector and provide more compensation?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I repeat, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement upholds the three pillars of supply management. The government understands how important Canadian agriculture and agri-food trade is for our economy and our jobs. Our negotiators worked hard to defend the interests of Canadian agriculture at the bargaining table.

Supply management is the system our farmers chose for themselves, and it has been working well for many years. It benefits the Canadian economy, and I can assure the House that we have protected and defended it and always will.

The government is committed to working with the dairy, egg and poultry sectors to determine the best way forward in order to keep these sectors strong, dynamic and innovative at all levels of the supply chain and to ensure that farmers are fairly compensated.

We have created working groups with dairy, egg and poultry farmers to develop a strategy for helping them adapt and innovate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary is out of time.

Vote on the Designation of an Item

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I declare the vote on the designation of Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, completed.

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

(The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.)