Debates of Feb. 19th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spent a lot of time on the ethics committee with the hon. member earlier on in this Parliament, and he did a great job while he was there.

My colleague has already elaborated on this a bit, but can he explain a little more why the Ethics Commissioner's investigation, by itself, is certainly nothing to make light of but is not going to bring everything to bear, with its limited scope?

My understanding is that the justice committee is still meeting and is still in camera, which is essentially a cover up. Can my colleague elaborate on why, with the shenanigans that are going on right now, it is so important to actually have a public inquiry to clear up this mess?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is the nature of some of the justice committee meetings happening in camera, for instance. As everyone here knows, but maybe people at home do not know, it means that it is not public. It is not televised. There is no public written record of what is discussed. If these important questions are going to be dealt with at the justice committee, for instance, in camera, that is not enough.

A public inquiry would happen in public. If the terms of reference were right and we got to the point where the government felt sufficient pressure to launch a public inquiry, the devil would be in the details of its mandate.

I think what we are seeing now is a story that involves the firing of a minister from one particular position, the resignation of that minister subsequently, the resignation of the Prime Minister's principal secretary and a number of different charges against SNC-Lavalin. There is the charge of interference in public prosecutions, but there was also the guilty plea a few weeks ago for SNC-Lavalin illegally funnelling money to the governing party, over six figures' worth. There is a big and developing story here.

I think the idea that the Ethics Commissioner's investigation, with a limited scope under his mandate, is going to be able to accomplish everything Canadians would like to see answers to is just not realistic. What is the mechanism or what is the body or what is the tool that is going to be able to achieve that? Only a public inquiry with satisfactory terms of reference will accomplish that. That is why it is important that this motion pass today and that the government respect the motion once passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass this House, you might find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. at this time so that we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 28, 2018, consideration of the motion that Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, be read the third time and passed.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

While I am on my feet, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we are gathered here in Ottawa are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

According to current knowledge, the lands of the greater Drummond area were transit points where the Abenaki, Mohican, Huron, Algonquin and even Iroquois peoples stopped to portage, camp or fish.

Yolande Allard of the Drummond historical society has prepared a map that very clearly indicates the various sites that were used and their Abenaki names all along the Saint-François River transportation network. She and the Drummond historical society have done an excellent job of helping us better understand how indigenous peoples used these lands.

This bill refers to a very important issue. We are finally beginning to recognize the historical events that led to the erosion of indigenous cultural heritage. That is why the return of seized objects is an important part of the healing process for communities and for reconciliation between the colonial state and indigenous peoples.

The connection between returning objects and healing and reconciliation is extremely important. We have been working on this issue for years, and it is very important to us.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading, but we do have some questions. For example, we would like to know who was consulted about this bill.

Any time a bill affects indigenous peoples, they must be the first to be consulted so they can provide guidance. We do not know exactly who was consulted as this bill was being drafted.

As I said, it is extremely important to enable indigenous peoples to preserve and protect their ancestral, religious and cultural property and to have access to that property.

The Government of Canada and foreign governments must respect the collective rights of indigenous peoples with respect to the return of ancestral remains and sacred, funerary and culturally important objects.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms this right, and the Government of Canada fully and unconditionally supported this declaration and plans on supporting Bill C-262. That bill was introduced by my New Democrat colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. During the 41st Parliament, he also introduced Bill C-469, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That bill set out the fundamental restitution rights in international law and then became Bill C-262 when it was introduced in 2016. The bill is now at committee stage, and we are confident that it will be improved and strengthened.

My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is working with the government to make sure that the bill truly reflects the objective of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Radio-Canada recently published an article online about the repatriation of indigenous property and how it keeps a culture alive. It was interesting to see how Sandy Raphaël, an indigenous woman who is the heritage and culture director of the Mashteuiatsh band council, felt when she was able to repatriate some cultural property.

I will read a few excerpts from the article.

Why repatriate?

Sandy Raphaël remembers exactly how she felt when she saw some objects that belonged to her nation, such as drums, tumplines and a moosehide coat, at the National Museum of the American Indian, or NMAI, in Washington.

This is what Ms. Raphaël said:

It is quite moving to see the beauty of these objects, their life, their history, because they were made by our people. If they could speak, I would want them to tell me their story. I already had a sense of attachment to them.

A little further on, Sandy Raphaël states the following:

Seven grade nine students from the community, accompanied by Sandy Raphaël, went to the museum in June 2013. The young people returned with shining eyes, feeling even prouder of their identity.

I am reading out these excerpts to show why it is important to repatriate the cultural objects of indigenous peoples. It will give them back their identity, their culture and their history. That is extremely rewarding.

Studies have shown that young people who have access to strong cultural components, such as their language, ceremonies, ancestral property and education, are less likely to commit suicide, drop out of school, become addicts or engage in other harmful behaviour. It is clear that these elements and the repatriation of cultural property are important.

Bill C-391 is a step in the right direction. There is currently no federal legislation designed to facilitate the return of property stolen from indigenous communities. That is why it is important to pass this bill. As I already mentioned, Bill C-391 will have a positive impact on many members of Canada's indigenous communities.

A law to facilitate the repatriation of property will help indigenous youth connect with their culture and their language. Young people are the leaders of tomorrow. It is important that they are familiar with this identity and culture, so it is in our interest to give them the tools they need to thrive. In the case of indigenous youth, we also need to make sure that they connect with their culture by facilitating the repatriation of property.

The return of stolen cultural artifacts will also empower women and help restore the traditional balance between men and women. These artifacts teach about identity, the cultural nature of gender, roles in the community and the personal behaviours that enable individuals to define themselves. That is also a very important benefit.

The repatriation of property will also enable two-spirit people to reclaim their heritage.

However, I have some concerns about the bill. First, the bill does not contain any enforcement measures. It talks only about promoting and encouraging, and that is problem. Second, the implementation is not cohesive enough. There are so many stakeholders that there could be inconsistences and contradictions. Fourth, some communities are unable to conserve their artifacts even if they want to and will be forced to give them to museums because of budgetary constraints. There are no financial resources allocated to help preserve these precious and sometimes fragile artifacts. Fifth, the bill does not take into account the complexity of the repatriation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the bill does not propose any concrete solutions in cases where organizations refuse to return legitimate property. Finally, indigenous peoples were not consulted enough during the drafting of this bill, and something needs to be done about that.

I am sure that the corrections needed to improve this bill can be made when it is examined in committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the person responsible for Bill C-391, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The repatriation of cultural property and ancestral remains lost by indigenous communities under a range of circumstances is a significant issue for indigenous communities all across the country, as we have heard from several others in the House.

It is also an important factor in the relationship between those communities and cultural institutions in Canada and around the world, such as museums. I say “around the world” because important aspects of Canadian indigenous culture are not found just in Canadian collections; in fact, many important items were removed to foreign lands by explorers, missionaries and academics early in our history. I have an example of my own that came to a successful conclusion just recently, and I will touch on that issue in just a few moments. The se items exist in public and private institutions around the world in the United Kingdom, France and the United States of America.

How can a national strategy support this process of repatriation? The most important part of developing this type of strategy is to hear from all stakeholders who have experience with repatriation and hear what has worked for them and what has not, hearing about best practices from the people who have experience with this sort of procedure, including the government. We also need to hear from those who would engage in repatriation but do not feel they currently have the capacity to do so. Perhaps personal history for them dictates that they should have a say in what is going on, and we certainly do want to hear from them. We consider them as very important stakeholders in this process of repatriation.

Without prejudging what all the stakeholders might say, Bill C-391 needs to make sure the government, in developing a national strategy, has enough flexibility to listen to what it will hear during the consultations and what to take into account.

We are here to consider Bill C-391. The bill does not legislate rules for repatriation, of course. That is an important point, and one of the strengths, one of the great things about this particular bill.

We have heard from members of indigenous communities that they do not want the government to create the rules or add elements of bureaucracy to what should be a direct dialogue between them and the people involved directly in the repatriation, certain export experts and historians alike. This is a big part of the bill that opens up the dialogue to others and would allow the people who share a common history to have direct input.

Bill C-391 speaks to the role of the federal government in repatriation.

I would like to point out that the bill no longer includes a definition of what is meant by “aboriginal indigenous cultural property”. That is a very important point. It is a commonly used term, but it is not defined in law. It is not even defined in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Definitions can be complex things. No matter how comprehensive we try to make them, something will always be unintentionally excluded, or they become so general as to be meaningless or hard to interpret. As well, if we define in a piece of legislation a concept that is not defined elsewhere, people can still refer to it for reasons that were not intended. The result of removing the definition is that the scope of the strategy and what it covers would still be determined, but would be done together with stakeholders when strategy is developed, not ahead of the time when other people become involved. The bill would give the government enough flexibility to listen to stakeholders and to be guided by what it hears. That is essentially the spirit of what we are trying to achieve through Bill C-391.

I think we would all agree that these are the first steps in a long path toward reconciliation, a path that we are still on. Bill C-391 signals that next step.

I want to remind everyone here that it is not the kind of thing that took place in other countries at the time. It was based on collaboration and dialogue. The principles it advocated were negotiated solutions, taking place on a case-by-case basis.

What role has the government continued to play since the task force? The government introduced a category. Given the comprehensive range of consultations, to plan meaningful consultations, undertake them, analyze what is heard and develop the options for a strategy will take time. If all that had to happen within two years, the consultation phase of the process would be severely reduced, and this is too important an issue not to take the time to do it right.

I will talk about my situation once again. Back in the early 1800s, a situation took place that led us to today. We are talking about a situation just shy of 200 years ago. A native group was established on the Island of Newfoundland centuries ago called the legendary Beothuk. The last known Beothuk passed away in 1829. Her name was Shawnadithit. She passed away in St. John's. She succumbed to tuberculosis. She had members of her family involved in a situation that took place near the town of Buchans and Buchans Junction at Red Indian Lake.

In the mid-1820s, a group of explorers travelled up the Exploits River to seek out the natives. A confrontation took place and one individual Beothuk named Nonosbawsut was shot and killed by the explorers.

At that time, a lot of conflict was taking place and the Beothuks succumbed to that and also to disease. Two Beothuks were buried in that area. Cormack the explorer found the remains of the two Beothuk and he took their skulls back to Scotland, where he was from, for academic study. For close to 200 years, those skulls remained in that museum, not even on display.

Several years ago we had a ceremony commemorating the Beothuk and we brought up the idea of these skulls being repatriated. We contacted the Government of Scotland, through the U.K.'s Royal Museum, and asked it to repatriate the skulls. Within the last month, the Government of Scotland said it would do just that. It engaged the Government of Canada, after responding to a request from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Now we are embarking upon the journey for these skulls to come to Canada and then to Newfoundland. What we do at that point involves stakeholders.

As I mentioned, the spirit of Bill C-391 talks about the collaboration of stakeholders. Five indigenous groups within Newfoundland will have their say. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will have its say and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have input into this.

What is the best way to commemorate the spirit and memory of the legendary Beothuk of our province, my province, the province of the member for St. John's East as well? This is incredibly important to us. Do we take the remains back to the place where they perished? Do we do an initial study? All these issues have to be discussed. What has happened here, what is the most essential component of this is that these people who lived in Newfoundland for centuries, the legendary Beothuk who unfortunately do not exist today, have to be commemorated in a way that is completely and utterly respectful to how they lived and how they would want to be remembered.

For that reason, I strongly endorse Bill C-391 and the spirt of what it would do. For the member for Cumberland—Colchester, this is a fine point, a cherry on the top of a fine career, I might add. He has established a fantastic bill and I congratulate him. Through the examples of the repatriation of the Beothuk remains, Bill C-391 should be supported by all of us. I am sure it would be supported by all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-391, which has been proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

As my colleague previously stated, the bill is not perfect. There were some amendments to it that the Liberals should have taken into consideration at the committee stage. However, ultimately, reconciliation is important and is something that this side of the House takes very seriously. Repatriating indigenous human remains and cultural property is a crucial step in that process. It is also something that is very important to Canada's indigenous people, and I respect their desire to achieve this. Because of that, my colleagues and I can ultimately support the bill and its intended purpose.

I would like to provide some background on the bill we are discussing today, the aboriginal cultural property repatriation act.

It should be noted that aboriginal cultural property is defined in the bill as “objects of historical, social, ceremonial or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada”. If passed, the bill would require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to co-operate with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada to develop and evaluate a national strategy on aboriginal cultural property repatriation.

This is important because many items of aboriginal cultural property were taken, purchased, traded and gathered by different groups, including missionaries, collectors, government agents and others, during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of these items are as precious as ancestral human skeletons and sacred objects. Many of these items have since been placed in museums and institutions, where they are on display or studied. For the most part, this was done without any consultation or approval from aboriginal communities. They were left out of the decision-making process. They are now requesting to be involved and in some cases to have the property returned to their people. This is not an unreasonable request.

The bill is an important step in supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, two things that those of us on this side of the House have supported. We believe in the importance of broadening Canadians' historical literacy and appreciation, and we support initiatives that educate and that celebrate Canadian history. This obviously includes the rich and important history and culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples.

The purpose and the important step toward reconciliation that would be facilitated through the bill has been reiterated by various stakeholders. Hearing from these stakeholders is an important part of the process and also of determining the appropriateness of legislation like this.

For instance, we heard Millbrook First Nation Chief Bob Gloade tell the CBC that his community has been working on repatriating several important artifacts. In reference to this piece of legislation, he said:

It has cultural significance and it has historical importance to have it back....

Having federal legislation will make it a little easier with the support of the federal government....

The committee had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Clément Chartier, the president of the Métis National Council, who stated:

Bill C-391 is a good first step for Canada to reconcile these injustices. It will serve to make way for indigenous peoples to reclaim their cultural property and to guide all involved in processes that should ultimately make everyone feel that this is the right course of action. The repatriation of aboriginal cultural property is going to speed up the process of cultural renewal for indigenous peoples. It will reflect a time Canadians should not be proud of, and support a time in which Canadians can take great pride.

The committee also heard from Ms. Aluki Kotierk, the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. She also stated her support for Bill C-391:

I will say that when I'm reading this bill, it indicates that artifacts can be used for educational purposes. This is very important, in my view. It is very important to us Inuit that Inuit artifacts be inside Nunavut, which they are not. They are housed somewhere else.

The young people should see their own way now in Canada.

That is an important point. The process would allow indigenous young people to actually see items and artifacts of significance from their history that reflect their heritage. They can learn from seeing these items with their own eyes and develop a strong sense of pride in their history and ancestors.

There are still steps needed to figure out how to deal with what was often mentioned by stakeholders during committee meetings, but taking this first step is important and significant and is one my colleagues and I are supportive of.

That being said, I would be remiss not to reiterate what my colleague has previously stated, which is that this bill must not in any way tamper with private property or force anyone to give up legally acquired artifacts. It is important that this concept be respected, even though we only have verbal assurances, because the bill does not specifically mention the protection of private property. Therefore, we are expecting that there would be no consequential changes to private property in Canada.

I need to bring this point up because even though we have been assured by the member for Cumberland—Colchester that this would not be the case, there are stakeholders who have voiced concerns about this. Because the Liberals were not in favour of amendments proposed by concerned stakeholders, it is important that verbal assurances be upheld on this point.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward this bill. It is an important step in the right direction. I am happy to support this legislation, and I know that my colleagues are also in agreement. I think there are some important elements that need to be respected. Ultimately, I am pleased to support this bill, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important subject.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House and speak to this bill at second reading. Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, is something New Democrats are supporting.

It is very important for us to acknowledge that some of the historical events that have taken place have had injurious effect and harm that we need to address. In fact, we see it not only with regard to the specific things in museums and private collections, but also within pop culture and everything from cinema to other things where the cultural appropriation of a number of different objects and items has violated the culture of many different groups. It is unfortunate that this has taken place.

In fact, some of it even goes back to the Roman Empire. Cultural appropriation was of trophies during colonialism and other types of territorial occupations that have taken place to this day. Cultural appropriation involved everything from smaller, more easily carried objects to larger institutional statues and other types of materials and substances that were quite laborious to transport.

This bill, in second reading, is part of a larger discussion. I sit on the innovation committee, where we are studying copyright and doing the five-year review of the act. One of the important things we are looking at is copyright belonging to indigenous peoples. We had testimony as we went across the country related to how to go about protection and then inclusion, and we heard differences of opinion about copyright and also heard from cultures that have a different set of systems from the copyright system that we have through our existing colonial laws. That discussion is ongoing and is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of our report, which is now being compiled.

All political parties sit on this House of Commons committee, and we will discuss these issues. This committee has been functioning very well, not only in terms of how it operates in general but also specifically on the copyright issue in this component.

Today we are talking about Bill C-391, and it is appropriate that we will be addressing some of the things that have taken place in the past. However, the issue over copyright is that it is also about addressing things that are taking place right now and in the future.

What we need to understand is that with the cultural appropriations we have had and the historical events that have taken place on indigenous cultures and heritage, repatriating items is very important. People have had human rights violated when cultural heritage has been disturbed, stolen, excavated, exchanged, taken under duress, studied, exhumed and moved beyond the boundaries of their territories in Canada without free and prior consent.

It is important to talk about that, because many of the problems that we face are a result of unilateral action. It is not good enough for us to rely on the thought or the argument that it is just science or it is history or it is being done in order to share and exchange. Especially given the fact that it has been done unilaterally, that is not good enough for then and it is certainly not good enough for now. This bill looks to take those things and to restore the ownership that has been lost. Even funerary objects have been taken. We have seen cases of people's privacy and personal items being very much at stake.

It is important because Canada has signed on to the universal declaration with regard to indigenous rights and culture. We have had that in the past. In fact, it goes back to a time when laws and United Nations resolutions were passed in the 1970s and 1980s, which we were supposed to follow but did not.

It is good to see a bill that addresses the national front because international agreements certainly do not complete the circle of responsibility that is required. For us, as a country, to absolve ourselves of doing so without a legislative footprint is certainly not acceptable. Therefore, getting the bill to the next stage is important.

Some of my family history is from England. People had curio cabinets. They would place items and objects from distant lands on display privately or donate them to museums. It was seen as an attempt to showcase worldly visions of the British Empire and the elements that it touched. At one point it was quite significant across the globe. Treasure hunting and the appropriation of cultural items was seen as a social status, a way of displaying one's wealth and important position in society. We cannot forget this. It was a cultural component. Displaying things on a regular basis was seen as a family's social status and position in society. The way people arranged their homes was to showcase that element. That was often done at the expense of other people and done unilaterally without support.

Just because a family passes on an item, or a piece of art or whatever to a museum, a not-for-profit organization or a charitable organization does not take away from the responsibility we have in trying to make amends with those individuals and families that were injuriously affected by that. The possession-based element cannot be excused because an item, at the end of the day, ends up in a university setting, or a museum or a not-for-profit organization. Even if it is used in the private sector to attract tourism or some other economic activity does not excuse the fact that a restitution process is required. That is important not only for the credibility of the organization, but how we go about making amends and the long-term effect. This is one of the reasons I like this bill as a starting point.

Going back to the 1800s, there were attempts to establish some rules or controls on the appropriation of a number of different items, including even funerary objects, that were quite intimate to families, but this egregious situation still took place.

I look forward to the bill moving to the next stage.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was just sitting here listening to all the members of Parliament and thinking about what a wonderful place this is. We are talking about repatriation of indigenous artifacts, and I have heard members from all parties speak in support of that.

Members may not have noticed, but from time to time this place can be a bit partisan. However, tonight we are talking about the repatriation of indigenous artifacts, and I am grateful to every single member who has spoken in favour of it and helped us with it. A lot of members and a lot of senators have been involved in the drafting of the bill, amending it and making it as good as it is. I know that it is not perfect, but it is a very good step in my view and I thank everybody for that.

I want to thank Heather Stevens, a young Mi'kmaq woman at Millbrook First Nation near Truro, Nova Scotia. She inspired this by telling me about a Mi'kmaq artifact from Millbrook that was taken to Australia years ago, and they have tried to get it back. I talked to my assistant about what we could do. I am not sure whether it was his idea or mine, but we agreed that we would draft this bill, and that is all it was.

I want to thank Joel Henderson. If I were allowed to point out that he is in the gallery I would, but I am not allowed to point that out. He was my executive assistant and developed much of the bill. He made endless contacts, endless consultations with museums and the people involved every step of the way. We were dealing with indigenous peoples from all walks, MPs, senators, chiefs, community leaders and historians. It was a learning experience. It was an amazing journey to go through this and listen to our indigenous people talk about their artifacts and how important they are to them.

This was an amazing journey that started with a particular issue, which, as I mentioned, was a Mi'kmaq robe that ended up in a Melbourne museum. When I tabled the bill, I spoke for two minutes and 37 seconds. Three weeks later, the ambassador from Australia, Her Excellency Natasha Smith, came to my office and said that she had been in touch with that museum and was going to try to help us get it back. I asked why she was doing this. She said that they have indigenous artifacts that they want back in Australia that are very important to them.

I started to get an idea of how important this indigenous artifact issue is. It is not just a small thing. It is a big thing. Then someone pointed out that the bill, Bill C-391, was written up in China and in the Netherlands, and has been talked about in a lot of different countries. It was a journey of learning for me about how important artifacts are to indigenous peoples. It is important for reconciliation, as some members mentioned. It is important for history. It is important for their culture. It is important for the indigenous youth to be able to see how their ancestors lived, the things they were able to make, the talents they had and the wonderful abilities they brought forward. I want to thank all the members who were involved, and everybody who was involved.

Today is my birthday, so I want to thank everyone for coming to my little party. I am very grateful for this. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and to be part of something like this. It is something that I will remember forever and I thank you all for it. Hopefully the bill will go forward and will make a difference for indigenous people everywhere, not just in Canada but in other countries. Other countries have contacted us and asked if they could use this as a template for legislation in their legislatures.

Thank you very much everybody. I do appreciate it.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

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

Carbon Pricing

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight during adjournment debate to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

The question was related to the cost of the carbon tax, specifically to new information coming out of a government ministry showing that, in fact, the cost of the carbon tax for the average family would not be based on the $50-a-tonne carbon tax but would be closer to a $300-a-tonne carbon tax.

The government documents have been coming to opposition members in trickles. The government is typically not willing to act transparently by simply disclosing the information ahead of time. What we have been calling a carbon tax cover-up for several years is related to documents the government has in its possession demonstrating the cost impact, for the average Canadian family, of a $10-, $20-, $30-, $40-, and $50-a-tonne carbon tax. That is the information we want so we can pass it on to Canadians.

What we are looking for is to help Canadians, those opposed to the carbon tax, those opposed to bad tax policy. It is not an environmental policy; it is a tax policy. What we want for Canadians is not for them to just be getting by. What we want to ensure is that Canadians are getting ahead. That is not what we are getting with the carbon tax.

I am up on this adjournment debate to follow up on the question I had for the minister. Hopefully a parliamentary secretary can answer it for me. Perhaps I will get an answer tonight. Why is the Prime Minister forcing struggling families to pay for his mistake with this punishing new tax? That was the focus of my question.

The mistake is that the carbon tax is not an environmental policy. It is a tax policy. It is simply extracting money from tax-paying Canadians who are already paying too much in taxes. The cost of living has gone up. Many have lost jobs in my community. I represent the deep suburbs in the southeast of Calgary. They are being asked to pay even more.

The government's reply is that we should not worry about it, that the government is actually giving the money back. This begs the question: why would the government collect the money in the first place if it is simply going to recycle it and give it back to Albertans? Why is the government asking them to pay it up front and supposedly giving it back on the other end?

The other thing I will mention is that the government's line at the beginning was that the carbon tax was going to be simple to implement. In fact, it is a 200-page document that provides for any number of exceptions and special dispensations, to be given to whomever the minister chooses to give it to. It is supposed to be a way to ensure that we maintain our competitiveness and our productivity somehow. We know that carbon displacement will happen. Industries heavily hit by the carbon tax will be unable to remain competitive. All those costs will be passed down to the consumer and to taxpayers.

Again, why is the Prime Minister asking hard-working Canadians to pay for his mistake with his punishing new carbon tax?

[Alaina Lockhart, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, our government knows that it is possible to have a strong economy that also promotes and preserves a clean and healthy environment. We also know that pricing pollution is the most efficient way to reduce our emissions at the lowest cost to the economy. By pricing pollution, we can invest in a cleaner tomorrow for our kids, our grandkids and help Canada compete in an emerging global low-carbon economy. In fact, in 2017, the provinces with a price on carbon pollution also led the country in economic growth.

Experts similarly agree that pricing pollution is the most effective way to reduce our emissions. The 2018 Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences was awarded to William Nordhaus for his groundbreaking work on pollution pricing.

Proceeds from the federal system will be returned to the province or territory they came from. For provinces that have not committed to pricing carbon pollution, the federal government will return the majority of direct proceeds from the charge on fuel in the form of climate action incentive payments that will go directly to individuals and families in the province of origin. This will make life more affordable for families in provinces without their own provincial system in place, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and my home province of New Brunswick.

Proceeds from pricing carbon pollution can be used to support Canadians, grow the economy and protect the environment. We have seen that already in B.C., Alberta and Quebec. B.C. has reduced income and business taxes and provided northern and rural homeowners a benefit of up to $200 annually. Alberta provides rebates to low and middle-income households.

The costs of pricing carbon pollution for Canadians will be modest. We are talking about a few cents on a litre of gasoline in 2019, plus most households will get back more than they pay. For example, in Ontario, the estimated average cost impact for a household in 2019 is $244. That is less than the average climate action incentive payment of $307.

Under the federal system, the average cost impact for a household in New Brunswick is $202 in 2019, which is less than the corresponding average for climate action incentive payments, which is $248. What this demonstrates is that we can take concrete action to reduce our emissions and leave families better off.

A growing number of countries around the world are addressing climate change by putting a price on climate pollution. According to the World Bank, as of 2018, 70 jurisdictions, representing about half the global economy and more than a quarter of global GHG emissions, have implemented or are scheduled to implement carbon pollution pricing.

Carbon pricing is just one part of the national plan to tackle climate change and grow the economy. Our plan includes over 50 concrete measures, from policies, regulations, standards and investments, to achieve our goal.

In addition to putting a price on carbon pollution, the plan also includes complementary measures to reduce emissions, like regulations for electricity, vehicles and fuels. It also includes financial support, such as the low-carbon economy fund, which supports emissions-reduction projects across Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for that answer as it lays the groundwork for what I am going to say next.

I have a Yiddish proverb, and I use these quite often, “Together with the shrub the cabbage is beaten.” The government has run multi-year deficits so far, billions of dollars. In its search for a cabbage in the shrub, it has gone after the taxpayer every time through higher payroll taxes and a higher cost of living, with the carbon tax being applied at the consumer level. This means that companies are paying and passing it on to the consumers. People in Alberta are now seeing a carbon tax levy being directed onto their heating bills, and we have had a few weeks of very cold weather. Therefore, it is compounding the problem for families trying to make ends meet at the end of the month.

We are literally going after the shrub, the cabbage and everything. The government is beating every bush it can find to draw out more revenue. It was supposed to have a billion dollar surplus in 2019. Instead, it is a near $20 billion deficit so far. Therefore, I ask the member again—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Alaina Lockhart]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by directing the member opposite to look at the costs of inaction on climate change.

Our government is demonstrating leadership by putting a price on pollution. The clean growth and innovation spurred by pricing carbon pollution will help position Canada for success in the economy of the 21st century. Pricing carbon pollution will reduce our impact on the environment, at the lowest costs for consumers and businesses, for the sake of future generations.

Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities of the low-carbon economy. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will deliver a direct economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs worldwide by 2030.

Our approach to tackling climate change will create new jobs in the clean economy and leave families better off.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I originally asked late last year. The question was asked in advance of the Conference of the Parties, which took place in Poland in December. I asked a question of the Prime Minister some time in November in question period. It related to the urgent warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its special report on 1.5° Celsius, which was issued on October 8, 2018.

As quite often happens when people refer to this report, it gets called the doomsday report or a serious wake-up call. I want to again lay out why that report is so important.

The report said that the IPCC was asked by the negotiating countries in Paris, at COP21, what the impact would be of allowing the global average temperature to increase by 1.5° and what the impact would be at 2°. The Paris negotiations had landed on 1.5°. The goal is to avoid the global average temperature going above 1.5° Celsius, but there is some secondary language that says, “or at least as far below 2° as possible”. What is the difference between 1.5° and 2° in terms of impact? That is an important question.

Second is a critical question: Can we still hold to 1.5° Celsius? The advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was that 2° is far too dangerous. There is no point in speculating. Do we hold to 1.5° or just stay below 2° as best we can? No. We have been told very clearly by science that if we want to survive as a human civilization, if we want our children to have any kind of quality of life at all, and even worse, if we want to avoid those runaway global warming scenarios that lead to extinction, including our own, we have one chance, and it is to hold to 1.5°.

The second part of the report, and why this is not a doomsday report, says that we still can do it, but it will require Herculean efforts, transformative changes that are not transitions over time. They are changes needed now. We are in a climate emergency.

I asked the Prime Minister if we were prepared to improve our targets to show global leadership, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said clearly to us, the community of nations, that greenhouse gas reductions must meet 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 or it will be too late to save ourselves. It was not a gray area. It was now or never.

Although I have begged the government to improve the target we currently have, which is the same target put in place in May 2015 by the Harper Conservatives, to show leadership, and to go to COP24 in Poland with Canada leading the world to a new pathway, unfortunately, the Prime Minister's answer was that we are working hard to meet our 2030 targets. Those are the targets I just mentioned, the ones put in place by Stephen Harper. They are wholly inadequate for us to save ourselves.

When I went to COP24 in Poland, there was no global leadership from industrialized countries. Canada still needs to take up that challenge. All nations on earth must reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than is currently planned.

[Alaina Lockhart, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by emphasizing that our government does know the importance of taking concrete measures to reduce emissions and combat climate change. In fact, our plan includes over 50 concrete measures from policies to regulations, standards and investments to achieve our goal.

Last year, the intergovernmental panel on climate change released its special report on the 1.5-degree temperature increase. The report makes it clear that we are the last generation to be able to prevent the worst climate change impacts.

The Paris Agreement is key to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5° Celsius. That is why, immediately following Paris, the government established the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change to position Canada to meet our Paris Agreement greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

A landmark achievement of the pan-Canadian framework is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include joint and individual commitments by federal, provincial and territorial governments, and to have been developed with input from indigenous peoples, businesses, civil society and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As I mentioned, the pan-Canadian framework outlines over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt to and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

I am pleased to say that we have covered a lot of ground since launching the framework, and we are starting to see the results. To date, we have developed a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, as well as new policies, programs and regulations to reduce emissions in every sector of the economy, including regulations for coal- and natural gas-fired electricity generation, regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, measures to increase the use of low-carbon fuels and funding for clean technology and energy efficiency.

As reported in Canada's most recent greenhouse gas emissions projections from December 2018, Canada's GHG emissions in 2030 are expected to be 223 million tonnes lower than projected prior to the adoption and implementation of Canada's climate plan. This improvement in Canada's emissions outlook reflects the breadth and depth of the pan-Canadian framework.

Additional reductions will come from measures such as investments in green infrastructure, public transit, clean technology and innovation, as well as future actions by federal, provincial and territorial governments. Full implementation of the policies and programs under the pan-Canadian framework will allow Canada to meet its 2030 target and position Canada to set and achieve deeper emission reduction targets beyond 2030, as required by the Paris Agreement.

As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands knows, Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to the Paris Agreement, including its full implementation. She saw it first-hand as part of the Canadian delegation to COP24 in December, alongside the hon. members for Repentigny, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Parkdale—High Park, and Vancouver Quadra.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands does not know very well that this government is committed to the Paris Agreement. That is because the 2030 target, which keeps being repeated as what the government is committed to achieving, is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement.

The 50 concrete steps proposed by the Government of Canada are wholly inadequate. To preserve life on this planet, to protect our children, we cannot be incremental. We cannot tweak around the edges. We are in a climate emergency. We must plan the end of dependence on fossil fuels and have a plan to cut them in half by 2030. That is not the reductions currently planned, which we do not even have a plan in place to meet.

Fortunately, there are things we can do. We must do them. I urge the government to meet its own rhetorical hype and actually plan for human survival. We are in a climate emergency. We cannot any longer accept pablum and half measures.

[Alaina Lockhart]

Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to take a leadership role to tackle climate change and grow a cleaner economy. We understand the huge economic opportunity of clean growth, and we want to leave a cleaner, healthier planet for our kids and our grandkids.

At COP24, Canada did play a leading role in negotiations to secure robust guidance for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, which sets the foundation for raising global ambition on climate change for generations to come. The Paris Agreement will ensure that all countries take greater, more transparent action on climate change in order to limit global temperature increases and adapt to the impact of climate change.