Debates of Dec. 9th, 2020

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives are calling on the government to take concrete action in response to gross violations of fundamental human rights in China.

In my earlier question, I had asked about three specific areas of action. Sometimes Canadians hear about what is happening in other parts of the world, and they feel helpless. We cannot do everything to solve every problem around the world, but we can take concrete action. We can take steps ourselves to try to make things better.

The first thing we can do is use Magnitsky sanctions. We can end this culture of impunity that sometimes exists around violations of human rights. We can list people under the Magnitsky act, and therefore hold them accountable and prevent them from moving their money to Canada, from travelling to Canada and so forth.

Magnitsky sanctions are taking off globally as a vehicle for ending impunity for violations of human rights. It is encouraging to see Europeans taking steps in that direction, following steps made by the British and Americans, as well as by us in Canada, thanks to work done by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on getting a Magnitsky sanctions bill passed in the last Parliament.

The Magnitsky sanctions bill is only as good as its use, and the government has, disgracefully I think, failed to list any officials from China under the Magnitsky act. The fact is that our allies, in some cases, have already done so.

The second thing we need to do is strengthen our laws on supply chains to ensure that we are no longer importing products that are made through violations of human rights. Canada has very weak laws right now on supply chains. We have the significant risk that even products procured by the government involve slave labour or other violations of fundamental human rights.

The third thing we need to do is not be complicit in human rights violations through our own tax dollars. That is why I, and other Conservatives, have been calling on the government to withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB. This is a Chinese state-controlled bank that functions as part of China's wider belt and road initiative: its neo-colonial agenda to promote its model of governance around the world.

This point is made very clearly in the transition binder for the Minister of International Development. It baffles me that the Minister of International Development continues to support participation in the AIIB, despite the reality that it is part of China's strategic efforts to promote its governance around the world.

Why would we pay for that? Why would we ask Canadians to pay taxes so that those tax dollars could be sent over to this Chinese state-controlled development bank? We could be doing so much more good if we were instead using this money to promote real development in a way that is aligned with Canadians interests and Canadian values.

I note, parenthetically, that the AIIB is building pipelines in Azerbaijan and in Turkey. I highly doubt, given the human rights standards of this development bank and of the government in China more broadly, that proper consultation with indigenous people is happening in the construction of these pipelines in Asia.

It is particularly striking since the Minister of International Development has a sad record of attacking Canada's energy sector. In fact, in 2012, she tweeted, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands.”

This minister, who has expressed a desire to landlock Canada's own energy resources, is allowing our international development to fund the construction of pipelines, in other countries, that are designed as part of the strategic foreign policy objectives of the Chinese government.

Why is the government effectively putting forward measures that are undermining the success of our domestic energy sector, while using our development assistance dollars to fund the advancement of China's foreign policy interests and to fund the construction of pipelines in other countries that do not have nearly the same human rights standards as development projects here in Canada?

These are important questions. While the government is seeking to sound tougher on China, the fact is it has done nothing. The government has done nothing in the area of Magnitsky sanctions. It has done nothing in the area of strengthening our laws on supply chains. It has done nothing in terms of recognizing the issues around the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The very least we could do to combat China's human rights abuses—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, the hon. member's time is up. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for raising what I think we both believe to be a very important issue. We speak on it regularly, he and I and others, at the Canada-China committee.

As he knows well from that work, Canada is indeed alarmed by the human rights situation of the Uighurs and other Turkic ethnic minority groups in China. This was expressed most recently as last night by Ambassador Dominic Barton at the committee's meeting.

The nature and scale of the abuses by Chinese authorities of Uighurs under the pretext of countering extremism are deeply disturbing to us. Canada remains troubled by the mass arbitrary detentions, religious persecution, repressive surveillance, allegations of torture, mistreatment, forced labour and mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents, among other abuses.

These actions by the Chinese government are contrary to its own constitution, are in violation of its international human rights obligations and are inconsistent with the United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy. Our government has made its concerns known publicly, including in multilateral fora, and privately through diplomatic representations with Chinese authorities whenever we get the opportunity.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has raised this issue with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, at their bilateral meetings, including the June 2019 G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Japan. The most recent meeting was in Rome this past August. The minister also raised the issue directly with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, during a meeting with her in Geneva in August of this year.

Canada has made several statements at the UN, including at the United Nations General Assembly's Third Committee, where we joined 38 other countries in co-signing a joint statement on human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong on October 6, 2020. In June of this year, during the 44th session of the HRC, Canada and 27 other countries signed a joint statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang.

In these statements and others, we repeatedly and jointly, working multilaterally because that is most effective, called for immediate, meaningful and unfettered access to Xinjiang for independent observers, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and her office, and relevant special procedure mandate holders. Most recently, the trade commissioner service has updated it guidance for businesses on the risk of doing business in China, including risks related to human rights abuses and forced labour. Ensuring companies adhere to responsible business practices is essential for managing social, reputational, legal and economic risks.

Canada is committed to engaging bilaterally with China and working alongside our partners to advocate for the human rights of Uighurs and other Turkic ethnic groups in China. We will not leave any stone unturned. We will continue to work in close collaboration with our allies. We will continue to push for this issue to be investigated through an international independent body and for impartial experts to access the region so they can see the situation first-hand and report back evidence.

I assure everyone that the promotion, protection and respect of human rights are core priorities of Canada's foreign policy. Canada will continue to raise its concerns about the human rights situation in China. We will continue to call on China to live up to its international obligations, as well as its own—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear that response, because I think the parliamentary secretary, and more broadly the government, have a limited sense of what Canada can do in response to these events. It is not enough to make statements and say the government phoned a certain person and raised these concerns.

The reality is that if we have impunity, if we do not have sanctioning and if we do not have laws that prevent the sourcing of materials from slave labour, this will continue to happen. If we continue to write cheques to a Chinese state-owned development bank, while it is holding Canadian hostages and is involved in these horrific human rights abuses, how is it going to take statements of concern seriously?

I asked about Magnitsky sanctions. Our allies have already come forward with Magnitsky sanctions. The member wants us to work in concert with our allies. Our allies already have tougher supply chain laws and are already using Magnitsky sanctions, and it was the Obama administration that strongly advised countries not to participate in the AIIB.

Why is the member not working with our allies to use real, meaningful tools, as I have suggested, to respond to these gross violations of human rights?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 2009, I had the tremendous opportunity to meet with Rabia Khedr. She is considered the mother of all Uighurs. At the time, she was the president of the World Uyghur Congress and held that office for nine years. When I met with her, Mr. Harper, the former prime minister, happened to be in China at the time. She begged him to raise this issue. All he said was that he would raise general concerns and some specific cases. Haroon Siddiqui wrote an excellent article about this.

We will take no lessons from the Conservatives about talking, engaging and working for human rights to ensure we get this done. The former government did nothing. We are there, our Prime Minister is there as is our Minister of Foreign Affairs every day working on human rights to ensure we are engaged. We will be successful at making our world a better place.

The Environment

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canada Energy Regulator recently published a report entitled “Canada's Energy Future 2020”. In that report, the CER presents two scenarios: a reference scenario of business as usual and a so-called evolving energy system scenario which “continues the historical trend of increasing action on climate change.”

I want to make it clear here that the evolving scenario is not one that will take us to net-zero emissions by 2050. That critically important path was left unexplored in this report. The evolving scenario does show steadily declining use of fossil fuels combined with a concomitant increase in renewables such as wind and solar, but still leaves us producing five million barrels of oil every day at 2050.

The report contains a remarkable graph showing pipeline capacity in Canada along with total supply available for export. I say remarkable as it is the first time I have seen the CER admitting what many of us have long known or suspected, and that is that under the evolving scenario, the Keystone XL and Trans Mountain expansion pipelines will not be needed at all if we make even timid efforts to fight climate change.

Only the Enbridge Line 3 expansion would be needed under this scenario to handle increased production. I remind members that the evolving scenario does not get us even close to net zero by 2050, so Line 3 may not be needed either if we really want to meet our commitments.

Remember again, these pipelines I mention are expansion pipelines. The Line 3 expansion, the Trans Mountain expansion and Keystone XL are not designed to access new markets. They will all ship oil and bitumen to the U.S.A. They are not designed to get prices for our products. Their raison d'être is to handle expanded production from the oil sands. Under present conditions and any reasonable projection into the future, that expanded production will be minimal at best.

The lack of expanded production is not limited to Canada. It is not because of increased red tape here. All these pipelines are being built under Harper-era regulations. The world simply does not want more oil. The near future is a world in which, according to energy and investment experts, production will drop not due to geology or even demand, but due to a sharp decline in investment.

Recently Imperial wrote down a billion dollars of its Canadian oil sands assets. Total recently wrote down $8 billion of similar assets.

Oil investments are plummeting in the U.S.A. and elsewhere in the world. Norway will not expand its production and neither will Denmark. In fact, Denmark announced it will drop its production to zero by 2050.

Keystone XL is being built by TransCanada Energy and recently received a big investment from the Province of Alberta to ensure it did not give up for lack of investment dollars. Joe Biden says that he will not allow it to be built, but that may be moot because energy investment analysts are saying we do not need Keystone XL anymore.

Energy investors are telling companies they do not want to invest in new projects that are doomed to failure in a world with shrinking demand for oil. They want to reap the dividends of production, not added development. They know we will need oil in coming years; we just will not need as much.

The story for Trans Mountain is the same except this time it was the federal government that bought the pipeline. It will simply not be needed. We would be wasting valuable political capital fighting the U.S.A. over Keystone XL and we are wasting taxpayer money by investing in both these projects.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, our government is guided by one principle as we work towards meeting our Paris targets. We want to exceed our 2030 objective and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We recognize that this will take real, meaningful action.

That is why our government recently introduced the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act in Parliament. This bill would establish a legally binding process for the government in order to achieve our net-zero objective based on the best science available.

More than 120 countries, 1,000 companies, 2,000 chambers of commerce, 452 cities and some of the biggest investors in the world have joined Canada in this commitment.

However, we also recognize that reaching success will require investment and innovation throughout Canada's energy sector. We must do this to ensure we continue to create jobs for Canadians while moving forward on the path to a low-carbon future. Our government's supports for projects like Keystone XL, TMX and LNG Canada are part of that recognition. Canadian oil and gas is some of the most responsibly and sustainably produced in the world. This sector is Canada's largest investor by far in the clean-tech innovations that we need to reach our goals. Our government will continue to diversify our future energy mix while also generating economic benefits on our path to net zero.

To that end, the Minister of Natural Resources will soon launch Canada's hydrogen strategy. The initiative, after broad consultations, will allow us to fully seize the opportunity hydrogen represents and build back better from the COVID-19 pandemic. Canada is already recognized as a global leader in the hydrogen fuel cell sector. We are also a hub for technical expertise and intellectual property. We produce leading products and services that are exported around the world. More than that, clean hydrogen has the potential to sharply reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The strategy will strengthen our economic competitiveness through export potential, attract investment and create good sustainable jobs across the country. It could also drive down emissions in sectors like resource extraction and processing, freight transportation, power generation and manufacturing, as well as in the production of steel and cement where electrification may not be the best choice. It will take investment and support across the Canadian energy spectrum to meet our climate change commitments while also creating jobs and driving investment.

This is a critical moment. Tackling climate change is the challenge of our generation. To ensure a healthy future for the next generation we will need innovation, we will need collaboration, we will need all types of emerging technologies to get us to net zero by 2050. Our government remains committed to doing just that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could say one thing we do not need to get to net zero is any more pipelines. We have to prepare for this new world of declining oil production. The huge job losses we have seen in the Alberta oil patch are not going to be reversed no matter how many pipelines we build. The workers who have relied on exploration and construction jobs in the oil patch will need a new set of jobs to turn to in order to feed their families. We are disrespecting them and their needs by promising the moon if only we had more pipelines. New projects require world prices we will never see again. This is the time to create jobs for the future instead of pipelines. For instance, let us invest in massive retrofit programs, 10 times the amount announced in the fall economic statement, across the country that would create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs for electricians, plumbers, carpenters and welders in every community of Canada. That would give these workers the hope and respect they deserve and the jobs they need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to stress how important it is to our government to balance protecting the environment with creating jobs, including well-paying unionized jobs in natural resources and in construction.

We are looking for a balance as we continue to support and diversify Canada's energy sector and work towards achieving net-zero emissions. We know that this not only can be done, but must be done. Our government will always do what is necessary to achieve this goal, since that is what all Canadians, including future generations, deserve.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that in the last round, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources was talking about the important role that oil and gas producers play in renewable energy. One thing I want to talk about is that, in my riding, some of the biggest investors we have in renewable energy are actually companies that were oil and gas producers long before they were renewable energy producers.

In particular, by the town of Gull Lake, there is a wind farm by Suncor Energy and Enbridge, which is named the SunBridge Wind Farm. The point I want to make is that our oil and gas companies realized, long before the government did, the need to invest in renewables and to diversify energy companies. When we are talking about going forward while reducing our emissions and trying to wean our way off fossils fuels, the important thing we have to keep in mind is exactly who the biggest contributors to renewable energy are. They are the energy-producing companies that we already have, which just happen to also be involved in oil and gas.

I am here to follow up on the question I had for the Minister of Natural Resources about the Keystone XL pipeline. I was hoping to hear more from him tonight about the importance of Keystone XL. The parliamentary secretary alluded to that here. I found it interesting that the member who was asking questions before me was also talking about Keystone XL.

The important thing we have to talk about when we speak of Keystone XL is the jobs it will create here in Canada and the amount of work it will provide for Canadians, especially as we are trying to find our way out of a global pandemic. People are looking for a way to get back to work, particularly in Saskatchewan and Alberta. People find their value in their jobs and in their ability to work. When we have a regulatory environment, such as we do right now, that is really stripping that ability for people to go back to work, it is eliminating their jobs and their livelihoods.

People feel the government does not have their backs and is not supporting them. It is really important we allow people to do what they do so well, which is to work to provide energy security for our country but also for the world. As the demand for energy continues to rise, Canadian energy needs to be the solution and needs to be what we focus on as we go forward.

One of the other aspects and benefits of a project like Keystone XL will be the revenue it brings into the communities and areas of the country it runs through. The royalties it produces are so important to the municipalities and communities around there, and particularly the companies that are oil and gas companies. They are the ones sponsoring a lot of what goes on in our communities, whether it be minor league baseball or hockey, recreation facilities or arts facilities. A lot of these oil companies are the ones really driving the sponsorships for these buildings and the economic growth in our communities, much beyond just purely building pipelines.

When we look at the entire economic snapshot, we need to focus on what exactly these companies are doing. They are providing jobs and opportunities, and the benefits go far beyond simply that of building a pipeline.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my previous remarks, our government has always supported Keystone XL because we know that this project will increase our access to markets in a safe, responsible and sustainable way. In fact, this project was discussed in the first phone call between the Prime Minister and U.S. President-elect Joe Biden.

Our government will continue to advocate for this project because we know that it has significant economic advantages, will create thousands of jobs in several states and will enhance North America's long-term energy security. It will also contribute to the strongest energy relationship in the world. We know that we can strike a balance between economic prosperity and the environment in the transition to a low-carbon future.

We understand the importance of striking this balance, so much so that we recently introduced in Parliament a Canadian net-zero emissions accountability bill. We know that our government's efforts to fight climate change, put a price on pollution and make investments that help our energy sector become more sustainable only strengthen the arguments in support of this bill.

Of the major suppliers of oil to the United States, Canada is one of the few with a price on carbon and a goal to achieve net zero by 2050. Our government has also strengthened its approach to meaningful consultation and acknowledging the importance of partnerships in natural resource projects in Canada.

Rightly, Canada has moved away from developing solutions for indigenous communities to collaborating and partnering with them, because we understand that working with indigenous peoples to find solutions will lead to better economic, social and environmental outcomes.

Our government's track record of doing the hard work necessary to ensure that major projects go forward the right way every step of the way is clear. Just look at the Trans Mountain expansion project. When the project was in jeopardy, we stepped up and did what was necessary to ensure construction. Construction is now well underway with approximately 4,900 jobs, and they are working on terminals, pump stations and installing pipe from Edmonton to Burnaby. That is nearly 5,000 jobs and more are to come. We are also continuing to engage with indigenous groups on the project, including exploring opportunities for economic participation and on the implementation of measures to address impacts on rights and other concerns.

Our government believes in a competitive and sustainable natural resource sector, and that good projects must go ahead with the full confidence of Canadians. Keystone XL is no different. To this point, the project has received all major approvals in both Canada and the United States. Projects like Keystone XL are necessary to ensure North American energy security during a highly uncertain time for global energy markets. Our government's efforts and support for this project has been and will continue to be unwavering.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Prime Minister raised the importance of this project with the president-elect at his first opportunity. That shows how much of a priority this is for our government. We look forward to construction moving forward, and we will continue to advocate for this project with President-elect Biden at every opportunity.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that President-elect Biden was part of the Obama administration that shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. I just want to make sure that it is more than just pretty words, and that there is actual, real, concrete action the government is taking.

On the Natural Law Energy website is the memorandum of understanding that it signed with TC Energy. It says that:

Natural Law Energy...and TC Energy began a partnership on September 29th, 2020. NLE will collaborate on energy projects across Turtle Island (North America). The first of these projects will be Keystone XL. The Investment in the first group of projects will be historic with growth potential. We honor our grandmothers and grandfathers by developing our shared business with integrity and showing responsibility to our Nations and traditional territories. NLE will lead with our value of safety. Traditional Natural Law, with constitutional governance and modern day corporate protocols will be implemented to ensure the health and well-being of Mother Earth for the next seven generations.

Again, this is about indigenous certainty and reconciliation going forward for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, but I did allow a bit more time for the hon. member.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

There is certainly a meeting of the minds here. Basically, our government supports Keystone XL, and we will continue our unwavering support.

This project has received all the major approvals in Canada and the United States. It will be hugely beneficial economically and create thousands of jobs on both sides of the border. It will ensure North America's long-term energy security and contribute to the strongest energy relationship in the world.

We know that we need to have a balance between economic prosperity and the environment as we transition into a low-carbon economy. It is important that we continue down this path. We will continue to defend this project in Canada and in the United States.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 p.m.)