Debates of March 24th, 2021

Motions in amendment

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for almost three years now, our party has been actively fighting for a single tax return for Quebec. Our position goes back a long time.

For a political party like ours, which respects provincial jurisdiction, listening to the provinces and collaborating with them is crucial. After all, we are the party that gave Quebec its UNESCO seat, that recognized the Quebec nation and that fixed the fiscal imbalance. We are the party that fought for the Meech Lake accord. In short, the Conservative Party has an excellent record when it comes to respecting the provinces and their jurisdiction.

The provincial government and Quebeckers themselves responded very positively to the idea of a single tax return, which our party advanced in 2018. Currently, Quebec is the only province with two tax returns, one for Ottawa and the other for Quebec. This situation dates back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces agreed to temporarily hand their power to tax personal and corporate income over to the federal government. That situation ended up being permanent, not temporary.

However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec created its own personal income tax and started administering its own income tax system. The ability to administer its own system is critical to Quebec's autonomy.

Just as Quebec marked Canadian history in 1954, we have the possibility in the House of Commons to simplify life for Quebeckers and continue the march toward a single tax return for Quebec, administered by Quebec. It is an idea we have been presenting for nearly three years now. At first Bill C-227 provided its sponsor the opportunity to take a positive step in that direction and bring us together around his bill, but now it is a different story.

First, the deadlines set out in the bill are unrealistic. Did it ever occur to the member for Joliette that the party currently in power is the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that is hostile to provincial demands?

As currently worded, the bill calls on the federal Minister of Finance to enter into discussions with the Government of Quebec within 90 days of the passage of the bill. What is more, the bill recommends discussions on an agreement within a year. Do they honestly believe that the Liberal Party of Canada will negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to allow it to have a single tax return?

It would have been wiser for the Bloc Québécois to wait for a Conservative government to be elected before initiating such discussions, since the Conservatives are much more in tune with the needs of the provinces. There is no doubt that an agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Quebec would have been much more beneficial for la belle province than one negotiated by a Liberal government.

In fact, recent events show that the Liberal government is not very responsive to Quebec's demands. Quebec is calling for an increase in health transfers with no strings attached. The federal government responded by seeking to impose Canada-wide standards in Quebec's long-term care facilities. That shows a complete lack of trust in Quebec.

Fortunately, the Conservatives not only want to increase health transfers in a stable, predictable way with no strings attached, but we also want to take action for Quebec in other areas, namely by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses, such as banks, and by giving Quebec more authority over immigration.

Second, rather than sticking to one bill to obtain a single tax return for Quebec, the member for Joliette chose to use this opportunity to promote a completely different agenda. That should not have happened.

Nowhere in its unanimous motion to support the creation of a single tax return did the Quebec National Assembly request negotiating powers with tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions in order to amend the tax treaties and agreements regarding income tax and Canada's tax information exchange agreements. That is a whole other debate that is hindering the passage of the bill.

Although we support Quebec's autonomist vision, foreign relations are definitely a federal jurisdiction. Why, then, include this in the bill?

Is the Bloc Québécois really set on having a single tax return? Did it not know that including this clause would derail the debate? The Bloc Québécois's position on this issue is unfortunate, but not surprising.

The Bloc Québécois is using this clause to have it both ways. The single tax return is in itself a huge win for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois always has to push the envelope.

Third, the bill provides no guarantee that Canadian public service jobs will be maintained following this change. The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord know me. I have always said that the single tax return should be brought in without causing any job losses. I can say that this bill does not provide any guarantees about that.

The public service has quality, well-paid jobs in the regions. The Conservative Party has always wanted the regions, and not just Montreal, to develop and have their fair share of the pie. It is in the same spirit that the provincial government has a plan to move public service jobs to the regions.

Unfortunately, if our Bloc Québécois colleagues had paid attention to what was said by the stakeholders who appeared before the committee, including the union representing the workers, they would know that the bill, in its present form, does nothing at all to protect jobs.

This bill jeopardizes an important sector for regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the Mauricie. We are in the midst of a pandemic; now is not the time to jeopardize jobs. Now is the time to take action for our families, our workers and Quebec.

If the purpose of Bill C-224, in its present form, was to encourage the creation of a single tax return, then it misses the mark. The Bloc Québécois should leave managing to managers and let the Conservatives finish what they started with respect to the single tax return. In other words, the Bloc should let the Conservatives introduce, negotiate and implement the single tax return. The Bloc Québécois's bill is a very good illustration of the expression “give someone an inch and they will take a mile”.

Rather than proposing effective solutions for Quebeckers to make their lives easier, the Bloc Québécois's bill just stirs up quarrels between Ottawa and Quebec. The Conservative Party will continue to push for a pragmatic and effective solution to give Quebeckers the single tax return they deserve, while respecting workers and the regions.

I will close by saying that the Conservative Party will not need a private member's bill to take action. We have every intention of forming the next government, of picking up the phone to call the Government of Quebec and of negotiating and creating a single tax return for Quebeckers.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a pre-election speech full of partisanship. It is actually quite interesting.

I would like to say one thing before I begin my speech.

As the NDP deputy critic for the environment, I must point out that the announcement about an endangered species in the St. Lawrence River, the copper redhorse, did not get the attention it should have from the Liberal government's Minister of Environment. Biologists were forced to admit that this government is not very serious. The proposals being made do not reflect the fact that we really need to protect an endangered species.

I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Joliette. There may be a misunderstanding at report stage. This is really important to the NDP. It is part of our tradition. We generally believe that bills should not be killed in committee after being supported at second reading. It was therefore for the sake of consistency that my colleague voted to bring this bill back to the House. We thought that made sense. While the Conservatives were filibustering and trying to block the bill in committee, we voted for it in principle. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby did what needed to be done, in the progressive tradition of the New Democrats, to respect that basic principle and bring the bill back to the House.

This does not mean that we were reassured by the work in committee and by what we heard there. I will come back to that in a few minutes. It was a Bloc member, a colleague of the member for Joliette, who gave us the final argument, confirming that there was no way to be sure that this bill would guarantee and protect very important jobs in the regions, particularly in Mauricie and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

I wanted to set the record straight at the outset.

I am going to back up a bit. I too want to briefly go back to the Second World War. In 1941, the provinces administered income taxes, but in a concerted war effort, there was a willingness to give the federal government the means to take action, which was only natural. Then there was an attempt and willingness to hold on to that power. Once one has a certain power I imagine it is hard to let go of it. However, in 1954, the Government of Quebec reinstated a provincial tax.

Shortly after, in 1955-56, an agreement was reached to ensure that Quebec taxpayers would not pay a higher percentage in taxes than Canadians, who paid only to Ottawa. Then, Ottawa started providing subsidies or payments proportional to the amounts that were given to the different provinces. That system seems to work well, but as a result Quebeckers have long been the only citizens to have to file two tax returns. I will come back later to the modern definition of two tax returns, since many things have changed since 1955-56. Sometimes it is good to go over it again.

We agreed, in principle. Before the Conservatives took on that position, the NDP had adopted a resolution at its convention, stating that we agreed with having a single tax return for Quebeckers. We believe that the Government of Quebec should have that autonomy. The resolution had two parts, however. The member for Joliette will recall my previous speeches, in which I said that we agreed with the principle, but that this measure must not come at the expense of the public servants working in Quebec's regions. Otherwise, we would just be trading four quarters for a dollar. We would be giving a government an additional power, but penalizing thousands of families.

We therefore voted in favour of the bill at second reading. The bill would be sent to committee. We did our homework before going to committee. We met with people working at Revenue Canada tax centres, to ask them how the work could be rearranged and what additional tasks these employees could take on. We need to come up with a game plan and make some guarantees that these people will not be left high and dry. Half of them would maybe be saved, while the other half will have to look for work.

It is much more complicated than it seems, as demonstrated once again in committee. It is not as easy as waving a magic wand and saying that now that something is written in the law, it will undoubtedly happen. The Bloc Québécois lent this magic wand to the Conservatives for a few months, until the Conservatives also realized that it could not be done. Today, it is rather amusing to see the Conservatives listening so carefully to the federal public service unions. They are not quite so attentive when they are in power, but for now, they seem to have listened to reason and understood that people cannot be trained, be reassigned and have their work reorganized in that manner.

For example, assigning people to fight tax havens would be a good thing, but it is not at all the same type of work, and the skills and requirements are different. This is magical thinking. Workers in the sector told the committee as much, and I believe that out of respect for these workers and their families, we should really be listening to them, because they are the experts. The NDP did its homework before going to committee, but we continued to listen to them.

We heard other things in committee too. For example, the Bloc Québécois claims that tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved with nary a job lost. It is a new magic wand, and I would sure like to know how that works. Basically, the money pays for labour and wages. If they are claiming savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, they cannot also say that all those people will stay employed. That makes no sense. It is like saying the government is going to cut taxes and increase spending. It is exactly the same contradiction.

During an exchange with the member for Joliette, the member for La Prairie said that only “44% of the 5,300 people are really useful”. That is right in the Standing Committee on Finance evidence. He just said that the other half are technically useless. I would like him to tell the other 3,000 employees that they are useless. Is that the Bloc Québécois's vision for regional economic development and respect for workers? That is really bad.

The member for La Prairie went on to say, “This means that 2,332 of the 5,300 people would remain employed”. It is not hard to figure out that this means 3,000 people would lose their jobs and their pay. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the member for La Prairie said, and anyone can read it in the committee evidence. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 jobs in the regions. They are prepared to sacrifice 3,000 families because they have sunk their teeth into this and are not willing to let go.

There is something Bloc Québécois does not realize. In addition to hurting workers, is not having to fill out two paper tax returns really that useful nowadays? The reality is that hardly anyone fills out their tax returns at home using two forms they picked up at the credit union, right by the door, like they did 15 or 20 years ago.

Most professionals say that, since 2016, the majority of Quebeckers, at least 60%, have their tax returns done by chartered accountants and that 40% still complete their own tax returns. Of that 40%, 75% complete their tax return using online software. When people complete the online form, they are actually completing an income tax return, and the online software puts the information in the appropriate boxes for the little blue sheet or the little red sheet. This hardly has any impact on people's lives anymore. We are talking about 10% or 12% of Quebeckers who still complete two copies of their income tax return on paper.

Is that worth sacrificing 3,000 good jobs? Is that worth making 3,000 families suffer? That percentage drops every year. In a few years, hardly anybody will be filing a paper tax return on their own without the help of a professional.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support this bill because it does not serve the interests of Quebeckers and workers.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about proverbs earlier. As I listened to my Conservative Party colleague and my NDP colleague, it made me think of these words from Falardeau: “We always go too far for people who are going nowhere”. That neatly sums up how change scares people like them, even if it is for the better. They get scared the minute we start talking about change.

The Conservatives, who are traditionally in favour of the idea of a single tax return, introduced and debated a motion in the House in 2019. They based it on a motion that was unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly on May 15, 2018. I know because I was the one who moved that motion in the National Assembly.

The Conservatives spent an entire day debating that motion. Now they are telling us that they no longer support it, because they know the Liberals do not want a single tax return. They want to kill the bill before the Liberals do. That is a great way to play politics—do the dirty work because they know someone else will do it anyway. Are we here to make life better for people, or are we here to play politics for the sole purpose of protecting our jobs?

While the Conservatives know that a single tax return would be better for everyone and for all Quebeckers, it would also be a win for the Bloc Québécois. The last thing the Conservatives want is for us to prove once again that the Bloc is useful to the public. That is the problem.

They would rather see people continue to spend money unnecessarily on two tax returns, and see public servants continue to do the same work twice. However, those public servants could be freed up to do other things. We never said they should be fired. We said that, since they are already being paid, why not use these competent individuals to do something else in the public service at a time when there is a shortage of workers? Am I the only one here who understands that? It is obvious.

According to a scientific study by the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, known as IRAI, the public service would save $287 million. There it is in black and white, backed with evidence, and yet, it is being opposed.

A hospital like Hôpital Pierre-Le Gardeur costs $205 million to build. That is what the savings could amount to for Quebec. With that money, we could build at least one hospital a year, which would improve people's health. That is what we want to do for people.

It makes no sense to have officials doing the same work at two different locations. This does not mean that jobs in the regions will be eliminated. Those people could do other things. We know that the public service is understaffed. There is a shortage of workers. It is looking for people right now. The pandemic will not last forever.

The Conservatives just cannot understand that. They no longer know what to say and are mixing up the dates and figures. They swear that they did not see it that way. You are either for the single tax return or against it. It is like being pregnant: Either you are pregnant or you are not; there is no in between.

Sure, we will have to sign agreements with the other countries, because we will become tax collectors. That is what the Conservatives need to understand, but are not able to. As soon as we try to do something good for Quebec, they oppose it.

Quebeckers support the fight against climate change, but they do not even understand what it is.

Quebeckers support protecting supply management, but they oppose it because they would rather sell their western beef. They voted against supply management. That is a fact.

There is a consensus in Quebec on medical assistance in dying. They wanted to block it. Nothing ever changes with the Conservatives.

This, here, is a smart bill that has been fine-tuned. We have been thinking about it for decades. We did this in 1991 with GST and QST. We managed to set up two collectors, two sales taxes with different parameters. We have done it before, and this is no different. Revenu Québec does it, and it saves us more than $190 million a year.

I see that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has steam coming out of his ears yet again. This happens every time we try to do something good for Quebec. He is unrecognizable and says things that make no sense. He is saying that people no longer file paper tax returns. That is obvious. Does he really think that we do not know that?

The IRAI estimates we would save $99 million for businesses and $39 million for people who file their tax returns at home. These figures took into account that people use their computers to file.

A scientific study by François Vaillancourt has shown that it takes a person in Quebec 10% more time to file their taxes because they have two returns to fill out. It does not say that it took 50% more time, but 10% more time, because we know that people are not filing paper returns. By saving that 10%, businesses would save $99 million and individuals would save $39 million, for a total of $425 million in savings for Quebec. That is what is driving us.

The National Assembly of Quebec wants this. The Premier of Quebec wants this. Business people want this. Even accountants want this. The Conservatives told the Premier of Quebec that they supported it. They told Quebeckers that they supported it. However, they just did an about-face yet again with explanations that make no sense.

At some point, we have to be here for the right reasons. For our part, we are here for the right reasons. We are in politics for our people. We respond to the aspirations of Quebec. We are here when Quebec needs something. We are here for a single tax return. We are here for climate change. We were here to prevent medical assistance in dying from being at the mercy of the religious right in the Conservative Party. We were here and we will continue to be here.

I was happy to be a Bloc member because the Bloc is the only party that truly stands up for Quebeckers. The Conservative Party is unable to look Quebeckers in the eyes and tell them that they stand up for them. I do not know how Conservative members from Quebec can look at themselves in the mirror. They are completely out of touch with the reality of Quebeckers. Quebeckers are no fools.

The same goes for the NDP. It is no better. It said it would vote in favour, but then it messed everything up by voting against in the end. As for jobs, now they are being cut because of this drive to optimize the public service. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has obviously never run a company. The idea is not to fire these people. It is to find something more constructive for them to do so they can serve the public even better for the same pay. Who could be against that?

We have reached this point because the Conservative Party cannot figure out what to focus on. It is even using unions to justify its actions. That really takes the cake. The Conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying to explain an untenable position.

Before I go to bed at night, I look at myself in the mirror, I look at my constituents, I talk to them. Last weekend, people who used to vote Conservative told me they could not imagine the Conservatives being against the single tax return. I told them that if they were in the House, they would have other reasons not to vote for the Conservatives anymore.

I can say that we, the Bloc Québécois, look voters straight in the eye. I am not embarrassed to say that we will fight tooth and nail for them. We are here for that very reason, and we will be here as long as Quebec is sending money to Ottawa. That is our money, and we are going to make sure that it is managed properly, because the single tax return will pay off for Quebeckers.

That is why members will always find the Bloc Québécois in their path. We will push for this because we can do the math. The only interests we care about are Quebeckers' interests.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 4.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Natural Resources

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to get clarity on a question I asked regarding the federal government's approval of the proposed Grassy Mountain coal mine.

Albertans are overwhelmingly opposed to this project and any other coal projects that would open up the eastern slopes for coal exploration or development. At least 28 municipalities, including the four largest cities in Alberta, have expressed grave concerns over potential expansion of coal mining in Alberta. An online group called Protect Alberta's Rockies and Headwaters has swelled to more than 36,000 members in only a few months. Over 100,000 Albertans have signed petitions to stop open-pit coal mining in the Rockies. In fact, just this week, I tabled a petition from Latasha Calf Robe, a member of the Blackfoot Confederacy, with over 18,000 signatures, urging this government to act to protect our Alberta environment from the massive and cumulative impacts of open-pit coal mining.

This is not, or should not be, a partisan issue. While I am the only Alberta member of Parliament prepared to stand against the UCP government on this issue, Albertans speaking out against the disastrous decision to rescind the 1976 coal policy and the subsequent selling off of mining rights to the eastern slopes have come from all sectors, all regions and all political affiliations.

Open-pit coal mining is a sunsetting industry with extremely limited potential to provide economic benefits for Albertans and extremely high potential to cost Albertans in environmental cleanup, lost jobs and economic growth in industries like tourism, farming and ranching. Albertans are already facing extraordinary cleanup costs associated with abandoned oil and gas wells; coal mining on the eastern slopes promises a second costly environmental reclamation liability. In fact, the only ones who will benefit from this mine project will be Gina Rinehart, the Australian billionaire who owns Benga Mining.

I can tell members that neither Ms. Rinehart nor any of the mining executives from Benga Mining will be the ones living downstream of this project. It will not be their water supply at risk, it will not be their environment that is irreparably damaged, and it certainly will not be their livelihoods that are destroyed.

The people who stand to lose the most if the federal government approves this project will be the Canadians who live downstream. The Grassy Mountain coal project threatens the water supply for much of southern Alberta, including drinking water and irrigation water. I have spoken with many farmers and ranchers in the area. One rancher who irrigates his property via the Oldman River, Mr. Holtman, spoke to me of his deep concerns. He told me that he has lost all trust that the Government of Alberta will protect him and his ranch. He is worried about what will happen if the water that he and his neighbours depend upon for their livelihoods becomes poisoned.

It is not just Albertans who will be impacted. If the Grassy Mountain project goes ahead, it will open the door to further projects in the eastern slopes, which together threaten both the South Saskatchewan River and North Saskatchewan River basins, including the Oldman, Bow, Red Deer and North Saskatchewan rivers. We have already seen the devastating impacts of open-pit mining in B.C., where the leaching of selenium and other pollutants into watersheds has caused massive damage, devastating fish habitat and species at risk.

On behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the indigenous communities who were not adequately consulted, on behalf of all Albertans who cherish our Rocky Mountains and the water and wildlife within, I am urging this government to reject the Grassy Mountain coal project and all subsequent open-pit coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

Can we count on this government to do the right thing and stop this dangerous and destructive project?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the proposed Grassy Mountain coal project. The proposed metallurgical coal project is currently undergoing a rigorous environmental assessment by an independent joint review panel. The panel was established jointly by the federal government and the Alberta Energy Regulator in 2018. The panel process is ensuring a thorough and transparent review of the project based on science and traditional knowledge, meeting the high standards that Canadians have come to expect in a federal environmental assessment.

The work of the panel is ongoing and it would be premature for me to opine on the potential environmental effects of this project while the assessment is under way. The independent panel, however, does have a mandate to consider the potential effects of this proposed project on not only the environment, including the effects on water quality and quantity, but also its socio-economic implications. The panel is also considering the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions that are directly attributable to the project.

Canadians have told us that they want to have a meaningful voice in how these types of projects are considered and contribute to an informed decision-making process. That is exactly what this government is doing through the environmental assessment of the Grassy Mountain coal project. Through the environmental assessment, various stakeholders have been provided with opportunities to provide their views and perspectives, including the economic benefits or drawbacks of the project.

To inform the panel's assessment, a public hearing was held recently, from October 27 to December 2, 2020. The public hearing provided a very transparent and open opportunity for the panel to hear directly from numerous interested parties, including those with local and regional interests that could be affected by the project. These views will help inform the environmental assessment and this government's decision on whether the project will be allowed to proceed.

The panel is now preparing its report for submission to the minister by June 18 of this year. The report will provide the panel's conclusions on the significance of any adverse effects and recommendations for ways to mitigate effects related to the project. I can assure the House that before any decision is made regarding this project, the panel's report and the views of participants brought forward in this assessment will be given due consideration.

Our government is committed to a federal assessment process that is robust, based on science and indigenous knowledge; protects our rich natural environment; respects the rights of indigenous peoples and supports our natural resources sector. I have heard from many concerned citizens that this project goes against our national objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this assessment process, the direct emissions of the project will be considered in the decision-making process and balanced carefully against our climate change commitments.

In addition to this project-specific review, I would like to bring to everyone's attention other initiatives our government is undertaking to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of coal mining activities in Canada, including any impacts related to emissions of greenhouse gases. These initiatives include the strategic assessment of climate change, the strategic assessment of thermal coal mining, the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and the clean fuel standard regulations.

Further, our government is committed to ensuring that our waters are safe, clean and well managed. Environment and Climate Change Canada is developing coal mining effluent regulations under the federal Fisheries Act. The goal of the regulations will be to reduce the risks posed by harmful substances like selenium from coal mining effluent in order to protect the aquatic environment.

In closing, I want to assure the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, we have passed the time allocated for the first segment. The hon. parliamentary secretary will have an extra minute at the end that he may wish to use.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I tabled legislation calling for changes to the federal Impact Assessment Act. In the changes I proposed, I asked that the federal government take on an impact assessment of all future coal projects, regardless of their size. As the minister knows, the federal assessment only happens if a project states that it will produce more than 5,000 tonnes per day. We have seen time and time again that companies propose amounts just under that threshold to avoid federal assessment. In fact, right now the Tent Mountain project is proposing 4,925 tonnes per day, which I think is clearly an attempt to avoid federal scrutiny.

Knowing that the Alberta Conservative government has lost all credibility to protect the Alberta environment, would the minister support such changes to the Impact Assessment Act?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that our government will take the time necessary to ensure that the decision on this project is based on evidence and science, and that the views of indigenous peoples and the public are considered.

The Government of Canada is undertaking a consultation process with potentially affected indigenous groups to ensure that no decision on this project is taken without a full understanding of its impacts on rights and any required accommodation is in place to address those impacts if the project proceeds. This government is committed to ensuring that strong measures exist to reduce greenhouse gases, and is committed to an emissions reduction goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Environment

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2019, Parliament recognized that we were in a climate emergency. While it is true that the provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources, climate change does not recognize political jurisdictions. The federal government is responsible for upholding the international climate accords that Canada has signed. It is incumbent upon all levels of government to work together to address this emergency with the urgency it requires. The time for dithering and jurisdictional squabbles is over. It is time to act.

Canadian old growth forests are under threat. Their destruction and mismanagement will accelerate climate change and biodiversity loss, but a clear path to preserving these endangered ecosystems is open to us if we commit ourselves to the principles of UNDRIP and recognize the rights and title of indigenous peoples and their stewardship of these lands.

Unfortunately, there are far too many hurdles and roadblocks, and time is running out. While I commend the federal government’s commitment to plant two billion trees, there is concern that the tree planting program will be nothing more than a taxpayer-funded subsidy for the forestry industry. Seedlings are planted mostly in clear cuts, replacing trees that had a far greater capacity to capture and store carbon. These monoculture tree farms lack biodiversity.

I also commend the government's commitment to protect 30% of Canada’s terrestrial areas by 2030, with a focus on protecting intact ecosystems and areas of high biodiversity value. This is why I am urging the government to work with first nations and with the provinces to protect Canada’s old growth ecosystems before it is too late.

The terrible reality is that, from a government perspective, it is relatively simple to clear cut an old growth forest. Protecting and preserving these endangered ecosystems is more difficult. Since colonization, the economy has been based on the extraction and removal of resources. We talk a good game about preservation, but the hurdles and roadblocks that must be overcome to save endangered ecosystems lay bare the underlying values and priorities of governments.

On Vancouver Island, only 9% of the original valley bottom big tree old growth forest is still standing. Just 2.6% of this is protected in parks. Contrary to its repeatedly stated commitment to protect old growth forest ecosystems, the provincial government continues to allow old growth logging.

The B.C. government is also looking at doubling the annual allowable cut in northern B.C. so whole trees can be ground up and exported as biofuel pellets. This flies in the face of climate accountability and should be opposed. There are plenty of second-growth forests available for a healthy forest economy.

The focus should be on value added manufacturing so that forest resources are used to maximize jobs and economic benefit rather than for raw log exports. The Canadian boreal forest is also a globally significant carbon bank and stores more carbon than is currently in the world’s atmosphere. The soils, wetlands and trees of the boreal forest soak up twice as much carbon as a tropical forest. Without protection, the boreal forest could become a major carbon emitter.

If we are truly committed to the principles of UNDRIP, and to recognizing the rights and title of indigenous peoples, governments must provide critical financing for first nations land protection initiatives and support sustainable economic alternatives to old growth logging for the first nations communities in these unceded territories. It is the responsibility of the provincial and federal governments to remove the hurdles and roadblocks to first nations land protection initiatives. It cannot continue to be easier to cut a forest down than to protect it.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for old growth forests as they provide rare and important habitat for wildlife, especially migratory birds and species at risk, like southern mountain caribou, spotted owl and many others.

While the provinces and territories have jurisdictions over the vast majority of our forests, the conservation and biodiversity is a shared responsibility. ECCC, Environment and Climate Change Canada, takes this responsibility very seriously. With our provincial and territorial partners, we have identified the forest sector as a priority to improve conservation outcomes for our species at risk.

Through our priority sectors initiative, we have recently launched a process to develop a species at risk conservation action plan with provinces, territories, indigenous communities, the forest industry and environmental groups. When complete, this action plan will identify and prioritize opportunities for the alignment of conservation and forest sector policy and practice with positive outcomes for species at risk conservation and sector sustainability.

Further, Canada is co-operating with the provinces and territories to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025. Our intent is that this will include more old growth forests as protected areas. The process will involve engagement with indigenous partners, provinces and other interested partners and organizations.

B.C. and Canada are looking forward to pursuing co-operation on old growth forest-related conservation opportunities under the recently announced bilateral nature agreement that is currently being negotiated by federal and provincial partners.

Finally, the government is working with provinces and stakeholders to develop robust land use and biodiversity criteria as part of the clean fuel standard to ensure that there are no adverse land use impacts or loss of biodiversity from growing and harvesting biofuel feedstock. Only biofuels made from feedstock that meets these criteria will be eligible for credit under the clean fuel standard. Under the proposed regulations, forest feedstocks must be harvested according to a management plan that prevents negative impacts to old growth forest stands or forests.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if Vancouver Island old growth were a banquet table, there would only be crumbs remaining.

The first nations have only recently been invited to share in some of the small economic benefits from logging the last of these ancient ecosystems. We cannot expect first nations that are struggling with the legacy of colonization to engage in the lengthy administrative processes necessary to protect endangered ecosystems without serious government support.

Canada is a climate laggard. We have the worst record of the G7 countries for emissions increases. People are fed up with government inaction. On Vancouver Island, land defenders are taking direct action and gearing up for another war in the woods, much like the campaign to save Clayoquot Sound, which became an international movement in 1993.

The Liberal government could avoid an international black eye by stepping up to protect endangered old growth ecosystems now. I hope it will do so.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his advocacy and passion.

I want to assure him that this will also be an important part of Canada's plan to tackle climate change. Temperate, old growth forest, for example, function as important carbon reservoirs. Nature-based climate solutions, such as tree planting and ecosystem restoration, which will be undertaken as part of the recently announced natural climate solutions fund, would allow carbon to be absorbed or would prevent carbon from being released into the atmosphere.

This will have a positive impact on ecosystems, including in old growth forests, and will help Canada to reach its climate goals.

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

Mr. Speaker, last fall I asked the Minister of Environment about the critical state of the population of spotted owls in British Columbia. There was once over 1,000 spotted owls in Canada, all of them found in the forests of southwestern British Columbia. By 1986, that number had dwindled to 200 as critical old-growth forest habitat disappeared, and the species was assessed as endangered in Canada.

Over the next decade, the population declined to 100 birds, and now there are only three spotted owls left in the wild in Canada. Two of those owls are a mated pair living in the old-growth forest of Spuzzum Creek in the rugged country along the Fraser Canyon. Many people, including me, were surprised to hear that logging was being carried out in that watershed. We were surprised because the primary cause of the decline of the spotted owl population is the continued loss and fragmentation of old-growth forests in southern B.C.

Before I switched to politics six years ago, I was a biologist, and a lot of my work concerned the conservation biology of owls. I have been following this situation for many years, and indeed I took part in the first organized surveys for spotted owls in British Columbia back in the 1980s. I therefore have a lot of concern about recovery efforts for spotted owls in Canada, and it is clear that the efforts made so far have been largely ineffective.

After the federal Species at Risk Act came into effect in 2003, the government was required to develop recovery plans so that the populations of endangered species could at least stabilize and hopefully increase to become “not at risk”. That certainly has not worked out well for spotted owls.

The provincial government in B.C. has been carrying out a captive breeding program for spotted owls, and I think there are 28 owls in that program right now. Some of those birds will be released for the first time this spring. What is important for captive breeding programs is that there is enough suitable habitat to release birds into, and for spotted owls that means old-growth forests.

I am happy to hear that the Government of B.C. has recently released a plan to preserve old-growth forests. This initiative is long overdue. However, much of the remaining old growth lies outside the range of spotted owls, which is not found in the interior, on the north coast or even on Vancouver Island.

I spoke to the federal minister about this situation last fall and urged him to engage with the province to develop a more rigorous recovery strategy for spotted owls. I also talked to the B.C. minister and her staff about their plans, and I was happy to get briefings on the size, number and location of wildlife habitat areas that provide some refuge for this endangered species.

I was very happy to hear recently that both ministers are in the process of creating a new recovery strategy for the spotted owl. I hope it produces a more realistic chance for recovery, through increases in the size and number of wildlife habitat areas and other measures. I will be watching closely as these plans roll out later this year and in coming years.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his advocacy. I want to assure him, as a fellow biologist, that spotted owl conservation is a concern of mine and the minister's, and we take that concern very seriously.

Now more than ever, Canadians know the value of nature and wild spaces. It is vital that we take action locally, regionally and nationally to recover Canada's species at risk and restore their habitat.

In October of last year, the minister received requests from environmental and indigenous partners to give immediate attention to the last remaining wild spotted owls in B.C., acknowledging that successful species conservation depends on the commitment and co-operation of many jurisdictions.

On February 25, the governments of Canada and B.C. announced the development of a bilateral nature agreement that will enhance our mutual engagement on species and habitat conservation while enabling immediate action to support spotted owl recovery. In particular, as part of the agreement, federal officials will complete updating the spotted owl recovery strategy, and provincial counterparts will launch a strategy of the reintroduction of captive spotted owls to the wild. The province also announced that timber harvesting will be deferred in the Spuzzum Creek and Utzlius Creek watersheds, where the last spotted owls known to be breeding in the wild are found, while the agreement is being negotiated.

Beyond spotted owls, the nature agreement will support the way the governments of Canada and B.C. engage on habitat conservation and species more broadly, helping us move away from single-species conservation to ecosystem-wide conservation action.

The Government of Canada is committed to both conserving and protecting Canada's biodiversity, wildlife and associated habitats, and to meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples.

Indeed, we understand these two priorities go hand in hand, and we will continue to actively engage with first nations to chart out a conservation plan that is consistent with the significance of the species to those communities and our commitments to reconciliation.

Finally, we all depend on nature and want to support the incredible diversity of Canada's wildlife. Now is the time for action to protect natural ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for those reassurances. I am happy to hear both governments are talking about this. I am certainly happy to hear that logging in the Spuzzum and Utzlius creeks has been deferred for a year while a new recovery plan can be drawn up.

We need quick action, or we will lose this species in Canada. Spotted owls are just one of the species that need old-growth forests in Canada. As the parliamentary secretary said, we need to look at a multi-species approach, but we need a recovery plan that works for all these species. We have frittered away years, decades, with little or no effective action, and we are really standing at the edge. The longer we wait, the more dire the situation will get and the more it will cost in money, time and effort to recover this species and the old-growth forests they rely on.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue the department and provincial partners have been seized with for many years. Recent announcements build upon ongoing work by various jurisdictions. This includes Environment and Climate Change Canada's work on a new recovery strategy for the spotted owl, which will help outline concrete conservation and recovery activities to support the species and identify critical habitat. At the provincial level, it includes the province of B.C.'s investments in captive breeding, competitor control and habitat conservation.

In conclusion, I share the hon. member's passion and commitment to preserving endangered species. There is more work to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 8:02 p.m.)