House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 26, 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.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the proceedings this evening. I am looking forward to having a better answer than the one I received during question period on Thursday, May 13. I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources about Line 5 and what the government of the day had done to ensure it would continue to run.
I will give a bit of background on Line 5. Enbridge Line 5 dual pipeline is part of a system shipping oil from Saskatchewan and Alberta through pipelines to refineries in Sarnia, a petrochemical hub in the southern Ontario region. From there, it goes to Quebec via the Line 9 pipeline. These pipelines connect provinces around Canada and ensure we create jobs in a sustainable way. We all know pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to move oil and natural gas, which is also moved in Line 5. The minister, floundering through his CTV interview, said that if Line 5 was to be shut down, oil and gas would be moved by truck, rail and in tankers, which would be less efficient than through a pipeline.
I am hoping to get an answer on why the government filed the amicus brief at the last second. First, why did the government not submit it sooner to the district court? Second, why did the government not use some of its connections? We all know, and we have seen that it was on the BNN report. Maybe we could have picked up the phone and talked with President Biden to see if he would reach out to his political ally, Governor Whitmer, to see if they would cease the debate about whether Line 5 should be shut down. We know this was a political decision made by the governor in her 2018 campaign.
The actual costs if Line 5 is shut down are huge, not only in Canada but in the United States as well. It will cost tens of thousands of jobs. The Biden administration could, if it wanted to, issue an executive order either telling the Government of Michigan that it cannot revoke the easement or telling the governor not to revoke the easement until it has been determined whether a U.S.-Canada pipeline transit treaty applies. A pipeline transit treaty between the United States and Canada was brought into effect in 1977.
This was stated on BNN by Kristen van de Biezenbos, associate law professor at the University of Calgary, in regard to the 1977 transit treaty. This treaty has never been invoked and it was unclear whether it could actually be invoked in the Line 5 situation. There is still a question about whether it can be invoked, so it has to be settled in the courts.
At some point in time the government needs to take action before it reaches a crisis point. I wish the government would show western Canadians and the petrochemical workers at the refineries in Sarnia that this is a serious issue. I have concerns with the late reaction and coming to the table at the 12th hour to submit the amicus brief. Many people who I represent have told me that they sometimes feel they are not being heard as strongly as those in other areas of western Canada.
I would just ask whoever is going to answer the question why the brief was filed late, whether the 1977 pipeline treaty can be invoked and whether the Prime Minister picked up the phone and asked the President to intervene in this situation.
Marc Serré LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for allowing me to bring clarity to this very important matter. Despite all the partisan bickering, members of all four official parties have spoken with one voice in support of Line 5, including the small-c Conservative premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.
I can assure Canadians that this government has taken a firm stand on this matter since it emerged. Our government has engaged and continues to engage at all levels to advocate for Line 5. Most recently, we intervened in the legal dispute between Michigan Governor Whitmer's administration and Enbridge, asking the courts to ensure that the case remains at the federal level, especially in light of the 1977 Canada-U.S. treaty on transit pipelines.
This is exactly what members of the special committee on Canada-U.S. relations unanimously asked us to do. We will keep pushing at the political level, all the way to the top at the diplomatic level. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, this is non-negotiable. Energy workers and consumers will not be left out in the cold.
We worked very closely with the provinces, industry and unions, and we raised the issue of Line 5 directly with the U.S. administration. This approach was and continues to be a Team Canada approach. We continue to voice support for North American energy security because Line 5 is not only important infrastructure on the Canadian side of the border, it is vital to the United States. It also represents the integrated, intertwined and mutually beneficial relationship of our two countries. It is a relationship linked by more than 70 pipelines and almost three dozen transmission lines. This ecosystem of deeply integrated investment and trade is connected through shared supply and manufacturing.
The people of northern Michigan rely on Line 5 to heat their homes and businesses. We also move Marathon's refined oil, which is used as fuel for government vehicles, trucks and planes, among other things. Line 5 also supplies refineries in Ohio and neighbouring Pennsylvania, as well as in Ontario and Quebec.
We also regularly remind our counterparts in Washington and Michigan that Line 5 has been operating safely for 68 years.
That is why we support Enbridge's proposal of the Great Lakes tunnel project to add a layer of assurance over and above Enbridge's oversight of this outstanding pipeline. The debate also draws attention to the renewed Canada-U.S. relationship, bonded by a common objective to confront and overcome this pandemic. We will build our economies and leave no workers or communities behind, and we will join forces to take on the essential climate change crisis. We are also united in recognizing that we need our respective petroleum sectors. As we drive forward, we need the know-how, skill and financial muscle to make the changes necessary to reach our Paris targets.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I believe it was not bickering. I laid some pretty salient points on the table. We were concerned that it was a bit late coming. I think that is a fair comment.
A few other pipeline issues have come to a head and have not really gone well, in Saskatchewan and western Canada, the way they would like to see them. There was Keystone XL and other projects where we were looking forward to having the opportunity to build some nation-building projects like Teck Frontier and northern gateway. Trans Mountain is on the way, but we just want to make sure that people are hearing what we say. I am here to represent my constituents. There are a lot of people who work at Evraz steel and they want to see that good, sustainable and environmentally friendly pipeline used in making some of these nation-building projects.
Just to reiterate, we want to make sure that the government is on top of this particular file. Premier Moe did have a few comments about the natural resource minister's—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I have to give the floor to the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Madam Speaker, we recognize that many across the country are concerned about Line 5. That is why I am proud that our Prime Minister has continued to stand up for this vital piece of energy infrastructure at every turn, as has every minister, every parliamentarian and every senior official wherever and whenever there is a chance to engage with their American counterparts.
Members of the four official parties asked Enbridge and the State of Michigan to settle this matter out of court. Line 5 is vital to the economy and security of both our countries, and maintaining operations supports good jobs for the middle class and thousands of workers in western Canada and in Sarnia, Montreal, Lévis and Quebec City.
I thank my hon. colleague for asking the question and for continuing to work together as part of Team Canada to put pressure on the State of Michigan to resolve this matter in consultation with Enbridge.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I am strong, proud and ready as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke representing Garrison Petawawa. I rise to defend the honour and reputations of the women and men who serve as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly when the government refuses to do so.
The very reputation of Canada is at stake. On May 4, I asked the Prime Minister why he had not acted on the very disturbing evidence of war crimes. Responding on behalf of the Prime Minister, the defence minister once again claimed ignorance.
For the government, ignorance seems to be the only answer. How embarrassing for an image-obsessed Prime Minister that the head of the vaccine rollout in Canada, Major-General Dany Fortin, would be the flag officer responsible for informing the department about war crimes.
How lucky for the Prime Minister that he was sitting on another allegation of sexual misconduct. By sweeping up General Fortin into the Prime Minister's sexual misconduct scandal, the government's propaganda machine went into overdrive to bury the war crimes allegation crisis. First job: Get General Fortin out of the limelight by throwing him under the sexual misconduct bus. Next, signal to the subsidized media to cover up the story. Then pray by the time the Prime Minister pushes pandemic Canada into an unwanted election the war crimes allegation is swept under the rug: a rug now bulging with the Liberal sexual misconduct scandal, WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin and Mark Norman. This rug cannot cover much more.
Canadians have another example of the Prime Minister's failure to show leadership. According to the Canadian Armed Forces briefing note, the graphic images included raping a woman to death, torturing and executing a line of bound prisoners by beating them to death with what appeared to be rebar, executing bound prisoners by shooting, and executing a man by hanging him from the barrel of a battle tank. At least seven Canadian non-commissioned officers viewed the footage. To their credit, they immediately reported the situation to their superiors, with General Dany Fortin being at the top as commander for NATO Mission Iraq.
The defence minister's own press secretary, Jordan Owens, confirmed that when it comes to situations of armed conflict, members of the Canadian Armed Forces receive a rigorous pre-deployment training with respect to the Geneva convention and international law. Canadians are proud of the fact that a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
There is an obligation to report, as a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All trained soldiers know that article 50 of the Geneva convention prohibits acts of willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners. Under the leadership of a Conservative prime minister, Canada was an early champion of this international law that exists to prevent torture in civilian and military detention centres.
Sadly, under the Liberal government, Canada has become an international laggard when it comes to things like torture and cruel treatment. As a follow-up to this convention, the UN developed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, OPCAT. Canada has still not officially adopted that agreement. If Canada is complicit in torture, how can we credibly promote human rights?
We have heard before from the parliamentary secretary on the sexual misconduct scandal. I hope this time the House will hear something other than the excuse, “We did not know”.
Anita Vandenbeld LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Madam Speaker, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces support our government's approach to Operation Impact. Our contribution has been essential to fighting Daesh and bringing security and stability to the region. Members of our armed forces have worked tirelessly with our allies and partners on that non-combat mission.
They have provided intelligence and airlift capabilities and have worked alongside other members of the global coalition to defeat Daesh.
Ultimately, our government and our Canadian Armed Forces are contributing to building lasting security and stability. We are proud of the work of our deployed troops, and we are deeply troubled by the concerns raised by Canadian Armed Forces members about alleged violations of the law of armed conflict by members of the Iraqi security forces and the handling of those reports. The allegations referenced by the hon. member point to events that would have taken place in the fall of 2018. The Canadian Armed Forces is no longer operating with the Iraqi security forces related to these allegations.
We are grateful to the soldiers who first brought forward their concerns and continued raising them. This matter has now been referred to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service for review and investigation. It is determining whether it is the proper body to investigate and whether procedures were followed in response to this allegation.
It is important to note that the law of armed conflict serves as a guiding principle in all of our efforts to counter Daesh. In accordance with those principles, Canadian Armed Forces members are required to report any violations of the law of armed conflict or international human rights law. Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on Operation Impact undergo training on the law of armed conflict, which includes how to prevent and report any suspected incidents or abuses. The partner forces that we train with currently go through a stringent and lengthy vetting process. That process ensures that all reasonable precautions are taken to reduce the risk of training forces that have committed or are likely to commit violations of the law of armed conflict.
Our military is known to act as a force for good in the world. We know that reputation will only be maintained by our willingness to continually question our own practices and fully support those who raise concerns.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, once again the parliamentary secretary has been sent to offer excuses for the failures of the minister.
The claim that the Liberals are investigating is laughable. We all know they are covering this up to protect the Prime Minister again. When he made the immature remark about whipping out fighter jets, he was trying to brand himself as more enlightened. As a result, he recalled the fighter jets from Operation Impact and sent our troops to act as trainers on the ground.
Learning we were training war criminals goes against the Prime Minister's brand, but instead of reversing this immature policy, they covered it up, because in the Liberal government there is no higher obligation than to protect the Prime Minister's brand. Everything else is secondary. From the first indigenous justice minister to sexual assault survivors, they are all cannon fodder, human shields thrown out to protect the brand from incoming questions and investigations. If the parliamentary secretary disagrees, I encourage her to prove it by ending the Liberal filibuster at the defence committee.
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces are well trained and prepared to take on their roles and responsibilities, including those relating to armed conflict as part of Operation Impact.
We take these troubling allegations very seriously because we know any concern that is raised by Canadian Armed Forces members should be heard and given the attention that Canadians expect. We take all incidents regarding compliance with the law of armed conflict seriously and take the proper actions to address the issues that arise.
This matter has now been referred to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service for consideration. It is determining whether it is the proper body to investigate whether procedures were followed in response to this allegation.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, how we measure the value of things says a lot about who we are as a people and as a society.
Currently we measure the performance of our economy by gross domestic product. GDP measures the market value of all goods produced and services provided in a given period of time.
When the consumption of goods and services goes up, so too does the GDP, regardless of whether the effects on people and society are positive or negative. For example, if a couple gets a divorce, it is great for the GDP. There are lawyers' fees to pay, and if the divorce proceedings go to court, the bills are even higher.
The former spouses now have separate homes and greater expenses than when they lived together. If they have children, the cost of setting up two homes for the kids increases expenses even more. If things go horribly wrong, and an angry spouse burns down the family home or totals the car, that is a bonus for GDP growth. However, what is the real cost of all this economic activity?
Healthy family relationships are integral for childhood development, and many divorces have a negative impact on that development. GDP does not account for the personal and social value of happy healthy families. GDP also does not account for the value of a healthy, biodiverse environment. When one is only measuring GDP, an old growth forest ecosystem has no value until it has been clear cut and turned into lumber.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is among the economists arguing that gross domestic product fails to capture the impact of climate change, inequality, digital services and other phenomena shaping modern societies. He points out that GDP failed to reveal distortions in the bloated U.S. housing market, which triggered the 2008 financial crash.
Some economists refer to GDP as gross depletion of the planet. At a rate of 3% GDP growth annually, we double the size of our economy every 24 years. That means we also double the exploitation and consumption of resources, which is completely unsustainable. If all humans consumed and disposed of products and materials the way the average North American did, we would need seven planets for the necessary resources.
GDP only values things that can be commodified. In a society where GDP is the main measurement, efforts to protect the environment can never succeed. There might be occasional small wins, but the endless drive to turn everything into money will always triumph because unexploited nature has no value on a balance sheet. The crash in biodiversity is the inevitable result of an economy and society that only values GDP growth.
While it would not make sense to completely eliminate GDP as a measurement, it needs to be tied to other indicators, such as the United Nations human development index, which adds together consumption, life expectancy and educational performance at the country level. Another option is the genuine progress indicator, or GPI, which incorporates environmental and social factors that are not measured by GDP. For example, GPI decreases in value when poverty rates increase. The GPI separates the concept of societal progress from economic growth.
It is time to adopt measurements of well-being that support healthy and happy humans, healthy and happy societies, and a healthy, resilient environment.
Sean Fraser LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, the hon. member cited Joseph Stiglitz, who recently put together one of the most important books that I have read over the past few years. He hypothesizes in the book that it is essential that we not only pursue GDP, but that government should focus on improving the quality of life for middle-class citizens who reside within its borders. If it is our collective hope as a nation, and I would suggest it should be, to improve the quality of life that Canadians enjoy, then it is essential that we do a better job of measuring what matters. Thankfully, we have already started this important work of going beyond GDP to improve the quality of life of Canadians by focusing on their health and safety, the access they have to a healthy family situation and taking action to protect our environment and ensure that the growth that we do experience is both sustainable and inclusive.
Before I get too far, I want to emphasize the importance of recognizing that GDP does have a role to play. We should not for a moment necessarily reduce the importance of focusing on how investment can grow the economy or the importance of managing our fiscal situation in a prudent way. In fact, these elements of governance are essential to achieving a high quality of life. However, increasing Canada's GDP is not, in and of itself, enough.
As Canadians, we have been going through a challenging time together this past year and a half. This pandemic has made it abundantly clear that our quality of life is so much more than our country's gross domestic productivity and the people in our lives are far more important than the money in our bank accounts at the end of every month. Our ability to thrive is linked to our health and safety, good housing, access to the outdoors, access to clean water, education, leisure time with our friends and family, social connections and so much more. Our government agrees with the vast majority of Canadians that it is time to move toward a much more holistic decision-making process, one that takes these factors into account.
I would point the hon. member to budget 2021 where we brought forward Canada's first-ever quality of life framework located in annex 4, for those who want to dig in. I want to congratulate, in particular, the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity, who I have the honour and privilege of working alongside, for all of her incredible work in bringing this framework forward. This has helped guide decisions in the most recent budget that will in fact enhance the quality of life for Canadians. It helped lead to the decisions to formulate Canada's first-ever national affordable universal child care system, a robust climate plan that is going to create jobs and protect our environment for generations to come and to focus investments not only on growth, but also on measures that will improve the quality of our health care system, mental health, in particular, and so many other aspects of this recent budget.
This is a made-in-Canada approach that goes beyond looking at traditional macroeconomic indicators and will be used to enhance the quality of life that Canadians experience day to day. By using a broader suite of indicators, measuring, for example, factors such as mental health, the environment, employment and social trust, our government is going to be able to better measure and evaluate the impacts of key initiatives that are essential to Canadians' well-being. This includes looking at the distribution of outcomes and opportunities across demographics and in places ,and whether today's prosperity could potentially undermine the future living standards of the next generation. We need to ensure that gender equality, diversity and the well-being of Canadians are at the centre of decision-making. It is fundamental, if we are going to create a thriving and successful country that reflects our values as a nation, that we implement those values in the decision-making process.
Frankly, this is the right time for this framework. As we look forward to rebuild the inclusive growth—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, there is a term that some thinkers use to describe our current economic model, and that is a “self-terminating civilization”. In the pursuit of greater and greater economic growth, we are driving ourselves toward extinction, so measurements of economic well-being must account for environmental degradation and social costs. I am glad to see the government moving in this direction.
We need to strive toward a circular economy with zero waste so that every product has a full life-cycle plan in its components. Our shared goals should be to eliminate poverty and homelessness; improve health outcomes through expanded health care services, mental health, dental care and pharmacare; provide free education from preschool through post-secondary; and leave a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.
Doing better starts by placing a value on things that really matter for our survival: clean air, clean water, nutritious food and a safe and secure place to live.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member sincerely for his approach to this issue and so many others.
In the one minute that I have to conclude, it is essential that we see the value of a forest before it is cut down. It is essential that we see the value in the time we spend with our families, not just at our desks or at our places of work. If we want to focus, as we should, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, on ameliorating the quality of life that Canadians enjoy, then we need to measure what matters. That includes bringing into the decision-making process a focus on ensuring that all Canadians can benefit from economic growth, that growth is sustainable and that we do not put the almighty dollar ahead of concern for families' well-being.
It is an honour to speak to this issue today and every day.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)