House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was spending.

Topics

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak to this bill, but I also do so with great humility.

The principle of Bill C-235 was interesting in the sense that the Government of Canada can act specifically in a regional development fund and that there can be a contribution from regions and territories that take matters into their own hands and provide some sort of support for innovation in their jurisdiction. The principle seemed very appealing to me.

Then again, in committee, we felt that, despite the good will of the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, whom I salute, the bill also had a political aim. To me, that is an irritant.

The Bloc Québécois is as much in favour of the principle of the bill as it was when we voted on it at second reading. However, I am now saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-235. This is the position I defended in committee.

Of course, we are in dire need of a plan to accelerate the greening of the Prairie economy, which is currently trapped in the 20th century because it relies far too much on fossil fuels.

As members will recall, the member for Winnipeg South Centre was the minister of natural resources from 2015 to 2018. He knows that this is going to be a huge project and that it will take a monumental effort to muster the necessary resources. In fact, it might have been interesting to see such a bill put forward back then.

We know that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that the prairie provinces will suffer a decline unless they diversify their economy and start going digital. They will have to start soon, but doing it quickly may be just as painful.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle of Bill C‑235, but, as I mentioned, during our study, which included five meetings, 17 witnesses and five briefs, several shortcomings were revealed. The transition to a green economy that Bill C‑235 talks about is essentially a shift to nuclear. Many people saw it as an opportunity to push small modular plants, which would provide the energy required to extract more oil. That shocked me.

In this context, I think that we cannot equate a transition to clean energy with a transition to nuclear energy. Let us not forget that there are still some serious safety issues involved in the management of nuclear waste.

We heard testimony from the governments of the three provinces covered by Bill C‑235, and they basically told us that they did not want it. For me, as a Bloc Québécois member representing the interests of Quebec, this was quite revealing. Perhaps that is what made me change my mind. Why should we impose a bill on other provinces that will dictate to them how they should develop their own land?

To me, the provinces are the real experts. If the federal government wants to contribute financially, great. However, the real question is, who will be in charge of coordination and whose development vision will prevail? In this context, the provinces have made it clear that it is not up to Ottawa to take the lead. They will not allow the federal government to take charge of regional economic development on their territory. They do not want the federal government to be responsible for coordinating the various stakeholders involved, particularly the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, and the workers, who are also under provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois does not feel directly involved because, obviously, we do not have any members from the Prairies. We are limited to Quebec. However, when a province asks that we respect its jurisdiction, we listen. We hope to get the same consideration in return when we ask others to respect the autonomy and jurisdiction of Quebec. It would be nice if the House applied this principle more often: If an issue concerns us, we are interested; if it does not, we can still take an interest in the principle and support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois has done. However, when we examine the bill in depth, we realize that it is flawed. Above all, we want to say that the federal government should refrain from interfering even if it would like to. That is the position that we in the Bloc Québécois will take.

The amendments that the committee adopted and that are in its report are essentially technical changes, such as specifying which department is responsible for what, or semantic changes, such as adding a green veneer to the wording. However, this does not fix the flaws in Bill C‑235, and many people expressed concerns about the bill being somewhat improvised.

With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who I think had a commendable motive in introducing the bill, there are significant challenges in the Prairies. As we know, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers, on average. A Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. Transitioning to a green economy will really be a major challenge, but I do not think the answer lies in this bill. That speaks volumes about the magnitude of the challenges facing the provinces.

In regional economic development, there is a concept known as the “intrusive rentier syndrome”. It is what happens when a region has one large employer that pays high wages but is part of a declining industry. That is the challenge. Think of Trans Mountain, for example, which cost us $14 billion and counting, with all the repair costs and so on. I made a suggestion in committee: Is it not time to sell that pipeline and invest the money in the research ecosystem so that solutions can be found in universities for a truly green economic recovery?

There was a certain amount of backlash against the acquisition of the pipeline. People reacted to the idea that the government would own such a big pipeline. The government should not take such a risk with taxpayer money from Quebec and Canada. It would normally be up to the private sector. The greening of the economy requires concrete incentives. The federal government can collaborate on this, but should not be interfering in local co-operation as the bill stipulates. It is a step we are not ready to take.

Of course there were some interesting options: the transportation issue, job creation, job retraining, projects that create natural infrastructure and a clean environment. That is in there, but, as I said, so is nuclear power. That is something I found that to be an irritant. Nuclear power cannot be presented as an option just by naming it. I think there would be some background work to do. I am glad that we were able to hear from the witnesses who came to testify during our study of the bill. They told us that progress has been made, but it remains an extremely risky industry. I am not prepared to take that risk at this time, although it is believed to be a good thing. A lot of good things can be said until a disaster happens. To me, that is very concerning.

I would like to talk about the fiscal policy that encouraged development of the oil industry at the time. There were tax credits on oil exploration and site development, or investment and subsidies to clean up the pollution. It was a public takeover of some of the environmental liabilities. There are some reasons for what happened in the past, but at the same time, they can lead us to solutions now.

Again, we can make a real transition with a better sharing in terms of energy. We know that a hydrogen plant was recently established in Alberta. Some solutions are being put forward. However, I wonder if this hydrogen produced in Alberta will be truly green. It does not make sense to burn oil to produce hydrogen in order not to burn oil in our cars. The issue of economic development in the Prairies is not a simple one. I acknowledge it is a good idea to want to have a greener economy in the Prairies. We will always co-operate when such is the aim, but the Bloc Québécois will oppose Bill C‑235.

To conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the Liberal government has already made many commitments that it has not kept, and its credibility has been damaged. We know, however, that businesses and many citizens have gone to great lengths to make their contribution. The various Quebec governments have acted boldly on the environment for several decades. They have made courageous and ambitious decisions, and Quebec is therefore on the right path to a green economy. The committee study did not show that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed comparable and compatible directions. In fact, they voted against the bill. Our hope is that grassroots initiatives in the provinces will be adequately supported for the good of our communities.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to supporting the fossil fuel industry and welcomes any measure aimed at redirecting the money towards businesses—

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to express my support for Bill C-235. I had done that before at second reading.

It is a bill that essentially requires federal ministers to come together to consult with provinces and indigenous peoples on a path forward for the Prairies in order to green their economy. I think that is a laudable goal. In fact, it is a goal that Canada ought to have made more progress on by now. I do think we need to be acting with a sense of urgency.

While I would say there are many more things we need to do, I do not think it hurts at all to create a framework wherein some of the coordinating conversations have to happen between various levels of government, including indigenous governments. It is a step in the right direction.

If we are going to get serious about facing the urgency of the climate crisis, though, we are going to have to get beyond talking about how to have conversations and what conversations we ought to have, and get talking about the very real projects that we need to undertake. Often in Canada when we talk about energy projects, we are talking about particular oil and gas projects. Whether that is a new extractive oil sands development or whether it is the building of a pipeline, we are going to require public investment. In the same way, incidentally, that the oil and gas industry, particularly the oil sands in Alberta, required massive public investment in the 1970s and 1980s in order to make that industry what it is, we need a comparable level of public investment in renewable energy now to set us up to be energy leaders in the future energy economy that is coming, whether some of us would wish it were not.

That is why often New Democrats are quite upset to see massive public expenditures in the oil and gas sector. That is an established sector, one which has already benefited for decades from public investment of various kinds. The opportunity cost of spending public dollars now on the oil and gas sector is real, because it means that we are not setting ourselves up to continue to be major players in an energy sector that is transforming. We see international competitors already undertaking the work not just to reduce their own emissions and green their economy, but to become experts in the building and maintenance of that very technology that is going to be the future basis of the global energy economy.

Canadians should be at that table. Canadian workers should be developing that expertise. Canadian companies should be developing that expertise. We will not be developing that expertise if we do not see government investment that is directed toward the energy sector being directed to renewable energy as opposed to going back to the well, quite literally in this case, of the oil and gas sector.

We are going to continue to extract some amount of oil and gas well into the future, because it is not just used for cars and it is not just used for home heating. It is also used for plastics. It is an important manufacturing input. To that extent, we know that Canada has to ask itself the question as to what a sustainable level of extraction is. I believe there is an answer for that.

We could work backwards from Canada's emissions commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international agreements where Canada has committed to lower its emissions, and we could talk about what a sustainable oil and gas sector looks like. It does not look like approving every project that the industry itself says is a good idea. Unfortunately, that has been the model. It does not look like when private sector actors make a major investment, as they did in the TMX pipeline, the government running out to bail them out and say, “Oh, we are so sorry your project did not work out in Canada. That is all right. Canadian taxpayers will carry the load for you. There is no risk investing in Canada, because if you make a bad investment, we are here to bail you out.”

It is particularly frustrating, because when I talk about the role of a sustainable oil and gas sector in Canada, the focus really has to be not on just extracting more and more oil and gas, but on getting more and more value out of the oil and gas that we do extract. One of the ways to do that is to increase Canada's refining capacity. We have actually seen a significant diminishment of Canada's refining capacity. Often the argument is there is not the money to build a refinery, that it would cost tens of billions of dollars to build a refinery in Canada. That is what the government says in response to those of us who would like to see more emphasis on a value-added oil and gas sector.

However, what did the government do? It found what ended up being an over $20-billion investment overnight for the TMX pipeline.

I will not be told that money is not available. The problem is that it is not available within the context of a strategic future-looking framework. It is just available as a knee-jerk reaction to the oil and gas lobbyists when they come asking for money in Ottawa. That is not the way public dollars ought to be invested in the energy economy.

We saw it again in the last budget, where the Liberals announced billions of dollars in new subsidies for carbon capture and storage. The way the politics of that works is that the Liberals lay out tons of funds for the oil and gas sector, only to be told by the Conservatives that they are not doing enough and that they do not understand the oil and gas sector, so it is a pretty nice setup the oil and gas sector has here in Ottawa.

It has a subservient Liberal government and an official opposition that, no matter how much money the Liberals pump into the oil and gas sector, is going to say it is not doing enough and that it does not take oil and gas seriously. That works pretty nicely for the industry, but it does not work out well for Canadian workers who are interested in having their children and their grandchildren be able to get meaningful employment in the energy industry as that changes.

Often, the way the public debate crystallizes is around these individual projects, whether they are the northern gateway pipeline, the TMX pipeline or energy east, and that is because the industry itself already has access to vast amounts of capital, so those companies are able to make the initial investment to raise hopes and excitement about these kinds of projects. What we need is access to capital for renewable projects.

The Canada West Foundation is not know to be a typically NDP organization. I think that is fair to say. It has a great paper out on the potential for a western power grid, something I hope folks, under the consultation framework proposed in Bill C-235, would get serious in talking about. I also hope that those same governments that come to the table under the auspices of the framework required by this bill would also put up capital to move ahead on that. There are some interesting findings that could help lower energy costs and certainly help lower emissions, but what we need is capital behind these projects to show Canadians that these things are possible. We also need to talk about the benefits of these things, not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view. I believe that is how the conversation around climate is actually going to change in Canada as we create excitement around real projects in the same way there is excitement around real pipeline projects.

I am a construction electrician. I understand that excitement. I know what it means to look to a big project as a source of work and income for one's family, and I know that is true for so many Canadians out there. Renewable energy can be that same exciting source of potential future employment to support families, but we are always talking about it in the abstract because we have not had people come together and mobilize the capital it would take and do the planning to show the path on individual projects.

I talked about one that I think makes a lot of sense for western Canada. There are other parts of the country I can look to, which of course I will not speak to because we are talking about western Canada in the context of the bill, but I think how we shift public opinion and build the trust that has to be built with workers to effect a proper energy transition is by talking about particular projects.

The bill would not do that, and I am disappointed that after seven years in government the Liberals have not acted with the appropriate sense of urgency. They have not built excitement around particular projects that could be meaningful sources of work for Canadian workers and help us build the competency within Canada for those kinds of projects.

That is competency that we can sell not only here in Canada, but also across the world in the way Manitoba Hydro once had a very successful division that was sought the world over to help build hydro projects across the world. That was until the Tories sold it off for pennies on the dollar. However, there are ways of developing that kind of expertise, and that has a real value for us, for Canada's reputation in the world and also for Canadian workers.

That is where I hope to see the direction of government policy go. I think this at least would create some tables for conversations to happen. We are going to have to do a lot more than that, though, if we want to meet the real climate challenge that Canada and the planet are facing.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my long-time friend and hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for his hard work in bringing forward this proposed legislation and his years of service to his community, to his constituents, to Manitobans and, indeed, to all Canadians. I know this is a topic about which he is very passionate, and it is one I fully support.

I followed the debate on Bill C-235 in the House and committee, from members as well as stakeholders and other orders of government. In the member for Winnipeg South Centre's speech during the first hour of debate on the bill, he highlighted how members sat at the committee table and considered a range of views to make the bill even more impactful and stronger. That is the value that committees and the varied opinions and expertise within the House bring to improving legislation.

Indeed, creating a framework for co-operation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs will lead to conditions for greater collaboration and more effective program delivery. It is about bringing everyone to the table.

Much has been said about the prairie virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work and collaboration. It is that spirit of collaboration and co-operation to achieve a shared goal that animates this bill. It is about those things and reaching out broadly to find areas in which we can find agreement and alignment. It is also about acknowledging that one order of government alone cannot build a greener economy that benefits everyone.

The government is deeply engaged to achieve shared goals and always looks to partner with indigenous communities, provinces, territories, municipalities and organizations to build a stronger economy and address the threat of climate change. This is evident in the renewed emphasis we have placed on economic development across the Prairies, with the additional resources invested to create PrairiesCan as a stand-alone regional development agency for the Prairies. PrairiesCan is now on the ground in more places across the region than ever before, ensuring that more communities have more help to prosper, because the best way to deal with local issues and opportunities is with a local perspective.

We are making progress with partners and finding opportunities in the transition to a greener economy.

There are projects across the prairie provinces in renewable energy, in carbon capture and storage, and in green transit and construction.

Municipalities understand local priorities and concerns. They are passing bylaws mandating sustainable development and investing in climate change adaptation. This is why we worked with other parties in committee to amend Bill C-235 to include consultation with municipalities. Our path forward must include consensus building and meaningful partnership and consultation with indigenous communities as well.

Many across the Prairies are already developing and launching community-led projects that will see their local economies go greener and develop clean energy, like the Cowessess First Nation solar project.

Bill C-235 proposes a framework to align all the different parts of the government that are working on the energy transition, decarbonization, and creating a green economy on the Prairies and the good jobs Canadian workers can count on.

The bill is about a green economy that builds on the Prairies' economic strengths while increasing sustainability in sectors including energy, agriculture, forestry, mining, transportation, manufacturing, technology and tourism.

Through this bill, we have an opportunity to work with the prairie provinces and regional stakeholders to build this collaborative framework together. The framework will be one that prioritizes local and regional challenges and opportunities and meets our shared objective of green, sustainable and inclusive economic growth and employment across the Prairies.

As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned in previous debate on the bill, the Prairies have tremendous engineering expertise of a global calibre, not only in energy projects but in carbon capture, irrigation systems and more. Reaching Canada's net-zero targets will take a concerted effort to mobilize that expertise.

We know that consumers worldwide are demanding more sustainable energy development and Canada's energy sector is working to meet that demand. We need to recognize the work that has been done to reach sustainable net-zero goals. Achieving more of it depends on developing the next generation of energy infrastructure that is cleaner, sustainable and marketable.

By creating a framework for consultation, this bill will support the building of value chains that connect the Prairies, agriculture and forestry biomass to the manufacturing of biofuels used in Canada's automotive, aerospace, construction and energy sectors.

Industry in Alberta is working to reduce emissions in a range of sectors, including petrochemicals. It is advancing work on carbon capture and storage, as I mentioned before. One of the world's first net-zero hydrogen facilities will be located in Edmonton.

Prairie agriculture is also greening. Bill C-235 meshes with initiatives like the agricultural clean technology program. It helps agribusinesses invest in new clean technologies to increase sustainability and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

More than any other region, projects funded by the program, 24 of 60 projects, are taking place across the Prairies. The outcomes are more climate-friendly grain dryers, solar panels and precision agricultural technologies.

As critical minerals become more important on the world stage, Canada's economic prosperity is even more linked to sustainably developing and exporting our natural resources and value-added products. That is one reason PrairiesCan has invested in the development of its first-of-a-kind rare earth element processing plant in Saskatoon.

The $7.5 million of federal support complements provincial government investments to help establish a domestic rare earth supply chain. This is because Canadian companies are not only suppliers of resources, but also processors and producers of value-added products. Bill C-235 can catalyze opportunities like these by ensuring improved alignment among the various stakeholders in the new prairie economy.

The western economy is incredibly well-positioned to thrive in the green economy and our government is taking steps to make sure partners have the necessary tools to make this happen. We are helping companies and communities on the Prairies capitalize on opportunities in the transition to clean technologies and a low-carbon economy.

An example is the Clean Resource Innovation Network, a group of over 1,300 oil patch companies, academics and innovators that are working to change the conversation from “energy or the environment” to “energy and the environment”. They are dealing with important issues like curbing undetected methane emissions into the atmosphere.

The bill aligns with an array of additional federal programs tailored to economic and environmental areas outlined in the framework, such as infrastructure, natural infrastructure, forestry and transportation.

In a time of significant change, a strong prairie region is critical for a strong nation and the post-pandemic economy. People and industries across the prairie provinces make important contributions to Canada's economy and to feeding and fuelling Canada and countries around the world. Our government has been there for them and we will continue to be there for them.

As we partner with others through this bill to build a green Prairies economy, there will be new economic opportunities and job possibilities for Canadian workers that will be inclusive, long-lasting and effective.

I want to congratulate my hon. colleague and friend for presenting this bill. He is a true prairie champion whom I have worked with and admired for over 30 years. All of us on the Prairies should be very grateful.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House of Commons, and it is my honour to do so tonight on this bill.

I will begin by saying that I was pleased to enjoy the remarks of the member for Winnipeg South Centre in the first hour of third reading. I look forward to his participation in this debate. He should know that he has my best wishes and my congratulations for bringing this bill to third reading, although I do not support the bill and I am going to say why in a moment.

It is actually quite astonishing to me that this bill has made it to third reading and seems likely to pass, based on the remarks we have heard from other parties tonight. I say it is astonishing because this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.

For the benefit of those who were not here in the 42nd Parliament, the mover of this bill was the minister of natural resources. During his tenure the natural resource sector endured unprecedented capital flight estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The global investment community ran away from Canada and moved its money to Texas, North Dakota, Mexico, North Africa and, sadly and tragically, to Russia, where the fruit of this capital reallocation is being used to finance a murderous war against innocent people in Ukraine.

The human cost of that capital flight from Canada was 200,000 jobs lost in the energy sector. Many of these people live in my riding. I had grown men in their fifties reduced to tears in my office on many occasions as they told me of the hopelessness and despair they had suffered as a result of the mass layoffs following the election of the Liberal government.

Among the very first things the Liberal government did when it was elected was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then the member, during his tenure as minister, and the government chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada and bought the Trans Mountain pipeline. Instead of being completed and in operation with private money, creating thousands of upstream jobs, it is now a much-delayed project on its way to becoming a bloated government boondoggle, which it may not be able to ultimately sell.

The member now wants to force a federal framework on three unwilling prairie provinces and ask members of this House to support it. I will not do it. I do not agree with the member or the government of which he was a minister, that it needs a framework for policies of a federal government that is bent on destroying the livelihoods of thousands of my constituents who get up and go to work every day providing the necessities of life for Canadians and people all over the world.

Without affordable, reliable and abundant energy, there is no quality of life for anyone. A warm home, affordable food, basic transportation, light, electronic communication, literally every single manufactured product that anyone wears or uses is only possible with access to such affordable, reliable and abundant energy. Western Canada abounds with such energy resources, and industry continually finds ways to reduce the emissions created by the extraction process. The three provinces, their municipalities and industries are already doing the hard work of being part of an overall goal of reducing emissions, but the world is desperate for Canadian energy.

The Economist recently reported that 150,000 people in Europe will likely die from the cold this winter. We should think about that. There are 150,000 people, most of whom live in countries among the wealthiest in the world, who may not make it through the winter because many will not be able to access affordable energy. As people suffer from chronic cold, their blood thickens and their blood pressure becomes elevated. They are unable to maintain circulation throughout their body and they succumb to heart attack, stroke and illness. This is the consequence of Canada's inability to export its energy resources, and we are enabling Putin's weaponization of energy.

I listened to the member's speech during the first hour of debate at third reading, and I must say I was incredulous at this member's comments on how he thinks the bill is the embodiment and fulfillment of Canadian federalism.

We had testimony at committee. The minister of justice for Saskatchewan said:

This bill would require federal ministers “to develop a framework for...the implementation of federal programs”, which to us in Saskatchewan sounds pretty top-down, pretty definitive language, and what we call here “assertive federalism”.

She went on to talk about a report that said, “a green transition that is carried out too glibly, too quickly and too politically will impact some 450,000 Canadians, and 450,000 Canadians could lose their jobs.”

The president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said, “In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy, and we don't require a federal framework.”

Only Liberals steeped in the tradition of Pierre Trudeau's generation and his approach to federalism could possibly think that a bill that imposes a federal process on unwilling provinces is somehow a triumph of the federation.

The bill would impose a process to create a federal framework for the imposition of federal policy on three provinces that do not want it. They did not ask for it. They do not like this government. They disagree with this government. Fifty-six out of the 62 members elected to this chamber from these three provinces are not from the government's party. That is 90% of the MPs from most provinces who are elected here. They were elected in opposition to this government's agenda.

Is that a triumph of Canadian federalism, the imposition and creation of this framework? That is exactly the kind of imposition on western provinces that is sadly eroding people's faith in Canadian federalism, just like under Pierre Trudeau when he was prime minister, when he destroyed the Canadian energy industry for a generation in a spectacular abuse of Canadian federalism. No, the bill is not a triumph of Canadian federalism. It would not be a springboard for some abstract, mythical, undefined, so-called green economy. It would not help Canadian workers.

This government has been promising green job retraining for oil and gas workers for years, and it does not exist. This will not help western municipalities. This is a bill that people in western Canada do not want. It is a bill that nobody asked for. It is a bill that would at best do nothing and at worst harm my constituents.

I am aware, following this debate, that this is likely to pass third reading. If it does, I offer the member for Winnipeg South Centre my personal congratulations. The passage of a private member's bill is no small thing. To him, I wish the very best, but I do not support the bill and I will oppose it.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing some deeply held emotion. I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.

The characterization of the bill as jurisdictional creep is simply not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. The Government of Canada has added leaves to the national table. This is an addition, not a subtraction, and it is inclusive, not exclusive. It seeks to unite, not to divide.

My respect for Parliament has grown by leaps and bounds. The wisdom of inviting witnesses to add thoughtful commentary and an opposition that has been respectful though occasionally dissenting are what a democracy is all about, and it is always rooted in strengthening the national fabric, woven as it is from those mini threads that make Canada the envy of the world. With resources, natural and human, comes responsibility to each other and to the world itself. How could we not be humbled by the greatness of this magnificent country?

If I have a favourite part of this bill, it is the report back to Parliament it would require. In one year, those who occupy these chairs, which will be filled with so many who for too long who have been denied, must be heard, and they must be heard with all of the magnificence of this diversity, which truly is the envy of the world.

I invite members to travel, as we all have, and let the conversation turn to what Parliament represents to so many in faraway places, many of whom, given the choice, would rather be here than where there are. They would look at this chamber as a place where people gather to improve themselves, where we look at accomplishment and we take the personal accomplishment to the national one, and it is no small feat. It is woven from these strands of all of the diversity that makes this the most magnificent place on earth.

For me personally, this is a wonderful moment. I listened to my friends in the Bloc talk about the French language, the identity of the French language, how deeply enmeshed language is with their culture, their identity and their sense of belonging in ways that make us whole. In my little corner of this country, on the Prairies, we strive to create wealth and a sense of belonging across a wide range of natural and human resources.

In wrapping up this debate, I want to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, without whose confidence this would never have been possible. For all those who raised their voices in support of this idea, some may say it is aspirational idea, and I can handle that. I can handle aspirations, especially when they are shared, and that is at the centre of what this bill is all about.

It is with gratitude, thanks and a deep respect for this institution that I humbly present this bill to my colleagues in Parliament.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I request a recorded vote, Madam Speaker.

Building a Green Prairie Economy ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred to Wednesday, December 7, 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.

Government PrioritiesAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I am rising tonight to call out the hypocrisy of the government.

In the way it treats Canadians and the way it treats itself, there is, needless to say, a profound dissonance between those two things. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who clearly loves to travel. He went to London this year and he or a member of his entourage spent $6,000 a night on a hotel room. We have actually tried to get information from the government about the carbon emissions associated with all the Prime Minister's travel, because he is raising the carbon tax. In fact, he plans to triple the carbon tax on Canadians, while he benefits from a whole bunch of publicly funded travel.

It is part of his job to travel, but the government was not even able to provide to the public accounts committee information about the level of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Prime Minister. We would think he would be willing to be transparent about the cost and the carbon emissions associated with his own personal travel, but he does not want to do that. Instead, he wants to impose burdens and extra costs on Canadians by tripling the carbon tax that they have to pay when they travel, on their own dime, to visit family members, to go to essential functions or to have some time away. Therefore, we see the hypocrisy already from the government on that.

While the Prime Minister has been travelling all over the world and staying in outrageously expensive hotels, we have the government imposing the ArriveCAN app on Canadians, which was making it very difficult to travel. The ArriveCAN app was full of glitches and, in cases I hear from constituents, people who met all the rules such that they should not have had to quarantine were nonetheless ordered to quarantine by this piece of technology that did not work. This app, despite all of its problems, cost $54 million.

The government spends $54 million on an app that does not work and that forces many Canadians to stay home, including, in certain cases, even Canadians who have complied with what are supposed to be the rules and are still being forced to stay home. Meanwhile, we have the Prime Minister being able to take advantage of all this publicly funded travel, so that is more hypocrisy from the government. The government is grounding Canadians, increasing their taxes and imposing the ArriveCAN app on them, while the government's own largesse is truly out of control.

In response to my questions about the government's outrageous spending, about the ArriveCAN app and other things, we were told by a member of the government that this app saved lives. He claimed the app saved lives, which is particularly bizarre because we have specifically asked the government, in a written question, to show us the data that supports the travel restrictions it put in place. It turns out, according to the government's own responses to questions, that it did not even track the travel-based transmissions of COVID.

Regarding the various restrictions the Liberals imposed on Canadians with respect to being in airports, being in train stations and going back and forth, on which they imposed all sorts of restrictions, we asked how many cases of transmission they had seen in these environments that would justify the restrictions they put in place. It turned out that the Liberals were not even gathering data on the level of transmission in airports, train stations, etc.

In other words, the government is making these outrageous claims that this glitchy $54-million app saves lives, and it does not even have the data. Will the government account for this complete hypocrisy?

Government PrioritiesAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to address this question in the adjournment debate.

Our government understands that many Canadians are worried about our economy as it faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates.

We recognize that Canadians are feeling the pain of inflation when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. However, my colleague opposite prefaced his question tonight on the basis of hypocrisy, so I am glad that earlier today I had the forethought to print off the campaign commitment that the member and all Conservative members made to Canadians in the last election in the platform that the then leader of the Conservative Party put out. It is entitled “Secure the Environment”.

The member wants to talk about pricing carbon. I just want to read the promise that he made to his constituents in the last election campaign. It reads, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms. However, having a market-based approach means that we cannot ignore the fact that our” North American partner does not have one. That is a good point. We indeed do have pricing mechanisms. He also committed to suggesting they “will put a price on carbon for consumers” which is what we have. He also ran on a commitment to increase the price on pollution to $50 a tonne, which is the current price as well. As I flip through the commitments that my colleague made to his constituents in the last election, I find a lot of similarities between the commitments that he made and what is currently in place.

I do want to suggest that there is good news for Canada right now. Inflation is slowing down. It was 8.1% in June and now it is under 7%. That is less than we see in many peer economies. In the United States, just south of the border, it is still almost 8%. In the Euro area it is 10%. We agree that inflation at 6.9% in Canada is still far too high but the reality remains there are still some difficulties ahead for Canada's economy. That is why we are moving forward with targeted measures that are already putting money back in the pockets of those who need it the most when they need it the most.

For example, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support last month. Over 11 million families will see support through that measure. I would point out, as we have a couple of times in this House, that the members of the Conservative Party voted against that measure to support Canadians and their families. It also means that Canadians without children are receiving up to an additional $234 and couples with two children are receiving an extra $467 this year. Seniors are receiving an additional $225 on average.

When the member opposite speaks of hypocrisy, I want to point out that not only did he vote against all these measures to support Canadians, which put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians, he also ran on a commitment in the last election to price carbon at $50 a tonne, which is the current price. The arguments about how we are not supporting Canadians do not hold any water for me because, when given an opportunity to chime in, to provide amendments, to make some suggestions on a bill that is tangibly right now supporting Canadians with rental supports, dental supports and a doubling of the HST credit, he voted against it.

An analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the recent increases in temperature and precipitation, combined with future changes in weather patterns, will reduce Canada's real GDP by almost 6% in 2100. That is an atrocious thing that we can curb. We can fight climate change. Our government understands that.

I hope that whenever there is another election, the member opposite will continue to run on a platform of carbon pricing and sound economic and environmental policy. It will create a better future for all Canadians.

Government PrioritiesAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I think the member thought he was answering a different question. I, of course, spoke about the government's carbon tax, but primarily about the ArriveCAN app, about the hypocrisy we have seen from the Prime Minister and about the Prime Minister's spending. There was no response whatsoever on any of those issues. Clearly, the government cannot explain why it spent $54 million on a glitchy app that it had no data to support whatsoever.

As to the government's spending, it is very interesting the way members of the government talk. They say, “We are spending all this money. We are giving people more money with nary a thought about where the money comes from.” Where does the money that the government spends come from? Oh, it takes it from people first.

We had a report from the Auditor General today. The Auditor General's report shows that over $30 billion went to people who certainly or very likely did not meet eligibility criteria. The government creates programs that are supposed to go to one group of people but then billions of dollars out of that spending go to people and the government does not know who they are. The government is not tracking that. The Auditor General was able to identify that many of those people do not actually meet the criteria the government has set out. We have a big problem.

The government says it is being generous. It is being generous with taxpayers' money by giving it away, but it does not know who is getting it and it does not have any spending—

Government PrioritiesAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Government PrioritiesAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, an old saying comes to mind: Those in glass houses should not throw stones. When given an opportunity, every Conservative member voted against all these measures to support Canadians tangibly.

The constituents and neighbours of ours who are struggling right now are receiving support, whether that is through rental supports, dental supports, the doubling of their GST credit or increases to their old age security and guaranteed income supplement. We are there for Canadians, but we recognize there are some difficult times ahead. This has been one of the most disruptive couple of years ever, certainly in my lifetime and even, I would say, over the last century.

Canadians can count on us to continue to support them. I do not know what they can count on from the Conservatives. It has been mostly slogans and no solutions from them over the last couple of months. I guess that is the influence the new Conservative leader has had on them. They have really lacked any substance in any of their arguments.

We will continue to do all we can in a way that is responsible. This is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion and real support for Canadians. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained in the fall economic statement, we are going to continue in the months ahead to work hard to build an economy that works for everyone.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Madam Speaker, on February 17, 2022, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee, which was studying the 44th general election.

He stated that the Canada Elections Act enables Elections Canada to work with government security agencies to understand and mitigate foreign interference in our electoral processes and identify and address misinformation committed by domestic or foreign entities. The Canada Elections Act also prohibits the use of foreign funds for partisan purposes, including the propelling of like-minded puppet candidates seeking party nominations and running in elections. Any suspected wrongdoing is then referred to the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the Elections Canada CEO and the Commissioner of Canada Elections were fully consulted, along with CSIS and the RCMP, to determine if the 2021 election was compromised by foreign interference?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be back in the House for Adjournment Proceedings this evening. I thank the member down the way for the opportunity to address concerns of foreign interference in Canada.

Canada is a country of an open political system, a democratic process, much social cohesion, academic freedoms and prosperity. While these are reasons why people choose to come to Canada, they also makes Canada an attractive target for foreign interference. The government takes these threats very seriously, and we will not tolerate any foreign interference from any actor.

We are aware that certain foreign governments, including the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, may attempt to threaten and intimidate individuals in Canada or their relatives abroad and that some of these tactics employed include harassment, intimidation, detention of family members abroad and refusal to issue travel documents or visas. When individuals in Canada are subjected to intimidation, harassment or manipulation by foreign states or their proxies, these activities are a threat to Canada's sovereignty and to the safety of communities and individuals in Canada. That will never be tolerated.

Where there is evidence of state-backed harassment or intimidation, CSIS and the RCMP apply the full measures of their mandates to investigate threats to Canada and to Canadians. CSIS investigates and may take measures to reduce foreign interference threats, including those involving threats to Canadian communities. The RCMP also collaborates with police of jurisdiction to investigate harassment, intimidation and other offences reported at local levels that, upon further investigation, reveal a nexus to foreign interference.

For example, in response to reports of so-called police stations being run by the People's Republic of China, the PRC, here in Canada, the RCMP has confirmed that it is currently investigating. If a member of the public feels that they are in immediate danger from a person suspected of acting on behalf of a foreign state, they are strongly encouraged to call 911 or contact their local police of jurisdiction. If a member of the police suspects criminal foreign interference activities that do not pose an immediate threat to life, they should report it immediately to the RCMP or CSIS through phone and online reporting channels, including the national security information network web portal.

Finally, we recognize that democratic institutions and processes around the world, including elections, are targets for foreign interference. Over the course of the 2021 federal election, CSIS and the RCMP worked closely with partners as members of the security and intelligence threats to elections, or SITE, task force to coordinate efforts against foreign interference by raising awareness, assessing threats and preparing the government's response to them.

While I cannot provide any more detail regarding specific threat activity, I can assure Canadians that our security and intelligence agencies investigate allegations of interference in Canada's democratic institutions or processes by a foreign state in accordance with their mandated authorities and that the RCMP investigates foreign actor interference further to its mandate.

Canadians can be assured that, while we cannot always make our actions known to the public, the safety and security of Canadians is absolutely always at the heart of our approach.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Independent

Kevin Vuong Independent Spadina—Fort York, ON

Madam Speaker, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. As more media attention focuses on the porous defence and the lackadaisical attitude that the government has toward confronting foreign operators on our soil, along with the reluctance to safeguard Iranian Canadians and Chinese Canadians who are being intimidated, has the government abrogated its duty to protect its citizens and election process?

Is the government also content for Canada to put up permanent doormats for Iranian and Chinese governments to do whatever they want?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question 100%.

We have taken swift action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we continue to be extremely strong against the People's Republic of China in their attempts to interfere in our elections or in any other course of due action in Canada.

I want to make it clear that the Government of Canada remains committed to combatting foreign interference by any foreign state seeking to harm Canada or our citizens. We protect our citizens and communities targeted by hostile state actors, safeguard our democratic institutions and promote economic security.

Canada takes a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, domestically and abroad, to strategically counter foreign interference activities. This includes the work of security agencies like CSIS and the RCMP, but this also includes our work with the G7 rapid response mechanism, which identifies and responds to foreign threats to democracy, as well as resources like “Foreign Interference and You”. It is available to the public in multiple languages through the Canada.ca website.

I would just close by acknowledging that the member down the way is a former member of the military and he knows—

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The time is up.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

December 6th, 2022 / 7:15 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, as always I am honoured to be here in this place and talk on behalf of the constituents of North Island—Powell River. I am really sad to be here today. I never thought I would be sharing concerns with the House of Commons that constituents of mine are now afraid because of the total lack of health care.

The federal government has paid less and less into health care transfers, and provinces and territories are struggling. We knew, and it has been talked about in this country for a very long time, that we had an increasing population of people who are aging and that there are challenges in recruiting and retaining health care providers, and we still have not seen any meaningful action from the government.

I have spoken about this issue before in the House, and I will continue to do so. We are in a significant crisis. People in my riding are paying the price of that crisis. I receive emails and calls daily from remote communities in my riding, like Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Alert Bay, especially because their emergency rooms are being closed far too often.

All night long, emergency rooms are closed. That means if anyone has any serious health issue, they have to travel quite a distance to get somewhere that can help them. People who live in Alert Bay are on an island, so that is even more problematic.

Just last week, a constituent with serious health issues got themselves to the Port Hardy hospital. They arrived and, upon arrival, found out that the emergency room was closed. They collapsed. An ambulance was called, and they had to be taken to another community to be served.

Closures of emergency rooms are directly linked in our riding to a lack of staff. They are tired; they are burnt out, and they are leaving. The federal government must stand with its provincial counterparts to support strategies to both attract and retain health care professionals across Canada's rural communities. It is not sustainable, what is happening right now, and it is not safe.

Constituents are sharing stories of having to travel a long distance to get basic care. This cannot continue. Recently, an article came out about rural communities and pregnant people having to travel a long distance to get the services they need. When they do so, the pregnant person is paying out of pocket for a place to live and something to eat. Often, they are left alone, because their spouse or partner is back home looking after children or working, doing the things they need to do to sustain the family.

Someone who shared their story was from Port McNeill. Her name is Darci. She told a terrible story of being left alone and missing her partner, who was doing everything he could to support her. Finally, she gave birth to their child without her partner.

This issue is long-standing, but we are seeing it across the board, an increasing closure of so many services. For example, in Campbell River, the hospital lab is closed many days due to a severe shortage of staff. This means outpatients are arriving and finding it closed, and we know that overworked staff and exhausted lab staff are ready to leave and are looking for other opportunities.

We also know that doctors, nurses and health care professionals across the board are exhausted, tired and wanting to leave. We do not have a meaningful attraction strategy to bring newcomers and other folks from across Canada to be in our communities.

I want to thank the Citizens for Quality Health Care and other health care advocates from north Vancouver Island and Powell River, who have been warning about this for over three years, since before the pandemic. This is serious, and it needs to be addressed.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue.

The impacts of the health worker shortage are reverberating across all areas of the health system, but they are particularly clear right now in our hospitals. It gets harder to watch as children are affected. Understaffed emergency rooms have led to long wait times and even closures.

Our government is working with the provincial and territorial governments and key health sector stakeholders to find both immediate and long-term solutions to the health care worker shortage.

Health Canada convened a stakeholder symposium this spring to better understand the challenges facing the health workforce, and we are currently engaging with stakeholders to refine and align solutions.

I would also point out that over the last six months, the prime focus of the health committee, on which I serve, has been the human resources in health care crisis. We have been studying how to remediate this challenge, and literally nothing is off the table.

Rural communities, like the one my colleague serves in, require unique solutions to their health care challenges. That is why the government is providing $26.2 million in funding to increase the forgivable amount of student loans for doctors and nurses who would like to practise in rural and remote communities.

We have also committed $115 million over five years, with $30 million ongoing, to expand the foreign credential recognition program, which will help 11,000 internationally trained health care professionals per year get their credentials recognized and find work in their field.

My colleague opposite raised the point that we are not doing anything to help people enter the health care sector. She says we are not doing enough to attract people with foreign credentials and qualifications. We are investing and hundreds of millions of dollars in these areas. It is a prime area of focus.

There is still much work to be done, and our government will continue to work with the provinces and territories.

We are committed to working with provinces, territories and experts to find ways to recruit new health care workers and improve working conditions to retain and make better use of our existing health workers.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, the provinces and the territories in the weeks and months ahead to improve the funding and delivery of health care services.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned to hear again “Let us have a round table” and “Let us have a conversation.” We need action in our communities.

Rural and remote health care is hurting because of many specific challenges. I am happy to inform the member that finding a family doctor is getting harder and harder. Accessing walk-in clinics is harder. Waiting too long for much-needed surgery in rural and remote communities is a long-term challenge. There is delay in medical test results and other medical services due to a lack of medical personnel. It is harder to attract people to rural and remote communities. This needs to be addressed in a more profound way.

Having to travel very long distances outside of the community to access regular and specialized medical services is very hard on families. Seniors waiting for long-term care are often in the hospital because they cannot get into a long-term care facility. There is a complete lack of mental health services that are comprehensive and support people in my riding. So, I am—

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this very important issue.

Rural areas are indeed facing an unacceptable shortage of health workers. Our government will continue working on addressing the shortage as well as improving health care in rural areas generally. The needs of Canadians in rural and remote areas are foremost in our minds, and we will work with provinces and territories in the coming weeks and months to improve our health care system.

However, we must not cherry-pick from the list of things that I mentioned tonight. We are creating solutions across the board in staffing, in health care transfers, for the pipeline and for education. No stone has been left unturned.

Our health system needs further investment. We also want to make sure that our tax dollars are being spent in the most effective way possible. Throwing more money into a broken system is not the best path forward, and we can improve the way that we deliver health care to eliminate inefficiencies and get better health outcomes for all Canadians.