Debates of Dec. 8th, 2022

Anti-Asian Racism

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to my colleague's motion that he has presented to the House.

Earlier, I asked the member a question about something I believe we need to see a lot more of. At the end of the day, when we talk about issues of racism and the motion that the member has brought forward, two things come to mind.

First and foremost is recognizing Canada's history and our heritage and recognizing that we have done some things that have caused a great deal of harm. It is part of our history. We do need to remember that and we do need to reflect on it.

The second thing is in regard to education. Many years ago during the 1990s, for a portion of my days when I was an MLA, I was responsible for tourism. A cross-cultural awareness report was brought forward by the Manitoba Intercultural Council. The report said that one of the ways in which we are going to combat racism is through education.

When I think of education, I am not just talking about our school system, although that is important. I am talking about our work environment and other types of community facilities that are there. I say that because racism is there. It is very real and has an impact on some communities more than others. The Manitoba Intercultural Council was right in its recommendation that emphasized the importance of education.

We see motions of this nature and days of recognition and we talk about those wonderful attributes of Canada's diversity and what our many cultures have to bring. I suggest that we could all use some form of cross-cultural education.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that until the next time the motion comes up for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

When we do come back to this, the member will have about eight minutes remaining.

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

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

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, we are living the effects of climate change. There are real effects on people and real effects on our economy.

Last year, in British Columbia, we had a series of catastrophic wildfires, one of which burned down the town of Lytton. At the same time, a heat dome brought temperatures in the high 40s to southern B.C., killing over 600 people in metro Vancouver.

That fall, an atmospheric river destroyed every highway connecting the southern B.C. coast with the rest of Canada, and some of those highways have only now just been reopened. Floods devastated the towns of Princeton and Merritt, numerous first nations communities and some of the best agricultural lands in the province.

The true costs of those events have yet to be calculated, but the federal government has pledged $5 billion in support to British Columbia to help communities rebuild. This year, B.C. has largely been spared, but this spring, it got a storm track, which is now called a derecho. We have had to learn a whole new taxonomy of climate disasters. It caused almost a billion dollars in insured damage losses to parts of Ontario and Quebec.

Then in the fall, hurricane Fiona became the strongest hurricane to make landfall ever in Atlantic Canada. Houses were washed out to sea and lives were lost. Again, the federal government has promised aid to the tune of over $300 million.

The Canadian Climate Institute reported in September that the impacts of climate change will slow Canada’s economic growth by $25 billion annually by 2025. That is half of the projected GDP growth in 2025 and 12 times all insured weather-related losses in Canada in 2021. Those impacts will increase to almost $100 billion annually by 2050.

My question to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the question that triggered this adjournment debate, was based on that report. The Canadian Climate Institute report also found that proactive measures that help communities and Canadians adapt to climate change could reduce the impact of climate disasters. In fact, the report notes that a combination of global emissions reductions and Canadian adaptation measures could reduce the negative impacts by 75%.

Shortly after I asked this question, the government tabled its national adaptation strategy. The strategy included $1.6 billion in new funding to broadly address climate adaptation. About a third of that amount is to top up the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. That fund has been chronically underfunded and oversubscribed. Many communities trying to rebuild after fires and floods do not get the help they need.

Will the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and redirect those billions of dollars to help communities prepare for climate change?

We will save many times that investment by reducing the direct impacts of extreme weather on Canadian communities, and more importantly, reduce the tragic consequences of these climate disasters on the lives and livelihoods of Canadian families.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, through the G20, Canada has committed to rationalize or phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. This was reaffirmed in June of 2021 when G7 leaders committed to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. Canada has since accelerated this commitment to 2023.

Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance are working together to identify and assess relevant measures to fulfill this commitment. To date, important progress has been made. Nine tax preferences that supported fossil fuel exploration or production have been or are in the process of being phased out or rationalized.

In addition to phasing out or rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, at COP26, Canada signed the statement of international public support for the clean energy transition. This commits Canada to further prioritize and support clean technology and new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel sector by the end of 2022, and accept unlimited and clearly defined circumstances that are consistent with the 1.5°C warming limits and the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Further, the December 2021 mandate letters committed the government to develop a plan to phase out public finances of the fossil fuel sector, including by federal Crown corporations. As climate impacts continue to grow in frequency and intensity, the government recognizes that a more ambitious strategic and collaborative approach is required to adapt and build resilience to changing climates. That is why the Government of Canada is developing Canada's first national adaptation strategy, working with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, indigenous people and other key partners. This strategy will establish a shared vision for climate resilience in Canada, identifying key priorities for increased collaboration, and establish a framework for measuring progress at the national level.

A national adaptation strategy offers the opportunity to unite actors across Canada through shared priorities, cohesive action and a whole-of-Canada approach to reducing climate change risk. The strategy will build on an existing foundation of four adaptation efforts that saw roughly $4.8 billion invested in adaptation and specific programming since 2011. The program suite supports efforts to mainstream adaptation, build climate resiliency throughout communities in Canada, and strengthen and support capacity for action.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in his reply to my question in question period, did admit that there are still 4 billion dollars' worth of subsidies going to the oil and gas sector. The government is just lacking in boldness and ambition on climate adaptation when we need it most. It is like the tepid responses to climate mitigation and the lack of success in bringing down our carbon emissions.

The almost $500-million top-up to DMAF is not enough. We need to make bold investments to minimize the impacts of the climate crisis. The NDP believes that we must provide at least $2 billion in additional funds to the disaster mitigation and adaption fund every year. That is still well below the $5 billion we are losing every year in ensured damages.

We need to make investments in adaptation, not just reactive funding to the disasters that are devastating communities across the country, leaving Canadians without homes and without livelihoods. We need to make these investments now. We need to make sure we are supporting Canadians and Canadian communities as they face an uncertain future.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2018, the federal government has invested over $2 billion, with an additional $1.3 billion in 2021, to further support actions, including nature-based solutions in indigenous communities. There is also a strong business case for proactive investments. According to the Climate Change Institute, one dollar in proactive adaptation measures can return anywhere from $13 to $15 in direct and indirect benefits.

Climate change has significant impacts on Canadians' health and on the economy. The earlier Canada takes action to address climate change, the more effectively the country can reduce its risk and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

I agree with the hon. member's solutions, and I agree with the government's solutions as well.

Marine Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise virtually in the House this evening. I am in the wonderful city of Montreal for the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

However, I am turning my attention this evening to a question I asked in question period on November 24. The question had a response from the hon. Minister of Transport. This is a complex issue and one that does not come up very often in the House, so forgive me if I step back and set some context before I dive into it.

It is a question on the use of the waters of the Salish Sea from as far up as the tip of Vancouver Island to areas near Parksville, Nanaimo, Ladysmith and certainly in and around the five Gulf Islands within Saanich—Gulf Islands. Our waters are being used as free parking lots to handle bulk carriers and freighters that cannot be efficiently unloaded at the Port of Vancouver.

This costs everyone money. The grain farmers who want their products shipped in a timely way, the grain sellers who want the product delivered and those buying the product line up at the Port of Vancouver where freighters find that their holds cannot be filled. They are sent away, and they cool their jets and sit in the waters of the Salish Sea in places that Transport Canada has dubbed as anchorages. Under common law, the vessels at sea must be given refuge and safe anchorages at times of storms. This is not during storms. This is routine. It is daily and multiplying.

What does this mean? As I pointed out in my question on November 24, it is a loss of quality of life. The constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and those throughout the region do not feel consulted. Right now, there is a consultation process taking place, or a public consultation was just disclosed, hosted by the Port of Vancouver. Constituents do not feel consulted; they feel ignored once again, their concerns dismissed.

The Port of Vancouver officials informed the public that the use of the Salish Sea for free parking was going to continue and that it was an essential part of the Port of Vancouver's operations. Of course, nobody pays for it, except, again, the grain farmers, the people buying grain, the people selling grain and the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and other regions throughout our marine coastal zones.

The indigenous nations of this area were never consulted either, and they are angry at the idea that their treaty rights under the Douglas treaties mean so little that the Port of Vancouver and the federal government have never engaged with them about this use of our waters.

What else does it mean? It means damage to the southern resident killer whales from the noise of these massive vessels moving and parking in our waters. It means damage to the benthic organisms on the ocean floor, of course, because these being anchorages and not ports, the anchor drops and drags.

This is the point I really wanted to raise in the late show tonight: Days after my question in late November, there was yet another incident in Plumper Sound, where a large bulk carrier dragged its anchor and drifted right into a spot where, had there been another freighter parked, they would have collided. We have had 102 incidents in the period from 2015 to 2020. There were 102 times that these large vessels drifted on their anchors and sometimes collided or nearly collided. In other words, it is a large accident waiting to happen.

The residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and the people of this area are absolutely fed up to our teeth with this ignoring of our rights and abuse of our ecosystem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the leader of the Green Party is bringing what is a very important issue for her constituents to the floor of the House of Commons, first in the form of a question and now during the late show as a follow-up. I think most people would see the issue for what it is worth, and obviously, we are very much concerned about our coastlines.

As a government, we are committed to working with other stakeholders. The member said that there has been no consultation that has been completed. I would be somewhat surprised if over the years there has not been representation on the Port of Vancouver, whether it was directly through the Port of Vancouver, or indeed members of Parliament such as herself, or directly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Transport Canada in making sure that the government and other authorities are kept up to date on it.

The member talked about the 100-plus incidents. I think she said 102 incidents. Of course, that would raise issues of safety. We want to ensure that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is, in fact, closely monitoring what is taking place.

I would ask, and the member will have a minute to follow up, what it is the member is suggesting. Are there alternative locations? Maybe she could fill in more in that area, what she is aware of, or possible solutions outside of an outright ban. Has she done some work with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority? These are questions that I personally would be interested in getting her thoughts on. It is a discussion that I will carry forward to the best of my ability.

She talked about killer whales, which I am very much concerned about too. I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would also carry that same concern as would the people of Canada. One does not have to live on the coast to appreciate its majestic beauty and the need for us to protect our ocean environment.

The government has invested both financially and through regulations and laws to protect our ocean ways, and has invested a great deal of money. I suspect that the interest is there, which I am sure the member can appreciate, as I do.

I remember being in the third party when the prairie wheat was being rained on and the prairie wheat farmers wanted to get it out. I recall raising the issue of these large ships being anchored just outside of Vancouver. I asked why we could not get the grain out.

It does seem to me that we do need to work more collaboratively with the port authority to see what viable options could be there going forward.

Suffice it to say that I am not surprised that the member is in Montreal doing the work that she is doing there. I am pleased that she has taken this issue to the late show to raise awareness on it. I will be sure to pass on her concerns to the appropriate minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. I could not have asked for a better opportunity for dialogue, because believe it or not, in some ways this is supply chain hell, and it links our ridings. There are very few issues that will link directly, and it is the rail lines that link us from Winnipeg to Saanich—Gulf Islands, and it is the inefficiency of the delivery of grain primarily. Here are two solutions.

One, the Liberals promised to ban the export of coal to other countries. We are getting coal shipped up from the United States, because U.S. coal ports no longer ship it due to climate concerns. Let us ban coal exports. That will help, and the Liberals already promised to do it.

We also want to improve the facilitation of grain exports. The hon. member will remember when we had the wheat board, and the export of grain and the shipment was better coordinated. This is driving the unions. The longshoremen do not like this. CN and CP are behind inefficiencies along with the Port of Vancouver. We need to fix this system for shipping grain, and then we will not have anchorages.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed the one-on-one discussions the leader of the Green Party has had with me, and I would invite her, the next time we can get together, to have some dialogue. It is an area of concern and interest on my part. I would welcome that dialogue, because I have found her to be very informative on a wide spectrum of issues, and especially because, as she so eloquently pointed out, there is a connection even for the city of Winnipeg and our trains. Winnipeg is a hub of train activities, and I do appreciate the manner in which she raised that.

I look forward to being able to have a further dialogue with her on this in the coming days ahead.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:58 p.m.)