Debates of May 19th, 2022

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[An hon. member]

He resigned.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am sorry. I am corrected, Madam Speaker. He resigned. He was given the opportunity to resign. I thank the Conservative member across the way for correcting that.

This is about populism. That has been well documented, and not just by the member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier but indeed by other political parties in here. I am very glad to see that it is extremely clear what is going on here, and I look forward to my seven minutes that remain the next time this comes up for debate.

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

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

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

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Putin's horrific actions in Ukraine are killing children, women and elders, and displacing millions of Ukrainians who are fleeing for safety.

Since 2017, the NDP has been calling for visa-free access for Ukrainians. It is unfortunate that this has not been put in place, as it would have been the most efficient way to get people to safety. Instead, the government opted for a visa process.

Canada's immigration backlog now exceeds two million people, with significant backlogs in every stream. The minister said that he was going to fix the problem, but the situation is actually getting worse, not better.

The promise of a two-week turnaround time in processing of the Canada Ukraine emergency travel visa is just fiction. In fact, Ukrainians could not even get an appointment to get their biometrics done in two weeks. Not only that, the minister announced an extended family reunification measure for Ukrainian nationals on March 3. It has been over two and a half months, and there is still no indication of when details of the family reunification PR program stream will be launched.

Aside from the issue of processing visas and travel documents, the government is now relying on Air Miles to help Ukrainians get to safety. I certainly hope that this does not replace what is absolutely essential, which are evacuation flights. If it does, it is clearly not a very reliable way to help Ukrainians get to safety. Not only that, but it will also not help those who need to leave now.

What will happen when there are no more Air Miles points available? How will Ukrainians know that they can access points? For booking flights, points are extremely limited as there are limited seats available for each flight. As such, it could be very difficult for Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to get to safety.

Ukrainians in need of getting to safety are mired in red tape with delays in getting emergency visas. Now, they need to wait for Air Miles points to be available and hope that they can get a seat to get to Canada. Let us imagine that. The Liberal government needs to realize that this not a vacation for Ukrainian nationals. People are trying to get to safety. They are fleeing a war, and they are in a desperate situation. Canada should be partnering with Air Canada and organizing evacuation flights for Ukrainians.

Because the immigration stream made available to Ukrainians is a temporary visitor stream, concerns that they will not have the support they need are escalating. Even though the Prime Minister announced that there would be income support for them a month ago, so far there is no information on when or how they will be able to access the support. There is not even clarity on how much income support they would get or how long it would be made available to them. This cannot carry on. Also, children would not qualify for the Canada child benefit, yet we know that newcomers rely on that support to support their access to safe housing.

Provinces have said that they would help, but it is not enough. We need the federal government to bring forward a national program to address this issue and to ensure equitable access and support for all Ukrainian nationals.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise to answer the member's question. Canada stands firm in its support for Ukraine. Ukrainian immigrants are an important part of Canada's cultural history, and we continue to support the courageous Ukrainian people

More than 32,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada since January 1 of this year. As part of our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or the IRCC, introduced the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This fast-track temporary residence visa is designed to help Ukrainians seeking a safe haven in Canada while war continues in their home country.

As of May 1, we have received approximately 240,000 applications under this new program and have approved over 111,000. We are meeting our target of 14 days for processing applications. We are committed to processing 80% of applications within 14 days, and we continue to meet that standard.

On May 10, the Minister of Immigration announced that three charter flights would be offered to approved Ukrainians and their families under the emergency program. The IRCC will be sending an email to those who have received their visas to come to Canada under the emergency program to let them know how they can book seats on these charters. The flights will be available on a first‑come, first‑served basis, and will depart from Warsaw, Poland, arriving in Winnipeg on May 23, Montreal on May 29, and Halifax on June 2.

Protecting people from danger and integrating them into a new community and a new country is just the beginning. Ukrainians will need support once they arrive in Canada, and that is why we have announced that Ukrainians will have access to hotel stays for up to two weeks and income support for up to six weeks.

The IRCC is issuing open work and study permits to Ukrainian nationals and their families who are currently in Canada and cannot return home safely, allowing them to extend their stay in Canada for up to three years. In addition, on March 30 of this year, the Government of Canada announced temporary federal support to help eligible Ukrainians arriving under the new program to settle into their new communities.

These extended settlement program services, which are typically only available to permanent residents, will be available until March 31, 2023, and include the following: language training; information about and orientation to life in Canada, such as help with enrolling children in school; information and services to help access the labour market, including mentoring, networking, counselling, skills development and training; activities that promote connections with communities; assessments of other needs Ukrainians may have; services targeted to the needs of women, seniors, youth and LGBTQ2+ persons; and other settlement supports.

We will continue to do more to welcome Ukrainians seeking refuge here in Canada from Putin's war as quickly as possible, and we will take care of them when they get here.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government is very good at making announcements, but the reality is that it actually has not followed up. The parliamentary secretary just talked about the income support for Ukrainians. Where is it? How can people access it? Where is the information for people to obtain that support? I have constituents who are hosting Ukrainians and they do not know where they can get that support. It is simply not there, even though the announcement was made by the Prime Minister weeks ago. Talk is cheap. We need to actually act on it and put those programs in place.

Finally, it is absolutely essential that the government does not rob Peter to pay Paul, and that it ensures that refugees from other countries are also supported, so agencies and resettlement agencies are not stuck without the support that they need for all those other countries. They all deserve support. The government also needs to take action to ensure resettlement services agencies have the capacity to do this work.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to have a conversation with the hon. member. I am very happy to report on the settlement. Earlier this year, we made an announcement that we were going forward with $35 million for our rural and small communities. I had the privilege last week to go to Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, where I announced $14.2 million that will be distributed among 11 rural communities. We have been there since day one with our Ukrainian community. We will continue to be there and support them, and I am very proud of the actions that our government has taken.

Climate Change

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on this adjournment debate. I want to acknowledge I am standing here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

The question I am pursuing tonight I originally asked on April 27, so it had not been long since we had received the final chapter of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with its most dire warnings ever.

I asked the Prime Minister how it could be, given we had been told by the IPCC that emissions must peak globally by 2025 and drop dramatically from there to at least half by 2030, that two days later the government approved the Bay du Nord project, and how it could be that, three days later, the budget included continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, while somehow transferring that monstrosity to indigenous ownership.

The Prime Minister's answer, as ever, was that the government was doing so much and had committed $100 billion to be spent between 2016 and 2030. One hundred billion dollars is a lot of money, but it does not save us. The government's plan does not come close to holding to 2°C or 1.5°C.

We are facing some very serious realities, and talking points will not do. I have to admit that I made an error in my question of April 27. On how bad things were, I quoted from the IPCC lead author, who said that it was “now or never”. I read the report of the IPCC as saying, as I just did, that we had until 2025 globally to ensure that emissions had peaked and dropped from there. I was wrong.

I went back and reread page 22 of the “Summary for Policymakers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report. We do not have until 2025; we have less time. The quote is that “global emissions must peak between 2020 and, at the latest, before 2025”.

This is not a political debate. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is as good and decent a person as we are ever going to find in this place, and the minister is a good person and the Prime Minister is a good person, but it does not matter. The difference between policies developed by good people who fall short on climate change and policies by people who do not believe climate change exists, in the words of Bill McKibben, one of our leading champions for climate action globally, is losing more slowly.

The Liberal plan before us does not deal with the science. It does not. Setting net-zero by 2050 as if it means anything is spin. It is not science. Net-zero by 2050 is only relevant if global emissions peak before 2025 and drop rapidly from there.

I know what the hon. minister has said in this place about Bay du Nord and the emissions not being Canada's problem. Really? When did he lose his moral compass? The emissions do not matter if they happen somewhere else? Canada is to continue to increase producing oil and gas? It is not our problem if the emissions in other countries condemn our children to an unlivable world? That is what we are talking about; nothing less than that.

When we have a choice between now or never, please do not choose never.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the points raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I always like discussing this issue with her.

Fighting climate change is very important to me. It is an issue that really guides the work that I do in this place every day.

I would point out that we are at the point of seeing a flattening of emissions from this country, and that is a very big deal. In 2019, we began to see a decoupling, where the economy grew and emissions were flattening. They were not growing in the same way the economy was.

In 2020, our emissions in fact dropped, but that was a different year. We all know that because we were not travelling the way we had before. However, I will point out that some of that drop is a permanent piece that comes from the work that we have done to remove coal-fired electricity from the electrical grid, as we are doing, so there are positives steps. I think it is really important to highlight some of that as well because I feel the anxiety, as I think so many people do, and it is important to point out that progress is being made.

The member has also raised the Bay du Nord project. I have pointed out that we are making progress. There is work being done. It is hard work. We put a price on carbon pollution. That was a big deal. We had to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to make it stick. That was a lot of hard work, and it is a having an impact. It is a very strong market mechanism.

If we look toward next things, we are mandating zero-emission vehicles so that 100% of all new light-duty vehicles sold by 2035 will be zero emission. We are retrofitting buildings as set out in the emissions reduction plan. As quickly as we seek to make that transition, there are many logistical challenges that we are overcoming to make that happen quickly.

Currently, we are still in a place where we rely on oil and gas for our homes and transportation. Even as we transition from the combustion of fossil fuels, and this was something that was a big learning for me, there is going to remain a need for non-combustion related uses. For example, I was at my bike shop talking to someone about my bike. Right now, there is no other quality way to lubricate the chain on my bicycle than to use oil. It is also used for plastics in a medical context. Those are needs that are still there. Therefore, the world will still need some fossil fuels, but not necessarily for combustion, which brings me to the question of Bay du Nord.

The federal government accepted the environmental assessment of the Impact Assessment Agency regarding the Baie du Nord project after four years of consideration and scrutiny by scientific experts. The projected emissions from Baie du Nord are 10 times less than the oil sands on average and five times less than the average oil and gas project. Ultimately, I am going to highlight this, because it is something that is important to me as I look at all of this: The atmosphere sees emissions, but it does not see production barrel numbers.

What we are doing is driving down the combustion of fossil fuels in our own country through the work I have outlined above, and there is so much work being done. We are also putting a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. Those are all steps we are taking that are important steps forward. I would say we are making tremendous progress. It is a hard mountain to move, but we are doing it.

I thank the hon. member for all of her feedback and work on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not say in my four minutes up here that the government is not working. I did not say that individuals are not working hard. I did not say the government is not making progress. I said that the totality of what it has proposed does not protect my grandchildren from the Mad Max dystopian future that awaits them on if we stay on the trajectory we are on, so we must be sure we do more.

There is no excuse for the government wasting billions of dollars on the Trans Mountain pipeline. There is no excuse for an emissions reduction plan that includes an increase of 21% by 2030 of oil and gas production. There is no excuse for approving Baie du Nord.

My Liberal friends, who claim to be climate active, should hang their heads in shame. They must do more. We stand on the edge of too late, but it is not yet too late.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do understand the urgency. It is, in fact, something I take very seriously in the work I do. It is something that I take to heart, and there is urgency in the work we are doing. In only looking through the emissions reduction plan, it goes through every sector of our economy, putting forward projections to reduce our emissions.

We have signed on to international agreements. Canada joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. If we look at all of the work put together, including reducing emissions by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, then we are on a path to net zero by 2050.

It is urgent, I absolutely agree, and we are working with that urgency. We will continue to do so.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. The House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Public Works and Government Services in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Public Works and Government Services in the main estimates, Mrs. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)

Public Works and Government Services—Main Estimates, 2022-23

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, meaning how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and comments.

Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with another member shall indicate this to the Chair. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours as needed to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to salute and welcome the minister. Now, on to the first question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the following at the February 4 meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates: “The pattern is that whenever we look at major procurement issues, for example, combat ships, supply ships, and now polar icebreakers, there is one constant: the costs are always higher when an independent office estimates them rather than the government.”

Why is that?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Chair, we always provide the estimates, and we do our best to maintain procurement that matches up with those estimates.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, Andrew Kendrick, who testified on May 13 at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, mentioned that the major shipyards always transferred the risk to the smaller suppliers, the contractors, and that the costs associated with the risks were assumed by them. If they needed to boost the price, they just had to increase the bill and the government paid.

Why are the contracts written that way? Why is it always the taxpayers who pay for the cost overruns or the risks, which most often are passed on to the smaller players?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, we are really proud of our national shipbuilding strategy. The investments we make into that strategy pay off. The economic benefits pay off, and it is not just for the large shipyards. Small businesses benefit as well.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, the cost of everything is skyrocketing right now. None of the contracts involve fixed costs. A number of witnesses told the committee that many businesses in many countries had fixed costs. The witnesses suggested signing fixed-cost contracts.

Does the minister agree?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, what I would acknowledge is that COVID has had an impact around the world. With respect to the shipyards, there is no question that COVID has impacted costs of labour and supply chain issues.

We always work in a way to maintain having costs match up to the quotes that are given, but COVID has presented a number of challenges, not only in shipyards but also all around the world in supply chains and labour.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, was Canada the only country to experience COVID‑19 or did it happen in other countries as well?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, COVID has happened around the world.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, I have another point that was raised by officials from Public Services and Procurement Canada. On April 7, these bureaucrats told the committee that we can expect further cost overruns and delays regarding the delivery of new ships for the navy and the Coast Guard, and that the multi-billion dollar shipbuilding program faces significant challenges.

Will the minister admit that billions of dollars in cost overruns are already expected?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Chair, I have had an opportunity to visit one of the shipyards, and the work that is going on there is second to none. To see the extent of what is taking place here in Canada, on Canadian soil, to produce these ships is absolutely fantastic. It is creating jobs and economic growth right here in Canada.