Debates of June 7th, 2022

Main Estimates, 2022-23

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for that intervention. Of course, the Table had that listed already, so Journals will reflect that tomorrow.

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

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in Adjournment Proceedings. I have to say the hour is awfully appropriate. I am going to be following up on a question I asked in question period on May 2 related to what are called small modular reactors and their connection to nuclear proliferation, so it certainly is appropriate that the clock is approaching midnight. It reminds me very much that there is something called a doomsday clock, which is kept up to date by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I just checked it and it shows that we are “100 seconds to midnight”, given the combined factors of the increased threats of nuclear war brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the significant risk to the whole planet brought on by the climate crisis.

These issues are related, and I related them in my question in the House on May 2. The answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was not sufficient and that is why I have brought it forward this evening.

The so-called small modular reactors are not part of any solution to the climate crisis. Moreover, they are untested and essentially experimental. Lastly, I again draw the attention of this place to the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Just to walk through those three points, the Minister of Natural Resources has said frequently in this place that there is no pathway to climate solutions that does not include small modular reactors. That is simply not true. Reducing greenhouse gases involves phasing out fossil fuels, cancelling the TMX pipeline and not pursuing Bay du Nord. These are tangible things that have nothing to do with nuclear. Nuclear is actually in the way. It is highly expensive. Per tonne of carbon reduced, it is about the most expensive way we can go. There is also a long timeline before we see any results from a decision to go with nuclear.

The fact that these reactors are untested and essentially experimental has not had enough attention in this country. I turn to an expert in the area, Professor Allison M. Macfarlane, as a source. She is actually the former chairperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is currently at the University of British Columbia. She told this to the CBC: “Nobody knows what the numbers are, and anybody who gives you numbers is selling you a bridge to nowhere because they don't know. Nobody has ever set up a molten salt reactor and used it to produce electricity.”

A molten salt reactor is exactly what the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick are throwing tens of millions of dollars at. A private sector operator has proposed this and wants approval to go ahead and build it. It is being reviewed at this moment, but the money is flowing toward a molten salt reactor that will use plutonium from the spent fuel at Point Lepreau in order to create this unproven technology and allegedly produce electricity.

It is all very much in question, except for one thing. There is a huge risk in taking plutonium from spent fuel. It is the kind of risk that existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties are very careful to prevent us from taking. If we are promoting a global plutonium economy, even a tiny, infinitesimal amount of plutonium in the hands of terrorists could create a dirty bomb. If it is in the hands of other countries around the world, there is the very large risk that they will produce a nuclear weapon.

We had this experience in 1974 when Canada gave India one of its CANDU reactors. It turns out that these new SMRs, which was just recently noted in The Globe and Mail this week, produce far more nuclear waste than conventional reactors, that is, two times to 30 times more.

I ask the government to think twice. This is a mistake. This is radioactive snake oil.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will state at the outset that on this matter our government's top priority is to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and our environment. As the member opposite knows, Canada is recognized for having one of the world's most comprehensive climate plans. We recently updated it with new details and targets to illustrate how we will reach our ambitious 2030 target, which is to cut emissions by at least 40% below 2005 levels.

This update includes $9.1 billion in new investments to help us strive toward our goal, to create more than a million jobs while making clean growth the cornerstone of our economic future. Our climate plan includes, for instance, measures to spur the development of next-generation technologies to bring more clean power onto our grids, encourage greater use of public transit and zero-emission vehicles, and make homes and businesses more energy-efficient.

We also see great potential for the development of non-emitting hydrogen. In fact, Germany's ambassador to Canada said recently that we have the potential to become a global hydrogen superpower.

Yes, nuclear also plays a role in our plan. Why do I say that? It is because nuclear already plays a big role. It is the second-largest source of non-emitting electricity in Canada after hydro, generating roughly 60% of Ontario's electricity and close to 40% of New Brunswick's.

The fact is that the International Energy Agency has repeatedly made it clear that getting to net zero will require an acceleration in nuclear energy generation around the world, so Canada is among a number of nations supporting research into small modular reactors, also known as SMRs. We are also working with interested provincial governments that are responsible for making decisions on electricity generation projects.

Our support is reflected in our SMR action plan, unveiled in late 2020, and most recently in budget 2022, which included $69.9 million over five years to advance the development of this technology. This also included the provision of $50.7 million, and an ongoing $500,000 annually after that, to help the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission develop the capacity to regulate this emerging sector.

As for the company the member opposite cited, we are supporting the Moltex plan to use recycled CANDU reactor fuel. This would give us the chance to further extract energy from a used resource.

The member and all Canadians should be confident that safety and security remain paramount. Canada remains a signatory to and a strong advocate of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This means we implement all the safeguards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear materials are used solely for peaceful purposes in Canada.

Most Canadians know that the member opposite has long urged Canadians to take the climate crisis seriously. We on this side hope the hon. member will soon see, as other environmentalists have, that solar and wind power alone will never get us to net zero. To succeed, we must explore all possible solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry the hon. parliamentary secretary continues to spout the sorts of things that Liberals alone could possibly believe, such as that Canada has a climate plan that is admired in the rest of the world.

When I go to international conferences, Canada is known as a laggard country. We have the worst record in the G7, and by hitching our wagon to net zero by 2050, we are threatening our very own children with an unlivable world, because the targets that must be met occur in the next 30 months, and not in the next three decades.

I will never close my mind to any solution to the climate crisis, but SMRs are not a solution. They are in the way, with the opportunity cost of putting millions of dollars into an unproven technology with existing risks of exacerbating our nuclear waste problem. It is an absolutely bogus notion that we are going to recycle nuclear waste and it is going to be good for all of us. It creates more waste, and it threatens our safety in terms of proliferation.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a leading producer of uranium and a globally recognized pioneer in the safe development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Our industry has been a catalyst for Nobel award-winning science, and with our planet facing a climate crisis, this is not a time to turn our backs on this proud industry.

The fact is that to reach our targets we need to explore all options, including nuclear. Commercially viable SMRs could play a role in cutting emissions. They could also help remote, northern and indigenous communities reduce their dependence on diesel.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the adjournment debate on a question that I raised with the government on March 4 related to Afghans who were fleeing Putin's war and other minorities who are trying to get to safety.

I ask members to imagine this: We have an individual who fled the Taliban and made it safely to Russia. They were in the refugee camp when the war broke out. It is an unprovoked war, initiated by Putin, and as a result, people there are frantic. This individual had been pregnant and had just given birth.

She is fleeing again to try to get to safety. She treks for miles, carrying her baby, trying to get to a border, only to be rejected and not be able to get through. This happens over and over again. This is what has happened to this particular individual and her family. They could not get to safety.

The government said that we would welcome individuals who are being persecuted and people who are fleeing the war, yet we have not extended immigration measures to them. They actually tried to apply under the special immigration measures that the government announced for Afghans and they were not accepted. They were rejected.

I have to ask how it is possible for someone who has fled the Taliban and made it to another country, only to be fleeing again with nothing on her back, and with a new baby. They have all the hopes and all dreams, and want to get to safety, but when they look to Canada to see if that could happen, lo and behold, the Canadian government rejects them.

This is what people are struggling with. I am calling on the government to do the right thing, to support this family and accept them as refugees under the special immigration measure. I would also call on the government to extend those special immigration measures to other minorities who are in similar situations.

In fact, as the days pass and as these numbers get filled up for the 40,000 Afghans who are fleeing persecution, who are fleeing the Taliban and who are trying to get to safety, there are so many people who have been left behind. They are people who served the country, who were referred by the Department of National Defence or by GAC, and the women and girls who have been fighting and advocating for women's rights and democracy in Afghanistan. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to bring them to safety.

In addition, I would also say the government needs to do everything it can to bring the family members of those who served Canada to safety as well. I hope the government will act because people's lives depend on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, following the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan last summer, the government initially committed to resettling 20,000 vulnerable Afghan refugees, and we have now increased that commitment to bringing at least 40,000 Afghans to Canada.

On July 23, 2001, the Government of Canada announced special immigration measures for individuals with a significant and enduring relationship with the Government of Canada, along with their accompanying family members. On August 13, we announced a special humanitarian program focused on resettling Afghan nationals who were outside of Afghanistan and who do not have a durable solution in a third country.

This program focuses on women leaders, human rights defenders, LGBTQ2 individuals, journalists and people who assisted Canadian journalists. We have also created a permanent resident pathway for extended family members of former Afghan interpreters who previously immigrated to Canada under the 2009 and 2012 public policies.

IRCC has mobilized its global network and all available resources are being devoted to this effort. IRCC also prioritized the processing of privately sponsored Afghan refugees. The department is harnessing the generosity of Canadians, including through sponsorship agreement holders, as well as individuals and corporate donations to private sponsorship.

Today, we marked an important milestone by welcoming more than 15,000 Afghan refugees to Canada, and hundreds more are arriving each week, including 300 privately sponsored refugees arriving on a chartered flight tomorrow.

I also think it is important to put Canada's commitment to Afghans in a global context. Per capita, our goal of bringing at least 40,000 Afghan nationals to Canada places us among the top countries in the world when it comes to resettlement, second only to the United States on numbers alone. In terms of broad numbers, our commitment of 40,000 is larger than the United Kingdom and Australia, and the same as the one being pursued by a European nation that has 10 times the population of Canada.

We remain firm in our commitment to settle at least 40,000 Afghan nationals in safety to Canada as quickly and safely as possible. We will not stop until the work is done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows as well as I do that the reality is that the Department of National Defence had referred 3,800 applications to IRCC and only 900 of them have been confirmed. The rest of the 2,900 applications files are lost somewhere in the system. The same applies to the GAC referrals. IRCC cannot seem to find these files. As much as the parliamentary secretary and the government would like to say they are doing a great job, I am sorry to say they are not. Too many people have been left behind. They cannot even find their files. How is that even possible?

I would say to the Liberals that, if they think they are doing a good job, they had better look harder. They need to find those files and bring those family members here to Canada. We need to honour them. We need to make sure that they get to safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are one of the only countries in the world to have implemented a humanitarian stream to welcome even more Afghan refugees based on their particular vulnerability, including women leaders, LGBTQ2 people, human rights defenders, journalists and members of religious and ethnic minorities.

With our standard refugee program, the humanitarian stream works through a referral system and individuals do not apply directly. Individuals are referred by designated partners trained and experienced at assessing vulnerability and operating a situation of mass displacement and humanitarian hardship.

Referral partners, including the United Nations Refugee Agency's frontline defenders protect defenders and Canadian private sponsors. In light of the current situation in Afghanistan, we will waive the requirement for a refugee status determination to some private sponsorship applications, broadening sponsors' access to the program.

In addition to all these pathways, we are going to work with partners to utilize the economic mobility pathways pilot, an innovative program designed to help skilled refugees resettle in Canada to welcome even more Afghan refugees. We are committed to resettle at least—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to express my disappointment for having to be here tonight to re-address a simple question. It is a question of transparency and openness from the government on lessons learned from the fall of Kabul last year.

The first thing I want to do is read into the record the mandate of the Special Committee on Afghanistan. It reads:

to conduct hearings to examine and review the events related to the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, including, but not limited to, the government's contingency planning for that event and the subsequent efforts to evacuate, or otherwise authorize entry to Canada of, Canadian citizens, and interpreters, contractors and other Afghans who had assisted the Canadian Armed Forces or other Canadian organizations

That was our mandate. I am going to read the definition, from the defence terminus database, of what an after-action review is. It is “A professional discussion of...[an] operational event that focuses on identifying what happened, why it happened, and how it can be improved.” In reality, we are asking for the same thing. It is just to get those after-action reviews.

I put a motion forward at the Special Committee on Afghanistan for the government. We brought it up during testimony, and we had Global Affairs Canada officials admit that they had conducted an after-action review or a review of what happened last summer in Kabul.

After that, we had defence officials there, including the chief of the defence staff. They admitted that they went through the Canadian Armed Forces after-action review process or post-operational review and conducted that. In fact, they fed into a PCO-led interdepartmental review of what went right, what went wrong and what we needed to improve going forward from last summer, all great stuff that made sense. Considering the mandate of the Special Committee on Afghanistan, would that information not be invaluable to our hard-working analysts and committee members so they can put together the report?

I therefore put a motion forward. I asked the officials about this, but unfortunately we did not get the information. I put it forward at committee. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee decided to filibuster. It never got to a vote before we ran out of time, because the Special Committee on Afghanistan is wrapping up. In fact, the chair will table the report tomorrow.

I have gone down every possible avenue. I submitted an Order Paper question, a written question, to see if I could get the information that way. Then I stood up during question period, which brings me here tonight to ask for the information.

Again, I am just looking to get all of the reports, including any of the draft reports, to committee so we can move forward. We are lacking them, and it was obvious, based on testimony, that the interdepartmental coordination between the three departments involved in this, particularly with respect to immigration, was weak, if not non-existent. The committee was unable to get all of the reports to provide an effective response going forward.

This is really the key point that I want to hit. In the end, this is all about setting the conditions for the future. If Canada ever commits, whether it is militarily or diplomatically, to another mission around the globe, we need to rely upon the cultural advisers, interpreters and linguists who are willing to step forward. If they are unwilling to do so and do not trust us to have their backs if things go sideways, as they did in Afghanistan, we are the ones who will lose out.

We are likely going to hear from the parliamentary secretary. I am glad he is here to answer my question. However, I think he is going to use national security as an excuse, which is not the case. Ultimately, the sad reality is that the Afghans who should be coming here are the losers in this whole circumstance.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and fellow member of the Special Committee on Afghanistan for the opportunity to speak to this important topic. I also want to thank him for his service to Canada and say that his contributions at committee are always insightful.

Canada's response to the collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban's seizure of power in August 2021 was one of the largest, most challenging and complex international crisis operations in recent decades. It involved the first Canadian-led non-combatant evacuation operations since the 2006 operation in Lebanon.

Through close co-operation with our international partners, we supported and continue to support eligible individuals wanting to leave Afghanistan. Following the signing of the Doha agreement in February 2020, Canada began to prepare for a worsening security situation. We closely monitored events on the ground, informed by intelligence agencies and partners.

Coordinated contingency planning for a potential closure of the embassy of Canada in Afghanistan and an evacuation of Canadians began early between Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence. The security of Canadians in Afghanistan was one of the utmost priority. As testimony from officials made clear at committee, even with the best efforts on assessments from the field, the Taliban overtook Kabul far more quickly than anticipated.

I can tell my colleague that departments and ministers worked closely together across government for a coordinated response, starting in July 2021. Daily interdepartmental task force calls took place to ensure collaboration between departments. From the Global Affairs Canada perspective, our consular team went into high gear to provide robust consular support to Canadians, permanent residents and their family members in Afghanistan to facilitate their safe passage to Canada.

This effort required coordinated support from the embassy in Kabul as they themselves prepared to close down operations in a precarious security situation, as well as from Ottawa and from eight of our missions across the globe. From the onset of this crisis, surge capacity responders worked around the clock to manage an unprecedented volume of answering calls and emails from Canadians, permanent residents, members of Parliament and family members outside of Afghanistan, as well as vulnerable people in Afghanistan seeking help and advice.

Across the government, hundreds of employees worked together on the coordinated response efforts. Partner departments were embedded in Global Affairs Canada's operation centre, enabling close collaboration amongst departments. At the same time, support was provided to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada to enable them to carry out their mandate in resettling Afghan nationals in Canada.

While the response to the crisis in Afghanistan remains ongoing, we always review our efforts in order to identify and capture lessons learned and best practices to improve future emergency management capabilities. We are committed to continuing to work together to implement the lessons learned in order to better serve Canadians' interests abroad.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for recognizing my service. I do think a lot of the information we found at the Special Committee on Afghanistan was beneficial. I will not thank him for the history lesson, although I think maybe it was beneficial to some for learning what we studied over the last number of months at the committee.

Why would the government not release the reports that would have made our jobs so much easier on committee, especially for the great analysts?

My question is simple. Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that it would have made the analysts' job so much easier if they had had the benefit of seeing all the work that had been done already? He does not have to trust me. I actually asked them this yesterday, and they agreed with me that it would have made their job a lot easier.

Why would the government not release the reports?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has supported and continues to support the people of Afghanistan.

Through the coordinated efforts of our government, more than 1,460 Canadian permanent residents and their family members were able to safely return to Canada. Emergency consular services continue to be offered to Canadians 24-7, through the emergency watch and response centre at Global Affairs Canada.

In addition, Canada continues to work closely with neighbouring countries to ensure the safe travels of Afghans to Canada under resettlement programs. To date, more than 14,600 Afghan nationals have arrived as a result of these efforts. As we continue to support those in need, it is clear that there is always room for improvement when it comes to collaboration across government departments.

I know that our work on the Special Committee on Afghanistan will help contribute to this process, and I can assure my colleagues and all Canadians that the government will be providing a complete response to the report.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:59 p.m.)