Debates of June 8th, 2022

Bill C-5—Notice of Time Allocation

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to go there, because the member raised the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and I have no idea why this member would want to raise that.

The former finance minister Bill Morneau pointed out that the Canada Infrastructure Bank did not do what was intended. This member is trying to say that somehow, if the Canada Infrastructure Bank was not entity, if it did not exist, municipalities would not be able to purchase electric vehicles or electric buses. That is simply not the case.

Would the member acknowledge that in this budget bill the government is changing the mandate of said institution? Really, all we have seen since this was proposed in 2017 is, year after year, scandalous stories about executives at the Canada Infrastructure Bank getting bonuses. In fact, the previous CEO and president left, and we still do not know what the former minister of infrastructure Catherine McKenna, who has left this place, gave that member. This has been a complete failure.

Would the member at least acknowledge, with a little humility, that that particular institution put in place by his government has been a failure?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is known as the shadow finance minister, and the shadow finance minister should know better. We are talking about of dozens of projects. We are talking about over $30 billion in investments. The finance critic believes that it has not done anything. I do not know what world his mind might be in, but it is obviously not engaged in reality.

At the end of the day, the member is listening to the Conservative spin doctors in the back room. He needs to do some independent research. I would suggest to the shadow minister of finance to take a look at it. If he did that, he would see that it has invested millions. I will use the example of Brampton, which I think is a great example. Does the member not support what is happening in Brampton today because, in part, of what the Infrastructure Bank has done?

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

This is where I give my daily reminder to keep questions and answer as short as we can so that everyone can participate.

The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for speaking about health.

One in five people in this country works in the care economy. Those health care workers and care workers are being exploited in this country. They are immigrants, more often women without secured status; seniors caring for seniors in long-term care homes without, in too many cases, proper PPE, adequate linens or lifting equipment; and nurses, who were not even mentioned in the budget speech. They deserve better.

When will the government respect the women in the care economy by paying them properly, give immigrant care workers immediate permanent status, and give long-term care workers the protection they deserve with legislation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the pandemic, the federal government gave a number of supports for nurses. They are the backbone of our health care system. Literally millions of dollars were allocated to the provinces to support our nurses.

On a couple of occasions, including the other day, I have had the opportunity to talk with Ambassador Robles from the Philippines. We talked about how many people of Filipino heritage have the skills to be health care providers and nurses, and those skill sets are not necessarily being recognized here, so they are not working as nurses.

There is a wide spectrum in the health care field that we need to improve upon. We have to respect the fact that there is provincial jurisdiction and there is a role for the federal government, but I do believe that the federal government is working with provinces as much as possible. Hopefully, we will be able to continue to have more dialogue on that.

Not recognizing immigrant credentials, in particular, is really quite sad, and it needs to be dealt with. They could contribute so much more to our health care system.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg North always gives lengthy responses, and I like that. I like his passion, and of course it is always a pleasure to ask him questions in the House.

My colleague talked about what is in Bill C‑19. I am going to ask him about what is not in it.

What is not in Bill C‑19 are the health transfers to the provinces and Quebec. These transfers have been requested by all provincial premiers and the Premier of Quebec, all the opposition parties in the House of Commons and all the parties in the Quebec National Assembly. The only ones saying no to health transfers are the Liberals.

My question is very simple. If someone is alone in thinking they are right, could it be because they are wrong?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed that issue at the very beginning of my comments where I said that even when I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba about 30 years ago, provinces we always asking for more money. It is just something that is an annual thing.

What I found was that during the early nineties, when I was heavily involved in the provincial legislature, there was this threat that we were going to see the federal government get out of financing health care because provinces wanted to continue with the tax point shift, as opposed to a cash over. That is ultimately what I would argue, that back in the late seventies and early eighties there was some consensus that saw tax point shifts. That was part of the problem.

Today, we have health care accords with the different provinces. We understand the importance of health care. That is why I spent the first six or seven minutes talking about health care. Today, we have record amounts of health transfers, and we are looking beyond those in how we can support issues such as mental health and long-term care.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservatives are not interested in the Infrastructure Bank because of the five objectives it focuses on. It focuses on green infrastructure, clean power, public transit, trade and transportation, and broadband infrastructure. With the exception of one of those, which they might be remotely interested in, the rest are just topics the Conservatives are not interested in.

The reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and anybody can go to its website to see the projects that are under way through that bank, is providing innovative solutions for municipalities, in particular, and private industry to work with the government, with the expertise that can come along with those partnerships, to delivery real, quite often large-scale, infrastructure projects throughout the country.

Could the parliamentary secretary further expand on the importance of these infrastructure projects right in our local communities and what that means for the municipalities that are trying to build critical infrastructure for tomorrow?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in wanting to be fair to my colleagues across the way in the Conservative Party, I think we need to recognize that they are still trying to determine whether or not climate change is real.

Having said that, as my colleague points out, there is an issue where there is a bias toward the new economy and the importance of recognizing new energies. The point is that we have literally dozens of projects all over Canada. We are talking well over $30 billion, not $30 million, but $30 billion, and the Conservative speaking points that come from the backroom are saying that there is nothing happening in that bank. They need to update their speaking points.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, he challenged the Conservatives to google the Infrastructure Bank, so I took the opportunity to do so. I found its Wikipedia entry, which has a table that lists the various projects. However, I noticed, according to Wikipedia anyway, that exactly zero of them have been completed. Could the member elaborate on whether the Infrastructure Bank has actually completed any projects since it was established by this government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that the member might want to consider expanding his research capabilities and possibly look directly at the Canada Infrastructure Bank website. He will be amazed with how much information he will be able to find there. He will be able to identify the programs that are actually being financed today.

My recommendation is to expand his research capabilities. The Conservative caucus has a lot of money. Let us start doing a little more, and let us start saying some positive things about the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Today, I am going to be speaking to Bill C-19, but I will also be speaking to some of the points that I am sure the Liberal government may not want to hear. Part of democracy means everyone having a say before a decision is made. As the previous speaker said, there are a number of things where the Liberals accuse us of having blind spots. I would simply say that the same goes for the Liberals. That is why it is important for debates to happen, for those ideas, and for the people at home to be able to make up their own minds. That is something I hope to do today.

One of the biggest challenges I believe Canada has right now is not debates over spending too much or not spending enough; it is credibility. There used to be a time when both Liberal and Conservative finance ministers spent considerable time and effort to come to this chamber and say that they had a path to balance. In our history, we have gone through world wars and pandemics. We have had cases where we have even survived Liberal government “spendathons” backed by the NDP, which put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of debt that took decades to be straightened out, and a lot of pain.

When a finance minister comes to this place and says that the government has a path to balance or a balanced budget, that means a couple of things. Number one, it means that people know that the government has credibility when it lets out a bond and takes money from domestic lenders or from outside of Canada. It also says that the power of the government is in a very strong state, so if it decides to go with an infrastructure spending program or if it feels there is a hole in the safety net, depending on the needs of the day, there would be money for that, and taxpayers, both today and tomorrow, are going to be respected in those transactions.

When I go door knocking and speak to seniors or middle-aged people in my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, one thing I hear a lot is that they are very concerned that their children and grandchildren do not have the same opportunities they did at that period in their lives, and that in order to get a good job they need more and more education, which comes at great cost. Even if they get that great education, it is not always easy to find the work they need in their area of specialty. Now, there is a lot of work, and I appreciate meeting people who are doing whatever they can to get the skills they need so they can raise a family. However, people are feeling hurt. In all age categories, there is the cost-of-living crisis we are in right now. We have not seen groceries jump 10% since we had another divisive, big tax-and-spend Liberal prime minister in office. It almost plays to a T that we are somewhat repeating history. We have a big-spending government that makes bad choices and hits a debt crisis or oil shocks, and suddenly interest rates go up, inflation starts soaring and everyone is in a load of pain.

The pain people are feeling right now, where they cannot fill up their gas tanks or purchase the same amount of groceries they could just a few months ago, is pain enough, but young people are also feeling that the system does not work for them anymore because they cannot buy a home. They have given up on that. They are just trying to scrape by and do what little they can. Instead of putting their money into something that brings them equity, they are seeing their credit card bills go up to pay for those groceries and to have those little luxuries because they do not have a home. That is a real shame, and I think all of us here recognize that. This is not a partisan issue, when we recognize that a whole generation feels like it is not part of the economy. That is on all of us, and we have to work together to try to find ways to deal with that.

We will have debates in this place. I do not want to say that I have all the answers, but I will say that part of it comes with credibility. People need to know that their government is working for them, that it is not thinking for them but thinking of them. In question period, when I ask questions of the Minister of Finance, I do not get the sense that she is thinking of Canadians; I think she is thinking for them. She may be well intentioned, but I would also say, and I have been very open with this criticism, that it is a bad decision by the Prime Minister to give so much responsibility to a single individual: to be Deputy Prime Minister, which is an honour, I am sure, and to also be finance minister.

Being a finance minister is a full-time job. I remember seeing Minister Flaherty and how hard he would work. It was good and meaningful work. However, to add to that, by a Prime Minister who seems to be more about the jet-set life and seems to be more about playing a Prime Minister on TV than being a Prime Minister in this place, putting so much responsibility onto one individual, that is not fair to her and it is not fair to this place.

In my experience on the finance committee, we saw large sections of the budget bill just cut. The EI component, which is an incredibly important part, was cut. Why? Everyone agreed the government had botched it. There is so much in this budget bill. There are other things the Liberals have botched, but unfortunately the government members just nod and say they lost something and just keep going on like nothing has happened. That is the problem. The finance minister is too busy, the Prime Minister is too busy doing his own thing, and there is not a focused government in place.

Credibility is so important that when the finance minister says something, it can move markets. Having credibility is so important in a Minister of Finance and in a Prime Minister. Yesterday, Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer who works for all of us in this place, was at a Senate committee, the national finance committee. In response to being asked about whether the government's fiscal position and its numbers were credible, this is what he had to say: “I personally don't believe it is credible that there will be that level of spending restraint in the period 2024 to 2027, given all the expenditures that remain to be implemented by the government over that period of time.” When asked if these planned savings in that time frame were still feasible, he said, “If we were to believe the government's numbers, that would mean that in 2024 to 2027, operating and capital spending would grow by 0.3% per year, which is a level of growth that we have not seen in a long, long time.”

What did I say about moving markets? Actually, the Royal Bank of Canada just put out its macroeconomic outlook, and it said that the bank expects GDP to go down to 1.9% in 2023, which is a marked drop. What we have is very optimistic numbers that are not meeting the test of time. We have inflation shooting up. We have growth dropping down. People are tightening up their wallets so they can pay for filling up their tank, let alone anything else. This is not a good situation. For our Parliamentary Budget Officer to be saying that he cannot trust the numbers and that those numbers seem overly optimistic, that is a big alarm bell.

The Liberals are not credible on their budget implementation act. The minister is too busy. There is so much happening, and the Liberal government tries to portray a rosy outlook, that everything is good.

Even today, when the finance minister rose in this chamber, she did not want to talk about inflation, but she said to look over there, that employment is at an all-time high and unemployment is at an all-time low. The Liberals were trying to take credit for baby boomers, who, as we have known for well over a decade, eventually would retire, starting in 2016, and leave en masse. The Liberals are trying to take credit for something the baby boomers are doing themselves, something we all know as the demographics are changing.

This is where the Liberals are at. They are again trying to point away, telling us to look at a number because they do not want us looking at these other numbers. RBC is questioning the economy, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer is questioning the assumptions in the budget. It is up to parliamentarians to ask if what the Liberals are saying is credible. Are they treating government as a serious responsibility or are they going by the seat of their pants? It is sad for me to say that, because I would want any government in power to be credible, especially at times when there is crisis or tumult or trouble.

What else does “credible” mean? It means being credible on the small things and not just on the big macroeconomic level. Never have I seen, and many of my constituents have told me they have not, so much spent by any government in the history of Canada, or at least in their lifetime, with so little to show for it.

Economist Tyler Cowen has been speaking about this a lot in the United States, and it is a great concept for us to look at. It is called “state capacity”. In my mind, state capacity is having a military that can blow things up, having hospitals that can handle a pandemic, and having the ability to do everything in between. It is having a Service Canada office that can get us passports in a timely manner. It is having a military that can replace a 50-year-old Browning pistol without having to go through multiple procurements. This is something the Minister of National Defence is going to have to wrestle with.

I know the Liberals do not want to talk about health care transfers. They talk about how they are doing all these other things. However, premiers unanimously say that the one thing they ask for from the federal government is to supply them with more health care transfers. Given what we have seen in our health care system, we can see why they are asking for that. I personally believe that our health care system needs to change. A lot of those arguments need to happen at the provincial level, because a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best policy is not good for this country. There is a reason provinces have the responsibility for health care.

If the Liberals do not want to give health care transfers, then maybe they could stick to their promises from 2019, and again in 2021, when they said they would hire and bring in all these doctors and nurses. In British Columbia, it is critical. There are places like Merritt and northern parts of the province that need to shut down the only emergency clinics they have because they do not have health care professionals.

If there is one thing the government can do, it is to just own up to its own commitment. It made the commitment, and if it cannot keep it, it should stand in this chamber and tell us that it cannot do that, and why. Was it a bad idea to begin with, or was it just being used as a way to get votes?

Yesterday I was on a show, and an esteemed Liberal colleague was also on it. He accused Conservatives of using a gimmick. He said that our motion to take the GST off home heating, electricity, gasoline and diesel was just a gimmick. For so long, groceries have been exempt from the GST, because they are life-sustaining. I do not think any political party disagrees that we should not be applying GST to foodstuff, which allows families to feed themselves. I think that is a consensus and I do not see anyone ever changing that.

We are telling the government, during this period of time, to just stop. It is getting windfall monies from oil and other commodities going up and it is getting all sorts of money coming in from inflation. In 2017, the government made all user fees by the Government of Canada go along with inflation, with the CPI, and what happened? That is inflationary policy. The government has never had so much money.

A little bit of work on the health care front would be helpful. A little bit of help by supporting common-sense, pragmatic suggestions, like suspending the GST, would go so far, yet the NDP-Liberals voted against that. Those members will say that we have all of these programs, like CPP and the Canada child benefit, which are all indexed to inflation. That means it is going to come down the road, and it is not here now at the time of the emergency.

The government has the money to do this, but the Liberals just do not want to use a Conservative suggestion, and that is wrong. It should not be based on who proposes an idea to decide whether or not it has merit. It should be whether the idea itself has merit. That is a problem in this chamber. I would hope that members in caucus would speak to it when they hear a good idea, and whether it comes from the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals, the Conservatives or the independents, that they would take it to their caucus and try to work with it.

I will continue to go through a couple of things quickly. Let us take capacity. In the port of Vancouver, we know we that we have supply chain issues from the COVID pandemic. We can look at what happened in Shanghai. All those ports were shut down, with thousands of boats waiting to take products to other countries.

The port of Vancouver was rated recently by the World Bank in a survey as being one of the worst in the developed world. The Minister of Transport needs to get out to Vancouver and start looking at how to fix this. He cannot just say that it is someone else's responsibility. Yes, there is an independent authority, and I am sure it is trying its best, but at some point the government has to be accountable. If we want to deal with inflation, we should expect that our ports are able to run. Again, the survey did not call out many of the other ports in the United States. We should at least be at the same level as those other ones.

Look at the shemozzle at Pearson airport. It is terrible what people are having to go through. Blacklock's Reporter did a story on this today. The government decided it did not want to hire people back as aggressively and now we are at this particular stage. Yes, the mask mandates, and as I like to say “my way or the highway” mandate for travel are causing all sorts of issues. However, the Liberals are not showing up when it counts. They are not putting their hands on the wheel like we would expect a minister of the Crown to do.

I want to talk about productivity. Recently there were some comments from Bill Morneau, the former minister of finance. I am going to read what he said:

So much time and energy was spent on finding ways to redistribute Canada's wealth that there was little attention given to the importance of increasing our collective prosperity — let alone developing a disciplined way of thinking and acting on the problem," Morneau said in prepared remarks.

That says what this government has done on productivity. In its own budget, the government is saying that in Canada, it expects investment levels to remain low because people do not see us as a credible place to invest. The NDP wants to add all sorts of new taxes, and this government actually put a retroactive tax last year on the banks. We can have arguments about that, but when the government does those kinds of things, it sends out a chill on investment.

To conclude, this government needs to get serious, and this government needs to focus. It has not done that, but I hope it does.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering the clauses in Division 15 of Part 5, amending the Competition Act, with the view to incorporate the consultation measures industry has been asking for.

I would appreciate hearing what members have to say and answering a few questions.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate).

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Conservatives are aware of the fact that the only thing their amendment does when it is moved right after a bill is introduced is give the member for Winnipeg North another opportunity to speak. That is great for the member for Winnipeg North, but I am feeling really left out, because I will only have one opportunity to speak on this.

The Conservatives are relentless in talking about, to quote the member, “a path to balance” in terms of the budget. Personally, I like to focus more on our debt-to-GDP ratio, and I will say why. It is more important because our country has added a million more people to it since 2015. Why is that important when we consider the debt-to-GDP ratio? That is a million more people who require services, a million more people who require infrastructure, but a million more people who, for decades to come, will be helping to fund the tax base that this country relies on.

Can the member not accept the fact that the debt-to-GDP ratio is more important? I would remind him to look back at the Conservatives' platform from last fall, where the Conservatives proposed to run a higher deficit than we did. That was the member for Durham, who is no longer the leader, but nonetheless—

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

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is excellent to hear the member complain about the member for Winnipeg North.

I would simply say this. First of all, we proposed in the last election to shore up our health care system. It is something that every province wanted, including my own province. John Horgan, on behalf of all of the provincial premiers, asked that there not be any new spending or new social programs and to help provinces sustain their health care system. We put that forward because we felt it was a bedrock thing to do. Right now in my riding, emergency rooms are closing in certain communities on very short notice.

I would also say that the net debt-to-GDP ratio is going to be affected. RBC, in its macroeconomic outlook, is downgrading Canada's growth. That is huge. If we cannot build new homes, we are going to see it continue. Two out of five new Canadians who were surveyed said they were thinking of leaving Canada because they could not find a home, that it was not affordable.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague say that one solution to helping people deal with the rising cost of living could be to lift consumption taxes, which was part of the Conservative motion yesterday. However, I wonder if the government is even prepared to lift or lower these taxes.

Does my colleague agree with me that these taxes are there for a reason? Taxes are paid and sent to the federal government so that we receive services in return.

I feel that the public is not being provided adequate services right now, as demonstrated by the incredible delays in processing passport applications. The same applies to resolving EI fraud cases, with people spending hours on the phone before they get service.

Does my colleague not think that if the federal government is not prepared to lift or lower these taxes, it should at least provide these services to the public in a timely manner?

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

I am afraid the time is a bit too short for the hon. member to answer the question fully, so we will return to him after Private Members' Business hour. The hon. member will have six and a half minutes remaining in questions and comments. I do not want to cut the member off when he is answering.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that C-251, An Act respecting the development of a federal framework on the conservation of fish stocks and management of pinnipeds, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Conservation of Fish Stocks and Management of Pinnipeds Act

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate private member's Bill C-251, an act respecting the development of a federal framework on the conservation of fish stocks and management of pinnipeds.

Let me start by saying that I appreciate the passion of the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame on the issue of seal predation. It is something that almost all of us from Atlantic Canada are deeply concerned about, but like most things in the House, it is one where the details really matter.

To date, our approach to pinniped management has focused on a sustainable, well-regulated seal harvest that supports Canada's indigenous, rural, coastal and remote populations. This approach is informed by the best available scientific evidence.

Let us focus on those words: scientific evidence. Would it shock members of the House to learn that the member’s bill does not mention the word “science” once? Perhaps not when you consider that during the time of the last Conservative government, a great deal of cutting and slashing was done in science and to scientists. Indeed, it was what many people in my part of the world called a decade of darkness when it comes to science.

Instead of basing this proposed framework of pinniped management on science, the member suggested an annual census of all pinnipeds. There are 11 different types of pinnipeds in Canada and an annual census would cost the government approximately $30 million a year. I know this was likely not the intent of the member when he wrote the bill, but as I said earlier, in this House details matter, and the bills we pass have consequences.

It is concerning that Bill C-251 does not mention science, not only because of the $30-million-a-year census, but because of our trading partners and what they expect in terms of our management decisions based in science.

Take, for example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the MMPA, in the United States. The MMPA contains important measures to reduce the impact of commercial fishing on marine mammals. It is one of the reasons we have worked so hard to protect the endangered North Atlantic right whale and one of my key concerns with the bill.

With no reference to science and an expectation that the government regulate the population of pinnipeds to acceptable levels, this bill could expose Canada and the fish and seafood sector to economic risk that a more protectionist American administration could take advantage of.

Seventy per cent of Canada's fish and seafood exports went to the United States in 2021. I cannot in good conscience support a bill that could create numerous vulnerabilities to this critical industry, an industry that I cherish, that we cherish.

That is why when the sponsor of Bill C-251 moved a motion at the fisheries and oceans committee this past January that we study the issue of pinniped predation, I was pleased to vote for it.

The motion read, in part:

That the committee undertake a comprehensive study of pinnipeds that would examine the ecosystem impacts of pinniped overpopulation in the waters of Quebec, eastern and western Canada; international experience in pinniped stock management; the domestic and international market potential for various pinniped products; social acceptability; and the social cultural importance of developing active management of predation for coastal and first nations communities with access to the resource;

It was to my surprise actually when the member opposite, who said we needed to study this issue in order to address it, came forward with a solution without ever having done the work for it. We would not accept this anywhere else, and it should not fly in Parliament.

There is a clear need for us to grow the market on seal products. I think we would all agree with that. The issue is that last year we had a total allowable catch for harp seals. In 2016. The TAC that year was 400,000 for harp seals, but only 68,317, which is 17% of the quota, were caught. Since 2016, so few have been caught that there no longer is a TAC. In 2021, only 26,545 harp seals, less than half, were caught.

We know that more work needs to be done to address this issue. That is why last month we released the Atlantic Science Seal Task Team report and set out a plan of action on this issue to grow our research capabilities, listen to harvesters and invest in the marketability of seal products.

The right way to address this issue is a whole-of-government approach, which I hope the member opposite will support, rather than through a private member's bill that would have potential serious ramifications.

When we get down to it, the intent of the bill, in my opinion, is flawed. It is not only unnecessary; it is an issue we are already addressing right now in a comprehensive way thanks to the hard work of the Newfoundland and Labrador caucus. We should be talking about how we strengthen the summit that is coming up in the fall, what will come out of the summit and what we are doing to address the report, rather than sending this bill to committee.

Clearly, as has been said before, seals eat fish. They are not vegans. We now have the tools to fill in the knowledge gaps that the task force team identified and invest in the marketability of seal products.

I think we can all agree that we need to tackle this problem thoughtfully, comprehensively, tactically and strategically, with a focus on outcomes, because like everything in the House, the details matter. Sadly, Bill C-251 is just not ready for prime time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to represent Nunavut, and I thank my constituents for their continued faith and trust in me to represent them in matters as important as those contained within in this bill.

I take this opportunity to share the meaning of my surname ldlout, pronounced in Inuktitut as illauq. Translated into English, it means “embryo of marine mammals”, like walrus and seals. Indeed, seals have always been important in my life.

Before my main points, I must acknowledge the great work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who sought my advice on this bill and understands the importance of protecting indigenous people's rights. I must also share my appreciation for the member for Labrador. I have tremendous respect for the effort she has made to destigmatize all seal hunts. I appreciate all her efforts in showing how we all can use seal products in everyday life, including in clothes and jewellery, as a part of our diet and as sources of important vitamins, like omega-3s.

Of course, I thank the sponsor of this bill, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, for putting this matter before the House and beginning the dialogue.

l would like to talk about three key points regarding this proposed legislation. First is that seal harvests in Canada by non-indigenous people are as important as seal hunts by indigenous people. Next is my personal belief that wildlife harvesting and management must be founded upon and practised through an indigenous lens. Finally, the sustainable management of our natural resources can and should support local and regional economic development.

To give a brief history, after the drastic impact of the anti-seal hunt campaigns, the next link in this chain of damage to our reliance on the seal hunt has been the many comments that I hear from Qallunaat. While Qallunaat translated into English means “white people”, I will use it for all non-indigenous people.

Basically, what we hear from Qallunaat is that they support the indigenous seal hunt, but they do not support the east coast seal hunt. I am quite sure many Inuit are told this. I am quite sure that many Inuit say that this is just as damaging as the initial anti-seal hunt campaigns that decimated the Inuit economy in the 1980s.

What many people do not realize is that the discrimination against the east coast seal harvest is damaging the opportunities to support the economy of Inuit as well. It should not be this way. We are a large, diverse and rich country with enough for everyone. We should support one another in all matters, including the seal harvest or hunt, and the sustainable management of our fish stocks, other wildlife and other natural resources.

For that reason, I am happy to support those who would be directly affected by this legislation, just as I hope they would support Nunavummiut in our pursuit of a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future, and the successful and sustainable management of our natural resources.

I turn now to the need to use the indigenous lens for better wildlife management.

Throughout Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, people will find a wealth of local knowledge and traditions related to sustainable living and the harvesting of wildlife. This knowledge and these traditions have helped us successfully and sustainably manage our natural resources for millennia in our territories.

In Nunavut, we have Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, Inuit traditional knowledge, which is the body of knowledge and unique cultural insights of Inuit regarding the workings of nature, humans and animals. The Nunavut Impact Review Board applied the principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in its decision-making on economic development projects that impact Nunavummiut and recently rejected phase two of the Mary River Mine's proposal to expand the project, which clearly violated these principles.

I encourage the use of similar local indigenous knowledge and principles elsewhere in Canada and for the east coast seal harvest, in particular. However, there is no mention of such traditional and sustainable practices in this bill, and I worry that if it is passed, it would do nothing more than promote a cull of seals instead of a useful harvest that benefits the local populations while ensuring the sustainability of their way of life moving forward.

Finally, my third point is the importance of sustainable management of our natural resources to support local and regional economic development. This final point is where I think the member's well-intentioned bill is far too narrow in its focus.

In the 1970s and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, individuals and groups targeted the livelihood and well-being of Inuit and others living in the north and mounted a fierce campaign against commercial seal harvests. Markets for seal products in the United States and the European Union were practically eliminated overnight thanks to these well-intended but badly misguided campaigns.

To its credit, in 1985, Greenpeace apologized for the unforeseen and negative impact that these campaigns had upon Inuit and non-Inuit harvesting communities, but the damage done has been lasting and severe. I fear that this bill, if passed, would simply encourage more campaigns against our way of life and inflict even more lasting economic damage on our communities since it would likely result in a simple cull rather than a harvest of seal populations.

I think there is a better approach. We should apply the indigenous lens that I spoke of earlier, which embraces the more modern ecosystem approach, to manage our natural resources. Indeed, the indigenous-led approach and ecosystem approach are practically one and the same. By sustainably managing our precious natural resources, such as the various seal populations in our oceans and the fish they consume, we can build confidence in the international community that we are not wastefully killing animals but ethically harvesting them in a sustainable manner that makes use of every part of these beautiful creatures: the fur to keep us warm, the meat to keep us fed and the omega-3 rich oil and other parts that keep us healthy.

We should be better regulating seal products, creating and growing markets abroad, particularly in Europe and China, and using the trade and sale of these products to help Inuit and non-Inuit northern communities improve their standard of living, while protecting our traditional way of life. As this bill proposes, we should conserve fish stocks as well.

Because of these and other issues with the bill, I will not be voting in support of it, but I want to thank the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame for sponsoring this legislation and beginning this important dialogue in this 44th Parliament. I hope we can work together to support our communities and work toward successfully managing seal and fish populations in a way that embraces and protects our traditional ways of life and improves the standard of living of those we represent for generations to come.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to stand in support of a colleague who is sitting right in front of me, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I am honoured to support the bill, and I want to speak to how it would positively impact our northern communities if it passes.

Pinniped harvesting has a long history in Canada, especially for our indigenous and northern communities, and I want to get into exactly that. I will first read one little part of the bill, which explains what we are supporting here tonight. The bill would establish “a federal framework on the conservation of fish stocks and management of pinnipeds.”

There is a bit of a longer paragraph. Subclause 3(1) of the bill states, “The Minister must, in consultation with representatives of the provincial governments responsible for fisheries, the environment and trade, with Indigenous governing bodies and with other relevant stakeholders, develop a federal framework on the conservation of fish stocks and management of pinnipeds.”

Many in the House know I have been working on the conservation of threatened stocks, especially when it relates to my home province of British Columbia, but I also have a role as the northern affairs shadow minister, and I am very concerned about the negative effects on those communities.

I am going to speak about, first of all, our indigenous communities. My NDP colleague down the way already referenced the right to harvest pinnipeds, so I am just going to read something out. This is from a government document from 2017. It is a backgrounder for pinniped harvesting. It states, “Nevertheless, subsistence harvests are in effect for these three species because 'Indigenous peoples in Canada have a constitutionally protected right to harvest marine mammals, including seals, as long as the harvest is consistent with conservation needs and other requirements.'”

Supporting the member down the way, we absolutely support those rights, and we support that way of life and the ability to continue on.

We have a long history of harvesting in Canada, and another quote from that same document states, “'[f]or thousands of years, seals have provided food, clothing and heat for people living in challenging northern regions' and continue to do so for many Indigenous peoples and northern communities.” It continues, “In the Arctic, sealing continues to play an important role in Inuit life, which can be seen in 'the rich vocabulary in the Inuktitut language for different species, varieties and characteristics of seals.'”

I think we all recognize this is an important part of culture in our country and it is an important part of our future. Again, the member is wishing to have it come back to the way it once was, but let me speak to the problems with what happened to the industry.

Back in 1972, the U.S. had the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which basically closed out access of the pinniped harvest and pinniped products to the North American market and our American friends. There were huge impacts to that industry. Most of the folks affected were in northern communities and indigenous communities that made their living from harvesting pinnipeds. That was the first blow to the industry.

I am going to get into some numbers in a minute, but I want to talk about the second blow, which was really dramatic. In 2009, we had the European ban on pinniped products. What I am getting at is that, even though we had rights that were protected by our constitution for indigenous communities to harvest pinnipeds, we saw the market absolutely collapse. That really collapsed the entire economy around pinnipeds in this country.

I have some evidence of what happened. In 2004 there was a landed value, which is for Canadian pinniped values. In 2004, it was $14,862,415. By 2006, it had grown to $30 million, and then there was the absolute collapse. By 2015, it had gone down to $1,126,912. It was absolutely a massive collapse of the market.

The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is trying to get that industry back on its feet again. The reason we are talking about this tonight, and I am about defending the bill, is the effects of having an out-of-control pinniped population on our coasts.

We have members on all sides of the House that say they care about salmon and southern resident killer whales and all the rest, but guess what eats a lot of fish. Killer whales eat fish too, but when pinnipeds are absolutely collapsing stocks of other fish, sometimes there is not much left for those other species to eat because there is an overpopulation, a massive imbalance in the ecosystem as a result of this harvest basically ceasing to exist. It still happens, but on a much smaller scale.

The member is trying to have an answer to the imbalance in the ecosystem and for an industry that has been flattened and the communities that have been negatively affected by this collapse. How about we do something in Parliament? We have that agreement across the way, but I am hearing from the Liberals and NDP now that they are pulling back their support, which is interesting because this industry is so key in their communities. It is so easy to support, and I am surprised that they would be pulling back their support at this time.

Again, what the member is trying to do is a positive change for not only the pinniped industry but also the communities that benefit from it. I want to read one part of the bill to highlight a specific section for those who say they care about conservation and threatened stocks. Subclause 3(1) reads, “The Minister must, in consultation with representatives of the provincial governments responsible for fisheries, the environment and trade, with Indigenous governing bodies and with other relevant stakeholders develop a federal framework on the conservation of fish stocks”, which is the crux of the whole bill.

First of all, we are going to help fish stocks big time. For salmon, we call it the brick wall of pinnipeds on our coastlines, and not many get through. Again, if the government is talking big about conservation and really doing something positive for the ecosystem and for salmon as an example on both coasts, this is the answer to that. The other benefit that benefits both communities in a huge way is that we would get our pinniped industry back again.

My hope is, especially for members affected in Newfoundland and in the north in the territories, which are affected by having a positive pinniped industry, that they will have some really long thoughts about the consideration of supporting the bill. It is great. It is going to be good for every coastline that we have. It will be positive for the communities that reside on the coastlines and in our north.

For the sake of my fellow member on fisheries and oceans, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, my hope is that we can all come to an agreement and support the bill.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing like a good motion on seals to get some debate going in the House of Commons.

I think this has been the story of our legacy in Canada since the 1980s whenever the word “seal” popped up in the context of Atlantic Canada, northern Canada or Quebec. The fact that people depended upon it for their livelihood or the potential for product has always stirred tremendous amounts of debate. The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame has stimulated some good debate around seals again.

I am happy to speak to this motion, because I really believe that this bill comes from a place of wanting to do something to protect the ecosystems of the ocean and to build upon a good product that could be a very good source of protein and oil for many around the world. We see that as well. We see that as members. I listened to my colleague, the member for Nunavut, when she spoke very eloquently about the industry. Like me, she grew up in this industry. It has been the source of food, clothing and heat for so many generations and centuries of Inuit people, coastal people and people around different ocean areas of Canada.

Since 1986, we have had more than 20 particular studies, reports and committees on seals, starting with “Seals and Sealing in Canada”. The whole purpose of that first report was to identify the dependency upon on seal and sealing in Canada, and the people who depended on that resource.

Unfortunately, since 1986 nothing has really generated out of the sealing industry because of the activist groups, the protests and animal rights groups that identified indigenous people and people who hunt for seal as barbaric. They were identified as people who had no respect for the ocean or for the environment. That was completely wrong.

Their actions not only caused us to have a problem of the overpredation of seals we have today, but also their actions erased the livelihoods of so many people in northern and coastal communities who depended on the hunt, and so many indigenous people as well.

Today, we have a problem in Canada where our ocean ecosystem is not being protected. Our ocean ecosystem of fish species is being depleted by the overpredation of seals. I want to give some information that comes right from DFO reports. It says that, commercially, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we take a little over 200,000 metric ton of fish in a commercial year in a fishery. Gray seals alone are eating 1.6 million metric tons of fish.

That is 1.6 million metric tons being taken by seals, but only 200,000 metric tons being taken by commercial fishers. That is why we have a problem in the ocean ecosystem. That is why we have capelin stocks that are going down. That is why, for 30 years in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have cod stocks that have not rebuilt. That is why fishermen are constantly sending pictures of crab grounds where crab stocks are falling, but seals are being found with their stomachs full of small crab and full of shrimp. They are consuming the shellfish populations, which is now provoking a decline. Where I live, the most beautiful rivers in the world for salmon, we see seal in the salmon rivers. It is a problem.

I know where my colleague is coming from in identifying the problem and that it needs to be fixed. That is why the minister had the task force on seals. She actually commissioned a number of people across Newfoundland and Labrador. The task force was completed and the recommendations are in. I have to say that she is the first federal fisheries minister I have ever heard stand up and admit that seals eat fish.

At one time we had a minister named John Efford from Newfoundland and Labrador in this honourable House. He was not the minister of fisheries at the time, but he told people over and over again that seals eat fish, that they do not eat turnips. Like my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said, “They don't eat Mary Brown's.” No, they do not. They eat fish. Finally we have a minister who has recognized that and agrees. Now we need to do something about it. The summit that will be launched by the Government of Canada through the minister is to deal with just that.

I support the premise of my colleague's bill. I think it comes from a place of recognition. He recognizes there is a problem, as I do. We also know that we cannot have a bill that talks about managing the industry and that talks about “year-round control of pinnipeds in order to manage their numbers and mitigate the detrimental effect these marine mammals are having” on the ocean. I think that is where my colleague from Nunavut was coming from. Yes, that concerns me as well.

I think that whatever we do has to be based on science. It has to be with input from indigenous people and from the industry. I believe it has to be linked to product development and to markets. That means there is a lot of work to do. I am finally pleased to say that we are prepared to do that work. I am pleased to see that my colleague is interested in working with us to make that happen, as I am pleased to see the member for Nunavut is willing to work with us to make that happen.

I want to appeal to all of those out there who want to act on conservation and who have a conscience when it comes to conservation. We live in a country today where our ocean ecosystem is in danger. Today is World Oceans Day, a day when we stand up to protect the oceans. Since the 1980s, no one has stood up to protect the people who fell through the cracks due to the activism against the seal industry. Our people suffered. They suffered and they suffer today. Today we would have an industry and we would not have an ocean predation problem, but because the activists won out and beat down the ordinary individuals who live in northern indigenous and coastal communities, that did not happen.

Today here in this House we have a problem and we need to deal with that problem. I say to the member opposite that if his bill passes second reading and goes to committee, I will be happy to propose some amendments to the bill that would include consultation with indigenous peoples, that would include the industry and that would make sure that it is based on science.

In the meantime, I will be there to support the Minister of Fisheries in the work that we are doing as a government because it is important work. It will involve engaging the industry. It will involve developing good markets for seal proteins, seal oils and seal products. It will include making sure that we have good products, good markets and a good industry that will support all of the people in Canada who depend upon seals.

For us, seals are sacred, so we take this seriously, but so are our oceans. We need to protect them and create balance. There is a lot of work to do here. I hope that my colleagues will see that important work and support the options that the government has laid out.