Debates of June 7th, 2023

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved that the 5th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities presented on Thursday, June 2, 2022, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this concurrence debate regarding the 5th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Railway Safety and the Effects of Railway Operations on the Surrounding Communities in Which They Operate”.

This is an issue and a topic that is close to the hearts of many people on northwest B.C. in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which I am so proud to represent. At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to a couple of people.

First is to a wonderful woman named Dawn Remington, who lived in the community of Smithers, where I live. She was deeply committed to the environment and to the safety of her community. She was concerned about the topic of rail safety. During the course of the committee's study, Dawn appeared before the committee to present the concerns of residents. Sadly, she passed away before the report was tabled. Tonight, I will be speaking in her memory.

Second, I want to pay tribute to another incredible community leader in northwest B.C., a woman named Alice Maitland. Alice is one of the longest-serving mayors in all of Canada. She served as the mayor for the village of Hazelton for over 40 years, and today is her 90th birthday. I want to wish her a very happy birthday. Alice has passed the torch onto her daughter Julie, who is now her worship in the village of Hazelton and is doing a wonderful job. What Alice taught me about politics was the importance of bringing heart, of defending the places that we love and fighting every day for the people who live in our communities. I wish a happy birthday to Alice.

Tonight, I will talk about the report from the standing committee. I am very proud of the committee's work. This is a report based on a study that we, the NDP, initiated. I also want to situate this around our experience in northwest B.C. The railroad is such a big part of our history, our economy and of people's daily lives in our region.

I want to talk about workers. I want to talk about the people who work on the trains, like the conductors, the engineers and others who are so vital to our supply chains. They do dangerous work in all kinds of conditions, in Canadian weather on steep mountain grades, up and down the line.

I want to talk about communities. The railway in Canada bisects so many communities and runs through so many communities. In the region I represent, the railroad was really the founding reason for many of the non-indigenous communities, including Smithers. It is a community named after Sir Alfred Smithers, who was the superintendent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is a big part of who we are, yet at the same time, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that rail transport in our country is done safely and that the people who work in that sector are protected when they go to work.

The concerns of workers was something that the committee heard quite a bit about in the testimony. We heard from Teamsters and other unions representing workers. In my job as a member of Parliament, I have talked to dozens of railroad workers who have brought forward their concerns.

Their concerns are really about the safety of the job. I think that is the biggest thing. At the top of the list are concerns about fatigue, the scheduling of the rail companies and the way that impacts workers. These folks work under some pretty strenuous conditions.

The railroads run 24-7, and the way the shifts are scheduled often puts a strain on these workers' lives. They have to be on call. They have to be able to jump at a moment's notice, get on a train and drive it somewhere. Certainly, many workers have expressed to me the challenges of fatigue and the challenges of getting enough rest.

At the committee, we also heard about the condition of some rest facilities the railway companies utilize to ensure that rail workers are getting rest. Many of them are located directly next to the train tracks. Of course, when there are trains going by every hour, we can imagine how difficult it is to get the necessary rest. We need to ensure that those facilities are kept up to a standard where these important workers are able to get the rest they need so they can perform their work in a safe way.

When we talk about workers, I am reminded of the tragedies in this country that have taken rail workers' lives. Most recently, there was a horrible tragedy in my home province of British Columbia. In February 2019, a Canadian Pacific grain train was parked on a steep mountain grade just outside the community of Field. It was very cold, and the brakes were set on the train. They were set overnight, and in the morning, a crew had to replace the previous crew, so a new crew was brought in. These three men climbed on board the locomotive. The parking brakes on the train failed because of the cold weather. The train ran away, and minutes later, all three were killed in a horrible derailment.

Their names were Andrew Dockrell, the engineer; Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer, the trainee; and Dylan Paradis, the conductor on that train.

I had a chance to speak with some of the family members of these three men, and they described just how horrific and painful this incident was. They described for me their determination to ensure that no other families of rail workers go through what they went through. I am continually inspired by the work that they are doing in the memory—

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

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we lost interpretation a few moments ago.

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

The interpretation is not working.

Is the interpretation now working from English to French? It is working.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley may continue.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about the three rail workers who lost their lives near Field and how inspiring it has been to work with their family members to create a legacy of safety for other railroad families.

There are a number of recommendations in the report we are debating this evening that relate specifically to this. Before, I mentioned fatigue and rest facilities; these points are reflected in the report. However, specific to the incident near Field, there is a recommendation in this report calling on the federal government to address the profound conflict of interest that exists when rail companies are able to employ private corporate police forces to investigate their own accidents.

In the case of the Canadian Pacific incident, the first people on the scene were employees of the company. Their first call was to corporate risk management. This is not how potentially criminal investigations should be conducted. The families of these men deserved an objective and transparent investigation. I am pleased that the RCMP eventually undertook an investigation, which is ongoing, but we need to ensure for any future accidents that, when tragedy strikes, these companies are not able to use their own private police forces to investigate. This report leads us in that direction. Time is certainly of the essence.

I want to talk a bit about the concerns of communities, particularly around emergency response. In northwest B.C., we have seen a tremendous increase in the transport of dangerous goods by rail, particularly liquid propane. This is a result of port development in Prince Rupert, which has really been welcomed by the region and has brought a tremendous number of economic benefits. However, the reality is that this development has also increased rail traffic, and in particular, the transport of dangerous goods. When communities look at the tragedy that happened in Lac-Mégantic or the recent tragedy in East Palestine, Ohio, they are very concerned about what the worst-case scenario could look like. This report from the Standing Committee on Transport includes recommendations that speak specifically to emergency response.

Many of the small communities the railroad passes through in northwest B.C. are protected by volunteer fire departments. These are fire departments staffed by community members, who dedicate their time out of an ethos of community service. They have limited budgets, limited equipment and limited ability to fight the large industrial fires that could result from the transport of dangerous goods.

I will actually mention that, on March 21, there was a rail fire in my home community involving a single car of a relatively innocuous substance that caught fire. It took two fire departments, both Smithers and Telkwa, to put it out. They responded with 17 members from Smithers, five members from Telkwa and five pieces of firefighting apparatus. They put over 20,000 litres of water on this car to put it out. It was quite an effort. I was reflecting on the words of the deputy fire chief, Alle Jan de Vries from Smithers. He said that they were able to deal with that size of an emergency, but a larger situation involving several railcars would quickly outstrip their capacity as a fire department.

This, of course, comes back to the federal government's responsibility to protect communities. My concern, and the concern of many people across Canada, is that in this era of self-regulation and the hands-off approach of the federal government, these companies are able to rely on a municipal fire response that cannot deal with the worst-case scenarios that we are talking about.

In this report from the committee, we have recommendations related to maximum response times. This is something that community members deserve to know. They deserve to know when help is going to show up. Is it going to take one hour, two hours or five hours? What resources will the help show up with? In our region, we understand that there are specialized caches of equipment and personnel, but they are several hours away. Of course, we know that, in a fire involving dangerous goods, a lot can happen in a couple of hours. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the federal government do a review and ensure that communities are properly protected for these larger events.

I want to recognize the work of the Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako, which is completing a gap analysis on rail safety. This is being done to better understand in detail where those vulnerabilities exist, so that, as communities, we can clearly communicate our needs to the federal government and ensure that people are protected.

Of course, there are numerous indigenous communities along the railroad as well. In many cases, Indigenous people in western Canada have a difficult history with the railroad. I think of the elders in Gitsegukla, whom I spoke with. They described how the railroad came through their village and right through their graveyard. They also described how their land was taken, but they were never compensated for it. There are still outstanding concerns about the impact of the construction of the railroad over 100 years ago on their community, and today, they share many of the concerns with respect to emergency response and the transport of dangerous goods. I want to give special recognition to the Kitselas First Nation, which also presented before the committee and provided testimony on its work to evaluate the risk to its community of from rail transport.

Finally, I want to talk a bit about the environment. The other big risk from rail transport relates to potential environmental impacts. I just spoke about the Kitselas, who are people of the Skeena River. The railroad in northwest B.C. runs right along the Skeena, which is British Columbia's second-largest wild salmon system. All five species of wild salmon swim up the Skeena, so the communities are very concerned about what would happen if there were a derailment that resulted in dangerous goods, especially persistent fuels like diesel, spilling into the river. They are concerned about what the response would be, how effective it would be and how long it would take.

I want to talk a bit about some of the safety systems that are currently in place and the concerns around them. If we think about safety management systems, these are the tools the federal government really leans on most heavily in ensuring some semblance of safety in the rail sector. I want to recognize the work of Bruce Campbell, who has done a lot of thinking about safety management systems and their place in the management regime related to rail. Bruce wrote a book about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and has travelled to northwest B.C. to help communities understand what the risks are.

The Auditor General has expressed serious concerns about safety management in the rail sector, particularly the federal government's lack of effectiveness monitoring. Rail companies are required to have these safety management systems, but as of the Auditor General's last report, there had not been enough done to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems. If we do not evaluate whether these systems create better safety, how do we know that they are effective? That is the question we have to ask.

Of course, safety management systems were never meant to replace conventional regulations, monitoring and enforcement. However, what we see today is really a regime of self-regulation by the rail companies. We see far too few inspections by a federal department, Transport Canada, which simply does not have the resources to do the job that is required. The report from the committee speaks to this. We need more unannounced inspections to ensure that companies are following the rules, that materials are being transported safely and that the conditions that workers are working under are safe. One of the themes in this report is ensuring that the federal government has resources commensurate with the challenge of managing this important industry.

Earlier, when I spoke about East Palestine, I was noting a remark in the media from the chair of the Transportation Safety Board, shortly after that incident happened. She said that, in her opinion, she could not clearly state that such an incident would not be possible in Canada. Part of the reason for that remark was that she has seen how slowly the federal government addresses the recommendations that come from the Transportation Safety Board. We need the government to be much more responsive to those kinds of recommendations, and I think some of the actions the government could take are in this report.

This report is being debated at a very timely point, because, in the very near future, we will be resuming debate on Bill C-33, which is the government's proposed legislation related to ports and the supply chain, including rail safety. It includes a couple of amendments to the Railway Safety Act that stem from the Railway Safety Act review in 2017. Notably, however, this legislation is silent on almost all the recommendations in the committee's report that we are debating tonight.

That is a real missed opportunity, because what this report represents are the concerns of rail workers, communities, several first nations and others who are impacted by the transport of goods by rail. Therefore, I would hope that the government would take these concerns seriously. I have spoken to the minister, particularly about the rail police concern and the emergency response concern in communities, and we expect the government will table additional legislation specifically related to rail safety so we can address these long-standing concerns.

I started by talking a bit about the importance of the railroad, not just in the region I represent but right across Canada. I do not think any of that importance takes away from the need for us to ensure the safety of the people who work on our railroads, to ensure the safety of the communities through which the railroad passes and to ensure the safety of our environment, which, of course, is so very precious. As we continue this debate and think about how we can make the rail sector safer for all Canadians, I want us to remember the people this is about: people like Andrew Dockrell, Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer and Dylan Paradis, people who have been affected by the government's lack of oversight and lack of regulation in the rail sector.

I hope that, through this debate, we can reflect on the 30 recommendations in this report and that we can really think about what actions are needed; summon the resolve, as Parliament; and put pressure on the government to finally take those actions.

Again, the reality is that none of us wants to think about the worst-case scenarios. In my conversations with people around the region and within the federal government about rail safety, people rarely want to talk about what happens when the unthinkable occurs. They say that they are making the trains go slower so it is less likely they catch on fire. They say that the tank cars the trains are carrying have thicker walls and they are less likely to be punctured. However, it behooves us to think about what those worst-case scenarios are and to ensure that we have plans in place, that we have regulations, that we have monitoring and that we have enforcement that protects the people who matter the most.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Seniors.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1420 to 1434.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the motion is deemed adopted.

(Motion deemed adopted)

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this evening's debate on Bill C‑47, which implements our government's 2023 budget.

The budget sets out a host of measures for supporting Canadians and growing the Canadian economy of the future. That is our government's priority.

This week, the Conservative leader let us know what his priority is. On Monday, he said his priority is to use all procedural tools at his disposal to block the budget from passing. This morning, he doubled down by saying that he intended to speak all night to filibuster this debate. After witnessing the cheap tricks that the Conservatives have been pulling since last week to sabotage the work of this House, it is obvious that all of our Conservative colleagues are following their leader's example.

Of course, this is not a serious attempt to prevent the budget from passing. If it were, they would be trying to rally support from a majority of House members. The Conservatives are not trying to persuade anyone. They just want to block the bill. Not only is this approach an insult to our democratic institution and to the spirit of co-operation that we must strive to maintain, it is slowing the delivery of vital programs and benefits to Canadians.

We are finally at third reading of the budget implementation act, a critical piece of legislation. It is a bill that would enact our economic plan for Canadians. It is about creating more good-paying jobs. It is about growing our GDP, and it is about Canada staying competitive in the global market. This is important to me. It is important to every single member of the government. When I am asked in my riding what my priority is, or when a journalist wants to know what our government’s priority is, the answer is clear: It is the economy.

The Conservative leader, however, has made no secret of what his priority is. He stated it so very clearly. His priority is to “use all procedural tools at our disposal to block the budget from passing including 900 amendments, lengthy speeches, and other procedural tools”. This, I must emphasize, is not how Parliament is supposed to function. These 904 amendments are fake amendments. They are 904 motions calling on the government to delete the 904 clauses of the budget implementation act. It took hours of the Speaker's time just to read out those amendments and four hours to vote on them earlier today. This was after 40 hours of Conservative filibusters on the budget implementation act.

This is not even a serious attempt at preventing the passage of the budget. If that were the case, the Conservative leader would be trying to rally a majority of MPs in the House, but that is not what the Conservatives are doing; they are not trying to convince other parties or other members. These are simply stunts, ones that serve only to undermine the work of Parliament and to obstruct the democratic will of the House. Similar to those stunts, more of the same can be expected tonight. The leader of the Conservative Party said earlier today that he will keep speaking and keep blocking.

While the Conservatives are clapping, they perhaps would like to explain to Canadians why they want to block important benefits and programs: benefits for low-income workers and benefits for families, consumers and homebuyers. The Conservatives are blocking assistance for Ukraine, which is included in this bill before the House. The Conservatives are blocking an anti-flipping tax, when we know that speculation in the housing market is causing pain for Canadians. The Conservatives are stalling the next steps in our dental care plan, when we know that seniors would like to access this important support. The Conservatives are preventing low-income workers in this country from getting the support they need. The list goes on and on. Why are the Conservatives doing this? Why has this minority of members in the House of Commons decided to delay important benefits and programs for Canadians who need them?

It is simply because Conservatives do not believe that climate change exists or that we should take climate action in this country. That is the only logical conclusion, given the debates in the House. They do not believe the 99.9% of climate scientists when they tell us we need to substantially cut emissions if we hope to safeguard our environment for our children and our grandchildren.

As we all know, major economies around the world are moving at an unprecedented pace to fight climate change and build the net-zero industries the world needs now. As a country, we must seize this opportunity. The International Energy Agency estimates that the global market for clean-tech manufacturing alone will triple by 2030, to $650 billion U.S. per year. We cannot let that opportunity pass us by. Budget 2023 is the government's plan to seize that opportunity today and to lead the way in rapidly expanding global industries that will ensure that Canada can and will be a leader in that global economy.

I have to say that, in that race, the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act represents a major challenge to our ability to compete in industries that will drive the economy of tomorrow. If we do not act quickly, the magnitude of U.S. incentives will compromise Canada's ability to attract the investments necessary to make our country a leader in the clean global economy.

If Canada does not keep pace, it will fall behind. If we fall behind, that will mean fewer investments in our communities and fewer jobs for a whole generation of Canadians.

As we can see, economic imperatives are leading us toward the development of the green economy. However, that is not all.

It is also critical that we consider the devastating impacts that climate change is having on Canadians. Earlier this year, we witnessed this when an ice storm swept across much of Canada, including my community in Montreal, elsewhere in Quebec, and in Ontario. The damage was significant. Unfortunately, we know these storms will become more frequent due to climate change. Sadly, lives were lost. Now, as we all know, wildfires are ravaging communities across the country, leaving a path of destruction behind and literally making it difficult to breathe.

Today is actually Clean Air Day in Canada, a day meant to recognize how important good air quality is to our health, to our environment and, yes, to our economy. Today, in Ottawa, the air quality is rated at 10 plus, on a scale of 10, which means maxing out the scale entirely. This is the worst level on Environment Canada's Air Quality Health Index, and it indicates a very high risk to human health. If this does not serve to finally wake up the climate deniers in the House, I genuinely do not know what will. These natural disasters serve as yet another reminder of the urgent need to take action against climate change, to get our economy to make the green transition we all need, and to turn this into a real economic opportunity for Canadians as we create the economy of tomorrow. The time for action is now.

The transition to the clean economy will require massive investments, both public and private. For Canada to remain competitive, we must continue to build a framework that supports these types of investments in Canada, and that is what we are doing with this budget.

By making significant investments so that Canada does not fall behind in this period of tremendous change and opportunity, budget 2023 ensures that our clean Canadian economy will create prosperity, jobs for the middle class and stronger communities across the country.

The measures set out in Bill C-47 give us the means to match our ambitions, the means to chart a path to net zero and to good jobs for years to come.

Growing a clean economy, both here in Canada and around the world, will depend on our supply of clean electricity.

The good news is that Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. In fact, roughly 83% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind, solar and nuclear.

In budget 2023, the federal government is proposing significant investments to accelerate the supply and transmission of clean electricity. We will expand Canada's electricity grid, connect it from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses have access to cleaner and cheaper energy into the next century.

By way of example, budget 2023 proposes to introduce a 15% refundable tax credit for eligible investments in non-emitting electricity generation systems such as wind and solar; abated natural gas-fired electricity generation; stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in their operation, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage and compressed air storage; and equipment for the transmission of electricity between provinces and territories. Both new projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities will be eligible.

This made-in-Canada plan follows the federal tiered structure to incent the development of Canada’s clean economy and provide additional support for projects that need it. With this plan we are introducing the necessary tools to put Canada’s electricity sector on the path to reducing its emissions to net-zero from the 56-megatonne CO2 equivalent in 2020, and to meeting our commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

We know that as we look to seize the opportunities presented to us in growing the clean economy of the future and building the opportunities of tomorrow, we must continue to support Canadians today. Since our election in 2015, our government's main focus has been on investing in the middle class, growing the economy, strengthening Canada’s social safety net and making life more affordable.

We have introduced the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including more than 15,000 in my riding alone. We have been giving millions of families a head start in giving their children the best start in life possible. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, increased old aged security and enhanced the Canada pension plan with our provincial partners, because we know that those who have contributed and given to this country for their entire working lives deserve to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement.

We know that without the involvement of women in our workforce, we will never succeed in building the economy we want. Because of that, in 2021 we made a historic investment in a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. That investment has already delivered a 50% average reduction in fees for regulated child care in this country. It has also brought down fees to just $10 a day in six provinces and territories in this country, with the rest on track to meeting this milestone in just a few years' time.

The statistics speak for themselves.

We have increased our employment by over 900,000 jobs since prepandemic levels. Our unemployment rate sits at just 5%, which is lower than prepandemic levels. Our labour force participation rate is at 65.6%, well above that of the United States, and our labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.2 %. We have also had the fastest year-over-year growth of any country in the G7. That is right. It is right here in Canada.

We have made a lot of progress over the years in supporting Canadians, but we also know that millions still find it difficult to make ends meet. Budget 2023 was developed with a dual purpose in mind: supporting Canadians who need the help and need the government to step in to help them make ends meet today, while laying the foundations to build the economy that Canadians need tomorrow, with good-paying jobs. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot build an economy for the future without supporting the most vulnerable in our society today, and that is a challenge our government is ready to meet.

Predatory lenders often take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including many low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rate loans. That is why in our budget implementation bill, we proposed that the federal government lower the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code from 47% to just 35% and launch consultations on whether that rate should be further reduced. Today’s legislation also proposes to adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders.

Another topic is supporting our young people. Supporting post-secondary education not only is one of the best ways to continue to make life more affordable, but also prepares the next generation of Canadians with the skills they need to succeed. The cost of getting a post-secondary education has risen in recent years for many Canadians. RESPs are an important part of saving for that education. In a typical year, about 500,000 students withdraw funds from their RESPs to support their education. However, the withdrawal limits have not increased in 25 years.

That is why, in the legislation before this House today, we are proposing to increase limits on those withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are also proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would ensure more young Canadians have the opportunities they wish.

I would also like to quickly address another aspect of the bill before us this evening. The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.

Parliament has already established a set of exclusive, comprehensive and uniform rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties, requiring political parties to establish and comply with privacy policies governed by the Canada Elections Act.

Some provincial privacy commissioners have questioned this interpretation, and this piece of legislation before us confirms that the intention of the Canada Elections Act has always been that voters across Canada benefit from that same set of privacy rules during federal elections.

Communication with voters is at the very heart of politics, and the collection, use and disclosure of information is essential to that communication. This legislative measure will provide important certainty. MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers will be subject to a single, comprehensive and uniform set of federal rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, and no province will be able to separately regulate or restrict the ability of MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers to communicate with voters or to collect and use their information.

I would like to conclude by saying that, thanks to the measures in Bill C-47 and others in budget 2023, we have the opportunity to build a clean, prosperous and sustainable economy right here in Canada. This will benefit not just ourselves and our children, but also our grandchildren in every part of this magnificent country. The time has come to seize this opportunity and to move forward.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal approach to this debate has been completely unserious. We listened to the member, just like other members before her, talk about the wildfire situation. The government has been in power for eight years and somehow the wildfire situation we are facing is everybody else's fault. It has been in power for eight years.

The Liberals talk about cuts and fearmonger about potential cuts. Do members know when we had the worst cuts in Canadian history to health, social services and education? In 1996-97, the Liberal government of the day cut 20% from transfers for health, social services and education, and then the next year cut another 12%. It cut 32% over two years because of the absolutely disastrous economic policies of the last Trudeau government, the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties, with 14 deficits in 15 years.

I wonder if the hon. member and her friends, who have scrambled around to be in the background of her shot, will promise to stick around and will be open to being persuaded by the Leader of the Opposition's speech tonight.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is no time for debate here unless the member is being recognized.

The hon. member for Outremont.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe, if I understood it correctly, he is talking about getting serious. I could not agree more.

It is time to get serious. The member pretends that he does not know who is to blame for these wildfires. I will tell him. It is climate change. Climate change is to blame for these wildfires.

What we have done is put forward a concrete plan. It is called climate action. Over the course of the last several months that the new Conservative leader has been in the chamber, he has consistently asked us to stop that climate action, to stop fighting climate change. We will not stop fighting climate change.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they have had an opportunity to ask a question. It is a not a free-for-all here. They have to wait to be asked. They have to wait for me to say “questions and comments” before they are recognized. I just want to let them know that they cannot continue to heckle or try to answer questions while someone else has the floor.

Questions and Comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She talked about the clean economy. That is great. That resonates with me.

The government is going to create the Canada growth fund with a $15-billion capital investment. However, the Canada pension plan is the organization that is going to manage this fund. Wait a minute. The Canada pension plan is responsible for its own performance, its own investments. It is not really concerned with environmental issues. For instance, a large part of its portfolio is invested in oil stocks.

We are told that the Canada growth fund will be used for hydrogen projects created from fossil fuels and for carbon capture and storage projects, which are the scam of the century. The government has fallen for it.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Our government is proposing to give an organization the mandate to create the clean economy of tomorrow. This mandate will have very clear instructions attached. We are in government and we have the power to do it. We will do this not only in Quebec, but across Canada. This will benefit all Quebeckers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the planet is on fire. I can smell the burning of the planet from my window in northern Ontario. It has been burning for days and days. We had an emergency debate the other night on fires, and not a single Conservative showed up. Obviously they do not care.

My question is for the government. Over the last year, the environment minister proposed an increase of 109 million barrels of oil a day. The government has put over $30 billion into the TMX boondoggle to ship unrefined bitumen to other destinations.

If the government is serious about climate change, when is it going to stop promoting the expansion of bitumen projects with the highest carbon intensities on the planet? As our planet burns, if we are going to be serious about a climate future, we have to stop the expansion of the oil lobby. When is the government going to stop working for the oil lobby and actually start working for Canadians?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, here in this House we can also smell the smoke from the wildfires. It comes right into this chamber. I hear my colleague when he says he can smell it where he is in northern Ontario.

I, too, found it deplorable that not a single Conservative participated in the emergency debate on wildfires. Communities right across the country are being evacuated. Seven thousand Quebeckers were recently evacuated in Chibougamau.

This is a very serious issue, and I believe that as elected officials, as parliamentarians, every single one of us should be concerned and every single one of us should have to speak to it.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member for Timmins—James Bay asked his question moments ago—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found it very troubling that the previous two speakers referenced Conservatives not participating in a debate that we did, very clearly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I found deplorable was that when the member for Timmins—James Bay was asking his question and talking about how he could literally smell forest fires from where he was sitting in his community, Conservatives were just laughing.

Somehow, Conservatives think that climate change is a partisan issue, but even their buddies in the Bloc do not agree with them on that. They take it seriously.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on whether it is time to put partisanship aside when it comes to climate change. We can have debates about whether or not a policy is right or whether a different policy is the way to go, but what we should not be debating are the actual facts, the fact that climate change is real.

Would the parliamentary secretary like to comment on that?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that this is a not a partisan issue and I regret very much that it has become one in the House.

There was a time when Brian Mulroney, a friend of mine, was a leader, the then-prime minister of Canada, a Conservative prime minister. He brought forward important life-changing reforms in order to make our planet greener, in order to fight climate change.

The Conservatives have changed since then. This new Conservative leader does not believe that climate change is something that we should act on. He does not believe that climate action is important.

We disagree, and we will continue to fight climate change.