Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time.

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

Can we have some order, please? A speech is being given.

The hon. member has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would sincerely like to apologize, but I do think the conversation was that he had done some stuff by getting the procurements. I think it was unfair, but I do retract—

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

We are getting into debate and mocking the procedures of the House, and I really do not appreciate that.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, that is one of the first comments I think I have ever heard the hon. member make that I might agree with. We agree that it seems as though the minister in question sees every government program as a personal opportunity. That is what we are talking about today. It sounds like the hon. member was making the same point I am.

I was going back to the conversations I have had in year-end panels with the minister, where just the two of us, sometimes three when an NDP member from Edmonton was there, talked about the situation with the federal government and the impact on Edmontonians or Albertans. The minister constantly repeated government talking points as they relate to, for example, the energy sector in Alberta. As mentioned earlier today, there are few industries more committed to indigenous involvement and meaningful indigenous contribution and benefit than the energy sector in Canada, yet the minister constantly stands in opposition in the House to the energy sector in Alberta.

I had the opportunity to do four constituent round tables last week, and it is unfortunate that with the scandals facing the minister today, he is not able to take part in meaningful conversations at cabinet. I believe there is a cabinet meeting tomorrow. I suspect this cabinet meeting will be more consumed with the side hustles of the minister than talking about employment, the workforce or official languages.

What my constituents are concerned about is our broken systems across the board. The government seems consumed with experimental policy on housing, immigration, public safety, energy and the environment. All of these issues were things that constituents were consumed with at the four constituent round table meetings I had over the past week. They are very concerned that their Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, is not just lost in the conversations but completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with the very real issues that Canadians are facing today.

With the indigenous procurement strategy, the outcome was supposed to be a stimulating of economic activity that benefits indigenous people, with a 5% set-aside for indigenous businesses. Of federal contracts, 5% were supposed to go to indigenous businesses, but before this even came up, a concern was raised, which has been raised over the last little while. There are three different areas of abuse that we can point to: instances where non-indigenous companies claimed to be indigenous and came to be regarded as indigenous by the federal government; instances where the joint ventures between indigenous and non-indigenous companies, which meant the joint ventures could access set-asides, led to the work and benefits bring monopolized by non-indigenous partners; and instances where small, nominally indigenous companies received contracts and then subcontracted them to non-indigenous companies. The first of these instances is what we are dealing with right now.

Even before this conflict, many of us, many of my constituents and, I would say, most people in Alberta believed that it was time for the minister to resign. The context to the conversation we are having today is that there was an underlying conversation about indigenous procurement and, as we have talked about, this concept of “pretendians”, as they have come to be known.

We were already having this conversation, and then it came to light over the last week that the minister himself and the organization, the company that he is a part of and has been a part of, is engaged in this same activity. I believe the lobbyist that he is tied to has received $110 million in government funds, which are taxpayer funds. Let us be clear on this. We are not talking about government money. The government has no money. Individual Canadians have money taken from their paycheques, money that would otherwise be used for things such as food, housing and maybe the odd vacation, if they can afford it. Instead, this lobbyist received $110 million. Then, while the minister was a partner in the company, it received a further $8 million in government contracts. In fact, he was a director in the company. There was already a conversation happening about that, and then this new situation came to light.

I will point out a couple of things that are really important in terms of the conversation. In question period today, we will notice something about the responses from the government on this particular question. No one denied that, before he was a minister or a member of Parliament, the minister pretended to be indigenous and that his company applied for federal funding. Even in the answers in question period today, nobody denied that this is the case. The government House leader, I believe, did an interview after question period today, and this is what she said. We should listen carefully to the wording. She said, “We addressed the fact that that business was never listed as an Indigenous business on the procurement site, and it in fact received no funding from the Government of Canada.”

I would hope the Prime Minister is holding his cabinet ministers to a higher standard than that. The assertion is that, before he was a minister, the minister pretended to be indigenous and his company applied for funding meant for indigenous procurement. The fact that the government did not give it that funding does not change anything about the minister's conduct and the question of whether the minister meets the standard that Canadians would expect.

I do not think there is any doubt that most Canadians would say that the minister needs to resign and that, if he does not resign, he absolutely needs to be fired by the Prime Minister. I would bet that, if we polled Canadians on that question and let them know exactly what the circumstances are, it would be 99% in favour of the Prime Minister firing the minister. I would be surprised if it were not. That is how serious this circumstance is that we are discussing today.

I am curious about the questions I will be asked. The Speaker is signalling to me that there is no time for questions. I will miss the member for Winnipeg North asking me a question today.

I will comment further on this. I want to point out something interesting: It seems that even the minister's cabinet colleagues have questions. It was interesting again today, in the early part of question period, that in question after question, no other minister was willing to stand up and defend the minister. It is very rare to see the minister have to stand up. He did not actually respond to or answer the questions. After question period, when a reporter asked the procurement minister clearly about the situation, he said, “It's for [him] to continue explaining the circumstances.” He named the Minister of Employment, not the other Randy.

Even Liberal ministers do not want to carry the water for the Liberal minister. In the larger picture, his time is up. His time is almost certainly up as a minister. Even as incompetent a government as this government is, there is no way it can possibly continue having the minister serve in the capacity that he is serving in. His time as a member of Parliament will be up too, because there is no way that even the staunchest supporters in Edmonton Centre will support him. They were not going to vote for the Liberal government anyway, but they certainly are not going to vote for this member of Parliament when the time comes.

I will conclude by saying that we look forward to the debate this week. We hope that ministers in the government and maybe the Prime Minister, if he is able to make it out this week, have some responses to this. We also look forward to seeing how every member of the House votes on this motion.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

[An hon. member]

No.

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

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the subamendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, common-sense Conservatives ask for a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I originally asked the Minister of Environment on September 16 of this year. It relates to a very controversial project in the province of Quebec.

My question is about Northvolt. No advance assessment was done on this project. Now, the mayors of Saint‑Basile‑le‑Grand and McMasterville have requested an environmental assessment.

Quebec's environmental review from the BAPE does not apply because these are areas of federal jurisdiction. More than 4,000 people at the time of this question had asked through a petition for a federal environmental review.

In response to my question about whether there would be an environmental review of Northvolt, the Minister of Environment said that the Impact Assessment Agency was reviewing the request for an assessment of the project and that the review was ongoing. The minister also told me the agency would make a recommendation to the ministry in the weeks to come. That was on September 16, so quite a few weeks have come and gone since I asked the question.

It is generally seen as an environmental, green project to ensure that Canada has more components of the renewable energy supply chain for the lithium ion battery storage of renewable energy. The difficulty here in particular is that the Northvolt site is on contaminated land, previously contaminated by the Canadian Industries Limited explosives plant. There is tremendous concern about the proximity of the Northvolt plant. It is so close to the Richelieu River that an advanced environmental assessment is needed to ensure that we know the project has adequate safety measures in place to avoid the contamination of the Richelieu River by the Northvolt plant.

Since that time, there have been a number of developments surrounding Northvolt. Its financial security is in doubt after the company had a downturn in its economic fortunes. In fact, the company might welcome an environmental review to keep its Canadian prospects alive while it tries to revive its financial prospects. The most recent note on the Impact Assessment Agency website is from nine days after I asked the question. On September 25, it reported that parts of the project, particularly the battery cell components of the project, could not be evaluated because construction had substantially begun and it could therefore not do a review.

However, as far as I can see from tracking this issue closely, it is still the case that we do not know if the project as a whole will have a full environmental review under the federal environmental assessment law. It is really critical for the protection of key habitat and species in that area that the environmental review take place soon and that the proponent is informed early of what precautionary steps it will have to take to ensure that the environment surrounding the Northvolt plant in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, McMasterville and the Richelieu River is protected.

This was a great opportunity to pursue this matter tonight, as the question is an open question: Will the government have an impact review of Northvolt?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here for the late show tonight. I know that the plant is in Quebec, but I will answer in English.

I thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her ongoing advocacy for all environmental causes in Canada. She really is a legend.

This past June, the Government of Canada delivered on its promise to quickly and meaningfully amend the Impact Assessment Act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada and provide regulatory certainty for major project proponents and indigenous partners in Canada's investment climate. The Impact Assessment Act is designed to protect the environment, ensure that sustainable projects can move forward safely and instill public confidence in how the Government of Canada makes decisions concerning major resource projects.

I would just add that the improvements we have made are real. The old impact assessment regime under Stephen Harper really did not do anything to protect environment, but ours does. The amended Impact Assessment Act ensures that federal decision-making, namely the designation decision, the screening decision and the final decision at the end of the assessment, is focused on areas of clear federal jurisdiction.

In any exceptional circumstances, the Impact Assessment Act provides the minister of environment and climate change, under section 9, the power to “designate a physical activity that is not prescribed [in the] regulations”, if they are of the opinion that “the carrying out of that physical activity may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects.” They may, in deciding whether to make it an order, consider public concerns and adverse impacts the physical activity may have on the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, among other things.

However, there are limitations on the minister's power to designate. They may not designate a project if the project has been substantially started or a federal authority has made a decision under whether or not an act of Parliament that permits the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

The minister can confirm that he has received a designation request for the Northvolt Six projects. The request, co-signed by some 50 citizens and a few organizations, highlighted adverse effects on fish and fish habitat in the Richelieu River, as well as certain species at risk.

On September 25, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada responded to the request in relation to the battery cell component production and assembly plant in the crushing and sorting facility. The response noted that the minister's power to designate was limited, as these two components of the project have already substantially begun. However, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's analysis process continues for the battery recycling plant, which will inform a decision as to whether or not the project warrants a designation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I would like to add a few words about the environmental impact of this project. The planned project site is located on wetlands that are really important for biodiversity. What is more, the region's forests have already been subject to clear-cut logging.

Environmentalists in this region of Quebec are strongly opposed to this project. However, with an environmental assessment, the impact could be mitigated. That is the purpose of an environmental assessment: to alter plans and protect the environment. It is not just to stop projects.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Impact Assessment Act is designed to protect the environment, ensure that sustainable projects can move forward safely, and instill public confidence in how the Government of Canada makes decisions concerning major resource projects.

As is the case with any designation request, the portion of the request pertaining to the battery recycling plant is being reviewed by the Impact Assessment Agency, and a decision will be rendered in a timely manner. The Northvolt Six may be subject to other federal legislation, such as the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and/or the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Once again I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her decades of environmental advocacy and stewardship.

Carbon Pricing

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

Madam Speaker, Adjournment Proceedings are where we debate unsatisfactory responses to questions raised in question period, and tonight I rise to follow up on a question asked on June 14. That day, I asked two questions of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The questions were about the suppression of his department's information proving that the carbon tax costs the Canadian economy $30 billion in lost GDP.

When I raised the first of these two questions last week, it degenerated into quite a spectacle. The parliamentary secretary accused me of some kind of bait-and-switch in his opening remarks and of not debating the question submitted. So, for added clarity, this was the question that I am looking for a better response on. On June 14, I asked:

the government only does the right thing when it gets caught. The Liberals only disclosed the information because Conservatives forced them to. The NDP–Liberal government put a gag order on the Parliamentary Budget Officer because it did not want Canadians to know the economic cost of the carbon tax. Per capita GDP is falling and the carbon tax makes life more expensive, proving that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

The...minister has misled Canadians by hiding the truth. When will he resign?

That is the question I asked, that is the question I submitted for debate tonight, and it really is a reasonable question. Misleading Parliament and misleading Canadians is a serious matter. Any minister caught misleading Parliament must correct the record at the earliest opportunity, and any minister who deliberately misleads the House should resign. The minister appears to have sat on important information, withheld it from an officer of Parliament and abused the access to information system to prevent it from being released. So, my question remains: Will he resign?

However, last week, something really extraordinary happened. The minister's parliamentary secretary accused the Alberta industry of using “Canada as an exhaust pipe”. I cannot imagine anything more demeaning to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work in the Canadian energy industry, and who supply Canadians with safe, reliable and what should be affordable energy. It dismisses the industry and the regulations with which it complies, the billions of dollars of taxes that it pays and the equalization formula, which comes into play where Alberta finances much of the rest of the country's economic development, health and other transfers. It is a matter of how this government treats this industry.

For decades, Canadians from every part of Canada have come to Alberta in search of, and finding, good, high-paying jobs with great prospects for long, fulfilling careers that can sustain families. The workers, and these jobs, provide the energy for our country. So, it is arrogance with which this government, and particularly the member for Milton, look down their nose at the Canadian energy industry, which was palpable and on full display last week.

However, back to the follow-up question that is tonight's debate. The government thought it was laughable that Conservatives were demanding accountability from a government that tried to fudge its data and refused to turn over a report that undermined its core narrative on the carbon tax, and that somehow Canadians are better off—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, the member's ability to fit misleading and untrue rhetoric into a short question is remarkable. Let us stick to the facts.

First of all, Alberta has 10% of Canada's population. I love Alberta. I have tons of friends there, and I go to Edmonton, Calgary and Canmore all the time. I absolutely love Alberta and Albertans. I also know that Canada relies heavily on Alberta for energy, and that is important to recognize and appreciate in Canada. However, it is also important to recognize that Alberta has 10% of Canada's population while the industry there is responsible for 40% of Canada's emissions. That is a big discrepancy.

Let us also consider that oil and gas as a whole is worth about 5% of Canada's GDP and 31% of Canada's emissions. These are things that need to be addressed. If the Conservative Party, particularly that member, wants to ignore the fact that Canada's oil and gas sector is having an outsized impact on our emissions profile in Canada and on Canada's disproportionately high carbon footprint, then that is irresponsible and it is irrefutably biased toward only one aspect of Canada's economy. Every aspect of Canada's economy is important. That includes energy, but a government's job is not to suck up to industry. Our job is to regulate industry and ensure that it is fair, competitive and ethical. That is what we are doing with a pollution cap on the oil and gas sector. That is what the member and those members on the Conservative side are opposed to.

On the environment committee, we have been working on a taxonomy of sustainable finance and disclosure for all companies in Canada, but the Conservatives stand against all of that type of regulation. They do not believe that climate change is caused by the burning and production of fossil fuels. They want to turn a blind eye to all of that.

The Conservatives also do not listen to economists, who have repeatedly asked for Conservatives to tone down the rhetoric against carbon pricing. I point to the conclusions of a group of well-established, extremely well-educated independent economists from across Canada, called the Ecofiscal Commission. They analyzed Canada's pollution-pricing policy and concluded that it is absolutely the best way to do two things: reduce our emissions and grow a green and robust economy. They are not the only ones who know this fact. Countries around the world have been using some sort of pollution pricing to grow their green economies for decades. The World Bank confirmed that there are now 75 carbon pricing instruments in operation worldwide.

To listen to the opposition, one would think that the government's approach to pollution pricing is some type of isolated experiment, but it is not. It is an internationally recognized and widely adopted economic mechanism, and it actually has its roots in conservative economics. William Nordhaus, who is a Nobel Prize winner, says that Canada is getting it right regarding carbon pricing, which is the topic of his Nobel Prize. There is a whole world of support for carbon pricing out there, and if an entire commission of independent Canadian economists is not good enough for the member to understand how pollution pricing is so effective, then how about asking the leaders of 30 or 40 different countries that we trade with and that are also using different market-based instruments to lower emissions?

It is very clear that the Conservatives want to turn a blind eye to unlimited pollution from certain sectors, but Canadians can count on the Liberal Party to stand up for them, for their health, for lowering our emissions and for maintaining Canada's competitiveness in an increasingly decarbonizing global energy market. These are Canadians' partners in a global effort to reduce our emissions, but the Conservatives want to turn a blind eye to all of it, which is what the Stephen Harper government did. They want to get us out of the Paris Agreement and pretend we have no action to take on fighting climate change.

One last statistic for the member is that we are 0.5% of the global population and 1.5% of global emissions. That is an outsized impact on the environment, and we need to address it.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has misrepresented and mis-characterized both me and our party. We know that the industry will lead the way in best practices and in technology to reduce or be able to produce more efficiently while doing its best to minimize emissions.

He has ignored the question again, which was about the suppression of information. The current government ran on a platform in 2015 to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history, but it has become the most secretive and least forthright government in Canadian history.

Right now, we are seized in Parliament because the government still will not release documents, the production of which was ordered by the House. The minister misled Canadians. The minister refused to provide information and abused the access to information system, which is—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is right on one thing. I did ignore all of the misleading and mis-characterized allegations he made against the minister.

All documents requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer were 100% delivered on time in full, unredacted. That is why we got a good report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which indicated exactly what we have been reiterating in the House of Commons: Eight out of 10 families get more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay.

Members not only want to ignore that on the Conservative side, but also want to ignore the cost of inaction on climate change. They want to abdicate all responsibility for lowering our emissions and regulating industry. They want to say it is okay for Alberta to be unaccountable for 40% of Canada's emissions. The fact that a province with 10% of Canada's population is responsible for four times more emissions should cause some alarm. For the oil being produced in Alberta, much of the emissions intensity has gone up—

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

That is that.

The hon. member for Victoria not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

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

(The House adjourned at 7:05 p.m.)