Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Parliament of Canada Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, 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.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked in question period on October 18, 2023, just last fall. The question was asked five days after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down sections of the government's bill on environmental assessment, which it redubbed “impact assessment” and which came forward through Bill C-69.

I practised environmental law. I will briefly share with the chamber that I actually worked in the Mulroney government and took a draft environmental assessment law through to the Privy Council to get permission for the government of the day to bring forward the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which ultimately entered into force around 1993. It went through several changes. It was an excellent piece of legislation; it worked well. It was repealed under an omnibus budget bill under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and was struck down and eliminated by Bill C-38 in spring 2012. That was more than lamentable.

When the new government came in, in 2015, the current Prime Minister gave a mandate letter to the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, to fix this. Tragically, she ignored the advice of environmental experts, even those she had empanelled.

What I asked on October 18 was whether the new Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice would follow the excellent advice of the expert panel on environmental assessment law that was chaired by former Chair of the BAPE, Johanne Gélinas, and many environmental experts, and which was thoroughly supported, certainly by the Green Party and by me. I asked whether we would follow the advice that the essence of environmental assessment law is to evaluate the projects of the federal government itself: at a minimum, the panel said, federal land, federal money or where federal permits are issued. There was an additional list of concerns.

Tragically, the government ignored the advice. It took the advice of the Impact Assessment Agency itself. What I asked the minister on October 18 was whether the government would now commit to reviewing and putting in place the recommendations. An excellent opportunity was created by the court's striking down, as I completely predicted it would, the sections that were based on the designated project list itself, a creation of Harper's Bill C-38, which was a terrible way of weakening environmental law while at the same time failing to honour federal jurisdiction.

The minister missed the point of my question and merely said that they were going to fix it. I am desperately worried they are going to do a quick fix, and that in the quick fix, they will once again listen to the advice of the wrong people.

I beg the parliamentary secretary to tell us tonight that the government will follow the advice of the expert panel that gave them the right road to fixing the environmental assessment law in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. friend and colleague's working virtually does not mean that she is not feeling well. I hope she is well.

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this important fact and for highlighting one of the reasons I chose to get involved in politics. It was because of the disastrous environmental policies of the Stephen Harper government, which put our country's international reputation in peril, along with our most essential natural resource, our natural environment.

This government conducted extensive public engagement sessions in the development of the Impact Assessment Act, and I am happy to speak to some of those actions this evening. At the time, the government heard from a range of individuals and organizations, including not only environmental lawyers but also indigenous groups, the public, industry representatives and academics. They all provided invaluable input into the creation of the impact assessment regime. My colleague also reminds me that the rules introduced through the Impact Assessment Act on assessing major projects were needed to address issues that had been identified with the former legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. I can say from personal experience in Milton that the former legislation was a disaster.

This government heard from Canadians who were calling for the restoration of public trust and confidence in the environmental assessment process, and enacting the Impact Assessment Act was the necessary change to provide predictability, accountability and transparency. The Supreme Court of Canada's opinion on the constitutionality of that act does not discredit the progress this government has made in protecting the environment, nor does it undermine the federal government's ability to exercise leadership on environmental protection. In fact, it confirmed that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the overall structure of the Impact Assessment Act is sound. The court provided clarity and direction to further refine the Impact Assessment Act process to ensure that it meets Canadians' needs and values, as well as Canada's unique constitutional requirements.

The government recognizes that responsible development is critical to the prosperity of our country and that time is of the essence with respect to projects that are currently in the impact assessment system. As the government lays out a plan to make more amendments, it will continue to listen to Canadians and uphold commitments to mitigating climate change; transitioning to a green, sustainable, net-zero economy; and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

The government is working quickly and diligently on introducing the targeted and meaningful proposed legislative amendments required to provide regulatory certainty for major project proponents, indigenous peoples and investors. We will continue to work collaboratively with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry, environmental groups and the public to determine a path forward for environmental assessments in Canada. We will remain committed to providing clarity for our stakeholders and indigenous partners, upholding indigenous rights, protecting the environment and growing our economy, all at the same time.

To this end, I issued a statement on the interim administration of the Impact Assessment Act to provide guidance on ensuring continuity for proposed projects in the impact assessment process. Amending the Impact Assessment Act continues 50 years of federal leadership in impact assessment, and this remains a priority for the Government of Canada and for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the tragedy: Again, the government ignored the advice of the experts it had empanelled. I want to just stress that the extent of public consultation undertaken by that expert panel was extraordinary. There were hearings in every single province and territory and thousands of witnesses in person, as well as advice. This advice was ignored by the former minister of environment and, tragically, that led to parts of it being struck down.

I am making it as clear as I can that, if the government rushes and puts amendments in the budget implementation act in the spring, it is very vulnerable to the criticism that it has not consulted. Its only and strongest protection is to rely on the advice that came from the panel chaired by Johanne Gélinas, because it was the product of extensive consultation and thoughtful review of key pieces of legislation. The advice it is getting right now, I hear through the grapevine, is wrong once again.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion provided new guidance on the Impact Assessment Act, while affirming that the federal government's leadership role in environmental assessment legislation is critical. The Government of Canada also developed the Impact Assessment Act to create a better set of rules that respect the environment and indigenous rights and ensure projects are assessed in a timely way. We remain committed to those principles.

I just left the environment committee a little while ago and, over the course of two hours, we heard from nine different witnesses. With just nine, there was not necessarily consensus on all issues. Therefore, when the process was undertaken to hear from thousands of Canadian stakeholders with respect to environmental protection, it is important to note that there was no way to develop a full consensus on every single issue. However, deep consultation is and will continue to be a priority of this government as we reassess the Impact Assessment Act.

Public Safety

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on November 6, I asked the government if it would take any action to address hatred targeting Jewish communities by pro-Hamas terror rallies across Canada.

There were rallies in Toronto where genocidal slogans called for violent acts against innocent people. At a solidarity rally at Queen's Park, where I proudly stood with Toronto's Iranian and Jewish communities, a Jewish woman was later assaulted for the simple act of holding a poster of a hostage. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize that person, Olga, whom I have since gotten to know. I want to thank Olga for her advocacy and countless others for calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the 136 hostages still being held by Hamas. Hamas and the militants holding the hostages should release them so that a path to peace, a just and durable peace, in the Middle East can be possible.

I asked the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada why he was being so silent on the grotesque and illegal displays of anti-Semitism, hatred and public incitement. Honestly, I just could not understand why he was turning a blind eye to these rallies in Toronto, in the city where he is also an MP, that were clearly supportive of Hamas, a listed terrorist organization. I reminded the minister that Canadians believe in the rule of law, not mob rule. I asked him if he was engaging his provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that Canada's hate propaganda laws were being enforced.

In response, the Minister of Public Safety indicated that the government was far from being silent. He claimed that he condemned all incitements to violence and all expressions of hate and that, allegedly, the government is there for all communities. The key word in the minister's response was “all”. Sure, other than Hamas and other terrorists, who would not be against all hate and stand for all communities, except since October 7, all communities are not being targeted. It is one particular community that is being disproportionately targeted, and that is the Jewish community in Toronto and across Canada. Protesters only seem to care about intimidating innocent Canadians who are Jewish. It is Jewish-owned businesses in Toronto, and in my riding, that are being vandalized. It is Jewish schools receiving bomb threats, and it is even a Jewish-owned deli that was firebombed in Toronto.

This evening, I want to focus on a specific, tangible action that the government can take, but thus far has not. I would like to ask if the government will follow in the leadership of two democracies, Austria and Germany, two nations that know all too well the levels that hatred and anti-Semitism can lead to. Both states have banned the use of the protest slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Freedom of expression does not mean someone has the right to call for genocide, and the Austrian and German governments are painfully aware of the true meaning of the slogan in Hamas terms, which calls for the elimination of the State of Israel.

Just yesterday, a motion was filed in the Dutch Parliament to do what the Austrians and Germans have done. Therefore, I would like to ask if the government will take this tangible action to actually fight hate in Canada against an identifiable group and a minority, the Jewish community.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this country has the right to live their life free from fear of attack or abuse because of who they are as an individual. Hatred that targets people based on race, faith, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability or any other personal characteristic is counter to Canadian values. Everyone in Canada deserves a safe space to be themselves and to thrive. Unfortunately, hate, intolerance and racism, and particularly anti-Semitism, exists in many ugly and dangerous forms throughout Canadian society and the world.

Our government is taking action to combat this issue. For example, in the fall, the Minister of Public Safety announced enhancements to the security infrastructure program, which will help all communities that are understandably concerned for their safety to better prepare for and discourage any potential acts of violence. The minister announced an additional $5 million for this program in light of the rising hate we are seeing in this country. I think this is an important investment. I will give the member a personal example. The justice minister and I attended the Bosnian Islamic Centre in my own riding to discuss some of the funding it received through this program for security purposes.

I also want to mention the upcoming online safety legislation from the Minister of Justice. Hate exists in many forms, including online, and we want to combat hate in all its forms. I am looking forward to this legislation being tabled.

I have no doubt that for many in the Jewish community, recent events have undermined their faith in what Canada stands for. I want to assure them that I, the Minister of Justice and our government stand firmly opposed to anti-Semitism and hate in all its forms. We will continue to work to combat it.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the slogan that I have referenced is used at Canadian pro-Hamas terror rallies and sends a message of intolerance and hatred towards an identifiable group of Canadians, a minority, the Jewish community.

Is our government and the hate propaganda enforcement system that oblivious to the obvious?

I cannot emphasize enough that delaying a rapid and direct response to hate propaganda and racism is a matter that Canadians are very concerned about. The federal government cannot ignore or sidestep its responsibilities to upholding Canada's hate laws and their provisions, and working to eradicate anti-Semitism here in Canada. As is the case with justice, delaying a response to racism and hate denies the removal of the scourge. Anti-Semitism must be met directly and by the full extent of Canadian law. That takes action, not more platitudes.

I will ask again. Will the government take direct action to address this recurring hate?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

As I noted, our government has made several investments to address hate crime in Canada. The $5-million expansion of the SIP, which I mentioned, includes programs in my riding and in other ridings across the country.

Our government has acknowledged the realities of racism and prejudice in the country, something not all parties are prepared to do. We are committed to building a safer, stronger, more inclusive and just future for all by fighting hate and discrimination.

I will conclude by saying they are not just words, there are actions being taken and further action will continue to be taken. We stand by this commitment.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to follow up on a question I asked of the Prime Minister just before the holidays, which feels particularly relevant now, in advance of the 2024 budget.

At the time I had asked why the Prime Minister and the federal government had not yet funded the Canada disability benefit when they seemed to have tens of billions of dollars to throw at expanding a leaky pipeline. At the time, rather than answering my question, the Prime Minister read back a stock answer.

I would like to get into more detail tonight and hopefully have a more meaningful conversation. Here is the reality: budgets are about priorities, and there are many pressing priorities in my community that require significant investment.

I will offer just a few this evening. Of course we need to end legislated poverty for our neighbours living with disabilities. If we did so, we could cut poverty by 40%, because 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities.

Priorities include building the affordable housing we need at the scale and the pace that we need to do so. Even if we doubled the social housing stock in this country, we would still just be middle of the pack in the G7 as a result of 30 years of underinvestment in housing.

Other priorities include incentivizing homeowners to retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient, with things like insulating attics and improving building envelopes. We could do it by replenishing and expanding the greener homes grant program to even fund deep energy retrofits when that program, right now, is no longer even accepting applications in Ontario.

We could do it by investing in public transit to avoid more fare hikes and reduced service, by accelerating and expanding the permanent public transit fund.

To pay for these items, myself and others in the past have suggested new revenue tools, like the Canada recovery dividend to be applied to the oil and gas industry, the way it has been applied to banks and life insurance companies. Even just a 15% windfall tax on their profits over $1 billion could generate $4.2 billion to fund these kinds of solutions.

Another option, and the one I focused on in this question, is to stop wasting our money on projects like the TMX pipeline. Projects like these, new fossil fuel infrastructure, in the midst of a climate crisis, are what UN Secretary-General António Guterres calls “moral and economic madness”.

As recently as November 30 of last year, though, the Liberal government quietly guaranteed a new $1.75 billion to $2 billion in commercial loans for the Trans Mountain Corporation for expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. If that money is borrowed, the project's total costs are going to grow to $35 billion. That is well in excess of $1,200 for every Canadian taxpayer in the country.

To close, budgets are about priorities. This budget is an important moment for this government to align its priorities with those of folks in my community and across the country. The parliamentary secretary is a reasonable person. I wonder if he would agree that it is past time we stop throwing Canadians' money at expanding a leaky pipeline, and use those funds to invest in Canadians who need it most, like Canadians with disabilities?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will return the compliment and say I find the member to be quite a reasonable individual, too.

When it comes to our energy future, I would refer the member to the recent report of the International Energy Agency, which stated that global demand for oil and gas will continue in some form for decades, but overall demand for oil and gas will peak in this decade. At the same time, the deployment rate of renewables and uptake of electric vehicles are soaring.

To the member's original question, the Prime Minister responded by affirming that Canada will continue to push forward to meet our net-zero targets, including our commitment at COP28 to lower the production emissions and consumption of fossil fuels over the coming decades.

Part of that includes the proposed cap on oil and gas sector pollution in December. It was another step in our commitment to creating pollution caps on emissions that are both ambitious and achievable. The emissions cap is one that will ensure that the economic well-being of Alberta's energy sector does not come at the expense of our environment, by incentivizing investments in decarbonization, technological innovation and efficiency.

Canada is the first major oil- and gas-producing country in the world to have done this. Allow me to quote Dr. Robb Barnes from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who said, “This announcement marks a significant turning point. Canada is the first major fossil fuel-producing country to commit to capping emissions from oil and gas production. We recognize the Canadian government's leadership on this and urge other countries to follow.”

In addition to the cap on emissions from this sector, we are also supporting energy producers in driving down methane emissions by at least 75% through world-leading environmental standards. Despite fearmongering from the Conservatives in this House, 12 major companies said that, thanks to this regulation, they would nearly eliminate methane emissions by 2030. That is incredibly encouraging news for the climate and for the workers in these competitive industries.

We know that the responsible path forward is to invest in decarbonization and clean energy development to ensure that workers have a bright future and communities have clean air. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party's plan is to let the planet burn. Their plan is to axe environmental protections, axe job-creating projects and put moratoriums on renewable energy projects, as they have already done in Alberta and are trying to do in Atlantic Canada. While the Conservatives block vital legislation like the sustainable jobs act and our offshore wind bill, Bill C-49, Liberals are working hard to ensure that communities across this country benefit from the opportunities presented by a low-carbon future.

The Liberal plan has delivered over $200 billion of investment into clean energy and the clean economy, helping to create thousands of sustainable jobs for workers today and in future generations.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that when it comes to investing in a sustainable future, we cannot do it by buying and expanding a pipeline. That is exactly what the government has been in the midst of doing since 2018. As recently as November of last year, it continued to double down on that investment to the tune of $2 billion more in a new subsidy to continue with this failed investment. This is at a time when Canadians across the country are calling out for something as simple as investing in home energy retrofits, expanding public transit and ending legislated poverty for people with disabilities.

Will the parliamentary secretary use the influence he has inside his caucus to shift these kinds of investments toward the priorities of his community and mine?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we share the same priorities, but allow me to illustrate my earlier point by sharing some of the investments that the Government of Canada has made in southern Ontario, where the member and I are both from.

For example, we provided $3 million to Kitchener-based Kuntz Electroplating Inc. to strengthen its manufacturing capabilities, creating 45 new jobs in the automotive and EV industry and supporting the growing green economy. We invested $10 million in the University of Waterloo's aeronautics program to help it orient to a more sustainable future for the aviation industry. In the auto sector we have attracted major investments from companies like Volkswagen, Stellantis and Umicore, which will create thousands of good-quality and low-carbon jobs for our communities.

This is just the beginning. We will continue on this path forward and accomplish our goals together.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

Have a good evening, everyone.

(The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.)