Bob Zimmer

[Carbon Pricing, December 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, empty words from those Liberals will not fill empty stomachs in Nunavut.

Kyra Kilabuk, an Inuit woman, shares photos of current food prices in Nunavut on her social media. A can of Campbell's potato soup is $11. A medium box of Cheerios is $17. A small package of ham is $18. After eight years, Nunavut knows the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

When will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and scrap the carbon tax on farmers, first nations and families?

[Business of Supply, December 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just threatened this side. I do not know if that is common practice to do that or allowed in the House, but I wish he would retract it and apologize.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the article I quoted before was “CSIS warning Inuit leaders about covert foreign investment in Arctic, documents show". What can we do about it? There is a lot we can do about it.

Again, the example I think about is one of those sad things I had to announce when I was up in Yellowknife speaking. A company the Prime Minister was at, the one rare earth minerals project he cut the ribbon at, was going into bankruptcy. Why? It is because we have a regulatory regime that is so burdensome it pushes those local investors out. Guess who has a way in? Foreign investment then comes in because of that desperation, as Natan Obed said in this article. We are just inviting this foreign investment in. We are in a sad state. Meanwhile, we have elements and materials we could be bringing to the world. We are one of the most green countries on the planet. Canada could be offering solutions around the globe, but yet here we are.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I must say I do not know. We talked to Canadian Rangers who go out with their own snowmobile equipment and their own gear, which gets damaged and takes months to get repaired. These are snowmobiles they use for their sustenance to go get caribou and the like. It is a sad story we have heard many times. I have been up there many times and spoken directly with Rangers, as well as some service members.

Again, it is not something we like to bring up. I am sure my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound would be pleased if he would not have had to ask that question. All we want to see is members in uniforms, our Canadian Rangers, given the resources they desperately need to keep us safe. I wish the government would just simply do what it promised.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I have made my views very clear about NATO and NORAD tonight. The member has heard our views from this side about NORAD and the need to modernize in order to protect our northern front. It is unequivocal that it needs to happen.

The former defence minister made the announcement of modernizing NORAD. I think it was $4.95 billion at the time. I applauded her for making that announcement. The sad part is what I referred to in my speech, which is that with that big promise made, only $45 million has been spent to date. Again, actions speak louder than words. Let us see some action.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have to ask tonight, based on the report, and we are going to talk about the defence report in a few moments, is: has the Prime Minister compromised Canada in the Arctic? How bad is it?

We have heard from my colleague, the critic for defence. He did a great job going through some of the shortfalls of what really is not in the north and what needs to be in the north.

Tonight, I am going to go based on a few comments that I had heard from people in the Arctic, who voiced their concerns to me personally, and a little bit about the testimony in defence.

This is the report, “A Secure and Sovereign Arctic”. Anybody can read it online. It is a great report. There are a lot of great recommendations.

As happens often with this government, there is a lot of talk but little action. I criticized the former minister of defence not long ago about promising billions of dollars; we found in the estimates that they had only spent $45 million to modernize NORAD. That is just symbolic of a government that says one thing and does another.

I heard from people in the Arctic that we are not ready, Canada is abandoning the Arctic, Canada has retreated from the Arctic and Canada has vacated the Arctic.

Mayor Simon Kuliktana, the former Kugluktuk mayor, said to me, bluntly, and with a bit of fear in his voice, that we are not ready.

I must say that I was a little taken aback by his comment. I did not think he would be that blunt but these are folks who live right in the Arctic, right on the Northwest Passage. They are right on the water there and they see the traffic go by. They are very concerned about this.

Premier Cochrane, or soon-to-be former premier Cochrane, for the Northwest Territories, had comments: “The current invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a stark reminder of the importance of Arctic sovereignty. We share a unique border with Russia, the Arctic Ocean. As the Arctic takes a more predominant role on the international stage, we want to ensure that the needs of northerners remain a priority for Canada. It also means that the aspirations of northerners be given appropriate attention and that we eliminate the gaps between northern and southern Canadians.”

I asked her, personally, if she felt that northerners are a priority. Her comment back to me directly was, “We're not ready.”

There are a few other comments. We had another professor who testified at the defence committee. I was privileged enough to ask him a question. Aurel Braun said, “If we don't deter Russia, Canada...is going to be affected directly, materially, ecologically and strategically.”

That is one thing that we hear a lot about climate change. The critic for defence spoke to that, about the opening of the Northwest Passage, the more traffic that goes by there.

If we do not claim sovereignty and really spend resources and spend effort claiming sovereignty and being up there, guess who else will?

If we do not, we already have, as the critic for defence said, Russia already making counterclaims for the Arctic seabed that Canadians claim is our own. Do we trust that China, Russia and other countries are going to be as ecologically sacred to our own grounds as we will?

I think we can say no to that.

From another leader, a recent article, as of October 13: “CSIS warning Inuit leaders about covert foreign investment in Arctic, documents show”.

This is more of what I call “Trojan horsing” themselves into the Arctic and through our firewall or our safety fence in Canada. In the north, it is our Arctic sovereignty, of course.

Natan Obed “told CSIS that the ITK”, which is the group that he represents, “is working to find funding for infrastructure projects and needs to be warned in advance if its potential funding partners pose a threat. 'Especially if the Canadian government is not investing in infrastructure development in the Arctic, then it pushes our pursuit for partners in investment into other places,' he said.”

Whether it be a militarily straight-up threat from Russia, or China, perhaps, the other way that we are vulnerable is with foreign investment.

I spoke to the Yellowknife Geoscience Forum in Yellowknife a week ago. A critical mineral mine, a rare earth metal mine, where the Prime Minister cut a ribbon just months ago, has recently claimed bankruptcy.

Alarmingly, can members guess who has shown up as a partner to keep the project going? It is Chinese foreign investment. The critical mineral strategy was a head-scratcher, as said by a member who wrote a critical piece about what happened there. The critical mineral strategy is supposed to be to retain ownership, production and exploration within the borders of Canada, yet we are seeing the actions of the government push even investment, mining investment, out of our country.

I am going to refer to another document that I really relied on a lot when I went up to the north. It is an Auditor General report called “Arctic Waters Surveillance”. There is a lot of rhetoric in this place, but I like to quote people who actually have expertise in these areas. I think we can all agree that the Auditor General gives a very fair perspective of what is going on up there.

I will start off with some of his criticisms. The report states, “Federal organizations’ actions did not address long-standing gaps in the surveillance of Arctic waters”.

The number one criticism is that “Insufficient action taken to address gaps” and “Lack of integration among organizations”. The report continues, “the lack of awareness about vessels in the Arctic creates vulnerabilities that, if left unaddressed, could lead to incidents that would affect Canada’s security, safety, environment, and economy.”

Number two is: “Weaknesses in satellite surveillance capabilities”. We have weaknesses now, and they are just going to get worse in the future. This statement is what probably shocked me the most of all the vulnerabilities that we have in the Arctic: “We also found that these radar imagery satellites are at or will reach the end of their expected service lives long before the planned launch dates of the replacement satellites”.

That means that the end of service life is 2026, and the launch will be in 2035. That means that we will have a nine-year gap in service, satellite-wise, for the Arctic. In this modern era, we will not be able to see what is going on in the north for almost 10 years.

Number three is “Icebreakers reaching the end of their useful lives” before new ones can be built, similar to the satellite problem. “The Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet includes 6 icebreakers that are suitable to operate in the Arctic. These icebreakers are between 35 and 53 years old and are becoming increasingly prone to breakdowns and expensive to maintain.”

I had the privilege of going out to one of these icebreakers and speaking with the head of the Coast Guard and many of its members there. Those folks do a great job. I will give a shout-out to all the men and women, whether they are in the Rangers, the Coast Guard, the military or the air force, who serve the Arctic. We appreciate what they do for us.

The report continues that there are further delays in procuring eight Arctic and offshore patrol ships. “They will allow the navy to exercise Canada’s sovereignty through northern maritime operations and to contribute to the wider efforts...in the North.” Again, as we have heard about so many other things, they are not on schedule and there is aircraft too.

I will read the conclusion in the Auditor General report:

We concluded that the federal organizations we audited—Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Defence, and Transport Canada—had not taken the action required to build the maritime domain awareness they collectively needed to respond to safety and security risks associated with increasing vessel traffic in Arctic waters. While these organizations had identified gaps in maritime domain awareness, they had not taken sufficient measures to address them. Moreover, some measures taken had progressed slowly and, in the case of the Marine Security Operations Centres, were not efficient. Furthermore, the existing satellite services and infrastructure did not provide the capacity that the federal organizations needed to perform surveillance of Arctic waters. Delays in the renewal of satellites, ships, and aircraft risks compromising the presence of these organizations in Arctic waters.

I started off by asking if the Prime Minister has compromised us in the Arctic. I think we can all agree that he has, not only from the Auditor General's report, but also from people on the ground. I would repeat something even stronger, which I heard from somebody in Inuvik, who said that the Prime Minister has not just compromised us in the Arctic. He has abandoned the Arctic.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2023]

There has been a lot of conjecture back and forth this afternoon about things that were said on that side, and he straying into that territory again of getting into conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat commentary. This is about Arctic sovereignty and security. There are some in this place who actually want to get to that conversation and that debate. I wish the member would get back on to the topic instead of talking about tinfoil Liberal theories.

[Petitions, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward to the House a petition from the many citizens of the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, including the communities of Smithers, Terrace and Kitimat. Sadly, their member of Parliament was not interested in bringing forward the petition, which supports law-abiding firearm owners.

Petitioners draw to the attention of the House Commons that the government has attempted to ban and seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of Canadians, that the targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime, and that the government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting. Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport-shooting firearms.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 20th, 2023]

With regard to government subsidies for diesel-based electricity generation in the North: how much does the government pay annually to (i) Nunavut, (iii) the Northwest Territories, (iii) Yukon, to subsidize the cost of diesel and the purchase or rental and maintenance of diesel generators?

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about a bill from a senator who has become a great friend. The senator is from Nunavut, with a lot of deep history in Nunavut and Northwest Territories even before the boundaries had been reformed.

Many call this the “use it or lose it bill”, but I think it should be called the “connecting Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon and northern Canadian communities bill”, because that is what it is about. My file, officially, is shadow minister for northern affairs, Arctic sovereignty and northern economic development. Connectivity is absolutely imperative now. It is across the country, but even more so in these remote communities that we represent.

I was a little puzzled. I heard the Liberal member across the way say that they were not going to support the legislation. I am troubled by that, in that it has been said, and I have said it before, that the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the Arctic. By opposing this bill, it just further proves that that is exactly what is happening.

I am going to get into what the bill is, and I am going to give Senator Patterson a lot of credit. This is from his summary:

My name is Dennis Patterson....serving as Senator for Nunavut since 2009. Prior to that I served as a 4-term Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northwest Territories (pre-division) representing the riding of Frobisher Bay, now known as Iqaluit. I spent 16 years in office as a senior minister and spent 4 of those years as Premier.

Given the remoteness of my region, adequate and reliable access to internet services was a major focus of mine during my time in office and I have continued to work hard on the issues during my time in the Senate. In today's society, access to internet is much more than recreational; we have become increasingly reliant on internet for a host of things that include, but are not limited to, work, school, the administration of justice and health applications.

Use-It/Lose-It is the policy that those who buy spectrum are taking on an obligation to deliver services to Canadians. It sets out that if you get a fair chance to use your spectrum, and if you don't, the government should take it away and give it to someone who will use it. This policy treats spectrum like the public utility that it is.

I could not agree more. There are examples where somebody had said, “buy it and flip it” for a huge profit, without building a stick of infrastructure that is very important.

I want to give a shout-out to some of my fellow shadow ministers for their work on this. The shadow minister for innovation, science and economic development, the shadow minister for pan-Canadian trade and competition, and the shadow minister for rural economic development and connectivity are all doing great work on this.

In summary, for the people who are watching today, including residents from Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories and northern parts of Canada, the bill would implement a “use it or lose it” approach to licence spectrum. The legislation would force licence spectrum holders “to deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence, within three years of the licence's issuance” or potentially have the licence revoked.

The bill permits the minister to revoke the spectrum licences that do not abide by the aforementioned regulations, and the minister must, within 60 days, reissue the revoked licences to competitive bidders.

One of my colleagues, the shadow minister for pan-Canadian trade and competition has spoken about how we have the most expensive cellular service, Internet services in the world. What I would expect from that, as I think every Canadian should, no matter whether they are from Iqaluit or Toronto, is that these big telcos, that are making huge amounts of money, would be building infrastructure in the remote communities. That really comes with getting that spectrum. It is expected, and this bill would set out to make that the way it is going to be.

I am just going to refer to an article from the Nunatsiaq News. This is one of the publications specifically in Nunavut.

Nunavut senator touts law that could improve communications in North.

Patterson said his bill, which passed third reading in the Senate on April 20, would improve access to wireless services in rural and underserved communities like those in Nunavut.

The senator went on to say, “What's happening now is that telecom companies who are operating are tending to favour larger communities, so we have a disparity in services such as they are between the larger and smaller communities.”

As an example of how telecom companies flip spectrum and make hundreds of millions of dollars while doing nothing for our local communities, the article says, “He said in 2008, Shaw Communications bought a particular spectrum licence for $190 million and sold that licence for $350 million in 2013. Then in 2017, Shaw purchased another spectrum licence from a company called Vidéotron for $430 million, which netted Vidéotron a $243-million profit.” This is all while building zero infrastructure in Canada, but in the north especially, in communities that need it desperately. The senator said, “Broadband access is critical to Nunavut in particular because of the vital services that we rely on here, including health and telehealth, education, business and economic development and communications with the broader world.”

Part of my role is economic development in northern regions in our country. I have been to all three territories several times, and a common topic of conversation is connectivity. Residents in those communities order from Amazon, as we all do, but they do not just order things; they order food in many cases because they cannot access it in their remote communities. It is therefore even more necessary that they have good connectivity.

I have known Senator Patterson for many years, and anybody in this place who has ever met the senator will know that he has a passionate desire to serve not just the region of Nunavut but the people of Nunavut and the north. Anytime someone speaks to him, he has a sealskin vest on or something with sealskin made by a local in one of the communities he represents. He always has a smile for the north. Those in the room might not know, but he is reaching age 75 pretty quickly and soon will no longer be in the Senate chamber. We will miss him there. I want to give him a lot of credit for advocating for people in the north and the things that really matter in the north. I know he is doing his best with this.

The bill has gone through the Senate and is in this chamber, and while I have accused the Liberals of abandoning the north, it is an opportunity for them to support the north and make this happen. However, we have to look at it in a different way, as a geographical area. It is a geographical area with real people who rely on connectivity for their daily lives, as I just said, including for food and health. It does not get more important than that.

This is such an easy thing for the government to support. Hearing the member from Manitoba say Liberals are going to oppose this bill is surprising to me. I should not say “surprising”. It is upsetting to me. However, as I have said many times before, the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the north. I would challenge members to change the direction they are going on this bill and prove to residents of Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories that they support them and that they indeed have not abandoned the north. I will leave it up to them to make that decision.

The viewers tonight can see the way the government is going to vote on the bill. If it votes in favour of this bill, good; if it votes no, it again proves my point that the NDP-Liberal government has abandoned the north.