Earl Dreeshen

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, as was mentioned earlier to another hon. member's question, we are starting to see things happen. I suppose the key thing I want to express is that it should have happened a lot sooner.

If we simply sit back and say that this will not affect anyone, we will have those who will just as soon have a little discontent so they can move forward with their own anti-oil plans. That is what I see when I look at this. It is an opportunity for them look at all this destruction and perhaps think this project should be postponed. What about the next project? We sure would not want to have these same difficulties.

It is sort of an escalation of everything we see, and we all should be concerned about that.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I should also mention at this point that I would like to split my time the member for Brandon—Souris.

Because of the force and the pressure of things we have been talking about now for the last 15 days, there indeed is an opportunity now for some dialogue. It is unfortunate that it has had to come to this, as we have talked about this for well over two weeks. We have seen the damage and destruction. We can add to that some of the other concerns we have had with regard to trade disruptions and issues there. All those kinds of concerns have a cascading effect.

I am involved in industry and agriculture. We have seen the effects that have taken place there, which are major concerns.

Yes, it is good to see that finally something is happening, but it did not have to take this long, with millions of dollars of damage happening every day. It should have been dealt with earlier.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today about the relationship our country has with our first nations peoples.

As a teacher for over 34 years, for 32 of those years, I proudly displayed a commemorative plaque from the Treaty Six Centennial celebrations that I attended at the Saddle Lake Reserve with Peter Lougheed, Bob Clark, the leader of the opposition, and Grant Notley. It was a very poignant opportunity for me to get a chance to see what was important to indigenous people. Engraved on the plaque are the words “For as long as the Sun shines, the Rivers flow and the Grass grows”, a reminder that is still proudly displayed in my office in Ottawa.

Additionally, I was proud to sit at the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee when we were in government and to pursue initiatives like matrimonial property rights and transparency legislation that were asked for by our first nations groups. These initiatives did not always sit well with some of the band leaders, but they did resonate with members.

When our government sought to improve the first nations education system, which would have included some of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, I asked to once again sit at this committee. Sadly, that initiative, spearheaded by former grand chief Shawn Atleo, in conjunction with Prime Minister Harper, was shut down before it could take off. As a former teacher, I was truly disappointed.

From my experience as a teacher, I have seen the inequity, the gaps in learning and the unacceptable dropout rates. I shared the frustration that existed with our first nation parents who wanted more for their children, for as Ts'im-shian author Calvin Helin had alluded to in his book, Dances with Dependency, the cycle of dependency was only broken when the bonds of colonialism were cut. He argued that the ancestors would not have accepted their children to live without hope and purpose, that they would have wanted their children to know of their culture and their heritage and that the ancestors would expect them to look after their community and ensure they lived proudly.

This is why I proudly stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route and with every band council that chooses this land's natural wealth as its path forward for its people. The band councils understand that using Canadian oil and gas is not only more economically sensible for their membership, but also a humanitarian and environmentally friendly solution for the globe. This is also why I stand with the majority of the hereditary chiefs and the vast majority of the Wet'suwet'en people and why I condemn the radical activists who use issues like this to undermine opportunities for all Canadians.

Now we are faced with an interesting challenge, given the political climate in our country right now. Some people in Ottawa have a narrow focus on what it means to be good stewards of the environment. They think that the sum of a society's commitment to the environment is the amount of carbon they produce in Canada and what that source of carbon is. Very real and important conservation initiatives have been going on throughout Canada in the oil and gas sector that have simply been glossed over to fulfill their narrative.

Similarly, these activists' rationale for holding Canada's economy hostage is as varied as the foreign interests that fund them, whether it be investors in renewable energy or oil and gas interests that simply know they can buy up our resources cheaply in the future, reaping the benefits when the rest of the world's energy dries up. Believe me, none of this is in our nation's best interest.

Where are we now? For the past 15 days, the country has been held hostage and the government has done nothing. Our economy, our people and our security as Canadians are being held up by a protest movement that is disrespectful to the majority of our indigenous peoples' desire to give their children and grandchildren the opportunities they never had, and the Liberal government has done nothing.

The protests have temporarily stopped VIA Rail passenger trains as well as CN trains, cutting off routes between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Kingston, and the Liberal government has done nothing.

A variety of shipments, whether it be food, construction materials, lumber, aluminum, coal, propane, things that people need to survive, have been affected by the rail blockades, and the Liberal government once again has done nothing.

CN Rail announced the laying off of 450 workers in its operation in eastern Canada as a result of the blockades. What has the Liberal government done? Nothing. The government's inaction has led to a national crisis in Canada, and it still will not act.

Canada's retailers and manufacturers are braced for shutdowns and face dwindling supplies as blockades at ports and on rail lines bring much of the country's rail freight network to a halt. CN rail's coast to coast system is at risk of shutting down.

As reported by CBC this morning, some of the members of the Wet'suwet'en people want the protesters to stop. Currently, the protests are not helping their communities, which they say already have fractured governance. These protests have amplified the conflict in the community and distracted Wet'suwet'en people from resolving their differences.

As I said before, the vast majority of these people support the Coastal GasLink project. Every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route supports the project. Even the majority of hereditary chiefs support this project. The vast majority of first nations community members support the project because it will create jobs, opportunities and investments in communities, and in the end it will help reduce global greenhouse emissions.

Democracy and the rule of law are fundamental pillars of our country, and it is time they are enforced. Our democratic values ensure that every person has the right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest, but people do not have the right to harm the security and livelihood of other Canadians.

The Prime Minister needs to denounce the illegal actions of the radical activists, formulate an action plan that will put an end to the blockages, ensure that the support for this project expressed by the vast majority of the Wet'suwet'en people is upheld and get our economy back on track. If he does not, the Liberal government will be setting a dangerous precedent that the civil unrest of a few can have a devastating impact on the lives of countless Canadians and that the government is not willing to enforce the law to protect Canadians.

Additionally, counter-protesters have started rising up to voice their dissatisfaction with the current situation. With these heightened tensions, leaving things as they are now is irresponsible.

The impact is also being felt beyond Canada's borders and is harming the country's reputation as a stable and viable supply chain partner.

These groups are emboldened and will continue to create havoc as the inaction tells all activists they can have a devastating impact on the lives of countless Canadians and the government is not willing to enforce the law to protect those Canadians.

As was evident in the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman case, the shameful treatment of the former attorney general, ethics violations and so many other transgressions, the government's opinion of right and wrong is truly suspect.

I urge the government to work night and day to resolve this issue, because to give opportunities for indigenous people to share in our world-class resource development is the right thing. Now is the time to act.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, one of the quotes we have is from hereditary chief Helen Michelle of the Skin Tyee Nation. She states, “A lot of the protestors are not even Wet’suwet’en.” She goes on to say, “Our people said go ahead to Coastal GasLink.”

If we go back to the actual motion for today, it says to “condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community, holding the Canadian economy hostage”.

What part of the motion that we have today speaks to all of the items that the member spoke of earlier?

[Privilege, February 20th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on something the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said this morning in response to the question of privilege I raised yesterday on the misleading response from the Minister of Natural Resources to my written Question No. 50.

The parliamentary secretary should know that when one is in a hole one should stop digging. I say that because his intervention only added to the records of this House more misleading and conflicting information. It caused more confusion and cast more doubt, if that is even possible, on the integrity of the government he supports to give straight-up, honest answers to inquiries from members of this House.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the funds that were paid to Pembina Institute were grants and not contracts, and since my question asked about contracts, the government was accurate in stating that it had not granted any contracts to Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, if you follow the references I cited in my submission yesterday, and I have no idea why the parliamentary secretary did not do that, you will note that the items I referred to yesterday were paid for by Natural Resources Canada to the Pembina Institute and they all had contract dates, contract period start dates, contract period end dates and contract values. For example, the item with reference number C-2019-2020-Q2-00393 is listed as:

Procurement Identification Number: 3000696225 Vendor Name: PEMBINA INSTITUTE Contract Date: 2019-09-19 Economic Object Code: 341 Description of work: Communications research services Contract Period Start Date: 2019-09-19 Contract Period End Date or Delivery Date: 2019-12-13 Contract Value: $33,900.00

The payment for communications research services is not a grant. It is a service.

All of the items I referenced yesterday are listed in the same way. They do not just look like contracts or smell like contracts or sound like contracts, they are reported as contracts.

As I said yesterday, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion and I am now prepared to amend the motion to also refer the misleading statements of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a deliberately misleading statement presented to the House by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I asked the minister, on December 5, 2019, if his department had granted any contracts to the Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017. This request was made through written Question No. 50.

The minister's answer was:

Natural Resources Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canada Energy Regulator, and the Northern Pipeline Agency have not granted any contracts to the Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017.

If you look online, Mr. Speaker, at the government's proactive disclosure report available through the open government portal, it lists eight contracts, all awarded by the Department of Natural Resources, and all awarded to the Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017.

I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, of the ruling of Speaker Jerome on December 6, 1978. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie question of privilege after the member for Northumberland—Durham was assured by the solicitor general that as a matter of policy, the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of anyone.

In testimony before the McDonald commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one which had been concealed from ministers. The member claimed that this statement clearly conflicted with the information he had received from the then solicitor general some years earlier.

The response by the Minister of Natural Resources to my written question claimed that no contracts had been granted to the Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017. That same minister then provided conflicting information online, as I stated earlier.

Another example of a prima facie case involving conflicting information provided by a minister can be found at pages 8581-2 of the Debates of February 1, 2002. The Speaker was concerned that despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence stated that he had no intention of misleading the House, contradictory statements were made by the minister, and the records were left with two different versions of events.

On March 9, 2011, the Speaker considered a matter where it was alleged that the minister of international co-operation made misleading statements in committee and the House. The Speaker noted that a standing committee had made material available that could be measured against other material, including statements in the House and answers to oral and written questions. He said that the statements made by the minister had, at the very least, caused confusion. He then decided to allow the member to propose his motion to the House referring to recent precedent and mindful of a ruling by Speaker Jerome to the effect that in case of doubt on a question, the Speaker should leave it to the House to decide.

I point out that this is not a simple matter of the government just deciding not to give an answer to a written question, but a matter of a minister deciding to deliberately deny an answer by providing the wrong answer to the House while at the same time exposing this deception by providing the real answer elsewhere.

On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled:

While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member....

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to touch on the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay yesterday, because it is relevant to my question of privilege. The member argued that the information he received from the Minister of Justice regarding the legal costs of fighting indigenous children at the Human Rights Tribunal was misleading and that the minister should be held in contempt of the House.

The member brought to the attention of the Speaker other information provided by the minister to another source that was significantly different from the answer he received through his written question.

The member also asked the Speaker to apply the test used by Speakers laid out on page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which clearly states:

...when it is alleged that a Member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House....

I want to go on record as supporting the hon. member's question of privilege and let him know that I share his frustration with a government that consistently displays a dismissive attitude toward Parliament and its members, a course that ought to be corrected in the early days of this Parliament. One way to do that is to allow this matter to be considered by the members of the House.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to measure the content of the answer given by the Minister of Natural Resources to my written question against the information the same minister provided in his proactive report. If this gives you any doubt or causes you confusion, then I urge you to leave it to the House to decide, as Speakers Milliken, Jerome and many others have done in the past under these circumstances.

When you are ready to allow this matter to be put to the House, Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, not only do we have people blocking pipelines around the country, we have them here in this particular House.

What has been lost in the discussion, as far as aluminum is concerned when it comes to production and distribution, is who the global competitors of Canadian aluminum are now and how confident we are that we can trust those competitors to play by the rules. Since aluminum sourced in Canada is some of the most environmentally and ethically sourced on the planet, how can we effectively leverage this green aluminum at the global-conscious level? If we do that and are prepared to help the people of Quebec, we then have to have them understand that the strides that have been made in Alberta for all of the energy sources have been amazing.

Why do the Liberals not spend a little time paying attention to what is real, and look at the people around the world who are destroying this planet?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, one of the things one should recognize is that in the CETA there were discussions between the dairy industry and the government, and they went forward so that they understood what was happening. They understood, as well, that there was going to be money put aside to backstop for any damage that might possibly have occurred because of the agreement. The dairy producers indicated that they thought that if they got this market, they would have an opportunity and would not even need to go into that, or certainly might not have to take all of it.

That disappeared when the Liberals took over. Now we are in a situation where they have given away even more concessions to the United States: class 6 and 7 milk and other issues concerning overproduction or production that we might have, if we wanted to sell baby formula around the world.

Those are the kinds of things that happened on the dairy front, and I think that is significant. I will leave it at that.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, sadly, the current government has done all it can to make things difficult for the Canadian producers and our Canadian trade people. Yes, there are some fantastic folks who are working on behalf of Canada, but unfortunately, they take direction from the Prime Minister and his trade people in his party.

Sadly, it has caused us problems. The latest statement from the wheat growers estimates that market losses in the last 36 months, as the result of non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the six countries that I mentioned, amount to $3.7 billion. That is the type of thing that we are talking about.

No, making a show of oneself in an international scene is not something that Canadians are proud of.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address the House in formal debate, let me first thank the amazing citizens of Red Deer—Mountain View for their support during the last election. None of us makes it to this place on our own. From that perspective, I wish not only to recognize the numerous volunteers who have supported me, but also my devoted family who has stood beside me all along the way. My wife Judy, our son Devin, our daughter Megan, our son-in-law Hanno and our grandchildren Julian, Serena and Conrad are my inspiration for my service to my community.

I have been blessed to have so many wonderful people guide me along my political journey. Over the past 12 years, I have continually felt that same sense of duty and honour each time I enter this chamber. I reflect upon the love, passion, desires and counsel my parents, brothers, family, colleagues and friends have taught me, and I strive to live up to the honour they have bestowed upon me by allowing me to serve as their representative.

During the last Parliament, I was honoured to serve on the international trade committee. Committee members had a unique view of the negotiation process and numerous opportunities to meet with parliamentarians from around the world, including our American neighbours.

I was also honoured to accompany Prime Minister Harper to London in the final days of the CETA negotiations, where discussions with Canadian producers, manufacturers and distributors looking to do business with their European counterparts took place.

Canada is a trading nation. As Conservatives, we truly are the party of trade. This was obvious from the respect that Prime Minister Harper commanded as he spoke with global leaders. It saddens me to hear how the current Liberal government continually tries to minimize the great work done by our former government and how it desperately tries to weave its way into the international trade narrative.

When it comes to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, the current government was handed CETA on a silver platter. All the Prime Minister had to do was retrieve the ball the Harper government had hit over the fence for the walk-off home run, and sign it.

The government's insistence that it reopen parts of the agreement caused serious confusion with our trading partners and showed inconsistencies and weaknesses of which other signatories were quick to take advantage. This became the opening that encouraged one of those European partners, Italy, to initiate unsubstantiated, non-tariff trade barriers against Canadian durum wheat. Ironically, its ploy was to demonize us for herbicide use. This came from a region that uses three to six times the amount of herbicide our Canadian farmers do. Because the current government had no strategy or ability to help our farmers, the rest of the world saw this administration as weak.

Canadian farmers once again took it on the chin when the government chose to tweet in Arabic about internal issues in Saudi Arabia, which had always previously been dealt with professionally through proper diplomatic channels.

Similarly unexplainable behaviour by the Prime Minister created a near disaster with Vietnam at a time when tensions were high after the U.S. pulled out of TPP discussions. Because the TPP was a template for a renewed North American trade agreement and was so close to being a reality in July 2015, it was with disbelief that we saw the Prime Minister once again put our position in jeopardy by creating a scene during these negotiations. Whether it was the entire reason or not, the consequence is that we have another non-tariff trade barrier with Vietnam that once again affects our agricultural exports.

Then we had our problems with India. The trade committee happened to be in Malaysia on the last leg of an ASEAN trade tour when the Prime Minister's Indian antics hit the global news wire. To say that all of us were embarrassed would be an understatement. If it had just been the costume party, that would have been bad enough, but revelations about his guest list and the snubbing of the Indian prime minister went beyond the pale.

Canada had always had agreements with India regarding our pulse exports, but these agreements needed constant vigilance. The government dropped the ball, and all of a sudden we had an international incident: another non-tariff trade barrier that put our Canadian pulse producers in jeopardy. This multi-billion dollar market became another casualty of a disjointed government strategy that lacked both knowledge and direction.

Sadly, Canadians are no longer surprised by these types of unforced errors from the Prime Minister. This has also been the underpinning of his attitude with our southern neighbours. This was obvious from the Prime Minister's confrontational commentary once he thought the American president was out of earshot. His irresponsible statements inflamed our relationship with the United States at a time when we should have been addressing solvable irritants with our southern neighbours.

There may have been a sense of bravado at the PMO, but the result was that the U.S. administration lost its respect for its traditional ally and stopped listening to us.

This heightened the problems associated with the stalled steel and aluminum tariffs, slowed any action on softwood lumber, and in the new NAFTA, solidified their entrenched position on dairy.

The issues that we have with China today are complex and I wish our diplomatic team success as it deals with these concerns. On the trade file, the concerns we have today have been exacerbated by the government's global, knee-jerk response to serious trade issues and the serious diplomatic missteps that have been a hallmark of the government.

If Canada would not stand up to the non-tariff issues of the countries I previously mentioned, then the Chinese government was pretty confident that we would not stand up to its import restrictions either. Canola, pork and beef were to become pawns in this debate. With the present developments with the U.S.A.-China agreement, we find ourselves on the outside looking in. Quite frankly, neither of these important trading partners has time for us. No longer are we that soft middle power that both our U.S. neighbours and the Chinese government would seek counsel from when issues arose. The egos of the leaders and administration of all three countries now dominate the discussion and as Canadians, we suffer the most.

Where does this leave us with the new NAFTA? We have always had strong relationships with our southern neighbours and we must continue to value these trusted partners through a strong, well-thought-out free trade agreement. However, while doing so, we must always think of our Canadian workers and their combined expertise, our manufacturers and their ability to compete with Canadian raw materials, our farmers and their world-class food production, and our natural resource industry and its respected environmentally friendly footprint.

These are the people, and the industries in which they toil, that any free trade agreement must consider. In our present national discussions, we hear a lot of talk about the environmental practices of our mining, oil and gas, agriculture, forestry and other industrial users and naively think that this matters to the rest of the world.

As a western Canadian, I would love it if we would use our environmental record as a lever for global acceptance of best practices and that as a nation we would champion this expertise so that the world would take notice. Sadly, our global competitors that pile on when it comes to natural resource development have found allies with anti-development actors that have infiltrated political parties, honest ecological activists and inculcated our education system. All this to portray our natural resource industries in a negative light.

In Alberta, we did not look for sweetheart deals from the federal government to allow our heavy emitters to put actual pollutants into the air or to get permission to pour raw sewage into our rivers. Instead, we set up strong environmental conditions that made sense for our geography, that recognized our natural resource advantages from forestry and agriculture, and our desire to build on all resources for the betterment of the nation. We wanted to do our part.

Do any of these things seem to matter to the eco-activists that will do all they can to shutter in our resources while ignoring the blatant economic sabotage and environmental disasters that are practised by our competitors? No, but we in the west still forge ahead despite these attacks because we know that this is how we can help build a nation.

We will stand up for the green aluminum producers from Quebec because we are proud of what they produce, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our oil and gas industry because by doing so we can help displace poorly regulated and environmental suspect energy from other global suppliers, because it is the right thing to do. We will stand up for our forestry workers and we will stand up for our great farmers and ranchers who produce the best food in the world with the softest environmental footprint, because it is the right thing to do.