Earl Dreeshen

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that the hon. member did talk about the $10 carbon tax that is coming now as it goes up to $50. Of course, the PBO's April 2018 economic outlook talked about that. It also talked about the cost as far as agriculture was concerned.

With the information that had actually come from the ag census 2016, as well as the national inventory report of 2017, where they took an average farm. I have the information on an average farm for Alberta and one for Prince Edward Island. Basically, the costs for a farm in Alberta of about 855 acres and a farm in P.E.I. of about 323 acres, starts off in 2018 in Alberta that it will cost $3,464, and it continues up to 2022 to $17, 321 that it will cost that farm. In P.E.I. it goes from $2,500 this coming year up to $12,446.

The Liberals always say there is an opportunity for that to then go to the consumer. However, that is not exactly how agriculture works. It is going to stay on the farm. They are the ones who are going to be dealing with that. I am sure if a person did a little extra work, they could probably figure out what the actual costs will be for every family as well, but these are usually farm families who are associated with this. They will also have the added numbers that we are not able to get from the government.

I wonder if the member could talk about the damage that is going to happen to farm families and farmers in general, without talking about some of the other talking points that they have, and how they are helping out in the farming industry by dealing with environmental issues.

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support Bill S-218, an act respecting Latin American heritage month.

My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands spoke so eloquently about Senator Enverga. I, too, will speak to some of great things that he meant to this place and to his community.

Many of our colleagues have mentioned that this bill is one of the many lasting legacies of our friend and colleague, the late Senator Tobias Enverga. Bill S-218 also owes its continued success in this chamber to the tireless efforts of our colleague from Thornhill.

Senator Enverga was a tireless champion of the many cultural and ethnic groups that now call Canada home. As an immigrant himself, he knew the challenges of starting a new life in a foreign country. As a senator, he was always quick to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and enormous contributions of new Canadians as they settled into their new lives here in Canada.

Senator Enverga first brought this bill forward in the Senate. He had a similar bill before the House in the last Parliament, which was dropped because of the election in 2015. For the current iteration, the senator wanted to reshape it and expand it to include a few more important things. The original bill was called Hispanic heritage month. For Bill S-218, he consciously changed the name and the characterization to Latin American heritage month.

In previous speeches and debates on this bill, the late senator referenced other heritage months that moved him to propose one for Canadians of Latin American descent.

When Senator Enverga first spoke to Bill S-218, he reminded colleagues that he came to Canada as an immigrant, one of many in the upper chamber fortunate to have been welcomed in Canada. He referred to the spectrum of celebrations held across Canada by communities of various national, ethnic, and linguistic origins. He highlighted the two decades-plus annual celebration of Black History Month, recognized by the House in 1995 and by the Senate 13 years later. He explained that the designation of Black History Month has done much to educate and to familiarize Canadians with the stories and the history of an important demographic too often absent in our school curricula. He mentioned as well Asian Heritage Month, passed and proclaimed in 2002 and marked annually ever since, when non-Asian Canadians learn of and experience the sounds, entertainment, and tastes of Asia, and the contribution that Asian Canadians have brought to Canadian society.

Senator Enverga argued that those were just two wonderful examples of designated heritage months, to which he believed a Latin American heritage month should be added. He wanted to highlight the unique Latin American culture and the ever-changing landscapes, not only in Central and South America but also in the Caribbean, given the centuries of evolutions and revolutions and the many nuanced geopolitical sensitivities from the region's colourful history.

This legislation would essentially recognize the many significant contributions to Canada's social, economic, cultural, and political fabric made by Canada's dynamic Latin American community.

For the purpose of this bill, Senator Enverga anticipated the widest possible interpretation so that Bill S-218 could cover those whose identity is Spanish and Portuguese from South America and Central America, as well as those whose heritage is from the francophone and Hispanic Caribbean islands. Using that broad and very inclusive measure, we can see that Canadians of Latin American origin can be found far and wide across our great country from coast to coast to coast. In the absence of absolute census numbers covering that broad and somewhat imprecise measure, we might estimate a probable demographic well above half a million men, women, and children here in Canada.

What we know for certain is that the Latin American community is one of the fastest-growing cultural groups in Canada today. Statistics Canada reports that between 1996 and 2001 the number of individuals reporting Latin American origins rose by 32%, at a time when the overall Canadian population grew by only 4%.

These numbers are particularly interesting given that there was only a very small Latin American population in Canada before the 1960s. It was in the 1960s and 1970s that Canada recorded the first significant migration of Latin Americans. Sadly, their motivation in too many cases was to escape social and economic turmoil, dictatorships, and conflict.

Most recently, another wave is fleeing Venezuela's corrupt and repressive socialist regimes under first Hugo Chavez and now the brutal Nicolas Maduro. These Latin Americans represent a significant loss to the countries they have left, but they have been a welcome addition in Canada. Their education, their skills, and their adaptability have been a great benefit to Canada's labour market, to our economy, and to our culture.

Most Canadians of Latin American origin live in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, with almost half making their home in Ontario. Canada's Latin American population is also young. Statistics Canada tells us that almost 50% of those with Latin America origins living in Canada are under the age of 25. Seniors make up less than 5% of those reporting Latin American origins, compared with 12% of all other Canadians.

Virtually all Canadians of Latin American origin are functional in one of Canada's two official languages. They are slightly more likely than the rest of our population to have university degrees. Statistics Canada also tells us that working-age adults of Latin American origins are somewhat more likely to be employed than the rest of Canada's adult population, fully 64% of adults of Latin American origin.

Latin America as a region is considered the fourth-largest source of immigration to Canada. However, in stark contrast to the United States, the demographic is not measured or appreciated nearly as much as its counterparts in the U.S.A. Senator Enverga's bill, Bill S-218, stands not only to deepen our appreciation and celebration of our Latin American community, but to precisely measure the actual numbers and its regional contributions to our economy.

[Member spoke in Spanish]

[English]

The Latino community in Alberta hosts an annual fiesta called “Fiestaval”. Fiestaval is a family-oriented, multicultural arts and entertainment festival, highlighting Latin American music, food, and culture. Two years ago, I attended the Fiestaval event when it was held in Red Deer. This year's Fiestaval will be held in Calgary from July 20 to 22, and it will take place in the heart of downtown Calgary at the Olympic Plaza.

The Latin culture is also close to me and my family. A four-hour flight from Calgary does take me to Ottawa, but a similar four-hour flight takes me to Mazatlan. It is the same time zone so it is much better that way. We have had opportunities over the years to bring our family to Mexico, so much so that my daughter Megan not only picked up a love of the culture but also the language. While at the University of Alberta, she volunteered at the Edmonton women's shelter for immigrant women and later spent five years teaching Spanish in Sylvan Lake.

When I came to Ottawa in 2008, I was honoured to be part of ParlAmericas. Through that organization, as well as Asia Pacific and participation in OAS meetings and various bilateral discussions, I was able to use my love of the Latin American culture to serve not just my community but our country as well. Panama, Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Colombia are but a few of the countries where Canadians have had a great influence, and this relationship with our nation is reflected here at home.

I recall specifically being in Colombia for bilateral talks at the same time that the discussions were taking place in Havana between Colombia and FARC and ELN. We had discussions with civil society representatives as they went back and forth to Havana. They said their children had been taken to terrorist camps, some had been killed, some had been raped, and all types of things had happened to them, but somewhere along the line they had to stop the 60 years of terrible things happening in their communities. They were able to deal with that. That is always going to stay with me.

I hope my colleagues will support this well-thought-out bill. Together, we can ensure that Senator Enverga's legacy and advocacy lives on every time we celebrate Latin American heritage month.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, there was a piece of information in the PBO's April 2018 economic and fiscal outlook. It was looking at the impact of the carbon pricing levy as it rises to $50 per tonne in 2022, and the projection is that the real GDP would be about 0.5% lower in 2022 compared with a scenario that did not have a carbon pricing levy. The reason I mention that is that there was an analysis in that same article that talked about the cost of a carbon tax on farming. If we compare an average farm in Alberta, 855 seeded acres of cropland, the average cost per farm at $25 would be $6,631 a year. If we take P.E.I. as another example, it would be $5,400 per year. These are the things happening to farm operations, which do not have the opportunity to pass that cost on to the consumer. If we take it to the full $50, it is double those amounts. These are the concerns.

We have heard the Liberal minister talk about how farmers were not concerned about a carbon tax. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on the actual cost to our agricultural communities.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's discussion, especially on clean tech. One of the issues is that there has been a great push to eliminate coal as an energy source. We have some of the cleanest coal operations in the world, and we have the technology that is reducing the greenhouse gases associated with it. However, now that the industry is under pressure, those who were innovative as far as greenhouse gas reductions are concerned they are going to take that technology and send it around the world. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

The other point is that within five or six miles of my place, there are a whole bunch of wind mills. The question is how long it is it going to take to get the cuts in greenhouse gases versus how much it cost to build them in the first place.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comment, her discussion about the FCM, and some of the statements that were presented by individuals at the time.

Sometimes people get it wrong. I used to listen to David Suzuki as well, but I do not anymore. Sometimes we have to find out what the motivation is between individuals and the statements they are making. Certainly we have to make sure that we are protecting the environment, but we also have to make sure that we are able to expand our economy in such a way that we will be able to have resource money to do the kinds of things Canadians need to have done, such as build their hospitals, build their schools, and make sure that we have a safety net. That is the critical part.

We cannot just say that we should shut the country and let other countries do it. We know that they are going to, and we are going to be the Boy Scouts. That is not necessary.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that can happen, especially being involved in agriculture. I remember a time when we got six inches of rain in about an hour. That changed a lot of waterways. Those are the sorts of things that happen. It is ongoing. These issues that occur are ongoing. Farmers have to be able to deal with them. They have to know whether they can go back in and rehabilitate that area. Sometimes it might takes years before that can happen.

These are the issues that are always there. The member had an example of a great project that had an opportunity to move forward, with all good intentions for the environment, and then they simply had someone with a badge come over and say, “No. You're not going to be allowed to do that. We're going to make sure that we shut that down.”

That is the cause of uncertainty we see throughout Canada and is one of the reasons we are having so much difficulty convincing people that this is a place they can invest in. We have to look at this. We have to look for certainty. I think that is critical. That is a great example that was just presented.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, and there are some consequences.

In the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to strengthen the role of parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that committees would be independent, giving them the ability to better scrutinize legislation and “provide reliable, non-partisan research” through their reporting to Parliament. Two years after the election, the same Liberals introduced Bill C-68, legislation that would bring in a number of changes to the Fisheries Act without considering a single expert's advice from stakeholders or the committee study of the bill.

The proposed changes ignore some of the major findings from a report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that was presented to the House in February 2017. On September 19, 2016, the fisheries committee agreed to the following motion, which stated:

...review and study the scope of application of the Fisheries Act, and specifically the serious harm to fish prohibition; how the prohibition is implemented to protect fish and fish habitat; the capacity of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement; the definitions of serious harm to fish and commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries; the use of regulatory authorities under the Fisheries Act; and other related provisions of the act, and provide its recommendations in a report to the House....

The committee convened 10 meetings in Ottawa from October 31 to December 12, 2016, before presenting the report to the House of Commons in February 2017. Overall, the committee heard testimony from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submitted briefing notes. It was a comprehensive and fact-based study with experts from almost every province putting forward policy suggestions. If the government were truly committed to strengthening the role of parliamentary committees, this study should have formed the basis for Bill C-68 with all of that consultation.

The Liberals essentially ignored the committee's report, including one of its most important recommendations, which stated:

Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD [the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat] due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.

Following hours of testimony from the 50 witnesses and briefing notes from more than 180 associations, groups, and individuals, it was agreed that a return to HADD was not ideal, and that, should the government return to HADD, it would need to be refined and reviewed. Bill C-68 ignores this recommendation and introduces a return to HADD.

HADD is referred to in proposed subsection 35(1) of the legislation, which states, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” Essentially, this means that any sort of development that could be harmful to, alter, disrupt, or destroy any fish habitat could be stopped or not approved by the government, taking us back to one of the major issues we have seen, especially with municipalities and the concerns they had when they tried to make any type of alterations. They would have to go to DFO and the provincial governments to make sure they were satisfying conditions that they knew, on the ground, were not necessary. It added costs.

I had the opportunity earlier to question the member for Cape Breton—Canso about the concerns municipalities had. He indicated that they are getting so much money that they really do not care whether or not that is the case. Of course, I think they would question just how quickly that money is coming out, but the concerns they have are still there. Going back to a system that does not respect the rights of communities and municipalities, and the concerns about agriculture and different groups that some members discussed earlier, it is no wonder we are having trouble getting different types of projects off the ground. This is a major concern, and hopefully I will have a chance to discuss that later.

As the committee report noted, this section was applied inconsistently and it was unclear. The concern is always that developers are often bogged down in these battles over the vague guidelines. For example, there was no clearly defined outline of what constituted a fish habitat, or what was seen to be harmful, in the previous version of the act. There was no clear path forward, and HADD became an obstacle to development, growth, and investment within the industry. It was becoming a consistent roadblock for projects and growth.

We need to listen to expert advice, instead of politically motivated advice. In the debate over the bill's provisions, stakeholders have been flagging this proposed change as problematic. The reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and undue delay. This can very well discourage investment at a time when Canadians and Canadian businesses need it the most. The key component here is certainly.

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to be with the trade committee in southeast Asia, and in some of the discussions we had with fund managers, we wondered how we could, in good conscience, tell people to come to Canada and invest. That is shameful when we think of the tens of billions in project dollars that have already left, and the fact that people are starting to say that Canada is not a place for an investment dollar. It is not as though an oil and gas project is not going to be developed. Otherwise, it will be developed, but it will be developed somewhere else in competition with us. For those who suggest that this is going to help with greenhouse gases and so on, this just changes it from an opportunity for us to use our natural resources, to some other place taking advantage of that.

Certainly, the same situation has occurred with the Kinder Morgan discussion, in which the government used $4.5 billion to purchase a 65-year-old pipeline, and gave that company the opportunity to go someplace else to build pipelines to bring someone else's product into eastern Canada. How is that ever going to change anything?

That is the major concern I have, and people see this as one of the major issues with government overreach, which is certainly the case here.

Let me be clear: Conservatives wholeheartedly support the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the act brought a fine balance between encouraging growth in the industry and responsible conservation. Our previous changes to the act also enacted provisions that provided transparency in the decision-making process, and provided a level of certainty to those invested in the act. Unlike the Liberals, Conservatives listen to the people on the ground, instead of importing ideas and policies from Liberal insiders, foreign interest groups, and radical eco-activists. As Conservatives, we take our cues from Canadians, and we understand the importance of finding the right balance.

It was for this specific reason that in 2012, our former Conservative government removed HADD and replaced it with the following:

35 (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

This definition was much clearer, and was more universally accepted because it struck the important balance required between development and conservation.

There are also changes within this bill that would undermine transparency and due process by allowing the ministers to withhold critical information from interested proponents. How is that transparent?

Another change I am worried about is the fact that the bill would allow the minister to establish an advisory panel with taxpayer-funded members and panellists, but does not set the guidelines or limitations for its use. Without any guidelines, these panels may be subject to abuse, especially if they are established by politically motivated individuals.

On behalf of the many Canadians and industry experts against the new changes, I join my Conservative colleagues in urging the Liberal government to listen to expert advice and reverse this senseless change, revisit the return of HADD, and amend the legislation to ensure that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand and not head to head.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, that was an extraordinarily adequate speech. I appreciate that.

When there was consultation, one thing we heard so much about was assistance for municipalities, because the legislation that was in place was causing so much difficulty for them. They were the people we were listening to in 2012.

I am just curious whether the member has talked to municipalities about what the added pressure is going to be based on these changes.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his address, the member mentioned that this gave the Minister of Environment an opportunity to tell proponents quickly whether or not the projects could go ahead. Therefore, it is very similar to the process the government had with northern gateway, where it would quickly tell them that it was not going ahead. The same thing happened with energy east when it indicated it could go upstream and downstream. That was put it in there so that we would find out whether it could go ahead.

Then the government decided that it was going to put money into a project that was not necessary. Therefore, we have a situation where I am sure the government said, “Houston, we no longer have a problem”, and this money will go into other countries so that we will import oil from the east coast. Has the government done an environmental assessment of the effects worldwide of the actions it has just taken?

[Red Deer & District Chamber of Commerce, May 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Grande Prairie, the Red Deer & District Chamber of Commerce was honoured as the Alberta Chambers of Commerce 2017 Large Chamber of the Year. The Red Deer & District Chamber and its members all work tirelessly to help build a vibrant community in my riding.

Recently, the chamber, in partnership with Westerner Park, hosted the most successful agri-trade to date, attracting thousands of attendees and adding over $250 million to our local economy. That partnership also resulted in a successful bid to host the Canadian Finals Rodeo in Red Deer for the next 10 years. This event will bring an additional $25 million every year.

The chamber's advocacy campaigns also helped local farmers and businesses as it lobbied the government to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly back in 2011. This year, the chamber's advocacy for Red Deer College resulted in a successful bid to pursue its degree granting status.

Today, I am proud to congratulate our Red Deer & District Chamber and CEO Robin Bobocel on this well-deserved recognition.