Francis Drouin

[Emergency Debate, February 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the wonderful member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I know he will have a lot to say very soon.

I want to thank the member for Lakeland for initiating this emergency debate. I know she is passionate about this issue and has asked a lot of questions about it. She is only doing what all of us in this House would do when representing our constituents, and I salute her for that.

I understand that she is disappointed by the decision of Teck Resources to withdraw its application for the Frontier mine project, but proponents make business decisions every day and we may not always like them. In this case, Frontier had the potential to create good-paying jobs during construction and would have created new wealth and opportunities across the country. It would have generated new revenues for all levels of government. Perhaps, most importantly it carried the support of all 14 surrounding first nations communities. That was no small accomplishment, particularly in this challenging time when we must find innovative ways to balance economic growth, environmental protection and indigenous participation.

Indeed, even as Teck Resources acknowledged that it made a difficult decision based on its economic and operational interests, the company's CEO, Don Lindsay, also identified the larger issue at play. He wrote that Frontier:

...surfaced a broader debate over climate change and Canada’s role in addressing it. It is our hope that withdrawing from the process will allow Canadians to shift to a larger and more positive discussion about the path forward.

Teck Resources is right. We need to continue to have a positive discussion, to search for common ground and move ahead as a country, which is also why now is not the time for taking sides, drawing lines or fanning divisions. That has never served Canadians well in the building of our country and it is not helpful now. Instead, we need to engage in constructive dialogue here in this House and across the country, because we are at a pivotal moment in our history, grappling with national issues that are not easy. On the one hand, the federal government has a core responsibility to ensure Canada can develop its abundant natural resources, get them to market and support good middle-class jobs. That is why major infrastructure projects like new pipelines to tidewater are essential. They create access to new markets and better prices for valuable Canadian resources. On the other hand, we also know that responsible resource development is only possible when we earn public trust by addressing local, environmental and indigenous peoples' concerns. Our government is committed to meeting this dual challenge.

We passed legislation last year that specifically puts in place new rules to better protect our environment and communities, while making sure good projects are built to create good jobs for the middle class. There are literally hundreds of major resource projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars either under way or planned across Canada over the next decade. Dozens are in the oil sands and all would help to make Canada a global supplier of choice for the materials and finished projects that will drive a low-carbon future.

Canada's petroleum sector is part of that. It is a key contributor to employment and economic growth. It enriches communities in Alberta and across Canada. According to some of our most recent data, the oil and gas sector currently contributes about 8% to the national GDP and employs upward of 564,000 Canadians in direct and indirect jobs across the country, including indigenous communities. It is also an important partner in our climate change effort and our commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. That is worth emphasizing, because there is a persistent myth that petroleum-producing countries like Canada cannot be serious about climate change. I understand why that might be. There are some petro-states with dubious records on climate change, but Canada is not one of them. In fact, it is just the opposite. We are one of 77 countries to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050 and we intend to do it, just as we are doubling down to exceed our 2030 climate targets by putting a price on pollution, phasing out coal-powered electricity and making generational investments in clean energy, new technologies and green infrastructure, because many of the breakthroughs that will get us to where we want to go have yet to be invented or need a little help getting to market.

That is why we announced the winners of our breakthrough clean-energy solution initiative earlier this month as part of our efforts to bring the public and private sectors together to invest in potentially game-changing new technologies.

Canada's petroleum industry has been part of this energy transformation. For example, over the past decade Canada's petroleum sector has accounted for almost 70% of all private sector spending on R and D in energy innovation across the country. This includes the oil sands top 13 producers, which have been pooling their resources to fund more than a thousand distinct innovations and technologies.

Federal scientists in Devon have been working with industry on these advancements, and our government is investing $100 million to support the industry-led clean resource innovation network, which is aimed at making Canada's petroleum sector the cleanest in the world. I know we can get there. We are doing all of this because every climate change model suggests that we can meet our global targets while having cleaner oil and gas powering much of the world.

How is this possible? There are two points. First, fossil fuels currently account for just under 80% of the energy used around the globe. Second, even under scenarios in which we keep the planet from warming more than 1.5°, fossil fuels still account for 58% of our energy and oil production is still around 65 million barrels a day.

We can and should do even better than that. We should aim for less than a 1.5° rise, but my point is that fossil fuels will remain an important source of energy for a long time. Why should the best-in-class oil not come from Canada, from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador?

Let me be clear. That does not mean that we can carry on with business as usual. We cannot. Major changes are needed now. That is why we have a vision based on four pillars to make Canada a global leader in the clean-energy future.

The first is to enhance energy efficiency, because the best sources of energy are the ones we do not use. In fact, according to Efficiency Canada, conserving energy could take us 25% of the way to our Paris goals.

The second is to be using more clean power, particularly in energy-intensive sectors such as transportation and heating, as well as mining and petroleum extraction, so that we have the world's cleanest mills, mines and factories.

The third is to expand our use of low-carbon fuels, as many indigenous communities are doing by using biomass from forests as a source of both power and jobs.

The fourth pillar is producing the world's cleanest petroleum.

All of these are global game changers that will help accelerate a generational energy transformation. Canada can lead the way through the wealth of its land and the wisdom of its people. That is our vision. That is what our government is doing.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the government announced Canada's first-ever food policy, which aims to give everyone in Canada access to sufficient amounts of healthy food.

Every day, community organizations across Canada try to make a difference by improving access to healthy food. Through this policy, $50 million has been allocated to creating the local food infrastructure fund.

Could the minister update us on this program?

[The Environment, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last June, the House of Commons adopted a motion to declare a climate emergency. We all have a role to play in the fight against climate change.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage inform the House of how he intends to advance this fight in his portfolio?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, February 21st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

Given that my colleague once served as public safety minister, I should think he would be better informed than other MPs, myself included.

I wonder if he still believes in what he said on May 13, 2015:

“I have full confidence in the judgment of the RCMP. While respecting the operational independence of the RCMP...”

Does he still believe in those words today, as the current Minister of Public Safety does now?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I know how important the dairy industry is to her riding. The dairy industry is also very important to my riding.

I would like to remind the House that in 2008, under the former NAFTA, there was a milk protein issue in Canada. U.S. exports to Canada increased exponentially for 10 years. Americans or third parties who wanted to export to Canada found ways to circumvent the rules. Now, under the new NAFTA agreement, the other parties, both Canada and the U.S., must be notified.

Is that not a good thing for Canada's dairy sector?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Canada and Quebec produce excellent aluminum. I am fortunate to represent a riding that runs along the Quebec border. I always say that the sun rises east of Ontario.

If we ban aluminum from China or elsewhere, is my colleague prepared to say that we should ban other exports to China?

What the Bloc Québécois members are forgetting to say in their patriotic speeches is that if we ban other exports and imports to and from China, we will have to tell other manufacturers that we decided to favour a given sector and they will have to pay the price.

We protected 70% of aluminum production in Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions but I do not agree with him that we suddenly agreed with the United States on the sunset clause. It was 24 years ago. Does he agree with a clause from 24 years ago and does it still apply 24 years later?

The question that we must ask is whether a free trade agreement should evolve over so many years. I think as technology finds its way and evolves, it is just a smart thing to revise agreements every so many years, whether it is five years, 10, 15 or 20. It just makes sense. If the hon. member wants to get stuck in the past, we would still be promoting horsewhip manufacturing around here.

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

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had more than 30 seconds to address my colleagues in the House, I want to take this opportunity to thank my wife Kate, who supported me on the campaign trail and has been at my side ever since I started my career. I also want to say hello to my seven-month-old son, Léo-Xavier.

I mention him in the House because some members have done the same with their children. Family is important, and it makes all the difference when we are on the campaign trail or working in the House. I know that every member takes care of their family.

Naturally, I also have to mention my father Yves, my mother Nicole, and my brother Mathieu, who have helped me every step of the way. I also want to thank my parliamentary assistants, namely Martin, who has now gone on to bigger and better things, Louise, Line, Judith, Carole and Andrew. I want to thank them for their support.

The important thing to keep in mind about Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, is that we now have access to a market. MPs who are against the agreement can raise any argument they like, but we need to think about what is more important: a market made up of 35 million people or a market made up of 330 million people, not including Mexico? That is the important thing about this agreement.

Of course I want to talk about the importance of steel producers, a major presence in my riding that, in one municipality, accounts for 25% of the tax revenue. I can hardly imagine what would happen if the Government of Canada did not sign the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. I can hardly imagine what would happen to that municipality if 25% of its tax revenue disappeared overnight. That is something else each member should consider when the time comes to vote. Do members of the House want to do something that is good for the steel sector or not?

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister worked very hard on the new NAFTA, and it is a good agreement for all Canadians all over this country.

Obviously, we have to acknowledge its flaws. I cannot represent the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell without addressing those. In my riding we have dairy farmers, chicken and turkey producers, and egg producers. Supply management continues to be a very important issue to them.

The only thing I can tell them is that the work of an MP is to be present in the riding. That is what is important. When the government makes decisions, it would be easy to simply tell the producers without ever meeting them that everything will be fine.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs took the time to meet producers across the country and listen to their concerns.

It is true that we lost some market share. During negotiations around the agreement between Europe and Canada, it was not the Liberal government that was prepared to allow loopholes in supply management. It was the members who are currently seated across the way who, in 2013, were prepared to give up 1.5% of Canada's market share.

It was not the Liberal government that said it was willing to give up 3.25% of the market under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was the Conservative government that announced it had signed an agreement on October 5, 2015, at 11:59:59 p.m. The Conservatives threw out a number that did not make any sense to the dairy industry, which nevertheless accepted it without even consulting its farmers.

I think it is important to mention that we have a duty to consult Canadians, even if our party is the one in power. It is important to talk to producers, as I did. I met with some 300 dairy farmers who were against CETA, against the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and against the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. It is important to listen to them and to make their voices heard in the House of Commons. That is exactly what I am doing this evening.

Yes, we signed an agreement with Europe. Yes, we signed a trans-Pacific partnership agreement. Yes, we signed a new agreement with the United States and Mexico. However, yes, we are always going to listen to our dairy farmers, our chicken farmers, our turkey farmers and all of our supply-managed farmers. I can only reiterate how important it is to meet with all of the representatives of our agricultural sector across the country.

The agreement between Canada and the United States is important because it helps ensure market stability. My riding is home to a large steel producer, Ivaco. This company helps support our families by employing more than 400 people.

I cannot speak enough about the great work that the United Steelworkers are doing in representing their workers back home, but also the HEICO Corporation and Ivaco, which are doing a fantastic job representing our workers back home and making sure that they have stable, long-term employment.

If there is one thing I can say about Ivaco, it is that it changed leadership at some point and the unions have changed leadership at some point, but they have always cared and they have always put their differences aside to ensure that the families back home, whether they are in L'Original, Hawkesbury or Vankleek Hill, have a steady income and a company that they can believe in. I can assure families that Ivaco and the union have worked hard to ensure that investment remains at Ivaco. It is a great deal for L'Original, Hawkesbury or Alfred.

I have under two minutes left to address my colleagues. I know they are a little surprised by my speech.

Market stability is definitely something we must keep top of mind. The Bloc Québécois should listen to this. If we do not guarantee economic stability for our voters, our employers and all our families, what other option do we have?

In closing, I want to emphasize that the economic issues in my riding, my province and Canada are extremely important to me.

[Regional Economic Development, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association with local elected officials and a number of leaders from rural communities.

I heard about the challenges they faced after 10 years of neglect by the former Conservative government. They spoke about how important it is to have a real partner in Ottawa to make life in rural communities more affordable, no matter where someone lives.

Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development tell the House how this government is making targeted investments in rural regions?

[Retirement Congratulations, June 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize a constituent and long-time employee of the House of Commons. Mr. Gilles Gervais, the current assistant deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, is retiring after 35 years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for not giving him the order to drag me out of this place once in four years.

Mr. Gervais joined the House of Commons security services in 1985. Over the years, Gilles rose through the ranks of the House of Commons security services, and some might remember the years he spent as a sergeant in the gallery before accepting his current position, Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.

I would like to thank his wife, Susan, for sharing her husband with the House of Commons for 35 years.

Gilles, I hope you get to enjoy lots of time travelling and with family and plenty of sunshine at your Lac Gervais cottage. You deserve it. Thank you for 35 years of service.