Madam Speaker, I was wondering why the member is in favour of using public funds to give to foreign companies so they can then privatize public infrastructure. I am wondering about the logic behind his supporting this measure.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 35% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 15th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I was wondering why the member is in favour of using public funds to give to foreign companies so they can then privatize public infrastructure. I am wondering about the logic behind his supporting this measure.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 14th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member was head of the chamber of commerce in his community, which again shows something that is true, that the NDP understands business.
The Liberal side of the House only understands how to accommodate foreign oil companies running pipelines through first nations reserves without consent. That is a big problem, and they are going to hear from British Columbians.
The company itself has said that it would only provide 50 permanent jobs to British Columbians. However, the company has said in its National Energy Board application that we can get more jobs because local people can clean up the spills that the pipeline makes. It is right in its application. It is insulting. The project is insulting. Frankly, the government's approach to negotiating these projects is very insulting.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 14th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, that is the bafflegab we get from the Liberals. They are on the precipice of making a decision with the minister saying that they do not need to meet the requirements that have been set down by the courts, in terms of consent from first nations, to put in their infrastructure projects. They can do whatever infrastructure projects they want, but they need consent to do it in British Columbia. They can ram projects through other parts of the country, but I am here to say that I stand up for British Columbia. I stand up for British Columbia first nations. I abide by Supreme Court rulings. The member should do the same.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 November 14th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill. There has been a lot of talk during this debate about pipelines as it connects to the budget and to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act. I would like to continue this line of discussion.
I want to call the House's attention to a statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources recently in The Globe and Mail in which he said that the federal government would not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations when the government decided whether to allow Kinder Morgan to build a new crude oil pipeline through British Columbia. That is really important. For the minister to say that he does not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations is essentially breaking a pact and is going to lead to a lot of trouble.
The minister is adopting the same “ram it through reserves” approach that the Conservatives had in the last Parliament. This attitude threatens to undermine careful work undertaken by others to move ahead with other types of economic development in British Columbia through genuine co-management arrangements with first nations.
I am not sure if many folks in the Liberal Party are aware that across Canada, except for British Columbia, we have treaties with first nations and this has allowed different relationships to develop with first nations in other parts of the country. However, in British Columbia, most of the territory is not covered by treaties. This means we are unique in this sense and it is a very important distinction that is often lost on governments in this place.
When British Columbia was settled by Europeans, Governor Douglas started signing treaties for first nations but then abandoned this and essentially divided up first nations and territories and gave it to interested parties without consent. Those treaties were never developed, although we have had a couple in modern times. Still the vast majority of British Columbia is not covered by treaties and this is very important. Court case after court case, from the Supreme Court and lower courts, has said that in order to proceed with projects, there has to be full, prior and informed consent from first nations.
The Minister of Natural Resources seems to totally ignore this. Perhaps some people might forgive him because he is a rookie MP who is unfamiliar with British Columbia, but even the most basic research reveals the folly of his approach. The threat it is going to have not only to our communities but also the business communities that want to do other projects and the trust that we built with first nations through co-management is now under threat because of this “ram it through reserves” approach by the minister.
Court cases such as Delgamuukw and the Haida decisions, and other unanimous Supreme Court decisions, recognize and reinforce the inherent rights of first nations to determine what happens within their traditional territories. Again, the only way that these projects, or any project, can proceed in these territories is through informed consent.
The most fruitful way forward for resource development in British Columbia is through true co-management. It is weird for investment bankers to call an NDP member of Parliament, but that is exactly what has happened to me. They have read the comments from the natural resources minister and they want to know what is it up with the guy. They want to know whether he knows this will jeopardize the projects on which they are currently working.
Co-management moves beyond mere consent to full partnership, which requires a tremendous amount of trust and good faith government-to-government negotiations and bringing in mature private sector partners to make these deals work. We are seeing this in other projects in the province, but if the Minister of Natural Resources and his colleagues decide to ram through a pipeline and ignore the need for this consent, then they are looking for a pile of trouble.
The amateurism of the Minister of Natural Resources reminds me of when the newly elected B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell held an ill-advised and racist treaty negotiations referendum in 2002. In his arrogance, Premier Campbell clumsily attempted to use a populist measure to override inherent indigenous rights. This approach to resource development in British Columbia angered B.C. first nations. It was perhaps best captured by a flaming arrow landing in a canoe full of paper ballots. It deeply damaged indigenous and non-indigenous relations in our province.
Gordon Campbell was forced to do a humiliating policy pirouette, or a 360, when business leaders informed him his actions undermined their attempt to negotiate resource development agreements with first nations, and it increased business uncertainty and decreased their willingness to invest in mines, forestry, and energy projects.
At that point, Premier Campbell was also a rookie, just like the natural resources minister. He blundered through his first year or two in office and set back first nation indigenous-non-indigenous relations by years. Then the business community reeled the premier in and told him he had to change this.
Kinder Morgan is going to love it, but I think the government is going to get calls from other companies asking it what it is doing. They are going to tell it that it is making a huge mistake. For 50 jobs, which is what the job count will be in British Columbia, it will put in jeopardy all kinds of other projects, and that is a mistake.
Here we go again. The minister has decided he can push a pipeline through the territories of over 100 first nations, most of which do not have treaties with the Crown, and 15 reserves.
The minister has said that he does not need prior and informed consent to push a pipeline through 15 first nation reserves. What will that do to British Columbia? This is a massive problem and a massive mistake by the minister.
If the minister wants to get infrastructure built, this is not the way forward. In fact, he has to learn to treat British Columbia differently when it comes to dealing with indigenous people.
Here is how this project plays out in the minister's mind. Alberta gets its pipeline, Kinder Morgan gets approximately $5 million per day in revenues, and the minister gets to gloat in Ottawa that he is better than the Conservatives in ramming through pipelines. However, this is what the minister is overlooking. British Columbia gets a mere 50 permanent jobs, according to the company, from this new pipeline. As well, it will have the joy of having to police thousands of temporary foreign workers admitted by the company that is going to build this pipeline, using steel from China.
This is a really bad deal for British Columbia. The arrogance of the government trying to push it through first nation territories without their consent is going to hamper other resource development and other development projects in our province.
The other thing we get with this pipeline is a hugely increased risk of land and water-based bitumen spills, with little or no capacity to clean them up. What British Columbians would be well aware of, although those folks from the government may not be, is that we just had a small spill in Bella Bella, which has not been cleaned up. This so-called world-class marine spill cleanup, or whatever it is, is about two guys in a rowboat. This is not world class. This is Ottawa sacrificing British Columbia for the ego of a minister.
By making this speech, people may not believe that I am pro-resource development person. Members can laugh at me if they want, but if we talk to any company in British Columbia, they know a bad deal when they see one, and they know this is a bad deal for British Columbia.
Businesspeople know only to take good deals. This is a bad deal for British Columbia. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals can laugh at me, but British Columbians know this is a bad deal. Anybody who has looked at this knows it is a bad deal. A company makes $5 million a day and British Columbia gets 50 jobs and has to clean up the spill is a bad deal. The worst part of it is that we are risking a very long process of building trust with first nations within in British Columbia.
Kinder Morgan gets its pipeline. We still have to develop resources. For a mining company that wants to deal with first nations and make a co-management agreement, this is going to be soured because the arrogant minister has said that the government does not need their consent to ram a pipeline through their reserves. It is idiocy. I am deeply ashamed to stand in the House and listen to the comments of the ministers.
The government really has to rethink this and ensure it treats British Columbia with the respect it deserves.
Petitions November 14th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today signed by residents of Burnaby and across the Lower Mainland.
The petitioners are opposed to the construction of Kinder Morgan's new bitumen-based, export-only crude oil pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. The petitioners draw to the House's attention that this pipeline is a danger to our local environment and is just a bad deal for British Columbia.
The government has been pushing for this pipeline, but I urge it to consider this petition before it makes its final decision.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 4th, 2016
With regard to the Ministerial Mandate Letters sent by the Prime Minister in November 2015: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all the top priorities assigned to each Minister, broken down by the Minister responsible; (b) which of the items in (a) have been completed by the government to date; and (c) for each item in (b), (i) on what exact date was the item completed, (ii) what is the item's financial cost, broken down by fiscal year, (iii) what performance measures, empirical indicators, or outcomes will the government be using to evaluate the item's effectiveness, (iv) on what future date, if any, will it be reviewed by the government?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 4th, 2016
With regard to the section of Budget 2016 entitled “Expanding Affordable Housing”: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all commitments made in the budget to invest in affordable housing, including the financial cost per fiscal year and department or agency responsible; (b) for each commitment in (a), what amount has already been invested or spent to date, broken down by the province or territory in which it was invested; (c) for each amount in (b), how many new units of affordable housing, if any, have been constructed as a result, broken down by the province or territory in which they were built; and (d) for each amount in (b), how many Canadians have benefited from these investments, broken down by province or territory?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 4th, 2016
With regard to the Ministerial Panel examining the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all public meetings the panel has held to date, including the date, city, duration, and meeting format; and (b) for each meeting in (a), (i) which groups and stakeholders were invited to speak, if any, (ii) of the groups and stakeholders invited, which ones actually attended the meeting, (iii) approximately how many people attended in total, (iv) how many people had the opportunity to speak in total, (v) was there an opportunity for speakers to ask questions of and cross-examine other participants, (vi) was a transcript kept or recording made of what was said, (vii) how many speakers indicated they support the project, (viii) how many speakers indicated they are opposed to the project, (ix) how many speakers indicated they are undecided and neither support nor oppose the project, (x) what was the total financial cost of the meeting?
Questions on the Order Paper October 28th, 2016
With regard to the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Working Group on the Housing Market that was announced by the Minister of Finance on June 23, 2016: (a) what is the complete and detailed list of all the members on the working group; (b) what are the working group’s terms of reference and mandate; (c) what is the total amount budgeted to support their work; (d) how many meetings have they held and on what dates; (e) have they met or consulted with any housing or civil society organizations and, if so, which organizations; (f) on what date will they complete their work; and (g) will their findings and recommendations be made public?
Business of Supply October 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate here this morning. I would like to thank the Conservatives for bringing this motion forward, and I will be supporting it of course.
I was listening to the member's speech, and he does seem very knowledgeable about the issue of refugees. I might have misinterpreted what he said. When we are debating the definition of refugees and whether it is appropriate, I hope the member is not implying that there are some people in Canada who have been classified as refugees, and they may have been, in his opinion, mistakenly classified as refugees.
Could the member clarify that point? If there are any groups that perhaps should not be classified as refugees, could he indicate which groups these might be?