Kennedy Stewart

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in talking about climate change, of course, one of the biggest projects we have on the table here in Canada is the Kinder Morgan pipeline, a new pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. In fact, we might call the member for Burnaby North—Seymour the MP for Kinder Morgan, because the pipeline would terminate in his riding.

I oppose this Kinder Morgan pipeline. Could the member stand up in the House and say whether or not he opposes the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments as always. It does not have to be a jobs versus killing people kind of debate. People who work in these industries work very hard and do nice jobs. I think it would be assuring for them to know that this committee had thoroughly studied their deals and had given them a seal of approval rather than have this kind of fog around the products they produce. I see that as a win-win. I do not see this as killing jobs in any way. It is developing a better understanding of what is the very important issue, which is Canada's role in what eventually is that people die. Again, that would make Canadians feel much more comfortable.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have very able members who represent London and have for a long time. That is the kind of fogged question that just seeks to score political points rather than have actual debate. At issue here is the creation of a standing committee to review these issues. It is not to cancel particular deals, or not to support particular deals. It is to understand them better and to ensure we have the kind of debate we need so Canadians get the information they need.

I am not sure why the Liberals would not approve such a committee. They have not offered any kind of solution other than to throw things out that do not really matter. I would ask them to consider this motion and perhaps if they do not agree, to put up their own proposal as to what we could do instead.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the debate.

My colleagues have outlined in a very good way the details of this motion, why it is important, and some of the objections that should be taken into consideration.

From my perspective, I think we have perhaps lost the plot a little. Maybe I can start with a bit of a story about what we are supposed to do in this place. When I was elected 2011, one of the first decisions I was asked to make was whether or not I would support the mission to send fighter jets to Libya. This decision, for new MPs, was very difficult, as it was for all parties involved. I believe the motion was to support a mission against Moammar Gadhafi, who was an international scourge and one of the worst human rights offenders in history.

What me struck me during those discussions, both inside and outside this place, was that we were really talking about killing people. That is what we are really talking about if we send to fighter jets to Libya or arms to Saudi Arabia. In the end, as parliamentarians, we are deciding who is going to live and who is going to die, in one way or another. That should really underscore the discussions we are having here today.

This is why Parliament and democracy are important. In dictatorships, which we oppose because they are not the proper way to run governments or countries, it is usually a person or a small group of people who decide to make these decisions about who will live and who will die within their own countries, and then when they engage in military actions against other countries.

However, in a democracy, we are supposed to come to places like this Parliament and the Senate to discuss in a very open and transparent way how we regard our standing in the world, and to say whether or not we should engage in certain actions.

I think that is all we are talking about here. It is really the same thing. It is not about a direct motion, that is, whether or not we should take direction action in a country, whether to support or oppose a certain regime, but it is more of a macro discussion about how we see ourselves in the world, how we make decisions, and in this case whether or not we should sell armaments to particular countries. That should probably underscore this discussion.

We have a global affairs committee that discusses foreign affairs. I understand there were proposals made for subcommittees. This is a proposal for a new standing committee. I think that Canadians who are looking at this debate would really like us to get down to the issue of how we as parliamentarians will discharge our duties in making these very important decisions, to which they are also attached because they vote for us. Voters vote for MPs in various political parties, and we come to this place and make decisions, some of which have lethal consequences or result in the loss of human life in various countries.

Through this debate, Canadians will be shocked to know that our arms exports have doubled over the last decade. In fact, it might be one of our dirty little secrets. Canadians like to see themselves in a particular way. They like to think that we are going around the world in blue helmets keeping the peace. Our past Nobel Prize efforts at peacekeeping, again, are the ones by which Canada really emerged on the world stage.

We like to think of ourselves as givers of aid and generous contributors to reducing poverty around the world. However, through the course of this debate, Canadians will find out that we have doubled our arms exports. We are now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East.

Therefore, it is a clash of values that we have here. Canadians who are watching this debate or reading about it in the media would think that the decisions the government is making, and that past governments have made, clash with how they see themselves as a Canadian.

This place is for that. There are difficult choices to make. Weather we approve arms sales to one country or another is decided here, and it should be. Decisions have been taken now, both within the industries that produce these arms and the government bodies that approve the sales and export to other countries. I think many Canadians would say that this does not jive with their view of what Canada does, which is okay.

Again, this place is for that. It is for us to come to discuss the facts that are behind every decision we have to make, to ensure we get them straight. We debate in a public way, on TV, with recorded minutes and vote as to what should be done. Decisions are taken, and the those decision have their effects.

The result of these decisions are that people will die. We cannot sell arms to a country and think that they will not be used, especially small arms and vehicles that have small arms attached to them. Therefore, this is worth debating in more detail to ensure we get the facts. I think most of my colleagues in the House would agree that these are probably the most important issues we talk about here.

The mechanism does not interest people, whether it is a standing committee, subcommittee, or a special committee. I do not think that makes a tonne of difference. However, When we make decisions as grave as this and evaluate decisions about whether we should be compliant in someone's death, Canadians expect that deserves significant debate.

Therefore, because we have had new facts come to light about these sales, and we are not clear about how these deals have transpired, the short-term details about who benefits and who is not, or the long-term impacts of this deal, we propose that we have a standing committee.

Of course, in terms of a procedural decision, that is a fairly big one. Starting a new standing committee is a significant commitment. However, the issue that the committee would be studying is so important. It is probably one of the most important things at which we will be looking. It is reviewing our roles in participating in the deaths of people around the world.

Sometimes those military interventions are necessary. As I said, I voted to support the mission in Libya after a lot of deep thought. Again, that was approved unanimously in 2011.

However, this proposed standing committee would give us room to not only talk about decisions regarding arms exports, but also to review the impacts of these things. We could get regular reports from experts in this area, have a better understanding of our own arms industry, and have briefings, because the world changes. Places that are at war now will soon be at peace, and places at peace now unfortunately will be at war at some point. Therefore, committee members could get briefings on this and have very wholesome discussions.

There are a couple of things going on that are worth pausing for a second. I know the parties all have their entrenched votes scripted of where they will go. However, I would ask members to take a pause and think about the issue we are dealing with here, which is grave. It is one of the most important things we will decide as parliamentarians. Members should ask themselves if these types of decisions actually deserve a space of their own.

In my over five years as a parliamentarian, I would have welcomed this idea. It would be a committee that would have great merit, but that a subcommittee would not be enough. However, the committee would need a good degree of independence in order to look at all of these issues in great detail. Therefore, I urge the government to have a rethink on this and not dismiss this idea out of hand.

[The Environment, September 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Texas-based oil giant Kinder Morgan wants to build a pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby in order to export raw, undiluted bitumen to foreign countries. This is a bad idea. British Columbians take all the risk and get none of the reward.

Kinder Morgan will pocket at least $5 million dollars a day if this pipeline is built, but all British Columbians are left with is a giant environmental time bomb.

This ripoff project is opposed by Premier Christy Clark, John Horgan, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, and thousands of British Columbians.

During the election the Liberals promised to redo Harper's flawed pipeline review process. They broke their promise, but can redeem themselves if they reject Harper's pet pipeline project in December.

Since 2011, I have stood with British Columbians against this project, and will stand with again if the Liberals approve the project in December. I urge the Liberals to reject Kinder Morgan and embrace a green energy future.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I enjoy my hon. colleague's very wise words when it comes to redoing legislation and his open sense of really trying to make things better.

I am going to ask my colleague, the member for Victoria, to rank the legislation as it stands at the moment. For viewers and people who are looking at this, it is sometimes hard to understand all the details. On a scale of 1 to 10, where would my colleague currently put the bill? I know we are supporting this, or at least I am supporting sending it to committee, but what revisions would get it to a much higher ranking? What would demonstrably increase the quality of the bill?

[Petitions, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and people right across British Columbia who oppose Kinder Morgan's plan to build a new 890,000-barrel-a-day pipeline from Burnaby to Edmonton.

The petitioners say this project will bring massive environmental and economic risk, without any benefit, and that 40,000 barrels have already leaked from the existing pipeline.

The petitioners also bring to the attention of the government the point that although there is promise of part-time jobs, these jobs will be filled by temporary foreign workers and only 50 full-time permanent jobs will be created, which is not enough for them to take this risk.

I urge the government to take seriously this petition. There will be many more to come over the coming days.

[Protecting Burnaby Lakes and Rivers Act, September 26th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake and Brunette River).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to restore key environmental protections to local lakes and rivers of my riding of Burnaby South. The protecting Burnaby lakes and rivers act would re-add Burnaby Lake, Deer Lake, and Brunette River to the official schedule of waterways protected in Canada.

At the demand of the oil and gas lobbyists, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper gutted our environmental laws and removed protections for 98% of Canada's lakes and rivers. As a result, many proposed development projects, including some pipelines, no longer need environmental assessments or public consultations before proceeding.

The Liberals promised during the election that they would reverse these changes. They have yet to even table legislation to restore the protections that were lost. That is why I am putting forward this bill today on behalf of my constituents.

In my riding, where we just celebrated World Rivers Day yesterday, the stewardship of the Brunette River has been a stellar example of our community coming together to preserve our cherished waterways. We need to ensure that our lakes and rivers are protected so future generations can enjoy them as well.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, September 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there is a housing crisis in metro Vancouver, as well as in British Columbia. I have here today an electronic petition signed by 11,461 people who are calling upon the government to take immediate action on this issue. They are concerned about seniors being driven out of their homes, young professionals being driven out of the region, and people not being able to continue their lives and to age in place.

The residents who have signed this petition would like financial transactions that are flagged as suspicious to be reported, to have the real estate council and lawyers disclose information about buyers and sources of incomes, and to study restrictions on foreign investment in place in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, U.S.A., Hong Kong, and England.

This is an urgent issue that is affecting many thousands of people in Vancouver and the metro Vancouver region, so I urge the government to take immediate action to address this petition.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the Ministerial Panel examining the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) Project: (a) what process was used to select panel members; (b) what salary is each panel member receiving; (c) what per diem is each panel member receiving; (d) what is the total amount budgeted to support the work of the panel from now until November 2016; (e) of the total budget in (d), what amount is allocated to support the panel to (i) review and consider input from the public via an on-line portal, (ii) meet with local stakeholder representatives in communities along the pipeline and shipping route, (iii) meet with Indigenous groups who wish to share their views with the panel, (iv) submit a report to the Minister of Natural Resources no later than November 1, 2016; (f) how much funding will be made available to local stakeholder representatives who wish to share their views with the panel; (g) how much funding will be made available to Indigenous groups who wish to share their views with the panel; (h) what measures will the panel take to seek and include the views of those who were previously rejected from participating as commentators or intervenors in the National Energy Board’s review of the project; (i) what measures will the government take to promote and advertise the online questionnaire for Canadians to submit their feedback on the TMX Project; (j) will the raw data and results from the online questionnaire be released to the public; (k) what statistical methods will the panel use to analyze the input received from the online questionnaire and decide how to weigh the results in their final report; (l) does the panel’s mandate include providing a recommendation, as part of their final report to the Minister, regarding whether the government should approve or reject Kinder Morgan's application; and (m) what is the government’s definition of “social license”?