Kyle Seeback

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2022]

With regard to reports to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and media reports that applications for Permanent Residency which are listed under officer DM10032 have not been advanced through the process since March 2020: (a) who or what is DM10032; (b) how many applications are currently assigned to or marked with DM10032; (c) of the DM10032 applications still awaiting a decision as of January 31, 2022, how many were received more than (i) 30 days, (ii) 60 days, (iii) 6 months, (iv) one year, (v) two years, ago; and (d) why have numerous applications assigned to or marked with DM10032 been subject to significant delays?

[Canada National Parks Act, March 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Ojibway national park bill, Bill C-248.

The Conservatives have a long history of supporting the development and expansion of national parks. Most recently, we can talk about Rouge National Urban Park, which is an urban park of 79 square kilometres that was championed by Conservative MPs Paul Calandra and Peter Kent. We recognize the need to preserve these types of urban environments, not just because they are good for the environment, but because they are good for community members, who can then enjoy the time they will spend in these beautiful parks. The Rouge National Urban Park has over 12 kilometres of hiking trails and there is camping. The park is also open year round and is free to access.

An Ojibway national urban park is looking, in some sense, to replicate this model. When we look at what is being discussed, we can see there are six current parks we are talking about, which are Spring Garden Natural Area, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve, Ojibway Park, Black Oak Heritage Park and Ojibway Shores. Combining these six parcels into a national urban park is something we should be looking at and is something we should absolutely consider. I applaud the member for his hard work in trying to bring this to fruition.

I want to mention that this was pushed prior to the member's bill. This is a long-standing project, and the previous member for Essex, Jeff Watson, was also interested in trying to set up an Ojibway urban national park. I am happy to say that his vision is being incorporated into the current member's vision and that two parties, the Conservatives and the NDP, are working together to form this park.

The total land allotted for an Ojibway national park is approximately 900 acres. All the land is publicly owned, including the current port authority. There is support from the Windsor council and local politicians. I also understand that this is supported by indigenous people as well.

When we look at what this will ultimately become, and I have spoken to the member about this, we do have some concerns because there are major roadways that separate these parks. This is not six contiguous pieces of land that are easily formed together. They are separated by roadways, private land and other things. We do have some concerns about what that is going to mean. We know that one of the roadways is a large commuter roadway that allows people from LaSalle to move for employment to Windsor, and the closing of that roadway for a national urban park could have some unintended consequences. I know that is not fully within what we are debating today, but I have let the member know that it is something we are concerned about and something we would want to try to explore in committee.

I am surprised to hear the speech from the Liberals, who are saying, from what I heard, that they are not going to support this piece of legislation because it is doing something too quickly. From my understanding, the contemplation to proceed with this park goes back already perhaps a dozen to 14 years, so to suggest that this is premature or is moving too quickly does not make a lot of sense to me.

I think perhaps it is time to kick the tires. Let us get this to committee, let us study it and let us see if we can maybe push Parks Canada to accelerate its timetable. I do not think we want to wait another 15, 20 or 30 years for this to come to fruition.

Here on the Conservative side, we are in support of the bill so it can go to committee and be studied. Then everyone will have the full picture of what is going to take place here. I think the member should be commended for his activities to push this bill forward, and we look forward to seeing it, when it comes up, pass through second reading and come to committee, so we can see everything with respect to it.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, that is a legitimate question.

What the member from the Green Party ignores is that, often, natural gas is replacing far more carbon-intensive and dirtier fuels such as coal-fired electricity plants. When we talk about using natural gas, what we are actually doing is taking a much higher-polluting source of energy and replacing it with a much lower-polluting source of energy. That, in itself, is a win.

Of course, we dream of the day when we are all powered by solar and, who knows, even cold fusion, but those days are not here. We are living in this reality, and right now natural gas can actually provide the global security that we need. I hope all members will vote for this motion.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, you are making me feel old.

The nature of that question, quite frankly, is shameful. Energy security is one of the reasons why there has been such an issue with appeasing Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. The threat of natural gas being shut off to Europe was a tool he used to try to exert his influence.

We can actually do multiple things at once. Maybe the New Democrats can only do one thing, and say, “We can only do this, and therefore we do not think about that”. We can actually think about planning for a future where Canadian natural gas can provide energy security around the world, while we do other things. We in the Conservative Party, in the opposition, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the question actually was, but I will say this.

As I said in my speech, the need for natural gas is going to go up by an estimated 22% by 2040. We can pretend that we are going to live in a world where we do not need natural gas and that renewables are going to magically take over all of our energy needs. That world does not exist. Until it does, we actually need things such as natural gas. Why do we not use the cleanest, safest natural gas in the world to help countries around the world and, of course, help Canadians and the Canadian economy?

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

I do not think any member of the House or any Canadian can not think of the devastation that is going on right now in Ukraine. The images that we see through social media and on the news are absolutely devastating. They are heartbreaking, and our hearts go out to the people in Ukraine and to Ukrainian Canadians across the country.

Part of this motion is to stand with the people of Ukraine, and we should think about what that means. It does not mean standing with a sign or a hashtag; it means actually doing things, doing deliverable, measurable things that are going to make things a little better for the people of Ukraine in this incredibly dark hour.

One of the things that we are asking for to show how we stand with the people of Ukraine is visa-free travel. The government has so far said it is not doing it. It has steadfastly, adamantly refused, and it has come up with a reason. I heard the minister's remarks today that there may be some pro-Russian people who would therefore be able to come to Canada, so the government is proposing some alternative immigration streams.

The fact of the matter is that leaders deliver. They find ways to deliver things in tough times, and these are the toughest times for the people of Ukraine. To hear excuses as to why we cannot have visa-free travel is absolutely unacceptable for me as a parliamentarian, for Ukrainian Canadians and of course for the people of Ukraine.

What we are offering is different immigration streams. As a former member of the immigration committee, I can say that there are enormous backlogs in every single immigration stream. These backlogs are in the hundreds of thousands, so how will setting up a new immigration stream in a system that is already bogged down, backlogged and not working actually going to stand with the people of Ukraine and deliver? I ask that in all earnestness to my colleagues across the way.

We saw a bureaucratic system try to evacuate Afghan interpreters and Afghan people during the fall of Kabul. The last thing we need is another bureaucratic mess like that. I am begging my colleagues across the floor to please have visa-free travel for Ukrainians. It is absolutely critical.

What we know as well is that the second part of our motion is dealing with energy security. Forty per cent of the natural gas in the European Union is being provided by Russia. We also know that since December, President Biden has been lobbying nations that produce natural gas to try to take off the pressure from natural gas coming from the Russian Federation.

Canada is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, but unfortunately we actually cannot help. Why can we not help? It is because we have a no-pipelines government, a government that refuses to take the steps necessary to get this resource to tidewater.

Up until now, that has just caused absolutely devastating economic losses across this country. In 2019, Canada spent $18.9 billion importing foreign oil, and of course this included oil from the Russian Federation. Imagine if that were Canadian oil that we did not have to import. In fact, we export far more oil than we import, but all of the imports are coming to the east coast of Canada. Again, why? It is because we have no way to get oil and oil products to the east coast.

Why can we not do that? It is because we have a government that has made a determined choice to make that impossible. There are consequences to these actions. Can members imagine what would be happening right now if Europe was getting its natural gas from Canada as opposed to Russia? The decisions we make here can actually have implications far beyond our borders.

I know there are conversations and discussions about renewables, and those being the way to go. Of course, everyone wants to move more toward a greener world and economy, but the facts are the facts. It is estimated that natural gas consumption will increase by over 20%. In fact, it is going to increase by close to 22% by 2040, so the need for Canadian natural gas is only going to increase. Yes, there are cleaner ways to deliver energy, such as solar and other things. We know this, but right now natural gas is replacing things such as coal-fired electricity plants. Natural gas is way greener than coal. Why the government continues to fight about this, I cannot understand. How can it not see the importance of energy security not just for Canada, but for stability around the world? Canada can play a critical role in that. Think of where we would be if the energy east pipeline had been built. We would be exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe. It would be a great source of stability and security.

When we talk about needing security, I want to briefly talk about our own security. Canada's CF-18s were scheduled to be out of service in 2020. That was the end. However, the government decided to reinvent a process that had already been done and now we may not get replacements for the CF-18s until 2025 at the earliest. That is five years well beyond their natural life expectancy.

When we look at a crisis such as what is going on in Ukraine, we need bold action. I want to thank the government for the actions it has taken, because it has, but we need it to do more, to do it faster and more urgently, especially when we are looking at having refugees come without visas. I have to go back to that and how critically important this is, because I can bet that if this is a special stream immigration program it will take forever. It is already going to be coming in a couple of weeks. The government could lift visa requirements now. That would help people now. It would not be a program that was going to be designed in a few weeks, then take who knows how long to implement, and then deal with the backlogs already at CIC.

I request that the members of the government vote with us on this motion. I know they condemn the invasion and are trying to stand with Ukraine, but they can do so much more. Let us vote for this motion. Let us get Canadian energy to be a safe and secure source of energy, not just in Canada but around the world. It will bring stability all across the globe.

[Reuniting Families Act, March 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, super visas generally get processed faster than other types of applications, so having the super visa expanded to more Canadians is absolutely going to get people reunited with their families faster than any other immigration stream. I think it would contribute immensely to that.

[Reuniting Families Act, March 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a great point there. When I suggested one person could stay for five months every year for 10 years, that person could also stay for a year or two. Imagine the economic benefit to people who have their parents here with them when they have their first child. They could be here for the first year to offer not only emotional support, but also economic support and a reduction in day care costs, as well as the opportunity to continue to work.

The backlogs in the parent and grandparent family reunification process have gotten massively out of control under the current Liberal government. This bill will actually help ease some of that strain because more parents and grandparents would qualify under this bill, and they would be able to stay longer. It would also take some of the pressure off the terrible backlogs we have right now.

[Reuniting Families Act, March 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, that is a great suggestion. It is one I would look forward to being moved at committee. I think we should study it to make sure it is something that is feasible. Yes, I am absolutely open to that amendment.

[Reuniting Families Act, March 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would not say the primary purpose is so that there is competition. The primary purpose is that there would be more insurance companies that people could speak to, to try to find a better price. It is the cost of buying insurance. We should especially imagine a new Canadian family that is just trying to get themselves established. A $4,000 or $5,000 bill to have their parents or grandparents come to visit them might actually make it impossible for them to do so. By having more options, I think the price will come down and make it more affordable for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.