Ted Falk

[Petitions, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by just over 90 residents of Manitoba. These Canadians represent only a handful of the thousands from every corner of the country who have been shocked by the Liberals' assertion that only those who agree with Liberal Party values will have their Canada summer jobs funding applications considered.

The affected organizations are pillars of Canadian communities, groups that do work like helping newcomers to Canada, running soup kitchens, youth drop-in centres, and summer camps.

The discriminatory values test hits at the heart of our communities in a very practical way. As a result of this decision, many community organizations will not be able to serve our communities as effectively as they have in years past. This is also an affront to the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is why these petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to defend the freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of belief, and to withdraw the attestation requirement for applicants to the Canada summer jobs program.

I hope that the Liberals respect these voices and do exactly that.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member across the way and give my final answer by taking an excerpt out of a four-page letter written by a pastor to his Liberal MP:

A person's, or church's, religious beliefs and practices are not subject to governmental approval. Pro-life religious organizations have a Charter guaranteed right to speak and act according to their conscience. Period. Personally, and as a church, we do not always agree with the means of action against injustices like abortion which some Christians may espouse. We get it.... But the right for others to follow their own conscience in that matter is sacrosanct, and it is the government's difficult job to protect that liberty—because that liberty, like it or not, is the law. Government officials and staff do not need to like or approve of it, but they must protect it. I'm not sure I understand how a Canadian government has fallen to such levels of intolerance. Is Canada no longer proud of its diversity? To ask people to attest to a set of beliefs or practices not their own is an obscene violation of personal liberty, not to mention privacy, and it is an inherently threatening act towards people and communities of faith. And that's how we feel by all this...threatened.

There is no space in Canada for attestations of this kind, for any purpose, ever. Canada is a diverse place where people disagree, especially over issues like abortion and traditional marriage; political leaders need to make peace with that diversity.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the requirement of this attestation came to be, I was very delighted that the NDP chose to recognize the problem with this values test. They recognized it.

The member clearly indicated he has a problem with a values test from any government, whether it be the current Liberal government, a Conservative government, or in someone's wildest imagination, an NDP government. The member would object to any form of attestation that would require a values test according to that government's ideology.

I was delighted that the NDP initially recognized that position. I was disappointed that, because of the issues that were stated as the values test, the NDP flip-flopped on its position like a fish out of water. It would be nice if it could stand by principles instead of ideology.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is a values test. This is a Liberal values test being pushed on every single Canadian.

This should make every single Canadian watching this proceeding here today shake in their seats. This is a values test that applies to the Canada summer jobs program today. It is a values test, and those who do not agree with the ideological positions of the Liberal government are going to be denied funding. The Prime Minister has already stated that he wants to extend this attestation requirement to other programs.

This is a values test that should scare the willies out of every single Canadian.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my colleagues this afternoon about the motion. I want to thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for bringing this very important matter forward in the way of a motion and as something we can discuss here in the House.

We are talking today about the change that the Liberals have made to the application process for the Canada summer jobs program. We know that the Canada summer jobs program is a valuable program for numerous organizations all across the country. It provides funding to assist employers, including not-for-profits, that create summer job opportunities for full-time students. There certainly does not need to be anything controversial about a summer jobs program. It is a win-win situation. Students benefit by getting valuable employment and work experience. Communities benefit from the important services provided by these organizations, but with the Liberal government, nothing is sacred.

In the dying days of 2017, the Liberals quietly introduced their new values test requirement for the Canada summer jobs program. When I first learned of this new requirement, I could not believe that the government, even a Liberal government, would demand that the people who serve our communities agree with its Liberal values in order to receive funding. There was no consultation process. There was no public feedback requested. Instead, the Liberals unilaterally decided that only the individuals and organizations who agreed with their prescribed set of values would be worthy of receiving the Canada summer jobs funding. This is just wrong.

Canadians know it. My office has been inundated with emails, letters, and phone calls from concerned Canadians. Many of the calls came from organizations in my riding that have taken advantage of the Canada summer jobs program to hire students for the summer to work in their various organizations. Impacted organizations include day cares, summer camps, small businesses, and municipalities. Each of these organizations read the attestation and felt that to sign it, to agree with the Liberal Party's dogma on certain issues, was an affront to the Charter of Rights. They felt that they would be compromising their beliefs if they signed it.

I know Liberal members have indicated confusion on this point. Why will Canadians not just sign the attestations? They have told these Canadians to hold their noses and sign it. After all, the supplementary information that was provided by the Liberal government after the swift negative response from Canadians was supposedly meant to clarify what was meant by the wording of the attestation, but the Liberals just do not get it. The Liberals' understanding of tolerance is so narrow that they cannot wrap their heads around the thought that there are Canadians who actually might have different beliefs and values than those of the Liberal Party. The Liberals can only tolerate those opinions, those beliefs, those values that agree with theirs. If people do not agree with them, they are no longer eligible to receive funding for a summer student.

Speaking of Canada's success, the Prime Minister stated the following:

But what’s made it work so well in Canada is the understanding that our diversity isn’t a challenge to be overcome or a difficulty to be tolerated.

Rather, it’s a tremendous source of strength.

However, here we are. The man himself contradicting his famous quote. Why? Because in the Prime Minister's world he thinks he holds the monopoly on what constitutes acceptable diversity. While he may talk a lot about respecting diversity, his actions tell another story. That is the real problem going forward.

It is important to understand that this change represents a marked departure from past practices in this country. Requiring Canadians to agree with a political party's values as a condition of eligibility for grant monies is not how government funding decisions are made. Despite the good work so many organizations do in our communities, caring for the disabled, refugees, providing day camps for children in need, assisting vulnerable youth at risk, providing shelter for abused women and children, providing food for those who are hungry, and also providing shelter for those who are homeless, their applications may be rejected simply for holding beliefs different from those of the people in power.

I received an email from a constituent, Sharon, who said that the fact that employers will now be required to attest that both the job and the organization's core mandate respect certain values, as determined by the federal government, struck her as seriously violating our guaranteed freedoms of religion, thought, belief, opinion, and association offered by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially the provisions under section 2. She said that this affected her and upset her. She thought she lived in a democracy where diversity and a mosaic culture were encouraged. She said she did not think she was part of a government-dictated cookie-cutter world. She said that she does not always agree with everyone else's point of view, but she understands that they have a right to their opinions, just as she thought she did.

It is not just people like Sharon who have voiced their concerns. Community organizations from right across the country have been facing a loss of funding that they have relied on for years through the Canada summer jobs program. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's ideological bullying.

Take for example Bridgepark Manor, a not-for-profit organization that offers seniors' and retirement housing in my riding. Bridgepark applied for Canada summer jobs funding, approximately $16,000, in order to hire two students to work full time over the summer holidays. The students would have been working in the food services area, gaining valuable skills, serving meals to the seniors at the residence.

As a result of the Liberals values test, the CEO and the board faced an impossible choice: either compromise their values or be denied funding. As a result of the organization making alterations on the application to the attestation, the reply that it received back from the government was that its claim would be rejected. There are now two more students in my riding who will not have an opportunity that would have otherwise been presented.

Here is another example. A community organization responsible for the annual agriculture fair in one of the communities in my riding has used the Canada summer jobs program in the past to hire a summer student. The job requirements include preparing and maintaining the fairgrounds, tasks like painting, lawn mowing, and weed trimming, but it too cannot agree with the Liberals values test. This is yet another job lost.

There are more examples. Catherine, a summer camp director wrote that she rejects this statement on the grounds of her rights to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, and association guaranteed in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She says that as a Christian organization that deeply values human rights, they will not betray their beliefs or conscience.

Josie, a recreation director with a municipal organization, wrote that without the help of the Canada summer jobs program, her organization's ability to offer programs and services will be severely diminished. She said she believed they were being denied equal access to a government benefit because of their organizational and personal beliefs, and that this violates the charter, which guarantees freedom of religion, thought, belief, and opinion.

I have another one. An arts organization in my riding, of all things, wrote that while they continued to affirm their intention as an association to support rights and freedoms, they protested the attestation requirement of the funding application that divided us along political lines.

The truth of the matter is that this policy is not about the activities or services an organization is engaged in. It is about targeting the personal beliefs of the individuals who run those organizations. That is shameful.

I have heard some Liberals in the House today say that they have taken a brave or bold step by introducing this values test. There is nothing brave about the Liberal Party using the powers of government to suppress views that are different from their own. The real heroes of this story are the many individuals and organizations who, when faced with this kind of discrimination by their own government, chose to stay true to their values. Even though they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, they were willing to take a stand for what they believed in.

I am reminded of the words of former Conservative prime minister John G. Diefenbaker, delivered in a speech in 1960:

I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

Diefenbaker was in the midst of pursuing landmark legislation, the Canadian Bill of Rights, a bill introduced to guarantee civil rights for all Canadians, a bold vision for a Canada that respected the rights of individuals, and it was the reason his Conservative government extended the vote to indigenous Canadians, nominated the first indigenous senator, and appointed Canada's first female cabinet minister.

As a pluralistic society, Canada allows for diverse opinions and protects those who may think and believe differently. It was the strong foundation laid by that original bill of rights that paved the way for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of opinion and expression for all Canadians.

In fact, the charter was designed to protect citizens from the government, not the government from them. The Liberals have acted in defiance of that heritage, arrogantly deeming the party's political values above the rights of Canadians outlined in these documents.

I call on the Prime Minister to rescind this shameful attestation requirement for the Canada summer jobs program. I call on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to rescind this shameful application. I call on the members of the Liberal Party to do the right thing, to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to vote to rescind this awful attestation.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a very important issue of investment in Canada. Later on today we are going to see a budget presented by the Liberal government. It will be very interesting to see what kind of schemes the Liberals come up with.

I recently had a meeting with representatives from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. They said that they are not looking at Canada as a place where they will park investment money. The uncertainty around the regulatory environment here is just too great for them to make that kind of commitment in Canada. This means that our resource-trained people who are experts in the field in resource development in oil and gas and mining will be out of work. They will be looking for work.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the member's deep concern for the environment and her thoughtful presentations. Her thoughtful question raises the whole issue of Chinese investment in Canada.

I want to point out that the government has a dismal track record when allowing the Chinese government to invest in Canadian companies, like Cedar Tree, for example. The rent payments of our seniors in British Columbia will now be going to fund a Chinese government. That is totally irresponsible. We have to be very careful that we do proper vetting of any opportunities we are going to consider of having Chinese investors here in Canada.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question raises a very important issue. The government has not taken up its corporate responsibility in fixing a port that was damaged by the federal government's vessels. This has created a lack of opportunity now and it will be ongoing for the next season for cross-border trade between Canada and the U.S. I am glad that the member has spoken up for her constituents and is concerned about economic activity, concerned about the businesses that are going to be facing extreme hardship because the government refuses to live up to its obligations.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking about social licence and what has changed.

The previous Conservative government always had social responsibility built into its policies. We listened to the stakeholders. We provided a forum for stakeholders, a forum for indigenous communities to get involved in the process whenever natural resource development projects were being proposed.

When it comes to social licence, I am thinking of the Canada summer jobs program and the values test which the Liberal government is subjecting every single Canadian to sign onto to get government funding. Is that his idea of social responsibility, to get Canadians to compromise their beliefs, conscience, and positions on social issues? Is that his idea of social responsibility?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Foothills for his most inspiring, factual, and authentic speech.

Bill C-69, part 2, is the part I want to expand on a bit further. It is the part of the bill that replaces the National Energy Board and proposes a Canadian energy regulator. The entire process is supposed to increase clarity, predictability, and transparency. However, it fails on all three counts.

Of course this does not come as much of a surprise since the Liberal government has an outstanding record when it comes to breaking its campaign promises. We have seen numerous commitments, both big and small, meet untimely ends before ever achieving the goals set forth by the Liberals. Bill C-69 offers the same failing formula. The Liberal platform claims to “make environmental assessments credible again.” For one to make that promise, one has to start with the premise that the entire environmental assessment process had lost credibility somewhere along the way.

We recognize that there are always room for improvements to be made to existing processes, ways of doing things more simply and more effectively. However, when I look back over these last two years of so-called Liberal improvements, I wonder how much differently things would look if the Liberals were intentionally trying to sabotage the process. It's probably not much. I do not think it could get much worse.

Far from making the process more credible, the Liberals have mismanaged this file to such an extent that nothing can get built in this country. In particular, the Liberals have pushed the view that by building social licence, somehow all of the roadblocks to responsible resource development will disappear. In reality, attempts to improve social trust and build social licence have not increased resource or national infrastructure development.

Before I go any further, I want to turn back the clock to consider what was being said about Canada's environmental review process several years ago. Before the lack of leadership that we are witnessing today, Canada had long been recognized internationally and by experts as the most responsible and transparent producer of oil and gas. A 2014 WorleyParsons report compared the environmental assessment processes and policies around oil and gas development across the globe. When it came to environmental assessments, the report concluded:

The results of the current review re-emphasized that Canada's [Environmental Assessment] Processes are among the best in the world. Canada [has] state of the art guidelines for consultation, [traditional knowledge], and cumulative effects assessment. Canadian practitioners are among the leaders in the areas of Indigenous involvement, and social and health impact assessment. Canada has the existing frameworks, the global sharing of best practices, the government institutions and the capable people to make improvements to [environmental assessment] for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the environment, communities and the economy.

It goes on to state:

In summary, the review found that [environmental assessment] cannot be everything to everyone. In Canada, however, it is a state of the art, global best practice, with real opportunities for public input, transparency in both process and outcomes, and appeal processes involving independent scientists, stakeholders...and courts

That was in 2014. Looking back at 2014, Canada was considered a world leader in environmental assessment. We had the most stringent standards and most rigorous review process in the world. As I said earlier, no system is perfect, and just like with any other statute or regulation, there are always sections that could be improved. The regulatory system tries to strike a balance between projects and the environment, between predictability and social factors. It is not a perfect system. However, it is far better than the regime we are going to have under the imposement of Bill C-69. Instead of making the system better, the Liberals have simply made it worse. Under the Liberal government, the environmental assessment system lacks clarity, predictability, and transparency.

Let us look at what Bill C-69 does to clarity. The changes proposed in the bill would make the regulatory process more unclear. This does not serve anyone, whether we are talking about investors looking to participate in responsible resource development or Canadians who care deeply about this process. What is proposed is a move away from science-based decision-making processes.

For example, references to sustainability, identity, and gender-based analysis are difficult to quantify in a standardized test. This is, much like a great deal of Liberal policy, more of a virtue-signalling smokescreen to give the illusion of modernization to a bill that ultimately takes Canada backwards.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation makes a point of treating major and minor projects differently, but it provides no clear list of criteria which would make a project either a minor project or a major project. Leaving so much to guesswork is just plain irresponsible.

That leads me to my next point. Predictability will suffer under this legislation. The Liberals claim that Bill C-69 creates concrete timelines for review, saying that the process will take 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects. However, the timer only begins when the Governor in Council determines that the applicant has submitted a complete application, which seems to be an entirely discretionary process. According to the proposed legislation at this time, that will be the criteria to set the clock in motion. Furthermore, the process may be stopped at a number of different points to add additional studies or submissions. Finally, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may extend the timeline indefinitely with repeat orders.

The Liberals call the system more predictable. It is not more predictable. It is more uncertain. It is a process where the outcome rests entirely in the hands of the minister, one minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. She will be the sole individual deciding which projects will go forward in the national interest. It seems that rather than making the process more open and democratic, the Liberals' proposed legislation has concentrated power in the minister's office. This does not lend itself to predictability in any way, shape, or form.

One of the difficulties that Canada faces is a decline in major capital investments in energy. The decline has occurred since the Liberals were elected in 2015 and it is directly related to the regulatory uncertainty created as a result of their poor leadership in this area. We are bound to see this sad trend continue as the Liberals try once again to fix a system that worked better before they took their tool box out. This again is a solution in search of a problem.

Energy investment has to be a priority. We are a natural resource country. These investments are directly and indirectly responsible for employment and revenue for all three levels of government, yet in just two short years, which actually seem very long, energy investment in Canada is lower than any other two-year period in the last 70 years. Ensuring a stable, predictable process has to be a priority in order to attract these essential investments.

Let us talk about transparency as well. Bill C-69 claims to change the framework of indigenous consultation. However, in reality, all it does is codify something that already exists. The practices are already in place which allow for indigenous consultation.

A significant change in the regulatory process would be the elimination of the standing test. This will affect the predictability of the process, as any individual would be able to challenge the process, whether or not they have a connection to the project. Under the proposed new regulations this would include non-Canadians. Bill C-69 would allow Canadian decisions made about Canadian resources in Canada to potentially be influenced by non-Canadians. That is not right.

The Liberal government talks about the importance of restoring public trust to the regulatory system, but allowing non-Canadians or foreign special interest groups to influence the outcome of Canadian energy projects does not inspire trust in the proposed new system. It will not inspire trust from potential applicants that are seeking to develop our resources further.

Bill C-69 is not clear, predictable, or transparent. It adds vague criteria to the process, more uncertainty to the process, and eliminates a standing test from the process. The Liberals are just adding more burden to the already heavily regulated energy sector, and the industry has taken notice. That is why we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, that investment in the energy sector over the last two years has been lower than any two-year period in the previous 70 years.

The Liberals took the existing Canadian system and managed to change it into a system which is discouraging capital investment in our country. Those capital dollars are now flowing into the United States, funding projects there. The United States has a competitive advantage over Canada, in terms of regulatory and tax regimes and access to markets. Investors are putting their dollars into the U.S. market, which is fast becoming a world leader in energy.

If Bill C-69 becomes law, Canada will continue its downward trend in global competitiveness rankings. Both foreign and domestic investors will find other countries for their investments.

While the bill certainly leaves much to be desired, I want to conclude on a positive note. The new process under the proposed Canadian energy regulator will not apply to projects already approved under the National Energy Board. That means the already approved energy projects which are in our national interest will go ahead. I hope that the Liberal government will make sure to follow through on its promise and build the Trans Mountain pipeline. Get it done.