44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2022 02:00PM
- Nov/30/22 2:59:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is really out of touch with what is happening in Canada. Inflation is hurting Canadians, who can no longer make ends meet.
I often talk about workers who have to use food banks, namely, 1.5 million in just one month; young people who are living in their parents' basement because housing prices have doubled in Quebec City alone; and students who have to sleep in shelters. I have been talking about these issues for a long time. I want to remind members that we are living in a G7 country.
Does the Liberal government recognize these hardships and will it take real action like not increasing the carbon tax?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think my remarks will come across more like a request or a wish or maybe even a demand. We know that indigenous affairs are under federal jurisdiction. However, certain things, such as health care and education, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec had its own commission, the Viens commission, which made hundreds of recommendations. Quebec has already invested $125 million in upgrading, enhancing and ensuring the long-term viability of public services and establishing cultural safety.
We already have a committee with first nations and the Inuit. We have another committee with university researchers. The point is, we want to see this council tackle federal issues in Quebec, not issues that are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to participate in this debate, especially after my colleague's eloquent speech. There was one line that will stay with me for a long time.
He said that they do not want to see the first nations stakeholders as real, true partners. I love that line.
We are here today for the final stage of the bill that will establish the national council for reconciliation. I am always filled with pride and emotion when I rise to speak on an issue that affects first nations. I have the great honour and privilege of being the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent thanks to the support and assistance of the people of this riding. I represent the people of Wendake, an indigenous community in the Quebec City area that is well known and well established. We know that the Wendat have been here since the dawn of time, but they are more permanently settled in the northern part of Quebec City. They have been there for more than 300 years. As a result, ours is a fruitful, extraordinary, exemplary and, I would say, very inspiring relationship for all Canadians and all first nations. I will have the opportunity to come back to this later.
Obviously, we agree that this national council for reconciliation needs to be created. We believe that it is a step forward in order to improve the way indigenous and non-indigenous people work, grow and live together.
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work done by my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I am glad I got that right. If there is one thing I do not like about my job at the federal level, it is the interminable riding names. I will never run for Speaker of the House, because I will never be able to remember even two names. The current Chair occupants can rest assured that they do not have a potential opponent in me.
I think that my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River did an excellent job of properly examining this bill. In the beginning, he spoke out about the shortcomings in the original version. It is important to point out that it took a long time for this bill to be introduced, debated and passed in the House of Commons. In fact, the government first talked about it back in December 2017. We know that there was an election, and then another one. We know that Parliament was prorogued because the Prime Minister did not want us to get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal, so the government kept putting the bill off. Now here we are five years after the first draft. It has taken way too long to get here.
My colleague also mentioned problems related to transparency and independence when it comes to the appointment of members of this national council. We are also wondering about the soundness of the results. How can we determine whether this council is achieving real, concrete, relevant and successful results when we believe there were shortcomings at that point?
It is the same thing when it comes to accountability. The definition was far too vague, in our opinion. We wanted this council to report directly not to the minister responsible for indigenous-government relations, but to the Prime Minister himself. In fact, it was one of the recommendations of the 2015 report.
My colleague led the clause-by-clause study and went about it in a positive and constructive way to improve this bill. No fewer than 19 amendments were introduced by my colleague. The fact that 16 of those 19 amendments were accepted is proof that the work was taken seriously and completed diligently. A 17th amendment was almost adopted, but unfortunately, a partner walked away at the last second.
I congratulate and thank the colleagues from the other parties, but a special honour goes to the colleague who proposed these amendments for the good of the bill and to properly advance this bill. We owe a debt of gratitude to my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. When I say “we”, I mean us parliamentarians, but especially us Canadians and the first nations, for the ability to work well with this national council for reconciliation.
Therefore, we will be voting in favour of this bill, which had 16 amendments that were proposed by my colleague from the official opposition and that improved the bill.
I think it is quite important to remind everybody we are not talking about a brand new start. It is part of our Canadian history. When we talk about first nations, we all have to recognize, as proud Canadians, as we should be, if there was something wrong in our past. There is the fact that the relations we had with our first nations were not very good, for century after century.
We could talk about the fact that, all around the world, the big countries have to address that kind of issue. Yes, that is for sure. However, it is not because the rest of the world was not good that we have to be okay with the fact that we were not good. This is why I think this is a step forward and a way to address it correctly.
I would like to remind members that I was not in the House to witness that great moment on June 11, 2008. Many people currently sitting in this House were there. For the first time in history, the Government of Canada, through its prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen J. Harper, formally apologized to first nations for the horrors committed at residential schools.
For the first time, the only time in our parliamentary Canadian history, we saw a first nation leader here in the House, listening to the formal apology and the national excuses from a Prime Minister and answering to that.
The only time a first nation leader has spoken directly to Canadians in the House of Commons was in 2008 under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Whatever we can say, whatever happens, whatever party we are, we have to be proud of this great Canadian moment in our history.
What happened after the apology? The Prime Minister made sure that it was not the last step. Rather, it was the beginning of what was to be reconciliation. He created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For five years, this commission travelled from coast to coast, and it was both studious and thorough in its work. I remember because I was a provincial MNA, and I attended one of the hearings in Wendake.
Thousands of citizens and thousands of first nations people testified to the horrors of a shameful stain on Canadian history, our history: residential schools that were designed to kill the Indian in the heart of each child. It is terrifying to think about, to think that it happened for generations, for over 100 years. Thousands of people still bear the scars today.
Yes, what happened is serious and it must be recognized. Yes, there was an apology. Yes, the commission was created. It tabled reports and over 90 recommendations in 2015. Some will remember the reactions we had at that time: Yes, this needed to be acknowledged.
I would like to remind members that six specific recommendations, calls to action 71 through 76, directly addressed the issue of burial sites and cemeteries. When graves were discovered two years ago, everyone suddenly grasped the horror of what had happened, but where were those people when the public apology was delivered in 2008? Where were they during the six years when the commission was investigating what happened to first nations? Where were they in 2015 when the report was tabled with specific actions for addressing this problem?
That is what happens when a relationship that is unequal, disrespectful and unproductive persists for centuries. Today we are passing a law that will create a national council for reconciliation. It will never be enough, but it is a step in the right direction that we applaud.
1365 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member raised a great example. He is the member for Winnipeg North, and I know there is a big issue to be addressed in Winnipeg with first nations, which is not the same issue that we have to address in the Quebec City area. Based on my personal experience and knowing them pretty well, it is not the same case. This is why we should work hand in hand with first nations, our provincial partners and our municipal partners.
The question raised by my colleague from the Bloc a few minutes ago was exactly that. If we talk about the health care system for first nations, yes, first nations are under federal jurisdiction. We also know and recognize that health issues are not only a federal responsibility for first nations, but also a provincial one, and we have to work hand in hand with our municipal partners.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, representatives from the governments of the three provinces involved came to testify that they did not want this bill. I think we need to respect provincial jurisdictions. This bill does not affect Quebec, but we call on the federal government not to interfere in our jurisdictions.
What does my hon. colleague have to say about that?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak in favour of good legislation and against bad legislation. This evening I am doing the latter.
Bill C-235 represents yet another top-down, Ottawa-knows-best approach to the western Canadian resource sector, continuing a legacy that goes all the way back to Pierre Trudeau's national energy program, and also includes more recent legislation, such as Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban.
Opposition to this bill from elected politicians in western Canada should come as no surprise to even the most casual of political observers. This bill applies to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only. When we voted on this bill at second reading, of the 62 members from those three provinces, only 10 voted in favour; 51 voted against, and one MP abstained. Put another way, this bill is opposed by fully 82% of the MPs from the provinces to which it applies.
When this bill was being studied at committee, this opposition was echoed by our provincial counterparts. The committee heard from two of the three affected provincial governments, and they basically said the same thing, that this legislation was neither wanted nor needed. The only provincial government we did not hear back from was Alberta, because it was in the process of installing a new premier, who had just finished campaigning on a platform of asserting provincial sovereignty and resisting interference from Ottawa. I am quite confident that if we had heard from Danielle Smith, her feedback would have been very similar to what we heard from her counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I hope that the views of these provincial representatives are not lost on the members of this House from the other parties and from the other provinces when they are making up their minds about how to vote on this bill. Just imagine for a minute if there were a federal private member's bill about Hydro-Quebec or Quebec's aerospace sector that applied only to Quebec. If 82% of Quebec MPs voted against the bill, and Premier François Legault testified at committee against the bill, I cannot help but think that the MPs from the other provinces would take notice, and those MPs who voted in favour of the bill at second reading would be thinking that maybe they should reconsider before they vote for the bill again at third reading.
The stated objective of Bill C-235 is “the building of a green economy in the Prairies”. While the bill never defines the term “green economy”, I think that in general, the term “green” has become synonymous with “environmentally friendly”. However, the bill does not seem to recognize the good, environmentally friendly work already being done in the prairie provinces independently of the federal government.
In addition to hearing from provincial government representatives, the committee also heard from municipal representatives, organized labour, the mining sector, oil and gas workers, farmers and ranchers. They all spoke in considerable detail about the work that is already being done on the Prairies to be more environmentally friendly, often because being good environmental stewards makes good economic sense as well. In fact, about the only people the committee did not hear from were representatives of Canada's indigenous peoples. I will leave it to the proponents of this bill to explain why they were not consulted.
Particular concerns were raised about paragraph 3(3)(b), which focuses on fostering job creation and skills transfer in regions that rely on traditional energy industries. It is implied that these actions will be necessary because of the Liberal government's continued opposition to the development of the western Canadian resource sector and the continuation of the Liberals' policy of leaving Canadian oil and gas in the ground where it does not do anybody any good.
In any case, at committee, Mr. Bill Bewick cautioned against transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector too quickly and argued in favour of recruiting more workers to the sector to increase production. I would like to quote what Mr. Bewick said at committee. He said, “If you really care about the environment, the single greatest thing Canada can do to reduce emissions is to get LNG flowing in copious amounts off our west coast.”
Mr. Bewick went on to explain that Canadian liquefied natural gas should be exported to China, which would enable that country to shelve its plan to dramatically increase coal production and energy generation from coal. Doing so would save emissions equivalent to the size of Alberta's oil sands. This would be far preferable to landlocking Alberta's oil sands, as some Liberals have advocated for in the past.
The war in Ukraine was also discussed. Here we are, more than nine months into Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the images on our TV screens are just as disturbing as when the war began back in February. Vladimir Putin and his thugs continue to commit genocide against their peaceful neighbours. Where does Vladimir Putin get the money to buy all the tanks, missiles and artillery that make up the Russian army? Even the most high-level analysis of the Russian economy will show that it is heavily dependent on oil and gas exports to western Europe. Instead, if we could export ethical Canadian oil and gas to western Europe, we could seriously inhibit Russia's ability to wage war against Ukraine or any of its other neighbours.
This next point is very important. Even if the war in Ukraine were to end tomorrow, and even if Vladimir Putin decided that he wanted to be friends again with the international community and to give everyone a big group hug, it would be profoundly irresponsible for the international community, and Canada in particular, to allow western Europe to once again become dependent on oil and gas from Russia. The world needs more Canadian oil and gas, but we cannot do this if we are transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector, and this is why Bill C-235 is so problematic.
Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of Senate reform. If there are any political science students watching this debate, let me tell them right now that if they ever have to write a paper about Senate reform in Canada, Bill C-235 should be one of their examples. This bill applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only, and the vast majority, 82%, of MPs elected from those provinces voted against it.
Unfortunately, this bill is probably going to become law, because unlike bicameral legislatures in other countries, Canada does not have an elected Senate with equal representation from all provinces. This is a problem that is not experienced by our American neighbours south of the border. If there were ever a bill in the U.S. Congress to take all of the money from North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana and give it to, say, California and Texas, such a bill may very well pass in the House of Representatives, but it would not pass in the Senate.
That is because, although the seats in the House of Representatives are allocated by population, in the American Senate, every state, large or small, has the same number of senators, and every senator is elected. That means the large states like California and Texas cannot gang up and enact legislation that is detrimental to the small states, because any such bill would be defeated in the Senate.
Sadly, there are no such safeguards in the Canadian parliamentary system. The larger provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec, can outvote the smaller provinces, in this case Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and there are no safeguards in the Senate to stop it. However, given that I am almost out of time, my thoughts on Senate reform will have to wait for another day.
In conclusion, Bill C-235 represents an additional, unnecessary layer of federal government bureaucracy that will only get in the way of the good work already being done by provincial governments and the private sector. The only provinces affected by this bill, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, did not ask for it. They do not want it, they do not need it and they are better off without it. I would encourage all members to vote against Bill C-235.
1428 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Winnipeg South Centre for the quality of work he did in moving his bill through the House of Commons. He put his heart and soul into it. It is with reluctance that I have to say that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting the member for Winnipeg South Centre's bill.
Of course, preparing an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies is certainly necessary. It is a timely move, and we support any initiatives that promote and power such a transition. However, we are against the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec with regard to their economic and environmental choices and directions, which are their own. We are worried that this will set a precedent, which is why we will not be supporting it.
I do not want to point fingers, but I think it is important to mention that, currently, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers; one Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. This is an enormous challenge, and the Bloc Québécois agrees 100% with the member for Winnipeg South Centre's statement that the central provinces absolutely have to go green. Even so, it is wholly inappropriate for the House to force the government's hand to legislate any directive whatsoever, because it is up to the provinces to choose when and how they begin that shift. Are these provinces truly on board with switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy? I am not so sure.
One thing we do know is that the prairie provinces will need a lot of help to achieve that. That is what the government is for. Without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, the government should provide financial and organizational support as well as incentives. Above all, it should give them the means to undertake this transition, which can be highly destabilizing if not underpinned by support measures commensurate with the challenges these provinces are facing. That is key to making any radical change socio-economically palatable.
It is 2022. It is high time a plan was developed to accelerate the shift to a green economy in the Prairies, and the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was the natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018, knows that this is an enormous undertaking and that he would have to mobilize a massive amount of resources. He also knows that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that these provinces are facing decline unless they diversify their economies and begin the energy shift. The sooner they start, the less painful it will be. It is up to the government and its institutions to support the Prairies in that regard but not by imposing a law that will have the stifling effect of centralizing federal powers.
The fact that the member for Winnipeg South Centre and former natural resources minister introduced this bill says a lot. If he wants to force his government to develop an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies, it is because he knows that the government currently has no such plan. He feels obligated to propose a bill to force the government to do so. We understand that and we commend him for it. We admire him because we share his concerns; however, we want to prevent government interference and that is the most important factor in our position.
That being said, the extent of the challenges our friends in the Prairies are facing is enormous. In economics and regional development there is a concept called intrusive rentier syndrome. That is what a region experiences when a major employer that pays high wages is operating in a sector in decline. It drags the entire community into that decline and prevents it from being competitive. That is the story of oil because it governs all the rules and levers, hence the scope of the challenge and the insecurity around change.
The approach in the bill is interesting. It proposes sitting down with everyone, which I like, and determining the economic strengths outside fossil fuels and creating favourable conditions for their development. Whether it is infrastructure, training or regulations, a development plan calls for coordination. It calls for the public's participation because the economy has to serve the people. Getting everyone on the same page from the get-go is hardly a waste of time. Doing so saves the proponent from constantly going back to the drawing board because the initial proposal lacks social licence. We save time by getting everyone around the same table from day one. That is truly one of the strong points of the bill.
My colleague's reasons and arguments are interesting. It is a good premise, but it clearly represents interference in provincial jurisdictions. I would like to remind members that over the years, it was the decisions of both Conservative and Liberal governments that made it possible to develop the oil sands.
Let us look back. There was Pearson's energy policy. Then budgetary policy fostered the development of oil. In 2009, under the Harper government, Canada made a commitment at the G20 to eliminate its inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, there has been no progress since then. The Auditor General and the commissioner of the environment indicated in three reports that 13 years after the G20 commitment, the government is still unable to define what it considers to be an inefficient subsidy. Therefore, it it not getting rid of those subsidies.
The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to support for fossil fuels. We would be very pleased if the money and subsidies that are currently being spent on fossil fuels were instead redirected to the western provinces' transition to renewable energy. Given the magnitude of the challenges they will face, we think that is a good idea.
We believe that the energy revolution we face will be on the same scale as the industrial revolution. That is quite significant. The revolution would never have happened if it had to rely solely on government legislation. It happened because all the actors in the economy, in particular the financial sector that enables investments, contributed to it. The same holds true for the renewable energy revolution and the green economy. Developing this sector of the future will mean relying on the strength of the financial sector and the experts in the field.
In 2021, Greenpeace published a study on investments in fossil fuels. Since late 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, Canada's five big banks have pumped nearly $700 billion into fossil fuels. That makes no sense. To this day, even though several banks say they are committed to the 2050 net-zero goal, there is no indication that the banking community is looking to shift away from fossil fuels: Investments have increased from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019, and the trend keeps going strong. Canada's five big banks are all on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. I find that disturbing.
The oil and gas sector is set to decline, for both environmental and fiscal reasons, both here and abroad, and stock market trends are also following the green trend in finance. Unfortunately, this trend has not had much influence on Canadian banks. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre seems to be aware of that. It is up to the House to send a clear message to the financial sector, where something could be done. This is more likely to increase the chances of a successful transition to a green economy in the western provinces, which is what the member for Winnipeg South Centre is calling for. Given the magnitude of the challenges faced by those provinces, they will need help and motivation, not a framework imposed through legislation that interferes with provincial jurisdictions.
I was recently fortunate enough to connect with economists and actuaries in California, where incentives for green investment are already well established. These same experts are actively moving forward and giving speeches to financial organizations around the modern world. I wonder if Canada is doing anything like this. I am simply asking the question. I would be happy to put the government in touch with these proactive firms, which have already helped implement a financial system that is firmly committed to responsible investments that will save the world. It is up to us in the House to support the redirection of funding and fossil fuel subsidies towards green financing to help the provinces that need it most.
We all know it. We all see it. The evidence is clear. Fossil fuels are killing the planet and all the life upon it. Many are suffering the terrible consequences of our cowardice in the face of deteriorating planetary ecology. The maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands just went through hurricane Fiona. That was right here at home, not halfway around the world. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is currently studying how hurricane Fiona affected the Maritimes. We all know there is no escaping this. It is real. It is happening, yet investments are still being made in Bay du Nord. Investment in natural gas is being tolerated and even promoted, but there is no move toward creating incentives to direct funding toward sustainable development.
In closing—
1601 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
