44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/14/23 12:29:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am vaguely aware of the first Trudeau. What I find interesting is that the national energy policy that was devastating to Alberta and western provinces at least had Canada as the beneficiary, particularly industries in central Canada. However, I think it was a misguided policy.
I look at what the Liberal government is doing today, and it is not only ruining energy policy in this country but, at the same time, making energy more expensive and selling it to Americans and Europeans at a cheaper price. It is completely backwards.
The Prime Minister, in many senses, is doubling down on bad policy and is hurting Canadians.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:37:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Fort McMurray forest fires cost Canadians almost $6 billion; Alberta floodings in 2013, almost $4 billion; the ice storm in Quebec, $3 billion; atmospheric rivers in British Columbia, $8 billion. These are only a few of the examples of the increasing cost to Canadians of climate change.
What is the answer from this reckless opposition party? It is to make pollution free again. That is unacceptable. On this side of the House, we will support Canadians and we will fight climate change.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 3:10:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there has been radio silence from the Prime Minister since Alberta energy workers called out the government to get serious about a clean energy future.
Joe Biden's clean energy tech investments are transforming the American economy. Alberta workers have been clear. There is a huge opportunity to create a sustainable future rooted in clean tech and good-paying union jobs. However, that means the government actually comes to the table with investments.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us if the government actually has a plan? Is it ready to commit, in this coming budget, the funds necessary for a clean energy economy?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:17:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, with thanks to the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing some of his time.
I think it was another colleague who said earlier that he had some rather mixed feelings about today's motion because there is a lot that is true in it, particularly the first parts that name and provide some useful facts and figures about the very difficult situation Canadians are facing. We know that many Canadians right now are concerned about losing places to live, whether because the interest rate on their mortgages has gone up and they are not sure their family incomes can absorb the additional costs, because rents continue to climb, or for various other reasons.
Certainly one important reason is the continuing corporate presence in the Canadian housing market. In Winnipeg, for instance, we just saw Lions Place be offered up to a private developer who has a history of taking over buildings where there used to be affordable rents, doing some superficial renovations and then jacking up the rents. That activity is going on. It is happening and it is a real challenge, putting pressure on the cost of rent.
We know that Canadians are struggling with the 11% increase in the cost of groceries and that that puts pressures on household budgets. It is not an optional extra that people can choose to do without. It is a cost that they either have to absorb or, as the member for Victoria was just pointing out, go hungry because they do not have any good alternatives. We are facing a really difficult moment.
Where I take issue with the motion before us is that it would lay all of that problem at the feet of government and suggest that it is sufficient just to cap government spending, cut waste, fire high-priced consultants and eliminate inflationary deficit and taxes that have caused a cost-of-living crisis for Canadians. There is, again, some truth in that. I am in favour of cutting waste, for instance, but I think my Conservative colleagues and I might have some differences of opinion as to what constitutes a proper cutting of waste, that is, what is truly wasteful and what is not.
As an example, I have been doing a lot of advocacy alongside folks outside of Parliament, like campaign 2000 for a CERB low-income repayment amnesty. I think it is wasteful to chase the poor for money they do not have because they took the government at its word, during a global crisis of unprecedented proportion, that if they needed help they should apply for it. When it turned out that they were not quite eligible because they were not poor in the right way, the government then said that they owe all of that money back. It will pay people to hound them even though it knows they do not have the money, and it will never get that money back. It is going to throw good money after bad. That is waste.
If that is what the Conservatives mean by cutting waste, I will show up any day of the week for that. I suspect it is not what they mean, because I have heard them talk about other things that I value and that I think are good investments. For instance, when we talk about pharmacare on this side of the House, that is a cost. Capping spending is not going to allow us to have a federal pharmacare plan, but do members know what a federal pharmacare plan would do? Ultimately it would save money for Canadians and reduce the cost of accessing prescription drugs in Canada, not just in individual budgets but in government budgets too.
The latest reports, prepandemic, on pharmacare in Canada said that Canadians were paying about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs. That was a combination of government expenditure, private insurance plan and out-of-pocket expenditure. The findings of many different studies over time, including in this particular example, was that a national pharmacare plan would cost about $20 billion a year. Depending on who pays and what ledger it is on, Canadians stand to save at least $4 billion a year on the prescription drugs they are already buying.
To me, it is not the right approach to say the federal government should just arbitrarily cap its spending when there are investment opportunities that could reduce costs to Canadians overall. I think we should be more discerning in our judgment around this place, in a way that this motion simply is not. We have seen a lot of change and we are going to see more change in the economy over the years to come, particularly in regard to energy. We are seeing that happen already.
Many of our allies are trying to lower their dependency on fossil fuel. That is happening, whether Canada wants it and gets on board or not. It is happening for the sake of both the climate and energy security. I do not think anybody in this place needs a lecture on that after the last 12 months, not only with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened to global energy supplies but also the real pinch from Russia's supply of oil to Europe and other parts of the world, as well as the power that that has given it.
There are many reasons the world is trying to lower its dependency on fossil fuel for basic things that we cannot do without, such as heating our homes. Canada's choice is whether it shows up to that or not. Back in the 1970s, Peter Lougheed made real investments, as did the federal government, to create the oil and gas industry that exists in Alberta today. That was not at all a spontaneous creation of the free market. There was a lot of very deliberate policy work and financial investment by governments in order to create the oil and gas economy of the late 20th century. Those who say otherwise would be kidding themselves and anyone who listens.
Before us is another moment of policy and financial investment to create a new energy economy for at least the next 50 years. Canada has to decide whether it wants to get on that train. We are not going to do so for free. Arbitrarily capping spending right now just takes Canada out of the game at a time when our biggest continental partner, the United States, is finally getting into the climate change game in a meaningful way. It is doing this with the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of companies that are in the new energy economy and are also making incredible amounts of profit are sizing up the places where they want to invest.
We should value that investment as much as we value investment in the oil and gas sector, but Canada does not. It has not shown up for other industries, particularly new energy industries, in the way that it did for oil and gas in the 1970s and continues to do today. Mr. Speaker, just think of the over $20 billion that the federal government found overnight to get into the pipeline business, something it has no business being in in the first place.
Do not tell me money is lacking for other important things. Of course there is money. The Liberals have proven that by going out and spending on things like pipelines, which they should not have done.
We are in this moment where we are trying to address critical challenges for individual Canadian households, and at the same time, many businesses that are still reeling from the effects of the pandemic. The world is preparing and laying the foundations for the next-generation economy. It is important to my children and to the children of people in this place and across the country that Canada get that right. This will make good-paying union jobs available to the next generation of Canadian children in the same way that those jobs were available for oil and gas workers in Alberta.
We want to make sure that those jobs continue to be available. Some of them will be in oil and gas, but there are going to be fewer of those in the future. This is not because the Canadian government of any stripe decided that was going to be the case. It is because many governments the world over are deciding that must be the case, if we are going to have a planet to have an economy on in the first place. They are not wrong about that. Canada needs to get with the program, and we are only going to be able to do that through serious investment.
I will close because I know my time is running short. I thank the Speaker for his diligence. I will just mention health care. I do not know that we need to do much more than that, but the idea that we are going to solve the very real problems in the health system without investment is false. In this time when people are struggling to get access to care, government will need to make investments. Provincial governments have been willing to pay through the nose for private agency nurses, overtime work and sending people to the United States to get treatment.
That is not a health system. We need to build it, or rebuild it, here. That will require investment. It is worth paying for. This is why it is not the time to endorse a simple spending cap.
1615 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:26:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I begin my question, I want to recognize the life of Cliff Branchflower, the former mayor of Kamloops, who passed away earlier this week. I wish his family the best at this difficult time.
My colleague mentioned that we are going to have decreased oil and gas jobs in the future, not because the current government wants it but because all governments really want that. Here is the thing. As it stands right now, it seems as though the current government wants fewer oil and gas jobs and wants fewer of them in Alberta. His point is that we are all going to get off oil and gas. However, when we are considering how much oil and gas is required today while we are weaning off it, does my colleague not agree that those good-paying jobs that could be located in Canada should stay in Canada as opposed to countries that do not have respect for wages and human rights? That is where those jobs are going right now. Why are they not staying in Canada?
198 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:54:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand, and maybe the member could help me by telling me how putting food on the table during a crisis, how helping Alberta get oil to tidewater, how lowering child care costs and how providing dental care to children is contributing to inflation.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:57:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the motion today talks a lot about expenses and what the government is spending money on. I know the member and I disagree quite a bit on what the government should be spending money on, but there is another side of that: revenue. The Liberal government has spent lots of money in Alberta to clean up oil and gas wells. The New Democrats asked for strings to be attached and they were not put in place. Now Premier Smith is giving $20 billion of Alberta money as a gift to her friends in the oil and gas industry.
I am wondering whether the member agrees with her decision and whether he thinks the federal government should put more strings on the provincial government to make sure that oil and gas well money is used to clean up oil and gas wells.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:58:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer to more revenue, especially in the energy sector, is not always more money. The government does not necessarily need to be spending more money in the energy sector. What the government needs to do is have good, proper regulation and have an environment where the industry can produce and do what it does best, which is create energy. It is environmentally friendly energy, much more so than that of many other countries. It is ethical energy and is much better than that of many other countries.
I would suggest to the government that it should be creating an environment where our energy sector can grow and where it can hire more Canadians and Albertans to do the job they do best. That is the best way not only to support Alberta jobs, but to help support Canadians right across the country. Sometimes the best thing is for the government to back off and allow business to do what it does best.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I rise for the last time today, on national Have a Heart Day.
Before I begin, I wish safe travels to all of the delegates who attended the Northern Lights trade show here in Ottawa last week. It is an important event that promotes the great work that Nunavummiut are doing to support Canada’s economy. It is a great event to showcase the beauty and talent that artisans from the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut have.
I extend my congratulations to all the participants and winners of the Arctic Winter Games in Woodland, Alberta. I have heard great stories of triumph, heartache and celebration. I thank the volunteers who have devoted their time to the success of youth to achieve their best in such events.
I thank my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for sponsoring Bill S-222 in this place. It is a step in the right direction to help eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The government has the responsibility to do its part. We must all do our part to reduce emissions. We must all do our part to protect the environment. This bill, while short, has important implications. There must be a fine balance between keeping forests and reducing reliance on harmful materials.
Over the last 20 years, I have driven back and forth between Ottawa and New Brunswick to visit family. I have noticed major changes over those 20 years. Roads have improved. Communities have grown, and forests of trees have been decimated. Although I know that I cannot live in remote wooded areas for long periods of time, I know how important trees are. I know that we must find solutions to replacing harmful products, such as plastics and other materials known to accelerate climate change.
As Canadian businesses and organizations are shifting to more sustainable practices, this bill helps to ensure that the federal government will work toward those concerns. We are often asked to stretch the limits of our knowledge to learn about important issues that constituents are concerned about. In this speech, I stretch my limits in attempting to understand how mainstream society consumes resources.
The aim of this bill is to allow the federal government to use wood for improvements to infrastructure. By using wood in the repair and building of federal infrastructure projects, Canadian businesses can be better supported. In 2013, production in the forest sector contributed $19.8 billion, or 1.25% to Canada’s real gross domestic product. With the decline of the forestry industry in recent years, there is an opportunity to revitalize this sector while protecting the environment.
In my riding, although we are not manufacturing wood, families rely on wood for homes, heating and other projects. We rely very much on the import of wood from our neighbours to the south. I use this seat to make sure that concerns are brought forward, my constituents' questions are answered and their needs are met.
As the critic to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, my job is to amplify the voices and the concerns that indigenous peoples have. I meet with indigenous communities, chiefs, elders and advocates who are asking the government to listen and take meaningful action to repair the damage it has done. This is important work, but the government must also stretch itself. It needs to be putting in the hard work to make sure Canadians are heard and this is acted upon.
In Budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018–19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. We are calling on the government to make good on its promises and be true to its word.
This is important, especially in the context of the federal government’s relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada. The government has promised to protect indigenous people's lands, consult with indigenous communities and work toward reconciliation. Too often, this does not occur. The government must take the issues being raised by Canadians more seriously. The government has promised greener solutions to address climate change.
All too often, I have watched the government break promises it has made to indigenous peoples and to Canadians. All too often, the government has taken minimal or incremental steps that improve the lives of indigenous peoples. The Liberal government has said that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples. Protecting and upholding indigenous people's rights is a responsibility of the government.
The bill is silent on this important matter. How will indigenous people's rights be respected? How will this amendment increase tenure for first nations communities? How will first nations management be guaranteed?
It is my hope that amendments will be made to acknowledge that Canada is founded on indigenous people's lands, and provisions must account for that. As Canada continues to work toward a better future, indigenous people must be heard and their land rights must be upheld.
Indigenous governance and management must be included. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be included. No development of any kind should exclude the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people.
884 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
