44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 10:01:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I often stand to table documents, and I have been asked what happens when I say that a document will be tabled in an electronic format. To answer that question, by tabling a document in an electronic format, members are afforded the opportunity to receive the response to the petition through email.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format. That is why I provided the explanation.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:10:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition signed by the residents of Winnipeg North. They are calling upon parliamentarians to advocate for and promote senior activities and different types of seniors programs. They cite specifically the importance of the guaranteed income supplement and OAS, and want members of Parliament to look at ways of being ongoing advocates for and supporters of programming and supports for seniors from coast to coast to coast, in particular, obviously, for the residents of Winnipeg North.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:11:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1420 to 1422, 1426, 1427, 1430 and 1432.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:11:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1283, originally tabled on April 17, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1423 to 1425, 1428, 1429, 1431, 1433 and 1434 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:11:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 1:42:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an encouraging debate. We see a great deal of passion, I would suggest, virtually from all sides of the House. We can contrast this to previous Bloc opposition days, when we talked about changes to the prayers and monarchy. Obviously Bloc members are listening to the priority issues of Canadians.
I like the motion that has been presented. Later I will explain in more detail some thoughts on the issue.
The national government, for the very first time, introduced a national adaptation strategy that involves dealing with the environment in a very tangible way. As a national government, this is the first time we have implemented a price on pollution and brought in the banning of single-use plastics in certain areas. We also have a commitment to the planting of hundreds of millions of trees.
I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important that not only the national government demonstrate leadership. There is also an expectation that provinces, territories and indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast get involved in protecting our environment. It is not one level—
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc wants to see all fossil fuel subsidies come to an end. Are there any exceptions in her mind, for example, orphan wells? The government is assisting in getting rid of those wells. Orphan wells are bad for our environment. There is a cost for the government to deal with them. The Bloc considers that a fossil fuel subsidy.
Is that a bad thing for the government to be doing? What about fossil fuel subsidies for people who live up north? From the Bloc's perspective, is that a bad fossil fuel subsidy?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:26:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start my comments by thinking of those individuals who have had to weather the forest fires, particularly those who live and work in the communities who, whether in terms of recreational, work or living environments, have incurred a great deal of hardship. One cannot underestimate the degree to which these fires have impacted literally thousands of lives in a very real and tangible way. We recognize the interruptions that have taken place as a direct result.
However, we do not often hear about a wildfire taking place in a particular community. It might be on the news for a day or two, maybe more than that, but what remains in these communities is there for a long time. It takes a while for a community to bounce back. To those individuals, I want to extend my best wishes and recognize what they are going through, which is a great difficulty that no doubt creates much anxiety and stress. They should know that they have a national government that is doing what it can in co-operation with different levels of government, stakeholders and non-profits. Obviously, the Government of Canada will do whatever it can with respect to our firefighters; whether they are paid or volunteer firefighters, the government has their back.
The second thing I will comment on is the firefighters. The other day, the Prime Minister was talking to me and others about a situation, which was referred to earlier today. Two firefighters were called into a home just north of Halifax. There was an elderly gentleman with dementia who had gone missing, and family members called in expressing concern. They were not too sure where he was, but they believed he was actually still in the home. The two firefighters busted down the door and went into the home, with smoke all around and flames flying. They found the elderly gentleman sitting in a chair, in good part unaware of what was taking place, and they rescued him. In a very humble way, both firefighters said, in essence, “That's what we do.”
I think that those two fine gentlemen embody the spirit and goodwill that we see day in and day out in our first responders, both from those who get paid and those who volunteer. I think I can speak on behalf of all members, no matter what political party, in recognizing the efforts of our firefighters. This is where I wanted to start things off.
It is an interesting process when we see disasters in communities. In Manitoba, we have had forest fires and floods, and I will provide comments on both situations. However, right now, I want to recognize these three provinces in particular: Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta.
I also want to talk about how people come together. Let us recognize that. The government plays a very important role. There is absolutely no doubt of that, and I will expand on that. However, we see people come together when there are tragedies that take place in communities. They do this in different forms, whether it is through volunteering, sending money or other forms of support. It could be as simple as a prayer at a local gurdwara, church, mosque or synagogue. It could be sending support in the form of cash. We see that time and time again.
In Alberta, we saw people from Manitoba pitching in to help fight the wildfires. We have a wonderful neighbour, the United States, to the south of us. President Biden was talking with the Prime Minister of Canada. As one member referenced, smoke and wildfires do not know any boundaries.
The smoke from the fires from the province of Quebec is travelling all over the place and crossing international boundaries. I would suggest that it did not even have to take that for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister to have a discussion; we now have individuals from the United States coming north to help us deal with the wildfires.
Whether it is the communities at the micro level, the different levels of government or international relations, we see people coming together. This is because we recognize the harm being done, not only to our communities but also to our environment as a whole. That is why we have such programs as the disaster program, which is there to support Canadians, because disasters take place.
I looked something up. I understand that it was actually Pierre Elliott Trudeau who established the program, the request for federal assistance, back in 1970. It was an interesting figure that I received. It is estimated that 280 events have happened since 1970. If we put that into the perspective of what we have witnessed over the last few years, there is no doubt that we are seeing an increase.
Interestingly enough, in terms of those direct federal contributions, we are looking at close to $8 billion over that time frame. We can look at what we are spending today in terms of disaster support. A hurricane hit Atlantic Canada, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Homes were destroyed. The municipality went to the province. The province then came to Ottawa, and Ottawa has been there to support Atlantic Canada after that storm. We continue to be there today to support Canadians, as we are there today for the people of Alberta, Quebec and other jurisdictions where we see these disasters taking place.
In the past, my home province of Manitoba has had forest fires and floods displace thousands of people. We need to recognize that there are things the government can do that will, in fact, make a difference. One of the best examples that comes to mind, as I see my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa walk in, is “Duff's Ditch”.
A premier from Manitoba said that one of the ways we can avoid the city of Winnipeg flooding all the time is to build a floodway around the city. If we look at the south, where the water comes from, the floodway takes the water just before it enters the city. When the Red River is overflowing, Duff's Ditch will take the overflow around the city. It takes it around via the east and then dumps it back into the Red River once it is north of the city.
What an idea that is. This is the type of investment that we need. We need to become more resilient. Former Premier Duff Roblin has often been referred to as a visionary for trying to deal with this particular issue. I can tell members that, with respect to the amount of real dollars, even factoring in inflation, billions have been saved as a direct result of this. The premier at the time realized the benefit of looking at what is being thrown at us through the environment. By doing this, people's lives were protected in many ways, and property was protected in terms of flooding. There have been occasions when we have had floods in the city and in the Point Douglas area, the area I represented. Back in 1997, I can say that the federal government was supporting the area. I remember when Jean Chrétien came to Point Douglas to support Canadians in the north end of Winnipeg at a time when we had needs. Therefore, there have still been issues.
I use that as an example, because one of the things that we need to recognize is that climate change has really had a profound impact on weather patterns. Because of emissions and other environmental factors, we are seeing a greater number of disasters. As a result, different levels of government need to take more action. We have a national government that states that it has set up a national adaption strategy. It is the first time ever. As a national government, we are saying that we need to have a strategy that encourages municipalities, provinces and others to look at ways in which we can improve the infrastructure, so that when disasters hit, we can minimize the cost and the damage to our communities. There is no question about whether that will happen.
We are talking about 1.6 billion new federal dollars. That is on top of the $8 billion that we put in place since we have been in government. No government in the history of this nation has invested more in infrastructure than the current government has. That is why, when I hear some opposition members saying that we are not doing enough or asking what the is government doing, I would suggest that they review some of the budgets that have been introduced. They will see hundreds of millions of dollars, going into multiple billions, to invest in things like infrastructure. They have seen a government focused on dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way. Whether it is working with indigenous, provincial or territorial governments, the federal government understands and appreciates that there is joint jurisdiction in many different areas, and the environment is one of them.
Earlier today, someone posed a question in regard to our oceans. I happened to be sitting beside the minister responsible for oceans, and she gave the answer. Canada has three oceans from coast to coast to coast. Often, people forget about the north. Do people know that under 1% was actually protected when we formed government back in late 2015? Not even 1% of our coastal Canadian waters, which we are responsible for, were actually protected. Today, one can multiply that by almost 15. Just under 15% of Canada's coastal waters are now under protection.
What was even more encouraging is that the minister responsible for oceans talked about 2025. There is a very good chance that, as a government, we are going to hit 25% of our oceans being protected. We have the Prime Minister and cabinet saying that this is not good enough, and we can even attempt to do better. By 2030, let us see if we can get it up to 30% of our coastal waters. I believe that we are on target to hit that type of a milestone.
The amount of land being converted for conservation has dramatically increased under the government. I believe we have even seen the adoption of what could be three, maybe more, new national parks under the government.
They say let us talk about other policies. We have budgetary policies, or monetary policies, and we have legislative policies, or initiatives. Let me give members an example of both.
From a legislative perspective, we have brought in legislation to have net-zero emissions by 2050. For the first time ever, we now have, in legislation, a law that says that Canada will be at net-zero by 2050. That is a very important commitment in law that is coming from the Government of Canada, a legislative initiative.
We also have a budgetary initiative that will have, and has had, a very positive impact on Canada's environment and the people of Canada, which is the price on pollution. The Conservatives call it a carbon tax.
Countries from all around the world, back in 2015, went to Paris, and one of the points that came out of Paris was the idea of a price on pollution. It was not a new idea, but it was amplified in Paris back in 2015. It was not new because the first government in North America to have a price on pollution was the Province of Alberta. It was a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta that brought it in.
It was not new. When this government adopted it, we brought it back to Canada. We said that we are going to have a price on pollution because it is the right thing to do. We instituted a rebate to support Canadians. The system works so that there is an incentive, whether one is a consumer or one is within the industry, for less emissions, for ensuring that we see actions being taken to protect our environment.
The Conservatives have been all over the map, like a fish out of water, flipping and flopping, depending on who their leader is. The current leader says they do not support the price on pollution. I am hoping that fish is not dead yet, and we will get another flop or a flip. I am hopeful.
I believe there are members of the Conservative caucus who understand the benefits of a price on pollution. There were leadership candidates, although they lost, mind, in the Conservative caucus who actually support it. It is always interesting to watch when the Conservatives get a little bit embarrassed or humiliated on that particular issue.
2147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, talking about cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess, let me draw a comparison.
Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, and containers of garbage were being shipped from Canada over to the Philippines, where they were left to rot. It caused such a stink that the people in the Philippines were telling Canada to take back its garbage. The then president Duterte said, and I think he meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, he would declare war on Canada to have it take back its garbage.
Not to worry, we avoided that by ensuring there was a place for us to take back the garbage, and we did. It was somewhere in British Columbia. They took care of the garbage and did a fine job.
We are used to cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess—
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member needs to be a little more patient because at some point Trans Mountain will be divested.
Whether it is indigenous entrepreneurs or others who ultimately take over Trans Mountain, I believe that Canada as a community would be better off because it was the right decision to make at the right time. At the end of the day, I ultimately see a great deal of benefit.
This is the big difference. As a government and as the Liberal Party, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We need to work with all the different stakeholders out there to make sure we all benefit.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:51:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I do not believe what the member is saying.
Let me emphasize the next point. The member would argue that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. Yes, we are subsidizing them and we have a tangible commitment to get out of that subsidy. However, we should keep in mind that a high percentage of that subsidy is going to deal with orphan wells. Orphan wells are a bad thing for our environment and it is not good for the government to just ignore that problem. We have to deal with it, and that means spending money.
If we are spending money, the NDP says that we are subsidizing fossil fuels. I would suggest that we are protecting the environment, because orphan wells are bad for it. We need to deal with them. It would be irresponsible of government to ignore orphan wells.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:53:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Green Party has a very unique position in the House in the sense that it is the only party that would say it is time for us to disassemble, to take apart our pipelines. The Green Party genuinely believes that we need to get rid of the existing pipelines. The Conservative Party says that no one cares about the environment, just build, build, build, even though it was not very successful at it, but that is what it will say.
As this government has clearly demonstrated, if we work with Canadians on the environment and the economy, there is a way we can manage all of it in an appropriate fashion.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was here when the question was posed. The parliamentary secretary provided an answer to the member. Tomorrow, we are back at it, and I would encourage the member to ask the follow-up question of the parliamentary secretary.
The minister responsible for oceans talked about this, that when we became government, 1% of the oceans were protected. Today it is almost 15%. In 2025, it will be close to 25%, and we are shooting for 30% by the year 2030. I see that as a good thing. I hope that will help the member sleep tonight.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to advocate for those types of things to be banned outright, as the member seems to be implying. The government needs to continue to work with the B.C. government, other stakeholders and different industries. I am very much interested in what specifically the member is ultimately trying to recommend.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 6:22:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that, typically, when we get into discussions of this nature, there is often a right of reply given to members. I want to make sure that the member who introduced the bill is in fact aware of that. You might want to allow that member the right to reply.
First, we will deal with the motion. If it does not have to be dealt with, as a courtesy, we should provide the member who introduced it the opportunity to reply, depending on what you get back.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 6:24:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because of this relatively new process that was introduced just a few minutes back, my concern is that the mover is not going to get the opportunity of a right to reply. I am prepared to allow that to occur, as a courtesy, with unanimous consent, as opposed to the member talking out the clock and he never gets that opportunity.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 6:41:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member, one draws the conclusion that he does not support the legislation, yet I suspect that the Conservative Party, when it comes down to it, will likely be voting in favour of it.
As much as the member was so critical of the legislation, we recognize that there are Conservative premiers, premiers from coast to coast, saying that the $10 day care and the national plan that we put into place is working. We are getting more day care spots. We are seeing the reduction to $10-a-day child care.
Is he going to vote in favour of the legislation? Does he not support $10-a-day day care?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 6:56:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick quotes, one from Canada's most populated province. “I'm so proud of the work we've done with our federal partners to land an agreement that will lower costs for families across the province.” This is from Doug Ford, who happens to be the Premier of Ontario. Here is another quote: “Our government is proud to work in partnership with Canada to strengthen and grow Manitoba's early learning and childcare system in all communities of our province.” This is from Heather Stefanson, the Conservative Premier of Manitoba, my home province.
The Conservatives like to bad-talk the legislation, yet at second reading they voted in favour of it. Chances are they are going to vote in favour of it at third reading.
Will the hon. member clarify this for those who are following the debate. Have the Conservatives made up their mind? Do they know what they are going to do at third reading? We understand they do not like it, but will they vote against it?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 7:11:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect people have heard of the phrase “the hidden agenda”. The Conservatives are often accused of not telling Canadians what their real intentions are. We are seeing a very good example of that today.
They are very critical of the legislation. They are critical of the $10-a-day child care, but they will not tell us how they will vote. Twice now I have asked them a very clear question. When it comes time to vote on third reading, I asked what the Conservatives will do. My prediction is that the hidden agenda will kick in, the Conservatives will vote yes, and when it comes to it they really do not support it, but do not want to be seen supporting this Liberal initiative.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:42:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member is right to raise the issue of dangerous cargo and hazardous things that go through our municipalities and our cities. I very much recall what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just a few weeks ago in the city of Winnipeg in my area, the CP tracks had some issues that caused McPhillips Street, a major thoroughfare that is travelled by 90,000-plus people, to be shut down. A lot of thought was given to what would have happened had the cars gone over and spilled onto the street itself, as opposed to just staying on the top level. There is a great deal of concern.
My question to the member is this. We have had a great deal of time. We have had lots of reports and recommendations now on the issue. I would like to know the member's thoughts on seeing this bill continue to progress through the House.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
