SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Apr/30/24 7:05:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, everything is broken, but the Liberals are refusing to take responsibility. It is somebody else's fault all the time. This is typical of the responses we get from the government. Emblematic of it was the member's reference to Phoenix at the beginning. He said it was the Conservatives' pay system. Yes, the work on the Phoenix pay system started under Conservatives, but it was launched under the Liberals. It has been nine years, and the system is still failing public servants, and of course it is Stephen Harper's fault. There is endemic corruption within the procurement system, and it is somebody else's fault. There is out-of-control inflation, a broken economy, crime, drugs and disorder, but it is not the fault of the people who have been running the place for the last nine years. When will the Liberals take responsibility for their many failures?

152 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Apr/30/24 7:06:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member has no experience in procurement. I can tell by the language he is using that he has zero experience in procurement. I have been on the government operations committee for eight years of my life in this place. By the way, I have worked in procurement before and, though I respect him, I can tell he is just a junior in this place. He has zero credibility when it comes to advancing the issues of IT procurement. If politicians make decisions on IT procurement, there is something wrong. We do not make them. We obviously set the governance rules, but somebody broke the rules within that department and we will hold them accountable. We have called in the RCMP, not the frantics on the other side. The CBSA referred the matter to the RCMP. Those who will be held accountable will be held accountable, and if money was misused, we will recuperate that money.

161 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Apr/30/24 7:07:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this adjournment debate stems from a question I asked earlier about how we deal with wildfires in Canada: When will the federal government create a national wildfire-fighting force? As we all know, last year was the worst year ever for wildfires in this country. This year, all predictions point to an even more disastrous fire season. We have already had evacuation orders in British Columbia and Alberta in April. Last year, we had fires all across the country, from Halifax to Yellowknife and Vancouver Island. I want to pause here to pay tribute to all the firefighters and other first responders who worked so hard to keep Canadians safe during last year's firestorms. Eight firefighters in the prime of life lost their lives in last year's battle against those fires, and I attended the memorial service for one of those young people in Penticton. It is clear that local and provincial wildfire-fighting services were overwhelmed last summer. Even in British Columbia, where we unfortunately are very accustomed to catastrophic fires, the BC Wildfire Service, one of the best in the world, had to bring in crews from all over the world to help out. Indeed, thousands of firefighters from Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, South Africa, Costa Rica, Chile, Spain, Portugal, France, Brazil and the U.S.A. came to Canada last summer to help us deal with that crisis. We are grateful for that international help, but it comes at a cost: the cost of paying the crews, the cost of bringing them to Canada and, perhaps most of all, the critical cost of time lost in making those arrangements. Provincial and municipal forces become overwhelmed and costs are exploding. B.C. spent about a billion dollars last summer fighting fires, last year alone. We need to have a homegrown response that is both timely and cost-effective. In response to this accelerating crisis, experts have been calling for the formation of a national wildfire-fighting service. Dr. Mike Flannigan, from Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, is Canada's foremost expert on wildfire behaviour. While firefighting is normally a provincial area of authority, Flannigan points out that the last few years have put us in uncharted territory. He has suggested a national wildfire service of a few hundred well-trained members divided into teams that could be deployed to parts of the country that face clear and imminent fire threats. We have the modelling power and the expertise now to know where fires are likely to become problematic in the coming days and even weeks. We should have teams on the ground so that they are there when fires ignite and can be extinguished. Fires not caught in those first few hours can become the catastrophic firestorms that destroy huge areas of forest, as well as homes and livelihoods. Getting those crews to the fires quickly is essential, and we can do that with a national force. That force could work year-round. The fire season is growing longer and longer. It is already year-round in California. We could put this force to work in the Canadian winter, working to thin forests in the interface with communities across the country, doing FireSmart inspections or being mobilized to other countries that are facing a wildfire crisis. The government is proposing training local residents to fight interface fires. That is important and useful. We already rely on volunteer crews to cover structure protection. However, a national force would be a game-changer, and we really need to change the game on wildfire fighting in this country.

603 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Apr/30/24 7:11:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government stands with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who are affected by wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events year after year. It is worrisome when we look at the science. Experts are clear: Climate change means wildfires, floods and hurricanes, and they will increase in numbers and intensity. Every month of the past 10 months has broken heat records. Many provinces are experiencing a period of drought. We are not even in May, yet more than 100 fires are already burning in British Columbia and Alberta. This is paving the way of what might be, yet again, a difficult summer for Canadians. However, the member can rest assured that we take climate change seriously; we are working with our partners in the provinces and territories to make sure we are ready to face the challenges to come. We did the work and put in place the long-term funding they needed to procure firefighting material. That is $256 million in wildland firefighting equipment to the provinces. We are also making sure that our partners have the necessary human resources on the ground. We have funded the training of 600 wildfire fighters and 125 indigenous fire guardians. These firefighters are ready to work now, and they will be on the ground this summer to protect our communities. The training program is still recruiting, and we are on pace to reach 1,000 new wildland firefighters before the end of the year. We are also making sure that the current firefighters feel our support and appreciation. We are grateful for the work they do and the risks they take. This is why we announced that we will double the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue. We are investing massively in civilian response capacity by investing $166.9 million in the humanitarian workforce program. We have allowed them to develop capacity, mobilize more quickly and deploy critical on-the-ground support to local governments. These organizations can leverage different capacities across jurisdictions and provide Canadians with the reliefs they need during any large-scale emergencies that follow. Our government is also determined to tackle the effects of climate change before they impact Canadians and pose a threat to their security. With the national adaptation strategy, we are addressing local vulnerabilities and investing proactively to increase resiliency. The strategy advances significant investments in disaster-resilient infrastructure projects and in wildlife prevention. Our climate is changing with every passing year, but we will remain focused on keeping people safe while strengthening our capacity to support Canadians.

432 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Apr/30/24 7:14:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the funding put in to help volunteer firefighters and the training of firefighters, but the real point here is to create a deployable force that could go to where the firefighting is needed. A recent Abacus Data poll found that 70% of Canadians are in favour of a national wildfire fighting force. The public is ready for this. They know it would be a good investment, not only to save money fighting fires but also to stop fires before they become the catastrophic monsters that consume vast forests and communities and to save the human cost of evacuations and the loss of homes. Yes, having a national firefighting force would save money and valuable time. It would save forests, livelihoods and lives. We need one in Canada as soon as possible.

135 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Apr/30/24 7:15:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know there are a lot of communities in my hon. colleague's province that go through these fires. In my neck of the woods, I do not have to go through that, but I want to assure the hon. member that our government takes this issue seriously. We are working to build local capacity. On what he is proposing, the government has not necessarily said no. However, right now, we are focused on building local capacity, and we are providing the funding to do that. In the future, if a national firefighter force is necessary, then I am sure we will get there.

106 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Apr/30/24 7:16:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the carbon tax tonight with my colleague across the way. We have had a discussion before. I have a couple of definitions of rebate, just to get that out of the way first: From Cambridge, a rebate is “an amount of money that was returned to you, especially by the government”; from the Oxford dictionary, it is “a partial refund to someone who has paid too much money for tax”. We know the flavour of The Hill Times. There was a Hill Times cartoon recently where the Prime Minister was holding a wallet and handing some cash back to a citizen; the citizen looked at it and said, “Isn't that my wallet?” That cartoon spread out, and I have had a lot reaction to it in my constituency. People ask, does the government not understand that it is their money it is giving back, and not all of it? The government took the money from them to begin with; if it did not take the money from them in the first place, it would be of benefit to them. The understanding of a rebate is giving money back that was theirs. It is an interesting concept. One challenge with carbon tax is some of the issues it has created. People will talk about the cost in agriculture, and we have talked about this before. It is a huge part that agriculture producers face. I have irrigation in my riding, which my colleague knows about well. It is costing huge amounts in the agriculture sector, and there is no rebate back for large producers, which I have in my riding. We are talking about a lot of money. On the other side of it, people talk about the different kinds of energy that we have. Regarding Alberta wind farms, for example, I have an article here stating that, on a specific day, November 24, 2023, Alberta's 44 wind farms operated at 0.3% capacity. Alternative energy, when we talk about wind and solar, is a bit of a problem, but we still have the carbon tax moving from $65 a tonne to $80 a tonne and then to $170 a tonne by 2030. The Saskatchewan farm producers association figured out that this is $7.42 per acre in 2023 and $17 per acre by 2030. That is a huge amount of money. The other thing that scientists are beginning to say is that, with advances in technology, they are figuring out that the amount of carbon absorbed by agriculture is huge. It is at the point that people in agriculture should be getting and selling those credits just as solar and wind power operators do. The technology is showing the amount of carbon that agriculture is absorbing is not recognized. It is beyond being equal; it is above equal, and agriculture should even be credited with the amount that wind and solar energy are. Therefore, a huge shift needs to be made in recognition of what the agriculture sector is doing with carbon and how it is being absorbed; those credits could even be sold. Scientists are now recognizing that. However, the former Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, has made some interesting comments. He said, “The idea that wind and solar are going to replace fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric is absolutely insane.” This is Patrick Moore from my generation. He said that there are other things that we need to do, not depend on solar and wind.

596 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Apr/30/24 7:19:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my hon. colleague on the other side. There are too few members of Parliament in this place who defend farmers, and I thank him. He defends farmers, but so do I and others on this side of the House. I want to correct the record when hon. members say that farmers get absolutely nothing back in a carbon rebate. This is something for which I fought very hard, along with my colleague from Kings—Hants, and other members from P.E.I. and Ontario. We certainly recognize there is an issue regarding natural gas and propane, but farmers are already exempt for upward of 90% of carbon pricing on their farms. They do not pay eight dollars for diesel use on farms, but they do get a rebate for natural gas and propane. It would be useful for the hon. member to know this because I am sure he wants to share the good news. This year, farmers are eligible for a rebate of $1.86 per $1,000 of expenses on farms. I realize it is not 100% of a rebate. The problem is that the government is not aware of who is using propane or natural gas, but 100% of carbon pricing that is collected by the federal government in that particular province is returned to farmers. All of it is returned to farmers through a rebate, and that works out to $1.86 this year. As carbon pricing increases, that amount will also increase to ensure that farmers get a fair share. On other issues the member pointed out, we recognize that input costs have gone up on farms. The Government of Canada does not control that. I will remind my hon. colleague that when the leader of the official opposition was in government and was sitting at the cabinet table, none of that was increased under his watch. I was not on the Hill, but I was close to it and watched very closely. I do not remember Conservatives advocating for an increased amount on the advance payments program's interest-free portion when input costs went up, and I will remind the member that they did go up in 2008. We recognized that during the pandemic and increased it. We went from $100,000 to $350,000. Now, we have moved to $250,000. I hope my hon. colleague will support that because he knows it is important for farmers. Secondly, the member recognizes and understands that technology and farmers are good stewards of the land and that they are capturing carbon. We are working with farmers, and we recognize that they are doing that. Universities are working with farmers to find a proper measurement. The methane protocol that Environment Canada is working on I believe will provide an opportunity for farmers to participate in the carbon economy, which the entire world wants access to. Lastly, we believe in SMR technology, which my hon. colleague knows. We do not just believe in wind and solar; we also believe in SMR. The Conservatives want to axe the tax, but a tariff will be imposed because other countries are talking about a carbon import tariff. If we do not have a carbon price on pollution, then other countries will impose a tariff. I do not want to leave our farmers out. We need to act right now.

568 words

Mr. Martin Shields

Apr/30/24 7:23:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the information my colleague shares. There are programs as a result of federal and provincial governments working together. We look at different things that happen in our climate and in our economy, but the challenge is in irrigation. We have talked about this a number of times. It is the electricity that is used, not the diesel and not the natural gas. Irrigation has a huge use of electricity. One farmer who has an operation showed me the bills, and he is up to $100,000 in carbon tax. There is a small rink in a rural area that supports kids' programs that people are keeping alive. It is costing them $700 a month in carbon tax. They are fundraising with bake sales and hamburger sales to try to keep that rural rink alive, but the $700 a month is killing them. Rinks are important in rural communities.

153 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Apr/30/24 7:24:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we should have a regional approach to carbon pricing. I would hope the member would advocate with his own provincial government to acknowledge that there are regional differences among jurisdictions. I think the Prime Minister wrote a letter about a month ago and asked provinces to come up with their own plans, plans that respect our Paris Agreement and that ensure farmers do not get slapped with a carbon import tariff.

80 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/30/24 7:25:29 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)

39 words