SoVote

May/9/22 6:40:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, when the budget was presented on April 7, the government was talking about sending infrastructure transfers to the provinces as long as the federal government approved of the provinces' plans for the money. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does he think that transfers for infrastructure or anything else should be contingent on whether the federal government approves of what Quebec and the provinces intend to do with the money?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice

May/9/22 6:41:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Repentigny for her question. If I am honest, it is something I continue to learn about in this place. I spoke to the mental health transfer, for example. This is an example where funds would be allocated to provinces within their jurisdiction to spend appropriately. When it comes to infrastructure, I would be glad to sit down with the member to better understand what she thinks the best way to approach it would be, and to have that conversation with her.

88 words

All Topics

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

May/9/22 6:42:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I really want to bring to the discussion some of the key things that are happening in Elgin—Middlesex—London. These are the key things that we are still waiting for an answer from the government on. As a girl from a rural community, I think we need to talk about fertilizer. We need to make a plan. I was happy enough to sit on the agriculture committee the other day, just seeing some of the fine work that was being done there, but we know that we have people in Elgin—Middlesex—London who are seeding right now. Fertilizer has a 35% tariff applied regardless of whether one bought it prior to March 2 or not. We know that boats have continued to sit at sea. We know that there continues to be issues, but we need to have a plan. The farmers need to know what is going to happen next. They start buying, and they start preparing even for next season, for 2023, and they will be preparing in October through December. We need to know what is going on and the government needs to come up with a plan. Is it going to be helping out? Are they going to get 35% of this back from the coffers that are sitting there taking in these tariffs right now, or is that 35% tariff going to be applied to the food and to everything else that Canadians are consuming? I wanted to bring up fertilizer and ask the government to please come up with an answer. We are waiting. I want to talk about passport services. Golly gee, we have heard a lot about passport services, but I just want to remind the government that 10-year passports are due. That means that they are going to be there, so it needs to come up with a plan. We are just waiting. We have people who are being told, as I heard earlier today, to come at 1 a.m. to line up. Back in 2007, I believe it was, when we knew the U.S. government was putting in this plan, I can tell members, as I was a constituency assistant, the government was prepared. We had line-ups that were eight and nine hours long, but the government was prepared, and within eight weeks, people were still able to get their passports. We know that with this government right now, it is the same situation, but there is no passport service. Please, get the services back to being Service Canada. I also want to talk about the cost of living. This is just really simple. I want to just make sure I read this one to members. A constituent wrote to me, “Good morning. Yesterday, I went to put gas in my car and my heart sank when I saw how much I had to pay for a litre. Right now, I work three jobs, so that my wife can stay home and home-school our kids. How many more jobs do you want one person to work?” I think that is the question. He already has three. They home-school their children. I am sure they are very frugal, like many families are, but what is the government going to do when it comes to the cost of living? This morning, my husband filled up for $1.99 in the city of St. Thomas. Last year at this time, we know it was closer to two-thirds of that cost. I am asking the government to do some work, to start thinking about what it is like to be a regular Canadian who has to pay these bills, who has to feed their children and who has to buy food and clothes and shelter. I am just asking for some compassion, and I am hoping that the government will get to work.

656 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 6:45:15 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

97 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/9/22 6:46:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that the vote be adopted on division.

11 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 6:47:02 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/22 6:47:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 6:47:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

37 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/9/22 6:47:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:00 p.m.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 6:47:35 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed

7 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/9/22 6:47:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to represent the riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in this place. Two things in particular about my riding are that it is very involved in the energy sector and it has a large Ukrainian community. People in this riding are asking me what we can do to support Ukraine in the midst of this horrific invasion by Russia. I think they understand just how critical energy supply and security are in combatting the Russian invasion and allowing Europe to impose the kinds of sanctions that will effectively starve Putin’s war machine. So much of the Russian economy is dependent on the export of gas and other energy-related projects, so Canada’s critical contribution could be to supply the vital energy resources to Europe and to other parts of the world, to displace their dependence on Russian gas. We have been asking these questions as the opposition. We have been calling on the government for years to recognize the economic opportunities associated with our oil and gas sector and to do more to support the construction of pipelines. We have also called on it, particularly in the context of the Russian invasion that we are seeing, to recognize that building the energy infrastructure we need to displace Russian gas in Europe is not just about the economy. It is also about security. It is about doing our part to support Ukrainians who are resisting by saying we want to give our European friends, allies and other nations around the world an alternative to buying oil and gas from Russia. It has been interesting that since we have been raising this question, the government is more willing to broadly say that it buys into the idea. There is some language in the G7 communiqué that speaks about working together to phase out dependency on Russian energy, so it is encouraging to see that. The government is starting to talk the talk in response to some of these opposition questions, but what we do not see from the government is a willingness to step up and take action and walk the walk, to recognize that if we are going to displace Russian gas in Europe, if we are going to do our part to be able to supply energy resources to Europe, it is going to mean that we build up that infrastructure and make legislative and policy changes that allow us to move quickly to get those energy resources to where they need to go as quickly as possible, recognizing that the world is in a war. We are in this very acute security situation, and doing our part should mean re-examining the antienergy policies the government has put in place in the past. It would be good for our economy to do these things, and these are things the Conservatives have been calling for for years, but recognizing the particulars of the situation we are in. Now is the time to be thinking about, for instance, repealing Bill C-69, which makes it very difficult for us to build pipeline infrastructure. We need to have a faster, smoother process for getting infrastructure approved so that we can support Europe in being able to impose energy-related sanctions on Russia and end its dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is not going to be good enough to just talk the talk, to just say the words of solidarity, and to say that we stand with Ukraine, but then to actually fail to make the legislative and policy changes that are going to help achieve that result. If Canada believes this G7 communiqué it has signed on to and the words that ministers are now starting to say about sanctioning Russia, about having the kind of debilitating sanctions that will stop Putin's tanks in their tracks, and if the government is serious about these things, then it has to think about the kinds of changes we can make that are going to support the development of our energy sector and the export of those energy products, in particular to Europe. Therefore, I want to ask the government if it is really serious about this. Are these just words, or are we going to see concrete action with respect to Canada playing a greater role and contributing to global energy security?

733 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.)

May/9/22 6:51:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the ongoing tragedy unfolding before our eyes in Europe is one that I know everyone is concerned about. Regardless of political persuasion, we are all sickened by what Russia is doing to its neighbour, so it is no surprise that this is one of those issues before Parliament where opposing parties sometimes will largely agree. For one thing, we share the view that this war represents a defining challenge for the democratic world. We also agree that Canada must work with allies to provide equipment to help Ukraine's brave soldiers fight off this unprovoked aggression. All parties support the democratic world's punishment sanctions: a package that includes a Canadian ban on imports of oil, gas and other petroleum products from Russia. Furthermore, we are united in doing everything we can to deal with this humanitarian disaster. We also share the member opposite's belief in the critical importance of energy security, and the need for Europe and the world to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependency on Russian oil and gas. There is nothing here that he needs to convince us of. It is clear that the world must stand up to Russian aggression, and that is what we are doing. We are taking all the measures I have just cited, and are working closely with our allies to help Europe wean itself off of this dependency. I would invite the member to consider our government's work with industry and provincial governments. The Government of Canada has identified Canadian industry capacity that can increase production by up to 200,000 barrels of oil and the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of natural gas. These exports will give America, now the world's largest LNG exporter, more leeway to export its petroleum products to Europe and other markets. I would agree that this alone is a relatively small proportion of the amount of Russian oil and gas that we have to displace, but solidarity matters. The U.S., Brazil and other nations are also stepping up. We would once again urge members opposite to consider the International Energy Agency's 10-point plan to end its dependency on Russian gas. It includes moving Europe more aggressively toward alternatives, such as increased imports of LNG, renewables and hydrogen, and that is exactly what we are doing with our climate plan. It is one that includes a strategy to build a Canadian hydrogen industry that could help fill this void. On that note, I am pleased to say that Germany's ambassador recently referred to Canada as a potential hydrogen superpower. What I just outlined really illustrates why it would be the worst time to abandon Canada's clean energy transition. We all have a job to do here. We all need to step up to protect the interests of Canadians, but also the interests of allies around the world.

482 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/9/22 6:55:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the parliamentary secretary framed her comments as if there was sort of wide agreement in the House on this issue. Certainly there is wide agreement on some aspects of our response to the horrific invasion of Ukraine, but there are clear differences in that the government does not seem to support the development of the critical infrastructure that is necessary to actually achieve the objective that the parliamentary secretary is talking about; that is, to end Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. This is particularly clear in the fact that on March 3 in this place, my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills put forward a motion that was about the invasion. It had a number of points that I think members all agreed on, but then it said: ...call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater, recognizing energy as vital to Canadian and European defence and security, allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe, and being consistent with environmental goals in the transition to non-emitting sources of energy. That motion was opposed by the government. Conservatives put forward a motion supporting Ukraine with that specific language around energy, and the government opposed that motion. Why?

221 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

May/9/22 6:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our government recognized our role in global energy security long before this tragedy started to unfold and long before the member opposite stood in the House of Commons. In fact, energy security was front and centre for the Prime Minister and President Biden back when they met in February of last year. It was put forward in writing in the accord that was struck, called the “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership”. The member opposite knows this. The member also knows that our government has endorsed projects that advance security, including the Line 3 replacement, LNG Canada and the TMX pipeline expansion. We are the government that has been moving these projects forward because we know they are critically important. We are also—

130 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 6:57:44 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

8 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/9/22 6:57:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in this place to raise issues I originally put forward in a question that was responded to by the same parliamentary secretary on the subject of the Baffinland mine in Nunavut. I want to start by thanking the hon. member of Parliament for Nunavut for her leadership and guidance on this issue. I reflect, as I look at issues relating to the Arctic, that is Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon, on how out of it southern Canadians are and how easy it is to ignore the leadership of the Inuit on issues in Nunavut. Canadians probably know more about the Amazon than we know about the Arctic, and it is ironic that the concentrated urban populations of Brazil, such as Rio de Janeiro, are as far from the Amazon, and as unlikely to ever visit it, as Canadians in Toronto are to visit Nunavut. In both cases, it is a 3,000-kilometre distance, but I think Canadians are unaware of how critical our Arctic is to our global climate system. In the same way, the Amazon and the Arctic are both major global influencers on climate while they are also major victims of the climate crisis. The context in which I asked the question about the Baffinland mine was this. It is a mine that has been operating in sending iron ore to Europe. It ships the ore out from the Milne Inlet port. It is called a Canadian mining company if we look it up online, but it is owned by a European company based in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal, and by a Texas-based company from Houston. It is now applying to double production to 12 million tonnes a year and build a 110-kilometre railway from the mine site to the port site. This is a major expansion. The hon. parliamentary secretary, when she answered my question, seemed to think I was asking for a prejudgment of the decision of the Nunavut Impact Review Board. I was not. I was pointing out in my question that satellite imagery, plus eyewitness accounts from Inuit hunters on the ground, show that the company has already started its expansion before it received a permit, which raises really large issues, and this is quite typical of projects right across Canada. Who is watching to make sure that conditions attached to permits are actually observed? What do Inuit hunters, in particular, do when they think a large transnational corporation is deciding to jump the gun and not waiting to see if its project actually gets approved? We know from CBC News that in 2017 the Baffinland mine had already signed contracts with contractors to assist in the building of the railway, not waiting for approvals. The iron ore mining company has already influenced and contaminated food supplies, including Arctic char and throughout the food chain. There are deep concerns. As a matter of fact, that is how I first learned about this project. There was a brave blockade in mid-winter, in the land of no sun whatsoever and deep frigid temperatures. In February 2021, the blockade by Inuit hunters from Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay is what made me wonder what on earth was going on that people would be so brave as to sit down and block the Mary River airstrip in protest against what they saw happening, the contamination and the increased shipping threatened by phase 2 of this project, and what it would mean for the narwhals. When we look at it, and the more I ask this, the more I am deeply concerned that the Inuit leadership—

609 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/22 7:01:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

10 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.)

May/9/22 7:01:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the issue. I want to say, from the outset, that I understand her question completely but I also know that she understands that there is a process. During that process that the government is taking with Baffinland, she knows that we should not be interfering politically. I want to be clear from the outset that our government supports a strong resource development sector in the north, one that is sustainable and that creates opportunities for indigenous and all northerners but respects the environment and respects the interests of the people who live there. I want to assure members, from the outset, that the review of this proposed development has been led by northerners from day one. It has followed the environmental review process that is outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and this process is guided by the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. Through this process, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, or NIRB, has been ensuring that Inuit and other indigenous partners have been consulted. NIRB has also worked very hard to balance public health during COVID-19 and other issues throughout the review while also ensuring that the Inuit voices have been heard. As part of the review process, members of potentially impacted communities in the Baffin region, some of whom I have talked to myself, have had the opportunity to make their views known. Public hearings that have been held by NIRB began in November 2019. The process has been ongoing since that time. While the pandemic delayed the process and some meetings had to be rescheduled, NIRB completed its hearings in January of this year. The board is now preparing its final recommendations, which will be presented to the minister and the department very shortly. Throughout that whole process, however, residents have been able to both learn about the proposed project and give their feedback and input into the project, and NIRB has gone to great lengths to ensure that Nunavummiut have had the chance to participate in or watch the proceedings. In addition to that, many federal officials have participated in every step of the review, including the final public hearings and a community round table, which was completed last fall. Once the NIRB report and the final report's recommendations are presented to the government, the responsible ministers will make the decisions that they are requested to make using due diligence and a very comprehensive decision framework. The member knows that the process is very clear, very defined and very transparent. We will not prejudge the outcome or the process and we look forward to receiving the board's report.

453 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/9/22 7:05:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not asking about prejudging the process. I am asking, is anyone going to hold this foreign multinational to account for proceeding to begin building a project before it has a permit? That is illegal. Someone should step up. The double standard here is one that really worries me and bothers me. Do members think that an indigenous person, an Inuit person, under court orders in a criminal justice proceeding could avoid the restrictions in the way a foreign corporation can avoid restrictions on its activities until it has a permit? This is a double standard and it should bother the parliamentary secretary as much as it bothers me. What is available to hold Baffinland to account for building and contracting for a second phase, and even thinking about a third phase, when it does not have a permit?

142 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

May/9/22 7:06:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member knows that this is an active mine. It is an ongoing mine. If she has particular information, that should be provided to the minister and to the government. If Inuit in that area have particular concerns and documentation of something that is being done outside of the process, then they should make us aware of that. What I do know at this stage is that it is an ongoing process with NIRB. They have made an application. They are following the regulations. Government is being responsible in the work that we do in allowing a fair, open and transparent process for that application. Until the recommendations are presented to the appropriate ministers, no decision will be made with regard to the future expansion of the mine.

130 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 67