44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We do agree on one thing: The economic statement is very disappointing.
Consider vulnerable people. It is important to increase health transfers. Old age security also needs a boost to provide adequate support to people aged 65 and up. EI reform is another urgent matter.
Does my colleague agree with the points I just raised?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I understand where the hon. member is coming from given that this was a disappointing fall economic statement.
The member cited health care. We have seen no meaningful commitments from the government when it comes to health care. Indeed, thanks to the government's reckless spending, debt servicing costs will soon outpace and be a larger amount than what is allocated to the Canada health transfer annually.
Quite frankly, there would be more money for health care if the government would rein in its wasteful, reckless spending.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑32, which seeks to implement the government's fall economic statement.
To be clear, let me just say that my pleasure stems not from the content of the bill, but rather from the fact that I get to stand up and be the voice of Canadians and the people of Beauce regarding what should have been included in the bill.
To begin with, I would like to take a moment to denounce the inflation created by the Liberal government itself. With punitive policies like the carbon tax, this government is destroying local businesses while at the same time driving up grocery prices. This out-of-touch government has also imposed an equally disastrous fertilizer tariff on farmers. Even as our country grapples with the worst food inflation in 40 years, the worst since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as I recall, the government is still looking to line its pockets with new taxes. Ours is the only G7 country to have imposed a tariff on fertilizer during the most difficult time in recent years.
Food bank use is growing so quickly that organizations in my riding, such as Moisson Beauce, are struggling to meet demand. In Beauce, a third of new food bank users are children. This government refuses to look in the mirror and admit its shortcomings. The Conservatives have been fighting for months against these taxes and tariffs, but this NDP-Liberal coalition has a hidden agenda, so it refuses to do the right thing. As a country, we should be taking care of the things that we can control. Everything starts in our own backyard. We need to help farmers lower production costs so that, by the time the food they produce gets to store shelves, people can afford to feed their family. Currently, one in five Canadians is skipping meals to stay afloat financially. That is shameful. This needs to change.
In this budget, agriculture is not even a minor priority for this government. We would think that after seven years, the Prime Minister would understand that feeding our population is essential and that it starts at the farm. Farmers have been ignored long enough. It is time to give them the tools they need to grow our economy and produce affordable food for everyone. This is a powerful economic driver for our country, and we have to exploit its full potential. We just need a leader who can open his eyes and see that.
Similarly, I would like to draw members' attention to another failed Liberal plan, the plan to open our Canadian borders to all Ukrainian meat products. The Conservatives are all for supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, but there are much better ways of doing it. On Friday, in a press release, the government authorized import permits for unlimited quantities of chicken from Ukraine, without even conducting an impact analysis to see how that would affect the Canadian markets. To top it all off, the Liberals did not even consult stakeholders before signing this agreement.
Our American counterparts put off accepting Ukrainian meat for food safety reasons, and I cannot blame them. We could provide Ukraine with financial support while helping famine-hit countries closer to it by sending them those products. This is not just about taking care of our country's food system first. It is also a matter of global food safety. The last time the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspected a chicken factory in Ukraine was in 2019, yet the government expects sanitary conditions to have remained the same in a war-torn country. How can this government be so naive?
Furthermore, given that this government promised to protect supply management, why did it sign this agreement to open up the market after stating over and over that it would make no further concessions with respect to supply management? The Liberal government is playing with fire at a time when we must be extremely vigilant.
Avian flu is becoming more prevalent in North America, and the problem is just as bad in Europe. Countries such as Poland, one of Ukraine's neighbours, have had several cases of avian flu in recent months. How can we have any assurance that imported meat is safe if we have no protective measures in place?
I would now like to move on to another topic, that of immigration in this country.
Canada's immigration system is broken. The Liberal minister rises in this place, makes bold promises and uses the same talking points every day, but nothing is happening in that department.
Every day, my two offices in Beauce receive multiple requests for updates from people who need help and from business owners about the system backlog. According to recent studies, there is a backlog of 2.3 million applications. Whether we are talking about applications for permanent residence, work permits or sponsorship, everything is at a standstill because of the government's poor management. Businesses in my riding are losing contracts and threatening to move abroad because they cannot get the temporary foreign workers they need in time.
Doctors are waiting for work permits and documents when they could be working in local hospitals and helping my constituents. It is shocking. It is not just the immigration system in this country that is broken. Name any department and there is a good chance that it is broken as well. Whether it is Service Canada with pensions, the guaranteed income supplement or the passport fiasco, the list of failures goes on and on.
When my staffers talk to employees on the phone, it is clear that things are disorganized and there does not appear to be any direction from the top. Employees are bouncing from department to department, burning the candle at both ends.
Training has slowed to a crawl, and most officers are too junior to help with complex cases. Some employees are still working from home. When is the government going to get its public servants back in the office and on track to better serve our communities?
The workers cannot be blamed for the government's incompetence. I sincerely respect these officers and the tough job they do, but something has to change. There is only so much they can do with the tools they have been given.
Now I want to touch on some issues that my colleagues have often heard me talk about here in the House. Rural Canadians are being left in the lurch. My riding does not have public transportation. We have to drive to get to work and take our kids to their activities. The people of Beauce are hard-working, as evidenced by our 2.1% unemployment rate, which I believe is among the best in Canada. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is eating up Canadians' paycheques. Cell service and high-speed Internet are not even close to what they should be in 2022, but there is nothing in the budget to fix that problem either.
Now, this government also wants to prohibit my law-abiding constituents from owning certain hunting weapons. Many Canadians make their living in part from hunting. This is one way we feed our families, but the government wants to eliminate that option too.
I could go on and on, but since I am running out of time, I have a message for Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada will continue to be there for them and fight for what Canadians need, which is more money in their pocket at the end of the week and healthy, affordable food on the table for our families this holiday season.
A Conservative government would have made much more tangible changes if we, the Conservatives, had had the opportunity to introduce our own budget. I hope that Canadians are taking note of what this NDP-Liberal government is doing to our country. The time for change is approaching, and I hope that the Liberal government will be held accountable for the disastrous choices it has made.
I will continue to defend the people of Beauce and all Canadians by condemning this inflationary government in the House at every opportunity.
1380 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, with whom I am fortunate to sit not only on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but also on the Standing Committee on Official Languages from time to time.
I heard him talk about supply management and how important it is to him. I hope he is convincing his colleagues of the importance of the amounts announced in the fall economic statement. I hope we can count on his support. I hope he will be able to convince all his colleagues, because that is what the dairy farmers have been asking us for.
This bill will provide $1.7 billion for the entire supply-managed sector, and I hope my colleague will stand up in the House and tell us that he will absolutely support this.
My question for him is this: Will he support Bill C-32, yes or no?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I think that there are far too many problems with Bill C-32 for us to support it. With regard to all the money the government plans to spend, I think the government is just serving up leftovers, because these amounts were already allocated in previous budgets.
I wanted to raise one of my concerns today. The Liberal Party says that it supports supply management but, because of the measure that came into effect on Friday regarding Ukraine, we are now coming under heavy scrutiny from many countries around the world.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauce on his speech. I respect the member a great deal and hold him in high regard.
We are actually on the same wavelength on several issues that he raised in his speech.
Towards the end of his speech, he addressed the issue of Bill C-21, which is currently being studied and has many people talking. Hunters are very worried about it. I was a little disappointed to hear him getting into semi-false information about the list of prohibited weapons allegedly directly affecting hunters' rights. That is not entirely true. It is true that we have work to do on Bill C‑21, which is far from perfect. The bill is actually a bit sloppy in some respects. However, I wish everyone would stick to the facts.
I wonder if my colleague could comment on the health care situation. In Beauce, like everywhere else in Quebec, the health care system is sorely strained. I would like to hear what he has to say about the government's management and the issue of increased health transfers, which the provinces and Quebec have long been calling for.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his questions.
I will start with the last question. As far as health transfers are concerned, it is undeniable that the Conservative Party has always been in favour of respecting provincial jurisdictions. That is the most important thing to us. When we are in power, we will be there to help increase these sums.
As for the first question on firearms, I do not know if the situation is the same in my colleague's riding, but I just spent three full weekends touring my riding, and countless hunters talked to me about this issue. There is some real concern. I agree that there is still a lot of work to do, and my fear is that the bill will be passed too quickly and it will be botched.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving his speech like a Beauce. My question is about the Canada recovery dividend, which is in this legislation. It is a one-time, 15% tax on profits over $1 billion for Canada's banks and financial institutions. It is about bringing back public money that went out to companies that were very profitable. It is a really important component of getting some of Canada's largest and most profitable corporations to pay their fair share in the context of what we are living through right now. I would like to know the member's thoughts on the Canada recovery dividend.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is definitely an important component. However, when I look at all the inflationary policies this government has brought in, particularly in the latest budget statement, I think that even if it manages to recover larger amounts of money, the consequences of all the new taxes coming in the next few months and next year will be far more negative than positive.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my speech will have to be curtailed, which is something that should have been thought of before the Liberals came up with Bill C-32.
The fall economic statement, which could have done so much to help people in need, does absolutely nothing to address the real crises that Canadians are facing, like inflation, the cost of living and more taxes. Where it could have stopped new taxes and tax hikes and stopped new spending and wasteful spending, it fails to do so and only adds to the inflationary economy. The people of Saskatchewan cannot afford these out-of-touch policies that take their hard-earned money out of their pockets and put it into government coffers.
Each and every household in this country is feeling the effects of the Liberal incompetence when it comes to managing inflation and the cost of living. This year alone, government revenues have increased to $41.1 billion. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from the single mother who is skipping meals to make sure that her kids have enough to eat each week. It is coming from the families who have to pick between putting gas in their cars or keeping the lights on that month, because they are all paying higher taxes.
These are things the Prime Minister does not worry about and has never had to spare a thought for in his entire life. He is completely out of touch with his inflationary deficits, which are now at half a trillion dollars. It is clear that he has no problem profiting off the backs of Canadians and leaving the issues for future generations to deal with. He does not have their backs. He is profiting off their backs.
As we all know, this is Christmastime and a festive season for many. People are trying to get out, celebrate and help where they can. However, they are concerned, especially when a report that came out yesterday said that the cost of their food is escalating and, in 2023, prices will be 5% to 7% higher. Families will pay $1,065 more for groceries in 2023.
My wife goes out of her way yearly to assist with baking for hospitals, charities and people who have lost loved ones, as well as my family. Yesterday, she was making some cookies and went to buy some supplies. One box of graham cracker crumbs, two small cans of Eagle Brand condensed milk, two oranges, two lemons, a small 125-millilitre bottle of artificial vanilla and two 450-gram sticks of butter, which fit into one bag, was a total cost of $82.54. That is a lot of money for cookies, and next year it is going to be closer to $100.
The Liberals are killing rural communities and are doing it without even batting an eye. Measures like the carbon tax are killing businesses both small and large, including farming operations that have stood the test of time for generations. It is a tragedy to see family farms having to sell off their operations just so they can pay the bills. Many ranchers and farmers are close to walking away from the industry because of these escalating input costs.
As we all know, the Prime Minister has a pattern of promising something and doing the complete opposite. Many years and many billions of dollars ago, he said that he would not exceed $10 billion of debt. How soon people forget. The Prime Minister has now added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. Furthermore, an alarming 40% of all new spending measures, roughly $205 billion, has nothing to do at all with COVID.
Ultimately, it is going to come down to what I call the “heat or keep” principle. In Saskatchewan, winters get brutally cold with temperatures dropping down into the minus forties multiple times during the season. In fact, as I speak today, it is below -30°C. Thanks to measures like the carbon tax for the last few years, people have been wondering if they can afford to heat their homes, a concern that no Canadian should have to grapple with. Now, because of the ever-rising interest rates and inflation, they are wondering if they will be able to keep their homes. The Prime Minister could never begin to imagine the stress that is felt by those who have to decide to heat or keep, but this is what it has come down to.
If we take a look at the numbers, the outlook is grim. Families who are financially on the brink who bought a typical home five years ago with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal will pay $7,000 more a year. This is completely unsustainable and has the potential to financially devastate many hard-working homeowners who are just trying to live the life that they have earned and deserve. For example, someone with a mortgage of $400,000 amortized over 25 years with a monthly payment of $2,400 is not eligible for the relief that the Liberals are touting as the solution to the problem.
Speaking of the carbon tax, this could be a great opportunity for the government to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals could make the decision to cancel the tripling of the tax, but they will not.
Another big issue that I have with this economic update is that it fails to adequately address the Inflation Reduction Act that the U.S. passed in August, specifically with respect to investment in emissions reduction technology here in Canada.
The fact is that the Liberals have missed every single emissions reduction target they have set, yet they are still not doing enough to incentivize investment in clean technology. That is shameful. The United States has a 45Q tax credit that is straightforward, easy to understand and provides industry with certainty over things like regulation prices and timelines. By contrast, the measures created by the Liberal government are largely ineffective due to the high level of bureaucracy involved, with a mess of programs and credits layered on top of each other that create confusion and lack clarity.
We have already seen projects worth billions of dollars choose to operate in Texas over Alberta because of the ease of doing business in the U.S. The Liberals are choosing not to listen to industry experts who are prepared to assist and advise on clean tech like carbon capture and storage, or CCUS, because they do not want to be associated with the word “coal”. Is it the industry they are trying to kill, or is it the emissions?
Surely it is the emissions and the fact that CCUS can do it is something that we should be investing in. It is something that this economic statement does not move forward on and assist all Canadians by investing with private money, not public money.
1168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 6:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 6:15:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 6:16:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. so that we can begin private members' hour.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 6:16:24 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak to this bill, but I also do so with great humility.
The principle of Bill C-235 was interesting in the sense that the Government of Canada can act specifically in a regional development fund and that there can be a contribution from regions and territories that take matters into their own hands and provide some sort of support for innovation in their jurisdiction. The principle seemed very appealing to me.
Then again, in committee, we felt that, despite the good will of the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, whom I salute, the bill also had a political aim. To me, that is an irritant.
The Bloc Québécois is as much in favour of the principle of the bill as it was when we voted on it at second reading. However, I am now saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-235. This is the position I defended in committee.
Of course, we are in dire need of a plan to accelerate the greening of the Prairie economy, which is currently trapped in the 20th century because it relies far too much on fossil fuels.
As members will recall, the member for Winnipeg South Centre was the minister of natural resources from 2015 to 2018. He knows that this is going to be a huge project and that it will take a monumental effort to muster the necessary resources. In fact, it might have been interesting to see such a bill put forward back then.
We know that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that the prairie provinces will suffer a decline unless they diversify their economy and start going digital. They will have to start soon, but doing it quickly may be just as painful.
The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle of Bill C‑235, but, as I mentioned, during our study, which included five meetings, 17 witnesses and five briefs, several shortcomings were revealed. The transition to a green economy that Bill C‑235 talks about is essentially a shift to nuclear. Many people saw it as an opportunity to push small modular plants, which would provide the energy required to extract more oil. That shocked me.
In this context, I think that we cannot equate a transition to clean energy with a transition to nuclear energy. Let us not forget that there are still some serious safety issues involved in the management of nuclear waste.
We heard testimony from the governments of the three provinces covered by Bill C‑235, and they basically told us that they did not want it. For me, as a Bloc Québécois member representing the interests of Quebec, this was quite revealing. Perhaps that is what made me change my mind. Why should we impose a bill on other provinces that will dictate to them how they should develop their own land?
To me, the provinces are the real experts. If the federal government wants to contribute financially, great. However, the real question is, who will be in charge of coordination and whose development vision will prevail? In this context, the provinces have made it clear that it is not up to Ottawa to take the lead. They will not allow the federal government to take charge of regional economic development on their territory. They do not want the federal government to be responsible for coordinating the various stakeholders involved, particularly the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, and the workers, who are also under provincial jurisdiction.
The Bloc Québécois does not feel directly involved because, obviously, we do not have any members from the Prairies. We are limited to Quebec. However, when a province asks that we respect its jurisdiction, we listen. We hope to get the same consideration in return when we ask others to respect the autonomy and jurisdiction of Quebec. It would be nice if the House applied this principle more often: If an issue concerns us, we are interested; if it does not, we can still take an interest in the principle and support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois has done. However, when we examine the bill in depth, we realize that it is flawed. Above all, we want to say that the federal government should refrain from interfering even if it would like to. That is the position that we in the Bloc Québécois will take.
The amendments that the committee adopted and that are in its report are essentially technical changes, such as specifying which department is responsible for what, or semantic changes, such as adding a green veneer to the wording. However, this does not fix the flaws in Bill C‑235, and many people expressed concerns about the bill being somewhat improvised.
With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who I think had a commendable motive in introducing the bill, there are significant challenges in the Prairies. As we know, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers, on average. A Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. Transitioning to a green economy will really be a major challenge, but I do not think the answer lies in this bill. That speaks volumes about the magnitude of the challenges facing the provinces.
In regional economic development, there is a concept known as the “intrusive rentier syndrome”. It is what happens when a region has one large employer that pays high wages but is part of a declining industry. That is the challenge. Think of Trans Mountain, for example, which cost us $14 billion and counting, with all the repair costs and so on. I made a suggestion in committee: Is it not time to sell that pipeline and invest the money in the research ecosystem so that solutions can be found in universities for a truly green economic recovery?
There was a certain amount of backlash against the acquisition of the pipeline. People reacted to the idea that the government would own such a big pipeline. The government should not take such a risk with taxpayer money from Quebec and Canada. It would normally be up to the private sector. The greening of the economy requires concrete incentives. The federal government can collaborate on this, but should not be interfering in local co-operation as the bill stipulates. It is a step we are not ready to take.
Of course there were some interesting options: the transportation issue, job creation, job retraining, projects that create natural infrastructure and a clean environment. That is in there, but, as I said, so is nuclear power. That is something I found that to be an irritant. Nuclear power cannot be presented as an option just by naming it. I think there would be some background work to do. I am glad that we were able to hear from the witnesses who came to testify during our study of the bill. They told us that progress has been made, but it remains an extremely risky industry. I am not prepared to take that risk at this time, although it is believed to be a good thing. A lot of good things can be said until a disaster happens. To me, that is very concerning.
I would like to talk about the fiscal policy that encouraged development of the oil industry at the time. There were tax credits on oil exploration and site development, or investment and subsidies to clean up the pollution. It was a public takeover of some of the environmental liabilities. There are some reasons for what happened in the past, but at the same time, they can lead us to solutions now.
Again, we can make a real transition with a better sharing in terms of energy. We know that a hydrogen plant was recently established in Alberta. Some solutions are being put forward. However, I wonder if this hydrogen produced in Alberta will be truly green. It does not make sense to burn oil to produce hydrogen in order not to burn oil in our cars. The issue of economic development in the Prairies is not a simple one. I acknowledge it is a good idea to want to have a greener economy in the Prairies. We will always co-operate when such is the aim, but the Bloc Québécois will oppose Bill C‑235.
To conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the Liberal government has already made many commitments that it has not kept, and its credibility has been damaged. We know, however, that businesses and many citizens have gone to great lengths to make their contribution. The various Quebec governments have acted boldly on the environment for several decades. They have made courageous and ambitious decisions, and Quebec is therefore on the right path to a green economy. The committee study did not show that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed comparable and compatible directions. In fact, they voted against the bill. Our hope is that grassroots initiatives in the provinces will be adequately supported for the good of our communities.
The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to supporting the fossil fuel industry and welcomes any measure aimed at redirecting the money towards businesses—
1608 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 6:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to express my support for Bill C-235. I had done that before at second reading.
It is a bill that essentially requires federal ministers to come together to consult with provinces and indigenous peoples on a path forward for the Prairies in order to green their economy. I think that is a laudable goal. In fact, it is a goal that Canada ought to have made more progress on by now. I do think we need to be acting with a sense of urgency.
While I would say there are many more things we need to do, I do not think it hurts at all to create a framework wherein some of the coordinating conversations have to happen between various levels of government, including indigenous governments. It is a step in the right direction.
If we are going to get serious about facing the urgency of the climate crisis, though, we are going to have to get beyond talking about how to have conversations and what conversations we ought to have, and get talking about the very real projects that we need to undertake. Often in Canada when we talk about energy projects, we are talking about particular oil and gas projects. Whether that is a new extractive oil sands development or whether it is the building of a pipeline, we are going to require public investment. In the same way, incidentally, that the oil and gas industry, particularly the oil sands in Alberta, required massive public investment in the 1970s and 1980s in order to make that industry what it is, we need a comparable level of public investment in renewable energy now to set us up to be energy leaders in the future energy economy that is coming, whether some of us would wish it were not.
That is why often New Democrats are quite upset to see massive public expenditures in the oil and gas sector. That is an established sector, one which has already benefited for decades from public investment of various kinds. The opportunity cost of spending public dollars now on the oil and gas sector is real, because it means that we are not setting ourselves up to continue to be major players in an energy sector that is transforming. We see international competitors already undertaking the work not just to reduce their own emissions and green their economy, but to become experts in the building and maintenance of that very technology that is going to be the future basis of the global energy economy.
Canadians should be at that table. Canadian workers should be developing that expertise. Canadian companies should be developing that expertise. We will not be developing that expertise if we do not see government investment that is directed toward the energy sector being directed to renewable energy as opposed to going back to the well, quite literally in this case, of the oil and gas sector.
We are going to continue to extract some amount of oil and gas well into the future, because it is not just used for cars and it is not just used for home heating. It is also used for plastics. It is an important manufacturing input. To that extent, we know that Canada has to ask itself the question as to what a sustainable level of extraction is. I believe there is an answer for that.
We could work backwards from Canada's emissions commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international agreements where Canada has committed to lower its emissions, and we could talk about what a sustainable oil and gas sector looks like. It does not look like approving every project that the industry itself says is a good idea. Unfortunately, that has been the model. It does not look like when private sector actors make a major investment, as they did in the TMX pipeline, the government running out to bail them out and say, “Oh, we are so sorry your project did not work out in Canada. That is all right. Canadian taxpayers will carry the load for you. There is no risk investing in Canada, because if you make a bad investment, we are here to bail you out.”
It is particularly frustrating, because when I talk about the role of a sustainable oil and gas sector in Canada, the focus really has to be not on just extracting more and more oil and gas, but on getting more and more value out of the oil and gas that we do extract. One of the ways to do that is to increase Canada's refining capacity. We have actually seen a significant diminishment of Canada's refining capacity. Often the argument is there is not the money to build a refinery, that it would cost tens of billions of dollars to build a refinery in Canada. That is what the government says in response to those of us who would like to see more emphasis on a value-added oil and gas sector.
However, what did the government do? It found what ended up being an over $20-billion investment overnight for the TMX pipeline.
I will not be told that money is not available. The problem is that it is not available within the context of a strategic future-looking framework. It is just available as a knee-jerk reaction to the oil and gas lobbyists when they come asking for money in Ottawa. That is not the way public dollars ought to be invested in the energy economy.
We saw it again in the last budget, where the Liberals announced billions of dollars in new subsidies for carbon capture and storage. The way the politics of that works is that the Liberals lay out tons of funds for the oil and gas sector, only to be told by the Conservatives that they are not doing enough and that they do not understand the oil and gas sector, so it is a pretty nice setup the oil and gas sector has here in Ottawa.
It has a subservient Liberal government and an official opposition that, no matter how much money the Liberals pump into the oil and gas sector, is going to say it is not doing enough and that it does not take oil and gas seriously. That works pretty nicely for the industry, but it does not work out well for Canadian workers who are interested in having their children and their grandchildren be able to get meaningful employment in the energy industry as that changes.
Often, the way the public debate crystallizes is around these individual projects, whether they are the northern gateway pipeline, the TMX pipeline or energy east, and that is because the industry itself already has access to vast amounts of capital, so those companies are able to make the initial investment to raise hopes and excitement about these kinds of projects. What we need is access to capital for renewable projects.
The Canada West Foundation is not know to be a typically NDP organization. I think that is fair to say. It has a great paper out on the potential for a western power grid, something I hope folks, under the consultation framework proposed in Bill C-235, would get serious in talking about. I also hope that those same governments that come to the table under the auspices of the framework required by this bill would also put up capital to move ahead on that. There are some interesting findings that could help lower energy costs and certainly help lower emissions, but what we need is capital behind these projects to show Canadians that these things are possible. We also need to talk about the benefits of these things, not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view. I believe that is how the conversation around climate is actually going to change in Canada as we create excitement around real projects in the same way there is excitement around real pipeline projects.
I am a construction electrician. I understand that excitement. I know what it means to look to a big project as a source of work and income for one's family, and I know that is true for so many Canadians out there. Renewable energy can be that same exciting source of potential future employment to support families, but we are always talking about it in the abstract because we have not had people come together and mobilize the capital it would take and do the planning to show the path on individual projects.
I talked about one that I think makes a lot of sense for western Canada. There are other parts of the country I can look to, which of course I will not speak to because we are talking about western Canada in the context of the bill, but I think how we shift public opinion and build the trust that has to be built with workers to effect a proper energy transition is by talking about particular projects.
The bill would not do that, and I am disappointed that after seven years in government the Liberals have not acted with the appropriate sense of urgency. They have not built excitement around particular projects that could be meaningful sources of work for Canadian workers and help us build the competency within Canada for those kinds of projects.
That is competency that we can sell not only here in Canada, but also across the world in the way Manitoba Hydro once had a very successful division that was sought the world over to help build hydro projects across the world. That was until the Tories sold it off for pennies on the dollar. However, there are ways of developing that kind of expertise, and that has a real value for us, for Canada's reputation in the world and also for Canadian workers.
That is where I hope to see the direction of government policy go. I think this at least would create some tables for conversations to happen. We are going to have to do a lot more than that, though, if we want to meet the real climate challenge that Canada and the planet are facing.
1721 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my long-time friend and hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for his hard work in bringing forward this proposed legislation and his years of service to his community, to his constituents, to Manitobans and, indeed, to all Canadians. I know this is a topic about which he is very passionate, and it is one I fully support.
I followed the debate on Bill C-235 in the House and committee, from members as well as stakeholders and other orders of government. In the member for Winnipeg South Centre's speech during the first hour of debate on the bill, he highlighted how members sat at the committee table and considered a range of views to make the bill even more impactful and stronger. That is the value that committees and the varied opinions and expertise within the House bring to improving legislation.
Indeed, creating a framework for co-operation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs will lead to conditions for greater collaboration and more effective program delivery. It is about bringing everyone to the table.
Much has been said about the prairie virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work and collaboration. It is that spirit of collaboration and co-operation to achieve a shared goal that animates this bill. It is about those things and reaching out broadly to find areas in which we can find agreement and alignment. It is also about acknowledging that one order of government alone cannot build a greener economy that benefits everyone.
The government is deeply engaged to achieve shared goals and always looks to partner with indigenous communities, provinces, territories, municipalities and organizations to build a stronger economy and address the threat of climate change. This is evident in the renewed emphasis we have placed on economic development across the Prairies, with the additional resources invested to create PrairiesCan as a stand-alone regional development agency for the Prairies. PrairiesCan is now on the ground in more places across the region than ever before, ensuring that more communities have more help to prosper, because the best way to deal with local issues and opportunities is with a local perspective.
We are making progress with partners and finding opportunities in the transition to a greener economy.
There are projects across the prairie provinces in renewable energy, in carbon capture and storage, and in green transit and construction.
Municipalities understand local priorities and concerns. They are passing bylaws mandating sustainable development and investing in climate change adaptation. This is why we worked with other parties in committee to amend Bill C-235 to include consultation with municipalities. Our path forward must include consensus building and meaningful partnership and consultation with indigenous communities as well.
Many across the Prairies are already developing and launching community-led projects that will see their local economies go greener and develop clean energy, like the Cowessess First Nation solar project.
Bill C-235 proposes a framework to align all the different parts of the government that are working on the energy transition, decarbonization, and creating a green economy on the Prairies and the good jobs Canadian workers can count on.
The bill is about a green economy that builds on the Prairies' economic strengths while increasing sustainability in sectors including energy, agriculture, forestry, mining, transportation, manufacturing, technology and tourism.
Through this bill, we have an opportunity to work with the prairie provinces and regional stakeholders to build this collaborative framework together. The framework will be one that prioritizes local and regional challenges and opportunities and meets our shared objective of green, sustainable and inclusive economic growth and employment across the Prairies.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned in previous debate on the bill, the Prairies have tremendous engineering expertise of a global calibre, not only in energy projects but in carbon capture, irrigation systems and more. Reaching Canada's net-zero targets will take a concerted effort to mobilize that expertise.
We know that consumers worldwide are demanding more sustainable energy development and Canada's energy sector is working to meet that demand. We need to recognize the work that has been done to reach sustainable net-zero goals. Achieving more of it depends on developing the next generation of energy infrastructure that is cleaner, sustainable and marketable.
By creating a framework for consultation, this bill will support the building of value chains that connect the Prairies, agriculture and forestry biomass to the manufacturing of biofuels used in Canada's automotive, aerospace, construction and energy sectors.
Industry in Alberta is working to reduce emissions in a range of sectors, including petrochemicals. It is advancing work on carbon capture and storage, as I mentioned before. One of the world's first net-zero hydrogen facilities will be located in Edmonton.
Prairie agriculture is also greening. Bill C-235 meshes with initiatives like the agricultural clean technology program. It helps agribusinesses invest in new clean technologies to increase sustainability and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
More than any other region, projects funded by the program, 24 of 60 projects, are taking place across the Prairies. The outcomes are more climate-friendly grain dryers, solar panels and precision agricultural technologies.
As critical minerals become more important on the world stage, Canada's economic prosperity is even more linked to sustainably developing and exporting our natural resources and value-added products. That is one reason PrairiesCan has invested in the development of its first-of-a-kind rare earth element processing plant in Saskatoon.
The $7.5 million of federal support complements provincial government investments to help establish a domestic rare earth supply chain. This is because Canadian companies are not only suppliers of resources, but also processors and producers of value-added products. Bill C-235 can catalyze opportunities like these by ensuring improved alignment among the various stakeholders in the new prairie economy.
The western economy is incredibly well-positioned to thrive in the green economy and our government is taking steps to make sure partners have the necessary tools to make this happen. We are helping companies and communities on the Prairies capitalize on opportunities in the transition to clean technologies and a low-carbon economy.
An example is the Clean Resource Innovation Network, a group of over 1,300 oil patch companies, academics and innovators that are working to change the conversation from “energy or the environment” to “energy and the environment”. They are dealing with important issues like curbing undetected methane emissions into the atmosphere.
The bill aligns with an array of additional federal programs tailored to economic and environmental areas outlined in the framework, such as infrastructure, natural infrastructure, forestry and transportation.
In a time of significant change, a strong prairie region is critical for a strong nation and the post-pandemic economy. People and industries across the prairie provinces make important contributions to Canada's economy and to feeding and fuelling Canada and countries around the world. Our government has been there for them and we will continue to be there for them.
As we partner with others through this bill to build a green Prairies economy, there will be new economic opportunities and job possibilities for Canadian workers that will be inclusive, long-lasting and effective.
I want to congratulate my hon. colleague and friend for presenting this bill. He is a true prairie champion whom I have worked with and admired for over 30 years. All of us on the Prairies should be very grateful.
1256 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House of Commons, and it is my honour to do so tonight on this bill.
I will begin by saying that I was pleased to enjoy the remarks of the member for Winnipeg South Centre in the first hour of third reading. I look forward to his participation in this debate. He should know that he has my best wishes and my congratulations for bringing this bill to third reading, although I do not support the bill and I am going to say why in a moment.
It is actually quite astonishing to me that this bill has made it to third reading and seems likely to pass, based on the remarks we have heard from other parties tonight. I say it is astonishing because this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.
For the benefit of those who were not here in the 42nd Parliament, the mover of this bill was the minister of natural resources. During his tenure the natural resource sector endured unprecedented capital flight estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The global investment community ran away from Canada and moved its money to Texas, North Dakota, Mexico, North Africa and, sadly and tragically, to Russia, where the fruit of this capital reallocation is being used to finance a murderous war against innocent people in Ukraine.
The human cost of that capital flight from Canada was 200,000 jobs lost in the energy sector. Many of these people live in my riding. I had grown men in their fifties reduced to tears in my office on many occasions as they told me of the hopelessness and despair they had suffered as a result of the mass layoffs following the election of the Liberal government.
Among the very first things the Liberal government did when it was elected was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then the member, during his tenure as minister, and the government chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada and bought the Trans Mountain pipeline. Instead of being completed and in operation with private money, creating thousands of upstream jobs, it is now a much-delayed project on its way to becoming a bloated government boondoggle, which it may not be able to ultimately sell.
The member now wants to force a federal framework on three unwilling prairie provinces and ask members of this House to support it. I will not do it. I do not agree with the member or the government of which he was a minister, that it needs a framework for policies of a federal government that is bent on destroying the livelihoods of thousands of my constituents who get up and go to work every day providing the necessities of life for Canadians and people all over the world.
Without affordable, reliable and abundant energy, there is no quality of life for anyone. A warm home, affordable food, basic transportation, light, electronic communication, literally every single manufactured product that anyone wears or uses is only possible with access to such affordable, reliable and abundant energy. Western Canada abounds with such energy resources, and industry continually finds ways to reduce the emissions created by the extraction process. The three provinces, their municipalities and industries are already doing the hard work of being part of an overall goal of reducing emissions, but the world is desperate for Canadian energy.
The Economist recently reported that 150,000 people in Europe will likely die from the cold this winter. We should think about that. There are 150,000 people, most of whom live in countries among the wealthiest in the world, who may not make it through the winter because many will not be able to access affordable energy. As people suffer from chronic cold, their blood thickens and their blood pressure becomes elevated. They are unable to maintain circulation throughout their body and they succumb to heart attack, stroke and illness. This is the consequence of Canada's inability to export its energy resources, and we are enabling Putin's weaponization of energy.
I listened to the member's speech during the first hour of debate at third reading, and I must say I was incredulous at this member's comments on how he thinks the bill is the embodiment and fulfillment of Canadian federalism.
We had testimony at committee. The minister of justice for Saskatchewan said:
This bill would require federal ministers “to develop a framework for...the implementation of federal programs”, which to us in Saskatchewan sounds pretty top-down, pretty definitive language, and what we call here “assertive federalism”.
She went on to talk about a report that said, “a green transition that is carried out too glibly, too quickly and too politically will impact some 450,000 Canadians, and 450,000 Canadians could lose their jobs.”
The president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said, “In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy, and we don't require a federal framework.”
Only Liberals steeped in the tradition of Pierre Trudeau's generation and his approach to federalism could possibly think that a bill that imposes a federal process on unwilling provinces is somehow a triumph of the federation.
The bill would impose a process to create a federal framework for the imposition of federal policy on three provinces that do not want it. They did not ask for it. They do not like this government. They disagree with this government. Fifty-six out of the 62 members elected to this chamber from these three provinces are not from the government's party. That is 90% of the MPs from most provinces who are elected here. They were elected in opposition to this government's agenda.
Is that a triumph of Canadian federalism, the imposition and creation of this framework? That is exactly the kind of imposition on western provinces that is sadly eroding people's faith in Canadian federalism, just like under Pierre Trudeau when he was prime minister, when he destroyed the Canadian energy industry for a generation in a spectacular abuse of Canadian federalism. No, the bill is not a triumph of Canadian federalism. It would not be a springboard for some abstract, mythical, undefined, so-called green economy. It would not help Canadian workers.
This government has been promising green job retraining for oil and gas workers for years, and it does not exist. This will not help western municipalities. This is a bill that people in western Canada do not want. It is a bill that nobody asked for. It is a bill that would at best do nothing and at worst harm my constituents.
I am aware, following this debate, that this is likely to pass third reading. If it does, I offer the member for Winnipeg South Centre my personal congratulations. The passage of a private member's bill is no small thing. To him, I wish the very best, but I do not support the bill and I will oppose it.
1262 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
