44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor West not only for this bill, but for the hard work he has put in over 10 years. We heard the passion in that speech. He has worked to bring communities together and to notify groups what was going on. I would also like to thank him for inviting me down there a couple of years ago. I toured the area and heard the stories of how these pieces of land were saved. We saw the community using the area and its beautiful trails.
I would like him to comment on that aspect. What will this bring for the community of people there?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for coming to Windsor. As an ornithologist, he has a really great knowledge of the species at risk that we have. What is exciting about this is that it creates ecotourism, for sure, but it also creates a confidence in young people that we can actually, in our own backyards, affect climate change. That is the most important thing about this. When young people try to make a difference, they can see right in their own community what they can build together, with their own hands. We need to get this done so we can pass it on to them so they have the projects, the work and the things they need to save their environment and community and contribute to the planet.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as one can tell, when we talk about how our communities benefit and thrive because of national parks, it can be a very emotional issue. Many members of Parliament take a great sense of pride in how we might achieve having more national parks.
For example, there is The Forks National Historic Site. It is not necessarily a park, but for that site, I can recall the way in which people came together from many different sectors and ultimately developed this beautiful treasure in the city of Winnipeg. Today, it attracts more tourists than any other site in Winnipeg and arguably the province of Manitoba.
There is also Riding Mountain National Park, which has had an impact not only on the people who live in and around it but also those who use it.
I would absolutely agree that these are important issues for the House of Commons. The government is definitely interested in and wants to see continuing progress with the Ojibway National Urban Park or Windsor National Urban Park.
My understanding of the legislation, and I look to the member, is that it is more about coordinates. It is about where the park is going to be. To what degree did the member actually have a formal process that incorporated a wide spectrum of opinions and did the work Parks Canada is obligated to do by law?
I am eager about national parks too. I want to see more. I would like to see a national park in the city of Winnipeg, but I do not think it is just up to me to be able to say what the boundaries are, to say what it is I want and then just go out and solicit support for it. There needs to be a process that considers a wide spectrum of things.
The Province of Ontario might look at the bill and say that it is nice legislation, but my understanding is it wants to continue with the process Parks Canada has in place. If that is true, I would suggest members should be advised before they vote on the legislation to confirm that.
I raised the question about Caldwell First Nation. I applaud the chief and council and those individuals who have provided the remarks to the member.
Mr. Brian Masse: You are trying to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: He says that he is speaking on their behalf.
Mr. Brian Masse: No, I said you are trying to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, for me, it is important to have consultation and work in progress with Parks Canada, the City of Windsor, indigenous communities and the Province of Ontario.
The member has told us about all the people who support it, but where was the process to ensure there was an actual consultation equivalent to what Parks Canada would have provided? I have not seen that. I was here during second reading also.
There might have been a lot of talk about the park. I can assure members that I have had many talks. I have talked, for example, about how I would love to see some sort of a management system for Winnipeg's waterways that would involve the different levels of government and the indigenous community.
There are four or five rivers in Manitoba: the Red River or the “Mighty Red”, the Assiniboine River, the Seine River and a couple of others. We believe there is great potential for a national park. I could list some people and organizations I have talked to that have shown substantial support, and I suspect my list is relatively small. I suspect we would find many members of the chamber on both sides of the House who have ideas on national parks and projects they would like to see.
We know for a fact that the government has been working with stakeholders, and they incorporate the ones I have mentioned. We know that back in 2021 there were formal agreements being put into place. There are ongoing consultations. There is indeed a process that ensures there has been appropriate consultation with the many groups out there that have a vested interest, whether they are the leadership of indigenous communities, the provincial or national governments, or community members who live in Windsor, the surrounding areas, or anywhere along where the park is being proposed. There are also other stakeholders, including environmentalists, who have concerns about wildlife and endangered species in general.
They all have a role to play. That is why we established the process. It is not to say that this particular member from Windsor is the one who has to acquire credit by bringing forward the legislation and saying it was their idea. No one owns the idea. This has been talked about for a great length of time. There are many individuals who have dedicated resources, whether financial or personal time and effort. It all needs to be taken into consideration.
That is not to say that this particular member is not passionate about it. I listened to him speak, not only this time but I believe also during second reading on this legislation. I will give him that. He is passionate. I will say that he has talked to a good number of people. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the standing committee. I do know that at the standing committee there was an attempt to make some changes. The member kind of mocked the government, in its moving amendments and this and that.
It is because it does not matter what side of the House one is on, we recognize true value. If there are things that could be done to further this along in the process, which could provide the assurances that Parks Canada has put into place, I suspect there would be greater support.
My concern is that it is not government versus opposition members. It is about whether or not, if members genuinely believe in issues like reconciliation, if they genuinely believe in the importance of having adequate and proper processes, then I would question why it is they might be voting in favour of this legislation.
If members vote for this, that would tell me that anyone who comes before the House and says they have consulted with 25, 30 or whatever stakeholders, and have built up some good letters of support and so forth, but they have not followed the formal process that has been established through legislation or regulation, we should trust them. Even if goes to committee, and it is not to devalue the opinions, advice and recommendations of so many who have already contributed to the debate, it is a vote of confidence in the people who work at Parks Canada, the people who are obligated to do what we have asked them to do, and establish that process to ensure that there is free and open a consultation that ensures that those vested parties are in fact being consulted in the most appropriate way.
This legislation does not deal with the issue of process. I think members need to be aware of that. If they want to believe in the institution of Parks Canada, and the process process, I would suggest they should vote against the legislation.
1223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be taking part in the debate on this bill, which calls for some legislative work. The bill seeks national recognition for an important place that is historically significant for our country. I will say more about that later.
First, I want to acknowledge the member for Windsor West's passion and determination. I have been in the House of Commons for eight years now, and I have had the pleasure of knowing my colleague that whole time. I have a lot of respect for him because he is so dedicated. More often than not, we do not share the same vision for Canada's future and how to achieve it, but I do admire his dedication and his passion for the causes he believes in, such as this one.
As the shadow minister for environment and climate change, I am privileged to be a member of the committee that studied this bill, but I know the study started quite a while ago. The member has been working on this for over 10 years and has been working on the bill for four years.
He and I both witnessed something of an about-face on the ministers' part. I will keep it civil because we are in Parliament. Initially, there seemed to be a willingness to go ahead, and departmental officials supported the initiative and were working hand in hand with the government.
Suddenly we have noticed in our committee that there has been a big switch coming from the ministerial bench. People have said one thing before and then switched their point of view to one that is more cautious. I want to raise the fact that it is not the first time we have seen this. Recently, while studying a bill in the official languages committee, we saw that there had been a big shift in the current government when it started to talk about certain issues.
I would like to see a little more discipline from the government side. We understand that the work we are doing is exceedingly serious. Since the Liberals have been in office for eight years now, we expect more consistency and coordination between the public service, which objectively analyzes the situation, and the government's political and partisan point of view. It is only natural for the government to have a political perspective, but the public service and the government need to work together.
If, three-quarters of the way into a job, it becomes clear that things are not working, then changes need to be made. Most importantly, the stakeholders need to be informed. We saw this happen with this bill. Unfortunately, we also saw this happen with the bill to overhaul the Official Languages Act. We witnessed a kind of mutiny within the government, which was sending members to committee who were basically saying the opposite of the government. I therefore urge the government to be a little more disciplined.
Let us come back to the crux of the debate on this bill. I very much appreciated the historical aspect mentioned by my colleague from Windsor West. This is part of our heritage. Obviously, when we talk about national parks, we are reflecting on our roots and the history of our country. We are reflecting on the presence of first nations and the colonial era, either in New France or under British rule. It is part of a whole.
As my colleague said, in 1749, the French established a farming system, traces of which can still be seen in geographic features. There are streets and neighbourhoods in Windsor with very French-sounding names. That makes us very happy. This concerns that area.
As the member also mentioned, it is not so far from the Gordie Howe International Bridge either. I want to remind the House that this bridge, which connects Canada and the United States, is one of the biggest projects in Canada. This area sees the most trade in the country. I remember that the member mentioned the percentage.
I do not remember exactly how much money, but billions of dollars go from us to the U.S., and from the U.S. to us, via this bridge and the communities around it. That is very important to us.
I respect that this member praises his area, like I am quite sure all members do. I can assure members that I am very proud to be from Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I recognize when members are also proud of their ridings.
Yes, the Gordie Howe bridge is very important. I want to honourably confess that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. I am bringing it up because I want to acknowledge the extraordinary achievement of the Hon. Denis Lebel. He was the infrastructure minister at the time and the man behind this bridge.
We know that there were difficulties. Our partner, our neighbour, had some reservations. There were also reservations on the Canadian side, which is quite normal in infrastructure projects. That said, under the co-operative leadership of the Hon. Denis Lebel, we succeeded in building this bridge, and we look forward to seeing it open soon.
I just wanted to salute this extraordinary contribution. It is one of the Conservative government's great achievements, and it came about under the leadership of the Hon. Denis Lebel. I wanted to mention that.
I think there is currently some disagreement with departmental authorities about how to proceed. It is worth noting that the purpose of national parks is, first and foremost, to determine the cultural importance of this kind of proposal. It has to respect biodiversity. The landscape also needs to be considered. Would establishing a national park in the proposed area enhance the landscape? New parks also have to complement our other national parks.
Quebec has three national parks, including one in the Mauricie region. I am not big into the recreational and tourism activities there, but everyone tells me Mauricie is absolutely amazing. I would like to take a moment to salute one of Mauricie's great native sons, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who was the instigator for that national park. Yes, he is a Liberal—nobody is perfect—but I recognize the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien's contribution, and I say that with tremendous respect, of course.
Yes, it has to be connected to the landscape. It has to complement the existing national park system, and essentially, it has to have the support of the first nations, the surrounding communities, the people who live in the area, and, of course, the municipal, provincial and ultimately federal governments.
There are five steps to establishing a national park: identify the general area; select the specific area; assess the feasibility; negotiate the necessary agreements, and finally, establish the park by amending the Canada National Parks Act. That is where we are right now, and we need to get it right. Obviously, the concerns expressed by the government will have to be evaluated.
Once again, I cannot help but notice that the government has waited until the last minute. The hon. member has been working on this for over 10 years and has spent over four years going through all the parliamentary steps needed to move forward. Now, just as we are about to pass the bill, the government is pulling back and asking if everything has been done correctly, because there are plenty of areas in Winnipeg where there could be beautiful parks.
With all due respect, my friends should perhaps have thought of this before, because this matter did not come out of nowhere. They have been talking about it for years. The act has been around forever, or almost, and it is very clear. Maybe they should have checked for problems before we got to this stage.
In closing, I also want to remind members that national historic sites can be evaluated without necessarily becoming national parks. I want to give a nod to my part of the country, Quebec City, where there is a historic site that includes three buildings at 57 and 63 Rue Saint‑Louis in Quebec City. It is probably the most modest historic site around. As an aviation enthusiast and history buff, I also want to salute the Alexander Graham Bell National Historic Site in Nova Scotia. It commemorates the first heavier-than-air controlled airplane flight, which took place in Baddeck on February 23, 1909. We salute the fact that it has become a historic site.
There is a difference between national parks and historic sites. We should be proud of our heritage. Let us designate new national parks properly and ensure that it is all done according to the rules.
1469 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech because at the very end he mentioned Alexander Graham Bell and Baddeck. That is the historic site from which the plane took off in February 1909. I just have to say it was my grandmother's cousin who was piloting that plane. His name was J.A.D. McCurdy. I wanted to get that in there, as I am proud of that heritage, and I am glad the member brought it up here in the House.
I am also proud to rise to speak to Bill C-248 here this evening. It is a bill that would create Ojibway national urban park near Windsor, Ontario, and it was put forward by the wonderful member for Windsor West, who has been working so hard and passionately on this for a decade now. I did speak to this bill when it was at second reading some time ago, but I would like to go over that ground again and really dive into why the bill is so important and why Ojibway national urban park is such an important initiative that we need to get done.
This proposal would combine lands that are owned by all levels of government, the federal government, the provincial government and the City of Windsor, and combine them into a really priceless package that would protect an endangered ecosystem that is unique in Canada. That is why this should be a national park. It is a small area. It is only 900 acres, or something like that, but it is so important from the national perspective and from the environmental perspective, that it would really be a fabulous addition to our national park system.
I would also like to thank the member for Windsor West, as I mentioned before, for inviting me down to Windsor a few years ago to visit this area. I had never been to Windsor. It was great to tour around the city and see the urban sprawl of Detroit right there across the river. It is such a vibrant place.
I toured the Ojibway Shores area, where the member told me all these stories, and each story was about the battles he had been through to protect this important area from various plans for development. He brought the community together, and he brought Caldwell first nation, other community groups, naturalist groups, biologists and even developers together to say it would be such a wonderful addition to not just the local area, but also to Canada.
We were there on a beautiful day in September. We hiked along some of the trails through beautiful grasslands. The big bluestem grass was full of the late summer flowers, such as asters and other beautiful flowers. There were birds, of course. That is my thing. I am always looking for rare birds, and there are a lot of birds there. We walked through the groves of oaks. This is kind of a savannah habitat. We saw a lot of people enjoying these trails. It was clear that this was a popular place for the locals to come on the weekends, get out of the urban habitats and enjoy nature.
I think that has even amplified since the pandemic. We have seen a huge increase. I have not been back to Ojibway Shores, but around my home, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of people getting out on trails and enjoying nature, just because people have discovered that. They had nowhere else to go during the pandemic, and suddenly they have discovered that here in Canada we all live in beautiful places. Ojibway Shores is one of those places, and this area would protect three really important ecosystems: the tallgrass prairie; the oak savannah, as I mentioned; and the Carolinian forest.
In my previous life, as some members know, I was a biologist, and a lot of the work I did in that career was centred around endangered ecosystems and species at risk.
There are four ecosystems in this country that are consistently listed as the most endangered. There are the Garry oak savannahs of southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia. We have the desert grasslands in the South Okanagan area of British Columbia, which is where I come from, my home habitat. There is the Carolinian forest of southern Ontario, which is a deciduous forest. They are found throughout the eastern United States and squeak into Canada in southern Ontario. There is the tall grass prairie in southern Manitoba and parts of southern Ontario as well. The Ojibway national urban park would protect two of these important ecosystems, the tall grass prairie and the Carolinian forest.
We do not often think of Ontario as a prairie province, but it once had extensive tall grass prairies. Those have been largely wiped out over the last two centuries through agriculture and urban development. Only about 1% of these habitats still exist. In Ontario, there are only three areas larger than a few acres that represent this habitat. One of those is Ojibway Shores.
Endangered ecosystems, almost by definition, are home to a lot of species at risk. That is what makes them species at risk: Their ecosystems are endangered. There are almost 200 rare and endangered species in Ojibway Shores. There is no other area in Ontario that would come close to that length of a list for endangered and rare species, and only one or two areas in Canada would come close. One, as I mentioned before, is my home habitat in the desert grasslands of the Okanagan.
There are endangered plant communities. There are endangered insect communities. We do not know a lot about some of these things. I would just say in passing that one thing the government could do is spend a bit of money doing an inventory and a survey of some of our endangered species. We might find them in a lot more places or we might find that they are truly endangered. It would be a good investment.
In a previous speech, I mentioned the beautiful damselfly, the giant spreadwing, which is found in Canada only in Ojibway Shores. That is the only place it is known. There are also endangered reptiles, like the Massasauga rattlesnake. In my hometown, we have rattlesnakes that are threatened as well. Here, the Massasauga rattlesnake is found in a small population that is 300 kilometres away from the next population. It is isolated and endangered. There is the bobwhite quail, a really iconic species of small game bird that is found in Canada only in extreme southwestern Ontario. It used to be in Ojibway Shores. Now it is found only in Walpole Island, which is nearby. If we protect these areas, then we can talk about bringing some of these species back, but we need to protect them first.
This is not an area like Banff, Jasper, Kluane or Ivvavik, which are big, wild parks. This is an urban national park that is special. It is built in a mosaic of properties that are close to Windsor. It would be an integral part of that urban population. We have to make sure those properties connect habitats correctly so these species can thrive even in the small areas. We have a similar proposal in the South Okanagan to create a national park in a similar area, a mosaic of different lands.
Once again, I want to thank the member for Windsor West for his work on this. I congratulate him for all his effort and I hope everyone here joins us in voting for this very important bill.
1287 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-248, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act. I want to begin by acknowledging that the land I represent is the ancestral and unceded territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of first nations, the Ojibwa, the Odawa, and the Potawatomi.
I share my colleague's enthusiasm for the creation of an Ojibway national urban park, and I recognize his long-standing advocacy. Both of us recognize that Ojibway is a precious gem, unlike any other. Compared to, say, Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, Ojibway is a postage stamp of land, but in its 300 hectares, Ojibway contains rare Carolinian forest and tall-grass prairie, and it has the most biodiversity in all of Canada, including hundreds of plants, reptiles, insects and wildlife.
When I first got elected in 2019, my first meeting with the Prime Minister's Office on Parliament Hill was about the creation of an Ojibway national urban park. Not quite two years later, I joined the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development at Ojibway, in addition to dozens and dozens of local community partners, to announce our government's commitment to create seven new national urban parks, among them Ojibway. It was a historic day. Parks Canada was put in charge of creating an Ojibway national urban park, which makes sense, since Parks Canada has over 100 years of experience building national parks. We trust the experts. Since that day, Parks Canada has been busy putting in the work to make Ojibway national urban park a reality.
I will walk members through the Parks Canada process, which I support, and the real measurable progress we have already made to building an Ojibway national urban park.
Last year, we established a local partnership committee to oversee the process of creating an Ojibway national urban park. Parks Canada provided the City of Windsor with $600,000 to begin consultations and the groundwork to carry out a joint work plan with Parks Canada. Windsor's city council voted unanimously in favour of this process. We brokered an agreement between the Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada to transfer Ojibway Shores to Parks Canada for inclusion into an Ojibway national urban park.
I am proud to say that we will have some even better news to share with our community in short order on the transfer of Ojibway Shores. Ojibway Shores is the last piece of natural habitat on the shores of the Detroit River. It is priceless. It is beyond value, and our community fought tooth and nail to keep it safe from bulldozers. Now, through the Parks Canada process that is under way, we will protect Ojibway Shores forever.
In December, Parks Canada began a series of open houses and pop-up workshops to engage residents of our community, listen to our community members and get local feedback on the design of an Ojibway national urban park. What I mean by that is the design of not just the footprint of Ojibway national urban park, but the design of how Ojibway national urban park would be managed.
Most important, we are in the process as we speak of working toward a collaboration agreement with our indigenous partners, Caldwell first nation and Walpole Island first nation. Two weeks ago, I had a chance to meet with Chief Mary Duckworth and members of Caldwell first nation to talk about the Parks Canada process of building an Ojibway national urban park. What I heard is support for a Parks Canada process that envisions Caldwell first nation being not only co-designers of an Ojibway national urban park, but also co-managers and co-stewards. In that way, the Parks Canada process is not just about creating an Ojibway national urban park, it is also about taking concrete steps on the path to reconciliation with our indigenous partners.
The work of building an Ojibway national urban park is already being done. Ojibway national urban park is already being constructed, much like we see the construction of the Gordie Howe international bridge, right next door, moving forward. The Parks Canada process is the best path forward for one major reason, and that is that it prioritizes, from the very start, community consultation with our community and with indigenous communities such as Caldwell—
727 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 7:49:34 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have raised this several times in the House before, to refrain from using the words “our indigenous people”. We are not owned. We are independent individuals. We are human beings and we are not owned by anybody.
I would like to remind the member not to use the word “our”.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 7:50:00 p.m.
- Watch
That is not really a point of order but a good suggestion for all of us who speak in the House of Commons.
I will also remind the hon. member who is speaking.
The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point of order and well taken.
The Parks Canada process is the best path forward for one major reason. It prioritizes, from the very start, community consultation with our community and also with indigenous communities like Caldwell and Walpole Island, which have historic ties to Ojibway.
Consultation with first nations from the start on the design of the Ojibway national urban park is especially important, not only because Canada has a constitutional duty to consult with indigenous communities on the creation of national parks, but because Ojibway provides a genuine opportunity to strengthen our relationship with indigenous peoples and advance reconciliation.
Imagine an innovative made-in-Windsor model where indigenous communities and environmental groups co-design an Ojibway national urban park and share stewardship of an Ojibway national urban park. Imagine a process that allows other community groups to have a real voice in the design of an Ojibway national urban park. In the spirit of Black History Month, we want to hear from the Amherstburg Freedom Museum or the Essex County Black Historical Research Society, to connect Ojibway to the story of the Underground Railroad.
Again, I want to recognize my colleague, the MP for Windsor West, for being a passionate champion of Ojibway all these years. His contribution to this work cannot be overstated.
However, Bill C-248 bypasses community consultation, falls short of our duty to consult with first nations and creates a duplicate process that could jeopardize the progress and partnerships already developed by Parks Canada.
Here are some of the most significant concerns I have with Bill C-248—
271 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 7:52:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by taking a moment to express my heartbreak and condolences to the parents, the day care staff and the children, and to everyone who is impacted by the tragedy in Laval. It is hard to find words to express the depth of loss that these families are facing. We are grieving with them.
Every year, more people across Canada are forced to face the devastating reality of the climate crisis: increasingly severe hurricanes on the east coast, and forest fires, extreme flooding and heat domes on the west coast. We are in a climate emergency, and it is impacting everything that we hold dear. People have lost their homes and their jobs, and hundreds of Canadians have lost their lives.
It has been four years since the government declared a climate emergency, and yet it still refuses to take climate action at the scale or speed required. Why would the Liberal government say it believes there is a climate emergency but then refuse to treat it like an emergency? Why would it continue to hand out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies? Why would it buy the Trans Mountain pipeline? Why would it approve Bay du Nord? Why is it openly planning to increase oil and gas production?
We are in a climate emergency. These are not the actions of a government responding to an emergency. These are the actions of a government that is captured by the oil and gas lobby.
This past year was the most profitable year ever for the five biggest oil companies. Take that in. Big oil and gas made more profit than they ever have before. While they rake in these record profits, profiting off the backs of Canadians who are struggling just to make ends meet, these companies are also announcing that they are scaling down their climate commitments, lowering their emission reduction targets and walking back their pledges to climate action.
Instead, they are upping their spending on new oil and gas. Just two weeks ago, Canadian oil and gas executives claimed they could not invest any more in clean energy and renewable projects, that they want to but there is no place to invest these billions in. If that is true, why would the federal government give them billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies? These companies are making more money than ever before, and they claim they want to spend it on climate action. Why would the government not require that they pay for their own pollution, regulate them, force them to reduce their emissions, and make big oil and gas put their exorbitant money where their mouth is?
Instead, the government decided to give the oil and gas sector billions more for carbon capture technology. Not only is carbon capture an unproven technology, which according to the IPCC, according to the world's top climate scientists, is one of the costliest and least effective options out there, but this $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit is money that the government could have invested in renewable technology that is readily available, that is proven. The government could have excluded oil and gas companies from this handout. It could have forced these companies to pay for their own carbon capture projects.
Instead, the Liberals keep footing the bill for the oil and gas industry. What that actually means is that the Liberals are making Canadians foot the bill. Among the G20 countries, Canada has the worst track record when it comes to public financing of the oil and gas sector. These are choices about how we spend our public money. Profitable oil and gas companies should be paying to clean up their own pollution.
If the Liberals truly believe that we are in a climate emergency, they could implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies. Other countries have done it. We could use that money to invest in climate solutions, in making life more affordable for Canadians, in making communities more climate-resilient.
Why is the government so focused on protecting the profits of big oil and gas instead of protecting Canadians and our communities from the climate crisis?
699 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 7:57:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know two things. We know that energy profits are at record levels, and we know that emissions have to come down.
We are investing $9.1 billion in an emissions reduction plan. We have put our money on the table. Oil and gas companies have to come to the plate. They have to put their shoulder to the wheel. They have to work with us to get those emissions down and to realize the ambitious targets we have set for our emissions reduction plan.
Our government understands that Canada is facing an increasing number of extreme events, such as floods, hurricanes and forest fires.
Our climate is changing and it is necessary to take strong action now to make our future greener. Now, more than ever, climate action is an economic necessity. The reality is that this government is taking meaningful actions to fight pollution and promote cleaner air for everyone.
I know the member for Victoria also believes in the importance of fighting climate change and I hope that she supports our efforts.
For example, we established a national minimum price on carbon pollution across Canada in 2019. Not only is it no longer free to pollute, it is more and more expensive to do so. Our approach is working.
We are encouraging industries to become more efficient and use cleaner technologies. In doing so, we are encouraging the development of innovative new approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using energy more efficiently.
That being said, we also know that we need to work with the industry on decarbonization measures.
Our government is also committed to phasing out or rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that give fossil fuels an unfair advantage over clean air solutions. We have accelerated the previous timeline for doing so from 2025 to this year.
In budget 2022, the government committed to eliminating the flow-through share regime for fossil fuel activities. This will be done by no longer allowing expenditures related to oil, gas and coal exploration and development to be renounced to flow-through share investors for flow-through share agreements entered into after March 31, 2023.
That is less than two months away.
I am also proud of our government's work on carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS. It is an important tool for reducing emissions in high-emitting sectors, especially if other pathways to reduce emissions are limited or even unavailable. It uses advanced technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion, industrial processes or directly from the air.
The captured carbon can then be stored deep underground or used to create new, innovative products.
In last year's budget, we announced a refundable investment tax credit for businesses that incur eligible expenses.
This tool will be available to CCUS projects to the extent that they permanently store captured CO2 through an eligible use. From 2022 through 2030, the investment tax credit rates will be set at 60% for investment in equipment to capture CO2 in direct air capture projects, 50% for investment in equipment to capture CO2 in all other CCUS projects, and 37.5% for investment in equipment for transportation, storage and use.
To encourage industry to act quickly to reduce emissions, these rates will be reduced by 50% starting in 2031.
550 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:01:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her comments, but she did not answer the question.
All the strongly worded statements about the oil and gas industry needing to come to the plate will not make big oil and gas do the right thing.
It is hard to take any of these Liberal comments seriously when they have been in power for seven years and have increased fossil fuel subsidies year after year.
Oil and gas companies are making record profits while fuelling the climate crisis. The devastating impacts of the climate emergency are costing billions of dollars and communities are struggling. Fighting the climate crisis should not come at the expense of everyday Canadians who are paying record prices at the pump and struggling to make ends meet, all while oil and gas companies are making record profits. They should be paying what they owe. Will the government make them? Will the government implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:02:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking meaningful actions to fight pollution and make Canada's future greener.
Our government understands that climate action is now an economic necessity and Canadians can count on us to continue the work. For example, Canada is taking significant steps toward reducing our emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, and reaching net zero by 2050.
Last fall at COP27 in Egypt, Canadian representatives also fought hard to prevent other countries from backing down on phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels and coal, which remain the largest sources of CO2 emissions. We are also on track to eliminate coal-fired power here in Canada by 2030.
In the months ahead, as we prepare for the 2023 budget, Canadians can count on this government to continue to work hard to build an economy that works for everyone, to create good jobs and to make life more affordable.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:03:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just before the holidays, I pressed the Prime Minister to follow through on a critical election promise, which was to fund a new $4.5-billion mental health transfer to the provinces and territories with the Canada mental health transfer. At the time I was pushing for it to be in budget 2023.
That echoed the call of 65 organizations across the country that were similarly calling for the acceleration of the implementation of this transfer and for it to be in budget 2023. They included the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Association of Community Health Centres, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Alzheimer Society and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The list goes on and on, so I appreciate the chance to come back to this question because at the time the question was not answered and I have not had clarification since.
I have two points I would like to leave with the parliamentary secretary for her to comment on.
First, mental health is health. It deserves dedicated funding. Mental illnesses and substance use disorders will affect one in three people in their lifetime. We know that the pandemic has only made this worse. Of these folks, one in three cannot get the care that they need. That adds up to almost 4,000 people in my community waiting for mental health and addictions care.
I have had the chance to speak with some of these folks myself. Last summer, I was speaking with a mom on her doorstep while she was in tears, describing her teenaged daughter and the mental health challenges she was facing. I spoke with a nurse this past summer who told me about the number of people that she is seeing at Grand River Hospital's emergency department who should have seen a psychiatrist or a mental health professional months before.
That is why dedicated funding for mental health is so important. It would also, of course, take pressure off of other areas in our health care system. It would take pressure off of emergency departments, doctors, social services and the millions of people who are suffering. It is, of course, why the 65 organizations I mentioned earlier are pushing for this promise to be followed through on.
My second point is that election promises matter. The Liberal 2021 campaign platform indicates a comprehensive plan for mental health care across Canada. The plan goes on to say that they would, “Commit to permanent, ongoing funding for mental health services under the Canada Mental Health Transfer”.
Call me a radical, but I believe it is important that political parties and their leaders follow through on the promises they make. I think it is important for our democracy that this is the case and for our Parliament to keep them accountable to it.
I expect the parliamentary secretary will make mention of an important announcement made just yesterday in health care. I have read the announcement multiple times but, as I parse through it, there is no mention of the mental health transfer specifically and nothing about dedicated funds for mental health.
My question for the parliamentary secretary tonight is this: Can she make it clear whether the governing party continues to be committed to the Canada mental health transfer, and whether the $4.5 billion will be included in budget 2023?
567 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, there is no health without mental health. That is why access to mental health and substance use supports, including at the community level, is a fundamental piece of work that we want to undertake with the provinces and territories.
I think we all know our health system is facing major challenges, made worse by the pandemic. As we work with the provinces to fix it, we have to make sure that mental health and substance use care is integrated transparently as an integral and equal part of our universal health care system.
I believe the proposal we put forward to the premiers yesterday provides both the resources and the mechanism to get us there.
We are keeping our commitment to transfer billions of dollars to the provinces and territories in the coming years to support mental health, but we are doing so by increasing the Canada health transfer, which includes mental health, and by providing $25 billion over 10 years under long-term integrated bilateral agreements.
At the working meeting with the provincial premiers, the federal government announced that it will increase health funding to the provinces and territories by $196.1 billion over 10 years, including $46.2 billion in new funding.
This funding includes an immediate, unconditional $2 billion Canada health transfer top-up to address immediate pressures on the health care system. A 5% CHT guarantee for the next five years will be provided through annual top-up payments as required. This measure is projected to provide an additional $17.3 billion over 10 years in new support.
The last top-up payment will be rolled into the CHT base at the end of the five years to ensure a permanent funding increase, providing certainty and sustainability to provinces and territories. With this guarantee, the CHT is projected to grow by 33% over the next five years, and 61% over the next 10 years.
We are also providing $25 billion over 10 years to advance shared health priorities through tailored bilateral agreements that will support the needs of people in each province and territory in four areas of shared priority: family health services, health workers and backlogs, mental health and substance use, and a modernized health system.
We believe these bilateral agreements are the most effective way to incorporate shared priorities into this funding, to reflect the unique needs of each province and territory, and to support mental health as part of an integrated patient-centred approach. The goal of this collaborative work and these bilateral agreements is to provide Canadians with a multidisciplinary system of care.
This approach integrates mental health into all the shared priorities, from improving access to mental health through primary care, to improving data and sharing information on health between the professionals that are consulted, or the approach to address the labour shortage in the health and mental health care sectors and to provide better mental health support to prevent burnout.
These are results that will improve access to the supports Canadians need when they need it.
520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:11:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a really important question for the parliamentary secretary to clarify in response. I would agree with her the announcement made yesterday is an important one for health care, but it is not what was committed in the 2021 election campaign. Specifically, what I would like to understand better is that there was a promise and a commitment for dedicated mental health funds. It was to be called the Canada mental health transfer. Yesterday, as the parliamentary secretary shared, new dollars have been set aside for health care, which is good, but we need dedicated funds for mental health, as the governing party promised and ran an entire election campaign on, which they won. My question remains this. Is the governing party still committed to the mental health transfer, and if so, will it be in budget 2023?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:12:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the significant increases to the Canada health transfer will give the provinces and territories essential resources to support health care, including mental health care. The additional $25 billion for tailor-made agreements with provinces and territories will also help expand the delivery of timely, high quality, integrated and accessible mental health and substance use services in Canada. Through the proposed bilateral agreement, we will be working to integrate mental health and substance use care priorities as a full and equal part of our universal health care system.
This will ensure transparency and accountability by the provinces and territories in access to mental health and substance abuse services. We will build on the $5 billion over five years that we have been providing for mental health and substance abuse support since 2017, which currently provides $600 million annually to the provinces and territories until 2027.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 8:13:29 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, Inuit elders have the right to access home care in their home communities. Elders in Nunavut have had to endure many atrocities in their lifetimes, including residential schools, forced religious conversion and the slaughter of their sled dogs. Being forced to leave their families to get care is unacceptable.
Most Canadian seniors who need care can get it close to their homes. With the lack of investments within my territory, Inuit elders are forced to move thousands of kilometres south to access care. There are no facilities in my territory for persons who have advanced dementia. Enough is enough. Real investments must be made into Nunavut's health care.
Many elders fear dying alone in a place that is not their home and without their families. Many facilities, like the ones found in Ottawa, might not have staff who speak Inuktitut. This limits the quality of care that can be offered.
This separation of culture and the family impacts elders' mental and physical health. The lack of infrastructure funding investments in health care and trained health care workers perpetuates reliance on southern health care. Nunavut has the fewest hospital beds per capita of any province or territory, with one for every 1,100 residents compared to a national average of one per 409 from a 2022 report.
The first nations and Inuit home and community care program is coming to the end of its 10-year anniversary. The government needs to examine the program and make real changes to offer better care.
Will the government stop funding elders to be exiled to the south in budget 2023?
268 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
