SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Feb/14/23 5:01:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will take a few seconds to remind or inform my colleagues that this is the first St. Valentine's Day that the NDP and the Liberals have spent together since they struck their alliance. I wish them a happy Valentine's Day. We, in the Bloc Québécois, are sovereignists, and we want Quebec to be its own country. We would like Quebec to make its own decisions and choices. There are many reasons for that, historical and institutional reasons, but we also want to be efficient. In Quebec, we are against duplication. We believe that doing the same work twice, once in Quebec City and once in Ottawa, is not a good thing. It is not a good use of resources. I can see my Conservative colleagues nodding. That is a good thing because today we are faced with the duplication of previous motions. This is the fifth or sixth identical motion. This unnecessary duplication, this waste of energy, is something we have seen before in the House of Commons. It is the same thing every Conservative opposition day. Economists call this looking for economies of scale. An economy of scale means trying to always produce the same thing with less and less effort. Lucky for us, it takes less and less effort to give them the same answers. Obviously they get paid big money just to copy and paste, in other words, to hit “control c” and “control v”. We already voted against a virtually identical motion last week. I would say that I am throwing their motion in the garbage bin, but even the garbage bin might vote against that. We will talk about the motion for a few minutes. The diagnosis within the motion is not entirely false. It is true that there is inflation. It is true that Canadian families are facing a crisis. It is true that times are hard because many people are struggling. We have to think about those people. It is true that the inflation rate is at its highest since 1982. It was over 10% in 1982. It is roughly 6% today. The motion is a little overblown, but there we are. However, what the Conservatives forgot to say is that if we do not consider energy and food, which are important components, the core inflation rate used by the Bank of Canada is 5.5%. The price of fossil fuel energy has increased by 28%. Once again, the Conservatives think that attacking the carbon tax, which does not even apply in Quebec, is the solution to all our woes. Instead, we need to take measures to start an energy transition, so that the next time there is a crisis, we do not end up with a 22nd, 23rd and 24th identical motion. Surely it is clear why we are uncomfortable. The reason the Conservatives can afford to keep tabling the same motion over and over is because the Liberals did little to help families during the crisis. True, there were some measures. They increased the Canada child benefit and so on. However, those measures were planned before the crisis. Very little was done. They did double the GST credit, something the Bloc had been asking for for months. We also asked that cheques be sent out more frequently, but that has not been done. The Liberals are complacent. They spend too much time talking and not enough time helping people. That is why the Conservatives' populism, as expressed in yet another of these motions, is unfortunately beginning to gain credence among groups of people who are not always well informed. One good thing about the Conservatives' motion is that at least we get an opportunity to talk about the federal government's efficiency in delivering services. We get to talk about the efficiency of the machinery of government and McKinsey. We will discuss that later. I just want to say that inefficiency, especially in the form of duplication, is rampant in Ottawa. I would like the government to explain to me why it costs two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it does to process a social assistance application in Quebec, and that is the truth. That is a 250% markup on processing. Why does it cost four times more to handle and process a passport application in the federal bureaucracy than it does for the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec to deliver a driver's licence? Of course, a driver's licence is not a passport, but that is 400% more. These are not unreasonable comparisons. This is a major problem. Members talked about duplication, and I want to talk about federal government costs that have doubled or even tripled. We know that Ottawa duplicates some things that Quebec already does. That management could be decentralized. There will be further discussion on the single income tax statement and the duplication of taxation centres. That is one thing. Yesterday, the procurement ombudsman appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Based on what we heard, ministers can indeed subcontract work, even if the public service is available and has the skills needed to do the work. The work can be subcontracted to companies such as McKinsey. I asked him if, during his audits, he identified whether work that public servants could have done had been subcontracted. Quebeckers and Canadians will not pay just once or twice, but three times. He responded that his work was rather to ensure that, when taxpayers get ripped off and pay twice, pre-established rules are followed. In other words, we will be ripped off in accordance with the rules. That is exactly how it works. I invite people to listen to the ombudsman's testimony yesterday. There are ways to ensure that the machinery of government operates more efficiently. Are these solutions contained in the Conservative motion? I read it three times. It was quite painful but I did it, and I noted that it does not contain any solutions, so we will be voting against this motion. There is another thing that is niggling at me. It bothers me, and I feel uncomfortable. The Conservatives and the Liberals both know that not all inflation is created equal. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote every 15 minutes, said and showed that the trajectory of the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio would drop over the coming years. It could actually reach 10% of GDP, maybe even 0% of GDP, depending on the budget, in a few decades. The federal government's long-term public finances are healthy, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer showed that the provinces' finances, which cover health, are going to be in bigger and bigger trouble. They are in trouble because the cost of the system, even before the inflationary crisis, was increasing at a rate of 5.5% to 6% per year. That is before any increase in the cost of nurses, orderlies and all the other inputs involved in health care systems. Now there is a new agreement being imposed. I do not know of many marriages that are entered into legally and with mutual consent with this type of agreement. It is an agreement imposed by one side only. It is so stingy that the Conservatives have decided to support it. When inflation affects the sick people who are waiting in hospital corridors, people whose cancer diagnosis or treatment is pushed back a month, two months or three months, or families who will lose loved ones, inflation is the least of their concerns. All they want is to adopt austerity policies. What will the Conservatives cut? Will they cut help for seniors, like the Liberals did for seniors aged 65 to 74? They will make cuts to the energy transition, obviously. As far as employment insurance is concerned, they are not proposing anything for people who have to deal with the spring gap. They are even proposing that pensions be reduced because they want to offer premium holidays. The Conservatives are going to force future retirees into poverty, and when they turn to Ottawa for help in 20 or 30 years' time, they will be told that the government needs to make cuts and will not help them. With the Conservatives, it is two layers of trouble, not one. Workable solutions exist. The Bloc Québécois has put forward proposals. We have been doing so for a year and a half. We proposed GST and QST cheques. In cases such as the McKinsey affair, we are always there to ensure that we do not pay double or triple and that taxpayers get their money's worth. When it is time to defend the competence of our public service, the Bloc Québécois is always there. When it is the Bloc opposition day, we are always accused of raising useless subjects. We are told that people are not interested in what we want to discuss. In conclusion, I will explain why we are capable of talking about other things. It is because we do not move the same motion seven times. We understand things right away, and it gives us the time to think about other things. The Conservatives want to be in government. The people sitting in this place want to be ministers, but they are not even able to walk and chew gum at the same time. What will they do? Will there be 2,000 seats in the House and 22 parliamentary secretaries for each minister so they can think about two things at once? No, thank you. For their next opposition day, I invite them to think about their motion, to speak to the other opposition parties and to ensure that the door is not slammed in their face for the eighth or ninth time. That way, they will stop crying and blaming the other parties.

1678 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/14/23 5:12:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have had Bloc and Conservative members and next we would get an NDP member. If I were in opposition, the kind of motion I would like to see is one on health care. I think all of us here and Canadians have a big interest in health care. It is more than just the cost factor in terms of how much money is going to Ottawa or how much money is raised at the provincial level. It is about managing change. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the issue of health care management of change and the importance of transparency and accountability.

109 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/14/23 5:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am in a Kafka novel. An important figure in the Liberal Party is telling me that if he had the chance to be in the opposition—and we hope he does, because perhaps he needs it—he would move such a motion. He tells me this after the Liberals refused to hear from the provinces and meet with the premiers for 28 months, and after they had the nerve to call something that will give all the provinces $4.4 billion a year over 10 years, at a time of inflation, a “deal”. The Liberals are not interested in health. In 2017, they began consulting on children's health and the marketing of foods that are unhealthy for children. They did the consultations and got the results, but they never introduced a bill. The Minister of Health never did a thing on that, and they even let two bills from their own MPs die on the Order Paper. When my colleague is in opposition, I will be pleased to discuss the motions he brings forward.

186 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Feb/14/23 5:13:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked at length. We have had a similar theme for our opposition day motions over and over again. After listening to the member's entire speech, we are going to have to continue to do motions on the same theme, because he mentioned nothing about the fact that after eight years we have seen that this country has fallen apart. We have been mentioning that over and over again and he did not mention it once in his speech. The other thing the member never talked about in his speech was the tripling of the carbon tax. Therefore, we will have to continue to push this message out so that even the Bloc will get on board with some of these things. I just wonder if the member has heard those things said by the Conservatives before, and whether he will say that we have said them enough.

152 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/14/23 5:14:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague keeps doing the same thing while hoping for different results. He did not listen to my speech. When we say that we need solutions to permanently increase the incomes of Quebeckers and Canadians, and when we say that, during a crisis, we need to offer people temporary assistance to get through the crisis—

58 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:15:09 p.m.
Watch

I am told that interpretation is not coming through online. It is working in the chamber, but not online. We will try again. The hon. member for Mirabel.

28 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/14/23 5:16:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start again because I was responding to my colleague and it is important that he hear the interpretation. I was saying that if the Conservatives keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results—

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:16:15 p.m.
Watch

There is no interpretation. Let us just take a minute and a half to figure out what is going on.

20 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:21:20 p.m.
Watch

Now that it is working, I will give the hon. member for Mirabel 30 seconds to finish his answer.

20 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/14/23 5:21:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague thinks he can keep doing the same thing over and over with different results, he is clearly not listening to our proposals to permanently increase the incomes of Quebeckers and Canadians. We must give temporary help to those who are going through this crisis, and we must undertake an energy transition. I wish the Conservatives good luck with the eighth, ninth and tenth motions. I will be happy to debate them.

77 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:22:02 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:22 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. 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.

73 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Feb/14/23 5:22:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:22:43 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/14/23 5:23:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/23 5:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

35 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Feb/14/23 5:23:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-222

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak on Bill S-222, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, use of wood. I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his sponsorship of this bill and his continued effort in championing this important industry in our province and, indeed, our country. This legislation would require that the minister of public works, when considering maintenance and repair of public works or federal property, to “consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.” Ultimately, this bill aims to encourage the use of more sustainable building materials, including Canada's numerous forestry products. Colleagues will learn from my speech today that I am a little bullish about our provincial forestry industry. My home province of British Columbia is Canada's largest producer of softwood lumber. B.C.'s largest export is forest products. Since 2010, over 50 communities across our province have adopted wood-first policies. Quesnel, under the leadership of my friend, former mayor Mary Sjostrom, was the first community in our province to adopt a wood-first policy. Indeed, my communities of Prince George, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Vanderhoof all have incredible world-class, award-winning facilities, such as the Prince George Airport and the Prince George art gallery. At one time we had the tallest wood building in North America standing at eight storeys, the Wood Innovation and Design Centre, which I am proud to say our former Conservative government supported. I would be remiss if I did not mention my hometown Williams Lake's incredible tourism information centre, built by my good friends at Pioneer log homes. Colleagues in this House will know them as the world-famous timber kings. Forestry has been a cornerstone industry in our province for over 100 years and contributes approximately $13 billion to B.C.'s economy. B.C.'s renewable forest products are in demand globally and are providing carbon-friendly building solutions in the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, India and southeast Asia. Wood is a renewable resource, which means that it can be replenished and grown over time. This is in contrast to other building materials, like steel or concrete, which are labour intensive and whose production create higher emissions. By building with wood, we can reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources, and in turn, reduce our carbon footprint. Carbon remains stored in wood products for the lifetime of the product. Is this not a prime example of a climate action plan rather than a carbon tax plan? By building with wood, we can reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources and in turn, as I mentioned, reduce our carbon footprint. Fortunately, Canada is home to 9% of the world’s forests, which have the ability to act as enormous carbon sinks by absorbing and storing carbon. Each year, our forest companies invest millions of dollars in new technology. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, B.C.'s forestry companies invested over $14 billion in their operations and in developing new sustainable technology. They are leading the way in sustainable forest practices. Annually, Canada harvests less than one-half of 1% of its forest land, allowing for the forest coverage to remain constant for the last century. In B.C., for every tree we harvest, we plant three to six trees. Since 2020, over 300 million trees have been planted. Canada has some of the strictest forest management regulations in the world, requiring successful regeneration after public forests are harvested. Not only is wood a renewable resource, but it is also one of the few materials that is truly biodegradable. When a wood-framed home reaches the end of its useful life, it can be easily recycled or repurposed. In contrast, many other materials used in construction, such as plastics or vinyl, can take hundreds, if not thousands of years to decompose, filling up landfills and polluting our environment. Wood, lumber and other forest products are not only a sustainable construction option that cut our ecological footprint, but they are all vital economic contributors to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. The Cariboo region was at one time British Columbia’s largest producer in the province. However, I am not sure we can say that anymore. In 2019, the Cariboo was home to 21 lumber mills; seven pulp and paper mills; six OSB plywood, veneer and panel plants; five chip mills; three pole and utility producers; three pellet producers—

788 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/14/23 5:28:48 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, I have to stop the hon. member for a minute. There seems to be a problem with the headset. Either it is not plugged in properly or the wrong headset is selected on the computer. Can the hon. member maybe unhook his headset and plug it back in? The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George can continue.

59 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Feb/14/23 5:30:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-222

Madam Speaker, the Cariboo region was at one time British Columbia's largest lumber-producing region; however, I am not sure we can say that anymore. The forestry industry is a vital sector not only for Cariboo—Prince George but for the Canadian economy, supporting thousands of jobs in countless communities across our country and creating many positive spinoff effects in related industries and services. At one time, over 200,000 jobs in my province were directly and indirectly forestry-related. My wife and I are both products of the forestry and farming industry. As a young man in the Cariboo Chilcotin, I actually drove a skidder and loader and tied chokers. I also ran a chainsaw as a buckerman. I know first-hand how important this industry is to our region and to our country. However, Canada's forestry industry has been hindered by unfair trade policies and tariffs imposed on Canadian producers by the U.S. government, which has negatively impacted both Canadian and American businesses and consumers. Our industry has been negatively hit by wildfires and infestations of the pine and fir beetle, which have absolutely devastated our forests. Reductions in annual allowable cuts were necessary. Ongoing rail transportation challenges and our own governments' policies, both provincial and federal, have led to B.C. and Canada being increasingly uncompetitive and costly. In recent years, British Columbia has been hit hard by mill closures. The shutdowns have caused significant economic disruption and job losses in small communities throughout our province. These closures are punching a hole in the fabric of rural B.C. Just recently, the Canfor lumber plant in Houston closed, eliminating 300 jobs. The Canfor lumber plant in Chetwynd closed and eliminated 160 jobs. Production curtailments are all too numerous to count. Most recently, it was announced that the Canfor pulp mill in my community of Prince George will be permanently closing, eliminating 300 jobs, which will have a profound impact on families and the local economy. For the approximately 300 people losing their jobs, families will have to struggle to make ends meet. This closure will also have a ripple effect on the wider community, with local businesses and service providers also feeling the pinch. I cannot even begin to tell members what a heartbreaking loss this is for our community, with 300 good-paying jobs lost, jobs that employed husbands and wives, multiple generations and young people just starting out their careers. Beyond the economic impact, let us remember that these are leaders in our community who volunteer to coach sports and lead groups such as Scouts, Cadets and Brownies, or who show up to volunteer for events like the Canadian Cancer Society 24-hour relay, which just last week announced that, after 30 years, it is not returning to Prince George. This is just another devastating mill closure in my community in an industry that has faced a never-ending series of setbacks. In addition to permanent closures, there are some mills that close temporarily, like the Cariboo Pulp & Paper mill in Quesnel. The closures and curtailments have further compounded the economic challenges facing the region and have left many families and businesses struggling to cope. Beyond the ongoing tariff pressures, the U.S. is doing everything it can to support its lumber producers. In the U.S., decarbonization tax credits and subsidies are available through the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, and its buy American federal procurement policy ensures that Canadian softwood lumber is being left behind. How are we helping our lumber producers to compete with our American neighbours? Is it by tripling the carbon tax? I do not think so. We as a country need to do more to support our Canadian lumber industry. It is important to note that Canadian softwood lumber is not just a cost-effective option, but also a high-quality product. The softwood lumber industry builds and supports our communities, and it can build our federal buildings. In conclusion, I am so happy to support the legislation from my colleague from British Columbia. The benefits of using Canadian softwood lumber are definitely clear.

690 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/14/23 5:35:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-222

Madam Speaker, on this Valentine's Day, I would like to celebrate a little event. My precious daughter, Sarah, who already has one son with my son-in-law, Simon, is pregnant. I just found out it is a girl, and I am so happy. Congratulations to them. They are an amazing couple. Also, on this Valentine's Day, as I am destined not to spend my evening in better company, I will declare my love for forests, a priceless resource for all Quebeckers and Canadians to enjoy and benefit from. The title of Bill S‑222 is an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. This bill is about the use of wood, and it is sponsored by former senator Diane F. Griffin of PEI. It went through first reading in the Senate on November 24, 2021, and is now at second reading in the House. It amends section 7 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by adding the following after subsection 1: In developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables, the Minister shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits. In short, Bill S-222 encourages the federal government to support the forestry industry in reducing its carbon footprint. As a tireless advocate for the Quebec forestry industry, the Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting in favour of this bill. In fact, the Bloc Québécois has proposed similar legislative measures in the past, although ours may have had more teeth. That was the case in 2010 with Bill C-429, sponsored by the former member for Manicouagan, Gérard Asselin. It was also the case in 2014 with Bill C-574, which was introduced by the member for Jonquière—Alma, Claude Patry. Unfortunately, each time, the Conservatives and the NDP voted down these bills. If Quebec were a country—it is a nation, but a country in the making—our 900,000 square kilometres of forest would rank us sixth in the world in terms of total forested area. Economically, Quebec's forests represent 57,000 jobs, $12 billion in exports and a contribution of $6 billion per year to Quebec's GDP. Underestimating this wealth would obviously be a huge mistake. With the decline of pulp and paper, modernizing the wood industry is obviously important and it is becoming increasingly so. The federal government has a huge opportunity right now to contribute to the revitalization of secondary and tertiary processing sectors in so-called weakened communities. By secondary and tertiary processing, I am referring in particular to woodworking products and mass timber construction. Some of the world's leaders in the design and manufacture of wood buildings are located in Quebec. Chantiers Chibougamau and its Nordic Structures division come to mind. Although these businesses still do work in Quebec and Canada, their order books are largely filled by U.S. customers. The Canadian government must stop dragging its feet. It needs to start encouraging the wood building industry in residential construction here. On another note, I would remind the House that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has recommended increasing the use of wood in non-residential construction in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight climate change. Wood products can easily replace synthetic materials from the petrochemical industry that have a huge carbon footprint. Transforming wood is a more energy-efficient process that lowers emissions by one tonne of carbon dioxide per cubic metre of wood. Once processed, wood remains a living material. On average, every single cubic metre of wood captures an additional tonne of carbon dioxide. For example, a building constructed using 80 cubic metres of wood can store 80 tonnes of carbon dioxide during its lifetime, which is equivalent to the emissions released by driving a car for a decade. Imagine the savings for an entire building stock. The forestry sector is probably the industry that is best positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon already in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, between 2017 and 2020, Canada's oil and gas sector received $23 billion in taxpayer subsidies. For the same period, Canada's forestry sector received only $952 million. I would also like to point out that, at their last convention, the Liberals rejected a resolution calling for an end to public funding for fossil fuels. That is pretty weak. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight for a dynamic forestry sector that focuses on preserving biodiversity, encourages innovation and diversification, and generates wealth. In this regard, I would like to congratulate my friends and colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean for their exemplary work on this file. Since 2019, they have undertaken numerous initiatives to bring together all the stakeholders and propose meaningful solutions. In 2021, the Bloc Québécois developed a four-part road map to maximize forests' potential. First, the federal government could “implement a public procurement policy that would encourage the use of wood products, including establishing the carbon footprint as a criterion for awarding contracts”. Second, the Bloc Québécois recommends “increasing budgets for basic research and to develop a value chain for the secondary and tertiary transformation of forest resources”. Third, we suggest protecting exports of lumber from Quebec to the United States, our principal trading partner. Fourth, we want to find ways to boost productivity tied to annual growth. That is why my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Bill S‑222. On this day, February 14, my wish is for the government to show the forestry sector a little love, to help keep jobs in our regions and to fight climate change. It has to stop ignoring that and instead be part of the solution. Happy St. Valentine's day to everyone.

1051 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/14/23 5:45:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-222

Uqaqtittiji, I rise for the last time today, on national Have a Heart Day. Before I begin, I wish safe travels to all of the delegates who attended the Northern Lights trade show here in Ottawa last week. It is an important event that promotes the great work that Nunavummiut are doing to support Canada’s economy. It is a great event to showcase the beauty and talent that artisans from the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut have. I extend my congratulations to all the participants and winners of the Arctic Winter Games in Woodland, Alberta. I have heard great stories of triumph, heartache and celebration. I thank the volunteers who have devoted their time to the success of youth to achieve their best in such events. I thank my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for sponsoring Bill S-222 in this place. It is a step in the right direction to help eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The government has the responsibility to do its part. We must all do our part to reduce emissions. We must all do our part to protect the environment. This bill, while short, has important implications. There must be a fine balance between keeping forests and reducing reliance on harmful materials. Over the last 20 years, I have driven back and forth between Ottawa and New Brunswick to visit family. I have noticed major changes over those 20 years. Roads have improved. Communities have grown, and forests of trees have been decimated. Although I know that I cannot live in remote wooded areas for long periods of time, I know how important trees are. I know that we must find solutions to replacing harmful products, such as plastics and other materials known to accelerate climate change. As Canadian businesses and organizations are shifting to more sustainable practices, this bill helps to ensure that the federal government will work toward those concerns. We are often asked to stretch the limits of our knowledge to learn about important issues that constituents are concerned about. In this speech, I stretch my limits in attempting to understand how mainstream society consumes resources. The aim of this bill is to allow the federal government to use wood for improvements to infrastructure. By using wood in the repair and building of federal infrastructure projects, Canadian businesses can be better supported. In 2013, production in the forest sector contributed $19.8 billion, or 1.25% to Canada’s real gross domestic product. With the decline of the forestry industry in recent years, there is an opportunity to revitalize this sector while protecting the environment. In my riding, although we are not manufacturing wood, families rely on wood for homes, heating and other projects. We rely very much on the import of wood from our neighbours to the south. I use this seat to make sure that concerns are brought forward, my constituents' questions are answered and their needs are met. As the critic to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, my job is to amplify the voices and the concerns that indigenous peoples have. I meet with indigenous communities, chiefs, elders and advocates who are asking the government to listen and take meaningful action to repair the damage it has done. This is important work, but the government must also stretch itself. It needs to be putting in the hard work to make sure Canadians are heard and this is acted upon. In Budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018–19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. We are calling on the government to make good on its promises and be true to its word. This is important, especially in the context of the federal government’s relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada. The government has promised to protect indigenous people's lands, consult with indigenous communities and work toward reconciliation. Too often, this does not occur. The government must take the issues being raised by Canadians more seriously. The government has promised greener solutions to address climate change. All too often, I have watched the government break promises it has made to indigenous peoples and to Canadians. All too often, the government has taken minimal or incremental steps that improve the lives of indigenous peoples. The Liberal government has said that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples. Protecting and upholding indigenous people's rights is a responsibility of the government. The bill is silent on this important matter. How will indigenous people's rights be respected? How will this amendment increase tenure for first nations communities? How will first nations management be guaranteed? It is my hope that amendments will be made to acknowledge that Canada is founded on indigenous people's lands, and provisions must account for that. As Canada continues to work toward a better future, indigenous people must be heard and their land rights must be upheld. Indigenous governance and management must be included. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be included. No development of any kind should exclude the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people.

884 words

All Topics