SoVote

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

May/3/23 11:38:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill S-6. How I came to this bill is probably like many people. We read the title: “an act respecting regulatory modernization”. It reminds me of going through Netflix when someone wants to watch something new so they look at the title and think that it kind of fits, and maybe they see the trailer or read the bio and a bit of what is going to go on in the video, and they say that it is something they can probably get behind. We have lots of regulatory issues in Canada and modernizing them is probably a good thing. We know that over these eight long years, the current Liberal government has introduced more legislation that restricts people. It restricts our ability to get the services we need from our government and it restricts our freedoms and our rights in Canada. If any bill talks about “respecting regulatory modernization”, I would be all over it. There is a list of the departments. There are 12 organizations. I am not going to read all of them, but all of these are things that we should modernize, especially on the regulatory side. We have so much red tape. It has been said that we are the most heavily red-taped country in the world, which holds back our freedoms. All this excess of regulation makes people sick and tired of dealing with government. They throw up their papers and say, “To heck with this, I am not doing this, not applying for that, not going to get into this program, not going to get this grant and not going to apply for this opportunity”, because there is no end to the red tape, the forms and the excess of regulation that Liberals are known for. It goes back to the philosophy, I believe, of the Liberals, which is that government knows best, that someone knows better than the citizens. We have seen this time after time with respect to different legislation that gets introduced here. There is this feeling that the poor citizens need the government's protection and they need the hands of the all-knowing government to reach into their lives and make them difficult. I just think it is garbage. I think of all the waste we have in government, all the duplication and all the unnecessary things that everyday, common people go through just to interact with their government. The government is supposed to help them, but in a lot of ways it hurts Canadians. It hurts Canadians' productivity. It hurts our potential to grow our country, to expand, and to create opportunities for the next generation. That is where the current government has failed miserably in some of the regulatory changes it did early on. I do question how history is going to look back at these eight long years. Hopefully they are coming to an end here soon. I think of the lost opportunity and of the regulatory change in Bill C-69. This is one bill that is terrible for our country. We have seen the results of the restrictive nature of shutting down everything. This goes from coast to coast to coast. I think of one of the largest missed opportunities for Canada. When we look back on these eight long years, what was the worst missed economic opportunity for this generation and probably the next? I think of the impact on liquefied natural gas. When the Liberals came to government, they knew better than the industry and the citizens about what we should be doing to hopefully lower our emissions and grow our economy. There were 15 liquefied natural gas plants proposed for Canada. This is not just a mom-and-pop gas station down the road; this is $10 billion to $20 billion of economic driving force in those communities, and we had 15 of them proposed. Do members know how many got built? Zero of these plants were built. They were going to be massive economic drivers, and it was all derailed because of Bill C-69 and the Liberal government. This is the regulatory framework that the Liberals put in. Their end goal was to shut down industry, and they shut it down. They shut down not only the opportunity on the coasts but also the opportunity for well-paying jobs in my province. In Saskatchewan, the drilling rates for natural gas dropped. I shudder to think of how many opportunities and powerful paycheques these families would have had if the Liberals had not brought in this regulation. It would have released so much natural gas out of Canada. That would actually have lowered emissions. The gas from those plants, for the most part, was headed to Asia and the European market. We are positioned perfectly. Canada can supply the two largest markets with liquefied natural gas. There is no other market that has the known reserves that we have in the ground, positioned in the perfect location in terms of both Europe and Asia. When we fast forward to what has happened since these plants were cancelled because of the regulatory regime, where the goalposts kept moving, we find that Asia has more coal plants. What the Liberal government does not understand is that we need energy to survive in this climate and to prosper. It is the same in other countries, where our liquefied natural gas could have offset all the tonnage of coal that Asia has been using. What a missed opportunity. We could have lowered our emissions, provided well-paying jobs for Canadians and collected royalties that could be put back into our society. This is the virtuous circle that we should be encouraging in every industry, but this is an example of the heavy-handed regulatory changes and the red tape that the Liberals have introduced and that have canned so many projects. It is a shame. I think of the missed economic opportunity. There is no larger one that I know of in the history of our country other than the government's change in the regulatory process that killed those 15 plants. That is on the environmental side. We know that natural gas is a superior source of energy over coal. It lowers emissions and provides good paycheques in Canada. Moreover, it could have saved lives in Europe; this is probably the area that I hope the members on the other side realize most. Energy security is the number one issue in Europe right now. Putin had the control of European countries for natural gas. As we know, unfortunately, what has transpired with the invasion of Ukraine has brought about a real challenge in Europe's energy security. How many lives would have been saved if we had these plants? Putin may not even have invaded Ukraine or, if he did, the war would have been that much shorter because of those countries that rely on natural gas. It is not going away. As much as there are people who would wish oil and gas away in our lifetime or on our planet, it is always going to be within our mix. I think of how much more Ukraine could have counted on its neighbours in Europe if they were not worried about Putin cutting off their natural gas. That relates exactly to Bill C-69 and why the Liberals changed the goalposts and killed this industry that was just getting on its feet. I cannot think of another regulatory change that has had as much of a negative impact on our planet, be it environmentally or for energy security, as the regulatory change on liquefied natural gas has done. I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time. Going back to the regulatory side of things, any time one puts a break on productivity, it hurts the citizens that one is supposedly there to serve. That is wrong. It has affected my home, the Speaker's home and all our homes. We are going to bring it home.

1357 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/3/23 11:48:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how many of those liquified natural gas plants the former Conservative Harper government was able to build. Just one? More importantly, is the member sure that the future of our country is so dependent on liquified natural gas? There is no doubt that to some degree it will be used. However, what we are seeing, at least what I am seeing in my own riding, is people who are literally cutting their gas line off at the street because they are converting their heat sources to heat pumps. Heat pumps are the newest thing. They do not require natural gas. There is actually a shift, at least from a home heating perspective, away from natural gas. I am curious why Conservatives continually put so much of their political capital into fossil fuels.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/3/23 11:49:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I have an urgent message for Canadians if they heard that Liberal member speak. They should not cut the gas line to their house. Winter is coming back, probably in seven months. The Liberal member thinks that people should be cutting the line to their furnace. We heard it here first, the Liberals would like people to go home and cut their natural gas furnace off. This is ridiculous. On the facts about liquified natural gas, we approved the only one that is getting built right now. It is not done yet, because the regulatory changes have slowed the process. The United States has built six since then, and they have 20 more in the books. That is jobs and paycheques that should go to Canadians, not Americans, and it is all because of these Liberals.

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/23 11:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, the member speaks about cuts, and of course the Conservatives are absolutely great at cutting essential services for Canadians. We saw that in the dismal decade when the Harper regime was in power. We saw them slashing health care. We saw them forcing seniors to work more years before they could ever get to their pension. They slashed services for veterans. Unbelievable. Imagine, veterans who have given their lives to Canada, who laid their lives on the line, and the Conservative response was to slash all of those services that were provided to veterans. Of course, the Conservatives did not cut for everybody. They gave unbelievable amounts of money to Canada's big banks for profits. They put in place the Harper network of tax evasion countries so that we ended up losing $30 billion a year. The question I would like to ask my colleague is, what are the Conservatives going to cut this time?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/3/23 11:51:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I feel sorry the member. He has been here an awfully long time, and maybe the length of time is shading some of his memories. The Harper Conservative government increased health transfers every year by 6%. What the member just shared could be viewed as incorrect, but I would not use unparliamentary language to describe the misleading statistics that he put forward because he knows that is wrong. I would like to add that the member is a coalition partner with the Liberals. The last time the Liberals were in government, before this time, they slashed the transfers to the provincial governments. In my province, what that meant was 52 rural hospitals were closed, because the Liberals cut the health transfers to Saskatchewan. It is on them as a partner in this costly coalition.

136 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 11:52:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I was just recently in Edmonton for Earth Day and toured a home that had just cut the gas line supply to the House. It was in Edmonton, where they get rather cold winters. They have an air source heat pump that was installed. They have also installed solar panels on their roof. The installer was there to talk about the current demand. They cannot keep up in Edmonton with homes that want air source heat pumps installed, because they work so well in cold climates and cut the heating bills substantially while also keeping air quality in the home safer. I just thought the hon. member would be thrilled to know that this is actually something that happens and does not spring from the imagination of the member for Kingston and the Islands.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/3/23 11:53:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, the member was in Edmonton last weekend. It has been a long spring, but it was not freezing. What I would put my faith in, in part, is for homeowners' ability to get insurance. Insurance would not cover the house because they know that it is an inconsistent heat source. They will not get coverage.

57 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 11:54:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, tonight, we are looking at Bill S-6, which would not be cutting regulations; it is about modernizing regulations. We missed some opportunities where we could have improved various aspects of Canadian society by actually cutting some regulations and streamlining some other regulations. This may just be my own childhood and background working in a small business. We had a restaurant and gift shop on the Cabot Trail. We had a lot of tourists come through. My father, who was rather funny, kept getting notices from the Government of Canada. One day, the notice would be about tariffs on T-shirts made in Bangladesh, and another day it would be about something else. He finally decided to start a wall along where people had to wait to get to the washroom. He posted all the notices that we received from the Government of Canada. He then made a lovely sign so he could keep it up to date. It said, “The Government of Canada never sleeps.” Perhaps I have been thinking of it because it is approaching midnight, and I suppose I never sleep, but the truth is that we could use some sense in regulations. I recently met with a wonderful group that was here meeting with many members of Parliament, The College of Family Physicians of Canada. This is one area in which I wish we would see action. I generally believe we need regulations to protect health and safety, but some regulations simply do not make sense. The ones that generate unnecessary paperwork for doctors hurt our health care system because they tie doctors and their staff up with unnecessary, unproductive work. This includes, for example, having to write a letter every five years to say that a patient still has an amputated leg. There is also paperwork that has to be issued over and over again to help veterans. It takes up a doctor's time to fill out forms and write letters that are completely unnecessary. Often, especially in the case of the CRA, the patient ends up paying for the service separately, and that is the person who is least able to pay. There would be a great deal of sense in trying to figure out how to reduce the regulatory burden, especially where it is impeding our health care system. We have been talking about this piece of legislation in terms of modernizing. Only one party, the Conservative Party, has put forward speakers tonight. Why am I standing here? It is because I am a bit worried about this bill. It is not necessarily just routine, regulatory modernization. My concern is that this bill, which affects 29 different acts, will go only to the industry committee for review. Most of it is pretty uncontroversial, which is why there has been very little interest in it tonight. My concern is about what happens with the Species at Risk Act changes. When I read this over, I am not entirely sure they are not substantive. They do not appear to be entirely about modernizing; they appear to be substantial or at least substantive changes to the Species at Risk Act. We do not have a great record with the Species at Risk Act. For instance, the southern resident killer whale was listed as endangered in 2003, and the full recovery plan did not come out until 2018. Any changes to the Species at Risk Act that are more than purely routine must go to the environment committee, not the industry committee. We can send it to committee and study it there, but there are 29 different acts. What if something in there is a mistake and we just go ahead with it because these are just normal changes? What about the change to the Fisheries Act to give a fisheries officer the discretion to not lay charges? What if that is substantive, and what if that is a mistake? It is going to go only to the industry committee. Wrapping things up, I urge some caution here. This is a missed opportunity to actually reduce regulations, but it is also not modernizing them. In the reading I have done since working on the bill for this evening and since the bill was tabled in the Senate, I have some concerns. I express those concerns now knowing full well this bill will be sent right away to the industry committee and probably promulgated without changes. I hope members of the committee will ensure that they are at least satisfied that changes to the Fisheries Act and changes to the Species at Risk Act would not, in fact, hurt nature in this country any more than we have seen through recent decisions. This includes the Roberts Bank expansion in the Port of Vancouver, which will surely hurt those very same southern resident killer whales.

811 words

All Topics

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

May/4/23 12:00:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question that was originally asked on February 6, and I have to say that the circumstances have changed substantially since it was asked. I wear the Ukrainian flag colours every day. I decided to put on this pin on February 24, when Putin launched his brutal and illegal attack on Ukraine. I want to make it very clear that I personally, and the Green Party as a party, fully support the Government of Canada's actions in supporting Ukraine, both with humanitarian aid and military aid. It is an unthinkable thing that Russia could invade a country. They have been using drones. They have bombed. They have shelled. Today was a terrible day in Ukraine, particular for the city of Kherson. There was a deadly attack that targeted civilian targets, including a supermarket and a railway station. On this day, as I rise to speak about Ukraine, 21 more innocent civilians were killed and 48 were injured. The situation in Ukraine is a desperate one. It is very hard for Canadians, with such a large Ukrainian diaspora here, to see friends, neighbours, relatives and family sheltering in air raid shelters and listening to the air raid sirens. Things have gotten much worse within the last week, not that anything has been good since Putin attacked Ukraine. We need to be thinking about not only winning the war but also winning a peace for the people of Ukraine. Yes, they must win. They must protect all territory. We must be with them as long as it takes, but there is a point where we can also look beyond to see a country that has been fractured and violated through an illegal, brutal war for over a year. The more time it takes to win the war, the more it will be difficult to create a peaceful situation throughout a country that includes some people who identify more with Russia. I hope we will be soon be talking about looking back at what has occurred and not looking forward to an endless war. We have to continue to support those humanitarian efforts. We have to do more, of course, in a postwar period, to think about stability. We have to think about the environmental damage that this war is doing, the reckless dangerous actions of Putin's army in attacking nuclear power stations. We are in a very dangerous time. Supporting Ukraine is essential, and I think virtually every Canadian understands that. We need to also be looking at what the humanitarian needs will be postwar. Of course, we had a debate in a late night emergency debate on Sudan, and one of the things that became so clear is that, when there was any hope of looking the other way and leaving Sudan, there was a complete failure to invest in civil society, a complete failure to help keep that society whole. Whatever happens, we must stay with the people of Ukraine, support them, their military, their NGOs and the civil society. Please the Lord, this will be over, with Ukraine victorious, and we will be able to invest in a peace.

529 words

All Topics

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

May/4/23 12:04:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, February 24 marks one year since Russia's full-scale invasion began; this event has displaced millions, killed thousands, disrupted the global economy and exacerbated global problems, such as food and energy insecurity. Cities across Ukraine continue to be hit with Russian missiles. These ongoing attacks are on civilian infrastructure, water, heat and electricity that people need to live. The serious consequences of President Putin's actions increase every day. Every time Ukraine liberates occupied territory, more Russian atrocities are uncovered. We are seeing appalling human rights violations, conflict-related sexual violence and the discovery of mass graves and torture chambers. In response, Canada and its allies have mobilized to assist Ukraine. Nearly one year after the invasion, the international community continues to offer assistance to Ukraine in order to achieve a lasting peace. In this process, Canada's commitment is to assist Ukraine in its journey towards peace. However, since it is a sovereign country, only Ukraine has the power to determine its future. While Russia says it is open to talks, it is asking for the impossible. We call on Russia to cease its invasion and turn to the diplomatic track. All members of the international community should be concerned about the impacts of Russia's invasion on international security and global food and energy supplies. We need to be resolute in convincing Putin to end this aggression now. In order to facilitate a just and sustainable peace, Ukraine's territory must remain Ukraine's. Ukraine is taking a proactive approach in its path to peace. President Zelenskyy laid the groundwork for future peace when he launched his 10-point peace formula last November. Canada is providing military training and equipment to Ukraine, which is necessary to ensure its survival. However, Canada's military support of Ukraine is only part of the total assistance we provide. Since February 2022, the Government of Canada has committed over $5 billion in multi-faceted support, including financial, development, humanitarian, military, and peace and security assistance to Ukraine, as well as immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing Russia's invasion. We are providing critical military training and equipment to help Ukraine defend itself. We have provided $500 million in loan disbursements to Ukraine through the International Monetary Fund's multi-donor administered account to support Ukraine's economic resilience. We have provided $320 million in humanitarian assistance to respond to the humanitarian impacts of Russia's invasion in Ukraine and neighbouring countries. We continue to impose new sanctions against Russian officials, those entities engaged in the war and those guilty of war crimes and human rights abuses. Canada is also working with Ukraine and the international community to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities being committed. Canada and its partners are continuing their diplomatic efforts with the international community to encourage support for Ukraine. Canada has strongly supported UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia's actions, and it continues to work with its partners to counter Russian disinformation and actively encourage the international community to increase its support for Ukraine. This is a war for Ukraine's survival and for the future of the rules-based international system. Canada must and will continue to support Ukraine until a just and sustainable peace can be achieved.

549 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/4/23 12:07:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in reflecting on the situation in Ukraine, including on the future of its people, its culture and survival, and the nature of Ukraine, I have been extremely moved by the fact that my colleague and the deputy leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Pedneault, just went to Ukraine on my behalf and on behalf of the party. He used to work at Human Rights Watch, and he visited with his colleagues from there. He was in Ukraine when the war began, and he went back to see the human rights condition and look at how Canada is helping. Even now, during the war, it is clear that more humanitarian help and more connection are needed to support the people, making sure that our aid reaches the people who need it the most. I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for their efforts. We are in this with the people of Ukraine.

159 words

All Topics

Mr. Maninder Sidhu

May/4/23 12:09:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear: President Putin started this war, and he can back away and end it today. This is a critical moment in Russia's illegal war. Russia has not been negotiating in good faith, and we see no indication that Putin has changed his objective. On the contrary, he is preparing for new offences. We cannot accept at face value any Russian claim to seek peace, and Russia's actions contradict such claims. A peace on Russia's terms would be neither just nor sustainable. That is why Ukraine needs our support more than ever. The brave people of Ukraine have inspired us all with their courage, resilience and commitment to fighting for their country and their very existence. Canada will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, to strongly condemn the Kremlin's brutal actions and to provide multi-faceted support, including economic, humanitarian, military, stabilization and development assistance.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

May/4/23 12:10:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on March 28 of this year, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner announced in a Twitter post the appointment of an interim Ethics Commissioner. What Canadians might not have known from that post was that the person appointed was the sister-in-law of a Liberal cabinet minister, but not just any cabinet minister. When red flags went up about that appointment, I raised my concern and that of many Canadians when I posed a question on March 31. At that time, I stated in this House: ...we should all remember clam scam, when the then fisheries minister was found guilty of an ethics breach for awarding a $24-million licence to a company to be ran by his wife's cousin. Now the Liberals have appointed the same cabinet minister's sister-in-law as the Ethics Commissioner. Really? Can they only find family and insiders willing to work for them, or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics issues? Which is it? The parliamentary secretary responded but did not answer the question. Instead, he danced around it like there was nothing wrong. After six ethics violations, the Liberals attempted to appoint a family member to the Ethics Commissioner’s office to cover for them. Now, as days go by, we are seeing more evidence of why they may have attempted to ensure their friends and family were controlling the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, as more questions of the government’s ethics, or lack thereof, continue to emerge. On Monday, the world learned that the government failed to inform a sitting member of Parliament that it knew of yet more evidence that the Communist regime in Beijing is actively attempting to meddle in our democracy. The government knew about it and chose to do nothing. This is something that should make all Canadians question the Liberal-NDP government’s version of ethics. It is unacceptable that the government has known that an MP and his family had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for two years and did not inform the member about the threats posed to his family. Chinese Canadians across the country deserve to know that the government takes their safety and security seriously, yet Canada still has not shut down Beijing’s police stations operating within Canada and has failed to protect members of the community from harassment and intimidation. Is this because the government has no ethical compass? I will ask this again: Can the Liberals and their NDP partners only find family and insiders willing to work with them, or was this another attempt to censor disclosure of their ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it?

458 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/4/23 12:13:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly rich that the member would take the time to requote his question and then gloss over the answer he received, not bothering to even read it into the record, so I will do that for him now. The response given was, “Madam Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recused himself from all deliberations and decisions related to the appointment of the interim Ethics Commissioner.” The member suggested that this was just dancing around answering the question. To me, that sounds like a pretty direct answer to the question. However, what is even more important is to reflect on the fact that the individual who was appointed had a 10-year record in senior roles within the Ethics Commissioner's office, which began when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The truth is that the characterization being sought by the member and the Conservatives on this issue, like on so many other issues related to it, undermines the office and undermines the integrity of the work it does. Quite frankly, I find it very concerning that time after time, the Conservatives get up and do the exact same thing. However, it is exactly on brand for what they do.

206 words

Mr. Mel Arnold

May/4/23 12:14:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member tried to say that the question had been answered, but it had not. The question really was this: Can the government only find family and insiders willing to work with it or is this another attempt to censor disclosure of its ongoing ethics breaches? Which is it? That question still has not been answered, not by the parliamentary secretary when he answered, nor tonight by this member. After six ethics breaches that these government members have been found guilty of, they still do not realize how important ethics are to Canadians. They should have faith that members who have been elected to represent this country do have an ethics compass, which the government and these members seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Again, will they actually answer the question? Is it family and friends only or he does not—

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 12:16:05 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/4/23 12:16:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what an extremely rhetorical question. That is just based on the trumped-up conspiracy theories that the Conservatives like to put before this House on a daily basis. The manner in which individuals are selected and appointed is through a process and through processes that ensure they meet the qualifications. I hope that that properly addresses his extremely rhetorical question. Not at all, except it does—

69 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/4/23 12:16:49 a.m.
Watch

I think we are done. The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:17 a.m.)

46 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 190