Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 70
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2021-04-15 13:48 [p.5669]
Madam Speaker, I thank the my colleague for being so diligent in his responsibilities. I am sharing my time with my colleague from Beaches—East York.
I want to emphasize that we are enshrining this in legislation. It is an opportunity for renewed relationships in our country. The declaration itself, despite the naysayers out there, will help all of us chart a clear and more predictable path forward for the future.
Some people have questions, and we are hearing a lot of them today. There are some fears associated with clauses of the bill that speak to free, prior and informed consent and how this would be interpreted in the Canadian context, including the relationship to land, natural resources development, other developments and how it affects indigenous people.
Free, prior and informed consent is one of the key elements, one that we have probably heard more about than any other within the declaration. As one of my colleagues said a short time ago, it is grounded in self-determination. That is the piece we cannot forget. It is really about respectful two-way dialogue and the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities, their territories and the future generations of their people.
Implementation of the declaration can really help contribute to sustainable development and resource development and it affirms the range of indigenous rights and related protections that are relevant when it comes to natural resources, lands, territories and resources.
As I said earlier, I grew up in Labrador, where I speak from today, where we still have unsettled land claims with the federal government. I am part of the southern Labrador Inuit and the NunatuKavut Community Council, whose rights have, to date, not been affirmed by the Government of Canada in land claims and settlements. That is not good enough, in my mind. The colonial system under which we and many indigenous peoples have operated has prejudiced them in access to their own lands and having the opportunity to have a final say, a real say, in what happens.
In my riding today, Nunatsiavut is a territory with settled land claims. It got to settle those land claims because nickel was discovered in Voisey's Bay and because a large corporation had a resource deposit. That became the catalyst to settle land claims with the northern Inuit people of Labrador. If that had not materialized, they would probably still be at the table today fighting for what is their inherent right: to have full declaration in what happens within their lands and territory.
The land claims agreement with Nunatsiavut Inuit in northern Labrador is one of the most historic claims in Canada next to the one with the Cree. It is a landmark agreement. It is really what UNDRIP is speaking to today with the inclusion of the Inuit people in ensuring they have free, prior and informed consent. That mining operation went forward. It employs nearly 90% indigenous people. It is contributing to a community, but it was done through co-operation, through dialogue, through a two-way agreement on how to move forward.
When I attended my first United Nations permanent forum on indigenous rights with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations back in 2016, she stood at the United Nations that day and affirmed Canada's support for UNDRIP for the first time in our history. It was a very proud moment for me to know that Canada could see this through the eyes of indigenous people and the rest of the world with respect to its importance and what needed to happen with regard to UNDRIP. Bringing it to where it is today has been, in my opinion, an absolute win for Canada and indigenous people. A lot of work still needs to be done, but as an indigenous person, there is nothing to fear here.
Our great country was built on consensus and co-operation. We are reaffirming and including indigenous people in the opportunity to have real say and opportunity within their own lands. Who would ever want to deny that or deny the indigenous rights and reconciliation within Canada?
I really believe getting to where we are today has not only involved indigenous participation and engagement, but also the natural resource sectors, corporations and people who have a vested interest in lands and indigenous lands across Canada. They know sustainable development comes with co-operation. It comes with working together and having a partnership with indigenous communities.
It means we build capacity, look at real benefit agreements, joint management and profit-sharing operations. That is where we are with companies like Vale today, which has been successful in Inuit lands and many others. There are models out there that have worked, but they worked because they were forced to the table, not because there was willing participation, in many cases. That is what is going to change here.
While industry leaders have invested time and energy into fostering many long-term relationships and building trust with indigenous groups, building an agreement that speaks to free, prior and informed consent, this bill asks for that and it would do that. There are many examples of that have already happened in Canada.
We have done outreach to many sectors, including the natural resources sector, of which I am a proud champion, including the mining industry. It is an industry that fits well for indigenous people, and we are the living proof of how that can work.
When I look at what is happening today, we might hear of the tremendous experiences and relationships that have been built between industry and indigenous people across many of these natural resource sectors and how they worked together in good faith and made every—
View Damien Kurek Profile
CPC (AB)
View Damien Kurek Profile
2021-04-15 16:12 [p.5693]
Mr. Speaker, the member referenced quite a few quotes, so I would also like to reference a quote from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who writes in a special to the Financial Post:
While the affirmation of Indigenous rights is always welcome, the legislation as currently drafted is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development as a source of jobs, business contracts and own-source revenues.
I have spoken to a number of indigenous leaders and individuals across my constituency and across the country who have shared concern about some of the ambiguity and possible extra layers that would reduce economic opportunities for Canada's indigenous peoples. I would like the member to comment on that.
View Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of different things.
One is that it is curious to me that we would get out ahead of ourselves to determine exactly how this would be implemented, because this is to be implemented in a very codeveloped way in collaboration and consultation with indigenous peoples across the country.
The second is that its incredibly important to note, because the Conservatives and that member have asked a number questions around certainty, that our Canadian law already says, with respect to the duty to consult, that it varies with the circumstances, from a minimum duty to discuss important decisions where the breach is less serious or relatively minor, through the significantly deeper than mere consultation that is require in most cases, to full consent of the aboriginal nation on very serious issues. These words apply as much to unresolved claims as to intrusions on settled claims.
Those are the words of our current Supreme Court. This notion of certainty has to be put to bed. We will get increased certainty through collaboration and consultation with indigenous people once and for all.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about my opposition to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
It is evident that much of our contemporary political debate is denominated in terms of human rights, with both sides' various questions using the language and philosophy of rights to justify their conclusions. This is most evident in contentious debates about social issues, where one person's assertion of a right to die is measured against another person's assertion of a right to encounter a health care system that does not make distinctions based on ability, or whether one person's assertion of a right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the potential claims of another person in terms of someone's right to life. In these cases, it clearly is not enough to say one is for or against human rights as such. Rather, one has to develop a procedure for determining which rights claims are valid and which are not, or for determining which rights claims can be justifiably abrogated, or for determining which rights claims take precedence in the case of a conflict.
When we are evaluating these questions of how to compare competing rights claims, it matters very much where we think rights come from. We need to establish where rights come from if we are to determine which rights claims exist and which rights claims take precedence. On this point, let us say there are three general categories of options. Rights either come from positive law, from social consensus or from nature.
Some seem to take the view that rights exist because they are called “rights” by the state or some multilateral body. This would imply that those rights only come into existence when the associated statutes or declarations are promulgated, and that nothing can be called a violation of rights if it is done legally. This view of rights would imply, falsely in my opinion, that no violation of human rights occurred in the context of horrific, violent actions against indigenous peoples in previous centuries, if those actions were legal. That seems to be a monstrous conclusion. I therefore reject the view that rights come from positive law. Arbitrarily depriving some of their lives, freedom, culture and community is a violation of their rights, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by domestic or international law.
The same general issues arise if we see rights as derived from social consensus. There have been many times and places in which a social consensus existed in favour of policies that also arbitrarily deprived people of their lives, freedom, culture and/or community. As such, if we wish to justify the conclusion that these acts of violence have always and would always constitute violations of human rights, then we must start from the premise that human rights emanate from nature as opposed to from law or convention: that is, human rights come from being human.
Deliberations in the House or international bodies about human rights are not fundamentally about creating rights, but rather about discovering rights. Rights are discovered, not invented. If rights exist in nature, as gravity exists in nature, then we should be able to identify a procedure for discovering rights objectively. Whether such a procedure can exist or not, it does not seem to be invoked often in this House. More often, we hear the assertion of the existence of a certain right as being self-evident. We hear a call for more rights, not fewer rights. We hear rights referred to as “hard won”, and perhaps referenced in the context of some domestic or international text deemed sacred by our legal tradition.
If rights come from nature, then members should argue for how we can know that a right exists, not simply point to a text that says it does. If rights come from nature as opposed to from text, then texts that claim to codify human rights may contain gaps, errors or other problems. It is possible to believe that human rights have all been correctly codified by UN documents because of some metaphysical process by which the deliberation of these bodies is protected from error. However, believing in this idea would require a kind of faith in a metaphysical process: a faith that I do not think can be grounded in reason alone.
The particular legislative proposal before us today, with respect to human rights, is to graft UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, onto existing law and practice in this area. Much of the debate today has centred around the importance of indigenous rights. I think we all agree about the importance of indigenous rights, but that is not really the core question we have to evaluate when determining whether to support this legislation.
The question really is about what impacts or changes the implementation of this legislation will have on existing rights frameworks, and whether those changes will advance human rights for indigenous peoples or not. With this question, I think it is also important to challenge some of the Hollywood-ized framing of indigenous communities. Many of us will have seen the 2009 movie Avatar: a movie about a group of human colonizers who seek to exploit and destroy a natural environment guarded by an indigenous community that lives in perfect harmony with it.
Although filmed in colour, the moral message of the film is very black and white. Those who fully absorb the message of this film will perhaps come to the conclusion that indigenous communities never want development, but this is, of course, false. The complex history of European settlement in North America involved a great deal of colonial violence and oppression, as well as mutually beneficial exchange and collaboration. Today, many indigenous communities want development.
As wonderful as being in harmony with nature in this sense is and that some people ideologize, generally development can be associated with higher standards of living and amenities associated with modern life. For me, defending indigenous rights means respecting the rights and choices of indigenous peoples, and indigenous nations acting autonomously to make their own choices about their own development paths. It is about competing balance: how they balance traditions with opportunities to develop in new ways. These are choices that individual communities and nations should be able to make for themselves.
Sadly, we have seen many attacks on indigenous rights by anti-development forces, advancing a kind of green colonialism based on this Avatar-informed view of the world, which seeks to force indigenous people to live in the equivalent of national parks even if they would much rather enjoy the benefits that come from resource development in terms of jobs and convenience.
While my friends on the political left like to assume that their opposition to natural resource development aligns them with the wishes of indigenous people, they are increasingly offside with the wishes of indigenous people in areas where resource development is taking place. The anti-development policies of this government are increasingly raising the ire of indigenous people and indigenous proponents of resource development projects, such as those seeking the construction of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, blocked by Bill C-48, or those indigenous people in the Arctic who were not consulted at all when the Prime Minister brought in a ban on drilling.
For reasons described earlier, these anti-development voices still frame their positions in terms of indigenous rights, believing that the right to say “no” to development is so much more important than the right of those same people to say “yes” to development. I think we all know and understand that this gets dicey in situations when the rights of some indigenous peoples come into conflict with the desires and rights of other indigenous peoples, when different peoples and different communities disagree about whether a particular project should proceed, or when indigenous proponents find themselves in conflict with members of their own or other communities over how to proceed on a development path.
Bill C-15 would establish a principle in law that there must be free, prior and informed consent for resource development to take place within an indigenous community, but it lacks significant clarity about who consents on behalf of indigenous communities or what happens when different communities, perhaps with competing legitimate claims to traditional presence in an area, disagree. The lack of clarity about who gets to decide will make it nearly impossible for indigenous communities that wish to develop their own resources to proceed.
We got a sense of the risk associated with this uncertainty last year, when the country faced widespread rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet'suwet'en protesters who opposed the Coastal GasLink project. Members of the House, at the time, seemed to believe that the opposition of a minority of hereditary chiefs required that the project be stopped on the grounds of indigenous rights.
These arguments came from an Avatar-inspired world view and a failure to take into consideration the legitimate competing rights claims of the majority of indigenous peoples affected by this project who supported it, the fact that all of the elected indigenous bodies responsible for this project had approved it, and the fact that those who, from a democratic perspective at least, were the representatives of those indigenous people wanted to say yes. It was enough for members of the House that people from a different hereditary leadership who claimed to speak on behalf of those nations wanted to say no. This is the problem that arises when we have competing rights claims. When we lack a procedure, and when there is ambiguity inserted in the law about how to resolve the desires of those people, it ends up always being a path of no development instead of a situation where those communities get to decide.
I am suspicious that members of the House who are promoting the bill in the name of indigenous rights are actually happy with that outcome. They are actually happy with an outcome in which development has a hard time proceeding, when investments do not get made even if indigenous people in a particular area, in association with a particular project,overwhelmingly want to see it happen.
As a member who cares deeply about human rights, and well-structured procedures and mechanisms for affirming those rights democratically, I think we need to recognize the existing rights frameworks we have in this country and build on them, but I do not think this particular legislation would do that. It would introduce more confusion and more challenges to development that would, in effect, deny the rights of indigenous peoples in cases where they want to make the choice to develop their resources.
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Jaime Battiste Profile
2021-04-15 17:46 [p.5707]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member this. Why does he believe that indigenous knowledge, passed down through languages, passed down through generations and enshrined in our teachings as indigenous people that we should live sustainably within our ecosystem while promoting positive development and smart development, is somehow based on Hollywood notions of Avatar and not within our languages, as has been taught for generations? I am trying to understand his notions on that.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the member ascribed to me views that I do not hold. My view was quite clearly expressed: There are some politicians here who have this Hollywood-informed idea that all indigenous peoples do not want development. The reality is that many indigenous nations and communities across the country want development, and their right to choose to proceed with projects is not respected when the government puts in place a highly ambiguous legislative framework that makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate the consent required by the new procedures and mechanisms in place.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-04-12 18:06 [p.5453]
Madam Speaker, can I just begin, just start speaking? I do not have to fill out a form or get permission from an agency or a department or some other authority? Are we not in Canada here? Do we not need to fill out a form or get permission before we make anything, even if it just making a speech? Well, we need permission for everything else and have to wait an awful long time to get it.
According to newly released World Bank data, Canada ranks 36 out of 37 nations for the time it takes to get a building permit. One cannot just go out and build something, create jobs and support one's local economy, one has to wait for the gatekeepers in order to get permission.
One does not have to ask the World Bank that, one could just drive 25 minutes from here and ask Tim Priddle, who runs a lumber mill near Manotick. That lumber mill opened a big warehouse about 40 years ago. Guess how long it took to get approved? One week, one form, one stamped document from an engineer; one and done and away we go. That big, beautiful building is still standing safely to this day.
Tim wanted to build another warehouse with similar dimensions and doing similar things. This time it took six years and 600 thousand dollars' worth of consultant fees, charges and other obstructions. In fact, he had to hire an arborist to write a report on each little poplar tree he cleared, which was actually just useless ditch brush that had never been used for anything before or otherwise and had not been planned to be used for anything else. It took six years, $600,000 and 1,500 pages of paperwork for him to do that, money he could have spent creating real jobs.
He experienced what so many experience in this country: Life behind the gatekeepers. These are the people who are among the fastest-growing industry in the country. They are the bureaucracies, lobbyists, the consulting class, the politicians and the agencies who make their living by stopping other people and charging them excess tolls to do anything positive at all.
In fact, the Liberal government personifies the gatekeeper economy. The very first decision it made on taking office was to veto the privately funded expansion of the Toronto downtown island airport, an expansion that would have allowed Porter airlines, a Canadian company, to buy $2 billion of Bombardier jets and land them there, creating jobs for another Canadian company, but also reducing traffic by landing business people in the business district rather than having to travel between Pearson and downtown, adding to pollution and delay and killing jobs.
In this case, who were the gatekeepers? Of course the competitor airlines that did not want to add convenience to the customers who would go to the downtown airport if this were approved, and of course the wealthy waterfront condo owners, almost all of them millionaires, and by virtue of their wealth having an excessive amount of political power. They killed all the opportunity for the people who would have worked on that project, the customers who would have saved time and the people who now have to sit on the roadways between a distant airport and a downtown destination.
Not far from there are some more gatekeepers in a place called Cabbagetown. This is a well-off community, a leafy neighbourhood with beautiful old Victorian brick houses. Along came an entrepreneur who said that a day care would go well on a street corner in a very large brick building. It had enough space for 80 kids to go to that day care. He was prepared to put all of his own money in it and did not need a cent from the government.
Suddenly, the uber-progressive, wealthy elite Cabbagetowners who were against this construction rose up in protest. One man said, “This is standard-issue capitalism run amok.” This man, it turned out, was a mining executive. Columnist Chris Selley actually called him a “Marxist mining executive”, hilariously.
One can imagine this gentleman trying to get a mine approved if he thinks that a day care is “standard-issue capitalism run amok”, but I guess mines are in someone else's neighbourhood. Another neighbour said that this is a slippery slope for this iconic neighbourhood. What next, a playground, children laughing? One other person complained about the noise. One lady said that these kids will be walking within two metres of her house, and she signed her submission with “Ph.D.” Quiet, children, there is a genius at work in that house.
Another signatory was a gentleman named Tiff Macklem. He happens to be the governor of the Bank of Canada, who has been lecturing Canadians on the need for taxpayer-funded day cares, the same kind of day cares that he made a submission to the City of Toronto to try to block. This is typical of the progressive left. They want government to block the provision of a service, and then they claim that the government needs to provide that service directly.
However, it is not just day cares, airports and lumber mills. It is more essential than that; it is the houses in which we live. A C.D. Howe report produced recently showed that government barriers add between $230,000 and $600,000 per single detached unit of housing in this country. While the government brags that it is spending $70 billion of taxpayer money on housing, governments are blocking the very construction of that housing.
I want everyone to think about how insane it is that we live in one of the least densely populated nations on planet earth. There are only four Canadians for every square kilometre in this country, and yet we have some of the most expensive real estate. There are more places in Canada where there is no one than there are places where there is anyone, and yet Vancouver is the second and Toronto is the sixth most expensive housing market in the world when we compare median income to median housing price. It is more expensive than New York, more expensive than L.A., more expensive than London, England and more expensive than a tiny island nation called Singapore. All of these places are vastly more populated and even less expensive to live in. Why? It is because while our central bankers print money to goose demand, our local governments block the construction and, therefore, constrain supply. With demand up and supply down, the price rises. It is pretty straightforward.
What are the consequences? It is good for the rich. For those who already own a mansion, they are getting wealthier every day because their house price is going up. They can sit back and have rocking-chair money. Their house makes more than they do. However, for those who are poor and cannot find places to live, like the young people who just told a survey that came out today that one-third of them have totally given up on ever owning a house in their life, those people are out in the cold. In Toronto, a social services organization said that 98% of homeless shelter space is occupied. Over 300,000 people in one city are on a waiting list for subsidized housing. There are 10,000 people in that one city who are homeless.
A lot of people worry about what happened to the homeless in Toronto during this pandemic. In fact, one carpenter took matters into his own hands. Khaleel Seivwright, a carpenter, said that these people are going to freeze to death because they cannot stay in a shelter where they will catch COVID, so they are out on the street. With his bare hands, he built mini-shelters for them. He put in insulation, a smoke detector, a carbon monoxide detector. He said plainly that this was not a solution; it was just something he was doing to save people's lives until we can finally find a way to house people in this, one of the wealthiest countries on planet earth.
What did the city say? It did not say, “We are going to give this guy a hand. Let's give him a round of applause and let's see how we can help him do even better.” No. It did not say, “Boy, this guy is taking action that we should have taken long ago. He is making us look bad. We had better perform better than we have before.” No. It hired lawyers and got an injunction against him.
All of a sudden, the one guy who is selflessly trying to help solve the problem caused by city hall and by the bureaucracy is the villain. How typically this is of the story we see in our country.
Another poverty fighter is Dale Swampy, the head of the National Coalition of Chiefs, which has as its mandate to fight and defeat on-reserve poverty. That is its mission. It came up with a plan to support a brand new natural resource project that would ship western Canadian energy to the coast where it could be delivered to the fast growing and energy hungry markets of Asia, thus breaking the American stranglehold on our energy exports, creating jobs for steelworkers, energy workers, logistics and transportation workers and delivering $2 billion of wages and benefits to indigenous communities. The CEO of the project was going to be an indigenous person, and 31 of the 40 indigenous communities along the route supported it. That is more than 75%.
The environmental agency responsible took a look at it. It spent three years, heard from 1,500 witnesses and read 9,000 letters. It reviewed over 100,000 pages of evidence. It went to 21 different communities. It concluded that the pipeline was safe and in the public interest. However, the Prime Minister took office and he killed the project, denying those first nations communities their constitutional right in the charter to be consulted. He did not consult with any of them. What happened? Those indigenous communities lost the $2 billion. Now we are keeping toll. There will be these green jobs that the government will deliver. I asked Mr. Swampy how many of these green jobs had shown up since the pipeline was killed. It was zero, nada, nothing. In fact, he said that the so-called environmentalists did to him what they did to his father's generation 20 or 30 years ago. They came then and campaigned against hunting, trapping and fishing. Once they were done with their politics and they had won their political battle, they were gone. They left behind impoverished communities with less opportunity than they had before. That was the result.
One of the gatekeepers who comes to mind is Gerald Butts. He made hundreds of thousands of dollars working for the World Wildlife Fund, which is a supposedly an environmental organization. Instead of spending money on the environment, on preserving wetlands and so forth, it was paying him a multi-hundred-thousand dollar severance for quitting his job and coming to work for the government, where he has helped to block pipelines ever since.
We live in a country where we cannot even trade with ourselves. Maybe our friends in the Bloc, who want to create their own separate country, like it that way. I do not know, because we do not even treat our own interprovincial trade the way we treat foreign trade. Someone can be arrested or charged for bringing alcohol across an interprovincial border.
I will quote from our Constitution, “All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall...be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” That was promised us back in the time of our Constitution, yet to this day someone can be charged for bringing liquor or maple syrup in from another province. They can be charged for working in construction in the wrong province.
According to Statistics Canada, the effect of these barriers on trade between Canadian provinces works out to a tariff of about 7%. According to the World Trade Organization, the tariff that Canada charges on foreign imports to Canada is 4%. In other words, we charge 7% on goods that travel between provinces and only 4% on goods that come from abroad. If people order something from Alibaba to be delivered to their doorsteps, it is likely tariffed at a significantly lower rate than if they went and bought a product that was made in their neighbouring province. This is economic hara-kiri that we would punish our own businesses with higher tariffs than we would apply to Chinese businesses that sell within Canada.
It raises the question, could we even build the Canadian Pacific Railway today? I am not sure we could. What about our national highway system? Could we build that today? There would be some gatekeeper wanting to block it. If we cannot even transit goods across our borders without some parasitical interest group claiming there needs to be a tariff or regulation keeping it out, why would anybody allow a railway or a highway to be built? Forget transmission lines or pipelines; I am not sure we could get anything done as long as this gatekeeper economy continues to stand in the way.
We forget that there was a time when we got things done in this country. This is the country that discovered and isolated insulin, for God's sake, saving the lives of millions of diabetics. We discovered stem cells, which treat cancer and countless other conditions, and have the promise to repair spinal cords and bring sight to the blind. We created a mechanical arm that can go into outer space and move hundreds of thousands of kilograms of weight with a remote control, the Canadarm.
We conquered Vimy Ridge. We liberated the Dutch. We fought and succeeded at Juno Beach. Of course, that was at a time when if people said they had been triggered, it did not mean they heard a comment that hurt their feelings. It meant they had been shot at by enemies on the battlefield. That was the generation of that time.
We are a country that once had a government that would stand up and lead the world against apartheid. Now we have a government that is too terrified to speak out against the genocide of the Muslim minority in China. We have, today, a country where some people seriously talk about banning local kids' sports organizations from keeping score for fear of hurting the losing team's feelings. This is the country of Paul Henderson, who scored the winning goal in the summit series with less than a minute left to electrify the world and send a signal in favour of freedom and against communism, back in 1972.
One day, I believe we will knock down these gates and remove these gatekeepers altogether, to make Canada a place that is the easiest place on planet Earth in which to build a business, the fastest place to get sign-off to build something, the freest place on Earth in which to do commerce, to buy, sell, work, build, hire, take risks and, yes, to even win.
How about a budget bill like that?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about Bill C-14, the economic statement that the federal government presented to the House on November 30 of last year.
COVID has been hard on our communities in many ways. This time has been filled with constant change, significant modification in our habits and real health concerns. When I speak with constituents across the riding, I am shocked by how many things they have noticed have changed in their lives. I appreciate the innovation that I have seen in our riding. People are coming together to support one another, and businesses are stepping up to find new ways to practice what they do.
Just last week, I participated in a grand opening event at a vineyard in my riding. It was a small event with strict distancing rules and careful protocols, but 40 Knots wanted to take an opportunity to showcase their newly closed-in outdoor space, which will allow for events to happen all year round. The windows are able to open in warm weather and close in the colder weather while continuing to allow for a beautiful view of their vines. I deeply respect 40 Knots for their sustainable model of making wine and the creativity they have shown, along with that of the many local businesses in my riding during this time.
This innovation is inspiring, yet many folks have struggled during this time because of the way our local economies are built. Across Canada, we need to see an increase in supports for regional economic development strategies. I am carefully hopeful about the announcement that there will be a new regional economic branch in British Columbia. I do want the government to understand that I believe it is the rural and remote communities that have the most need for supports during these economic changes. I hope to see an office, in fact, located in my region of North Island—Powell River.
This is especially important for me because there are some significant challenges happening in my riding right now. On December 17, the fisheries minister made an announcement about the Discovery Islands fish farms. The announcement was based on recommendation 19 of the Cohen Commission from 2012. I respect that part of the process included several first nation communities in our riding. Those nations have a constitutional right to speak on behalf of the area they protect and represent, and have represented since time immemorial.
I understand that all seven nations have notified their members that they are in support of the announcement. Indigenous communities have a right to stand for what they believe is best for their traditional territory, and as key partners in our region, it is important during this time that we work together to create solutions to move forward. Although, I do want to point out an important gap in this decision.
Prior to this announcement, my colleague, our shadow minister for fisheries, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, was very clear. The fisheries minister needed a plan to go hand in hand with this announcement. I want to be clear. It did not need to be a step-by-step plan, but I wanted some sort of commitment that would allow for certainty during this time. I do understand that the Cohen Commission recommendation was made eight years ago, and that this was a timeline that many were watching, but that does not mean the minister should not provide something. The lack of a plan has left a void in my region, especially in the more northern parts of Vancouver Island.
During this time, we do not need more unknowns to face. COVID has certainly provided enough. What we do require is some certainty.
I want to acknowledge how hard this announcement has been on communities, workers and businesses. It is overwhelming, and I know many people are worried about the future of our region. When the fisheries minister made her announcement, there was no plan at all. I was hoping to see a commitment to significant resources and a regional approach.
I want to put on the record what I am hearing from constituents in my riding. First of all, there needs to be a firm and strong commitment to wild Pacific salmon. Habitat restoration is an important part of this, but there are so many other factors. People are asking for there to be a plan. The need to see an improvement to the well-being of wild Pacific salmon in our riding has only increased, as people have shown me rivers that are no longer seeing salmon return.
Across our riding, the lack of on-the-ground fisheries staff has also been a growing concern. I ask members not to get me wrong. There are some amazing DFO staff in our region; however, there are significant concerns that for a huge part of the coast that we represent, we simply do not have enough people on the ground to manage the need.
Happily, the indigenous guardian program has been growing across the riding. There is a sense of trust from our communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, that these folks fulfill the role as protectors of the natural resources in the region. Communities are looking for ways for this program to be able to grow and develop to do important work.
Currently, there is a parallel process happening in our region to go alongside the decision made about the Discovery Islands. This process is the commitment that the federal government has made for a more sustainable aquaculture system. In my region, people are asking for clarity on what that will look like sooner rather than later. Businesses that are highly reliant on the fish farm industry are clear: the next steps need to be clearer for them so that they can make sure their business plans are modified appropriately. With the closure of the Discovery Islands open-net fish farms, businesses are looking for opportunities to invest to modify their businesses, and they are looking for the government to be part of that plan. There needs to be a clear path that is accessible, and with the change that is happening so quickly, they need to see the resources there to meet it.
Investment in economic development in indigenous communities has also been identified as a high priority. There is some amazing and innovative work happening in more than 20 first nations I represent. There is a desire to have discussions about these projects and see how they can be built to provide economic opportunities in our area.
There are also several hatcheries in my riding, and many are working on a volunteer basis. They have not seen an increase in funding to support them in well over 30 years but have found many creative solutions to fill that gap. Many of them have reached out to my office and are wondering how their role will change due to this announcement. I have also heard from commercial fisheries and public fishers who are hoping to see action taken in the sustainable management of fisheries and they want a voice to be a part of that.
I have asked the minister to prioritize our region to look at how to support us moving forward with a coordinated approach that recognizes the specific needs of our region. Again, a localized regional economic development plan simply makes the most sense. This requires a collaborative approach, and the federal government needs to be a significant player in this process.
I also want to point out that the municipalities in this part of the region will be impacted as well. There is a need to have resources for them to create strategies that make sense for their communities.
More attractive economic development means that we need to see better Internet and cell reception in our region. The Connected Coast project in our area is one we are very proud of; however, we need to see the resources now, not later. Our region demands it. The lack of cell reception is a deterrent to inviting business opportunities and for safety as well. There have been multiple petitions from the region sharing this reality.
All of this really fits into the reason I put forward my Motion No. 53, principles for a sustainable and equitable future, in the fall. This motion requires the government to equitably distribute funds and programming among federal ridings and take into account UNDRIP, climate change and the prioritization of projects by small businesses that create diversity in local, long-term, well-paying jobs, because that is how we keep profits and benefits within the community.
I also want to point out that the steel workers who work in the processing plant at Port Hardy have reached out to my office. They want to make sure their voices are heard during this process as well.
We need to look at these principles to make sure we follow a localized regional economic plan. I urge the minister to review my motion and adopt these principles as soon as possible.
For our region to work together in a positive way, we need to see some clear commitment from this government. With the lack of clarity, it is hard for people to know what steps to take next. It is not good for our region, and I am concerned it will focus us on our differences rather than on our joint commitment to this place we all live.
As I come to the end of my speech, I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that women working in the fish farm industry have noticed an increase in sexual harassment during this time. This is on social media. I want to state clearly that this is simply not okay and that we must all strive for a better country, where women are treated with respect and not objectified by sexism.
As I end my speech, I want to remind the government that it is local, rural, resource-based communities like the ones I represent that have built this country. I also want to point out that economic marginalization of indigenous communities in this region and across Canada has been a huge barrier to communities and legislation has often been the barrier, so I hope to see the government do better.
View Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Robert Oliphant Profile
2021-01-26 14:09 [p.3538]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to acknowledge the important work done in Don Valley West, and many places, by business improvement areas, or BIAs as they are commonly known. I especially want to commend four BIAs that are promoting local businesses and ensuring vibrant main streets in my community: Uptown Yonge, Mount Pleasant Village, Bayview-Leaside, and Yonge Lawrence Village BIAs.
These self-funded associations attract shoppers and clients, boosting the local economy. They ensure safe and attractive streetscapes, add colour and beauty to our neighbourhoods, and engage entertainers and artists at special seasonal events like the apple festival, the village art walk, the annual harvest fair and the holiday tree-lighting ceremony.
During this difficult time, BIAs in Don Valley West have helped direct their members to federal COVID-19 assistance programs, boosted the profile of businesses and strengthened ties within our local community. BIAs have stepped up for the businesses of Don Valley West. I commend them and thank them for their work and wish them the very best.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
Madam Speaker, I want to share a different perspective with the member. One of the nice things about being in a federal system is that there is a high sense of co-operation and effort by different levels of government to try to advance economies throughout the country. The Bloc could be more sensitive to what is happening in the Prairies, as there is a Prairies reality, and recognize that at the end of the day, as parliamentarians we should be attempting to contribute to making all regions of our country healthier places.
I am passionate about the aerospace industry in the province of Quebec, for example, and will continue to advocate for a healthy aerospace industry. I am equally concerned with natural resources or commodity prices and will advocate for good, sound policy there.
I wonder if the member feels any obligation as a member of Parliament to recognize the contributions that all our different regions contribute to our society as a whole. If so, how does she feel her comments today—
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but he should not start on the aerospace industry again because debate will never end this evening.
We are very aware of the major problems facing Alberta's workers and families. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is proposing to take the $12 billion that would be invested in Trans Mountain and give them to Alberta, the province most dependent on fossil fuels and the province that emits the most greenhouse gases. That is what we call solidarity.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Madam Speaker, as the granddaughter of one of the notorious McCoy brothers who helped build the oil and gas sector in Alberta, as the daughter of a former trucker who worked in the oil patch making sure that my brothers and I had what we needed to thrive, as the sister of a heavy equipment cleaner and the wife of someone who is employed in the pipeline business, no one has to tell me how important oil and gas has been to Alberta.
I grew up with truckers and oil men sitting around my kitchen table, and I am so proud of these hard-working Albertans who helped build our province and our nation. Generations of Albertans have enjoyed the prosperity that has come from this natural resource and Alberta has thrived as a result. I am proud of the contributions Alberta has made to our country and the generations of Canadians who have also benefited from our oil and gas sector. However, the past is not the future and it is not even the present in Alberta right now. In Alberta, folks are losing their jobs and have been for years. It is devastating and I am completely gutted when I think of the Alberta families that are suffering.
Climate change is real. In fact, climate change is the most profound threat of our time and we cannot stick our head in the sand and pretend otherwise. As the world reckons with global climate change and turns away from fossil fuels to lower carbon forms of energy, Alberta is facing an economic calamity and instead of taking climate change seriously, instead of showing global investors that Alberta has a legitimate and robust climate strategy, a strategy that corporations like Cenovus, Shell and Total have called for, Jason Kenney and the Conservatives just keep yelling like spoiled children that it is not fair.
Alberta needs an economy that does not rely so heavily on one resource sector. Albertans have lived through boom and bust cycles for generations, and now we know once and for all that the next boom is not going to come. It is not going to come like it did the past. Even if oil and gas continue at 100% capacity, the jobs are not there. The sector is automating. When we hear catch phrases like “efficiencies”, it means there are fewer jobs for Alberta workers, fewer jobs for hard-working Albertans and their families, and everyone in this room knows that.
We have a choice to make. We can put on blinders and double down on the past, or we can work to ensure that Canadian workers have a future. Jason Kenney is doubling down on the past. He is betting on coal and putting the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains at risk. For a handful of short-term jobs, he is selling off our iconic Rocky Mountains to an Australian billionaire. He is risking the livelihoods of ranchers, farmers and tourism operators. He is risking the endangered species that people travel from around the world to see. He is risking the water, the very water that people in southern Alberta need to survive.
He is taking a gamble with Alberta resources, and I have to say as an Albertan who deeply loves my province, Mr. Kenney has a gambling problem and I am tired of his using Alberta taxpayer dollars to pay his bad gambling debts. He gambled somewhere between $1.5 billion and $6 billion of Alberta's money on Donald Trump. We do not know yet because he will not tell us, but remember that when Jason Kenney gambled on Donald Trump, he did not gamble his own money, but ours, and when he lost that gamble, when he lost that money, he did not lose his money, but ours. Let that sink in. The premier of Alberta gambled our money on the hopes that a racist, misogynistic, horrible human being would win the election in the United States of America. That was his job plan for Alberta. That was his plan to get jobs for workers in my province. Now he wants to start a trade war with the U.S., the customer for 95% of our energy exports.
Enough is enough. Alberta does not need a trade war with the United States. Alberta needs jobs now and a path to the future.
No one was surprised when President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline expansion. In fact, anyone who thought differently was either lying to themselves or lying to Canadians. Biden told us he was going to cancel it. Biden was Obama's vice-president and Obama told us he was going to cancel it. Trump did not even get it built.
The reason Jason Kenney threw billions of taxpayer dollars at the project was that smart money, investor money, was not prepared to invest in it. Pumping more and more public money into dying projects that investors will no longer support is not the way to give Albertans a future. Helping Alberta to diversify our economy is the only way we can secure future prosperity, including refining and upgrading our products, investing in well reclamation, investing in hydrogen and other energy alternatives.
There are amazing opportunities available if we just have the imagination, intelligence and the courage to take advantage of them. Generations of Canadians have benefited from Albertans past, and it is time for Canadians to help Alberta create a new future. It is time for Trudeau and the Liberals to actually do something for Albertans. I have stood in this House—
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I was reading a quote, and I guess I got lost within it. Here is another quote, on Kinder Morgan exiting the Canadian market:
In August of 2019, the petroleum and natural gas company Kinder Morgan secured a $2.5 billion deal to sell off its Canadian arm and leave the market.
In 2018, the Liberal government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline from them for $4.5 billion. According to estimates by the parliamentary budget office, [the Prime Minister] overpaid for the pipeline by up to $1 billion in taxpayer funds.
There are several other companies that have either been absorbed by bigger companies or forced out of the market in the last five years due to the severely limiting policies and overall death-by-delay attitude of the government. The investment climate in Canada is driving investments in resource-based companies to countries with weaker environmental standards and poor human rights records, which should be motivation enough to see a project like this through to completion.
It is important at this time to consider what Canadians are saying about Canadian-sourced oil and gas. It might surprise some of my colleagues from different parties to learn that there are opinion polls consistently showing that even Quebeckers have a strong preference for getting oil supplied from western Canada rather than other countries. In a poll done by the Montreal Economic Institute, it found that 71% of Quebeckers would prefer to import oil from western Canada than from other countries. It also found that 50% of Quebeckers believe the province should develop its own oil resources instead of continuing to import all the oil it consumes.
Colleagues might also be surprised to find out that there is strong support from indigenous Canadians for the project. This pipeline represents an opportunity for reconciliation and prosperity. Chief Alvin Francis from the Nekaneet first nation in my riding is the president and CEO of a first nations group called Natural Law Energy, which, as some probably know, had a significant investment in an equity agreement with Keystone XL. When I talked to Chief Francis about the news that the permit was being revoked for Keystone XL, he was quite saddened and disheartened about it because this project had meant funding and the opportunity to further education and housing, and advance the economic development that they have been working so hard to build for their people.
There is a 30-year commitment from TC Energy for this project, and he specifically spoke about the opportunities that people were excited for, such as training, employment and developing a career working on this pipeline that was owned by Natural Law Energy, but now it is all gone. When he was interviewed, Chief Francis spoke to Global News, saying:
I always try to tell people, the glass is always half full, never half empty.
I want my First Nation to be successful … and there’s many things out there that I’m going to have to pay more attention to … I’m always trying to think of what is out there as being the next thing? Because if I don’t do that as being the leader of my community, I’m not doing my job. I always have to lead. Every morning’s a new day....
They have very knowledgeable people, TC Energy, and they will do it. They will put a plan in place and I’ll be part of that plan to make sure that we have our view on it, First Nations view on it so that we can continue to be successful together.
The loss of Keystone XL will be devastating for that community as it is for many others. The mayor of Shaunavon, Kyle Bennett, sent me his thoughts on it as well. He said that they are extremely disappointed by the short-sightedness of this U.S. administration and that this should be treated as an attack on fair trade within our countries. He continued that, at a time when our economies are suffering, we should be supporting industries that will create thousands of jobs and millions in taxation revenue. He feels that this project not only represents our economic interests, in the short term and the long term, but is also a sign of the relationship with our largest trading partner.
What does the government have to say to the Nekaneet first nation, to Shaunavon and to the countless communities and workers it is letting down? Before last week, the Prime Minister told us about one phone call, and at committee we heard from the natural resources minister and also from the parliamentary secretary that they had one phone call back in November with the incoming American administration. He said that the first phone call was “the very definition...of a priority”.
If it is a priority, one half-hearted phone call does not add up to a priority. If it is a priority, the Prime Minister, the natural resources minister, the foreign affairs minister and the international trade minister would have all been at the table repeatedly asking the former and incoming administrations to ensure that this project is built. They would have been telling them that this is about Canadian and American jobs, that this is the most ethically sourced and environmentally friendly oil in the world, and that it also drives innovation.
There are oil and gas companies that have made the claim that they are net negative in their emissions because of the utilization of carbon capture and storage. In an article by CBC of all places, it was reported that Enhance Energy sourced 4,000 tonnes of CO2 underground, which is the equivalent of removing 350,000 vehicles off the road every day.
When something is made a priority, we relentlessly go after it. Enhance Energy and Whitecap Resources have made it a priority and have objectively achieved it with carbon capture and storage. The government has only proven, once again, that it needs to get its priorities straightened out.
I hope we will see the natural resources minister at committee again next week or in the coming weeks to explain where the project is going with the new administration and what kind of work and efforts the government has put into advocating for Canadians, Canadian jobs and our industry.
The Liberals knew the position of the incoming administration. Did the Prime Minister think that one phone call back in November and then one phone call at the eleventh hour, politely expressing disappointment, was going to be enough? Obviously, we all knew what the goals of the Biden administration were. We knew what it was saying. It laid it on the line.
The point I am trying to make tonight, and that all my colleagues are trying to make, is that if the government truly does care about Canadian jobs, if it truly cares about Canadian resources, about our oil and gas sector, about the workers who it repeatedly talks about, it would have put in a wholehearted effort.
It was great to hear the government talk about consultations with the Alberta energy minister and even with the Saskatchewan energy minister. That is great, but honestly that is just preaching to the choir. That is not really the audience it needs to speak to. The government needed to be speaking, as I said earlier, with the incoming administration and the now new President of the United States and his people about the importance of this project, what it was going to bring to Canada and what it was going to mean to the energy security for North America.
Several great opportunities have been proposed and promoted over the last five years. The Liberal government effectively killed them with its death by delay tactics. Quite frankly, it has allowed it to blame everyone else for its dithering and delaying on all these kinds of projects. We saw that with the Teck Frontier mine and we see once again with Keystone XL. A lot more is at stake each and every time the government uses this tactic.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2020-12-09 15:06 [p.3211]
Mr. Speaker, municipalities across northern Ontario have been waiting over 100 days to find out whether they will receive funding through the community investment initiative to support economic development. The department claims to respond to funding applications within 80 days. I raised this issue with the minister two weeks ago, but as of this morning we are still waiting for an answer.
Can the Prime Minister tell us when these municipalities can expect to have a clear answer on the status of their funding applications?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-12-09 15:07 [p.3211]
Mr. Speaker, over the past many months we have worked to flow unprecedented funds to provinces, municipalities, communities and organizations that have needed extra support because of this terrible 2020. The COVID crisis has caused us all to need to pull together and work together. We have been there for municipalities, indigenous communities, rural and remote areas and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will continue to work with them to ensure their applications get processed as quickly as possible and for any further help they might need.
We will be there for Canadians. That is a promise we have made. That is the promise we have kept.
Results: 16 - 30 of 70 | Page: 2 of 5

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data