Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 330
View Chris Bittle Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chris Bittle Profile
2021-04-12 14:47 [p.5411]
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting fresh water and to ensuring a safe and secure supply of water for generations to come. We have a strong and comprehensive approach and we have taken concrete and measurable actions to protect our water. That includes investing $31.5 million over five years to implement the St. Lawrence action plan.
We are protecting the St. Lawrence though science, partnership, including with indigenous peoples and community initiatives.
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 Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-03-25 15:12 [p.5272]
Mr. Speaker, coastal British Columbians have been appealing to the government for months to declare a wild salmon emergency and to save Pacific wild salmon, but after two years of not having a federal budget, people are rightly concerned that the Liberals are not taking this seriously. Coastal first nations and British Columbians need a government that will make historic investments in the conservation, protection and restoration of wild salmon habitats.
Will the minister declare a wild salmon emergency today and make the necessary investments in the government's budget to protect Pacific wild salmon?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his hard work and advocacy on the fisheries committee, where they are now doing a study on wild Pacific salmon.
This is a species that is in critical shape. We know that there are a lot of factors impacting our wild Pacific salmon, including climate change and human impacts, both from contaminants and from changes in land and water use. That is why our government has invested $145 million in habitat restoration. We are going to continue to work with first nations communities, provinces and territories to find the best solutions possible because we know how iconic this species is to British Columbia.
There is more that needs to be done, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-03-24 19:35 [p.5219]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to get clarity on a question I asked regarding the federal government's approval of the proposed Grassy Mountain coal mine.
Albertans are overwhelmingly opposed to this project and any other coal projects that would open up the eastern slopes for coal exploration or development. At least 28 municipalities, including the four largest cities in Alberta, have expressed grave concerns over potential expansion of coal mining in Alberta. An online group called Protect Alberta's Rockies and Headwaters has swelled to more than 36,000 members in only a few months. Over 100,000 Albertans have signed petitions to stop open-pit coal mining in the Rockies. In fact, just this week, I tabled a petition from Latasha Calf Robe, a member of the Blackfoot Confederacy, with over 18,000 signatures, urging this government to act to protect our Alberta environment from the massive and cumulative impacts of open-pit coal mining.
This is not, or should not be, a partisan issue. While I am the only Alberta member of Parliament prepared to stand against the UCP government on this issue, Albertans speaking out against the disastrous decision to rescind the 1976 coal policy and the subsequent selling off of mining rights to the eastern slopes have come from all sectors, all regions and all political affiliations.
Open-pit coal mining is a sunsetting industry with extremely limited potential to provide economic benefits for Albertans and extremely high potential to cost Albertans in environmental cleanup, lost jobs and economic growth in industries like tourism, farming and ranching. Albertans are already facing extraordinary cleanup costs associated with abandoned oil and gas wells; coal mining on the eastern slopes promises a second costly environmental reclamation liability. In fact, the only ones who will benefit from this mine project will be Gina Rinehart, the Australian billionaire who owns Benga Mining.
I can tell members that neither Ms. Rinehart nor any of the mining executives from Benga Mining will be the ones living downstream of this project. It will not be their water supply at risk, it will not be their environment that is irreparably damaged, and it certainly will not be their livelihoods that are destroyed.
The people who stand to lose the most if the federal government approves this project will be the Canadians who live downstream. The Grassy Mountain coal project threatens the water supply for much of southern Alberta, including drinking water and irrigation water. I have spoken with many farmers and ranchers in the area. One rancher who irrigates his property via the Oldman River, Mr. Holtman, spoke to me of his deep concerns. He told me that he has lost all trust that the Government of Alberta will protect him and his ranch. He is worried about what will happen if the water that he and his neighbours depend upon for their livelihoods becomes poisoned.
It is not just Albertans who will be impacted. If the Grassy Mountain project goes ahead, it will open the door to further projects in the eastern slopes, which together threaten both the South Saskatchewan River and North Saskatchewan River basins, including the Oldman, Bow, Red Deer and North Saskatchewan rivers. We have already seen the devastating impacts of open-pit mining in B.C., where the leaching of selenium and other pollutants into watersheds has caused massive damage, devastating fish habitat and species at risk.
On behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the indigenous communities who were not adequately consulted, on behalf of all Albertans who cherish our Rocky Mountains and the water and wildlife within, I am urging this government to reject the Grassy Mountain coal project and all subsequent open-pit coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.
Can we count on this government to do the right thing and stop this dangerous and destructive project?
View Terry Duguid Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Terry Duguid Profile
2021-03-24 19:39 [p.5220]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the proposed Grassy Mountain coal project. The proposed metallurgical coal project is currently undergoing a rigorous environmental assessment by an independent joint review panel. The panel was established jointly by the federal government and the Alberta Energy Regulator in 2018. The panel process is ensuring a thorough and transparent review of the project based on science and traditional knowledge, meeting the high standards that Canadians have come to expect in a federal environmental assessment.
The work of the panel is ongoing and it would be premature for me to opine on the potential environmental effects of this project while the assessment is under way. The independent panel, however, does have a mandate to consider the potential effects of this proposed project on not only the environment, including the effects on water quality and quantity, but also its socio-economic implications. The panel is also considering the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions that are directly attributable to the project.
Canadians have told us that they want to have a meaningful voice in how these types of projects are considered and contribute to an informed decision-making process. That is exactly what this government is doing through the environmental assessment of the Grassy Mountain coal project. Through the environmental assessment, various stakeholders have been provided with opportunities to provide their views and perspectives, including the economic benefits or drawbacks of the project.
To inform the panel's assessment, a public hearing was held recently, from October 27 to December 2, 2020. The public hearing provided a very transparent and open opportunity for the panel to hear directly from numerous interested parties, including those with local and regional interests that could be affected by the project. These views will help inform the environmental assessment and this government's decision on whether the project will be allowed to proceed.
The panel is now preparing its report for submission to the minister by June 18 of this year. The report will provide the panel's conclusions on the significance of any adverse effects and recommendations for ways to mitigate effects related to the project. I can assure the House that before any decision is made regarding this project, the panel's report and the views of participants brought forward in this assessment will be given due consideration.
Our government is committed to a federal assessment process that is robust, based on science and indigenous knowledge; protects our rich natural environment; respects the rights of indigenous peoples and supports our natural resources sector. I have heard from many concerned citizens that this project goes against our national objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this assessment process, the direct emissions of the project will be considered in the decision-making process and balanced carefully against our climate change commitments.
In addition to this project-specific review, I would like to bring to everyone's attention other initiatives our government is undertaking to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of coal mining activities in Canada, including any impacts related to emissions of greenhouse gases. These initiatives include the strategic assessment of climate change, the strategic assessment of thermal coal mining, the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and the clean fuel standard regulations.
Further, our government is committed to ensuring that our waters are safe, clean and well managed. Environment and Climate Change Canada is developing coal mining effluent regulations under the federal Fisheries Act. The goal of the regulations will be to reduce the risks posed by harmful substances like selenium from coal mining effluent in order to protect the aquatic environment.
In closing, I want to assure the House—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-03-24 19:44 [p.5221]
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I tabled legislation calling for changes to the federal Impact Assessment Act. In the changes I proposed, I asked that the federal government take on an impact assessment of all future coal projects, regardless of their size. As the minister knows, the federal assessment only happens if a project states that it will produce more than 5,000 tonnes per day. We have seen time and time again that companies propose amounts just under that threshold to avoid federal assessment. In fact, right now the Tent Mountain project is proposing 4,925 tonnes per day, which I think is clearly an attempt to avoid federal scrutiny.
Knowing that the Alberta Conservative government has lost all credibility to protect the Alberta environment, would the minister support such changes to the Impact Assessment Act?
View Terry Duguid Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Terry Duguid Profile
2021-03-24 19:45 [p.5221]
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that our government will take the time necessary to ensure that the decision on this project is based on evidence and science, and that the views of indigenous peoples and the public are considered.
The Government of Canada is undertaking a consultation process with potentially affected indigenous groups to ensure that no decision on this project is taken without a full understanding of its impacts on rights and any required accommodation is in place to address those impacts if the project proceeds. This government is committed to ensuring that strong measures exist to reduce greenhouse gases, and is committed to an emissions reduction goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
2021-03-23 14:07 [p.5123]
Mr. Speaker, on March16, I had the pleasure of hosting a virtual meeting with the Orléans Youth Council, alongside my provincial counterpart, MPP Stephen Blais, to discuss our youth environmental priorities with our special guest, Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. As climate change has long been among the most important issues raised by our youth council, their questions on pollution, emissions and carbon neutrality contributed to an exciting conversation.
I want to thank the outstanding members of the Orléans Youth Council for their advocacy on the environment and Minister Wilkinson for taking the time to join us.
As Francophonie Month comes to a close, I also want to mention that we celebrated International Day of La Francophonie on March 20. I am grateful to all these francophones and francophiles for cherishing, protecting and speaking French.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I was caught off guard by my colleague's closing statement to the effect that Alberta is a leader in the world when it comes to the environment, but I will pull myself together and start my speech.
Bill C-231 is a worthwhile bill, and I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for introducing it in Parliament.
I think one of the best ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is to stop funding the companies that produce them. This seems logical to me, and I think it goes without saying. Almost everyone believes that the environment is important. The environment is almost as widely loved as apple pie. Everyone loves the environment, except maybe the half of this Parliament and this country who think that funding our own extinction is the best way to support our economy.
The bill we are debating today would, in a small way, address that dogma, which is so unbelievably persistent. Every single day we lose more opportunities to protect the environment. That is why I agree with the principle my colleague has proposed. His bill is creative and, even though it does not directly affect Quebeckers, I recognize that every small step matters.
That said, I am once again disappointed in this government. Instead of taking real action on the environment, it is still thinking small, and when it does act, it acts on structures rather than taking steps that would have a direct impact. While Quebec and most provincial governments are already taking action, successive federal governments have had poor track records, regardless of political stripe.
Let us get back to the topic at hand. Today, we are asking a very relevant question: Should we let the billions of dollars saved by Canadians outside Quebec be spent just anywhere in the name of a completely outdated economic growth model, or should we set limits to ensure the Canada pension plan investment board invests responsibly?
I personally support the latter option. In its most recent recovery plan, my party asked the government to stop investing in fossil fuels, whether it be directly or indirectly, through subsidies or tax benefits. We believe that this money would be better spent on the transition to clean energy, which would pay off handsomely. The bill introduced by the member from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is consistent with the simple idea I mentioned earlier, which was to stop funding polluters.
However, I am a bit saddened to see that Bill C-231 really has no teeth. Ultimately, if the Liberals vote in favour, it would be one of those small measures they could boast about having brought in. We need to keep in mind that the proposed restrictions on investment decisions would not change much in the Canada pension plan portfolio. In short, the bill would be nothing more than “virtue signalling” to clear the government's conscience. Here are some reasons why.
Let us start with arms companies. It is unlikely that funds from the Canada pension plan's portfolio are currently invested in companies that manufacture weapons or that violate human rights, but let us take a moment to really savour the irony of the fact that Canada sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, only to turn around and congratulate itself on forbidding the CPP investment board to invest in arms companies.
I still agree with the substance of the bill, but when it comes to companies that violate human rights, once again, this all looks good on paper. My colleague must be a fan of dark humour, because we both know perfectly well that this Liberal government could not even be bothered to create an office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise with adequate power to punish offending companies. Worse still, most of the countries where these companies that violate human rights are surreptitiously registered have no legislation governing them. In practice, I do not know who will decide whether the board can invest in a company or not, but the government certainly will not help it figure that out.
Similarly, targeting companies that violate environmental or labour laws means getting involved in a long debate about the facts. Moreover, these companies are allowed to anchor their logistics chains in countries with very sketchy environmental and labour practices. We have only to think of China, with everything going on in Xinjiang with the Uighurs. Other than NGOs, nobody is exposing problematic companies and practices.
That is particularly difficult when it comes to the environment, because there would have to be environmental laws in the first place, as well as reason to believe that those laws have been broken. Unfortunately, the one depends on the other. We would also need whistle-blowers, who, let us be clear, risk their careers and their lives by speaking out.
Nothing in this bill would prevent the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from investing even more heavily in oil companies, as long as they are not obviously breaking any environmental laws; in mining companies, as long as they are not officially eliminating opponents to their projects; or in arms manufacturers, as long as they are manufacturing the non-lethal parts of tanks. We therefore have no way of resolving the real problem.
I would like to add that I am surprised that the bill contains no mention of companies based in whole or in part in tax havens. If we are going to virtue-signal, we might as well have included that too.
If I were unkind, I could say that the bill is extremely idealistic because the problem is much too big to be solved within the scope of one section of an act. However, I am kind. Although this is a small step, it is a step in the right direction. Enshrining the concept of sustainable, responsible investment in federal legislation is objectively a good thing, and it is better than nothing.
However, let us keep in mind what this government is doing right now. The government says that Canada is not selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, only Jeeps. The Prime Minister clearly said it during the 2015 election campaign.
I would call a Jeep with a machine gun in the back seat a weapon. If I were to drive around Lac-Saint-Jean in a Jeep like the ones currently being sold to Saudi Arabia, there is a good chance that I would quickly be arrested, and rightly so.
From 2017 to 2020 alone, this government subsidized the oil and gas industry to the tune of almost $24 billion. During that same period, the government provided just $971 million to the forestry industry, even though this industry can play a role in the energy transition because it combats greenhouse gases and because many oil-based products can be replaced with wood byproducts. I want to point out that 75% of that money is in the form of loans, so the government will get its money back.
If we trust the government's figures, the bill seems good. The bill needs some teeth, though, and we know that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to investments in the oil and gas industry, the environment, human rights or arms.
In summary, I agree with the principle of Bill C-231 because, although it is just a small step, it is at least a step in the right direction.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am presenting yet another petition from young people in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay and from a neighbouring riding of Kootenay—Columbia who are concerned about climate change.
The petitioners point out that Canada's targets are inadequate and that the actions taken have been weaker than the targets. They want jobs that are sustainable, and not for a short-term gain at the expense of future generations.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support their future with a detailed climate strategy, with science-based targets, and to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and redirect those funds to renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, low-carbon transportation and job training.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, it is great to see you and all my hon. colleagues this afternoon. It is wonderful to represent the very entrepreneurial and hard-working folks of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know many of them have started going back to their normal lives. Traffic is getting busy again in the city of Vaughan in the York Region and people are working, which is great to see.
I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for sharing their thoughts on the impact of the pandemic on Canadians, Canadian businesses and the different sectors of our economy.
The COVID-19 global pandemic has had wide-ranging effects in Canada, from dangers to public health to business restrictions and closures, causing grief, job losses and hurting the economy.
Nearly a year ago, we asked Canadians to do their part so that together we could stop the spread of the virus and flatten the curve in order to protect our neighbours and friends, especially the elderly, the most vulnerable and people living with certain health conditions.
During that time, Canadian businesses have shown tremendous resilience in adapting to the challenges posed by the pandemic by adjusting their operations to keep Canadians safe and scaling down their costs during times of weaker demand.
From the beginning, we have taken a whole-of-government approach to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. We are working with our municipal, provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as our international partners, to mitigate the risks to Canadians.
Our government has done everything in its power to combat the virus and mitigate its harm, using every tool available to safeguard the health and livelihoods of Canadians, help businesses weather the storm and support the various sectors of our economy.
Last year, we put in place Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan to provide immediate support for Canadians and Canadian businesses. This plan is a broad, wide-ranging approach that continues to keep our economy stable and protect jobs. Through this plan, we have put forward numerous measures to ensure that Canada's sectors have the support they need to recover from this crisis and, for that matter, Canada's workers do as well.
Let me now provide members with some examples of our broad-based industry supports.
For highly affected sectors, such as tourism and hospitality, hotels, and arts and entertainment, that have struggled to access sufficient financing, we have launched the highly affected sectors credit availability program. This program offers government-guaranteed low-interest loans of up to $1 million to eligible businesses to help them with their day-to-day operating costs during the COVID-19 crisis. It enables them to invest in their longer-term prosperity.
In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the city of Vaughan is known as the event centre capital of Canada. There are many event centres where weddings, bar mitzvahs and celebrations happen. I know these centres have been impacted significantly during the pandemic, and we have assisted them to the best of our ability so they will reopen when the time comes and it is safe to do so.
For the businesses in the agricultural and agri-food sector, we have provided $35 million through the emergency on-farm support fund to prevent and respond to the spread of COVID-19, improving health and safety on farms and employee living quarters. We also enabled Farm Credit Canada to provide an additional $5 billion in lending, offering increased flexibility to farmers who face cash-flow issues and to processors who are impacted by lost sales, helping them remain financially solid during this difficult time. Businesses in the agricultural and agri-food sector and businesses in the aquacultural and fishery sectors have benefited from this measure.
Businesses in the aquacultural and fishery sectors have also benefited from $62.5 million of new assistance to the fish and seafood processing sector through the Canadian seafood stabilization fund. This new assistance has helped them add storage capacity for unsold product, comply with new health and safety measures for workers, support new manufacturing and automated technologies to improve productivity and quality of finished seafood products, and adapt products to respond to changing requirements and new market demands.
For the cultural, heritage and sport sector, we have created the short-term compensation fund for Canadian audiovisual productions to compensate independent production companies for the lack of insurance coverage for COVID-19-related filming interruptions and production shutdowns within the sector. We recently increased the fund from $50 million to $100 million to allow more productions to make use of the program during the busiest time of the year for the audiovisual industry. We have also established a $500-million emergency support fund to help alleviate the financial pressures of organizations in this sector facing significant losses because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Right now, oil and gas workers and their families are struggling because of things beyond their control. As a result, companies have had to slow down or pause their operations, leaving too many people out of work. Thankfully, recently we have seen a run-up and increase in the price of oil, whether it is WTI or WCS. This is a net overall positive for the Canadian economy.
To support businesses in the energy sector, an important sector for our economy, we have provided up to $750 million to create a new emissions reduction fund to support workers and reduce emissions in Canada's very important oil and gas sector, with a focus on methane. This fund is providing primarily repayable contributions to conventional and offshore oil and gas firms to support their investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of this amount, $75 million was allocated to the offshore sector.
We also provided up to $1.72 billion to the Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and to Alberta's Orphan Well Association, to clean up orphaned and inactive oil and gas wells. This has helped maintain thousands of jobs while creating lasting environmental benefits.
To support infrastructure projects across the country, we have adapted the investing in Canada infrastructure program to better respond to the impacts of COVID-19, adding a new COVID-19 resilience stream. This new stream, delivered through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, provides added flexibility fo fund quick-start short-term projects that might not otherwise be eligible under the existing funding streams. We also accelerated $2.2 billion in annual federal infrastructure funding for communities, through the gas tax fund, to help communities quickly move forward with infrastructure projects.
For many Canadians, COVID-19 has had a major impact on daily life, as they work to pay their bills, put food on the table and take care of themselves and their families. More and more Canadians have been turning to community organizations for assistance as a result of the economic conditions of the pandemic. To ensure that Canadians get the support they need, the government has made significant investments in shelters, food banks and community organizations, including $300 million distributed as of January 12 for charities and non-profit organizations across Canada that deliver essential services and an additional $200 million in total support for nearly 3,000 food banks and local food and service organizations to address emergency hunger relief across Canada.
To support hospitals and keep our nurses, doctors and front-line health care workers well equipped in the months and years ahead, I am proud to say the government has committed over $9.1 billion to support the procurement of personal protective equipment. This funding is in addition to the $3 billion for the procurement of personal protective equipment provided directly to the provinces and territories through the safe restart agreement.
As we have said from the beginning, our government is there for Canadians. We promised to do everything we could to support Canadians, Canadian businesses and all sectors of our economy. That is what we are doing today and what we will continue to do.
We will be here with Canadians and will have their backs for as long as the pandemic is here with us. We have had them from day one. We have been there with emergency programs like the CEBA, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the rent relief program and the regional relief and recovery fund. We will continue to invest in Canada, we will continue to invest in Canadians and we will continue to grow and strengthen our middle class.
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Jaime Battiste Profile
2021-02-24 15:14 [p.4500]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, in relation to Motion No. 35 standing in the name of the member for Sydney—Victoria, the order for the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Willowdale to Motion No. 35 be discharged and the amendment be deemed withdrawn; that Motion No. 35 be amended by replacing subparagraph (b)(3) and (b)(4) with the words “report its findings and recommendation to the House”, and that the question on Motion No. 35, as amended, be deemed put and recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until later today at the time originally scheduled for the recorded division on the amendment on Motion No. 35.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
The Speaker: We have another point of order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Results: 121 - 135 of 330 | Page: 9 of 22

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data