Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 2137
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2019-06-19 14:24 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister promised that construction on Trans Mountain would begin.
Not one ounce of dirt has been moved so far. Canada's entire economy is suffering as a result. Every day of delay is costing Canadians $40 million. The Prime Minister promised that Trans Mountain would be built and operational in 2019.
Why did he mislead Canadians by making a promise he could not keep?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:25 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Stephen Harper tried building pipelines to new markets and failed. He failed because he did not understand that major projects like this one can only move forward if we work with indigenous peoples and protect the environment. The Conservatives still do not grasp this.
That is exactly how we chose to move forward with the Trans Mountain pipeline. We followed the court's directions, and I am pleased to announce that construction will begin this summer.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2019-06-19 14:26 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, again, he keeps saying things that are just not true. The previous Conservative government saw the private sector build four major pipelines, including one to tidewater, increasing our capacity to foreign markets. It is under the Liberal government that major pipeline proponents have pulled out of Canada. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that 100 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been killed by the government.
The Prime Minister committed to Trans Mountain being completed and in operation this year, but it is over a year later, and there is still no start date. His failure is costing Canadians. Why did he not say so?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:26 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Mr. Harper and his Conservatives failed to get one pipeline built to new markets. The Conservatives talk about the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, but that pipeline goes nowhere near a port.
The reality is that the Conservatives did not understand, and still do not understand, that the only way to build energy projects today and into the future is to protect the environment at the same time and to work in partnership with indigenous peoples. That is exactly what we have done with the Trans Mountain pipeline, moved forward in the right way.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2019-06-19 14:27 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has done is buy a pipeline with taxpayers' money that he still does not have a plan to build. It is a terrible indictment of his record that in Canada, under his prime ministership, the government must nationalize a project to get it built. Under the Conservatives, the private sector did that.
We should not be surprised. After all, this is the Prime Minister who wants to phase out the energy sector and who has a senior minister who tweeted that they want to landlock Alberta's energy.
Why does the Prime Minister keep hurting our energy sector and the thousands of Canadians who work in it?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:28 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just will not take yes for an answer. The reality is that we approved this pipeline, and it seems to cause tremendous consternation on the side of the Conservatives that we are actually succeeding in doing what the Alberta energy sector has long been asking for, which is access to new markets other than the United States.
We know that accessing new markets and having the money to pay for the transition to a cleaner, greener economy is important for building our future. They, quite frankly, do not know what to do or what to say, because they are wrong.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2019-06-19 14:28 [p.29385]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, we know what to do to get these projects built, starting with replacing the Prime Minister, scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69 and giving our investors certainty that when they meet those standards, they can actually get it built.
The Prime Minister is great at saying yes. He just cannot get it done. Yesterday was another approval without a plan. Canadians did not want to see a photo op yesterday. They wanted a date on which this project would start.
Why did he fail to do that?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:29 [p.29386]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, what is very clear to everyone in this House, and indeed to all Canadians, is that the Conservatives still do not understand why they failed for 10 years to give the support to the Canadian economy that was needed. In the 21st century, the only way to move forward on big projects is to have a real plan for the environment and to bring in and work with indigenous communities. They refused to do that for 10 years, and they still do not see that the way to move forward is in partnership.
Collapse
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2019-06-19 14:31 [p.29386]
Expand
After a year of higher temperatures and more floods and forest fires, people across the country are feeling the effects of climate change. The decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion is not going to help people deal with climate change.
The Liberals are spending more than $10 billion to expand a pipeline. Why are the Liberals not investing this money in green initiatives to build a secure future for generations to come?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:32 [p.29386]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are going to do.
Over the past four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Therefore, every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. With this project, we are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating the clean energy transition and generating—
Collapse
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2019-06-19 14:33 [p.29386]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, that is a ludicrous proposition, given that no profits are going to be made in this project.
The race to the bottom with this pipeline, between the Liberals and Conservatives, is taking us in the wrong direction. Instead of ending fossil fuel subsidies, the Prime Minister is buying pipelines. Instead of legally binding emissions targets, the Prime Minister is continuing with Stephen Harper's targets. Instead of building a new relationship with indigenous communities, the Prime Minister has stuck with grand symbolism. New Democrats are proposing a better way.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to protect coastal communities, indigenous communities and our environment?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:34 [p.29386]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution, we are safeguarding our oceans, we are investing in public transit and we are reducing plastic pollution. We have also listened very carefully to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition.
We are creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Collapse
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2019-06-19 14:34 [p.29386]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I can summarize the Liberals' position on the environment. On one day, they pass a motion recognizing a climate emergency, and then on the very next day, they approve a pipeline. That is the government's track record.
The Liberals will dramatically increase our emissions, threaten coastlines and disrespect coastal and indigenous communities. The new hearings failed to look at the impact of climate, and they failed to meaningfully consult.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to back up symbolic gestures with concrete actions to defend our environment?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:35 [p.29387]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, over the past four years, we have taken more concrete actions to protect our environment than any government in Canada's history. We are going to continue to move forward on that in partnership with indigenous communities and in respect of environmental concerns.
We on this side of the House recognize that not all indigenous communities support the way we are moving forward, even though we have consulted with them extensively.
My question for the leader of the NDP is, why will he not recognize that there are indigenous communities that actually support this pipeline expansion?
Collapse
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2019-06-19 14:35 [p.29387]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty low bar to set when we have the Harper Conservatives to compare with.
Indigenous and coastal communities vehemently oppose this project. Tanker traffic will increase nearly sevenfold. The risk of spills will increase considerably for those living on our coasts. The Prime Minister is ignoring those very valid concerns. We need to take decisive action to protect our environment.
How can the Prime Minister tell people that approving this pipeline will protect our environment, when that is not the case?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:36 [p.29387]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disturbed by the dramatic increase in the transportation of oil by rail over the last few years.
We know that transporting oil by rail is more polluting and more dangerous. We will still need to use oil for several years. By building a pipeline in a responsible manner, in partnership with indigenous peoples, and by committing to invest all tax revenues from the pipeline in the clean energy transition, we know that we are building a better and more prosperous future for Canadians.
Collapse
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
2019-06-19 14:45 [p.29388]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have suddenly realized that green-lighting the expansion of Trans Mountain will not wash, especially after declaring a climate emergency the day before. Now they are trying to create a diversion by saying that any profits from the pipeline will go into a green fund.
They are spending $15 billion to create more pollution. That is what I would call trading four quarters for a dollar, especially when that dollar is the equivalent of three million cars' worth of pollution.
Why not immediately invest that $15 billion in renewable energy and the good jobs of tomorrow, as the NDP is proposing?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:46 [p.29388]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have done more for the environment than any other government in Canada's history. We have put a price on pollution. We are safeguarding our oceans. We are investing in public transit. We are reducing plastic pollution.
We have also listened to Canadians about their desire for a cleaner future. Every dollar from this project will be invested in Canada's clean energy transition. We are creating jobs and opening new markets. We are accelerating our clean energy transition and generating new avenues for indigenous economic prosperity.
Collapse
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
View Peter Julian Profile
2019-06-19 14:46 [p.29389]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there are no profits. It is losing $150 million a year. What an empty gesture. That is just our point. The Prime Minister asks Canadians to wait for pharmacare, affordable housing and so much else and then he splurges $15 billion on Trans Mountain. He says he respects reconciliation and then runs roughshod over indigenous rights. He pushes a climate emergency motion and then, within hours, is trying to ram through a raw bitumen pipeline that trashes the Paris Agreement.
Why did the Prime Minister choose oil lobbyists over a future generation?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:47 [p.29389]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, there was plenty wrong with the statements made by the member opposite, but I will focus on one.
There is a strong economic case for getting access to new markets and for investing in the clean energy transition, but we will all understand that New Democrats have always had challenges with economic plans and approaches. They think there is a choice to be made between protecting the environment and growing the economy. They do not understand that the only way to build a stronger future for all Canadians is to do them both together.
Collapse
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2019-06-19 14:57 [p.29390]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector is a key driver of our economy and an important source of good, middle-class jobs in my community.
Edmontonians and all Albertans want to see good projects move forward in the right way. They know first-hand what happens when they do not.
For 10 years, the Conservatives cut corners and failed to get a single inch of new pipeline built to non-U.S. markets. We were elected on a plan to do things differently, and we have delivered.
Could the Prime Minister please update the House on our government's decision on the Trans Mountain expansion project?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 14:57 [p.29390]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, this project will create thousands of good, middle-class jobs, and includes economic opportunities for indigenous peoples.
We have a plan to fight climate change and protect our oceans and respond to the concerns we heard in consultation. Every dollar earned through this project will be invested in clean energy.
We were elected to deliver real change. That is exactly what we are doing by moving forward on this project in the right way.
Collapse
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-19 15:16 [p.29394]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Just 24 hours after declaring a climate emergency, he gave the green light to the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Quebec's industries combined.
He is apologizing by saying that he is going to invest $500 million in green energy, but he is investing $14 billion in pollution.
How is the Prime Minister going to fight climate change by investing our money in a project that creates more pollution than all of Quebec?
Collapse
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-06-19 15:17 [p.29394]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are still politicians who believe that we have to choose between the environment and the economy.
The reality is that the only way to move forward as a society is to protect jobs and the environment at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing by safely accessing new markets for our resources while investing historic amounts in the transition to green energy. All the profits from this pipeline will be put toward the transition to green energy because Canadians know that we need to show leadership in that regard.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2478--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to the total number of registered guns and licensed gun owners for each year since 2001: (a) how many Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) holders have been charged with homicide; (b) how many registered firearms were used in a homicide; and (c) how many PAL holders have been charged with using a registered firearm to commit homicide?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, RCMP systems do not capture the requested information at the level of detail requested. As a result, the information requested cannot be obtained without an extensive manual review of files. This manual review could not be completed within the established time frame.

Question No. 2479--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to the total number of guns reported stolen for each year since 2001: (a) how many were registered; (b) how many were stolen from licensed gun owners; (c) how many were stolen from licensed gun dealers; and (d) of those guns stolen from licensed gun owners and dealers, how many were used in the commission of a violent offence?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, illegal or stolen handguns seized or found at crime scenes are deemed to be in the custody of the police force of jurisdiction, and kept for evidentiary purposes. Processes and/or policies may differ from one agency to another, as well as reporting requirements. Currently, there is no national repository for this type of information in Canada.
The Canadian firearms program, CFP, is a national program within the RCMP. It administers the Firearms Act and regulations, provides support to law enforcement and promotes firearms safety.
The CFP does not collect or track statistics with regard to the origin of illegal or stolen handguns.

Question No. 2481--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the impact of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, on Alberta’s economy: did the government conduct an economic analysis of the impact of Bill C-69 on Alberta’s oil and gas sector and, if so, who conducted the analysis and what were the results?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, the government has made it clear that economic prosperity and environmental protection must go hand in hand. It has also been clear that it is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get Canada’s natural resources to market. The decision in 2012 to gut environmental laws eroded public trust, put Canada’s environment and economy at risk, and made it harder, not easier, for good projects to go ahead. These changes led to polarization and paralysis.
Bill C-69 was introduced to restore public confidence by better protecting the environment, fish and waterways, while also respecting indigenous rights. In addition, it would provide greater certainty to proponents, leading to the creation of good, middle-class jobs and enhancing economic opportunities.
Canada’s investment climate remains robust. According to the most recent “Major Projects Planned or Under Construction” report, there are 418 projects, worth some $585 billion, already under construction or planned over the next 10 years. This reflects Canada’s position as a destination of choice for resource investors.
Significantly, new projects have continued to come forward in all sectors since Bill C-69 was tabled in 2017, reflecting the continued confidence of the investment community.
In developing this legislation, the government undertook extensive consultations with Canadians. The bill reflects the feedback and advice from a broad range of stakeholders, including investors and project proponents, who indicated that they wanted a clear, predictable and timely project review process.
In addition, Natural Resources Canada routinely monitors market, financial and economic indicators to gauge the competitiveness of Canada’s oil and gas sector. These data inform all of the government’s policy decisions.

Question No. 2482--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: (a) when is construction expected to resume on the pipeline; and (b) when will the expansion project be completed?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain Corporation is expected to update, publish and submit for regulatory consideration a revised construction schedule for the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, if approved. The Department of Finance anticipates the government will be in a position to make a decision on the proposed project on or before June 18, 2019.

Question No. 2484--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to taxpayer-funded flights taken by David MacNaughton, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, since March 2, 2016: (a) what are the details of all flights, including (i) dates, (ii) city of origin, (iii) city of destination, (iv) cost; and (b) what is the total amount spent on flights by the Ambassador?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to parts (a) and (b), the information requested is publically disclosed at https://open.canada.ca/en/proactive-disclosure.
Collapse
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2019-06-19 16:41 [p.29412]
Expand
Madam Speaker, let me say, as I probably rise for the last time in this Parliament, how honoured I am to represent the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, how much I have learned from my colleagues here, but also how invigorated I am by the greatness of this country and my commitment to work hard for the people I represent.
As I join this debate today, I feel compelled to make a few observations. To be clear, Canada did not ask to be put in this position. However, as we know, the U.S. election resulted in a new administration, with a mandate, among other things, to renegotiate NAFTA. That is where all of this started.
I think we can all agree that this particular renegotiated agreement resulted in an outcome that is less than ideal, but of course, it could have been much worse. Many concessions were made, and we still have unresolved issues, such as the lack of a deal for Canadian softwood lumber, something that is critically important to my riding.
Ultimately, it is not a secret that the official opposition will be supporting this deal. Unlike the third party, we do believe it is better than no deal. However, that does not mean that there are not some lessons to be learned here.
To me, it is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister went into these negotiations with his usual theme of demanding things that are all about building his brand and appealing to his base of supporters. In other words, the Prime Minister thought he saw an opportunity to score some political points and feed the brand. This is not unlike what he tried to do when he approached China.
In both cases, he failed miserably. Why would he not fail miserably? Would we as Canadians accept another leader trying to push his or her own values onto us? We simply would not accept that. What nation would? However, that is precisely what the Prime Minister attempted to to. Some may call this arrogance. Whatever we call it, it was easily foreseeable that it was a path to failure.
However, the Prime Minister did not care and went about his virtue-signalling anyway, so we ended up on the sidelines: Canada, a world leader, on the sidelines. There we were, on the sidelines with our biggest trading partner, while Mexico was in the driver's seat, getting the deal done.
Here is the thing. Mexico did get it done. Let us look at its approach. Mexico did not use the trade negotiations as some sort of domestic political opportunity to score points. Mexico did not use this as an opportunity for virtue-signalling. Mexico did not have a lead minister giving a speech within the United States of America that took veiled potshots at the U.S. administration. Mexico discussed issues related to trade and did so professionally. It is easy to see why that approach worked so well for it.
Our approach, led by the Prime Minister, was a complete failure. It did not have to be that way. I can tell colleagues that, on this side of the House, we would have taken a much different approach. I am actually quite confident that there are members on the government side of the House, whom I have worked with at various committees, who I suspect would have also taken a much different approach. I believe it is important to reflect on these things so that we can learn from them.
Canada should never again be in a situation where we are sitting on the sidelines with our greatest trading partner, while Mexico is driving the bus. I hope that is one thing we can all agree on. Perhaps that is why we are now hearing the name of Mark Carney, because there are other Liberals who feel the same way.
Now we have a new deal. Whether it is called the new NAFTA, NAFTA 0.5, USMCA, CUSMA, or whatever, there is something we should all think about. Recently, Jack Mintz wrote a very good piece on investment fleeing Canada. Members who have read the article would know that it debunks some Liberal talking points that had been carefully cherry-picked.
As an example, yes, investment in Canada was up in 2018. However, that sounds good until we consider that it was up from 2017, and 2017 was an absolute disaster of a year. Even in 2018, it was still below where things were in 2015. Yes, I mean that 2015.
Yes, investment in the U.S.A. is down, but that is outside investment. There is a large increase in U.S. domestic capital now staying in the United States. This means it is not coming to Canada.
Why should we care about that? Let us look at our automotive sector. Yes, there is still some investment in Canada, but there is considerably more occurring in the United States and Mexico. Mexico, in particular, has been a hot spot for automotive investment. Let us think about that. Mexico has no carbon tax. It has no new and enhanced CPP causing premiums and payroll taxes to increase every month. Much of its industrial power is cheap, and I would even say it is dirty.
CUSMA does more to address some of those issues than the NAFTA deal it replaces, but we also have to recognize that foreign investment in Canada is not the rose garden the Liberals are trying to suggest it is. This is a deal among three countries. If we become the most expensive, most regulated and most inefficient country to do business in, we lose collectively as a country.
The Prime Minister can continue to be virtuous. He can continue to ask people to pay just a little bit more. He can continue to lecture others for not sharing his values. However, at the end of the day, none of those things are going to attract the investment we need to make the most of this deal.
While we are on the subject of trade, I note that last week, during question period in this place, the Prime Minister vilified former prime minister Harper close to a dozen times. As the Liberals' good friend Warren Kinsella recently pointed out, the Prime Minister is looking “for an enemy to demonize”.
I mention that because the former Conservative government of Mr. Harper concluded more free trade agreements than any prime minister in the modern era. It is not as if the Liberals, or the Prime Minister, would be unaware of this, because they sat in this place during the last Parliament and voted in support of all those new trade agreements, yet the Prime Minister turns around and vilifies the former prime minister, who has a demonstrably more successful record on trade agreements.
However, perhaps that is preferable to talking about the lack of progress on Canadian softwood. I looked up on the Open Parliament website how many times the Prime Minister has even mentioned the word “softwood”. The answer is 18 times since 2016. The vast majority of those times were only because he was answering questions on softwood lumber asked by the opposition.
How many times has he referenced Stephen Harper? It is 190 times, and it will probably be more than 200 after today's question period. With the Prime Minister's priorities so focused on vilifying Mr. Harper instead of focusing on softwood lumber, is it any wonder he has made zero progress on this file?
Why do I point this out? I point this out because lumber mills are closing all across British Columbia at an alarming rate. My riding has lost lumber mills. I know first-hand what that does to a small rural community. It is devastating. However, there is complete silence from the Prime Minister regarding softwood lumber unless he is asked about it by the opposition in this place. Why? Maybe it is because he is too busy vilifying Mr. Harper.
In my view, that is not acceptable. B.C. forest workers deserve better. They deserve to know that they have a prime minister in Ottawa working to reach a softwood lumber deal.
I sometimes wonder whether, if Mexico had a vibrant softwood lumber sector, we would now have a deal done by extension as well. It is clear that Mexico has a more effective track record in these negotiations than the brand-first approach of the Prime Minister.
To summarize, we did not ask to be in this situation, clearly. However, I believe the approach taken by the Prime Minister to try to use this as a political opportunity was deeply flawed and made a bad situation worse.
Again, as evidence of that, I say to look no further than the approach taken by Mexico and the success that it had while we sat on the sidelines.
I have raised this point with ministers of the Crown. They told us that the meetings between the United States and Mexico were simply on bilateral issues that had nothing to do with Canada. However, they came out with a trilateral agreement, and Canada had a take-it-or-leave-it moment.
Despite the many concessions that the Prime Minister has made on this file, we can still make the most of it, but only if we recognize that we need to be more competitive. We have a regulatory environment in which things can get done in Canada. Many people have raised alarm bells, particularly the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and not just about the lack of investment but also the ability to get things done.
The Leader of the Opposition today clearly asked the Prime Minister several times for the date for the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister promised the Trans Mountain pipeline, one of the most important projects on the deck and one of the only ones on the deck, would go forward to help build the national interest, but the Prime Minister cannot give a date.
Originally, the Liberals said that it would be operating this calendar year. Again, I would submit that one need to look no further than the Trans Mountain pipeline as evidence as to where the challenges are. It has been four years, and still there is not a shovel in the ground. The fact that the Liberal government had to buy the project to save Kinder Morgan from the embarrassment of not being able to build it in a timely manner is all part of the problem. The fact that today even the government has serious challenges in trying to navigate the process to get it done is telling. Does anyone seriously believe that Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 will make it easier to invest in Canada?
The Prime Minister says that tankers can operate totally safely in one part of British Columbia and in other parts of Canada, but are so dangerous in another part of British Columbia that they must be banned. Does anyone seriously think that makes sense? In fact, a number of the senators in the other place have commented on the lack of scientific evidence on Bill C-48. The committee that studied it in depth recommended that the bill not proceed.
The approaches of the current government do not reconcile. These are the types of mixed messages that are just not helpful. However, I remain hopeful that we can become more competitive and that as we move forward, we can ultimately try to fully capitalize on this agreement despite the many concessions.
I would like to close on a more positive note, and I will add a few positive observations.
As we have established many times and in many areas, Canada and Canadians can compete and succeed against the very best in the world. As legislators, it is our job to ensure that they have a level playing field and unrestricted market access to do so. Therefore, I will vote in favour of this agreement as, ultimately, it will provide these opportunities.
However, I must say one more time that until we have full, unfettered free trade within Canada's borders, we are, as a country, not owning up to the promise of Confederation, and that falls on us. It falls upon the provinces that have not allowed Canada to become not just a political union but an economic one.
This will be my last speech in the 42nd Parliament, and I would like to share a few words on a personal note.
We all share the collective honour of being elected members of this place, and our families all share the sacrifice for the many times that we cannot be there for them. It is my hope that our families, particularly our young ones, understand that in this place our collective desire to build a better country starts and ends with them. I would like thank all families of parliamentarians for their understanding and support.
I would also like to share a word with other members of this place. It is so unfortunate that much of the work we do here is often summarized by many Canadians as what transpires in question period. Much of the most important work that we do collectively happens at committee.
On that note, I would like to sincerely thank the many members I have worked with on various committees. Everyone I have worked with shares the same commitment to help ensure that the federal government provides the best level of governance possible. We may disagree on programs, projects and approaches, but I have found that we share a commitment to making these programs work best for Canadians.
A final point I would like to make should not be lost by any of us. The former Conservative government introduced a program to provide supports for kids directly to their parents. At the time, the Liberal opposition mocked it, ridiculed it, and suggested that parents would simply blow the money they received on beer and popcorn, but when the Liberals formed their majority government in 2015, they did not kill that program. Liberals saw the merits of it and saw that it was working so they made improvements to it, and now it is working even more effectively. I wish to commend them yet again for that.
That is an example of two very different governments coming up with a program and finding ways to improve it to ensure that it helps support Canadian families.
Trade is similar. After all, we are a nation of traders. We need to have these things that make us collectively prosper, that allow us to build stronger ties and relationships and provide the security and the sense of certainty that it takes for someone to start a business or for a country to get behind a new program. These are great examples of the work that we do when we are here on behalf of Canadians.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the time you spend in the chair. I am sure there are many different ways you would rather spend your time than listening to me, but I do appreciate the work you do and I am sure my constituents do as well. I look forward to the challenges in the upcoming months and in the questions and comments I will hear from my fellow colleagues.
Collapse
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 20:45 [p.29435]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again to speak to the new NAFTA. I appreciate the Liberal Party giving me some time to speak about this.
When I left off, I was talking about investor-state dispute settlement and my appreciation that this part of NAFTA was removed. I know it will take three years for it to be completely removed and that some corporations will still be able to use that provision against Canadian laws and policies that get in the way of their profits.
I think it is time to get rid of investor-state provisions in all our trade agreements. It is undemocratic, and it undermines our sovereignty. As we have seen in many cases, such as in Bilcon v. Canada, three arbitration lawyers, whose only interest is keeping the system going, sit in a room and make decisions on our environmental assessment process.
In Bilcon v. Canada, there was a proposed quarry at Digby Neck. The community came out and experts came out and talked about the problems with the quarry. It was an area where the endangered North Atlantic right whales had their calving grounds. There was tourism for whale watching. There was lobster fishing. The community did not want the quarry. When the environmental assessment review panel ruled against Bilcon, after years of environmental assessments, Bilcon was able to take the dispute to a NAFTA panel. Bilcon wanted $470 million. It walked away with $7 million. That is outrageous. Using these kinds of processes to challenge our laws and policies is antithetical to democracy.
Investor-state provisions are being used in developing countries to force through extraction projects or to make developing countries pay through the nose.
A good example of this is Crystallex, a Canadian mining development company. It challenged Venezuela using investor-state provisions after Venezuela decided, on behalf of its indigenous population, that the Crystallex mine would not be in the interest of the indigenous population. It was a threat to the environment. Tenor Capital paid for the arbitration lawyers and invested $30 million. Crystallex ended up getting $1.2 billion in a settlement in this investor-state dispute, and Tenor Capital walked away with a 1,000% return, or $300 million. It is obscene.
I could give members example after example of these kinds of situations. I am glad this is out of NAFTA.
I am also glad to see that the proportionality clause is gone. Under this clause, we had to continue to export the same amount of energy to the United States, on average, as we had in the previous three years.
However, as I was saying earlier, there are a few things that disappoint me about the new NAFTA.
First is the extension of biological patents for pharmaceutical drugs. This is important for products like insulin and for people who have Crohn's disease. People are already struggling with the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. We need drug costs to come down. We must have a national pharmacare program rather than more money for big pharma.
Second is article 22, the carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion. It looks to me as though it will continue to be a state-owned corporation, which is concerning.
Third is having bovine growth hormone in the American milk and dairy products we will import.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
Collapse
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2019-06-19 21:19 [p.29440]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is about article 22 and annex IV, which gives a carve-out to the Trans Mountain expansion project.
When we are dealing with climate change, do we not think that perhaps it would be a good idea for other state-owned enterprises to be available to us in dealing with a climate emergency?
Also, I would like to know about this carve-out for the Trans Mountain expansion project. What is the plan? We have seen that it is not really economically feasible. I have read reports by Robyn Allan and others who say that this pipeline is not economically feasible.
What is the plan if the government cannot sell it to the private sector within the 10-year period, as outlined in article 22?
Collapse
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2019-06-19 21:20 [p.29440]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising a very good concern.
Of course, as with any other trade agreement, it is important to make sure that we are focused on the details as negotiations go on. The member will recall, for example, that when the original NAFTA was negotiated, Canadian negotiators made sure that there were all sorts of reservations for various things. In that particular instance, the big issue Canadians expected us to stand up for and preserve was culture.
In this particular case, it was quite obvious to our American friends and to the Mexicans that the environment is something we take very seriously as a country. However, as with all negotiations, there were some carve-outs, which is something that epitomizes the process of negotiations.
Collapse
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2019-06-18 10:27 [p.29267]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is titled “Let's Save Our Coast...Again”. The petitioners are calling on the government not to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline as it will increase the risk of bitumen oil spills, endangering Canada's environment and wildlife and putting thousands of marine and tourism jobs at risk, and as it disregards the right of indigenous peoples to say no to projects affecting their territories and resources. The petitioners state that the Trans Mountain pipeline will increase greenhouse gas emissions and make it impossible for Canada to meet its global climate targets.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 30 of 2137 | Page: 1 of 72

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data