House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2025, with 39% of the vote.
Fisheries and Oceans January 31st, 2020
Madam Speaker, in northwest B.C. and across our province, wild salmon are the lifeblood of many communities. For generations they returned to our rivers in huge numbers, but as anyone out on the Skeena River last summer can tell us, wild salmon are in crisis, and the Liberal government is failing to act. We need funding for habitat restoration, for stock monitoring and for climate adaptation, and we need it now.
Will the government step up before it is too late?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act January 29th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's comments raise one question in my mind. I have listened to all of the speakers, and it seems that there is strong support and agreement that this oversight body is needed. However, my colleague mentioned earlier that Justice O'Connor called for this type of oversight in 2010. As a new member to this House, I am a little befuddled as to why it has taken this long to get to the point we are at today.
Could the parliamentary secretary comment on that matter?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act January 29th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, I noted a previous speaker indicated there had been 1,200 complaints related to the CBSA between 2016 and 2018. The parliamentary secretary mentioned 2,500 complaints annually.
I am wondering about past complaints and how those would be handled by the commission once it has expanded and is operational. Would there be a statute of limitations?
Admittedly, I have not scrutinized the legislation. How does the parliamentary secretary see the expanded commission dealing with past complaints? Should those complainants have the ability to have an independent external review of their situation?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the welcome. I believe the question is whether we support a loosening of conditions to ensure the funds flow. As a former mayor, I agree with the premise of his question, which is that local governments and the people who are closest to the community often have the clearest view of priorities and understand how best to deliver infrastructure projects. At the same time—
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his warm welcome. I believe the question is how we can ensure that infrastructure investments in northern and rural Canada are contributing toward our climate goals. I believe there are many opportunities to do that.
In my home community of Smithers, we recently expanded and modernized our airport terminal. The new building is heated and cooled using a geo-exchange system that takes heat from the ground and dramatically reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
There are many projects across our region and across rural Canada that can contribute to that overall goal. The key is accountability and ensuring the reductions add up to our ambitions. It is one thing to talk about ambitions; it is another thing to show the math and ensure that we are meeting the targets we set for ourselves.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, I do not think very many people would agree that we are on track to meet any of our commitments under any international agreement. In fact, we are falling far short of where we need to be in terms of delivering deep and real reductions in climate pollution. We can debate different targets and our progress toward them, but I think most people would agree that we are falling far short and need to do more.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in the House, I hope you will indulge me as I take a moment to thank the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley for placing their trust in me as their representative. I would also like to thank my wife Michelle and my daughters, Ella and Maddie, for their unwavering love and support.
The riding I have the honour to represent is not only the largest in British Columbia; it is arguably one of the country's most spectacular, from the snow-capped peaks of Atlin to the lush forests and fjords of the Great Bear Rainforest. This riding includes three of British Columbia's great wild salmon watersheds: the Nass, the Stikine and the Skeena, for which it is named.
Skeena—Bulkley Valley is also home to tight-knit, resilient, hard-working communities, and to indigenous cultures that have called this place home for thousands of years. It is truly a privilege to speak on behalf of such a special place in the conversation about our country's future.
The Wet'suwet'en people, on whose unceded territory my family has made its home, taught me the word wiggus. It means respect for ourselves, for each other and for the land. I hope that over my time in this place, I will live up to the spirit of wiggus in my words and actions.
Prior to this role, I had the opportunity to serve for eight years as the mayor of the Town of Smithers, which was an honour and a joy. The motion we are now debating concerns infrastructure and my time as mayor helped me appreciate how important infrastructure is to the quality of life Canadians enjoy.
That is why, in general, I support the government's focus on infrastructure investment. When it is done properly, investing in public infrastructure creates jobs, makes life in our communities more enjoyable and helps combat climate change.
However, the motion is calling for an audit of the government's $186-billion infrastructure plan, and it is difficult to argue with a motion that seeks to help Canadians gain greater clarity on what infrastructure funds are being spent on and whether the investments are achieving the government's stated goals.
I must admit, it was alarming to read that budget 2018 only accounted for $21 billion of a total $91 billion in infrastructure funding, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer found it difficult to fully account for the delivery of promised infrastructure funding.
I and many Canadians are left wondering where the $70 billion is that was unaccounted for. This is a government that promised transparency, yet we read that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had difficulty accessing the documents needed to evaluate spending plans. I am hopeful the work described in the motion will help Canadians understand if their government is indeed living up to the stated goals of its infrastructure spending program.
One of those goals is supporting a low-carbon green economy, an imperative my colleagues and I certainly support. However, the term “green” has become a bit of a catch-all that can refer to such a wide range of initiatives as to make it nearly meaningless. When it comes to the climate crisis, Canadians deserve more than window dressing. They deserve measurable actions that add up to deep reductions in climate pollution.
Does the government's infrastructure spending add up to these deep reductions? Is the government investing in, on one hand, projects that reduce pollution, and on the other, projects that increase it? Is the government maximizing pollution reductions by requiring carbon-sequestering materials like wood in projects, or materials such as lower-carbon concrete? We heard my hon. colleague speak to that earlier today. Is the government's spending on transit delivering projects that will most effectively reduce emissions and help Canadians access jobs and services?
We need assurance that our investments put us on track to meet our international obligations, and I am hopeful that the audit called for in the motion we are debating today will provide such information.
After all, the government has yet to show how it will meet even the Harper government's weak climate targets, which themselves fall far short of what is required to meet our obligations under the Paris accord. This is to say nothing of the government's new ambitions for 2050. Infrastructure projects are long-term investments and Canadians deserve to know we are getting it right the first time. In many ways, we only get one shot at this.
The investing in Canada program includes a funding stream focused on investing in northern and rural communities. As the representative of a riding where the largest municipality has a population of only 13,000 people, I would like to see this audit include an analysis of whether there is an equitable balance between rural and urban infrastructure investments.
Rural places are integral to the fabric of our nation, yet often get overlooked. At the very least, we must ensure rural residents are receiving their fair share of the overall infrastructure spending so they can realize the benefits that larger centres too often take for granted.
I recently met with Carol Leclerc, the mayor of Terrace, who told me about her city's pressing need to upgrade transportation infrastructure and accommodate growth from unprecedented industrial activity.
I know that the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako is desperate to see improvements in high-speed Internet service for rural residents. Prince Rupert, a city of only 12,000 residents, has estimated its infrastructure deficit at over $350 million. Highway 16, the Highway of Tears, runs through our riding and still lacks adequate cellphone coverage along long stretches. On Haida Gwaii, residents want to end their dependence on diesel power and instead move rapidly to renewable energy.
Nearly every community in northwest British Columbia has projects on the books to renew water and sewer lines, water treatment facilities and other core infrastructure.
In my home community of Smithers, a recent asset-management planning exercise found that $30 million in water sewer and storm sewer upgrades will be required in the next decade.
Finally, the Resource Benefits Alliance, a group of 21 local governments in my region, recently commissioned a study on the infrastructure needs of northwest B.C. communities and found that approximately $1.3 billion is needed to replace and renew critical infrastructure in our region alone. This story is the same across Canada. Northern and rural communities deserve an equitable share of infrastructure dollars and the audit we are debating today could shed light on whether they are getting just that.
We in the NDP strongly believe in public infrastructure and that it should remain truly public. Canadians need the federal government to invest in infrastructure that will make a real difference in their communities, not add money to the bank accounts of investment companies. The priority of corporations is not to simply provide infrastructure but to profit from it, yet for some reason the government keeps looking to put private investors and multinationals in control.
It is troubling to read, in the Canada Infrastructure Bank's five-year plan, that the bank aims to:
Develop mechanisms to engage private sector partners earlier in the project planning and design process to facilitate more commercially focused infrastructure decisions which can better support user-pay funding models....
The CIB's touting of its $20-million pilot project in Mapleton, Ontario, where the bank is investing in the private delivery of public drinking water, shows its desire to expand privatization of basic public infrastructure. The fact is municipalities and the rest of the public sector are well equipped to deliver high-quality, cost-effective and safe public services. Federal investments should empower this role, not hand the keys over to private companies that will, undoubtedly, hike user fees and cut services.
In closing, I will be voting in favour of the motion and, should it pass, I look forward to learning the answers to the questions I have posed here today.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply December 12th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her passionate speech and note that there are many parts I related to, especially the sense of place that she was able to convey. She spoke of a cultural emergency and it made me think of a situation facing the part of the world I represent where indigenous languages are in danger.
I wonder if the member could comment on the parallels that she sees. We have a commitment from the government to invest in indigenous language revitalization, but my feeling is that it is not nearly enough.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply December 12th, 2019
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend, the hon. MP for Milton, on his election.
In response to the Speech from the Throne, my question deals with the situation facing west coast wild salmon.
The riding I represent, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, is named after the Skeena River, which is one of British Columbia's great wild salmon systems. Many people in the House will be familiar with the story of my colourful predecessor, Jim Fulton, who at one point took a wild fish, brought it across the aisle and slapped it on the prime minister's desk.
Skeena wild salmon are in crisis. A recent study showed that salmon numbers have dropped by three-quarters over the last century, yet in the throne speech there was not a single mention of the situation facing British Columbia's wild salmon.
My question is this: Does the member not agree that this was an egregious omission?
Forestry Industry December 9th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, in my riding and across B.C., the forestry industry supports over 140,000 jobs. However, this year, sawmill shutdowns have created uncertainty for many families. Now thousands more workers will be without work over Christmas, and the federal government is missing in action.
At the very least, will the minister commit to come to B.C. and meet with local leaders? Will he work with us to ensure greater flexibility in the EI system so we can bring support and certainty to B.C. families?