OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 083 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 8, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 8, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 083 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 083 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 083 (Version officielle) 147 083 08 05 2014 2014/05/08 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the following documents: [ English ] Final Agreement Annual Report of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating Committee, 2009-10; the Annual Report of the Implementation Committee on the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, 2009-10; and Annual Report of the Tlicho Implementation Committee, 2009-10.

Canada Account Annual Report Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade , I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canada Account Annual Report, 2012-13, prepared by Export Canada.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 42 petitions. Mr. Speaker, I move: Motion That the House do now proceed to orders of the day. The Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Speaker: Call in the members.

(1045) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 120) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Armstrong Ashfield Baird Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Gosal Gourde Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Strahl Sweet Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Brahmi Brison Byrne Caron Casey Chicoine Choquette Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Freeman Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gravelle Groguhé Hassainia Hughes Jacob Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Thibeault Toone Turmel Valeriote -- 96 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising on a point of order. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have submitted a letter to you, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2), in order to make an emergency debate request on the increasingly disturbing situation in Nigeria. As members know, in the last couple of days we have heard reports from Nigeria about the missing girls. I did want to bring this forward to you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, because of the motions we have had, both today and yesterday, I have not been able to provide that motion to you.

I am asking for unanimous consent from the House to put my request forward to you, Mr. Speaker, to have an emergency debate on Nigeria. Therefore my request would be that this House do revert to the rubric of requests for emergency debates. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate The Situation in Nigeria S. O. 52 Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, all members of this House, in fact citizens of this country, have been seized with the disturbing reports coming out of Nigeria, where over 270 girls have been abducted. In fact, just two days ago, eight more girls were abducted by the terrorist group in Nigeria. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, and I have submitted a letter to you asking that we have an emergency debate as soon as possible. I will end with this.

Since we have come to know of the situation a couple of weeks ago, the world has been seized with the issue. We need to have an emergency debate on what Canada can do. We have heard from the government that there are some initial steps that have been taken. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to acknowledge that this House should be seized with this issue, and to have an emergency debate as soon as possible. If we can do this, we can have a debate that will please the Canadian population as to what they are looking for from their Parliament; that is, to be seized with this issue. It is an emergency.

It is something that people want to see members of Parliament speak to. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the request I have put to you be agreed upon as soon as possible.

Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for raising this issue. As a father of two young girls myself, I can certainly understand the impact this would have on concerned Canadians and members of the House. I am inclined to grant the emergency debate. However, given the changes to the House calendar that the House has just adopted, I think it would perhaps serve the House better and allow for better participation if I exercise my discretion under the Standing Orders and direct that the debate be held Monday evening so that there can be better participation of members at that time.

Therefore, I will direct that the emergency debate be granted and be held Monday evening.

Government Orders Government Orders (1050) [ English ] Fair Elections Act Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Motion moved: That, in relation to Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period and I will ask members who wish to participate to keep their questions to around a minute and responses to a similar length so that we can accommodate as many members as possible. The hon. opposition House leader. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely disgusting. This is the 63rd time they have used time allocation or closure to shut down debate. As we know, the government cannot seem to come up with bills that hold water.

In the past six weeks, the Supreme Court has rejected four government bills. I think that we are heading the same way with Bill C-23 . I think the people will reject it, and so will the judicial system. [ English ] We are talking about 130 amendments that have been tabled to this bad bill, 130 amendments that were supposed to be considered by Parliament, and we got notice of time allocation after 10 minutes of debate for 130 amendments. Mr.

Speaker, as you know, the result of this closure, this steamroller that the government is putting in, because it realizes now just what the reaction has been from the public across the country, is that 290 members of Parliament will not be permitted to speak on the bill. For those who choose to vote for this motion, Conservative MPs are muzzling themselves. They are muzzling 290 ridings across this country. My question is very simple. What kind of disdain comes from a government that invokes closure after 10 minutes of debate and why is the government muzzling 290 members of Parliament on this bill? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there has been more than enough debate in this House of Commons on the fair elections act. It has been subject to dozens if not hundreds of questions posed on the floor of the House of Commons. We have had dozens of witnesses and detailed testimony. The committee sat extra hours in order to consider the matter before it. It voted on dozens of amendments to the bill. Here we are with a bill that started off very strong in common sense. It was widely supported by the Canadian public and improved by some amendments.

The bill received roughly 87% support for its key measures, in particular the requirement that people provide ID when they vote. The opposition lost that debate entirely. Through the amendments we have further ensured that these bolstered ID requirements will not only protect the integrity of the vote but maintain its accessibility to all Canadians. I would conclude my answer to this question by quoting the CEO of Elections Canada. These are his words.

He stated: As I conclude, it is my hope that any amendments to the legislation will be adopted by spring 2014, in order for my Office to implement changes and secure additional resources in time for...October 2015.... In the past, the position of the CEO has been that this bill needed to be adopted by the spring of this year. That is the timeframe that we have established with today's action.

(1055) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is shameful for the government to use time allocation well over 60 times now. What is most offensive is that it is doing it on the Elections Act. Traditionally, government would have sought a consensus when making changes to the Elections Act. Let there be no doubt that my question is not for the minister responsible for democratic reform, because he has been a failure on this issue. Rather, my question is specifically for the government House leader.

This bill is nothing more than a Conservative bill when in fact the government had a responsibility to work with the different stakeholders, in particular, the Chief Electoral Officer. There is no possible Conservative spin that the government could possibly put on this to try to give the impression that our election law would be healthier today than it was yesterday based on this legislation. Without the ability to compel witnesses, what we saw in 2011 is not going to improve. I do not care what the minister responsible for democratic reform tells Canadians, which are mistruths or untruths.

At the end of the day, this legislation will weaken. The question I have for the government House leader is this. Why invoke time allocation on a fundamental bill that affects our basic democracy in Canada? I pose that question for the government House leader. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the member claims that there is an unbroken precedent that all amendments to the Canada Elections Act must be passed unanimously by the House of Commons. The Liberal government passed two major reforms to the Canada Elections Act under the previous regime.

It did not have a consensus in the House of Commons in either case. It was met with total opposition from the parties on the other side of the aisle. Therefore, for the member to suggest that the Liberal Party needs to support a bill for it to be passed when Canadians only gave 30 seats to that party runs contrary to Liberal history with respect to amending the Canada Elections Act, and it has nothing to do with democracy. The Canadian people elected 155-plus members of Parliament who are supporting this bill. The Canadian people widely support this bill. It is a very popular piece of legislation.

We won the debate on it and now we will pass it into law. The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. I would remind the House of two things. First, I have allowed the first two questions from the two recognized official parties to be longer and the answers to be longer. Henceforth I will be limiting the questions and answers to one minute. Second, I would remind particularly the members on the government side that priority is given to the opposition parties in terms of questions for this half hour. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has one minute.

(1100) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this “has nothing to do with democracy”, the Canada Elections Act. Did I hear the minister correctly? I would like the minister to listen to what the Prime Minister said: “...using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without consent of the other political parties, is...dangerous...”. He then went on to analogize any government that would do that to third world dictatorships. Something has changed on that side of the House.

The Conservatives got in by virtue of an unfair election system that produces 40% of the vote and leaves them with 54% of the seats. They think that gives them the right to ram through massive butchery of the Canada Elections Act. It is incredibly disingenuous of the minister to now cite the Chief Electoral Officer, who said this needs to get through by the end of this session, because the Chief Electoral Officer at the time, a year ago, had no idea you would be butchering this act. The Deputy Speaker : Order, please.

Again, I would remind the member that he is to direct his comments to the Chair, not to the other side of the chamber. The hon. minister. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the reality is the Chief Electoral Officer himself said that the changes to the act needed to be passed by spring of 2014. Of course, it is not the job of the Chief Electoral Officer to write the law. That is the job of democratically elected officials. That is what we have done. We have put forward good legislation. It has been thoroughly studied and improved through amendments. Let me just share the facts.

Since it has been introduced there were 15 committee meetings to study the bill, amounting to roughly 31 hours of study. We had 72 witnesses offer their points of view. In addition to all of that, we have probably had about a hundred questions on the floor of the House of Commons. I have answered every single one of them through facts. The aftermath of those exchanges is that Canadians, through all the public opinion research that has been published, overwhelmingly support the fair elections act. We have won this debate and now we are moving forward with a law that Canadians want. Mr.

Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a hundred times, probably close to a thousand if we include committees and other procedural motions that have been put forward by the government, that there has been closure in the House of Commons. In terms of sports critic, we have a huge event that is potentially coming up on Monday. Monday is game 6 of the Canadiens-Boston series. It is a unifying event that is possibly going to happen, where all Canadians are going to be watching. They are the only Canadian hockey team left in the playoffs.

Why is the government choosing Monday to sit down and vote for two hours when we can all rally around the Montreal Canadiens? Does the government has something to hide? Are the Conservatives hiding? What do they have to hide? They could put this off for another week. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, did he actually just ask that question? I am sorry, but my friend across the way would rather be watching a sporting event than doing his job here in the House of Commons.

It is a very important sporting event and I will make the commitment to him that I will find him an effective Twitter feed that will keep him regularly updated on the score of the game. I would also be happy to keep him updated on the score of the votes on the floor of the House of Commons. There is a lot of suspense about how it might turn out, but I think in the end the result will be in the Canadians' favour. [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what a letdown. What blatant disregard for democracy.

When I came to Canada, I came because I was looking for a country where I believed democracy to be strong. These debates are one of the strengths of the parliamentary system. They are its strength and its wealth. The minister says that this bill will pass because the people elected the government to pass it. I would like him to tell me how our fellow citizens were consulted on such radical changes to the Elections Act. I would like him to give me a clear answer about how he sought people's opinion. [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr.

Speaker, the fair elections act will keep democracy in the hands of everyday Canadians. One of the ways it would do that is through the common sense change to require people to show their ID when they vote. Overwhelmingly, Canadians believe this is a fair and reasonable request. The opposition believes that individuals should be able to turn up without any identification whatsoever and cast their ballot by having someone else vouch for their identity. Our bill, the fair elections act, as amended, would end identity vouching altogether and require every single Canadian to show their ID prior to voting.

It is a disagreement we have with the opposition. We have had this debate, and the Canadian people have pronounced the verdict. Eighty-seven per cent of them believe that an ID requirement is fair and reasonable and that is exactly what the bill will require.

(1105) Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, we see closure in the House of Commons. We are at report stage. We are reporting back many amendments that have been made to the bill. Many of these amendments need some disclosure within the House of Commons. We need to talk about the amendments that have been made. Why is the government taking this tack? The bill was first presented as being a complete bill and has now gone through many amendments, yet is still imperfect, and we are being refused the opportunity to discuss those amendments. Why is the government doing this? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act provides a fair and reasonable update to the Canada Elections Act. For example, it would require that every single Canadian who presents himself or herself to vote to present ID. Overwhelmingly, Canadians accept that this is a fair and reasonable requirement. The opposition disagrees. Those members believe that people should be able to show up with no ID whatsoever and cast their votes just by having someone vouch for who they are. That is not fair, that is not reasonable, and that is why we have rejected that proposal by the NDP and the Liberals.

Canadians had a chance to hear this debate. There has been much witness testimony on it, and 87% of Canadians agree with us on that point. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to this. Obviously, I was one of the members in an almost unanimous vote to make sure that the Chief Electoral Officer had the powers at his disposal to deal with any questions or issues with respect to illegal robocalls or someone impersonating an elections official.

I think that is something all of us felt very strongly about and voted in favour of. The minister has mentioned that there are time and administrative pressures that are going to be upon the Chief Electoral Officer if these powers are not bestowed upon him. It is a part of the bill that I think we all agree absolutely needs to go forward. Could he explain the reason the bill needs to go forward in all due haste to give the Chief Electoral Officer those powers and the ability to tackle the administrative challenges for the next election? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr.

Speaker, I think the fair elections act does a lot to improve compliance with election law. For example, it would make the Commissioner of Canada Elections independent, so he would be able to direct his own investigations, hire his own staff, and make his own decisions. He would also have a fixed term, which means that he cannot be fired without cause over his seven-year period in office. That is the kind of independence we need to ensure good, solid enforcement of the act. It is a very big improvement over the status quo, whereby the commissioner is under the control of the CEO of Elections Canada.

The CEO can fire him at any time and hires him in the first place. He has the legal authority to pick his staff, set his budget, and direct the investigations, direct the inquiries. We are changing that. No longer would the CEO have any involvement in that area, which properly belongs to the enforcement side. That independence is new, strong, and absolute. We think that will improve compliance under the act, and we look forward to a new era of this improved enforcement and compliance with the law.

(1110) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto brought up a good point in committee. He said that about 87% of people agree with the identification process. One question that was not asked was whether they considered vouching to be a part of that identification. The question was therefore really incomplete when the minister came to the conclusion he did. The minister talked about independence. Without the powers, it is not an exercise in independence.

It will prove over time to be an exercise in isolation from an effective job without the powers being given to him. Again, to use the analogy, it is the referee wearing the referee jersey but not having a whistle, or one that is effective. I want to quote from an Australian newspaper. Dennis Shanahan, a popular columnist in Australia, had this to say: Canada’s Conservative government, embroiled in a furor after disenfranchising 120,000 voters by changing identification standards, has demonstrated the way not to go about important electoral reform.

Australia’s changes should be driven by parliament’s multi-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. What a novel idea. We are setting a bad example. When the changes were made about the modicum of vouching the minister brought back in, who inspired him to make those small changes? Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for not only his question but for his very thoughtful contribution to the debate throughout the process. What we have proposed with the amended fair elections act is the following. We have eliminated identity vouching.

That is the process whereby people show up with no ID whatsoever and cannot demonstrate who they are, so someone else vouches for their identity. That would no longer be permitted under the Canada Elections Act. Every single person would be required to provide ID. If that ID did not have an address on it, for example, if a person lived in an area where there was only a P.O. box on the driver's licence, someone else could co-sign an oath with the person as to the person's place of residence. A person would still have to prove his or her identity, but residence could be proven through a co-signed oath.

There would be a $50,000 fine for lying on that oath, and potential jail time could accompany that fine. For the first time, Elections Canada would be required by law to compile a list of all the oath-takers in order to check for duplicates to find out if people voted or signed oaths more than once, which would be an offence under the act. Finally, there would also be a legal requirement for an auditor to examine Elections Canada's management of this oath-taking process to make sure that all of these rules were followed.

In other words, people would have to show their ID, and if an oath had to be signed to prove residence, we would follow up to make sure that the person did not vote more than once. That is a massive improvement over the status quo. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is utterly absurd. An MP asked for a day off so he could watch hockey, even though he can watch it later, and a minister is limiting the speaking time that we are entitled to in our democracy. They are certainly breaking records when it comes to time allocation.

We are here to say what we think about bills and to ensure progress in our society. We have the right to express our opinions on these issues. Can the minister tell us what is happening to democracy? Like a broken record, he keeps giving us the same answers. He does not answer our questions truthfully or candidly. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that I am repeating my answers. I do not change them because the truth does not change. I keep repeating the truth. The debate is on the issue of identification.

Under the fair elections act , we will require people to show some ID in order to vote. The NDP believes that people should be able to vote without showing any ID. None whatsoever. They think that people could simply vote by getting someone to vouch for them. That does not make sense, and Canadians agree with us on that. Vouching will no longer be an option. People will have to show ID in order to vote, and Canadians overwhelmingly agree that this makes sense.

(1115) Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have no questions for the minister because I do not believe him. I think his answers are illogical and short on the truth. I do not have a question, but I have two comments. First, I think it is a shame that the government is once again limiting the number of speakers from each party to 10% or 15%— The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla . [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of unparliamentary language here today, such as accusing other members of being untruthful.

That is the same as accusing the hon. member of lying. No one gets into public service and stands in his or her spot here to try to distort anything. If the members have questions, they should supplant them and not try to smear a minister or any member of this House. I would ask you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker, because I have heard a number of things— The Deputy Speaker : Without any hesitation, the use of the terms “untruthful” or “lacking in truth”, that type of terminology has been accepted in this House. For as long as I have been here, it is acceptable parliamentary language.

I would have to rule against the objection. [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that only 10% or 15% of members will have the opportunity to speak to such an important bill, including a whole host of amendments that have been made. What is more, a hundred or more other amendments will have to be considered. We will have just one day to do all that. This behaviour is totally unacceptable.

As for my second comment, those of us on this side of the House who are against the bill have a duty to remind Canadians of what the government has imposed with its majority between now and the next election. Indeed, what this government is doing is undermining our democratic process. Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member did not read the bill, so he does not know what he is talking about. He did not talk about any of the bill's content. If I were him, I think I too would avoid mentioning the content, because he is voting against common sense measures.

I have no doubt that his constituents agree that Canadians need to show ID to vote. Canadians agree that an independent investigator is needed, and the bill will make that happen. Canadians completely agree that we need to eliminate the process his party used to circumvent the donation limits by claiming that hundreds of millions of dollars in donations were major loans. Canadians agree with this bill. Every poll shows it. We won the debate on this issue, and that is why the member neglected to mention the content of the bill. Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I have many questions I would like to ask the minister because this bill is so problematic and contains so many elements that will undermine our democracy. A little earlier on, the minister mentioned the number of hours we had to examine this bill in committee. The reality is that all of the witnesses who came to talk about Bill C-23 pointed out the various problems with it and spoke about how it would be a real problem for our Canada Elections Act. In their opinion, there are many provisions that will not have the intended effect.

I think it is terrible that the minister is quoting the Chief Electoral Officer to justify the fact that he is now limiting the debate, because the Chief Electoral Officer himself came to committee to talk about just how many problems this bill will cause if it is passed. As a result, I would like the minister to explain how he plans to continue introducing this type of bill when Bill C-23 does not even make any improvements to the Canada Elections Act. None of the requests made by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer regarding this bill were granted, and I do not understand why.

(1120) Hon. Pierre Poilievre : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is complaining that we did not give unelected people the power to draft the bill, but we live in a democracy. Elected officials make the laws. That is why we have put forward a bill that Canadians support. The fundamental principles of the bill are overwhelmingly supported by Canadians. Those principles are as follows: voters must show identification in order to vote; investigators should be independent; and Elections Canada advertising should focus solely on where, how and when to vote. Those are common sense principles and Canadians agree.

In a democracy, elected officials make the laws. I am proud to live here, in this democracy, and to help pass a bill that will make it even better. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Order. Iit is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1205) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 121) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Armstrong Ashfield Baird Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Strahl Sweet Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Brahmi Brison Caron Casey Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Freeland Freeman Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hassainia Hsu Hughes Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nunez-Melo Pacetti Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Toone Tremblay Turmel Valeriote -- 102 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act Bill C-3. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , as reported without amendment from the committee. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) moved that Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be concurred in. Motion for concurrence

The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Lisa Raitt Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. This project focuses on five key initiatives: amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Marine Liability Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, and the Aeronautics Act.

Today, I would like to speak specifically to the proposed changes to the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. First, turning to the Marine Liability Act, the proposed amendments will implement the commitments of the Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea Convention, helping to ensure Canadians are adequately compensated for the damage caused by spills of hazardous and noxious substances from ships. For this reason, I highly encourage the passage of the bill so it can be adopted as quickly as possible.

The proposed amendments to the Marine Liability Act will fill an important gap in the current liability and compensation regime for ships, because they protect Canadians against the financial consequences of hazardous and noxious substances and spills from ships. They will also ensure that shipowners carry the appropriate amount of compulsory insurance for the risks associated with the cargoes they carry. Finally, they will provide Canadians access to an international fund to provide compensation beyond the shipowners limits.

Canada has an extensive history of seeking economic gains from international trade and, in particular, through international shipping which, worldwide, is responsible for the carriage of 90% of the world's goods. With the world's longest coastline bordered by three oceans and a wealth of natural resources, this will surely continue to be the case as Canada looks to move those resources to existing and new markets. Given this, it is important to have in place the appropriate legislation and regulations to minimize the risks associated with marine transportation.

Spills of hazardous and noxious substances from ships can be costly to clean up and this government is taking action to ensure that Canadians are insulated from these costs. Shipping is inherently a global industry and it is critical to the practical functioning of global commerce. With the international nature of this industry, it is important to advance an international framework and contribute to the uniformity of international maritime law.

Canada has had a long-standing tradition of multilateralism with regard to international shipping and Canada's heavy involvement in the advancement of the Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea Convention is indicative of that long-standing tradition. The 2010 Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea Convention would provide roughly $400 million in compensation for a spill of hazardous and noxious substances, which is currently not available.

It would establish strict liability for the shipowner and would introduce compulsory insurance for the liability for the pollution damage caused by a spill of hazardous and noxious substances from a ship. This is a major improvement over the current regime as, currently, shipowners are not required to carry insurance for their liability in relation to a spill of hazardous or noxious substances. Should damages exceed the shipowner's insurance coverage, the convention would provide access to an international fund that would pay compensation for pollution damage caused by such spills.

The international fund, once established, will be paid into by cargo owners. By sharing the responsibility between the two principal parties involved, this convention supports the very important polluter pays principle, one that our government seeks to enshrine in law whenever possible. The convention covers a wide variety of substances, some 6,500 hazardous and noxious substances, that are carried in bulk packages and containers along our coasts and through our ports.

We have a robust maritime governance regime and we have implemented some tough prevention measures, but, even so, in the unlikely event of a spill, these amendments would allow affected individuals to submit claims for compensation. This would include claims for cleanup costs, economic losses, damage to property, and environmental damages. Through these amendments and by joining the convention, businesses that could be directly impacted by a spill would have access to compensation from the polluter. This includes the fishing and tourism sectors that are usually the most affected economically.

It would also see that compensation would be available for environmental restoration.

(1210) These changes would also include loss of life and personal injury claims, ensuring that compensation would go to those who were affected in the worst possible way. People who are hurt, or worse, by an explosion of a hazardous substance on a ship, including oil, would receive proper compensation. This protection would be extended to both the crew on board the ship and any innocent people affected outside the ship. Currently, there is no such compensation available. Victims must pursue shipowners in courts.

When the bill was being discussed in committee, the members heard from many witnesses who strongly supported these amendments. It was well-recognized that this was an important step forward and filled a crucial gap in the current liability and compensation regime. Those stakeholders reminded us that this convention was a significant improvement over what was currently available, which we believe is woefully inadequate. In the case of an incident involving hazardous and noxious substances today, the shipowner is not held strictly liable.

That means victims are required to prove fault or negligence on the part of the shipowner. These amendments would remove that burden and guarantee that compensation would be available. The shipping industry is supportive of the convention because it gives them certainty and the ability to ensure against a known risk. The convention is viewed as the most efficient way to offer coverage for a ship-source chemical spill. Such conventions avoid negative impacts to the ability for ships to trade internationally, as these are mobile assets that trade across the world on a continual basis.

Therefore, the convention pools the risk and the financing of paying compensation to victims among a large number of players. This minimizes the costs of insuring the risk. The access to the international fund allows higher amounts of compensation than what shipowners alone can provide. The international nature of the fund means that all major industries that trade in hazardous and noxious substances are sharing the financial burden of paying for compensation. To attempt to do this nationally would mean that Canadian industries could never offer the same levels of compensation as the international fund could.

Of course that would put Canada at a competitive disadvantage and consumers would end up paying for a system that is ineffective. For those reasons, I highly encourage the passage of this bill, which contains these amendments to the Marine Liability Act. The bill being discussed today is an important component of our government's plan to enhance the safety of shipping in Canadian waters and protect our marine environment. We expect our international trade to increase in the coming years as demand for our national resources grows. With this growth, comes higher volumes of vessel traffic.

For this reason, it is becoming more and more important than ever to ensure that Canada has appropriate measures in place to protect people and the environment from potential oil spills. That is why on March 18 of last year we announced our intention to create a world-class tanker safety system. It is a comprehensive approach. It is made up of several measures which are all designed to prevent spills from happening, ensure that proper response is there if they do occur, and make polluters pay.

These measures also include the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, that are now before the House as part of Bill C-3 . Since last March we have already taken action to protect people and the environment from potential oil spills. To give an example, Transport Canada has increased inspections of foreign tankers in our waters to ensure that they meet internationally accepted standards. Our government has increased flight hours for the national aerial surveillance program. This is a great program.

It is a program that allows us to detect ship-source oil spills in all three of our oceans and the Great Lakes, and significantly contributes to our ability to hold polluters accountable. In February, I had the opportunity to participate in a surveillance flight. I can assure the members of the House that this is a very effective program. In addition, we appointed a tanker safety expert panel last March. It has submitted a report on ways to improve tanker safety south of 60° north latitude. Our government is currently consulting with all parties about these recommendations.

Next fall, the panel will submit a second report. This one about the regime in the Arctic and hazardous and noxious substances.

(1215) These measures and others are an important part of how we plan to ensure that Canadians benefit from a marine environmental regime that is truly world class. The proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 that I am now putting forward for third reading are a key component for our efforts to build a world-class tanker safety system. These amendments were debated by the House during second reading. I am encouraged that members of the House generally recognize that our proposed measures would improve safety in our waters.

They would enhance government oversight of industry, and they would increase our enforcement powers. The amendments have also been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which heard directly from stakeholders, as it did with respect to amendments under the Marine Liability Act. I am pleased that the reaction from industry has been favourable. That shows that stakeholders understand the value of the measures we have proposed. Their support confirms that these changes are practical and they are achievable.

I would like to remind the House briefly to what these amendments relate: providing immunity for agents of response organizations, strengthen the requirements for oil handling facilities, and extend application of administrative monetary penalties. Under the current marine oil spills preparedness and response regime, the polluter is responsible for cleaning up oil spills. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 protects response organizations from civil and criminal liability as they carry out their work on behalf of the polluter.

The first proposed amendment will clearly provide immunity for certain certified Canadian response organizations when they respond to a spill that occurs when an oil handling facility is unloading or loading oil to or from a vessel. This would clarify that they are covered by the act when responding to these particular situations. A further amendment would provide the agents of a certified Canadian response organization with the same level of immunity when responding to an oil spill in Canadian waters.

These agents would be able to proceed with the cleanup and know that would they have the same level of protection as the Canadian response organizations that engaged them. This would expedite their response, which is a significant advantage in a case of an emergency. Since this coverage would also extend immunity to non-Canadian responders, this measure would increase Canada' s access to international resources.

If there should ever be a large-scale oil spill, these additional resources could really complement our own environmental response capacity, and that would help ensure the fastest, most efficient response possible, eliminating possible bureaucratic, jurisdictional hang ups that could further impact lives and the environment. Bill C-3 also puts forward amendments that would strengthen the regime governing oil handling facilities during the loading or unloading of oil to or from a vessel.

Currently, under the Canada Shipping Act, oil handling facilities are required to prepare oil pollution prevention plans as well as oil pollution emergency plans, and they have to keep these plans on site. The plans have to detail who is responsible for taking specific action to prevent oil spills and to respond adequately if they do. The amendments would introduce new requirements for these facilities, and that would help enhance government oversight. To give an example, we are reinforcing the requirements that the operator at the oil handling facility must ensure that its plans are kept up to date.

We would also require that the operators of existing oil handling facility notify me, as Minister of Transport , of their operations. This is simple and it would help ensure that oil handling facilities set out in the regulations would be identified. This requirement would facilitate regulatory oversight and ensure that all of these facilities would meet a sufficiently high safety standard in their operations.

New facilities will also have to submit their plans to me before they begin operations, as would those who were making significant changes that might affect the loading or unloading of oil to or from vessels. Examples of this are changes to capacity, changes in equipment, changes in design or the type of product that they are transferring.

(1220) Under the proposed amendments, operators of oil handling facilities will also have to demonstrate how they comply with the act and the regulations. In addition, the changes give me and any future minister of transport the authority to direct an operator of an oil handling facility to take the necessary measures to adequately prevent marine oil pollution. That is going to include the authority to require an operator to repair, remedy, minimize, or prevent pollution damage from these facilities, or to stop the loading or unloading of oil to or from vessels.

Taken together, these amendments will significantly increase oversight of the operation of oil handling facilities, both existing, and new ones as well. It will help ensure that oil spills are prevented whenever possible, and that appropriate measures are in place if a spill should happen. Lastly, Bill C-3 addresses enforcement of the legislative regime to promote compliance. Enforcement should be adaptable to the seriousness of an offence. Marine safety inspectors in my department will be able to issue administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of

part 8 of the act and its regulations. This ability, in addition to the existing enforcement powers under the act, only strengthens Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. In conclusion, this is a bill that is an important step in our government's comprehensive plan to develop a world-class tanker safety system in Canada, and in particular off the west coast. I look forward to having all members of this House support the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her explanation and her comments on the bill. I was a member of the committee, and we heard from witnesses. I must admit that, as the minister said, there is a lot of support for this bill. Some of the people said it is a step in the right direction. However, the Canadian Maritime Law Association made a suggestion that we, the official opposition, proposed as an amendment. We want to be sure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers will not have to foot the bill. Yes, there is a system in place.

However, if the damages total more than $500 million, the convention does not apply. The fund created by the convention cannot be used. Then who is responsible? Taxpayers, that is who. The government will do the cleanup and Canadians will be on the hook. Given the importance of the polluter pays principle, as the minister pointed out, why did she not agree to our amendment, which would take the existing oil fund and allow it to be used here? It has already been created. It already exists and we could have used it to ensure that Canadians will not have to pay.

Why did the minister not accept the NDP's proposed amendment? (1225) [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are following along with international convention in ensuring that we are complying to international rules, given the nature of marine transport. The total amount of compensation under the convention that makes shipowners strictly liable for damages like pollution would be approximately $400 million for a single incident. We hope that does not happen. Above and beyond that, we would take this on a case-by-case basis, in terms of how we would effect pollution cleanup.

What this demonstrates is that we clearly do see the gaps that need to be filled. We have looked at it very carefully, and we are moving forward to ensure we are playing on the same level playing field as other countries in the world. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this bill amends a number of existing statutes, and it does touch directly on aviation, marine safety, and so on. I want to ask a question. Because we have walked through the door with respect to aviation issues, I want to ask the minister a question that I think she would rightly expect from the Liberal opposition here today.

It is about the recent survey of aviation inspectors who work for your department at Transport Canada. I want to know whether this bill has any bearing on what we have determined from your own inspectors on aviation. Eighty-five percent of them believe that air travellers have been exposed to higher risks as a result of your government's policies; nine in ten of your own aviation inspectors— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. I would remind the hon. member to direct his comments and questions to the Chair rather than directly to his colleague, and could he get to the question, please. Mr.

David McGuinty : Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and through you, nine in ten aviation inspectors in the minister's own department are now saying that her department's safety management system prevents the correction of safety problems in a timely fashion. Finally, two-thirds of the minister's own inspectors believe that Transport Canada's safety management system will actually increase the chances of a major aviation accident. Can the minister tell us how the bill debated here today is going to address these issues? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member would know, moving to a safety management system platform was a decision taken many years ago. As the Auditor General has noted in his report in November, there have been difficulties at Transport Canada in terms of implementing oversight with respect to auditing as opposed to inspecting. I think the hon. member is quoting from a survey that was conducted by the union, and, in that, the determination came forward that there was a discomfort with SMS. However, the reality is that safety management systems, or SMS, are internationally recognized as being the way forward.

The chair of the Transportation Safety Board here in Canada has indicated that it is the right thing to do. It is what industry says is the right thing to do. It is what ICAO has said is the right way forward, in terms of ensuring that a safety culture is embedded. As a result, we can point to a decrease in aviation accidents in the past number of years of approximately 25%.

However, on the member's point, I think it is important for Transport Canada officials to take a look at the result of the survey and apply whatever skills we can to ensure that people are trained appropriately and that they have a culture in which they like to work. I know my officials take the matter very seriously in the management of their department day by day. However, the concept of SMS is sound, and it will be implemented because it is the right way to go for our country.

(1230) Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be in Victoria, and I launched a great project that was funded with support from my department, Western Economic Diversification. It is around ocean monitoring and has a series of sensors, expertise, and a hub for collecting data related to baseline measurements up and along the B.C. coast.

Certainly I know that our government has invested heavily, not only in the infrastructure but also the research expertise and capacity, to help inform us and put together sound public policy around regulation in the area that my colleague is speaking to today. I wonder if the minister can provide the House with some additional details on the level of work related to science and technology that our government has funded, and how it is has informed the policy that she has put forward to the House for debate. Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr.

Speaker, indeed innovation, such as the minister has indicated, is really important to ensure that we are at the cutting edge in terms of prevention, response, and, at the end of the day, liability. On the prevention and response side, these types of sensors that the member referred to will allow us to understand what is happening in the ocean. They will provide real-time information to vessels about dangers to them, to ensure we are preventing an accident from happening. It is an incredibly smart project, and I am very grateful that the minister is funding it through her department.

It shows that we have a whole-of-government approach when it comes to ensuring that our marine environment will continue to be safe, so that we can responsibly develop our resources here in Canada. The only other item that I think is unique to us in Canada, and of which I am very proud, is the national aerial surveillance program. That flies out of Vancouver, the north, and the east coast. It is something unique to our country. They do not have this capability or this instrumentation in the United States. From 10,000 feet, it can see a spill of as little as one litre of oil on the water.

These are very important things that we can do to ensure we respond as quickly as possible to a spill and make sure we contain the damage, and of course the liability, as best we can. I am very pleased that we have expanded the coverage. We are providing more hours in the air and more coverage across the country in the national aerial surveillance program. Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the minister. Before the bill was brought forward at second reading, the NDP made a request to have the scope of the bill broadened so that we could look at ways to make sure the environment is protected.

For instance, we look at how the government has been acting with closing Coast Guard stations and cutting a lot of environmental protection measures. Why did the Conservatives not agree with the NDP proposal to broaden the scope of the bill to better protect the environment? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, when we brought the bill for reintroduction, in October of last year, it was a bill that contained a number of items, as I have already outlined. However, these are all items that are practical, pragmatic, and have the ability to make a change now.

One of the examples I gave was that we are ensuring that aids to navigation, which are buoys, lights, and other devices to mark locations and preferred shipping routes, are installed and maintained. It is these kinds of practical, action-oriented devices that we want to accomplish, to make sure we are not studying, not waiting, nor contemplating; we are moving forward. We are getting action, and we are going to protect the environment in the short term, and not thinking about it in the long term. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3 . Before I start, I would like to commend my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the extraordinary work he has done on this bill. It is important to take a look at what this bill does. It has a rather

long title:

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . This bill involves a number of different acts. Since the bill already involved a number of other laws, we requested that it be expanded and be a little more open, so that we could take a good look at what is going on with environmental protection.

The Conservative government has made cuts that affect the environment, particularly in western Canada, in British Columbia, but also in the east, where the government has closed rescue stations. The government's actions contradict its claims that it wants to protect the environment. We lobbied, we wanted to talk and we wanted to see meaningful action. Unfortunately the government refused to listen to us. Yes, this bill is a step in the right direction, especially in terms of marine protection and safety. That is why we will support the bill at this stage.

However, the committee heard testimony from a number of experts. We made very reasonable suggestions to improve the bill. Unfortunately, once again, the government refused any amendment from the opposition. Unfortunately, this bill is yet more proof that the government does not have an open approach. Not only did it refuse to expand the scope of the bill, but it also refused to listen when we scrutinized the bill and made suggestions based on expert studies. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened. The bill has four rather major parts dealing with separate issues.

The first part deals with the aviation industry indemnity. This allows the Minister of Transport to compensate certain airlines for any losses, damages or liability caused by events known as war risks. We support what has been proposed on this issue. It is a solution to a problem that was there before. The second part amends the Aeronautics Act to give the airworthiness investigative authority the power to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by the Department of National Defence.

In the event of military-civilian occurrences, this part gives the airworthiness investigative authority the power to conduct investigations. However, we have noticed a problem. In the past, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada used to carry out the studies and investigations. At the end of the day, since the board was responsible, the report was made public. In this case, the report will be submitted to the Minister of National Defence. The minister will be able to see the report, but he will not be required to make it public.

The NDP proposed to force the government to make the report public so that anyone who has questions can be informed and the public is reassured. Once again, unfortunately, the government rejected our amendment. However—and this is not in defence of the government—we heard that it is in the interest of the Department of National Defence to make these reports public.

(1235) They are telling us that the reports will be made public on an administrative level. If the information is confidential—for example, if the reports are talking about strategic or other types of military issues—we can understand why they would not be made public. However, nothing prevents the government from making these reports public. Even the officials from the Department of National Defence who testified in committee said that all existing reports on these types of investigations are made public. Why did the government not take the NDP's proposal to make these investigations public?

Our proposal took into account that the reports would not have to be made public if they contained confidential information or strategic national security information, and the government already has that right. This government already does it. Most of the time, when the public wants to see a report or investigation, only a part of the report will be disclosed—not the full report. This is in the interests of transparency, which is very important to the NDP. Unfortunately the government did not accept our proposal. I would now like to talk more about

part 4, which we think is one of the most important parts. As the minister mentioned, this part will fix a problem that existed before with respect to compensation for victims or others who have to pay in the event of disaster. Here is what is going on. Canada was a signatory to the convention. (1240) [ English ] Canada was a signatory to the HNS Convention, and what we are doing here is actually implementing the convention. The reason for the convention and the reason we are supporting

part 4 is that we are moving forward. We need to have these rules, these regulations, to make sure that the convention is applied. We want the convention to be applied here because it would actually allow us to access a fund. It is an international fund for HNS, hazardous and noxious substances. In case of a spill, we would be able to use money from that fund. Also, the bill would actually limit the responsibility of the shippers. Just to make it simple, if a spill happens with HNS, the shipper will be responsible up to a certain amount, which is approximately $230 million. That amount changes.

I will not go into detail about why, but that is the amount. The information we have from the Library of Parliament is that the other amount will be covered by the convention. The fund will cover up to $500 million. In excess of that, what happens? That is the question we were asking. What happens if there is a spill that exceeds $500 million in terms of liability, in terms of damages? Basically, the answer from witnesses, and also now from the minister, is that it might not happen. What if it happens? Before all the oil spills, we were saying that it was not going to be a problem. Everything was safe.

However, when we saw what happened with the Exxon Valdez , for instance, and when we saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic, where in terms of insurance, the company did not have enough insurance, who ended up paying for it? It was the taxpayers. What is worse, the people who have to do the cleanup are going to be on the hook for that. A fund already exists. Duties were taken for oil, so the fund exists already. We wanted to make sure that at the end of the day, it will not be the taxpayers who have to pay. We could use that fund to make sure that we protect Canadians.

Unfortunately, again, the government refused our amendment. It is really hard for me to understand why we do not want to make sure that Canadians are off the hook, especially when the government has said that polluter pays is really important. In this case, if something happens, again, Canadians could be on the hook. It is an amendment we thought was reasonable and would make sure it was in the right direction. The response from the government was not satisfactory. We do not understand that position. [ Translation ] I would like to come back to the fact that the bill contains some good features, including

part 5, which is an interesting part because it sets out further safeguards. Operators of oil handling facilities will have to meet some additional obligations, such as submitting an emergency or response plan to the department to ensure that they have a plan for their operations. When petroleum is moved from one source to another, be it by boat or by train, there is a transfer here, which is when we want to be covered. In addition, a certain form of liability will provide some freedom to the first responders on site in emergency or problem situations.

In other words, response organizations will be entitled to some immunity, which is important. Indeed, in committee, the first responders told us that this was important to them too, which is why we are supporting it. However, we can do more and look at the government's way of doing things. I will make a parallel with what is happening in rail safety. There are regulations in this sector that the government says are strong. However, in practice, what we have is deregulation. Companies are increasingly being allowed to self-regulate and self-inspect.

The Auditor General clearly stated that Transport Canada did not have the resources needed for the inspections, which is what concerns me in this case. Indeed, we are taking a step in the right direction with the legislation by providing for inspections and an obligation to submit response plans. However, if we look at the budget and how the government is doing things, there has been no follow-up at all on that. For example, there was no increase in the last budget to ensure protection in rail safety. Once again, inspectors are being given more duties without necessarily being given the resources they need.

The Auditor General was scathing in his report. The department said that it would follow-up. We are waiting to see this follow-up to determine whether the government is committed to protecting Canadians first and foremost. Although this is a step in the right direction, the government's actions suggest otherwise. When a response plan is produced, what co-operation will there be? What information will we have as interested parties to find out whether the government is doing its job?

It is easy to draw a parallel between this issue and rail safety because we started studying that issue in committee after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which concerns the same department, the Department of Transport. That is why we are trying to identify the real shortcomings. We have to admit that Lac-Mégantic opened our eyes. We saw that there were shortcomings not just in the measures implemented by the government, but also in how laws are managed and implemented. Now, on the one hand, we are headed in somewhat the same direction by enforcing the laws and asking companies to submit a plan to us.

On the other hand, we do not have the resources to ensure that these plans are safe. Once again, I am drawing a parallel with emergency response plans. After the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada asked that these plans be put in place. However, we do not know if these plans will be put in place correctly because Transport Canada does not have the resources to check everything. We believe that is a problem. Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency in the government's approach.

If I am drawing so many parallels with rail safety, it is because we have clearly discovered shortcomings.

(1245) In this case, the same type of system is being put in place. That is where the problem lies. The government is presenting a plan. However, neither the public nor parliamentarians can obtain all the information. We asked the government to ensure that municipalities, for example, have all the necessary information about dangerous goods transported by rail through their area. We were told that it would be a step in the right direction to ask companies to submit the list of dangerous goods, albeit after the fact.

In other words, people will be told what has already passed through their area, but will not be told what is soon going to pass through. This would have allowed municipalities to have the information they need to ensure that they have the necessary resources in place. Unfortunately, the minister at the time said that if the municipalities wanted that information they would have to use the Access to Information Act. That is just ridiculous. Once again there is a lack of transparency.

We believe that this approach unfortunately does not show any goodwill on the part of the government or any concern for informing the public and working with the municipalities to ensure that everyone has the information needed to move things forward. That is why I am making a comparison with rail safety. As I explained, that is what the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is now studying. In this case, we had very little time to study the bill. We had a few meetings. Still, we did make requests to flesh out the bill so that we could study other issues.

This bill addresses some problems with liability. Implementing an international convention is a good thing. However, there is nothing about protecting our coasts. Some of my colleagues are very worried about how the government operates and the measures it introduces. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The time for that is now. Unfortunately, the government is refusing to listen to what the opposition has to say and what its concerns are. Several MPs from eastern Canada, and many from western Canada, are very concerned about everything to do with supertankers.

They are very worried about the coastlines. They are very worried about the government's approach, about the lack of transparency and especially about the government's failure to protect our coasts and the environment. This would have been a good opportunity to study this issue. Since this bill already affects four other laws, why did the government not take the time to do something good? The minister replied that it was time to take action, not to do more studies or think long term. We are asking the government to take action to protect the environment.

Taking action does not mean cutting the services, resources and personnel that are meant to protect us. What we are asking the government to do is reverse those cuts because they have serious consequences. If problems come up after those cuts are made, the government will realize that it made a mistake. That is why environmental protection is so vitally important to the NDP. It is terribly unfortunate that the government did not listen to us. That is why we will continue to fight to protect our coasts and the environment.

(1250) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech today. For the benefit of the members in the House and the Canadians who are watching, I would like to present some simple facts and key points. I would like to share them with my colleague and see what he has to say. We know from the 2012-13 public accounts that VIA Rail was cut by 15%, aviation safety was cut by 11%, marine safety was cut by 25%, road safety was cut by 5.5% and rail safety remained relatively constant.

At the same time, we know that the Conservative federal government spends more on economic action plan ads than on rail safety. Could my colleague comment on these cuts and explain the fundamental adverse effects they will have on safety in Canada?

(1255) Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I would especially like to say how pleased I am to work with him on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The government is reducing spending to balance its budget and fulfill its 2015 election promises. However, what the government is not saying and what we are clearly seeing is that there is a direct negative impact on public safety. I know that the Minister of Transport does not like it when we say that people are not as well protected, but those are the facts.

When inspectors are not doing the job, when there are fewer and fewer inspections and companies are increasingly allowed to self-regulate and do their own inspections, at the end of the day, you have what happened in Lac-Mégantic. When the government chooses deregulation and abandons rail safety, that is what happens. That is why we are concerned when all the government does is cut spending. Yes, it will amend the legislation and say there are more reasons to protect people.

However, in reality, we know that inspectors do not have the resources they need to really ensure that the safety of Canadians is a priority. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for an excellent speech. I know that he is doing incredible work as part of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and I thank him for that.

I am certain that many Canadians are appreciative of the fact that he is standing up to the Conservative government, especially on a topic as important as the one before us in the House today. The NDP proposed very reasonable amendments to this bill to ensure that Canadians will not be held responsible for compensation and cleanup costs if there is a spill involving noxious and potentially hazardous substances, for example. We also asked the Conservative government to expand the scope of the bill. Unfortunately, the government rejected all of those requests.

This bill contains some extremely disappointing elements, and it does not go far enough. For example, it does not cover oil spills. I am thinking about my colleagues from British Columbia, which is home to many oil projects. I am also thinking about my colleagues from the east, in the Maritimes, who are seeing the same thing happen there. What does my colleague think about the fact that the Conservatives do not want to broaden the scope of this bill or the fact that they do not want to better protect our environmental resources or the health of Canadians? Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her very good question. It is hard for us to understand why the government will not expand the scope of the bill to ensure that we are protecting our coasts and coming up with tangible measures. I get the impression that the government does not want us to see all the negative things it is doing that go against protecting the environment and the public from these spills. My colleague is absolutely right. Some very reasonable amendments have been proposed to ensure that taxpayers are not on the hook at the end of the day.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected our amendment, in favour of the oil companies. Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General recently presented a report on rail safety. We learned that the self-regulation system has led to some unthinkable situations. My colleague can confirm and make a case for this statement: only 23% of inspections are done. Verifications of these analyses indicate that everything was done incorrectly. Only 23% of the job is being done and it is done poorly. What is more, apparently Transport Canada did not do any follow-up.

When it detected an incident or an irregularity, it contacted the company and did not verify whether corrective action was taken. Nothing is done. My question is simple: after 20 years of using a system that produces such poor results, can we really talk about rail safety?

(1300) Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I was saying, a connection must be made with rail safety when we are talking about environmental protection and all the rest. We are talking about the same department and the same way of doing things. The government has introduced legislation that we support and that, on paper, offers better protection. However, in reality, Transport Canada does not have the resources necessary to follow up and ensure that the safety and protection of Canadians are the top priority, and that is a problem.

We are not the ones saying so; it is the Auditor General. Even if Transport Canada wanted to provide Canadians with greater protection, the Conservative government is cutting those jobs. It is cutting inspector jobs and the department's budget. The legislation says one thing, but in reality, the government is letting companies regulate and manage themselves, which sometimes results in catastrophe. That is why victims are suing Transport Canada. That is too bad, because it is time to take action and find solutions. Unfortunately, when we propose solutions, the government does not listen. [ English ] Mr.

David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, on two or three separate occasions, members of the NDP have unfairly characterized the notion of a safety management system as deregulation. That is not quite the situation. The problem, as we have learned from the Auditor General's important report on rail safety, is not the notion of a safety management system. The problem is the fact that one of the essential partners in the safety management system, Transport Canada under this government, is not doing its job. That is because it is, as Ronald Reagan might say, a question of trusting but verifying, with inspections and audits.

Therefore, I would like to get a better understanding on where the NDP stands on the notion that we can have co-operation between regulated sectors and the regulator, the federal government in this case, and be able to provide a safe environment for rail safety and other forms of transport safety. Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because it gives me the opportunity to highlight how the Conservatives' and Liberals' ways of seeing regulation are similar, and how they are heading toward the right direction.

I have heard time and time again in committee my colleague ask companies, like railway companies, whether they have read the Auditor General's report, or whether they think they should go forward in terms of making it safer. I do not think it is the responsibility of the private companies to self-regulate. The real position, our position in the NDP, which is contrary to the Liberals' and Conservatives' position, is that the government should make sure that the rules are the strictest rules, to make sure that safety is the number one priority.

What we have seen from the Conservatives, and the Liberals, is deregulation, letting the companies self-regulate. What we have seen after that is that the Auditor General says the system, the way it is done, is not working because the inspectors do not have enough resources to actually look at what the companies are doing, so there is a problem, and it came from the Liberals. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful starting point for my speech this afternoon on this bill, Bill C-3 , which is a follow-up to Bill C-57 from the last session of this House.

In truth, this is a bill that should have been dispatched some time ago. It was not, because of the very long prorogation brought in by the Conservative government. It is a technical amendment bill in many respects. It makes a number of good, positive contributions to improving transportation. However, my remarks this afternoon will be couched in a broader context, and I think it is important for us to keep in mind how these changes are but a step forward in a transportation environment that is, in my view, in a very serious and precarious state in Canada today.

It is a conclusion I and our party do not come to lightly. It comes from many dozens of witnesses who have appeared before committee. It comes from the exhaustive and detailed report from the Auditor General on rail safety released late last fall, which can fairly be described a scathing indictment of the Conservative government's performance on rail safety over the past eight years. In some respects, Canadians are not surprised, because this is the fifth minister in eight years. What we have had is a succession of ministers transiting through the transport portfolio.

Whether they are transiting upwards or downwards or out is another question, but what it shows is that those five ministers have not been paying attention to their brief. They have moved through, and Transport Canada's systemic problems remain. When my colleague from the NDP persists with his seatmates to point to the private sector as the bad guys, or the bad gals, what it really demonstrates is the fundamental problem with the NDP, which is that it has a difficult time with the free market and a difficult time with free market operators.

It does not understand that in today's world in the 21st century, companies derive their licence to operate not from any one order of government—not from the federal government or a provincial government or a municipal government—but from the Canadian public. It is a concept that is widely known as the social licence to operate, and woe befall a company that crosses the Canadian public.

However, that said, the notion of a safety management system as put forward by the Auditor General and as put forward by many actors who participate in safety management systems is that it is a partnership, a partnership between the regulated and the regulator. In this case, the regulator is the Government of Canada, through Transport Canada, the department responsible for transportation and transportation safety. It is a partnership. It takes two to tango in a partnership. The thrust of my remarks this afternoon is as follows.

One of the partners is falling well short of its responsibility in making sure the safety management system is working, whether it be in the marine sector, the airline sector, the rail sector, or the road transport sector. That partnership, that point at which the regulated company and the regulator come together, is why we are studying safety management systems at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities today.

(1305) Let us talk a bit about the role and purpose of government. The NDP believes that there should not be this kind of partnership with the private sector. I believe that is a mistake. I believe there are efficiencies, good faith, goodwill, and many other drivers in the private sector that can be harnessed in a partnership to make sure that conduct is appropriate and that things remain safe. On the other hand, the Conservatives believe that the real role and purpose of government in the 21st century is to withdraw government. I believe the Prime Minister is what I would describe as a constitutional purist.

He does not believe the federal government should be involved in many areas where it is involved today, and he is—by stealth, by subterfuge, hidden behind the scenes—removing the federal government from very important areas. That is manifesting itself in this sector. That is why, when we look at the public accounts for 2012-13, this is what we learn. The numbers do not lie. The Minister of Transport will get up and say, for example, that the government has spent $100 million on safety since 2009. It sounds like a big number, except that it spent $600 million on advertising over those same years.

It spent $550 million on outsourced legal fees. Let us set that into context and look at the public accounts. The office of Infrastructure Canada was cut 17%. VIA Rail was cut 15%. Aviation safety was cut 11%. Marine safety, which this bill addresses most specifically, was cut 25%. Road safety was cut 5.5%. Rail safety has a very marginal increase at a time when we are seeing great stress and pressure on our railway system, particularly as it relates to the transportation of dangerous goods like oil and diluted bitumen.

There is pressure from Canada's oil sands and from the Bakken oil shelf in North Dakota and from southern Saskatchewan. Many different sources are now putting lots of pressure on our rail safety system. What would we expect of a government that believes in the role and purpose of government and believes in getting the big things right, such as safety? What would we expect it to do in full knowledge that there is increased pressure on our railway system and our marine system because of increasing traffic? We would expect it to invest more, not less, in safety.

However, we have seen systematic cuts in investments in safety. Crude oil shipped by rail in Canada has increased 32,000% since 2009. The government has known that for eight years. It was given this information when it received its briefing books when it formed the government back in 2006, so we have to ask what has happened since then. The most definitive voice we can rely on, as Canadians would agree, is the Auditor General of Canada. That is the most trustworthy and objective voice we have so far. There will be more to come, I am sure, as more information is made available.

Let us take a look at the Auditor General's incredibly important report, because it has a bearing on this bill and whether or not this bill goes nearly far enough to deal with the crisis in rail safety. Moments ago the minister stood and said, quoting the Auditor General, that the concept of SMS is sound. She is right in quoting the Auditor General. That is what he wrote.

He wrote that the concept of safety management systems is sound, but then he went on to eviscerate, to make plain, to expose to the light of day the absolute failure of the Government of Canada under the Conservatives to make sure its side of the partnership is upheld in the notion of these safety management systems.

(1310) Here are the fundamental conclusions that the Auditor General of Canada has reached. This is undeniable. The government knows it, all members know it, and Canadians know it. First, Transport Canada does not have an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance that federal railways have implemented safety management systems to manage their safety risks and comply with safety requirements. Wow. It does not have an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance. That is conclusion number one. Next is conclusion number two, and it gets more serious as we move forward in the report.

On safety, here is what the Auditor General said explicitly, in words in black and white. In speaking of safety, he said that despite the department's discussions with the industry, it does not have clear timelines. The report says: ...it does not have a formal process to set clear timelines for overseeing significant safety issues from the time they are identified until they are resolved. The report goes on to state: We found that the work plans are vague in terms of timelines for monitoring progress on important safety issues.

Conclusion number three is as follows: ...the Department was missing other important risk and performance data to supplement inspectors’ knowledge gained from previous inspections. Unbelievably, here is the list. This is in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. This is what we learned. We are missing the federal railways' own internal risk assessments. That is a fundamental part of the safety management system of our railway system. We are missing information on the sections of track that are used in transporting dangerous goods.

We are missing information on the condition of railway bridges, which are carrying tens of thousands of cars carrying dangerous goods, and we are missing the financial information of privately owned federal railways. That is not publicly available. Therefore, we cannot even assess the financial status of many of the companies that are being regulated and are participating in the safety management system. There is something else, and it is perhaps the most egregious aspect. It really is shocking. The Auditor General looked at Transport Canada over three years. It took 36 months.

The report said that the department set up a three-year cycle for auditing the safety management systems of each federal railway. There are 31 federal railways, and that cycle is supposed to be completed once every three years for each railway. In three fiscal years, Transport Canada completed 14 audits on eight federal railways—not on 31, but on eight. That is according to Transport Canada's own determination. Inside, it says it needs to perform way more audits than it actually did. How many did it perform? How many did it complete out of the number it said it had to complete? It completed 26%.

Just one-quarter of the audits that Transport Canada itself said had to be performed to keep railways safe were performed. Just to set this in context for Canadians, four million passengers a year ride VIA Rail, and that is a good thing. We want to encourage people to use light transit. We want to work toward reducing our greenhouse gases and make our transportation system more efficient.

(1315) In the three years it was audited by the Auditor General, VIA Rail and its safety management system was not audited once. Four million passengers a year and not one audit was performed by Transport Canada. That is very serious business. The Auditor General goes on to say at the conclusion: These findings indicate that Transport Canada does not have the assurance it needs that federal railways have implemented adequate and effective safety management systems. That is where this is falling down.

It is the responsibility of the Conservative government to invest in the capacity it needs at Transport Canada to do its job, not to work toward fictitious and arbitrary deadlines for the elimination of deficits so the Conservatives can run on it in the 2015 election campaign. As they do this, we see behind the scenes what they are doing to transportation safety. It is undermined. The Auditor General says that even the methodology being used to determine the number of inspections it is supposed to perform is outdated and flawed, and it goes on. This is how serious it is right now.

The Auditor General's office examined whether there were enough inspectors inside the department to perform the inspections they had to perform on aviation, on marine, on road, on rail, on all forms of transportation for which the government is responsible. The Auditor General found, according to Transport Canada, that it needed 20 system auditors to audit each railway once every three years. How many did Transport Canada have on staff over the three-year period audited by the Auditor General? Ten. One half of the actual amount of inspectors and auditors it required to do the audit required is actually on staff.

It gets even more challenging. Not only does it have half of the inspectors it is supposed to have on staff, on top of that Transport Canada is now responsible for overseeing another 39 non-federal railways. That is 31 federal railways and 39 non-federal railways for which it has responsibility. For the 10 inspectors it had on staff during the three-year audit, Transport Canada did not know whether the inspectors actually had the required skills and the competencies to do their jobs. It says that inspectors and managers are not trained in a timely basis.

It cannot even warrant that the inspectors who are there are objective and independent because they come mainly from the federal railways that are regulated. In short, we have a government that does not get it. It does not get the role and purpose of government in the 21st century. It is about cut and withdraw, and what happens? We compromise cherished Canadian public services and values. It is the responsibility of a government to get the big things right. That includes safety in the transportation sector, but we have no evidence, and we have waited for it, that the government will take it seriously.

I hope, beyond all hope, that it does not take another tragedy like the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic to get the government's attention.

(1320) [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He spoke a lot about dangerous cars and rail safety. He also spoke a lot about the Auditor General's report. As a result of an agreement with the Province of British Columbia that dates back 40 years, oil tanker traffic is basically prohibited off the coast of British Columbia. However, this agreement was never put in writing and now risks being abandoned by the Conservatives.

Do the Liberals support the NDP's request to impose a written moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the west coast in order protect the coastline? (1325) [ English ] Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada believes there has to be proper quasi-judicial regulatory bodies in place, properly resourced, to do their jobs. What we have seen under the Conservatives are changes, for example, to the National Energy Board, our national energy regulator responsible for pipeline hearings, interprovincial issues. What has the government done? It has done two things.

It has made the test to appear in front of the National Energy Board much more difficult to meet because it wants to winnow away different voices, suppress them. It describes them as radical voices. Second, the Conservatives have said that it that does not really matter what the National Energy Board decides. It has taken the power for decision-making away from the NEB and given it to cabinet. Therefore, we are seeing the usurping of authority, no more arm's-length between the process to decide what should happen vis-à-vis our west coast, because big daddy government under the Prime Minister knows best.

That is unfortunate. We have a tradition in our country of working with arm's-length organizations that have provided us with decades of very good service. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa South may know that the CN main line passes through my riding of Kingston and the Islands. I remember recently looking at the trains with my young daughter and telling her which cars contained what. I remember telling her that many cars were full of oil. The composition of the trains has certainly changed in the last few years.

Could the Liberal critic for transport tell my constituents in Kingston and the Islands what effect better regulations and better surveillance and auditing of Canada's rail system would mean to the people who live along that rail line? Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his incredible service to Kingston and the Islands. He is a strong advocate not only for his region but for many of these safety issues. It is important for us to remember a couple of things.

Given the expansion of Canada's oil sands and given the expansion of the shale deposits in the Bakken field in North Dakota and southern Saskatchewan, we will see by 2024 one million barrels a day of excess oil that will not be capable of being transported by pipeline. Where is that oil going to go? The railways tell us it is going to go on rail. The oil companies tell us it is going to go on rail. The Conservative government tells us that it is going to go on rail.

The problem is that the government has not stopped long enough to project out where we are going to be, the importance, as my colleague suggests, of bringing regulation and enforcement. We need capacity to enforce, inspect and audit. That would make it much safer. Finally, the government did a deal with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It said that it would inform the federation 90 days after the fact that a dangerous substance went through, for example, Kingston. That is wrong.

Advance prior notice should be given to municipalities so they can be best prepared in the event of a mistake, an accident or a tragedy. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem we are discussing. The policy allowing transport companies to regulate themselves in terms of safety was introduced 20 years ago, and after 20 years we have learned that this work was never done. This is not just about the government opposite. There has been a lack of governance for 20 years. It gets worse.

We are discussing transport companies, but first and foremost they are public services. I would like to remind everyone that at one time Air Canada and Canadian National were crown corporations. They were privatized later by the Liberal government. This government neither took the care nor had the vision to ensure that these companies would continue to safely provide public services. How is it going to fix this 20-year-old mess that the Liberals created? At some point, you have to stop criticizing others and take a hard look at yourself.

(1330) Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, that is where we really see the difference between the NDP and the Liberal Party. There is no doubt about the fact that the NDP does not believe in the private market. No doubt about that. Apparently, the state has to own everything. In today's world, the private sector can believe in the role of government in the 21st century and want to work with the government. That is the difference between our two parties. Progress definitely has to be made. By working together, we can make many changes.

However, that takes the will to invest and put in place the means to ensure that Canada's transportation system remains safe. The Conservative government does not have that will. Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to a few of the hon. member's responses and even parts of his speech, but his illustration seems a bit simplistic to me. It is true that the problems have been around for 20 years. However, the DOT-111 cars were under the Liberals. What did they do? Nothing. Now they are saying that they want to change things.

However, they put in place a system whereby companies self-regulate. Even today, in committee, they are asking companies to make regulations. Instead of considering that the government is responsible for regulating safety, the Liberals are asking companies to create better regulations for improved safety. That is how they see things, and therein lies the difference. The NDP believes that the government is responsible for ensuring that the safety of Canadians is the top priority. What the Liberals want to do is take a hands-off approach and hope for the best. That is the major difference.

What does my colleague think about the deregulation that started under the Liberals and is continuing under the Conservatives? [ English ] Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to chuckle, because first it is a mischaracterization of the position of the Liberal Party to suggest that we are asking private companies to self-regulate. That is false. I and the party believe that the most successful nation states on the planet today are those where government, NGOs, civil society and business work together. It is not an us and them; it is not a them and us; there is no bad guy or gal.

We are all in this together. The New Democrats are stuck because they have difficulty dealing with the realities of a free market. The important thing, going forward, is to ensure that we see the requisite investments we need in the capacity of Transport Canada so the good people who work there, including the inspectors, auditors, clerks, analysts and economists, are all together having the desired effect, and that is to ensure transportation in our country remains safe and safety is enhanced, particularly given the big challenges we face, as I alluded to earlier.

There is a fundamental difference between the New Democrats and the Liberals, and clearly it has to do with an understanding of and a willingness to work within a free market. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-3 ,

an act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The length of the bill's title would suggest that it is quite a comprehensive bill, but in fact, one of the opposition's primary criticisms of the bill is that it is too modest an approach. It was a missed opportunity here to broaden the scope of the bill to make comprehensive changes to protect our coasts.

As deputy fisheries and oceans critic for the official opposition, I have heard many concerns over the past years about how the current government has closed B.C.'s oil spill response centre and shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and is shutting down Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres in Vancouver, Tofino, and Comox. Many of these closures fly in the face of conventional and practical wisdom. During second reading of the bill, I spoke at length about the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in Vancouver.

There was a lot of anger and frustration among British Columbians when the minister made this decision and shut the station down. This anger and frustration only continued as expert after expert stood up and said that this decision was a bad idea and was guaranteed to put people's lives at risk. These experts included the Vancouver police chief, the Vancouver fire chief, the mayor of Vancouver, and the premier of B.C. Yet the Conservative government chose to completely disregard the facts and the evidence. Instead, it sped up the closure and dismantled the station as fast as possible.

Put simply, it is increasingly difficult to trust that Canadians' concerns are being taken seriously. In terms of the bill before us today, I acknowledge that there are some positive parts in it. The NDP is pleased to see a few new measures for increasing tanker safety, including increased inspections of foreign tankers, expanded aerial surveillance designed to monitor ship traffic and detect oil spills, a review of tug escort requirements, and expanded research into the science of oil spills.

However, British Columbians are very concerned about the preservation of our coast and the way of life in coastal communities. In 2012, our province was reminded of the very real threat of a catastrophic oil spill when two major shipping vessels ran aground on the west coast. Given the Conservative government's apparent desire to end the moratorium on north coast tanker traffic, the threat of a spill is something our province must seriously prepare for. That is why I introduced a private member's bill to ban tanker traffic in this important and sensitive area off B.C.'s north coast.

It is why so many British Columbians are opposed to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline proposal in the north and the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal in the south. If an oil spill or a spill of hazardous and noxious substances were to happen, Canadian taxpayers should not be on the hook for cleanup costs and damages following a spill. The bill before us today would amend the Marine Liability Act to implement in Canada the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010, to which Canada is a signatory.

The HNS convention establishes a liability scheme that limits shipowners' liability to approximately $230 million. Damages in excess of shipowners' liability are to be paid by an international HNS fund, up to a maximum of $500 million. My concern is that in the event of a spill of hazardous and noxious substances, the cleanup bill is likely to exceed these limits. The opposition has attempted to work with the government to improve this part of the bill. The proposed reasonable amendments are to prevent Canadian taxpayers from being responsible for damages exceeding $500 million.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected our proposal to make the bill more comprehensive. I would like to read into the record a quote from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities' submission on Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. Our members have a strong interest in the changes to the federal oil spill preparedness and response regime given the proposed pipeline and liquid natural gas projects in our province. B.C.

Local governments have indicated that environmental protection is a top priority, and have supported several resolutions with respect to a polluter pay principle, environmental issues and restoration, working with local governments, and the need to increase federal agency staffing and training.

(1335) B.C. municipalities support the polluter pay principle, and they do not believe that current environmental measures are adequate to clean up damages caused by these types of large-scale spills or disasters. The bill before us today is by no means ideal. Its scope could have been broadened to include more comprehensive measures to safeguard Canada's coasts. Despite the bill's shortcomings, I intend to vote in support of moving it forward. I suppose a modest improvement in marine security is better than no improvement at all. If the opposition had its way, the bill would have been vastly different.

It would have reversed the government's reckless cuts and closures in marine environmental safety. I should also mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Surrey North . I have already spoken about the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and the three MCTS centres in British Columbia that are slated for closure. The NDP wants to see a reversal of these Coast Guard closures. We want to see cuts to the MCTS centres cancelled. We also believe the government should cancel the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spills responders.

A number of environmental NGOs have highlighted Canada's insufficient safety measures in regard to oil tanker traffic. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 focuses on administrative organization and is lacking in actual environmental improvements. British Columbians are very concerned about maritime safety. The Conservative government has demonstrated time and time again that it does not take these concerns seriously. Conservatives ignore first nations. They ignore fishermen, and they ignore our coastal communities.

I do not believe that the bill will serve its intended purpose of convincing British Columbians that the federal government takes coastal safety seriously. While I will vote in support of this modest attempt to play catch-up with industry regulations, I would ask the federal government to start listening to British Columbians' concerns. Stop gutting marine safety resources and spending millions on trying to sell the people of British Columbia on risky oil pipeline projects that will see tanker traffic increase exponentially.

I held a series of town hall meetings in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and in Port Moody. I heard these concerns. In fact, I had a follow-up focus group in Port Moody, which is right on the Pacific Ocean, in Burrard Inlet. They are very concerned about marine safety. They are very concerned about an increase in tanker traffic. They are very concerned about pipeline projects that are proposed for our area. In fact, a pipeline project is proposed to go through Coquitlam, and there is a staging area in the park of one of our sensitive areas.

This is right on the other side of my riding, which borders the Fraser River. These are very real concerns to the people living in my riding. They have concerns. They have expressed them to me. When I hold public sessions, when I consult, when I ask for feedback, I time and time again hear how important it is to protect our coastal communities, our way of life, and the concerns that are raised on these projects. I am trying to bring forward these I think reasonable and modest amendments to the government to make these changes. Unfortunately, we do not see the government listening and incorporating these changes.

I hope the government will listen to the people in my riding who have these concerns and make changes going forward. The way I think we could have a productive Parliament would be to have this exchange, and I am not seeing it. I hope the government will listen not only to the opposition but to the people in my riding. Those concerns are real, and they want to see those changes made.

(1340) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for putting so strongly the views of his constituents, which I must say are shared with, if anything, more enthusiasm by my constituents. I have just been reading through the so-called Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain 15,000 pages of alleged evidence about how it can safely move, through tankers and pipelines, a substance called dilbit.

I do not know if the member has had time to dive into this yet, but let me just inform him and the rest of this House that their evidence on dilbit's behaviour in a marine environment comes from a couple of tanks the company set up in Alberta for 13 days. It put dilbit in with salt water. They say that they mimicked wind and wave action by stirring. I do not know what the member thinks of a test on the marine environment based on tanks found in Gainford, Alberta. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what we know about the behaviour of dilbit in the marine environment and the threat to our coastlines.

(1345) Mr. Fin Donnelly : Mr. Speaker, while I do not know if I have actually dived into dilbit, I certainly have done some research on how this substance can affect our marine coastline and our precious oceans. Let me say that this is a big concern. It is a concern across the country. It is especially a concern on the west coast. In communities that live there and rely on getting their employment from the ocean on Canada's west coast, any kind of threat to that way of life is paramount to them.

Whether it is for the fishing industry, tourism, or first nations, the way of life we have on the west coast is precious. We want to ensure that this way of life can continue, as it has for thousands for years on the west coast. We want to see that continue into the future. Certainly in looking at the types of noxious substances that are going to be carried, either on rail or through pipelines, it is critical that we get that right. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It is clear that he truly cares about his constituents' concerns. Last week I participated in a waterfront cleanup in a park with some people from my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard . It was great to see the public involved in cleaning up the environment and the waterfront. However, the bill is not just referring to garbage being thrown out by people in a specific community. Should the public be responsible for the costs associated with toxic spills? The NDP does not think so, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

We want those responsible to be held accountable, and Canadians or the people living in the communities affected are not necessarily those responsible. I would like to quote Mr. Sumaila, a professor at the University of British Columbia and member of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit, who testified in committee regarding this bill. He said: Who pays for this? We have mechanisms to cover up to $1.35 billion, but as I gave you in the example from the ExxonMobil incident, about $6.5 billion was needed to do the cleanup.

He does not think that the measures go far enough and thinks that we should ask ourselves why the public should have to pay the difference. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that. [ English ] Mr. Fin Donnelly : Mr. Speaker, in my community, there are many efforts to be involved with river conservation, ocean cleanup and protection, and beach cleanups. People are very concerned about making a difference in the community. They want to see that way of life protected.

That is why I spoke in my presentation today about the importance of shifting the burden of responsibility to fund cleanups from the Canadian taxpayer, from public funds, to where it should be, and that is with companies. They should have the funds necessary. This bill does not go far enough. The NDP tried, in committee, in an attempt to make changes, to make reasonable amendments. Unfortunately, the government did not listen. There are many experts who are saying that we need to increase the liability, the funds available, to make these cleanups happen, and we are just not seeing that.

Unfortunately, we are seeing that transferred to the taxpayers. We find that unacceptable. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the constituents of Surrey North. Before I get to the bill I do want to mention something else that has come up. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have recently raised awareness about organ donations in our country. Organ Donation Week took place a few weeks ago, with Canadians signing up to donate their organs to have them available for those who need them at a particular time. One such drive took place in Toronto.

Members of the Amar Arts of Life Academy, with Amarjit Rai, who is a founding member, along with Balvinder and Amendeet Rai, and over 200 volunteers signed up over 1,200 members of our community to be organ donors. This is a huge accomplishment that took place in Brampton around the Vaisakhi Khalsa Day parade. I congratulate the Amar Arts Academy for taking this initiative and signing up organ donors. It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. I spoke to the bill at second reading. At that time, I was hoping the government would listen to the opposition and critics to improve the bill.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, the Conservative government has failed over and over to listen to the opposition and critics, academics and experts, to make the bill better so that our environment, our pristine waters off the coast of British Columbia that provide employment for hundreds of thousands of people throughout British Columbia and the rest of Canada, are protected and safe for travel. Tourism on our waters is a huge industry in British Columbia. There could be an impact on tourism. Also, fisheries is a huge part of British Columbia.

As the previous member, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam , has pointed out, the government has not taken into consideration jobs related to our coast in British Columbia that could be affected by