11705 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 180 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 26, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 26, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 180 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 180 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 180 (Version officielle) 147 180 26 02 2015 2015/02/26 10:00:00 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 (1000) [ English ] Foreign Affairs Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.

I would also add that ratification of this treaty, commonly known as UPOV '91, formally implements Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act , which received royal assent yesterday and is yet another step in our government's economic growth agenda for Canadian farmers.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly respecting its participation at the election observation mission at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Kyiv, Ukraine, from October 26 to 29, 2014.

Committees of the House Liaison Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth and fifth reports of the Liaison Committee regarding committee activities and expenditures.

Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “M-428, Electronic Petitions”.

Business of the House Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you will find consent for the motion that follows. I move: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the hours of sitting and the order of business of the House on Thursday, April 2, 2015, shall be those of a Friday, provided that any recorded division deferred to or requested on that day in respect of a debatable motion, other than an item of Private Members' Business, be deferred until Monday, April 20, 2015, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

(1005) The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Motion agreed to

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present two petitions today. The first is on impaired driving. The petitioners want to toughen the laws for those who cause death through impaired driving. They want to do that through putting in place new mandatory sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death, and they also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the practice of discrimination against girls occurring through gender-selective pregnancy termination.

Canada Post Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the petitioners call upon the government to reject the Canada Post plan for reduced services and to seek other options to upgrade the crown corporation and business plans. That has to do with putting large mailboxes in the city and taking away carriers going from door-to-door.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to make a commitment to adopt international policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty and to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that, sadly, informs the House that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. Kassandra's family was devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones who were killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is: vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal deaths in Canada.

More than 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-652 .

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to introduce today. The first petition is signed by thousands of people across the country who want the Canadian government to negotiate 10-year multiple-entry visas with the Government of China, in support of my Motion No. 558. The petitioners note that this is important to level the playing field for Canadian businesses, to facilitate tourism and family unification, and to put us on a level playing field with American citizens, who have 10-year multiple-entry visa privileges to China.

The Environment Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many people in my riding who would like to see a climate change strategy adopted by the present government. The petitioners are very concerned about the effects of climate change and would like to see carbon emissions controlled so that we do not end up in an irreversible loop that would threaten our climate.

Canada Post Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition signed by, again, thousands of people across the country who want to make sure the government ensures that Canadians receive home mail delivery from Canada Post.

[ Translation ] Gaza Strip Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last fall, in a show of solidarity, people in my riding circulated a petition calling on the government to support a project that would bring children from the Gaza Strip to Canada for care. I am pleased to table the fruits of their labour, signed by over a hundred people.

[ English ] Agriculture Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of more than 200 residents of Dartmouth and the surrounding area. It was presented to me by a group of women in Dartmouth who are part of the Catholic Women's League, a phenomenal group of people who are doing amazing work. Last year, it had to do with the issue around the international mining practices of Canadian companies. This petition has to do with supporting small family farmers, especially women, and recognizing their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

The petitioners ask that we ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of the small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds. It has to do largely with the whole question of the diversity of farmers' seeds that are being restricted, increasingly, around the world. (1010) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I have the pleasure to present this petition, which highlights the fact that the agri-food industry is gradually replacing the immense diversity of small farmers' seeds with industrial varieties, obtaining an increasing number of patents on different seeds and threatening the ability of small family farmers to produce the food required to feed their families and communities.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Statements made by Prime Minister regarding Presence of Canadian Forces in Iraq—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 28, 2015, by the hon. member for St. John's East about alleged misleading statements made by the Prime Minister during oral questions with respect to Canadian military engagement in Iraq. I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for having raised this matter, as well as the hon.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the House Leader of the Official Opposition , and the member for Winnipeg North for their comments. [ English ] In presenting his case, the member for St. John's East explained that, during question period on September 30, 2014, in the week leading up to the vote on October 7 with respect to Canada's role in the mission in Iraq to combat ISIL, the Prime Minister had answered that, “It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany” and “Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat”. However, the member for St.

John's East contended that recent reports that Canadian ground troops have accompanied Iraqi forces and exchanged fire with ISIL forces were proof that the Prime Minister misled the House and Canadians in a deliberate attempt to downplay Canada's level of engagement. Arguing that there is no possible way to interpret the current contradiction as a difference of opinion, the member for St.

John's East went on to explain how the three criteria had been met for determining that a prima facie of privilege exists; that is, that the statement was misleading, the member knew the statement was incorrect when it was made, and the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the mission is, in fact, to advise and assist and that Canadian Forces should have the right to defend themselves in doing this dangerous work.

In support of this, he cited General Tom Lawson's recent testimony in committee regarding the nature of the intervention in Iraq. More specifically, he noted that General Lawson specified that their mandate is a non-combat operation to advise and assist, and involves the use of weaponry only for the purposes of self-defence.

With no evidence to suggest that Canadian Forces have undertaken any offensive combat measures, the government House leader argued that, at its core, this matter amounts to nothing more than a question of debate and not a question of the House having been misled. [ Translation ] The integrity of parliamentary proceedings rests very much on the ability of members to give and receive accurate and truthful information. This explains, in part, why members look to the Chair for guidance and judgement when they feel that this integrity is being challenged or cast aside.

This is not done lightly given that, as members know, the House is a forum that gives voice to different viewpoints and opinions. Speaker Milliken recognized this when he stated on December 6, 2004, at page 2319 of Debates: “Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place.” (1015) [ English ] As a result, such grievances are rarely found to be breaches of privilege. The member for St.

John's East stated as much when he cited page 510 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states: In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege. Members are well aware of the Speaker's clearly defined yet limited role in regulating such matters.

As Speaker Milliken reminded the House in a ruling on January 31, 2008, at pages 2434 and 2435 of Debates : ...any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.

The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine. [ Translation ] Yet while it is not for the Chair to interpret the meaning of members’ interventions, it has a solemn responsibility to ensure that certain conditions are met in disputes of the nature brought forward by the member for St. John's East . As Speaker, I must assess whether there exist the three conditions that would establish unequivocally that the House has been misled. The conditions are admittedly and deliberately not easily met.

This is because, as Speaker, I must take all members at their word. This underscores the way we function every day in our proceedings; all members rely on this and draw advantage from it. [ English ] This places an onerous burden on all members to ensure that their words are selected for their clarity as well as for their accuracy, so as to leave no room or cause for misinterpretation. In order to find that the three conditions have been met, the Chair must be presented with undeniable evidence that there was a deliberate intent to mislead.

Accordingly, having carefully examined the evidence presented, the Chair is unable to conclude that the House is confronted with a prima facie case of privilege in this case. I thank hon. members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Respect for Communities Act Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Mr. Speaker, I move: Motion That in relation to Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the 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 for members to participate in, and I would ask members to keep their questions or comments to around a minute and government responses to a similar length. The hon. member for Vancouver East. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is the 89th time that the government has put closure on debate on a bill. It really is a very shameful record. It is an historic but shameful record in the history of this Parliament. This bill, Bill C-2 , is a particularly grievous one and is fundamentally flawed.

I find it very ironic that the government itself sat on this bill for months and months—in fact, the better part of a year—before it brought it forward for debate. Now, all of a sudden, it decides it wants to rush it through at report stage and third reading at the last minute. I want to ask why it is cutting off debate, why it sat on this bill for so long, and why members of Parliament, who have the right to a thorough debate at report stage and third reading of this bill and to discuss all of the arguments that came out of committee, a legitimate process, are now being limited and foreclosed in the House.

(1020) Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's notion that this bill is grievous. This bill is in response to a Supreme Court ruling, and it follows that Supreme Court ruling to the letter. As for the amount of time that we have debated this bill, it has now received over 20 hours of debate. The House leader said it has been debated for 12 days. The NDP alone has delivered 64 speeches on this very topic and to date has asked 55 questions. This is third reading.

This is the process that bills go through, and all parties have had an opportunity to discuss the bill in committee. However, what is most shocking is that the NDP does not realize that unless this bill passes, we cannot come into compliance with what the Supreme Court has asked us to do when it comes to these establishments for supervised injection and community consultations. Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of questions I would like to ask.

Obviously I agree with my colleague in the New Democratic Party that this bill was delayed for a very long time and that all of a sudden the government wants to rush it through. At report stage, members heard from many people who challenged these proposed measures by pointing out that they did not in fact meet the Supreme Court rulings but overstepped them and are going to be open to a charter challenge. As well, when the bill was tabled by the Minister of Health , it did not go to the health committee.

It actually went to an enforcement committee, the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which is a very strange and puzzling thing to happen. This tells us where the government is coming from. For the government, this is about enforcement and not at all about health. However, it is in fact about health. The question I want to ask is this. Why is it that members do not have the time to discuss what they heard at report stage, when there were two dissenting opinions by the opposition party saying that what was heard from witnesses was not reflected? This bill oversteps the Supreme Court ruling in many ways.

The Supreme Court had five criteria. This bill, coming from a government that says health is a provincial jurisdiction, actually intrudes completely and in great detail into provincial governments, municipal governments, and local police rulings. In fact, those three groups—the provincial governments, the municipal governments, and the police—all put forward amendments that said this bill was intruding into their jurisdictions. Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, I believe the member herself participated in the committee discussions. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I were both there.

It is an issue that affects both health and public safety, and that is why both ministers appeared before the committee to answer any questions that members had. I am disappointed that the opposition continues to delay the bill, because it has been debated at length and if we do not pass the bill, there will not be a framework for any community to move forward with any sort of an application in this process. Not only has it received ample debate in the House, it is now time for the legislation to proceed. In fact, community groups are asking for this bill to proceed. They are in favour of it.

They have mentioned that at committee, and have written a lot of correspondence to me and to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to share their views. Organizations such as Safer Ottawa, along with various homeowners' associations and tourism-related businesses, have been very vocal in their strong opposition to safe injection sites and want to have the public consultations that are outlined in this bill. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this bill is especially important to me. We have just completed another stage.

A committee study allowed members to hear from experts. I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so I think it is quite appropriate to talk about this bill. This bill has been on the table for quite some time. The government could have put it back on the agenda before now, since it is in charge of the schedule. It keeps moving time allocation motions without batting an eye. I would like to know if the Minister of Health took the time to talk to the opposition to determine how many of hours of debate might be necessary for further consideration of the bill.

What makes her think that a time allocation motion is absolutely necessary for moving forward with the bill? The government makes no effort to reach consensus. It moves time allocation and closure motions as a matter of policy, leaving no room for discussion. I think that is an irresponsible attitude. Did the minister take the time to consult the opposition parties to discuss how they envision the next stages of the bill? (1025) [ English ] Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, the bill has been debated for 20 hours over 12 days. It went to committee.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I as health minister were there to answer questions. We are trying to pass this bill. It is interesting that the member said that this measure is important to her, and that she wants to see it passed and thinks that we are delaying it, yet we continue to experience delays by the opposition. It is important that this bill pass, because otherwise we have no framework with which to provide public consultations for any municipality or group that wants to apply to have a supervised injection site.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that public consultations need to happen before any of these supervised injection sites can move forward. However, we have been unable to reach a consensus because the opposition members think that we should not have to consult the public. They think that any municipality or group should have the right to impose a supervised injection site without public consultation. We do not believe that is the case.

We agree with the Supreme Court of Canada and we will proceed with this bill to make sure that the public and neighbourhood groups, whether they be local politicians or the police, have their say. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the more the Minister of Health speaks, the more we understand the reason for this closure motion, which brings time allocation to the House for the 89th time.

The reality is that the government has refused to bring the legislation forward to the House for over a year simply because it was obvious after the first round of debates that there were many flaws in the bill. The government has not been willing to accept amendments. There have been concerns raised about jurisdiction and about strangling the safe injection site and what that means for health. There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through.

Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration. Is that not the real reason we are seeing closure today? Why did the government sit on the bill for over a year? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, we are, right now, debating. I am here to answer the member's questions. We have debated this bill for 20 hours over 12 days. It went to committee.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I were available for any questions, and we continue to be. Canadian families deserve and expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The respect for communities act would give local law enforcement, municipal leaders, and local residents a voice that they want and deserve before a permit is granted for a supervised injection site. This bill, just as the Supreme Court ordered, says that in my capacity as Minister of Health, I must consider specific factors when reviewing applications, and the big factor is public consultations.

This bill has to move forward before we can have a framework in place that would allow for public consultations. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the hon. minister how she can say with a straight face that there is great urgency in passing the bill, given that it was taken off the table for such a long period of time. Now it absolutely has to pass in record time. The Supreme Court is waiting. All of these arguments are being brought forward.

However, if all of the arguments she has presented are compelling in terms of speed, why did the bill suddenly disappear off the face of the earth for a very long time? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, that is not true. We had consultations on the bill, we took it to committee, and we debated it for 20 hours over 12 days of debate. There has been lengthy debate and consultation on this bill to make sure that we get it right. However, it is time to move forward. One of the five factors that the Supreme Court outlined in its ruling was expressions of community support or opposition.

I know it is hard for the opposition to understand that, because they are on the record as saying that these sites should move forward if anyone desires to open a safe injection site in a community. However, that is not what the Supreme Court said, and it is not what we believe should happen. We believe that local residents should have a say. At the end of the day, this is about supervised illicit drug use, and there are health and public safety factors to be considered. We believe without a doubt that the public has a right to consultation, and this bill would provide for that consultation.

(1030) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister of Health , for whom I have immense respect. Much of the legislation that I have supported in the House has come forward from the Minister of Health . Unfortunately, I do not support the bill before us. I think it has been designed to make it impossible to ever again set up a harm reduction site. It goes beyond consulting with communities and appears to be designed to create so many hurdles that no organization would ever be able to open a safe injection site.

For that reason, and because of the need to explore this issue in full debate, I am very concerned that we are again having closure. Closure makes it almost impossible for members of Parliament representing smaller parties, such as the Green Party, the Bloc, Forces et Démocratie, or the many independents who are now in this place to have an opportunity to participate in debate. This institution exists to examine legislation and work on it together, not push it through like a bulldozer. Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, that is far from what has happened. This bill has been considered for a lengthy period of time.

We have had 20 hours of debate. We have had debate at committee and input from members from all sides of the House. We have had input from people all across the country. I receive correspondence from Canadians all the time on this issue. However, the Supreme Court was clear about what it required us to put forward in this legislation. The most important requirement is public consultation and making sure that we hear from those in the community who will be impacted by this measure. If a supervised injection site is opened up next to a school, parents want to know. They want to have a say.

If it is opened next to a condo complex, the people there would want to have a say. Local municipal leaders want to have a say. Most importantly, these people are not well. These are people who are drug addicts. We want to make sure, if such an establishment were to open up, that there would be treatment options available. Is this merely a supervised injection site, or are there resources available? We believe these people need help. They need intervention and treatment. We need prevention programs.

We are focused on that and we deliver it, but we want to make sure that it is in concert with this measure. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak to the bill itself because now is not the time, but it is the time to ask why a time allocation motion is being moved for the 89th time. Our procedural rules allow us to use a few exceptional measures in urgent matters, but that does not really apply here. My question is quite simple. After 89 time allocation motions, are we still talking about exceptional measures or a way of governing? [ English ] Hon.

Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, let us remember what this is. The bill is to provide an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that illicit drugs can be used in a legal way within an establishment. I think all members in the House agree that illicit drug use comes not just with health impacts but with public safety implications. Therefore, the whole genesis of the idea of public consultation is an important one.

We know that there are risks associated with the possession, use, and production of illicit substances, so it is just common sense that if the Minister of Health is going to provide an exemption for an establishment to allow the use of illicit substances, which we know have health implications and public safety implications for a community, we should have a framework that allows for full public consultations with everyone who is impacted. Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, the sudden rush is interesting, and this is what I want to speak about.

Why the sudden rush, and why is the Minister of Health here when this was actually under a different committee, not health, where it should have been? The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2011. We need to discuss the bill in the House and re-debate it, because when the bill went to committee, despite recommendations from many people, as well as provinces, municipalities, and the Vancouver Police Department, not a comma in the bill was changed. This is part of the issue. The government listens to no one. Everyone is in agreement with the idea of public consultations.

There were huge public consultations when InSite was brought in. No one is disagreeing with that. What we want to know is why the government has waited. The ruling was in 2011, and now, all of a sudden, it wants to ram everything through and not allow for debate on why the process at committee, which is important, was actually not listened to. Not a comma in the bill was changed. We need to discuss that in the House.

(1035) Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, we did listen to committee members, and we listened to the Supreme Court, municipal leaders, local law enforcement, Canadians across the country, and groups that were concerned about this. However, at the end of the day, the theme was clear. Right from the Supreme Court ruling on down, people wanted to have a say. They want to have a voice about what happens in their communities. Let us remember the substance of the bill. This is the Minister of Health providing an exemption for an illicit drug to be used in an establishment.

Anyone who is within the vicinity has every right to have a voice in the matter. That is what the bill does, so the sooner we get it through, the sooner Canadians can have a voice in the matter. [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is something that I find very troubling. I just heard my Liberal colleague say that the committee heard from witnesses and that not even a comma was changed. That is not listening to Canadians. It seems to me that the people who came to committee are Canadian citizens.

The minister says that the Conservatives listened to Canadians and that that is what they want. Come on. There is something else that is really bothering me, and that is the undermining of our democracy. We have a parliamentary system and we are not even debating the issue. I find that very dangerous. I would like the minister to respond to that. Why is the government undermining Canadian democracy and why is it not really listening to Canadians? [ English ] Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I would love it if she could tell me what part of the bill she would like to strike down. Is it the part where we want public consultations with anyone who would be impacted in the neighbourhood of an establishment that received an exemption for the use of illicit drugs?

Does she want to get rid of the part where we ask them to document that this is actually helping those who are part and parcel of using the establishment for supervised drug injections, or does she want to get rid of the part where we ask them to show that prevention and treatment options are available for those drug addicts who are using these supervised drug injection facilities? I would love to know what part of the bill she would like to get rid of.

We heard loud and clear from Canadians, from those who care about people who are addicted to drugs and are looking for treatment and intervention, and from those in the community who would be impacted by this, that this is what they want. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her very insightful comments on these questions. I wish all parliamentarians would listen very carefully to what she says, because it is very relevant.

I would like the minister to expand on the response we need to have when we have collaboration across the country and when the Supreme Court and Canadians are saying that there is a certain thing they want, which is a voice. Could the minister address that a little bit more fully? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, I return to the substance of this bill. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act puts in place very strict controls for dangerous and addictive drugs.

The Supreme Court's ruling requires that the Minister of Health consider certain factors when reviewing an application for an exemption from these controls. That is what we are talking about. I would be giving an exemption to an establishment where illegal and illicit drugs would then be used in a supervised manner. It is important that those who are impacted by this, whether it involves public safety or health, be considered. At the end of the day, we are talking about people who are addicted to drugs. They are suffering. They need help. We want to know if there are going to be programs available.

If these supervised injection sites are actually going to help these people who are addicted to drugs, will there be resources available to support them in terms of treatment and options for recovery?

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today clearly demonstrates the Prime Minister 's lack of respect for process inside this chamber. Once again, we are moving to time allocation, and it is very important that we do not lose sight of that. An MP's responsibility is to ensure that there is due diligence done at every stage. The Liberal Party health critic raised numerous amendments at committee stage. There is a great sense of frustration that the majority Conservative government just does not have an open mind to anything. It shoves through legislation.

It does not want to respond to amendments that are being moved. My question is not for the minister but for the government House leader. Why does the government House leader not negotiate with opposition parties to make sure that there is more productive work being done inside the House of Commons and in the standing committees of our Parliament? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, I did hear from some of the opposition members about supervised injection sites.

Let us remember that they are places for the supervised injection of illicit and illegal drugs, which are harmful to those who are addicted to those drugs and which have an impact on the health and public safety of that community. We have heard from the opposition. What did the opposition say? It wants the current rules to stay in place. In other words, it wants an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to proceed without any public consultation.

Our government heard the Supreme Court, but it heard even more loudly and clearly from Canadians who live in these neighbourhoods and who might have kids going to school next door to a supervised injection site. They want their voices heard, and they have a right to that. The Supreme Court agreed, and that is why we need this legislation to proceed. It is so we have a framework for those kinds of public consultations so that we can hear those in favour and those opposed. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is the 89th time allocation motion.

I would like the minister to answer my question about the motion we are currently debating rather than talking about the bill. With respect to the bill, we still have a lot to talk about and many issues that we must discuss. However, with respect to the principle of democracy and our role here in the Parliament of Canada, 89 time allocation motions is a sad record. Unfortunately, it is not surprising coming from a majority government. Let us remember that in its quest to obtain a majority, this government was found in contempt of Parliament.

In light of this 89th time allocation motion, which we are currently debating, I would like the minister to tell us whether she feels the government's approach is good for democracy. Is it a good thing for democracy to cut short debate and not listen to what Canadians have to say? [ English ] Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, we have debated this now for 20 hours in the House. It has gone to committee. We are at third reading. However, there is nothing more democratic than hearing from the public on an issue. That is what this bill is about.

This bill would provide the framework to consider what others believe, not just the applicant. The applicant would apply to the Minister of Health for an exemption to allow illegal, illicit, and dangerous drugs to be used in a supervised way, but what about those who live in the community? What about parents? What about homeowners? What about the local police? What about the local municipal leaders? Why do they not have a say? They have not had a say up to this point, and they will not until this legislation is passed. That is why this is all about democracy. It is making sure that Canadians have a say. Ms.

Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to comment. I find it a bit ironic that we are sitting here in the House hearing from members of the opposition about how they want to limit public debate. If it is a pipeline bill or something, they want unending public consultation, and here is a bill that would move us forward into public consultation mode to actually hear from Canadians on the bill. I would like the minister to comment on that, please. Hon. Rona Ambrose : I appreciate the member's comments, Mr. Speaker.

That is really the irony of this entire debate by members of the opposition. They opposed the bill right from the beginning, because they wanted the current rules to stay in place. In other words, any applicant could move forward with a supervised injection site, where we know illegal and harmful substances would be consumed by drug addicts, without any consultation with the local police, local health authorities, or local municipal leaders. We do not agree with that, and neither did the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011. We have debated this for 12 days, for 20 hours.

We have been to committee, both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I, and it is time for Canadians to have a voice in this matter.

(1045) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the problem I am having with this is that the government seems to suggest that public hearings are for listening and not for responding. Simply holding public hearings, for other levels of government, means that people get to actually have an impact on a decision. However, when it comes to parliamentary hearings, when it comes to committee hearings, simply running out the clock and presenting a series of statistics on how many hours, how many meetings, or how many minutes of debate were held somehow constitutes a democratic process.

Can the minister highlight one change, a single change, to the bill that was accomplished through the public hearings the government conducted? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, the irony is that what this bill constitutes is a change, a major change, to the current process that is now in place. That change allows for public input. It is ironic that members opposite do not support further consultation. That is what the Supreme Court ruled. It has been, frankly, the genesis of a lot of conflict around this issue, because people have not been allowed to have a voice. They have had no impact.

There has been no application process in place where people could actually have input. I get letters from Canadians all the time. I also get letters from groups that want the bill to pass, because they want to have a voice in this matter. Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, I think this is a farce. We have spent, what, 100 hours over the course of the government's tenure here since 2011 talking about time allocation. That is 100 wasted hours of the time in this House.

We had an all-party committee, where the Province of British Columbia, the municipalities around Vancouver, and the Vancouver Police Department brought in amendments that were consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, and they warned the government that it was intruding in those jurisdictions. This is a government that always says that it cannot do anything for anyone because it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. Suddenly, it is intruding in jurisdictions, and yet not a change was made. We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says.

It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation. Everyone has accepted that public consultation should occur. Public consultations went on before InSite was set up in Vancouver, so the minister is not really being honest with everyone in this House when she says that the opposition is opposed to public consultation. We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government. Hon.

Rona Ambrose : Mr. Speaker, we have listened to experts. We have listened to the Supreme Court justices. We have listened to health experts, public safety experts, and police members. We have listened to many people since 2011, which is how we drafted the bill. However, the nexus of all of this is that we also want to hear from regular Canadians about having the illicit use of drugs in a supervised way in their communities. In terms of jurisdiction, this is an exemption.

These establishments only exist because the Minister of Health is able to give them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and that is truly within federal jurisdiction. By all means, this is absolutely within federal jurisdiction. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of 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 Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Call in the members.

(1125) [ English ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 342) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Rajotte Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 142 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Hsu Hughes Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sgro Sims (Newton—North Delta) St-Denis Stoffer Sullivan Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 104 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

(1130) Pipeline Safety Act The House resumed from January 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46,

An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-46. Second reading Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to C-46,

An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act . The government has chosen to name the bill as the pipeline safety act. The measures to increase liability for pipelines are long overdue and very much welcome. However, there are some concerns that the measures may be inadequate, which I will speak to. Crude oil petroleum products, natural gas liquids, and natural gas move through 71,000 kilometres of existing interprovincial and international pipelines. That does not include the three proposed pipelines to be regulated by the National Energy Board.

This bill purports to reinforce the polluter pays principle. It purports to confirm that the liability of companies operating pipelines would, first, be unlimited if an unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas, or other commodity is a result of their fault or negligence; and, second, be a limited liability to a maximum of $1 billion for pipelines with capacity to transport a minimum of 250,000 barrels of oil per day if there is no proof of fault or negligence. The bill purports to obligate pipeline operators to maintain the financial resources necessary to cover potential liability.

It also purports to authorize the National Energy Board to reimburse government entities for any costs incurred in a spill response. It purports to improve responses to abandoned pipelines. That is a new measure, as the National Energy Board previously was not regulating abandoned pipelines. It also expands that responsibility to inquire into accidents involving abandoned pipelines. It purports to grant discretion to the National Energy Board to require companies to maintain funds for abandoned pipelines. It also purports to empower cabinet to establish a pipeline claims tribunal in certain circumstances.

The tribunal would examine and adjudicate compensation claims. It also authorizes spending to respond to spills, to establish the tribunals, and to pay for compensation awards that are issued by the tribunal. Furthermore, it authorizes the National Energy Board to recover funds paid out by the government as opposed to the company. It expands on the polluter pays principle by imposing liability on operators for losses to non-use value of public resources.

However, it limits the power of the federal crown to pursue those, and there is some concern expressed at how seriously the National Energy Board will pursue that. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interrupt. The minister is having a conversation with another member and I am having a very hard time hearing myself talk. I wonder if they could be asked to move it outside. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. I realize there are several conversations going on in the House.

Obviously, when a member has been recognized and has the floor, we ask the indulgence of all members to bring their attention to the speaker who has the floor, who at the moment is the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Therefore, I would again ask all members who wish to carry on conversations if they might leave the chamber and carry on outside in their respective lobbies. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I asked for your intervention because I believe this is a very important piece of legislation and it is important for us to understand what the bill is and is not doing. As I mentioned, the bill expands on the polluter pay principle, a welcome intervention, by imposing liability on operators for losses to non-use value of public resources, but it limits the power to the federal crown to pursue compensation for those impacts, and there is some concern that the National Energy Board would not necessarily seriously pursue compensation.

It expands the National Energy Board's powers to order actions by the companies where there are risks to safety or security of the public, to the company employees, or to the pipelines or abandoned pipelines, and for protection of property or the environment. However, it may noted that the recently tabled estimates for 2015-16 provide for reductions in the budget of the National Energy Board for the regulation of pipelines contributing to the safety of Canadians and the protection of the environment. So much for the touted equal attention to supporting resource development and environmental protection.

No additional resources will be allocated for the ongoing mandate and no additional resources for the added mandate of the NEB for abandoned pipelines. Natural Resources is also apparently being cut by $320 million across the board, or 12.6% of its budget. Surely, given the potential payouts under Bill C-46 , this is not the time to be paying down the deficit on the backs of the communities impacted by spills. There would be greater confidence in the commitments of the government to address the impact if a contingency fund were set aside.

That will become apparent later in the discussion of the bill, as taxpayers may be left holding the bag under this law. The Canadian Environmental Protection Agency is also forecast to be cut by $13.6 million or 44% of its budget. A significant portion of its budget has previously gone to supporting aboriginal consultation. Many of these pipelines go through first nation lands, which are already designated as these lands or are being claimed.

Given the number of resource projects proposed and the fact that the NEB does not adequately deliver on public participation in decision-making, it is impossible to understand how the government will fulfill its duty to consult indigenous peoples and how any project will obtain the social licence needed to operate.

Yes, we recognize that these budgets may well be supplemented through the supplementary estimates, but it is astounding nonetheless that at the same moment we are debating a bill touted to improve pipeline safety, the government tables estimates providing no increased funds to deliver on the expanded mandate of the National Energy Board, the tribunal, and for the government to address spill compensation, let alone the coverage of spill clean-up costs. This is troubling on a number of fronts.

The scale of potential risks and the potential impact from major increased daily volumes have increased, in particular given the nature of the products proposed to be piped, in other words, diluted bitumen. First, the Enbridge gateway pipeline proposes 525,000 barrels a day. The Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion would add 890,000 barrels a day, and the TransCanada energy east pipeline, if approved, would add 1.1 million barrels a day. One can only hope that the intent is to retroactively apply these higher liabilities for pipelines already approved prior to the passage of this law.

This law should be triggering significantly enhanced inspection and capacity to respond to breaks and spills as well. This is important given the poor record by the National Energy Board and the pipeline operators in detecting pipeline breaks and spills or in seeking compliance. The majority of pipeline accidents of late in my province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories have been discovered and reported, by and large, by citizens or aboriginal hunters and trappers out on their lands, not by the National Energy Board or provincial regulatory agencies, or by the companies themselves.

For example, there was the incident in Wrigley. I had an opportunity to see this when attending a Dene gathering in Fort Providence a couple of years ago, where a hunter came to the meeting and revealed that when he was out on the land, he was sitting down by a marsh and suddenly a bear appeared. There did not seem to be anything he could do to make the bear go away. He would scare the bear away and the bear would come back. So he finally decided that he would investigate what was happening with this strange behaviour of the bear. He discovered a major break in a pipeline and a massive spill.

That is one example where the operators are simply not detecting, reporting, and apprising the people on the land of accidents.

(1135) In addition, in this case, we had to step in and demand support for the first nation community, which was trying to address the impact of this spill. If we had not done that, the National Energy Board would not have stepped forward. I could go on and on about the incidents with pipelines in Alberta. For example, there was a spill from the Plains Midstream pipeline near Sundre, Alberta, into a river, then into a drinking water reservoir. It was not reported to the impacted landowners.

In April 2011, there was the largest pipeline spill in history, again by Plains Midstream, with 4.5 million litres of oil spilling northeast of Peace River. Again, that was detected by the Dene Tha' First Nation and not the operator. They ended up having to close the local school because of the fumes from the petroleum. The first nation was deeply concerned about the impacts on the waters, fish, birds, and wildlife they relied upon, and concerned about the many abandoned wellsites and pipelines.

That, of course, is an example where, if the first nations are not able to seek compensation for impacts on the waters, fish, birds, and wildlife they rely upon in their habitat, it will become an issue if the government does not step up to the plate. Again, I remind this place of the Wabamun derailment and spill. Yes, it was not a pipeline, but it took a week for the federal agencies to actually come forward and assist the first nations directly impacted by that incident. What are some of the concerns that have been identified with the bill?

There are some additional concerns with respect to many of the reforms in Bill C-46 , including expanded powers and new rights. The reforms themselves are welcome, including expansion to abandoned well sites, expansion of liability, and the increase in the liability to $1 billion. However, there are some concerns with the way the bill as drafted; for example, with the adequacy of the upper limit of $1 billion. We can all recall the Kalamazoo bitumen spill cost $600 million merely to clean up the spill, and that was before any compensation was given to any of the communities or property owners who were impacted.

Ecojustice has stated that the bill would fail to prescribe mechanisms to actually assess the risk, taking into consideration either the type of materials shipped, whether they are more corrosive, for example: the potential for environmental, and, I would add, health, damages; an accident or compliance history; and the age of the line and, I would suggest, also the maintenance record. There is no provision in the bill specifying what the National Energy Board is supposed to consider, or the tribunal once it is established. Second, concerns have also been raised about bankruptcy implications.

There is a concern that the polluter pay provisions may be superseded in the case of bankruptcy of a pipeline owner or operator, as bankruptcy law prevails. That is something that merits discussion at committee. Third, there is concern with the level of discretion vested in the National Energy Board and in the tribunal. There appears to be a discretionary, potentially politically influenced, process. For example, the company must first be designated before the tribunal may review.

It is also not clear whether there would be a permanent tribunal and whether its members would simply sit around, waiting for a pipeline to be designated, or a company designated, or whether it would only step forward at the time that there is an incident and compensation claims are required. This would also only occur in a situation where the cabinet, in its discretion, has determined, on the recommendation of a minister, that a company does not have sufficient resources to pay costs or clean-up, or the company has failed to comply with an NEB order.

The National Energy Board could then directly reimburse for the impacts or the costs incurred, and the payment could be directed from a pooled fund. The costs could be recovered as a debt, but that is unlikely from a bankruptcy. The tribunals would be established only, as I said, where a company is designated; in other words, for each incident, not permanently designated. Proposed subsection 48.18(2) is a little confusing. It states that the Governor in Council, in other words, the cabinet, could only establish a tribunal if it is in the public interest, somehow factoring in the extent of the compensable damage.

It is unclear if the concern is with too small a claim or a very large one. The tribunal would be granted total discretion in how to notify the public. It has been suggested by a number of parties who have participated in other tribunals that there should be clear guidance on who is actually supposed to notify the public that they can seek a claim for damages and how they would go about doing that.

(1140) There is also the query of why only the appointment of retired judges. In many cases in these tribunals, it is perhaps more appropriate to appoint people with a technical background who understand pipelines, the impacts and so forth. The reason this issue has been raised is because the staffing and expertise for the tribunal is at the discretion of the National Energy Board. However, there is no certainty that there will be some form of secretariat with the appropriate expertise to assist the tribunal in its determinations.

It is encouraging that the cabinet may make regulations authorizing the tribunal to award fees, travel and other costs for claimants to present their case. However, that will be by regulation, and it is not clear what the timeline is on the issuance of those regulations to set the guidance. It is noted that the regulations could fix a maximum compensation, but we do know what factors that is based on, as mentioned earlier. Perhaps it would be a good idea to actually provide criteria for calculating the costs of the impacts.

The imposition of fees, levies and charges for payouts can be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund. However, there is the issue and concern of how seriously the funds will be pursued from the operator or whether there will be reliance on public funds. The National Energy Board would be empowered to issue regulation-setting rates, but there is no mention of consultation with either the pipeline operators or the public on how it will set those rates for the levies and fees.

It will be important for the National Energy Board to report regularly on its efforts to recover the debts incurred or spill cleanup for compensation. However, there is no mention in the bill to that effect. Regarding cost advances to file claims, it is unclear if the law would allow for the payment of advanced funds to address or cleanup a spill, or if it would also allow for advances to people who would seek compensation to hire lawyers, experts and so forth, which is very important in procedures before a tribunal.

Increasing concerns are being expressed within communities and first nations with the approach to regulating pipelines arising from failed spill prevention, failed detection, failed response to spills and the failure of the National Energy Board or other government agencies to require pipeline proponents to disclose their emergency and spill response plans for public review and scrutiny. This certainly has arisen in the review of the Kinder Morgan proposed trans mountain pipeline expansion. People along that line are very concerned that they are not getting access to the emergency spill response plan.

The same is the case with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation with a review of a pipeline in Alberta. It eventually pulled away from an Energy Board review because it was denied access to that emergency spill response plan for a pipeline and then given less than 24 hours to review the document. The Alexis First Nation in Alberta has also been demanding greater access to information on the spill from breaches of mines. The preference of Canadians is the prevention of harm to their communities, the environment, and not mere compensation after the fact. As the expression goes, “Mieux vaut prévenir que guérir ”.

The improved measures provided under Bill C-46 will be welcomed and will offer succour to those impacted by major spills. However, that is unlikely to be sufficient to restore trust in the government or in the National Energy Board in the wake of denied access to potentially impacted communities and first nations of emergency spill response plans, the downgrading of federal environmental and fisheries laws, and the diminished opportunity for public first nations to participate in pipeline reviews. Frankly, in the National Energy Board and provincial energy reviews, there have been many concerns raised.

I gave the example of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which is extremely disturbed that the pipeline will go through its traditional lands, not having access to major documents. The change to the National Energy Board intervener rules would limit participation. I gave the example of where the previous minister of Natural Resources dubbed “interveners” in the review of pipelines as “radical groups” who “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda”, merely because they sought to intervene to raise concerns with pipeline projects.

Concerns have been expressed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in his 2011 report regarding the long-standing failure by Transport Canada and the National Energy Board to ensure compliance or corrective action, and the failure of the NEB to review emergency procedures of 39% of regulated companies. Absent of increased resources, there is little confidence this will be addressed in a timely manner.

(1145) Yes, Canadians recognize that they rely on fossil fuels for use, benefit from revenues from sale and export, and that pipelines are needed to transport the fuel. However, it is reasonable for Canadians to expect their government to regulate the sector in a manner that ensures the protection of their health and environment. Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one would think that one's hypocrisy could only go so far, but it appears not.

That discourse was not only free of statistics and quantitative and qualitative evidence, it was fact-free as well. It is worth pointing out that in the past decade more than 72,000 kilometres of federally regulated pipelines boast a safety record of 99.999%. These pipelines account for 6,000 jobs and $7 billion in annual sector revenue. It is even more astonishing coming from that member. Here are some interesting facts. The member voted against increasing pipeline inspections. She voted against doubling the number of comprehensive audits.

She voted against implementing fines against companies that would break the law. In fact, I would bring to the attention of the House the comments she made during her speech regarding the Plains Midstream spill. That company was fined by the National Energy Board on February 12. Why did that member vote against the very things she has tried to advocate for in her speech.

(1150) Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. The hypocrisy is all on the side of the minister. As he well knows, the measures to improve the environment to better regulate the oil gas and sector were included in the government's omnibus budget bills. No matter how many times we requested the division of those bills so they could be debated and voted on separately, they were refused. The hypocrisy is all with the government. Our party has continuously called for improved measures and greater seriousness in delivering on what the government calls responsible resource management.

It professes that it gives equal attention to environmental protection as it does to resource extraction, but that is far from the truth and far from the matter before us. As the House is aware, I simply quoted the flaws and the problems identified by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I rest my case, and the response needs to be to the commissioner on the failure to adequately follow up. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I am honoured to serve with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I will have the pleasure of giving a speech on Bill C-46 this afternoon, but I would like to ask my colleague a question about liability. The bill limits liability to $1 billion in the case of a disaster caused by a pipeline where there is no proof of fault on the part of a company. Why did the government choose that amount? In Kalamazoo, in the United States, costs have already reached an estimated $1.2 billion, and only a tiny proportion of the mess has been cleaned up. Why did the government peg liability at $1 billion?

Would it not be better to set a higher amount? That seems to me to be nothing more than a round number. [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the terrific role he plays as the critic for natural resources. It is a pleasure to work with him in that role. I can not answer why the government has chosen $1 billion. Canadians will be pleased that we have gone from, I think, $50 million before to $1 billion. Simply doing it as a one-off for offshore activity, shipping and so forth is inadequate.

We are glad the government is coming forward with a larger sum to potentially recover after a pipeline spill. There is a measure in the bill wherein the discretion of the cabinet could opt to increase that amount, but again there is no criteria given for when it might opt to increase that amount. Again, that topic merits discussion at committee. There is potential for an amendment to the bill to provide criteria either by regulation or within the context of the legislation in those incidents where we would require more than $1 billion, not only to clean up the spill but to provide compensation. Hon.

Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question just posed to the member, there is a bit of a false dichotomy in terms of the comparison. In the example that was cited, the operator was found to be at fault. This legislation enshrines findings that have been put forward in case law to ensure there is unlimited liability in cases where things are found at fault. Therefore, would my colleague clarify that this example is not a correct application of what she has put forward? Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech at the outset, there are two approaches to liability under the statute. One is unlimited, if it is unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or other commodity as a result of a company's fault or negligence. In the second, it is limited to a million dollars if there is no proof of fault or negligence. Those are often complicated matters and it may well be that the government simply relies on the $1 billion because of a difficulty in proving fault or negligence.

What would probably happen in those scenarios and what the community that would be impacted really would want to have happen, if in an isolated area, would be an immediate cleanup. What will happen is the taxpayers will incur the costs of that more immediate, direct cleanup and eventually try to recover that. It may end up in complicated litigation over whether there was or was not fault or negligence. (1155) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

With this type of issue, whether we are talking about a pipeline spill or a tragedy like the one we saw in Lac-Mégantic, my constituents in Sherbrooke often tell me that they are concerned about the company responsible for the spill. When the company goes bankrupt and the government is trying to find money to clean up the mess the company has caused, what happens next? That is the kind of question I have heard many times from the people of Sherbrooke. Can a company default on its obligation when it is responsible for a spill? We could be talking about a pipeline in the case of the bill we are debating today.

People are wondering whether there is a way to prevent a company from defaulting on its obligations if it is responsible for a spill. I wonder whether the bill we are studying today addresses the concerns of the people of Sherbrooke. [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I did note in my speech that there was some growing concern about the factoring in of bankruptcy. That of course would particularly arise where there were abandoned pipelines, as is the case in my province where there are tens of thousands of abandoned well sites.

In some cases in residential development of suburbs we discover, after the fact, that there are abandoned well sites and someone has to move in to clean that up. It may be companies have disappeared or may have been bought by another company, and there is the issue of who is liable. What the relationship would be in the case of bankruptcy and the powers under this legislation to recover the costs are matters that need serious discussion at committee. Particularly what it does is send a wake-up call that time may lapse and the company may be bankrupt.

This follows on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development 's report on the failure of the National Energy Board to move quickly enough to ensure compliance or action to address what it has issued in its orders. We need measures in both ways. We need to look to the resources and the intention of the NEB and where its priorities lie. We also need to ensure we have dealt with this in the bill. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have quite enjoyed the debate this morning, because we are talking about what the right balance is in terms of this particular set of regulations. We have had some debate earlier this year in the House around how government should approach regulations, just as a whole, with regard to the red tape reduction act, and I think it is worth bringing some of that to the front end of my speech, just to get some context for my comments. With regard to this regulation, we are trying to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.

We are trying to ensure a high degree of environmental integrity with regard to transport of energy products, and we want to make sure that the regulations are based on fact, historical analysis, statistically proven probabilities, and consultation with industry and with first nations and aboriginal communities; and we also want to ensure, when we were talking about balance, that the fact-based analysis and the desire to ensure the highest degree of public safety are also contextualized within an opportunity cost calculation, making sure there is stability, transparency, and predictability for industry.

If we talk offline to anyone in industry or even in the NGO community, I would like to think there is a cognizance of the importance of the energy sector to Canada, which I will speak to in a moment. However, really what I think the bill has done, and why I am speaking in favour of it, is balance those three points. It has a very high degree of regulation in terms of health and safety for Canadians, which of course builds on the responsible resource development package that we put in place in budget 2012.

It also would ensure that fact-based analysis were used to develop some of the criteria and some of the amounts for liability that were included in the bill, but then it would also ensure that it is reasonable: it could still receive those high results but also be reasonable in terms of industry expectations to operate, so it has that economic balance.

First, I think it is worth starting at the bottom end and talking about the economic importance of this industry to Canada, because sometimes I find that the policy debate around energy infrastructure and energy policy tends to say, well, maybe we should not have this industry at all; maybe it is something we should completely scale back or, through different types of regulations, seek to curtail.

I think what we should be doing with our regulation is acknowledging the importance of this industry and encouraging it to grow, but in a framework of sustainability, both for the health of Canadians and for sustainability of the environment. I want to start by making my position and our government's position very clear, which is that we do believe that the energy sector is very important to Canada's economy. There is no doubt about this. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. I know the figures that are regularly put out are roughly in the neighbourhood of 500,000 jobs.

That is not just through direct employment; it is through secondary sectors like manufacturing and services. Certainly, we hear about this from excellent groups like the Canadian oilwell drilling association. It has a huge impact on the economy in terms of job creation. It also has a huge impact in terms of government revenue. Many of our social programs and our innovation programs are funded by revenues that come in from the energy sector. We have to go into this debate saying that this is a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. It is important.

How do we develop it, and how do we ensure, in this case, the transport of energy products in a healthy and sustainable way? I should also say that we need energy. That is something we do not talk about here. Sometimes when we talk about the importance of the energy industry, we are remiss in not talking about the fact that we need the resources that are produced here, both for our own energy security and because we need energy to do things.

It is essential to have natural gas delivered to our homes, to fire furnaces on cold winter nights like we are experiencing this week, and it is certainly important in terms of looking at a viable, safe, secure source of energy that encourages manufacturing companies to invest in building Canada, that encourages our agricultural sector to grow, and that encourages mobility.

I do not think we can divorce this conversation from the fact that we need this sector from an economic perspective both in the sense of direct economic impact and also in the sense of energy security and being able to see the economy grow through that.

(1200) If we need energy and it is important to the economy, how do we transport it? That is the rub. That is why we have the pipeline safety act in front of us today. This bill acknowledges these things: that we have a demand for energy and that it is important to the economy. An interesting statistic is that, according to the International Energy Agency, the world will need 37% more energy in 2040 than it consumes today. How do we transport it? Pipeline companies are currently moving about three million barrels of oil every day.

If we were to turn off those pipelines tomorrow, we would have to add about 15,000 tanker trucks on our roads every day or put another 4,200 rail cars on our railways every day just to meet existing demand. These alternative modes of transportation consume more energy, which of course increases our greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important discussion in the context of our debate on how Canada responds to the issue of climate change. Pipelines offer a clean and efficient way to deliver the energy we need on a daily basis. Industry knows this, and we know this.

It is why we have put this bill forward in this place, to address some of the concerns around what is already a very safe track record. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources , talked about a 99.999% safety rate with regard to federally regulated pipelines. When we look at international best practice, we certainly have that here in Canada in terms of health and safety regulations for pipelines. This would take it to the next level.

Going back to the front of the speech, the three components we are seeking on the balance of regulation among health and safety, fact-based analysis, and ensuring that economic balance are the following: incident prevention, preparedness response, and liability and compensation. Looking at prevention, this particular bill speaks to a number of things. I am going to give some examples of some of the things that are happening in western Canada, which may not be addressed by this bill directly but are important for the context of the discussion.

My ministry, Western Economic Diversification, in part seeks to look at the strength of some of our primary industries and ask how we can use the strength in there—through both highly qualified personnel and economic opportunity—to create secondary industries that develop diversification opportunities. It is interesting, because by some of the regulations we have put in place through our responsible resource development package in 2012, we have incented innovation and new industries by creating opportunities for industry to respond to those.

There are two specific examples I want to speak to with regard to preparedness. The first is a very interesting centre with which Western Economic Diversification has engaged in funding, and that is C-FER Technologies in Edmonton. I want to spend just a bit of time on this because I know in the previous round of debate one of the questions that were asked by my colleague across the aisle was what is industry doing now.

What I really like about this particular organization is that it focuses on facilitating the use of leading-edge technology by oil and gas pipeline operators in the development of challenging resources. The component of this particular bill that we are trying to push is the creation and adoption of best available technology. Best available technology is something that is changing and growing every day, and our government has been working to fund it.

A project that has been recently completed is a facility-expansion program, which includes leasing and operating a new facility in the oil and gas sector and the design, construction, and installation of high-capacity loading testing systems, upgrades, and instrumentations. Basically this centre allows industry a place to test new technologies that pertain to pipeline safety. That includes different widgets that could be deployed in a pipeline to sense leaks. It is very high level technology. I have been there and I encourage colleagues across the aisle to go and visit this facility.

Again, it is a demonstration centre so that new technologies can be translated from the bench into the market. This does two things: first, it encourages long-term safety for these pipelines; and second, it creates jobs because we are taking intellectual property from the bench and commercializing it in Canada. It is an absolutely astounding centre, and I am very proud that we have supported it.

(1205) The other component I want to talk about is SDTC Canada, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This is a group that has been supported by our government, which is involved in the development and commercialization of clean technology, using industry as a driver. As a Calgary MP, I want to bring up Pure Technologies, a very innovative little company in Calgary that has been working with SDTC. It has developed a robot device for pipeline inspection, of which I have a diagram. It looks like a ball.

It is a very complicated, technological ball that goes into the pipeline and, based on fluid dynamics, can sense minute fractures in pipelines so that leaks can be detected and dealt with ahead of time. Again, we are looking at ways to ensure that there is prevention with the best available technology. This is another way our government has been working with industry to strike that balance between health and safety and economic development. It is really cool to look at some of the technologies coming out in the development of a secondary industry around clean technology for pipeline safety.

Looking at the second component of this bill, preparedness and response, I will speak from my notes, but then I want to speak about another project that has an economic diversification angle with regard to this particular aspect of the bill. The pipeline safety act would ensure a robust response in the unlikely event of an incident. We talked about that 99.999% success rate. The new legislation would require companies operating pipelines to have a minimum level of financial resources.

It would also require that these pipeline operators keep a portion of that money readily accessible for rapid response should an incident recur. The bill would also give the National Energy Board the authority and resources to take control of an incident response or cleanup if, in exceptional circumstances, the company is unable or unwilling to do so. This means the government would provide a financial backstop so that the board has the resources needed to complete the cleanup and take necessary action.

Any funds provided by the government would be recovered from industry, again adhering to the government's polluter pays principle that we have talked about so many times in this place. I would like to draw attention, though, talking about preparedness, to the importance of training people on the job. Sometimes this can be difficult for the energy sector, given that it is in remote northern conditions. We have been looking to work with industry and some institutions on best practices to ensure that training can be delivered.

A couple of weeks ago, I announced a project with the Justice Institute of British Columbia. The Justice Institute is a world leader in providing training and leading thought on safety training. It is actually launching a project that is going to have commercialization benefits, called Praxis, by which it puts simulated situations in web-enabled training. It is working with industry to have rapid response. The interesting thing is that the intellectual property in those simulations can actually be commercialized into different software packages.

Again, we are seeing economic spinoff on the service provision and commercialization on the new technology side and ensuring that companies have the preparedness and incident response requirement built into their companies. It is a great project and something I hope people look into, because it is really great and it is happening here in Canada. With regard to liability and compensation, the third pillar of the bill, as I said, which would enshrine the polluter pays principle into law.

There are two components, which I will speak to very briefly, as I know that the criteria around this will be examined more at committee. First, for unlimited liability, right now this is in practice through common law, but this bill would clarify unlimited liability when companies are at fault or negligent. This would be put explicitly into law in Canada. With regard to absolute liability, it would put an amount in place irrespective of fault or negligence for all companies operating pipelines, and it would set that amount at $1 billion.

I know that some questions have come up with regard to that particular amount, such as why this amount would be in place, how it was arrived at, and that it is not enough. When we talk about how we develop regulations, that fact-based analysis, historical analysis examples demonstrate that this level of absolute liability and financial capacity would provide world-class coverage. The average cleanup costs of major pipeline spills in North America result in costs in the range of $20 million to $50 million in the case of absolute liability.

(1210) With the time I have remaining, I should probably talk a bit about our government's response to climate change, because invariably the energy sector and climate change are a linked discussion. Certainly that has been the case this week with regard to some decisions made by our neighbours to the south on energy infrastructure. It is important to talk about what we have done on this file, because the theme of my speech is how we develop balanced regulations. We need to talk about the same thing with respect to our response to climate change.

We have taken a sector-by-sector regulatory approach whereby we work with industry to set targets that produce tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. An example is the light-duty passenger vehicle sector, where these regulations will eventually result both in lower fuel costs for consumers and in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, which is a win-win for all. We have worked closely with the coal-fired electricity sector. Both of these sectors were major sources of emissions, and we have seen those emissions reduced. That is a huge accomplishment of this government.

With respect to international action, we have said that in order to see real reductions internationally, we need an agreement that sees all major emitters commit, not just a small percentage of them. We have been working toward that goal through our participation in the Conferences of the Parties. Also, we invest heavily in research and development with respect to not only climate change adaptation and working with communities to respond to climate change but also in researching new technologies, monitoring standards, and best practices.

We are researching new technologies through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We commit quite a bit of funding, through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, to climate change research through the climate change and atmospheric research program. This also builds on basic research in other areas as well that feed into the specific domain . In the few minutes I have left, I want to go back to the start of my speech and talk again about balance and pragmatism in putting forward regulations.

This is about seeing action in climate change. It is about ensuring that we have health and safety for Canadians, but it is also about ensuring that these regulations are based on fact-based analysis of what we have seen happen in the past and what is likely to happen in the future and do not put a shock on industry. These proposals were developed hand and foot with industry. They were developed in consultation with first nations groups. We want to make sure that when we put regulations forward, they achieve that balance.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about my opposition colleague's response in this area, which I found to be not responsible. I will speak specifically about the Liberal Party. I have watched the Liberals' comments on pipelines with some curiosity. On June 19, 2004, their leader said, “I'm also supportive of the idea of a west to east pipeline.” Then on May 29 he said, “I am very much in favour of the west/east pipeline”. Then on the 13th he said that the energy east oil pipeline is not socially acceptable.

I think it is reasonable to have a debate in this place that looks at what the liability limits are, how we are achieving that balance, and what would cause a shock to industry, a necessary shock that would see a health and safety component put in place, versus just an ideological happenstance discussion that really does not serve industry, the public, or health and safety. I am encouraged by some of the debate that occurs. I hope that my colleagues opposite will put this bill forward to committee.

It can be studied in greater detail in terms of some of the assumptions about the facts and statistics put forward to calculate some of the specific liability limits and rules. However, I hope that it will not devolve into a flip-flopping debate, as we have seen from the leader of the third party.

(1215) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that commentary. It is regrettable, given the seriousness of this bill, that the hon. member gave little attention to talking about the significant measures in this bill or to cogent recommendations on how we can further strengthen it. I am a little bit troubled that the minister is saying that when we are talking about compensation for spills from pipelines, we should be balanced and take a pragmatic approach in regulation. That is deeply troubling.

This specific bill is supposed to be about pipeline safety and about putting in place significant measures to genuinely offer a way in which people can be compensated. This bill is not about the mumbo-jumbo that we are hearing about what our energy policy should be. I hope that when we get to committee, we will have a discussion about the specific measures under the bill. I did find what the minister talked about very interesting. I do follow up with these projects that Western Economic Diversification Canada supports.

If the minister is genuinely concerned about acting on climate change, I would be happy if her agency gave greater attention, or at least equal attention, to supporting the renewable energy sector. She has continuously rejected it when it applies to invest in jobs in Alberta and in exporting clean technology to the rest of the world. I look forward to her response about when the government is going to move from further research and dialogue about addressing climate change and the regulation of the fossil fuel sector and actually take action to address the impacts of the oil and gas sector.

(1220) Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, to be clear, this is why I was trying to talk about balance. What I define as pragmatism in regulation is putting forward a target for health and safety that is absolutely stringent and world-leading, which we have done in this bill, and then, with this bill, ensuring that the liability limits cover it. Enshrining unlimited liability in law when it comes to fault or negligence being proven is excellent. That is a very good best practice. Having $1 billion of coverage required for absolute liability in law takes that coverage in Canada one step further.

My colleague asked questions regarding my portfolio, Western Economic Diversification Canada. I am very proud to say that this year, with deep consultation with industry and different community groups, we put in place five very clear priority areas for our ministry. They are innovation, ensuring the acceleration of economic opportunities for first nations and aboriginal peoples, skills training, trade and investment, and the ITP program. We now have a comparative-based call for proposals model for our fund, which ensures that opportunities are evaluated in an investment portfolio model.

I encourage everyone to apply for these funds. We have just closed the last round of applications, and evaluation is going to be based on a very clear and transparent evaluation framework. Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, members can imagine how thrilled I am to have my colleague not only stand up for her province but represent her ministry so well.

It has not been involved in the debate thus far that I can recall, but she understands as a member of Parliament for the prairies that pipelines offer a unique solution that other forms of energy transportation cannot. The squeeze on the mining sector, grain farmers, and the forest sector right now is immense. It is going on in Canada, and it is being grumbled about and will arise a little later this winter in the midwestern United States. This debate is right.

The fact that we can bring in a piece of legislation that protects the interests of miners, the forest sector, and grain farmers is one thing, but this piece of legislation also represents the best available technology. We are giving the National Energy Board those considerations through this piece of legislation. That is something that this member is a bar-none expert on. She mentioned a few aspects in her speech, but I consider her an expert on getting innovation from the bench to the marketplace.

When it comes to pipeline integrity, to safety, and to detection, and to the elements of this bill, which are prevention, preparedness, and response, I would like to give her an opportunity to expound on other examples of Canada leading the way in technology and innovation in pipeline safety and security as a strategic business unit of the energy sector. Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, this is an area that is near and dear to my heart.

Prior to entering politics, I worked at the University of Calgary in its research services division, where I was pleased and thrilled to work with some of the best minds in the world in terms of clean technology and public policy with regard to this area. With regard to my portfolio, we had the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures. We partnered with the Government of Alberta to start the Materials and Reliability in Oil Sands research and development consortium to develop innovative coatings and welding techniques that would reduce wear and corrosion on pumps, pipelines, and other equipment.

I could go on and on, because we are seeing that as government puts forward strong, stable, balanced regulation, industry is responding. Industry is also proactively looking at their corporate social responsibility mandate in ensuring that those technologies are being adopted. It is a really cool pull into the market that has been created both by strong government legislation as well as by expertise in western Canada. It is a great thing to see. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

We are talking about the fundamental polluter pays principle. She talked quite a bit about balance. I would like to know what she thinks as a member of Parliament and a member of cabinet about the government's reasons for introducing such legislation, which affects oil pipelines but not other products like natural gas or solvents, which can also be transported via pipeline. I would also like to know why she thinks the bill, if it is amended, would only affect pipelines transporting more than 250,000 barrels of oil a day and not those that transport 100,000 barrels, for example.

Why does the government's plan have this limit? [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I was trying to listen in French. If I understood my colleague's questions correctly, he asked why we have this legislation and why it affects this and not other materials. Certainly we want to ensure that the bill would have a very positive impact on high-volume pipelines, which are regulated very well. We also want to work with smaller operators to ensure that the regulations are not too onerous on them, while also reflecting a high degree of health and safety requirements.

I think the bill gets that right, but I should mention that it is not just about looking at the pipeline. The bill also reflects some of the things we have put in place to ensure that the build-out is safe. Changes we have made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as making the environmental assessment process more robust through the RRD process, are very good things.

I should also mention that we increased the budget to the National Energy Board in 2012 by $13.5 million and in 2014 by $28 million for increased audits and project reviews so that we could have that high degree of safety in the build-out as well. We have a very robust piece of legislation that Canada can be very proud of, and I hope that my colleagues will vote to send it to committee. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-46 .

I am even more pleased about the fact that this is the first bill on natural resources that I have the honour to debate in the House as the official opposition critic for energy and natural resources. This is an extremely important issue, particularly because of the various challenges we are currently facing and the projects that are under way. In my riding, the energy east project will pass through Témiscouata. It is a major project.

Clearly, there are many other major projects all over the country that are directly affected by Bill C-46 , which seeks to make the transportation of oil via Canada's pipelines safer. The government asked us how we are going to vote at second reading. I can confirm that we are going to support the bill at this stage. We are not doing so because the bill is perfect, and in the next few minutes I will have the opportunity to explain the problems with this bill that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources should work on. In our opinion, this bill is a good first step.

Finally, after putting so much pressure on the government, we are truly pleased that the government is willing to reinforce the polluter pays principle, not just in words but also in the legislation. As my colleagues no doubt know, since our leader, the member for Outremont , took over the reins of the New Democratic Party, he has spoken at length about this country's need to enforce the polluter pays principle, not only in the area of natural resources but also in all of our country's industrial and economic sectors.

He has also spoken about the need to take into account external economic impacts, for example the cost of the pollution caused by various industries, in order to reflect the actual cost of production, not only from an economic perspective for the consumer or the producer, but also from an environmental perspective and from the perspective of how it could affect large communities. On this side of the House, we recognize the importance of the oil and gas industry across the country.

We know that this industry accounts for approximately 7% or 8% of Canada's GDP and that it has an impact not only on the western part of the country, but also on regions such as Quebec and Ontario. However, if we want to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, we will have to do so in a consistent and comprehensive manner. In describing the bill, which is what I plan to do for the next few minutes, we realized that the generally positive points might not go far enough, such as establishing no-fault liability. Thus, at the end of the day, all companies could be liable in the event of a disaster.

Even if it is not the company's fault or if negligence is not proven, the liability could be as high as $1 billion, depending on the amount established by the National Energy Board, by cabinet or by the governor in council. While the $1 billion is positive when you consider that there is currently no implicit responsibility in Canadian legislation or regulations, it does minimize and water down the polluter pays principle. Even if the company is not at fault, it is nevertheless a question of a pipeline built and operated by a company that must eventually take full responsibility for it.

We are therefore faced with the following problem: even if there is no fault assigned, taxpayers could end up bearing financial responsibility. If a disaster occurred that cost more than $1 billion in cleanup and environmental costs, some of that burden could be placed on taxpayers through the government. We see this as one of the bill's weaknesses. If we really want to remain true to the polluter pays principle, we need to follow through on the reasoning and make the company fully responsible.

Clearly, if the pipeline has a defect and the company is not responsible and a third party is, liability could be placed on the third party. However, if there is an operational issue and the company is responsible for the pipeline, then it must be fully responsible for any damage caused and for all environmental costs.

(1230) However, if the company is found to be at fault or negligent, under the bill, costs and damages could be much higher. This amount would be determined by either the governor in council or the National Energy Board. We support the fact that this legislation will finally hold companies responsible for abandoned pipelines. Beforehand, the responsibility was implied but not necessarily very clear. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned in her speech that this is a serious problem in Alberta, where there are many abandoned oil wells connected by equally abandoned pipelines.

These abandoned infrastructures pose a problem, because most of the time, the companies that owned them no longer exist, which creates legal uncertainty regarding cleanup costs. It is therefore good that the responsibility of companies for these underground pipelines in Canada, even after they stop operating, is explicitly stated in this bill, because we are talking about major projects and companies that are relatively stable economically and financially. How can we ensure that the companies will assume these costs?

Under the bill, any company that is operating a pipeline that matches the standards set out in the bill, namely pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day, must have liability coverage of up to $1 billion. Once again, we support that. This money will be used to ensure that the company is immediately liable in the event of an incident and will also serve as a deposit in case a pipeline ceases operations, so that the company remains responsible for any potential cleanup costs or costs associated with subsidence, for example.

The bill thus provides for protection against any damage that could result on the land under which a pipelines passes. It is perhaps minimal compared to the growing costs associated with these pipelines but it is still a recognition of the company's responsibility. It seems like I am praising the government, but we have to acknowledge the progress that has been made in pipeline safety and the positive aspects. For example, the bill authorizes the National Energy Board to establish a pipeline claims tribunal for claims following a pipeline leak or disaster.

It used to be extremely complex and onerous for a land owner to get compensation for a major pipeline spill. The legal system is very complex and there are a lot of costs up front for a person who suffered damages. This bill includes a provision authorizing the National Energy Board and the governor in council, at their discretion, to establish an administrative tribunal following a disaster in to order hear and compensate the parties who feel adversely affected by the disaster.

This is progress because it will make the administrative process easier—if the National Energy Board and the governor in council use their discretion wisely, that is. Those are the positive aspects of this bill as I see them. This is progress, and it is why we are voting in favour of this bill at second reading. We could then consider the bill further in committee and propose amendments to improve these provisions, which seem more watered down than they could be. As far as the bill's flaws are concerned, we can name three.

First, I mentioned several times the issue of the discretion of the National Energy Board and the governor in council, or cabinet.

(1235) It would have been preferable to provide greater certainty in this bill and give it more teeth, if you will, so that some elements would be triggered without relying on the National Energy Board or the Governor in Council to provide good governance or wise decision making. In fact, a number of these tools that, in principle, should improve the safety of pipelines are not guaranteed. Their application will be at the discretion of the National Energy Board and the Governor in Council. We all hope that will happen, but it will be determined on a case-by-case basis with no guarantees.

Furthermore, we really wanted the government to understand that pipeline safety impacts not only the transport of oil, but also the transport of natural gas and other products, such as solvents used in the oil sands. Quite often, the bitumen is treated in one area and the solvent, after being separated from the bitumen, is reshipped to the extraction site. These solvents are highly toxic and very dangerous. It would have been good for such a bill to cover the transport of these products, whose risk to the environment is similar to that of oil.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand why the government limited its new safety standards on pipeline transportation to pipelines that transport more than 250,000 barrels a day. Why did it not impose these standards and new restrictions on pipeline transportation safety on all interprovincial pipelines that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and the federal government? Yes, it is a step in the right direction that the government is now applying, even partially, the polluter pays principle. That is why we will support the bill.

It is also an important issue for the government and the industry, because it is a question of confidence in the industry. I can speak from personal experience, because one of the main concerns in my riding and in Quebec as a whole, given what I have heard about the energy east project, has to do with transportation safety with respect to rivers, waterways and watersheds, among others. That is a big concern that recently came up in a Harris-Decima survey of Canadians' views on the transportation of oil and gas, either by rail or by pipeline.

Less than half of Canadians have confidence in the pipeline transportation system. Lots of people talked about social licence. That is why it goes without saying that for the in-depth study and to reassure people that transporting oil by pipeline will not have a negative impact on their community, there must be elements in place to ensure safety and rapid response in case of a disaster. There must also be a mechanism in place to ensure that companies pay adequate compensation for all environmental disasters that occur on private property or even on public property.

The government should have gone in that direction. One could even argue that they took too long to go in this direction because it has been some time now since the government was reminded of its responsibility for pipeline safety and the safe transportation of oil and fossil fuels in general. It should have taken action on this long ago, and many members of society have criticized it for that, not just environmentalists, but also communities directly affected by that transportation, be it underground or by rail. If we look at all of the projects, some will certainly be influenced or affected by this bill.

It could help the communities that are stakeholders in this. I am talking about energy east, of course, and northern gateway is another one that is affected. This might enable communities to look at this from another angle.

(1240) We should not necessarily expect the government to have carte blanche when it comes to getting its projects approved by the communities. It can take a positive approach, or a relatively positive one in this case, but communities have still expressed a lot of concerns. I am not talking just about municipalities; I am talking about aboriginal communities too. For example, in the case of northern gateway, Kitimat could be severely affected if there is a disaster, and that has been brought up a number of times. The government seems unable to reassure that community.

The government should have a responsibility to intervene directly in talks about pipelines with first nations; that should not be left up to the company. The government, which has a responsibility toward first nations, should be able to get involved in these matters. It refuses to do so. As a result, these projects have no social licence. Ultimately, not only is the government doing nothing to increase safety standards, but according to most experts, it is also limiting consultation periods as well as the effectiveness of the environmental assessment process. It has sped up the process to supersonic speeds.

I am using that language because, in the case of the energy east project, the National Energy Board has only 15 months. In fact, the deadline for intervening or even commenting on the energy east project in Quebec is March 3, which is next week. The problem is that TransCanada, which of course is the company behind the energy east project, has not yet even decided if there will be an oil port in Cacouna. Rumour has it that the route could change significantly. Apparently, Cacouna could be replaced by Baie-des-Sables, Bécancour or Lévis, for example.

It is not clear if plans have been finalized, but the board seems to think that it has to act immediately because of the extremely tight deadlines that were imposed by the federal government's legislation. The same thing goes for the issue of environmental assessment, given that there used to be separate processes. The National Energy Board dealt with the pipeline itself while environmental issues went through a separate process. To address some of the shortcomings, the government obviously could have changed the two processes to try to increase their effectiveness.

However, in the end, by merging the processes and handing responsibility over to the National Energy Board, the government did not do the industry any favours, quite the contrary. These days, there is a lot more resistance to these projects, precisely because the process seems extremely inadequate for people who want to intervene and for those who are affected and worried and are feeling dismayed about how quickly everything is moving. In the case of energy east, we are talking about a major project involving 1.1 million barrels that the board has to handle in 15 months.

We are talking about the polluter pays principle, the federal government's responsibility, and the principle whereby the federal government should ensure the best provisions for the industry. These provisions are not just intended to make shipping and economic expansion easier. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the economic, regulatory, and legislative conditions governing the oil and gas industry are stable enough to ensure long-term consistency. The companies and industry need to know that their economic environment is secured for the long term.

At present, given how the government operates and the changes that were made, the companies are right to question the merits of the government's policies. In the case of Bill C-46 , the measures are a step forward in pipeline safety. That is why we support the bill. However, there is still some uncertainty when it comes to ensuring that natural resource development, which is important to Canada's economy, could grow responsibly and sustainably, as we gradually transition Canada's economy to one that is based more on renewable energy, of course.

(1245) Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this bill mainly tackles the problem of the polluter pays principle, but not other matters. I am worried about that. We are going to support the bill so we can discuss it. Today in Le Devoir , there is an

article about the municipal revolt against energy east: At least 75 cities have voiced concerns about the TransCanada pipeline....The mayor of Mascouche...is not mincing words...“We do not want this project. That is clear.” Canadians are worried about protecting many people's wells and also about protecting the environment. I hope that this flaw in the bill will be corrected. Communities must be consulted and mobilized in a significant way. If oil companies really want to obtain public approval, Canadians must have the assurance that these projects are sustainable and that approval processes are open and fair.

How can we harness these resources in a sustainable manner while protecting the environment and fostering the creation of value-added jobs in Canada? I would like my colleague to elaborate on this because it is not really addressed by the bill. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for her question. The issue of social licence is important. Projects such as energy east would have no social licence without any real consultation.

TransCanada and the National Energy Board held consultations and set up booths in the various municipalities and communities that are affected. However, they must do more. There must be real dialogue with the municipalities and communities, which have the impression that TransCanada and the National Energy Board are just trying to convince them. Take for example, the liquefied natural gas or LNG industry, which still has it merits. A company that I will not name wanted to set up an LNG tank, following one of the three diagrams prepared by the engineers.

When these three options were proposed to the public, people identified weaknesses in the two options that were the cheapest for the company. The third option did not seem to present any problems. The company therefore submitted the third project, even though it was more expensive, and set up the reservoir. This community therefore had its say before the project was carried out. These people did not feel as though the company was trying to convince them to accept the least expensive option. Accordingly, social licence was easier to obtain.

This bill also makes it easier to obtain social licence because it responds to some of the concerns that municipalities and communities have about the responsibility of companies. However, it does not address all of their concerns. (1250) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the importance of our national pipelines is incredible in the sense that Canada has been blessed with natural resources, whether it is the oil sands or natural gas. However, to get products to market, we do not have very much in terms of options.

It is either pipeline development, if we are going to be expanding, or rail. I think most Canadians would rather see it go through pipelines, which is something the Liberal Party of Canada would also like to see. The member has already made reference to this, but I would like to reinforce it. It is important, as we look toward potential growth and the delivery of these commodities, that we have consultations with the public as a whole, particularly first nations and other communities, to get what is often referred to as a social licence to proceed.

Could the member comment on how critically important it is that we get that social contract? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron