OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 004 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, October 21, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 21, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 004 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 004 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 004 (Version officielle) 147 004 21 10 2013 2013/10/21 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Election of Committee Chairs Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) moved: Motion That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (

a) consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session and prior to the establishment of the membership of the standing committees; (

b) study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; (

c) propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and (

d) report its findings to the House no later than six months following the adoption of this order. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion today. Before I start I should thank the interpreters. I am probably one of the worst MPs when it comes to handing in my speeches ahead of time for their

interpretation. They are going to have to work from my notes and show their rather extraordinary talents of translation today. My apologies. The history and the background of this motion come from two basic sources. The first, and probably the most relevant to this place, is the debate that was held in 2002 on an opposition supply day. It was a very interesting day. Even though there was a majority Liberal government, the motion actually passed. There were members of the Liberal government in caucus, and the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP, who worked together to get a motion through.

The motion at that time was about the election of committee chairs directly by their committees. It was a fascinating day. It was interesting to read some of the motions and debates of that era, and to follow some of the remarks. I used this quote the first time I spoke to this issue. It was from the former member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and former minister of defence, who is now Minister of Justice . He said: An independently elected chair...would demystify and give greater credibility to the process.

What we are talking about is not the election of opposition members to fill those important positions of chair, but government members. Again, and I used this quote the last time I spoke on this matter, the former NDP member for Palliser, Mr. Dick Proctor, said: Frankly we make it far too easy for the media to cover politics in a very partisan fashion. There is a high angle shot which highlights, maybe even exaggerates, the neutral zone between the government side and the opposition side. That was the general tone of the debate that day.

These were members getting together and talking about ways to enhance the credibility of committee chairmanships, their powers and election. The many members who were not here prior to 2002 may not understand that the appointment of committee chairs was done purely through the Prime Minister 's Office. The second inspiration for this motion is what is known as the Wright report, a report by the British House of Commons. Several years ago, Great Britain was going through a bit of a crisis of democracy; that's one of those terms that political scientists use from time to time.

Great Britain had had some substantive issues with expense accounts. I know members are thinking about things that have been in the news here. However, it was much more widespread and encompassed members of all parties. More importantly, the members of the House of Commons were very deeply involved. Great Britain began to look at a considerable number of reforms to make its House of Commons work. One of them, among other things, was to look at the election of committee chairs.

In the last year it has looked at and revised the changes that were implemented by the Wright report, and by and large it has come to a very positive conclusion. It seems to be working, and it seems to be very substantive. I will read a quote from the U.K. House of Commons political and constitutional reform committee from July 18, 2013. The Wright Committee recommended a number of changes to the way the membership of select committees was decided, including most notably “an initial system of election by the whole House of Chairs of departmental and similarly select committees...” That was the recommendation.

Following up, it concluded that was one of the best recommendations that was made.There were several different positive results from this change. Some of those are the reasons I am proposing this change to the House of Commons.

(1110) The first reason, and the British found this to be the case in its experience, is the perception of independence. We are in a unique business in politics. Reality is not always reality in politics; perception is reality. That may seem strange, but I am getting some smiles from members in the House who understand what I am saying. What we do substantively does not often have the greatest impact, but what we are seen to do has an even greater impact. If we take steps to democratize and bring forward more independence, and more perception of independence, we enhance the reality of democracy.

That is not to imply any sort of criticism to current chairs. By and large, in my nine-plus years in the House of Commons I have dealt with excellent committee chairs. However sometimes in various situations, where they act based on their best judgment and in their own independent way, they are not always seen to have that. That is one of the reasons that this is an important and useful reform. It enhances the credibility of their position, the independence and understanding that they are acting—as they do, by and large—based on their own good judgment and not under anyone else's influence.

The second reason I am making this proposal is that members are more likely to be engaged. One of the areas where we do get engaged as members of Parliament, in a very deep and substantive way, is at our committees. We often do not have the time to become an expert on all aspects of debate here in the House. There are some members who are very widely read and who can cover a multitude of policy areas with extreme fluency. Unfortunately, that is not the reality for most of us, so we tend to engage and specialize in areas where we either have expertise or where we are appointed to committees.

As members take responsibility at committees, through election, engagement and increasing independence, members will be more engaged and able to act. The other thing I would like to point out is impartiality. In my experience, the committee chairs have been impartial, and vice-chairs as well. However, again, the perception is important, and it also helps with the reality. If my party were in opposition and I voted for someone for committee chair from whatever party in government, I have some stake in that. I have some responsibility in getting that person to that position.

I am less likely to make the charge of partiality when I have had some responsibility for putting that person in the office. I think it would bring together a more collaborative and positive result. In the first hour of debate on this motion, there were some questions put to me, and I have had questions when I have interacted with members throughout this process. I am going to deal with a few of them directly, to help members understand what we are talking about. First of all, the motion would not change who would be eligible to run for the chair of a committee.

In a situation with a minority Parliament, opposition members would not choose from their ranks to fill the committee chairs that are normally filled by the government. We have some committees that are chaired by opposition members, and government members would not be able to take over positions, such as public accounts, and a few other committee chairs. The eligibility for who would be able to stand for these positions would be same.

The second question I have had is why did I not put forward the same motion for vice-chairs, particularly first vice-chairs, as frequently second vice-chairs are from a party which has a very small representation. On principle that would be a very good step, to treat the first vice-chairs in the same way that we do the chairs of committees. However, I understand there are a couple of things. First of all, as one complicates a motion, the odds of its being successfully accepted go down.

Second, I do not want to send the message that I, as a government member, from whose party most chairs are currently chosen, want to be seen as imposing something on the opposition.

(1115) I would suggest that opposition members who tend to agree with that on principle advocate and speak to their respective critics and members on the committee that will be handling this to include that concept, because it is consistent. However, I for one do not want to be seen to be imposing, as a Conservative, on opposition prerogatives. Having said that, I should note this change is unlikely to affect this Parliament and would happen in the next Parliament.

Therefore, members who are thinking about how it would affect their particular individual situation should maybe think of the broader principles involved because many of us may not be in the next Parliament. Frankly, what we are interested in most of all in this place is not what is best for me but what is best for this place and what is best for this country. Then there is a fairly direct question. How would this change function? In my motion, I have left the ultimate decision to the committee. It would have to come back through another motion for this to be implemented.

However, this is the way that, in a general sense, the British Parliament has found and the way that I would envision it, on a very cursory preliminary glance. Again I would be open to the members of the committee to make suggestions. I would envision after the election of a speaker we would go on in a way that most of us are very familiar with due to party nominations; that is, a large preferential ballot. If there is more than one candidate who has put his or her name forward to stand, we would very simply number off: one, two, three, four.

Now, we could have one ballot with all the committees listed, which is, perhaps, unwieldy, or we could have a separate ballot. We would have our 20 ballot boxes, members would vote and then the various clerks of the House of Commons would tally the results and post them the next day. It is very simple to do, not very difficult and very easy to implement. Again, that is not a decision I am trying to make or impose. It is just something that I am suggesting and that is for the committee to decide. Here is another very good question that was put to me.

How would we actually ensure diversity among the people who are committee chairs? One of the first things I would say is that this is a very political process. Everything we do here is political. I would think all members of the House would have some interest in seeing a diverse range of people taking the chairmanships of the committees. Therefore, there would be a pressure to vote for a variety of candidates to encourage people who we know may not fit the traditional image of a committee chair to step forward.

By and large, the way caucuses work, with the way representation is, I think if there was an election where committee chairs all came from one very narrow demographic, purely from one province, for example, very quickly in the next election that situation would be solved. Because as we all know, we very are much influenced and open to political pressures both in our caucus and in dealing with the general public. It would probably be more difficult for rookies to get appointed or elected as committee chairs than it would be for veterans.

That is normative now, as we see most committee chairs are people with experience. It does help to have some idea how this place runs before we get involved in a leadership post. Having said that, if someone is an energetic brand new member with a talent and an ability to communicate, they will be known by members in their caucus and the members of their caucus will vouch for that and will help them to get their candidacy put forward. What I am asking from other members of the House? What am I looking for?

I am looking, in the committee and from other members, for concrete ideas as to how we can take this and make this very modest reform. The mechanics should be simple. However, they need to be thought out. They need to be looked into. Problems need to be delved into to see what can be done to improve this, to make this work. The second thing I am looking for from members is to use this as a springboard to start to think about other ways and other places we need to have reforms done, both in committee and in caucus. This would be an opportunity for members to come together, to be collaborative, to be productive.

I suggest this as a very modest, positive step to help make this place a more functioning, better democracy.

(1120) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from across the aisle for again delivering an engaging speech. As a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I do hope that the motion passes and that we will have a chance to study it. My question is simple. Can the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt let us know whether he has drawn any particular lessons of his own from how a system such as he is proposing may have operated in any other Westminster system to this point?

That is one of the points we would look at in the procedure and House affairs committee, but are signs good that this kind of system can work? Mr. Brad Trost : Mr. Speaker, as I noted in my speech, the British parliament has done a review of the reforms in the original Wright report. There were a couple of things that the report said, particularly with committees and the election of committee chairmanship, that the U.K. members thought had an interesting impact. Number one, in their opinion, the committees actually, by and large, became more active and more engaged. That is a good thing.

There was more of a sense of ownership and committees were more vocal. One of the ways, which no one anticipated originally, was that four particular committees became more engaged with the public and much more media active. As we now know, unless there is some major disruption in our committees, our committees tend to be very quiet and off the radar. Perhaps there is a very exciting witness who may bring media attention, et cetera. However, the report noted that with the enhanced credibility of this there was more public engagement through the media.

The correlation was drawn that it was largely to do with the enhanced credibility that came with elected committee chairs. It is an interesting insight and not something I would have thought of when I first looked at this proposal, but it is something we should perhaps think of as we study this. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his proposal here today. In fact, I have served on committee with the hon. member. What he proposes in studying this has the capacity to render committees more independent, potentially more constructive and less partisan in their workings.

I would appreciate his thoughts on another proposal that was most recently put forward by Deborah Grey and Senator Lowell Murray some time ago. That was that parliamentary secretaries to a minister ought not to be part of committees, that in fact having parliamentary secretaries as part of committees has the capacity, under not simply the current government but any government, of making committees function more like branch plants of ministers' offices as opposed to independent, less partisan groups of parliamentarians.

I would appreciate his thoughts on the idea of parliamentary secretaries not having automatic seats on committees. Mr. Brad Trost : Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous for a politician to talk before he has thought through something very thoroughly. This is the first I have heard of that suggestion. I can see some merit to the argument. Having said that, honestly this is the first time that the proposal has been put to me. However, I appreciate what the hon. member is trying to do, and this is what I noted in my speech.

He is trying to look at it and say that we should not confine the reforms to one area but that we should take a broad approach and see what we can do collaboratively. I can think of some parliamentary secretaries who would be very much supportive of something like that and some who would be opposed. While I am standing here, I could probably see quite a robust debate. I think the member's idea has merit, but since I am so new to the idea, I cannot endorse it at this time.

(1125) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Saskatoon—Humboldt for bringing a tangible measure that we can all support to deal with what is a democracy deficit in Canadian government and certainly in this Parliament. I just finished, parenthetically, a cross-country tour of town halls in communities across the country on the subject of democracy. As well, I have contrasted my own experience of having worked from 1986 to 1988 with the Minister of the Environment, where the committee process was far less partisan than it is now.

It was a place where people really, as individual members of Parliament, worked to improve legislation. The election of a chair could be one way that we could bring back that sense of greater cross-party co-operation. I would like the member's comments on whether that is one of his goals. Mr. Brad Trost : Mr. Speaker, yes, it is one of my goals to bring that together. I have seen it, as the member for Kings—Hants noted. We were on committee together.

The international trade committee during that period engaged in some very difficult debates, but it was a good committee to operate in because people wanted to work together even when they were at loggerheads. Therefore, what the hon. member is suggesting is one of my goals for this motion. The Deputy Speaker : A point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands . Mr. Ted Hsu : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: that at the conclusion of today's debate on private member's business Motion No. 431 , this motion be deemed adopted.

The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth . Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the member for Toronto—Danforth, and the parliamentary and democratic reform critic for the NDP, I am pleased to stand and speak again on Motion No. 431 , moved by my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt . It is a simple and worthwhile motion.

It is also an especially welcome motion coming from a Conservative MP, and I would hazard a guess, without the full support of the government, at least at the moment. I would emphasize in my remarks, to take up the offer of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , general parliamentary reform, which his motion could help nurture. With respect to this particular motion, it is important to note that it would be something that would temper the dominating influence of the Prime Minister's Office, and other parties' central apparatus, on aspects of parliamentary life and MPs themselves.

I see that as a knock-on effect to the motion that needs to be taken into account. I would also note that, partly along the lines of comments we heard earlier from the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Kings—Hants , the last two years have given rise to certain concerns on the part of the opposition about how some committees have been working. It does appear that some chairs have been unable to manage committee business in such a way as to give members a fair opportunity to prepare for meetings involving witnesses or to present amendments with sufficient notice. Those are just minor examples.

I was earlier looking across the way at the chair for PROC, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London , and most assuredly I am not speaking of that hon. member, who is chairing PROC with prowess, good faith, and in the spirit of what we want to see with elected chairs. The NDP is in favour of improving a number of parliamentary practices to achieve a better balance between legislative and executive power and to relax the strict control that has evolved over the years, not simply under the current government, of the Prime Minister's Office over parliamentary life.

Even though some parliamentary reforms and some of the ones I am about to mention are more of a priority than the one currently before us, there is nothing stopping us from taking a serious look at the issue of House election of committee chairs. The NDP has always advocated for a more open and more transparent democracy. I believe that Canadians know that. This study would have the benefit of helping stimulate debate on the wider issue of healthy democratic practice, both on this particular issue and on wider questions on the openness and transparency of Parliament in general.

For that reason, as a member of PROC, I look forward to participating in the process, if indeed this motion is adopted, and, as I have made clear, I hope it is. As noted, it is PROC that would be examining this motion, if passed. The study would be added to an already fairly long list of proposed amendments this committee has before it to examine with respect to the functioning of the House of Commons.

Given that the initiative here before us is from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , perhaps we will see more interest in these general parliamentary reform questions from the Conservative MPs who are his colleagues, and perhaps even from the party as a whole, which is presently in government. We will see, obviously. Let me now talk about some of these parliamentary reforms the current motion would help us focus on as well at some point.

The first would be to limit the systematic use, and I have to say, unfortunately, abuse of in camera proceedings in committees, which decreases transparency and the impartiality with which committees can do their work. The NDP has taken the lead on this most recently. Last Thursday we announced that each one of the committees of the House would be presented with the following motion related to in camera proceedings by NDP members. Each committee will be asked to adopt a motion that states: That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: (

a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits; (

b) contracts and contract negotiations; (

c) labour relations and personnel matters; (

d) draft reports; (

e) briefings concerning national security;

(1130) Added to the motion was the following: That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested. This is one effort on our part to do something that parallels the effort of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , who has expressed his concern that perceptions of how Parliament works are as important as how Parliament actually works. The perception of what the generalized practice of so frequently going in camera has done to this House really has to be taken seriously.

A second reform would limit the government's use, and I would say again, abuse, of time allocation motions to stop the party in power, especially a majority power, obviously, from systematically limiting debate in the House of Commons. In this regard, it is important to note the November 2011 motion moved by the NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh , which would give the Speaker of the House of Commons the authority to determine whether the grounds for the time allocation were, in fact, reasonable. A third reform would create some discipline over the use of prorogation.

I do not think I have to actually add “and abuse of prorogation” in the chamber. Most people would know that this follows with recent practice. We know how often it has been abused by the present Prime Minister and in the past by other prime ministers, such as when Jean Chrétien prorogued to take the heat off him during one phase of the Liberal corruption scandal around sponsorship money.

No doubt we can find ways to structure the Governor General's discretion by legislation, but one initial reform would at least prevent the government from using prorogation as a cloak for shutting down Parliament without having to at least get Parliament's support.

It is for that reason that in March 2010, the former leader of the NDP and of the official opposition for a period in 2011, Jack Layton, tabled a motion, which was adopted by the House, that required that the Prime Minister “shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue any session of any Parliament for longer than seven calendar days without a specific resolution of the House of Commons to support such prorogation”. Last week I attempted to seek unanimous consent to move this motion again and reaffirm it, but unfortunately, there was no such support in the House.

I believe that we should be looking seriously at this quite minor reform, in the broader scheme of things, at least to get us looking at the whole institution of prorogation. A fourth reform would modernize the process for tabling petitions to allow for online petitions and perhaps to allow the House to get somewhat creative with what we do with petitions. What kinds of proceedings in the House might be triggered by such petitions, or e-petitions?

As most in the chamber will know, a motion moved in February by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas , seeks to have the procedure and House affairs committee design such a system. I would encourage all members of the chamber, including my colleagues opposite, to support that motion or to at least give it very serious consideration. A fifth reform would involve the reform of the procedure for making amendments in committee. This may not be just a procedural reform but may actually involve a cultural change.

On the current Prime Minister 's watch, in particular, almost none of the opposition's amendments in various committees seem to be able to make their way through to acceptance. This would be tied, of course, to overall greater independence of committees from the government, which is not at all distant from the rationale of the motion before us. To conclude, these are only a few of many dozens of reforms that, collectively, those of us in the House could come up with that could make the functioning of the House and the perception of the House by the public much better than is currently the case.

We need to change the prevailing parliamentary culture and resuscitate and deepen certain parliamentary traditions of collegiality, cross-party co-operation in the public interest, and civility. I believe that the motion by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt would contribute to that process, and for that reason, I will be particularly happy to support it. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, as we start the second session of Canada's 41st Parliament, I would like to thank my family, especially my spouse Tara and our daughters Ella and Vera-Claire, who sacrificed to support me so I could serve the people of Kingston and the Islands as a member of Parliament.

Today I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 431 , moved by my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt , which is intended to “consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons” similar to that recently implemented at Westminster, and to allow for proposals to adopt similar changes in this House. [ English ] I would like to begin by saying that I feel a bit uneasy when I am introduced at riding events as the Liberal member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands.

I have chosen the Liberal Party, because I believe that a Liberal government is what is best for the country. However, my duty is to represent my constituents in Kingston and the Islands here in the House as well as to say and do what is best for the country. I am their member of Parliament. I am not simply the Liberal Party's presence in Kingston and the Islands. I tell people that we in the House, from all parties, are here to keep tabs on the government of the day. Every well-functioning democracy has a division of powers and checks on the power of any one person or branch.

As a legislature, we are supposed to check the power of the executive branch, even as ministers of the Crown are drawn from our ranks. Committees of the House of Commons are critical tools of this legislature. If we presume to hold the executive to account, we must have a functioning independent committee system that merits the public's trust and confidence. The Standing Orders tell us that committee chairs are elected by secret ballot from among the members of the committee, but the Standing Orders do not fully reveal reality.

The current reality is that committee activities are often directed by the executive branch of government, and a parliamentary secretary for a minister of the Crown often sits on the committee and guides its work. That work includes going to great lengths to protect the government of the day when, for example, committee meetings are taken in camera to protect the government from embarrassment. This is over a decade after the member for Calgary Southwest said, ”Standing committees of the House should not simply be extensions of the Prime Minister's Office”.

Committees are not as independent as they could be, but then, committee membership and committee chairs are determined by the executive branch or by the leadership of opposition parties, who, to be fair, may be thought of as executive branches in waiting. Much of what happens in the House is determined by the leadership of political parties.

They may have what they believe to be the best interests of the country at heart, but we have been elected not only to say and do what is best for the country, and that is why we support our political parties and work as a team here in Ottawa, but to represent our constituents. Therefore, Parliament and its committees must be more than fields of battle between political parties. Fortunately, there are those who see that the balance of power has moved too much in favour of the party leadership for the good of Canadian democracy. I believe that the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is one. I am one.

Another one is the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Papineau , who has talked about loosening the grip of the Prime Minister's Office on Parliament. He said “...we will...strengthen the committee system,...we will strengthen the role of committee chairs and create a more robust system of oversight and review for members from all parties...”.

The election of committee chairs by a preferential ballot, by a ballot that would be a secret ballot, according to the statements by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , would have the potential to make the chairs and their committees more independent of the government of the day and more effective.

(1140) I acknowledge the caveats that have been raised by colleagues speaking to this motion in the last session of Parliament and today, and that is the requirement that certain chairs be filled by members of the official opposition, the need for the preferential ballots to be secret, the risk of gender and regional imbalances and the need for the study by the committee to address these concerns.

I do not claim to know the full implications of the idea that we are talking about today nor to what extent it would nudge the balance of power in the House back toward elected members of Parliament, but it is a good step to consider. I do not claim to know the best manner by which a modification of the Standing Orders could implement this idea, but I trust hon. members who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will make their best efforts to find it. That is and should be how our committees support our work in the House.

I therefore support Motion No. 431 and thank my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt for his initiative. I hope it will lead to a continual effort to improve how Parliament works to serve Canada. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in today's discussion of Motion No. 431 on the process for selecting chairs of committees in the House. I know my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , has brought forward this motion with the objective of strengthening the role of Parliament and its members.

A strong role for Parliament is an objective that is central to the government's policy agenda. Just as our government's commitment to jobs and economic prosperity has led to positive results for Canadians, such as through the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, our commitment to accountability, transparency and democratic reform has achieved results. The government's first act on forming government in 2006 was to pass the Federal Accountability Act, a comprehensive set of reforms that changed the way Ottawa did business.

It did so by strengthening government accountability, including accountability to Parliament. Since then, the government has continued to improve integrity and accountability in government through measures to promote democratic reform and open and transparent government. Let me return to Motion No. 431. The motion first sets out a requirement for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider the election of chairs by a means of a preferential ballot system by all members of the House.

The motion then states that the committee would be required to study the practices of committee chair selections in other Westminster style parliaments. It concludes with the committee having to table its findings within six months of the motion being adopted, including any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders. Let us discuss the context for the current chair selection system.

As members of the House know, our rules and, in particular, Standing Order 106, provide that at the start of every session and, when necessary, during a session, each standing or special committee shall elect a chair and two vice-chairs. If more than one candidate is nominated, an election is conducted by secret ballot. This approach is consistent with the long held view that committees are masters of their own affairs. Before this motion came forward in the previous session, I was not aware that there were any major concerns with our current system.

The existing rules for committee chairs have now been in place for over 10 years. I believe it is fair to say that the current system functions efficiently. It may be helpful in considering this motion to remind members of the circumstances under which the current rules were adopted by the House. It was the Canadian Alliance Party that brought forward a change of the rules through an opposition day motion in October, 2002. The motion proposed to change the Standing Orders to require a secret ballot when selecting committee chairs.

The premise for the motion was the belief that committee members should have the freedom to vote by secret ballot for the member of their choice to be chair. The House agreed with that rationale and adopted the motion by a vote of 174 to 87. That was 11 years ago. Members of all recognized parties at the time supported the motion. Over 30 of those members are still members of the House today. I should note that although the previous government did not support the motion, many of its members did. After it passed, there was no subsequent attempt to undo the changes to the rules that it brought into effect.

The result we see today is that committee chairs are elected by the members of the committees they serve. With respect to electing committee chairs in other jurisdictions, many of the other Westminster style legislatures have the same system in place that we have. Most provincial legislatures, as well as the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand, have systems of electing committee chairs that are essentially the same as the one we use here. An exception to this general approach is the United Kingdom, which only recently changed its system and rules in 2010.

Under the new rules, at the start of a new parliament, the allocation of chairs of each party is set, based on the results of the previous election. Members are then able to submit nominations for committee chair positions, as long as the member they nominate is from the party which has been allocated the chair for that committee. To be nominated, a member must obtain signatures from either 15 members of his or her party or 10% of the party's members, whichever is lower. All members of that House vote to elect committee chairs based on a system of preferential ballots, ranking as many candidates as they wish.

A candidate is elected once he or she has received more than half of the votes, with the lowest candidate dropped from the ballot and those votes distributed according to the rankings after any round that does not generate a majority outcome. This new system was implemented in 2010, so it has only been used once. In that case, 16 of 24 committee chair positions were contested and decided by preferential ballot, and 8 were elected unopposed. At this time, it is too soon to determine what the long-term impact of those changes will be or whether there are any unintended consequences of the changes.

There are several factors in the consideration of changes to House rules. Let us return now to Motion No. 431 and the rules that govern the House of Commons in Canada.

(1145) Members will know that the rules of the House are carefully balanced, based on parliamentary principles and traditions and reflect the interests of all members. We should keep an open mind about changing these rules, but such change should never be a trivial matter. Rather, prudence, due diligence and a wide support among members are needed before considering any significant changes to the Standing Orders. To avoid an arbitrary or trivial approach to changing the rules of the House, Standing Order 108(3)(

a) provides for a review of the operation of our rules by the procedure and House affairs committee in each Parliament. This is a study which the committee will resume this fall. Today's discussion is an important part of the consideration of this motion. Some of the questions and concerns members will be no doubt commenting on include these. Is there a need for changing the current system? Is there something about the system that is not working?

Do members want a system where opposition members could influence the selection of government chairs and government members could influence the selection of opposition chairs? What are the mechanisms for removing chairs from their positions once elected? Would just committee members vote on this or all members of the House? How might this proposal affect considerations such as adequate gender or regional representation of committee chairs? Are these important issues for members?

Are we willing to considering moving to a system based on one established very recently in 2010, for which there is little understanding of its long-term impacts and possible unintended consequences? A study by the procedure and House affairs committee could review these and many other considerations. The committee is already undertaking a review of House rules and could review the process for electing committee chairs in the context of its broader review of the rules. The government will support this motion.

That said, it is important all members consider what is at stake when we implement any changes to the Standing Orders. Any such decision should be made with a clear understanding of potential impacts down the road. We need to fully examine all options and potential consequences before considering whether there is a need to implement a new and permanent way of electing committee chairs. There are often unanticipated consequences in making significant changes to the Standing Orders and, should the motion be adopted, these things should be carefully considered by the procedure and House affairs committee.

We need to take careful consideration of any such changes. When we go down any road, we want to ensure that when we get to the destination we intended to get to, we do not leave a string of potholes behind us. (1150) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion. It could be very interesting to talk about democracy and independence on the first day of my thirties.

The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study assessing the possibility of having all members of the House elect committee chairs by preferential ballot. Following the possible adoption of this motion—which I will support—the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will try to find out how to proceed; however, there is no guarantee that the motion can be implemented or that other examples will be found in other parliaments. I want to be clear: since this will be studied in committee, the end result may be different.

However, we will seriously consider the issue. The important thing is to find a way to improve the democratic process and the independence of our committees. We will consider this in an ordered, thoughtful way and if possible make the appropriate changes. Democracy must continually evolve and improve. That is why I will support my colleague`s motion. Now, although the motion is rather straightforward, the process of electing committee chairs can be somewhat complex.

That is why further discussion is needed at meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine whether this can really be done. I have a few thoughts I would like to share on this. Electing 20 or so committee chairs by preferential ballot at the beginning of each session could be hard for new members, because they do not know the candidates. Within the first few days of my arrival here in the House, we voted to elect the Speaker of the House. We received some letters, and I tried to learn about and understand the candidates. That is how I made my choice.

However, if we have to do that for all of the committees, that is a lot to ask of new members who are trying to understand how the House of Commons actually works. Most people have some idea before being elected, but until you actually get here, you do not really know. That is a problem. Furthermore, if committee chairs were to be elected, it would only make sense to give all the members time to get to know the candidates. However, if we delay the election of committee chairs, would this not also delay the beginning of committee work at the start of each parliamentary session?

These questions need to be examined in committee. Gender inclusiveness is also very important to me. I fully support the principles of democracy and independence. At present, I imagine that both the government and official opposition whips—at least I am sure this is true of the official opposition whip—try to have adequate representation of women as chairs and vice-chairs. How can we be sure that this principle is honoured and give women, who are often under-represented, access to these positions? This principle needs to be protected when new committee chairs are elected.

I have many other questions that could be discussed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I spoke about representation of women, but there is also the issue of representation of minorities. I am also wondering if, during this process, the four committee chair positions that are currently reserved for the official opposition will remain that way. That is something else that must be looked at. In fact, there are many technical details that will need to be looked at. For example, could someone be considered for two chair positions at the same time?

Currently, the majority of chairs are government party members, except the four positions reserved for the official opposition. Would someone who is normally not allowed to hold the position—because he is a member of the third party or sits as an independent—be able to throw his hat in the ring?

(1155) That is another issue that will have to be studied in committee. Of course, the voting system will have to be discussed in order to determine if it would be by secret ballot or recorded vote. The voting system that is chosen will have to be effective and result in chairs actually being elected. If it takes several hours of voting for each committee and there are 24 committees, then this risks being a complicated way to begin a session and it could make it difficult to implement the motion.

However, solutions may already exist to ensure that it happens very quickly and that we can promptly get to work on electing committee chairs. That said, I am questioning whether the preferential ballot is necessarily the best voting system and whether, with 308 ballots, the numbers might make the calculations too complicated. There are plenty of questions. For example, what would happen in the case of a tie? Would we have to start the voting all over again?

Although the motion is a simple one, it is clear that it could be quite difficult to actually implement because of all the technical, practical details that need to be looked at in order to make it an effective process. However, in order to protect the principles of independence and democracy, I think it is really worth examining this motion, taking the time to study it and checking to see if there are one or more ways that it could be implemented. There could be a number of ways to elect committee chairs. I have another question that the member may be able to answer in the second hour of debate.

Once the committee chairs are elected, will the vice-chairs still be appointed by the whips? If we are going to use a certain voting method to elect chairs, will we do the same for the vice-chairs? This is another question to consider in committee. If we go with a new system to elect committee chairs, then it would be good to know what we are going to do about the vice-chairs, namely, whether we will stick with the old system or adopt the new system for them too. All of these questions are fairly technical. They are procedural issues.

People at home in their living rooms may not understand all of these details, but this really is part of our routine procedure here in the House of Commons. I think that we recognize that this is a fairly complex issue that deserves our consideration. Holding elections for committee chairs may give us the opportunity to hear from some MPs who do not often get a chance to speak. We might realize just how much experience some people have if they put their name forward and campaign for the position.

For example, we may see that positions are filled based on experience rather than preference, which would mean that the person who is elected could make a significant contribution to the committee. As I said, it would be difficult at first. However, after two years, as is the case now, if we held elections for committee chairs, I would know both the government and official opposition members well enough to have a fairly informed opinion of who would be a good fit for the position of committee chair. I did not necessarily have that knowledge on the first day we sat.

I believe that it could be a worthwhile exercise now. After some time, I might be able to make that decision. In my opinion, this could lead to greater independence and democracy. Let us send the motion to committee and see what changes are proposed and whether they can actually be implemented.

(1200) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Ways and Means Motion No. 1 Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to present the following motion: Motion for concurrence That ways and means Motion No. 1 be deemed adopted on division. The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion on division? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business [ English ] Election of Committee Chairs The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 431. Motion No. 431 Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back here from Windsor, and I look forward to starting the fall session of Parliament with my colleagues here on the Hill. Continuing from where I left since last spring, I would like to provide the House with an overview of the current system of selecting committee members and committee chairs.

In our system here in Ottawa, the membership of committees and selection of committee chairs are decisions of the respective party whips, and of the 24 committees, 20 are committees for which the Standing Orders specify that the committee chairs are to be elected by members of the committee, that those 20 out of the 24 committee chairs must be government members, and that the remaining four committees are committees for which the chairs are to be members of the opposition party.

While chairs are publicly elected at the first committee meeting in a new session of Parliament, it is important for the public to know that the votes of the members of the committee are under the whips, and that in fact the committee chairs are selected by their respective parties and the selection is enforced through the power of the whips. This is the system we have had here for a number of years. There was a change whereby instead of directly appointing members to sit as chairs, we introduced a change to have the public election of chairs.

However, since committee members from all three recognized parties are all under the whip, in effect the system is as it always has been, which is that committee chairs are selected by the parties. It is important to note that in the United Kingdom, members adopted a slightly different system about three years ago. They went to the election of committee chairs without having those votes under the whip; in the U.K., committee chairs are elected by secret ballot. This is the system they put in place about three years ago.

Recently a report from one of the committees of the Westminster Parliament that looked at this rule change of three years ago endorsed it. It looks as though the parliament on which our Parliament is modelled will be adopting that as a permanent rule change. It is something that was tried over there over the last three years with great success.

I think it would be worthwhile for the committee of this House to look at it, because we would strengthen the committee system, strengthen the legislature, ensure that the division of powers between the executive and legislative branches in our system of government would be strengthened, and ensure greater accountability. In conclusion, it is important that we consider this change. There is no doubt when we look at academic studies of the Canadian Parliament that legislative power has eroded to the benefit of the executive branch of government over the last four decades.

This measure, if studied and potentially implemented, would strengthen the legislature and once again rebalance the power that exists between those two branches of government. I urge member on both sides of the aisle to support this motion. It is worthwhile at the very least to study.

(1205) The Deputy Speaker : The member will have approximately four and a half minutes when the debate resumes on this motion. We have a point of order from the member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, given the support for the motion, I rise on a point of order to ask if there would be the unanimous support of the House to allow Motion No. 431 to be deemed adopted effective immediately, so that we can get it to committee. The Deputy Speaker : Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) moved that Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-3. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the importance of safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. This proposed legislation focuses on five key initiatives.

The first, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001; the second, amendments to the Marine Liability Act; the third, amendments to the Canada Marine Act; the fourth, amendments to the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act; and fifth, amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The question, of course, is why are all these initiatives important. They are important because they support a number of things. They support our Conservative government's commitment to provide long-term economic growth, jobs and prosperity.

They support our red tape reduction action plan, which will save businesses time and money, and will make government regulations clearer and more predictable. It also supports our government's plan for responsible resource development to ensure timely and efficient reviews of proposed resource projects, while strengthening world-class environmental standards. Finally, it supports the economic action plan 2012, which focused on the drivers of growth and job creation: innovation, investment, education, skills and communities.

The economic action plan is giving Canada the ability to meet the challenges of the current global economy, to emerge from this period stronger, and to enable our economy and public finances to remain sustainable for many years to come. Our government is committed to achieving these goals without compromising the health, safety or security of Canadians or our environment. These initiatives help to support our transportation system. They also contribute to Canada's competitiveness and prosperity. Let me start by discussing the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

This is the act that is the principal legislation that governs safety and protection of the environment in marine transportation and in recreational boating. It applies to Canadian vessels in all waters, and it applies to all vessels in Canadian waters. The objectives of this act include protecting the marine environment, reducing the impact of marine pollution incidents in Canadian waters, and ensuring the safety of the general public. The amendments our government is proposing today would increase marine environmental protection by strengthening provisions pertaining to pollution prevention and response.

To accomplish these objectives the amendments aim to strengthen requirements for spill prevention and preparedness at oil handling facilities by requiring that certain facilities submit both prevention and emergency plans to the Minister of Transport . The current act requires all oil handling facilities to prepare oil pollution prevention and emergency plans to meet the requirements of the regulations, and to have these plans on site. Through on-site inspections, Transport Canada monitors the compliance of these facilities.

However, the current legislation needs to be strengthened with regard to facilities notifying the minister of their operations and submitting their pollution prevention and emergency plans, as well as notices of proposed major expansions or conversions of their facilities. These amendments would require these facilities to submit plans to the Minister of Transport and to empower departmental inspectors to direct facility operators to demonstrate their compliance.

Second, the amendments allow use of a fair and effective regulatory tool, which we already have, to deal with contraventions of pollution prevention and spill response by expanding the administrative monetary penalty provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. The current regime allows marine safety inspectors to impose monetary penalties on vessels or persons who do not comply with the act. The penalties can range between $250 and $25,000. This use of monetary penalties, however, does not apply to

part 8 of the act, and that means it forces the department to prosecute regulatory infractions either through the court or through taking administrative actions, such as suspending the certification of non-compliant response organizations. Both of these options are complex and potentially expensive. Extending the use of administrative monetary penalties to

part 8 of the act allows marine safety inspectors, the people who are on the front lines, to issue penalties in cases where the act is violated. This change would provide us with a flexible enforcement tool that is more effective than the current practice.

(1210) Finally, the amendments would ensure Canada has the assistance needed to respond to oil spill incidents by extending civil and criminal immunity protection to the agents of certified Canadian response organizations. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 provides civil and criminal liability to certified response organizations responding to a ship-source oil spill or environmental emergency. However, the act does provide such immunity to these organizations if they are responding to spills that take place when a vessel is either loading or unloading at an oil handling facility.

Consequently, these responders are reluctant to respond to such an incident. The proposed amendments to the act would strengthen the oil spill response by extending this to certified response organizations so that if they were to respond to spills from a vessel or an oil handling facility during loading or unloading of oil, they would have immunity. These amendments to liability would also apply to the agents of the response organizations that have been requested by a certified Canadian response organization to assist in the cleanup of a spill.

Spill responders, including our international partners, tell us that they are reluctant to help in such emergencies without this sort of immunity. Given that the immediate response is crucial to minimize the impact of these such incidents, if we provide better assurance of immunity for these agents, the amendments would enhance Canada's access to international resources for spill response. Canada and the United States have a long history of helping each other in times of distress, including responding together to oil spills and other environmental incidents involving our waterways.

Although Canada does not rely solely upon the assistance of our American neighbours in such matters, we have been fortunate to have it. We expect that these amendments would ensure it for the future. It is worth noting that these proposed amendments would not change the partnership but it would build upon it. By introducing these proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, our government is reiterating its commitment to ensure marine safety, to protect our marine environment, and to support the crucial role of shipping to Canada's trade and economy.

Last March, our government announced important measures, including the creation of tanker safety expert panel, to review Canada's current tanker safety system. The proposed amendments would complement the work of this expert panel. In addition, our government announced increased scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products and ensured a system of aids to navigation. The system of navigation is composed of buoys, lights and other devices to warn of obstructions as well as to mark the location of preferred shipping routes.

Last, our government has also increased the number of inspections of all foreign tankers and increased funding for the national aerial surveillance program to keep a watchful eye on tankers moving through Canadian waters. As part of our plan for responsible resource development, these measures would ensure that Canada has a world-class marine safety system that would prevent incidents, protect our environment and ensure the safety of Canadians.

In this way, in the event of an environmental emergency, we would be ready to respond quickly and efficiently, and ensure that polluters would be responsible for paying cleanup costs. The tanker safety review panel was mandated to consult with key stakeholders to enhance the government's knowledge of the current oil transportation system, point out gaps that we have to address, and manage impacts on the marine environment. As well, the tanker safety review panel launches an ongoing effort to ensure we lead the world in marine environment safety.

Let me now turn my attention to the very important amendments to the Marine Liability Act. Protecting our waterways from pollution is a priority of our government and we take it very seriously. The potential for a chemical spill in Canadian waters requires appropriate mechanisms to responsibly address the potential consequences of such an event. Therefore, we will continue to take action to ensure Canada has the most stringent tanker safety regime in the world.

(1215) Given the importance of trade to Canada's continuing prosperity, we must recognize that this involves the transportation of hazardous and noxious substances. Indeed, almost 400 million metric tonnes of cargo carried by ships in Canada annually, which is really only 3.5%, would be considered hazardous or noxious substances. These substances consist of a very broad range of marine cargo, such as chemicals, liquefied natural gas, propane or other materials.

Now while it is only a small percentage, 3.5%, this wide variety of substances can cause an array of environmental damage should there be an accident or incident. Therefore, the Marine Liability Act, being the principal legislation we have to address this matter, deals with the liability of ship owners and operators in relation to passengers, cargo, pollution and property damage.

In building on our current robust system, the amendments that our government is proposing to the act will introduce a comprehensive liability and compensation regime that really is in step with our other international conventions that we have already ratified. This recognizes both the importance of uniform standards in the global transport of hazardous substances and the importance of such standards to Canada's trade and to its economic prosperity. The amendments would accomplish two main objectives.

First, they would enhance our pollution liability and compensation regime, which would enable Canada to ratify an international convention that would significantly increase the amount of compensation available for pollution and other damages caused by hazardous and noxious substances from ships. Second, the amendments would implement the provisions of the 2010 Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention in Canadian law.

The amendments would accomplish these objectives in four ways: first, implement this convention in order to establish the liability of ship owners in the event of spills and their requirement to have insurance to cover this liability; second, set a legal framework for those affected by these incidents to access the international compensation fund; third, create a regulatory-making power to adopt regulations that would require reporting receipts of bulk hazardous and noxious substances in Canadian ports; fourth, reporting required by the convention to ensure levies would be paid to the international compensation fund, update an enforcement regime so ship owners must maintain proof of insurance through certificates issued by Transport Canada and the receivers of hazardous and noxious substances report receipt of such shipments.

To put these amendments to the Marine Liability Act in context, it is worth noting a few points. First, the amendments provide comprehensive coverage for more than 6,500 hazardous substances being transported in Canada by ship and would ensure that the list of substances covered by the amendments would be continuously kept up to date. Second, the amendments would establish a liability in the compensation regime for claimants that would be in step with other international conventions that Canada has ratified.

Finally, the amendments are in line with Canada's long-standing policy to seek multilateral solutions to issues of marine liability and compensation. It is also worth noting that Transport Canada has worked in partnership with various stakeholders and industry associations on this matter. In our consultations with this broad range of stakeholders and associations, we have found strong support for Canada's ratification of the 2010 hazardous and noxious protocol and its implementation through these amendments to the Marine Liability Act.

To give an example, ship owners accept the liability these international conventions provide and cargo owners accept that they must do their

part in contributing to international funds. Both parties want to ensure that victims are compensated in the event of an accident or incident. I will turn from our seas to our skies now and discuss the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act. As in the case of many sectors, the Canadian air industry requires insurance coverage to operate. In addition to general risks, this coverage must address risks for acts of war, terrorism, or civil unrest.

Indeed, the attacks of September 11, 2011, caused instability in the insurance market, specifically for war risks to third parties; in other words, people and property on the ground which could be affected by aviation incidents. In response, the Government of Canada developed a program to indemnify aviation businesses against liability they may face from third parties, such as property owners on the ground who experienced loss caused by extreme events such as war. This coverage is known as the “aviation war risk liability program”, and it has addressed the matter.

However, without permanent authority to enable federal support related to war-risk insurance, it must be renewed repeatedly.

(1220) Therefore, our government is now proposing new legislation, the aviation industry indemnity act, that would repeal aviation-related provisions of the Marine and Aviation War Risks Act and give the Minister of Transport permanent authority to provide indemnities in emergency situations and allow air-industry operators to get coverage in the case of continuing market instability. In short, it would allow the same kind of coverage, but would eliminate the need to regularly renew it.

As well, to ensure transparency, the minister would report to Parliament within 90 days of an indemnity being authorized and every two years if there was no change. In discussions with Transport Canada, air industry participants have expressed strong support for continuing this kind of coverage. Finally, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act also includes proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act concerning civilian involvement in military aviation accident investigations.

As members know, every day the Canadian Forces successfully carry out numerous aviation activities from routine airlifts to search and rescue missions. However, sometimes these activities do not always go as planned, which is why the Canadian Forces have a Canadian Forces flight safety program. Therefore, if something goes wrong, military flight safety investigators look for the causes, interview witnesses and make recommendations to improve safety. Over the past two decades, the nature of military aviation really has evolved.

Today, the number of civilian contractors providing support to Canadian Forces aviation activities has increased significantly. Many tasks related to military aviation, including tasks with safety implications like flight training, strategic airlift, target towing and equipment maintenance, are carried out to one degree or another by civilian contractors.

The civilian contractors actually possess a wealth of information and their evidence may very well be essential to a military flight safety investigation, yet while civilian contractors co-operate with such investigations in the vast majority of cases, there really is no effective legal tool to require them to do so. That is why the bill we are discussing is so important. It would give our military flight safety investigators the tools they need to fully investigate flight safety occurrences involving civilians by giving them the power to search premises, seize documents and take statements.

These tools are parallel to those available to the investigators working for the Transportation Safety Board which investigates aviation occurrences not related to military aviation safety. The changes would also permit access to on-board flight recordings by a board of inquiry convened under the National Defence Act. This access would only arise in the appropriate circumstances and for military administrative purposes only. Most important, these tools would ensure that civilians would contribute their expertise to military aviation safety.

As a result, we would continue to develop effective aviation safety measures for all the Canadian Forces and all Canadians. To conclude, as I noted at the start of my remarks, our Conservative government is committed to supporting the prosperity of Canadians by streamlining our regulatory agenda, but in ways that also ensure the safety of Canadians and our partners around the globe. While the legislative initiatives I have outlined today may appear to be mostly administrative in nature, they would go a long way to helping accomplish even broader goals.

They address infrastructure matters that would affect Canada's trading relationship. They would fine-tune domestic regulations to reduce regulatory burden on various stakeholders. They would also create a more efficient inspection regime for marine vessels and improve safety and investigation procedures for our airline industry. Our government remains focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. These amendments highlight our commitment to maintaining Canada as a safe, strong and competitive player in the world economy and the global community.

(1225) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister to the file. It is fair to say that the minister has a good reputation, but she has a long hill to climb when we look at the actions of the government over the last few years, which have been so profoundly irresponsible, particularly with the issue of marine transportation. We have seen the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, the cuts to Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres and the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spills.

There has been a whole range of closures in British Columbia that have certainly undermined the credibility of the government 100%. Given the fact that the government has proceeded, in my mind, in such an irresponsible way, despite the small baby steps that we see in the bill today, could the minister give some assurance to British Columbians that in her new role as Minister of Transport she will actually address what they are concerned about in terms of marine liability and tanker safety? At the same time, will she fix what has been broken by the government over the last few years? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I am very honoured to be taking on this responsibility in transport and I hope I can lend, as best I can, positiveness to the file as we move forward. With respect to our relationship with British Columbia, it is an incredibly important one. Indeed, I have had conversations with my counterpart already and have spoken to a number of municipal officials. I understand the importance of marine safety as they have made it very clear to me.

That is why our government introduced this act and amendments last year and set up this marine advisory panel to take a look at where the gaps were in the system and focus on having a true world-class system where all three aspects would be looked at: the prevention of spills and accidents; the response to spills and accidents; and the liability on the other end of spills and accidents. We will continue to work on this as the weeks go by and I will continue to reach out to both people in British Columbia and along the coast where there are shipments of hazardous and dangerous goods or oil. Hon.

John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to raise four issues with the minister. One has to do with the first part of her speech, namely, the part with respect to seas and the issue of liability for spills. The first issue has to do with the flagging tankers, the flagging of ships generally, particularly ships carrying hazardous substances. The second has to do with bankruptcy, which is one of the ways of getting out of liability, to simply bankrupt oneself.

The third has to do with proof of insurance upon arriving in Canadian coastal waters, whether picking something up or leaving with something. The fourth is the limitations on insurance policies. Insurance lawyers spend all of their waking hours trying to figure out how to get out of the responsibility of having insurance policies. How is this legislation going to deal with the flags of convenience, the bankruptcy of shippers, proof of insurance, both coming and going, and the resistance, shall we say, to taking on full responsibility of liability that comes with almost any insurance policy?

(1230) Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, the member has a full list of questions. I cannot get into specific details, but would be happy to talk to him later about it outside of the House. What I can answer is this. The purpose of the amendments in the Marine Liability Act is to help fill a critical gap we now have from an international convention point of view that deals specifically with hazardous and noxious emissions from ships.

All the issues the member brought up are important ones and we view this as a first step in dealing with and approaching what kind of liability gaps there may be in the Marine Liability Act, but it is always fundamentally on the same premise, which is the polluter will pay. We are talking to stakeholders and municipal partners to determine what a good, strong, comprehensive liability scheme will look like and we will be introducing regulations and amendments that make sense to the overall scheme of what we are trying to accomplish, which is to ensure we have a world-class tanker safety regime in place. Mr.

Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the minister for taking over this portfolio. I have a question on the scope of the Marine Liability Act and how it will apply to navigable waters in Canada, the rivers and lakes that provide access to oceans. This is a simple question that could be answered very easily by the minister one way or the other. To understand that better is something that people in my constituency who regularly transport large quantities of petroleum and hazardous products up the Mackenzie River into the Arctic Ocean would be very interested in.

There have been problems in this regard already. This summer there was a spill on the Mackenzie River. There are certain concerns that lie with the equipment and the ability to deal with moving these goods up rivers into oceans. Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, I will admit to the member that while I do not know the definition of the waterways that are covered in the Marine Liabilities Act right off the top of my head, I would be happy to look into it.

However, for navigable waters and waters that need to be protected, the spirit of the Marine Liabilities Act and the spirit of what we are doing in terms of liability and compensation is to ensure and enshrine the principle that the polluter pays. We want to ensure that we protect the waters as well as the people who utilize the waters and come up with the appropriate liability and compensation scheme. As I have indicated, this is the first step, and through consultation we will be having more discussions as we move along, just as we did with the member opposite. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, congratulations to the minister on assuming her new post. We focus in this House and in Canada on issues of marine, aviation, and rail safety and so on as it applies to Canada. That is clearly what we should be doing. Can the minister give us some comparison of how we compare in our day-to-day record with respect to other international regimes that are facing the same kinds of challenges we are? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, Canada has a good reputation internationally with respect to how we respond and how we deal with the prevention of spills and environmental damage from ships.

We are a strong participant in the IMO too. Our officials at Transport Canada work with its counterparts around the world to adhere to and develop international standards that can be applied here in Canada as well. It is important to note too that in this country we have not had a serious oil spill off the coast of British Columbia in 30 years. That is why this is a good opportunity to take a serious look at what the gaps may be in our current system. That is exactly what this world-class tanker safety review panel is doing.

We look forward to seeing the results coming forward, as I know our international partners are as well.

(1235) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues in welcoming my friend to her new portfolio. I can inform her of the quite excellent world-class tanker safety system that has been in place in British Columbia since 1972 and has been responsible for preventing any major oil tanker spills. It has been the federal-provincial moratorium that has prevented any supertankers carrying oil to traverse the areas that are now anticipated and promoted by members of the current administration without waiting for the NEB panel review to be completed.

As the minister mentioned, the government has actually been spending money on lining out the routes for oil tanker traffic through a route that has been prevented since 1972 and is still not approved. On looking at this overblown title of “safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act”, we see that it is largely housekeeping measures. I completely support that it does bring in the measures we need to implement the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea convention, which we signed more than three years ago. There are good measures in here.

However, my question to the hon. minister is this: how can we possibly talk about a world-class system when we have shut down all the regional offices for emergency preparedness for oil spills with Environment Canada? On both the west and east coasts, are we supposed to dial a 1-800 number that rings in Ottawa? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, our government has acted decisively. We have put more money into a national aerial surveillance program to keep that eye on ships as they move along both of our coasts. We have also increased the number of inspections of foreign vessels.

To the point that the hon. member made, of course we always make sure that we are marking the lanes of shipping appropriately, and we have invested more money through the Coast Guard into that as well. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important debate. This is not an academic debate. This is a debate that really strikes at the heart of issues that Canadians are living from coast to coast to coast, and the issue is transportation safety.

We have seen over the last few months an unprecedented number of accidents and deaths, and I would attest that there is a growing level of public concern right across this country about the actions of the Conservative government that have led to a deterioration in transportation safety. We welcome the new minister here. Hopefully this will be a big change, a turning of the page, from what has been a series of profoundly irresponsible actions.

The reality is that the Conservative government has to take transportation safety seriously; it has not, and in fact has done the opposite: it has cut back on the fundamental safety systems that Canadians have relied on in the past to protect them. There are some small baby steps in Bill C-3 that we will of course support. There are some housekeeping items that are long overdue. However, the reality is that the legislation would do nothing to change the fundamental framework that has been put in place by the government and that has put so many Canadians at risk.

I will be speaking later to some of the other modes of transportation safety that have been sadly eroded. We are all aware of the tragic and profoundly sad circumstances that we have seen over the past few months in rail transport safety. We are aware of the increasing number of pipeline spills across the country because of the irresponsibility of the Conservative government. However, I would like to address just for a moment the whole question of marine safety. For 30 years British Columbians have protected the coast of British Columbia by putting in place a tanker moratorium on the north coast.

That is why there has been a good safety record. It is not because of the actions of the current government or the actions of any other government; it is because provincially and federally British Columbians said very strongly that we did not want to see tankers thrown willy-nilly around the coast of British Columbia. That is why British Columbia's coast has been protected. Now the government is pushing to eliminate that respected moratorium and is pushing a number of projects that undoubtedly will lead to increased tanker traffic on British Columbia's coast if they go through.

The question then is this: what is the government's credibility on issues of marine safety? I would submit to the House that if we look at the record of the government and what it has done over the past couple of years, we see that it has done more harm to the coast of British Columbia, more potential harm to British Columbia's pristine coast and the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on B.C.'s coast being pristine, than any other government in our history. Let us look at the record. Just in the last few months we have seen the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

The member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has been a strong advocate on this issue. He has risen in the House of Commons to speak repeatedly on this issue, but he is not the only one. New Democratic MPs from British Columbia have risen repeatedly to speak on this issue. I myself have spoken on it. The member for Vancouver East has spoken on it. The member for Burnaby—Douglas , the member for Newton—North Delta , the member for Surrey North , the member for Vancouver Kingsway , the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan , and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca have all spoken on this issue.

We have seen NDP MPs from British Columbia repeatedly raise this issue, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam being the most forthright. Despite the fact that parliamentarians have raised this issue, despite the fact that the provincial government raised it, despite the fact that municipalities such as the City of Vancouver have raised it repeatedly, the Conservative government said it was going to close off the Coast Guard station and did not care if people were put at risk. This is profoundly irresponsible.

If it were just perhaps that one Coast Guard station, rather than a pattern, then perhaps we could say there was some justification, but there are a lot of expenses by the Conservative government that I profoundly disagree with. They include flying limousines around the world, the tens of billions of dollars that it wants to throw into an untendered fighter jet contract, a billion dollars for a weekend meeting, $16 glasses of orange juice. Speaking as a former financial administrator, I can say that Conservative financial management is an oxymoron.

The government has been absolutely appalling when it comes to financial management. It is beyond comprehension.

(1240) Even if the Conservatives could justify the closure of the Coast Guard station, let us look at what else they have closed, which has been a repeated slap in the face to British Columbians and all those concerned with the safety of our coasts and the tens of thousands of jobs in fisheries and tourism that come from having a pristine coast. They also closed the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre, which helped to facilitate and ensure safe transportation on the coast. They said we do not need that; let us throw it out.

Then the Conservatives decided to close the B.C. office for emergency oil spill responders. Conservatives will say there is a 1-800 number for an oil spill off the coast of British Columbia. It goes to some desk in Ottawa, but British Columbians need an immediate response. We need to feel safe about our coast, not with a 1-800 number going back to Ottawa that no one ever answers. That is the Conservatives' attempt to provide some damage control. What else did they do? They actually closed a whole system of environmental emergency programs as well.

This has been a systematic pattern of shutting down the safety mechanisms that were present on the coast of British Columbia. What they have done is simply to put British Columbia's whole coast at risk. The then minister of natural resources decided that he would do a press conference in Vancouver to address the concerns raised by British Columbians throughout the province. It would show British Columbians just how good the Conservative government is at marine safety. He did his press conference. He even brought a rescue ship across the Salish Sea from Victoria. What happened? The rescue ship ran aground.

It just proves the point that we cannot trust Conservatives with the safety of the B.C. coast. However, we can trust New Democrats, and that is what British Columbians will do in 2015. That is for sure. The Conservatives have shut down all of this. They had a debacle of a press conference that proved our point that transportation safety was being undermined. To date, although we have a new minister who we hope will address all the concerns being raised by British Columbians, we have not seen the fundamental problem being addressed.

When we look at the small steps in Bill C-3 that address in a housekeeping way some of the small things that obviously the Conservatives wanted to bring forward as a package to say they are saving the coast, we remain skeptical, although we certainly support the baby-step measures that are contained in it. However, let us be clear about what the bottom line is for us. We believe that the Coast Guard closures need to be addressed, and that process can start by reopening the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. It would respond to the concerns raised for British Columbia.

We would like the Conservatives to reopen the marine traffic communication centre in Vancouver. That would start to address issues of safety concerns along the coast of British Columbia. We would like them to reopen the B.C. office for emergency oil spills. They can keep their 1-800 line, but let us have people who can respond to oil spills in British Columbia. If they do that, it would start to restore some of the confidence that we have completely lost in the Conservative government. We proposed all of that.

Just a few months ago the official opposition, the NDP, sent a letter to the transport minister and said that we support the tiny steps contained in their legislation. We disagreed with the title of the “safe coasts”. They must be kidding. After all the Conservatives have done, they simply are not guaranteeing safe coasts in any way, shape, or form. We said they should start including these elements in the legislation, and then we would actually have legislation that would help to address public confidence. That is what we have put forward.

The Conservatives have steadfastly refused thus far, but we are going to take this issue into committee and will be offering these kinds of positive amendments on behalf of British Columbians.

(1245) We certainly hope that B.C. Conservative MPs will step up to the plate and help support British Columbians, that they will step forward and say, “For goodness sake, there is a fundamental problem here. British Columbians have completely lost confidence in the government on marine safety, so we will address that by voting for the NDP amendment”. That is what we are hoping to see. We can support this on second reading to bring it forward, but let us see some action from the government. Let us see some positive action that actually addresses the concerns that British Columbians are raising.

With Bill C-3 , there is no doubt that we see the Conservatives spinning around the northern gateway pipeline. The northern gateway pipeline has been shown, in poll after poll, that 80% of British Columbians reject it. They reject it because they are concerned about destroying the moratorium for tankers on the north coast. They are concerned about the lack of tanker safety. They are concerned about what the impact will be with the potential loss of thousands of jobs in the tourism and fisheries sectors. There are thousands of British Columbians who depend on a pristine coast.

They are concerned about all that, and they have raised it repeatedly. A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to see a movie in Coquitlam, which is next to Burnaby—New Westminster . I am looking at the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam because I want to acknowledge that we are spending some money in his riding. Before the film came on, there was a paid advertisement from Enbridge for the northern gateway pipeline. This was a non-partisan movie crowd. We were all there to see the movie. We were not there as New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or people from any other political background.

We were British Columbians who were out to see a movie, and Enbridge put on the ad. What was the reaction of the crowd? There were round boos. People were throwing popcorn at the screen. That shows the extent to which British Columbians reject the northern gateway pipeline. There will be 104 full-time, on-site positions created, but thousands of jobs are threatened by the northern gateway pipeline. That is why communities along the right of way, and British Columbians generally, have said no.

For the Conservative government to put forward Bill C-3 today, hoping that somehow that will change British Columbians minds about a project that does not provide any economic or environmental advantage, is simply wrong-headed. In fact, it will do the opposite. It threatens our environment and our economy. For the government to think that Bill C-3 will address those concerns is simply wrong. British Columbians feel profoundly strong about our coast. Many of us gain our living from the coast.

We will not accept a Conservative government that tries to ram through a project when it has so many negative environmental and economic repercussions. For the Conservatives to think they can ram this project through is simply wrong-headed. I have said this publicly outside the House, and I will say it in the House as well. If the Conservative government tries to ram through the northern gateway pipeline over the objections of first nations, the communities and British Columbians, there will not be a single safe seat for the Conservative Party in British Columbia in the 2015 election. I can guarantee that.

British Columbians will say no to the Conservative agenda, and they will say yes to having strong New Democrats representing British Columbia in the House of Commons. With only a few minutes left, I want to touch on the other concerns that have been raised by Canadians across this country in regard to transportation safety. I am the energy and natural resources critic. My work as a former refinery worker is part of what I bring to that job. I have been in situations where, with an oxygen tank, I was cleaning out the oil drums at the Shelburn refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia.

The reality is, I have a very healthy respect for the impact of petroleum products. They are very dangerous and they have to be handled carefully. I do not see the same due regard for safety being applied by Conservatives.

(1250) We see that in terms of pipeline safety. We have seen a clear deterioration in pipeline safety over the last few years on the Conservatives' watch. We have seen this in the number of pipeline spills, which have increased exponentially, by almost 200% over the last few years. That should bring cause to concern for any government that is concerned about safety measures. We are talking about marine safety, and the government is bringing forward very small baby steps. The concerns about pipeline safety are now front and centre, yet the government is doing nothing to address them.

This is a substance that we have to be very careful with. It kills. It destroys. There has to be a very strong and reinforced investigation and inspection process. We have to make sure, at all times, that we have the best safety equipment possible. That has not been the case with pipelines. It has not been the case with any sort of oil spill response. In fact, an audit that came at the beginning of the summer found that in 83% of the cases, oil spill response equipment is out of date. We see a situation where there is “a number of significant deficiencies in the program's preparedness capability”.

Whether we are talking about marine safety or pipeline safety, very serious concerns have been raised by Canadians. We are all aware of what has transpired over the last few months. There was the profoundly saddening tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. We have just seen the tragedy in Alberta. There have been various communities in the last few months that have been impacted in terms of rail transportation safety. I am not just talking about Gainford and Lac-Mégantic; I am talking about Sexsmith, Brampton, Calgary, Landis, Ottawa, Lloydminster, Gogama, Wanup, Okotoks and Jansen.

We are talking about communities that have been impacted just in the last few months by the lack of serious regard for safety in the transportation sector. These are unprecedented accidents that we have seen, and they are multiplying. We are seeing a government that simply does not have the due regard for safety that is required of any responsible government. I have asked before, and I will ask the new Minister of Transport , that the Conservatives reverse all of the cuts, the irresponsible actions and the gutting of safety in the transportation sector.

Whether we were talking about marine safety, pipeline safety or rail safety, they are all linked. The official opposition has brought forward very constructive ideas. The NDP has said that there are things we could do now. Our transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina , brought forward a whole series of recommendations after the appalling tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. The government has not implemented them. We have brought forward a whole series of recommendations on marine safety. The government has refused to implement them. We have raised concerns about the lack of pipeline safety.

The government has refused to act. We are doing this on behalf of the populations of Canada. We are doing it on behalf of all of the communities that are suffering from the lack of due diligence and responsibility by the Conservative government. We have never seen a government that has been so reckless and irresponsible with our nation's public safety. We have seen an increase in the number of fatalities and incidents in a whole series of sectors. Canadians want to see a change from the government. They want it to be responsible with the public's safety.

If the government chooses to continue its reckless path, not only is it saddening and a tragedy, it also means that in 2015 New Democrats will be stepping forward with a safety agenda that we believe Canadians will support. We ask the Conservatives to do the right thing. If they do not, we will. That rendezvous is in 2015.

(1255) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster , for his presentation. I agree with him that the title of the act is quite overblown. I have noted in the past that this administration has a penchant for overblowing titles of acts that are mostly housekeeping measures. In this case it is called the “safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act” as if it would do something about air pollution. It deals with some administrative changes under the Aeronautics Act. However, in terms of oil tanker safety, I completely agree with my hon. friend.

I would like to ask if he has examined the report that came out in December 2011. Almost two years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General did a thorough review of the transportation of hazardous and dangerous goods by rail, pipeline, tanker, and truck. It provided advice that, in my view, had the current administration looked at those recommendations and implemented them, might have avoided the Lac-Mégantic disaster. I would like to ask if the member has had a look at those environment commissioner recommendations from nearly two years ago.

Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right to point out that other entities within the federal government raised this issue years prior to this outbreak and the increase in accidents and fatalities that we are seeing across our country. It was telescoped. The member is quite right to point that out. For years now, people have been warning the government that things were going to go awry, and the government members said, “Oh, no. Everything is fine.

We've got stuff under control.” However, we can see from the disasters, the deaths, and the destruction over the last few months that the government has nothing under control. The government needs to start listening to Canadians, reading the reports that have come out—in some cases, one or two years ago—and start putting those recommendations in place. Canadians are asking for the government to stop acting irresponsibly and recklessly and to start taking into consideration public safety, and Canadians are right to be asking for that from their government. (1300) [ Translation ] Ms.

Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He clearly explained the Conservatives' very disturbing approach to protecting coastal areas, among other things. The Conservatives also decided to close the Quebec City maritime search and rescue centre, the only bilingual centre in Canada. Unfortunately, that truly terrible decision could endanger lives, but it is in keeping with the Conservatives' approach since coming to power.

I would like to ask my colleague if he could tell us a little more about the changes that the NDP would like to make to Bill C-3 in order to take a different approach than that of the Conservatives to protecting our coastal areas. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her question. She worked very hard to save the Quebec City maritime rescue centre. I would like to thank her for her excellent work on that issue. She does a very good job of representing her constituents and the people who live in the Quebec City area.

It is important to note that we are not talking just about the British Columbia coast, but about both coasts. I focused on British Columbia because this is an issue we are facing right now. However, she is quite right because the situation is just as worrisome on the east coast. There is a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of this government. Canadians everywhere are entitled to better protection, and they are quite right to be more worried because of the Conservatives.

It would be really beneficial to have a government that takes its responsibilities seriously and governs properly and not a government that spouts talking points. It could start by reopening the Quebec City and Vancouver maritime rescue centres and acting in a responsible manner. That would be a good thing. Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his excellent speech, which illustrated just how incompetent and reckless the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean was during his term as the former minister of transport.

The changes he made to rail safety across Canada have unfortunately left marks and scars. I hope that the new Minister of Transport will be more competent than the current member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean . Here is my question for my NDP colleague. Why does he think the former minister of transport was so reckless with Canadians' rail and marine safety across the country? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question and want to point out that he has raised these issues more often than any other member in this House.

He does an excellent job in the House of Commons and he represents a community I know very well, in the riding of Chicoutimi. His question is too difficult to answer. Why would a minister of transport and a government systematically adopt an attitude that involves pulling apart and breaking down existing safety systems? The existing systems were not even good enough in the first place. The government is being irresponsible and simply wants to destroy all the safety systems. This is happening with rail safety, pipeline safety and marine safety. We could add food safety to that list.

Under this government we have seen more crises in the food industry than ever before in our country's history. Once again, this is a result of the government making cuts and destroying inspection regulations. The government does not want to govern. It thinks it is entitled to everything. Take a look at the Senate, where Conservative senators are taking tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Prime Minister wants to take his limousine all over the world, but no one in his government is looking after Canadians' safety. This is their responsibility. It should be their primary responsibility.

In response to my colleague's question, I do not understand why this government is being so irresponsible. (1305) [ English ] Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cuts to the safety of our waters, northern Ontario is not untouched by that. The communications centre at Thunder Bay was also part of the ax of the Conservative government. It shows over and over again that we have a government that is not interested in the well-being of people and is really not interested in our waters. The Conservatives are big talkers and little doers when it comes to safety.

My colleague mentioned the largest tainted beef recall in Canada's history. During the throne speech, the government talked about the fact that paying down the debt was again its main focus, but at what cost, at what cost to the safety of Canadians? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has raised issues of food safety in this House and has done an excellent job doing that. The reality is that the government, and I say this as a former financial administrator, is the worst administrator of public finances we have ever seen in our history.

There was $40 billion for the F-35s, untendered. It started out at $8 billion; it went to $40 billion. There was $1 billion for a weekend summit; $1 million to fly the Prime Minister 's limousine around the world. The government is absolutely horrible at financial management. I have heard people who voted Conservative last time saying that they are never going to vote Conservative again, because they are so appallingly bad at the one thing they were supposed to be good at.

The reality is that the costs the member is speaking of are costs to Canadian families, families that are sick or dead, families that end up seeing terrible tragedies, whole communities that are threatened. As well, there is the profound impact on and degradation of our environment. The costs of keeping the government in office are immense. In 2015, Canadians— The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa South. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-3 which is the follow-up bill to Bill C-57 from the last session of this House, which has not passed by now, in part, because the House was prorogued for an unusually long period of time. It is unfortunate, because I think we would have dispatched this legislation much more efficiently had we been sitting here. In many respects, what we are seeing in the bill is a piecemeal or what I might even describe as an incoherent approach to transportation safety policy in Canada.

Small things are trickling out in dribs and drabs without a comprehensive approach to transportation safety in the country to deal with the important issues that have been raised, by many speakers, on marine transportation, rail transportation, passenger safety, and beyond, of course. The bill is mostly about technical amendments, and the Liberal Party of Canada will be supporting sending the bill to committee. It has different parts.

Part 1, enacting the aviation industry indemnity act, would allow aviation participants, in the event of loss or damage, to deal with what are called “war risks”. This flows from the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, when insurance companies stopped offering air carriers liability insurance for what are typically called war risks. That is

part 1 of the bill. I am looking to hearing more about it at committee.

Part 2 amends the Aeronautics Act to establish a new procedure for investigating accidents or incidents involving civilians and military aircraft. Again, for clauses 10 to 26, I am looking forward to seeing more evidence to substantiate the new process in the Aeronautics Act that will allow for investigation of accidents that involve civilians and military aircraft or installations. That will be important to go through.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective date of the appointment of a director of a port authority. That is more or less standard fare. It is very much housekeeping.

Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. This effectively provides for the liability of ship owners and operators for damage caused by pollutants. In particular, it finally implements in Canada the liability scheme established pretty much elsewhere internationally by the several international conventions that are already in place. We are making progress in terms of these small amendments. Finally,

part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act to introduce new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, ostensibly, the governments says, to help produce a world-class tanker safety system. I cannot help but be struck by “world-class tanker safety system”, when the government rushed through licences in the Beaufort Sea, with full knowledge that there is no technology to deal with potential spills should there be one in that most fragile Canadian sea.

Let us turn to the overall context within which I think this bill has been presented and what is happening out there among Canadians. (1310) [ Translation ] First, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy shook the country. Obviously, it affected Quebeckers, the people of Lac-Mégantic and their families. This tragedy, which still weighs heavy on the minds of Canadians, stunned us and affected us deeply. [ English ] We had also a bus-train collision here in the city of Ottawa. We had a derailment in Calgary, which Mayor Nenshi spoke of some time ago, and of course, we had the derailment over the weekend in Gainford, Alberta.

There are so many more instances of rail safety questions. The bill is being deposited at a time when we are debating pipelines. We are debating pipelines heading west, the gateway pipeline. We are debating pipelines heading south, the Keystone pipeline, and of course there is the question of Line 9, reversing the flow of a pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal to provide more feedstock for eastern Canadian refineries. I would pause for a moment and say that I think the government has seriously compromised Canada's reputation with respect to its dealings on the Keystone pipeline. It has, in fact, weakened us.

For that matter, to a certain extent, it has even weakened the democratic presidency of President Obama by actually not working with American congressional leaders and the President's office to show that Canada is serious about climate change. Because we have been delaying, denying, dragging our feet, making up stories, and hitching our wagon to President Obama, and at other points to somebody else or to some other factor, Canada is now very much behind the eight ball.

When it comes to Washington, and, I can certainly confirm from international experience, elsewhere, Canada is now considered to be a pariah on the climate change file. In a sense, this is how the Prime Minister has seriously compromised our reputation in Washington and has put the Keystone pipeline very much at risk. As I said, Canadians are very concerned about a few things. They see these instances on television and read about them in the newspapers. They are very concerned about passenger safety, community safety, and marine safety, of course.

They are concerned about the transport of dangerous substances and what is happening in their local municipalities with trains running in and out. They are very concerned about environmental protection. One of the least known fallout effects of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy is the fact that it is going to take decades, and probably hundreds of millions if not billions, of dollars to clean up the affected watershed in that region. That is something we let slip, to a certain extent, in coverage outside Quebec. Another factor at play, of course, is that there is a trend toward moving more and more oil in Canada by rail.

This is worthy of exploring so that Canadians understand what is happening. There are important fundamental questions about our aging Canadian rail infrastructure. There are important questions being raised about the types of railcars that have been used, both in Canada and the United States, for decades and their safety and engineering standards, for example. Why is there such a trend toward moving more and more oil in Canada by rail? The first reason is that North American oil production is outpacing pipeline capacity.

For example, rail shipments of oil to our coastal refineries or export centres have gone from about 6,000 train carloads in 2009 to almost 14,000 carloads this year. That is a massive and significant increase in moving oil by rail. We have seen a concomitant investment by the railway companies in new cars and new capacity to carry more oil, of course, because they want an ever-increasing share of that market opportunity, as one would expect from a private company. The second reason we are seeing more oil carried by rail is that, as I mentioned, railways want to increase their market share.

They have seized upon an opportunity here, because shipping oil by rail as a substitute idea is being encouraged by the Conservatives as a way to circumvent the approval processes, which they often have been weakening or undermining, whether it is the NEB or environmental assessment. We know that this is the case. We have seen it. It has been happening now for years. They are also trying, in certain quarters, to circumvent strong or ferocious opposition to different ideas being put forward by industrial proponents. That is having another effect. It is another force at play that is driving oil onto our railways.

(1315) The third factor is that there is enormous pressure on our infrastructure, and I alluded to this, for both rail and pipeline. Even if all current pipeline projects are approved in Canada, oil production will exceed pipeline capacity by one million barrels a day by 2025. That is, in 12 short years we will exceed our pipeline capacity by one million barrels a day.

The first thing I thought of when I came face to face with this statistic was to reflect on the words of the former premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed who asked some very probative and profound questions about the pace of development in our oil sands, whether or not we were having an adult conversation about that pace, whether the effects in the immediate areas were going to be properly mitigated, and so on and so forth. We see that there is a massive push and rush to increase capacity in terms of oil production but not the infrastructure to deal with it.

On that note, pressure on rail, of course, is coming from a plan of doubling oil sands exploitation over the next decade or so. The pressure is also coming from the 10 to 12-year life span of the very huge Bakken shale gas formation in both North Dakota and Montana. There we are seeing an oil and gas field that is presently producing some 700,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, the estimates are that would last for 10 to 12 years with production rising from 700,000 to one million barrels a day.

Interestingly, the light crude on board the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway that exploded in Lac-Mégantic came from this area, the Bakken shale gas formation, on route to an Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Bakken, as a project does not lend itself, say the energy economists, to a pipeline because it is not economic. It takes some 50 years for a pipeline to be judged to be economic, to pay for itself, and this, as I mentioned, has a 10 to 12-year remaining shelf life in terms of exploitation of the gas and oil in that particular reserve.

Another important question at play in context as the bill is brought to the floor is the following. There are some very serious and legitimate questions being raised with respect to the enforcement of railway safety by Transport Canada. Nowhere is this more evident than in the safety management systems, SMSs, which rail companies are required to produce and abide by. For that matter, different companies involved and regulated by Transport Canada also have safety management systems; airlines, for example. However, these safety management systems are not rendered public.

They are not made available or disclosed to interested parties, such as stakeholders, flying passengers, company executives, folks who work on railways, people who are in the business of insuring railways and the shipment of these risky products. These safety management systems are not disclosed. I think we can do a lot better than that in terms of the probity and transparency that Canadians are asking for and deserve going forward. Transport Canada, once these safety management systems are put in place, then perform audits on a company's SMS.

However, for the audits on railways, and the same thing applies with pipeline companies, there is no requirement for an explicit, what we might call, safety culture assessment. An auditor can go in and audit against a document and spot check. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is an explicit requirement for the auditors and inspectors to sit down with senior managers, interview employees, deal with suppliers, talk to other regulators at the provincial level for railways that do not cross provincial boundaries, and so on and so forth.

We can do a lot better with respect to these safety management systems in making them more transparent. I think that transparency shining the light of day on these management systems would help improve them. I have also heard from a number of inspectors who are retired from Transport Canada or presently working within Transport Canada. They are deeply concerned about the capacity of Transport Canada to perform these audits on safety management systems on a number of fronts, whether it is marine shipping, airlines, railways and beyond.

(1320) There are very troubling questions being raised by these inspectors who are good people, of good faith and goodwill, who go to work every day and try to do their jobs, but are now feeling the pinch as they try to cover so many different regulated companies and do not have the capacity to do so.

That is something we are going to have to explore in a much more meaningful way at committee in due course, whether it is with respect to the bill or with respect to the promised, deep railway-safety study that the committee was supposed to undertake this fall in the wake of early findings from the Transportation Safety Board in terms of its learnings derived from the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic. Shifting gears a bit, in some respects the bill would address the liability question but only tangentially, as I mentioned earlier. There are lingering questions.

Most Canadians, once they are over the shock of something as dramatic as a bus in this city, here in my backyard just ou