OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 019 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 19, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 19, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 019 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 019 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 019 (Version officielle) 147 019 19 11 2013 2013/11/19 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Broadcasting Act Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) Bill C-552. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-552,

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (sports blackouts) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce my bill today that would ban television blackouts for live sporting events held in venues constructed with the use of public financing. Blackouts are broadcasting restrictions imposed by broadcasters, professional sports teams, and leagues. With this being Grey Cup week, it would be great to see Canadians from coast to coast to coast gather around their television sets to cheer on their respective teams. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, go Ticats, go.

Whether it is the NHL or CFL footfall, Canadians have tended to support the use of public money for the construction of stadiums and arenas to house professional sports franchises. All Canadian Football League games on TSN are subject to local blackouts. Edmonton Eskimo home games are not broadcast in Edmonton or the immediate surrounding area, to ensure that fans buy tickets. In the case of the Saskatchewan Roughriders home games, the blackout zone covers the entire province of Saskatchewan, largely because the team relies more on the whole province for support.

However, these stadiums did receive some public funds. With that, it is only fair that leagues offer some reciprocity and allow fans to watch the games on television without the threat of local or regional blackouts. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Canadian Multiculturalism Act Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) Bill C-553. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-553,

An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) . He said: Mr. Speaker, recent discussions about Quebec values have very clearly demonstrated the fundamental difference between Quebec and Canadian perceptions of common values and the integration of newcomers. Given that Quebeckers form a nation, they have the right to decide themselves how to define their identity and protect their common values, particularly regarding the protection of the French language, the neutrality of the state and gender equality.

That is why I am introducing a bill today to exclude Quebec from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which is not adapted to Quebec realities. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) [ English ] Petitions Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from petitioners who say that measures must be taken to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They call upon the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

Sustainable Seafood Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, petitioners are calling for a national sustainable seafood day. They say that overfishing and destructive fishing practices are threatening marine life and the health of our oceans. Over 120 million people are dependent on fish as part of their income, but over the last century, wild fish populations have declined dramatically. Canadian consumers want to support sustainable seafood options.

Canadian seafood industries are providing increased opportunities for consumers to make sustainable seafood purchases. Therefore, petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to designate March 18 as national sustainable seafood day.

Criminal Code Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions from Alberta, Ontario, and B.C. areas. Petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to decriminalize the selling of sexual services, to criminalize the purchasing of sexual services, and to provide support to those who desire to leave prostitution. As we know, this is a very relevant issue, harming a lot of very innocent victims. Therefore, I submit these petitions to Parliament today.

Climate Change Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on climate change. Climate change is expensive. By 2050, the economic cost could be $21 billion to $43 billion annually. Flooding damage to coastal buildings, resulting from climate-change-induced sea level rise and storm surges, could cost $1 billion to $8 billion, with higher costs in Atlantic Canada. Poor air quality from higher temperatures will lead to more hospital visits in Calgary, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

The petitioners are calling on the government to cost out and model climate impacts to inform decisions about adaptation policies and to allocate scarce resources to help Canadians adapt.

Human Rights Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from Edmontonians and people from Sherwood Park calling on the House of Commons to intervene in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. The petitioners state that the Government of Canada has recognized fundamental human rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has provided substantial funding for capital and operational funding to the museum.

Since the Government of Canada has recognized the Holodomor, they are calling on Parliament to ensure that the Holodomor and Canada's first national internment operations be permanently and prominently displayed at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions. The first petition represents thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group called Families For Justice, made up of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, states that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : The second petition is signed by thousands of Canadians. The petition highlights the fact that women are being discriminated against through gender selection and that 92% of Canadians believe that this is wrong and should be made illegal. The Conservative Party of Canada condemns this act. The petitioners call on all members of Parliament to condemn this act of discrimination against women and girls.

[ Translation ] Gender Parity Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we know, ministers are the ones who appoint the presidents of crown corporations. At present, there are 84 crown corporation in Canada, and 16 of the 84 presidents, or just 19%, are women. With Bill C-473 , we are asking for a better balance.

(1010) [ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion 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 Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a bill that has several significant parts, a bill the official opposition will be supporting to study at committee. It has the electrifying title of

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. While that might not seem all that gripping a title, the actual impacts and effects of the bill are significant and do mean something, particularly to the people I represent in northwestern British Columbia. Very specifically, these are the aspects around oil tanker traffic. In northern British Columbia, a company out of Calgary called Enbridge is proposing the northern gateway pipeline.

It is a pipeline that would stretch 1,100 kilometres from Alberta to B.C.'s coast at Kitimat. The company then proposes to put it into supertankers that would run the inside passage out Douglas Channel, make three hairpin turns on their way out to the open ocean, and then go on to, one presumes, China and the rest of Asia. I specifically note China in this proposal, simply because the Chinese government has funded a large sum of the $100 million Enbridge has been using to promote its project. It is not an equity stake.

It is just money given by the state-owned oil enterprise in China to promote a Canadian pipeline project. One wonders what the motivations are for companies, especially those state-owned by the Chinese government, to offer it up. It may be an administration that some admire, but others of us have some questions for it. It seems to me that the aspect of this project that is worrisome to many of the people I represent, and this has been going on for a number of years, is the complete lack of social licence the company has been able to attain.

That is, in part, aided, if I may use that term for such a scenario, by the Minister of Natural Resources , who has suggested that anyone who has concerns or questions about this project must be, in his words, a radical and a foreign-funded enemy of the state. For a federal minister and a government to use such heated, overblown rhetoric, such offensive and abusive language, is obviously a desperate attempt to try to push a project that has failed time and time again to gain the social licence of the people who are along the route.

It demonstrates a government that simply sees the Canadians who live along the proposed pipeline route, or who may be impacted by an oil spill from the supertankers implicated by the project, as simply in the way. They are seen not as citizens, not as people in the communities taking the most risk, but as a bothersome quotient for the government to simply bully and have removed. Bill C-3 has some aspects that we, in the small measures that are made here, support. They deal particularly with liability for oil spills. The liability regime in Canada to this point has been incredibly weak.

It is much weaker than the regime that exists in the United States and certainly is dramatically weaker than that which exists in Europe and many of our other trading partners. If we look at the oil tanker accidents around the world, proving causal liability is one of the more difficult levels to attain in a court of law. Even when that is done, under Canadian law as it exists right now, the amount of damages the company is on the hook for is minimal.

The Canadian taxpayer is meant to pay the rest, and not just for the costs incurred in the actual emergency in deploying of the Coast Guard and other emergency services. For the eventual damages that would be awarded or given to the public, the companies are still restricted in their liability exposure. Who picks up the rest of the damages for the impact on fishing communities and other economies that are trying to exist? Never mind just the economic impact. There are the straight up environmental impacts.

We see even in this bill an extension of the liability, but certainly nothing that would move toward full responsibility. The companies themselves, Enbridge and others, which ship oil, have declared, perhaps to their credit, that they cannot guarantee that there will not be spills. The reason they cannot is that they have spilled so many times in the past.

(1015) There was a relatively recent incident in Michigan, near where your home riding is, Mr. Speaker, in Kalamazoo River, in which bitumen being shipped by Enbridge leaked out of a pipe. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, which conducted the review afterward, showed that the company was “the Keystone Kops”. The spill had been noted and the emergency lights went off in Calgary. They were shut down on three separate occasions while the spill into this river continued to exist.

It is a relatively small river, by British Columbia standards, and it is very slow-moving and warm, conditions that would be more ideal, if there is such a thing in terms of cleaning up an oil spill. Still, the company desperately struggled to attain anything close to a cleanup. We now know from British Columbia's assessment and from the Auditor General of Canada, concerning the ability to clean up oil in the marine environment, that success would be deemed somewhere around the 5% rate.

If there were a major oil spill, the company's expectations and those of the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia for the amount of oil that would actually be recovered would be about 5% at best, because of the conditions that exist on B.C.'s north coast. It is recognized by anyone who has ever lived there or visited that we have a somewhat precarious set of environments in which it is difficult to gather back oil, particularly bitumen, which is the notion of many of the projects that the Conservative government is promoting.

This is the government's Wild West energy plan: to ship as much raw bitumen and material out of the oil sands as is humanly possible, thereby forgoing all of the economic benefits that would come with actually upgrading the oil, at least to a state where it would look like a more conventional oil that we have traditionally seen, and then upgrading again and refining that oil into products that consumers would actually use. These would be gas, diesel, and the rest of the products that come out of a refinery.

The challenge for us is that, on the environmental front, the Conservative government has been an obvious failure. The meetings going on right now in Poland with respect to climate change have Canada ahead of such environmental luminaries as Saudi Arabia, Iran and a third country, which escapes me. We are down in the pariah list when it comes to dealing with the impacts of carbon. There are very few behind us, and there are many, much poorer, countries ahead of us that are doing more to deal with climate change than the Conservative government has.

The government has completely abandoned even its own weakened targets, which is amazing. The Prime Minister's Office has to prepare better speaking notes for the new Minister of the Environment because on her way to Poland to these UN climate talks, she said that Canada is a leading voice for climate change and that it is doing its job. However, Environment Canada now says we will miss by a mile even the weak and very watered down targets that the government has set for Canada. We will be way above even those weak commitments we made to the global community.

With the increase in intensity of storms and natural disasters that are hitting, we know that these costs are real. We know the impacts of climate change that were predicted by climate scientists. We have said time and time again that we would see more dangerous impacts and more dangerous effects. We have yet to properly deal with and realize the impacts of a rising sea in the world and the impacts on those coastal communities on the Vancouver Lower Mainland, on our east coast and in the far north. We know that these impacts are real and we know that these impacts are expensive.

These impacts are destabilizing, and we have a government that refuses to even follow its own weak targets and projections. It then says to the industry and to the broader Canadian public that Canada is doing its part. That is hogwash. The government knows it. No one believes its spin. The fact is that it is more dangerous than just the typical lies and half truths we get from government, because this one has real generational impact. On this particular bill, the government has gone to some half measures.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster attempted to expand the scope, because if we want to deal with certainty and the public interest when it comes to shipping oil or raw bitumen through tankers, we need to deal with the full scale of interests, bring liability rates up to the proper level that would be even a medium global standard and deal with the impacts of the cuts that the same government has made to our ability to deal with oil spills: the cuts to the Canadian Coast Guard; the shutting down of the Kitsilano base; the shutting down of the oil spill response centre in British Columbia.

Here is an ironic moment. We have a government that is out shelling for industry, pushing every pipeline it can find and saying we are going to have the best standards in the world, yet at the same time presenting a budget that we vote against, which shuts down the B.C. oil spill response centre, the very thing that is meant to reassure the public in the event of an accident, which is somewhat inevitable in the oil industry.

The very centre that is charged with dealing with an oil spill response is the very centre that these guys thought they should shut down, and then say to the public, “Never mind, never worry”. It is a fact that the public paid attention to.

(1020) There was the shutting down of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, one of the busiest in the country, thereby increasing dramatically the response times for people in distress on the water when accidents occur. We have very heavy traffic around Vancouver, not just with tankers and cargo ships but with ferries and personal pleasure craft. However, with an increasingly busy marine environment, these guys said that shutting down the Coast Guard base was a good idea.

Meanwhile, they have billions and billions to spend on pet projects and tax incentives, which do not work, for companies that are already in the massive profit range, so taken in full, it is no wonder that Canadians, particularly British Columbians, have lost complete faith in the current government's intention or its ability to deal with the impacts of heavy industry development. The Conservatives have proposed their pipelines and they insult any Canadian who happens to have questions or concerns, which I think are natural.

As Canadians, it is not only our right but our duty to hold government to account, which is what New Democrats do here as the official opposition to the government each and every day. When we talk about defending our coasts, we are actually talking about defending Canadian values, such as the right to speech without being bullied by government and ministers of the crown and the right of first nation people to be duly consulted and accommodated, but the Conservative government treats that as an afterthought. When did constitutional requirements become an afterthought for the federal government of Canada?

First nations have had to go to court time and time again. There are various cases, many of them emanating from the first nations of northern British Columbia, such as the Haida case, the Delgamuukw case with the Wet’suwet’en and the Gitksan and many other cases that followed, to prove what we all know: first nations have rights and title to the land. However, when it comes to the tanker traffic and the pipelines that are proposed, first nations are treated as if they were some sort of “special interest group”, as the current government calls them. They are not a special interest group.

They are a group that is at the heart of this conversation, but they are treated with such disrespect. The other day, I asked a first nation leader what specific things the federal government could do to help first nation communities across Canada. He asked me to please ask the Conservatives to stop suing them, because it is costing them millions upon millions of dollars in litigation to prove something that has been proven time and time again: that there is a duty owed to the first nations by the federal government to consult and accommodate. That is not up for debate.

It is not up for some token that can be traded back and forth. The government whip, who represents Vancouver Island North and deals with many first nations across Vancouver Island, knows that these responsibilities cannot simply be dismissed; or because there is some industrial imperative or some oil lobby that the government is cozying up to, it pushes those rights and titles out of the way. That is a fallacy and, ironically enough, it creates an enormous amount of uncertainty for the oil and gas sector, the industry to which the government spends so much of its time pandering.

The same Conservative government has sowed the seeds of doubt with the Canadian public by stripping away basic environmental protections, like the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Environmental Assessment Act has been weakened. Previously, the federal government enacted somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 environmental assessments a year. The Auditor General of Canada now tells us that those assessments will be reduced down to between 12 and 15 per year, under the Conservative government's stripping away of protections. The Fisheries Act has been completely gutted.

It was one of our foundational acts to protect what was considered an important economic generator for the country, as this habitat can be impacted by industrial development. The fish habitat was important to maintain our fisheries. There was no more important act in the Canadian law and jurisprudence, because it had been relied upon time and time again to hold industry to some level of account and make sure the projects it built did not leave massive legacies.

Last year, as my friend for Yukon would know, we Canadian taxpayers spent somewhere in the order of $150 million to clean up old abandoned orphaned mines that were leaking into the environment. That was $150 million just last year for no noticeable economic benefit. We had legislation in place at the time those mines were built, in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, that did not properly protect the environment; so we have learned that if we have the wrong guidelines for industry, most of industry will attempt to hold things to a higher standard than the government calls for, but some will not. Some will cut corners.

(1025) If a government allows them to do it, as the government does, the legacies will last for generations to come. The acid leaching of some of these mines is incredibly damaging to things we care about, like drinking water, like fisheries. We have a government that refuses to remember the lessons that were so hard learned and continue to be so expensive. We come to this bill, Bill C-3 , which is a small attempt of the government. We can see how much interest the government has in speaking to this bill.

In the last Parliament, before the government killed the legislation, it had one speaker at second reading and made a few passing comments, and that was it. This is supposed to be a priority for the government. It makes no argument, no support for the legislation. I do not know if there are going to be government speakers today.

I look forward to hearing what Conservatives actually think and maybe to hearing it address some of the concerns of Canadians that exist regarding the legislation: that the scope is so narrow that it does not expand a full and proper liability; that it does not address all the other aspects of shipping oil by water, which exist and are realities and create uncertainty for industry.

If the public does not have confidence in the process, which it does not with the government running the show, then how will industry gain that social licence it so desperately needs, to actually create those jobs that the government is so keen to talk about? We are all for promoting the resource sector. We have to do it under guidelines that promote the very best, not encourage the very worst.

We see the government, time and time again, stripping away environmental protections, dismissing first nations' obligations, not holding and creating proper liability regimes; so that this creates no certainty for industry. This creates no confidence among the public. Coming from a resource part of the world, I deal with many industries, which seek this social licence and community support for their projects. Their investors seek that same support. This has bottom-line impacts. Ask Enbridge how it is going, with the fake ads about shipping oil and how incredibly safe it is, when we know the facts are otherwise.

The Conservatives simply cannot outspend the public will or cover over a bunch of lies with a bunch of ads in between hockey games and pretend that will somehow gain the social licence and support. Enbridge has a partner in the government, which continually lowers the bar, waters down what few regulations we have to protect the environment, and then pretends we still have world-class standards. How can that be true? The government members will repeat it today, if they bother to speak at all, and say we have world-class standards.

If they just spent the last six or seven years destroying aspects of environmental legislation, watering down and gutting the Fisheries Act, cutting Coast Guard funding, cutting funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, removing things and protections that Canadians relied upon, they still cannot have world-class, leading standards. That is simply not true. Conservatives cannot have it both ways. If they cut all those protections for Canadians, then clearly they have not maintained any sense of having the basic understanding of what it is to develop industry. Industry needs a couple of things.

It needs a fair set of rules. It needs consistent application of those rules. It needs an investment climate that allows for investors to feel confidence in these major investments, because none of these projects that are entertained in this kind of bill are small. They start at a few billion dollars and go up from there, and they last a certain amount of time. The Enbridge northern gateway predicts it would be around for 45 or 50 years, give or take. Under that regime, it would also have about 12,000 supertanker sailings through some of the more treacherous waters known around the world.

There would be 12,000 sailings with weak protection and minimal ability to clean up in the event of a spill, as has been reported by the federal Auditor General and has been reported by a study by the British Columbia government. These are not the wild-eyed, wide-eyed environmentalists that Conservatives always like to point at. We know for a fact that, time and time again, the government in its pandering to one small interest group, the oil sector, has actually weakened the argument for the oil sector's ability to actually promote projects.

It has weakened the ability of industry to have the confidence of the Canadian public, which it needs to build the projects it wishes to build. Why not take a step back for a moment and listen to some of the critics rather than trying to insult and bully them? Why not step back for a moment and develop a national strategy for our energy, as the Premier of Alberta and many other premiers across the country have asked for?

(1030) Industry has asked for it and the Canadian public has asked for it, yet the government sits on its hands and pretends that photo ops and spin are going to get the job done, along with bills that go only halfway. New Democrats will support the bill and try to improve the bill. We will allow Parliament to do its work and hear from witnesses and experts who know a lot more about this than anybody sitting over there. Again, the government has a missed opportunity.

It could do so much more both for industry and the public, and a failure on the government's part will do nothing for the Canadian economy and certainly nothing for the Canadian environment. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments and well-thought-out proposal. He talked about the Enbridge proposal and the government's gutting of environmental protections. He mentioned the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to cite a few.

He talked about the government shutting down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, the oil spill response centre, and others. Let me get this straight. The government wants to increase marine traffic in the form of huge oil tankers on our west coast, and at the same time it is weakening marine safety by closing down Coast Guard stations, et cetera, as my colleague pointed out. Therefore, my question is this: what are the jobs that will be lost with a weakened marine safety support system? He touched on the salmon economy and other impacts to first nation culture and tourism.

What are some of the impacts of going forward with a weakened environmental safety regime and marine safety regime in terms of economic losses on the west coast? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, we know, particularly in the north, that boom economies are also bust economies, and that if we put all our eggs in one basket while times are good, they can be very good, but when they go bad, because we only have one leg to stand on, they go bad quickly. Obviously, creating a diversified economy with diversified markets is absolutely essential to Canada's growth and prosperity.

With reference to the fishing community, just the wild salmon economy in the northwest is a $150 million per year sustainable economy. It can continue forever if it is done right. The fishing economy across British Columbia is more than $1 billion. Tourism on Canada's west coast is even more than that. With those two economies in the mix, weakened environmental assessments and weaker protection in the event of oil spills will put all of that at risk to ship 500,000 barrels of raw bitumen a day out of Alberta to China. One would ask why we are shipping it out raw.

We have experience in another important economy in British Columbia, the lumber industry, in which the provincial government continually pushes for export of raw logs, thereby leaving so much economic opportunity on the table. A mill was just lost in Houston, B.C., with 225 workers, in part because of fundamental government mismanagement and the promotion of exporting raw logs to China. Now we are moving it up the scale and saying we should do the same thing with oil. The only difference is that the stakes are even higher.

The amounts of money we are talking about are even higher when we forgo the benefits of upgrading it to conventional oil and then refining it even higher. Why do we not give preferential treatment to companies that actually invest in the technology to add value to our resources? The Conservatives have nothing to say about this. They say their invisible hand is always magical and always correct.

If China wants to fund the promotion of an oil pipeline like this and buy Nexen, which is supplying most of the oil for the gateway, and if China owns the source of the oil, promotes it, maybe ends up owning most of the pipeline in this project, and is also the consumer of this project, this presents no cautionary tale to the government whatsoever. At what point does it stop becoming a Canadian project? It is when somebody else owns it.

Those resources that are our endowment, our heritage, and our inheritance are forgone by this approach, meanwhile threatening other economies that we know are sustainable, such as the tourism and fishing sectors. All the while, these guys are racing to approve pipelines, racing over the interests of the public, racing over the concerns of science, which the Conservatives refuse to listen to, and becoming international pariahs on the climate change front. This is a bad cocktail mix and a bad formula. It is bad for the economy and increasingly bad for our environment. (1035) [ Translation ] Mrs.

Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP asked that the scope of Bill C-3 be broadened by referring it to committee before second reading so that the committee could study the possibility of including a full range of measures to protect Canada's coastlines. Can the member tell us why the Conservatives rejected our proposal to broaden the scope of this bill? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The Conservatives reject nearly every idea that is not their own. It is odd, because Parliament is supposed to examine bills to make improvements.

However, the Conservatives introduce massive omnibus bills and always claim that they are perfect. This one here is a small omnibus bill. There are many examples of times when the Conservatives refused to improve bills and listen to experts and witnesses. Then, after a few years, it became clear that these bills were complete disasters, but the cases had gone to court. That is a problem, because it costs Canadians a lot of money. I think it is a problem when the government outright rejects ideas from the opposition and the New Democrats. The government is being arrogant and does not operate very well.

That is this Prime Minister 's attitude. He always thinks he is the smartest person in the House and in any room. That is a problem. It is arrogance, and it is the same thing we have been seeing with the Senate scandal. The Conservatives do not listen to anything, and that is a problem with this bill. Why not listen to the experts and witnesses who are saying that we need to open and improve the bill? The government cannot keep such a narrow vision. It needs to find something that addresses Canadians' concerns. [ English ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I was glad to hear the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley mention the U.S. report that came out accusing Enbridge of being Keystone Cops. The same report also said the company was engaged in a culture of deception. Last fall, in 2012, a video was released by that company that showed the Douglas Channel free of any obstacles or islands. It was a very misleading video. I know people in Ocean Falls and all along that coast who are very concerned about tanker traffic. My question for the member is simple.

Why is the government silent on this issue, when it is clear that the company was engaged in a culture of deception? Again, why is the government silent on this issue? Why is it not standing up for people on the west coast? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, “culture of deception” sounds familiar. It sounds like what was going on in the Prime Minister's Office. According to the Prime Minister , he was being deceived, and there was some sort of conspiracy around him in which only one person was involved in the scandal with Mr. Duffy. Then there were a few people involved.

Then last week it sounded as though there was one, Mr. Wright, who was fired, and then he was not fired. It seems to me that the seeds that one sows eventually bear fruit. The government that seems so at ease with the truth, so at ease telling half-truths and outright lies straight-faced into the camera about things that matter, also seems to have no problem with a company that practises those same deceptions with the public.

The video my friend is referring to was an ad, one of those ads paid for through Enbridge by the Chinese government, showing that sailing out of Kitimat Harbour took place on a beautiful clear horizon of flat water with nothing between us and Asia. It was a straight shot. It had to be a cartoon, because an actual photo of the departure from Kitimat Harbour would show that ships would have to dodge and duck through a series of channels and islands, some of which we consider kind of important. If any are run into, there will be an oil leak.

There will be disasters, as happened with the Queen of the North , one of the largest ferries in Canada. It hit one of those islands that Enbridge pretends is not there when talking to the public about the nature of their project. This is the way the company thinks it wins people over: with little cartoon drawings of how perfect the scenario is and how easy this is going to be to do. What do these angry natives and environmentalists have a problem with, when it is just that easy and it is just right there? It seems to me that the first step in a conversation is being truthful and honest.

The government has refused to do that with respect to our ability to clean up oil spills. The companies that promote these projects do themselves no favours when they pretend that we do not have things like the Internet and maps and facts. We have those things and we will rely on those things, not on the words of the Conservatives and not on the words of companies looking to shill for friends across the way. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3 .

First, I would like to note that we will support the bill at second reading, but not very enthusiastically. The bill contains slight improvements in marine safety, but the government could have done much better. I am going to take time to read the title of the bill because I believe it will help people understand: 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 . Many people will realize in reading its title that the bill is probably more than two pages long. It obviously addresses many points, and its approach is designed to achieve safety. If we are starting in on a bill that will amend several acts, it is worth expanding its scope to ensure we cover everything. When you conduct a study, you may realize later on that you could have added a part.

That is not efficient. It is important for us to bear that in mind as we begin a study as broad as this one on aviation and marine safety.

That moreover is the reason why the NDP proposed to expand the bill to include more specific measures that would protect Canada's coastlines, for example, and that would neutralize or reverse Conservative cuts and closures associated with marine safety and environmental protection. [ English ] I think when we are doing a big study like that, when we have a bill that concerns different laws, we have the responsibility to do the study really seriously and to try to extend the study to every measure that might be concerned.

That is why the NDP has proposed to do a good study on the bill that would cover all the files. Unfortunately, the Conservatives say yes and then no. When we want to try to have a really good study, it is very disappointing when the Conservatives have this attitude and say, “No. This is our bill, and it is what we are studying.” The NDP is really concerned to improve the law. It is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of improving Canadian law, and the Conservatives refuse to do it. [ Translation ] Let me briefly explain the various acts affected by Bill C-3 .

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act. In practical terms, this will authorize the Department of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain airlines for loss, damage or liability caused by war risks. We agree that these are not frequent occurrences. However, if an airline’s aircraft are damaged in a sudden and unexpected war, the Department of Transport will be able to indemnify it. I do not believe this measure will be used very often, but it appears in the bill.

Part 2 concerns the Aeronautics Act. It will enable certain persons to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force. I see this may be useful, particularly in the event of an incident involving visiting forces. For example, it might be more difficult for Canadians to investigate an incident affecting visiting forces, considering the different cultures involved. People might be less responsive.

(1045) The fact that the parties co-operate could therefore be useful in some instances. If there is a language barrier, for example, they will be able to give us more information. Questions arise in my mind. Will those people be required to issue a public report on their investigation, as is the case when the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigates? Some questions have to be asked, and it will be worthwhile exploring them in committee.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act respecting the effective date of the appointment of a director of a port authority. I believe the first three parts are the ones involving the fewest problems. However, it seems to me that parts 4 and 5 raise more questions. I will bear them in mind as I listen carefully and read the committee proceedings so that I can then take a position and decide what I think the NDP should do when this bill reaches third reading. That is why I sincerely hope the Conservatives will be receptive in committee and prepared to really discuss marine safety, for example, when the committee begins its study.

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, 2010. This deals with liability in the event of a spill, for example, and provides that a ship's owner is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans if it has to intervene or by another response organization that might have been designated by the department. It also confers powers, duties and functions on the administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.

One question is not specifically addressed in the legislation, but it will be interesting to discuss it in committee, even though it falls under another heading, and that is the question of insurance coverage. As we unfortunately saw at the time of the Lac-Mégantic incident, people realized that MMA did not have enough insurance coverage to pay the costs of the accident. I therefore hope the committee will be studying that question as well. If these people are responsible for paying, adequate insurance coverage must be available.

Consequently, a fairly accurate valuation of what a major incident might cost must unfortunately be made. This is essential so that we can be sure that these people have adequate insurance coverage and that no companies will be unable to pay. If that were to happen, spills might continue spreading as no one would take action because no one would know how the bill would be paid. This is a very important question that should be discussed in committee.

Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. There are a number of parties involved. In this part of the legislation, however, I hope the persons responsible will be compelled to provide an accurate chemical description of the oil being transported. We have realized that the action taken sometimes differs somewhat depending on the type of oil or oil products that may be transported.

I hope that will be part of the discussion in committee. A new requirement in this bill will also compel operators of oil handling facilities to submit their emergency plans to the minister. I hope and trust that if they have an emergency plan, it means they have also consulted local coastal communities. I hope that there will be co-operation and that they will make sure local people who could possibly help them are familiar with how they can respond, and what they can do. I hope they are also trained. This is a question, once again, that will have to be considered in committee.

(1050) There is also a question of civil and criminal immunity for organizations involved in response operations. I wonder whether it is really immunity that applies in all cases, or whether it applies in cases where people have acted to the full extent of their knowledge and skill? For example, if a response agency is cutting a lot of corners, will it possibly be covered by such immunity? I believe it would be important to clarify this, because it could give members a better understanding of the bill. I will now discuss the application of the new enforcement measures and monetary penalties.

They also grant new investigative powers to Transport Canada investigators. I believe that when it is a question of monetary penalties, among other things, it is important to give careful consideration to the amount. Is the amount sufficiently large to have a real deterrent effect? If the amount is not sufficient, people will take risks regardless. I believe it is very important to take the time to consider what monetary penalties are appropriate and will actually achieve the desired result.

One aspect of the bill that should be noted is that there may be some lack of credibility on the part of the Conservatives, particularly with respect to marine safety, aviation safety and their policies in those areas. In some budgets, there have been significant cuts in the area of safety. A marine safety bill has now been introduced. Perhaps the Conservatives would not have lost so much credibility if they had not cut so much in the area of safety. The member seated near me made a good defence of the Quebec City search and rescue centre, which is essential.

The Conservative government has closed the only French-language marine rescue centre in the country. The centre is responsible for rapid action in the case of distress at sea. All at once, the Conservative government wants us to rely on it in matters of marine safety, when it has placed people’s lives in danger. There are people who were able to respond in an emergency. In my opinion, we should be wondering whether response staff will be increased to ensure safety. For example, will there be people able to respond in both official languages and understand people when marine accidents or spills occur?

These are questions we have to ask ourselves. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not help when they made cuts in the area of marine safety. They also eliminated the positions of people with practical local knowledge. I have seen this regularly. People often use very local expressions when speaking of their location. If the person concerned is not familiar with the waterways, minutes and even hours will go by before there is a response. In the case of a spill, the longer it takes to respond, the bigger the spill will be. I therefore feel there is a real danger.

So far, unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed to impress me in the area of marine safety. I have genuine concerns about this, and I believe we should really make sure that the bill is complete. Unfortunately, if they refuse to expand the scope of the bill, we cannot be reassured and we cannot go as far as we would wish. We tell ourselves that, perhaps, we will have a bill, but eventually we will realize there is something it does not cover, and we will have to introduce another one. In the end, we will realize that the new bill does not cover everything, and another one will therefore be introduced.

The process will extend over time,

whereas we could have done the right thing, completed the work and made a serious and comprehensive study of marine safety.

(1055) It seems that is not the way the Conservatives like to operate, however. One could certainly say that logic is in short supply in their application of proposed legislation. There is another aspect that is worth looking into. The Coast Guard is very much involved in marine safety. Our defence critic recently put questions to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works . He asked what had become of the shipbuilding program, because people who recently assessed the program had said that the money allocated to the program would very likely be insufficient to complete it.

Naturally, vessels used by National Defence will also be used by the Coast Guard. If we are already short of ships to provide marine safety, I believe there is a serious problem, particularly considering the fairly substantial increase not only in the number of vessels plying our waterways, but also in their size and the potential dangers of a spill. If the government were really serious about marine safety, it could have taken many other measures. For example, it could have cancelled the Coast Guard closure and service reductions like that in Kitsilano, British Columbia.

It could have cancelled the reductions in marine traffic communication services, such as the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre in St. John's. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Canada’s geography can understand that these are two crucial points with respect to marine safety in this country, on the east coast and the west coast. Given current traffic, these two service centres should not only maintain their capacity, they should also be able to increase it. At this time, that is not the case, and their services are in fact being reduced.

It is also important to require the Canadian Coast Guard to work with its U.S. counterparts and conduct a parallel study to examine the risks resulting from additional tanker traffic in Canadian waters. Of course, ships do not simply remain in Canadian waters. They move. That is why it is particularly important to conduct joint studies. We also need to be able to talk to our American counterparts about involving them in response plans.

If, unfortunately, a ship has an accident at the edge of Canadian and American waters, we need to be able to respond efficiently as a team and know exactly who is fulfilling what role. I would like to point out that the NDP's goal is to never have a spill occur. However, given all the Conservative cuts to marine safety, I feel our concerns are legitimate. We would like to know for certain what direction marine safety is headed in. We would like to know who will respond if there is a spill, how quickly they will respond, the target timetables and what our capacity is for controlling a minor or major spill.

According to experts, we currently do not have the capacity for containing a major spill. The ships are so large that we do not have what it takes to respond. I find that extremely worrisome. In committee, we will be able to look at these points more closely and ask questions. I hope that the Conservative government will be truly open to improving Canada's marine and aviation safety, for the benefit of all Canadians.

(1100) [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech on this important matter. Yes indeed, our party has agreed to support the bill being sent to committee for discussion. I wonder if the member could speak to this. I know she has worked in the military, and in the military there is a lot of attention given to ensuring that military personnel are properly staffed and trained for any initiative or mission.

Something that troubles me with the repeated actions of the Conservatives is that they table laws to amend the Criminal Code, introducing new provisions to regulatory statutes and now matters dealing with very serious issues including aeronautic safety and marine spills, yet they have not simultaneously tabled a policy and strategy for ensuring improved enforcement and compliance or for staffing and training to ensure these measures are lived up to. I wonder if the member could speak to that. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr.

Speaker, based on my military experience, I can say that the clearer the procedures, the more specific they are and the more suited they are to different scenarios, the better equipped we will be to intervene quickly. The more we work in a vacuum, the vaguer the data, the more questions we have to ask, and the longer it will take to respond. Therefore, the better the response plan and the greater the collaboration with local authorities, for example with the U.S. authorities in the event of a spill in U.S. and Canadian waters, the better prepared we will be and the more we will be able to intervene.

When we talk about this kind of bill, it is important to take the time to study it properly, ensure that its scope is broad enough to cover all possibilities and ensure that we are ready to take action if necessary. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was well researched as usual. The bill indicates that organizations must be able to respond to a spill of 10,000 tonnes, but we know that most tankers carry much more oil than that. Therefore, that amount may not be enough.

One association even said that the best figure would be 50,000 tonnes. Could the member tell me if 10,000 tonnes is adequate for the current movement of oil products? Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, the current limit of 10,000 tonnes is not enough. One of the proposals we would like to introduce would significantly increase the limit associated with a spill cleanup. Obviously, this change would be based on consultations with experts appearing before the committee. They can tell us what the appropriate limit should be. We need to keep in mind that the limit is currently 10,000 tonnes.

That means that all companies need to be able to handle spills of that size. If they cannot handle the cleanup, the Canadian Coast Guard has the authority to intervene or to give other response organizations the mandate to clean up the spill. If a company cannot cover the cost of cleanup efforts, the Canadian Coast Guard may request funds from the ship-source oil pollution fund. This implies that the government should be responsible for any costs exceeding what the fund can pay. There is a problem, however. In March 2013, the fund had a balance of $400 million.

To illustrate how insufficient that amount is, I would like to use the Exxon Valdez accident as an example. After the disaster, cleanup costs and compensation for damages totalled $3.5 billion. Clearly, there is a problem. The amount available is inadequate. Even the oil pollution fund could not cover the costs resulting from a major spill.

(1105) Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was born near the Gaspé Peninsula, and the St. Lawrence River flows through that area. We have had what we call the marine park since approximately the 2000s. Park employees study the entire marine environment and are trying to provide education and acquire tools. Since many oil tankers pass through that area, can the member tell us whether special measures are being taken to ensure marine safety in that area and in other areas where there is a marine park? Ms. Christine Moore : Mr.

Speaker, from what I have read, no practical measures are being taken to protect that region. I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier about the expertise of Quebec City rescue centre employees. They were able to respond to distress calls; however, such calls could also pertain to accidents involving a potential oil spill. That francophone expertise is being lost. The government is telling us that bilingual expertise will be available elsewhere, but such is not the case as of yet. In my opinion, that is cause for concern. The public has legitimate concerns.

The communities are very close and the damage could be significant. The St. Lawrence River's wildlife is rather exceptional. What is more, the Gaspé Peninsula's economy is mainly based on tourism. Imagine the impact an oil spill would have on tourism in the area. Tourists would stay away for months because many attractions, including beaches, would not be accessible. That could have a major impact not only on the area's wildlife but also on the local economy of a tourism-based region. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague another question.

In her speech, she mentioned companies' insurance coverage. She gave the example of Lac-Mégantic, which pertains to rail transportation, but the same principle could be applied to marine transportation. Do companies have the insurance they need to clean up messes such as oil spills, which can cause considerable and devastating damage? How important is it for these companies to have a fair bit of insurance to deal with damage related to the quantity and the hazardous nature of the products being shipped?

(1110) Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a critical point. When this is studied in committee, I hope that the experts will provide concrete examples of incidents around the world and say how much cleanups have cost in practice. Earlier, I gave the example of an incident where the cleanup cost $3.5 billion. I think this is quite a substantial amount. Through the testimony of these experts, the committee will be able to determine what the insurance coverage should be, based on past incidents and other potential costs associated with larger ships, to ensure that companies do not fail to pay.

Obviously, there should not be any situations where responses are inadequate, companies are no longer able to bear the costs, there is no compliance with the polluter-pay principle and, ultimately, the federal government and Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill, all because a Conservative government refused to support legislation to adequately protect our waterways and ensure marine security. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at this point, I should inform you that I will share my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona , who will take over for me.

First, I would like to provide some context for Bill C-3 . My colleagues have already discussed it a bit this morning, but I think that, as the member for Sherbrooke , it is important for me to speak to this bill and inform the House about the concerns of my constituents. I do not represent a coastal riding, but my riding is close enough to the east coast of Canada and the U.S. that these issues are important to my constituents. In fact, anything that has to do with the environment affects the people of Sherbrooke. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3 here on their behalf.

As hon. members know, this bill was introduced during the last session, that is, during the first session of the 41st Parliament. At that time it was Bill C-57 . Since we already had the opportunity to study it during the last session of Parliament, this bill is somewhat familiar to us. My colleagues already know that we will support this bill at second reading. I would also like to remind the House that we tried to broaden the scope of the bill, and I will say more about that later because I have not yet explained exactly what the bill is about. Our attempts to broaden the scope of the bill were fruitless.

Now that Bill C-3 is before us, we are trying again; we are speaking up. We hope that our attempts to improve it will be successful so that we can support it all the way through the process. Between now and then, we would like to send the bill to committee for a thorough review to ensure that it meets our constituents' expectations. This bill amends five acts and has four main parts. I will focus on the last parts.

Part 1 would indemnify certain air carriers for loss, damage or liability caused by war risks. I am not really sure where this legislative change comes from, but if there is a crisis or a war, the government would compensate air carriers for damage caused by illegal attacks, such as armed conflict, rebellion or hijacking. I will not go into any detail about that part.

Part 2 is about air transportation and amends the Aeronautics Act to provide certain persons with powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force. This is interesting, actually. We would like to talk about an issue in this part of the bill. I think that this issue will come up in committee when we take a closer look at the bill.

Right now, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is responsible for investigating aeronautical accidents involving the armed forces. According to this bill, the armed forces would take over that function. A military investigator would be responsible for that and would have to report to the Minister of National Defence. We would like to know if those reports will be made public. Currently, reports produced by the TSB are made public. In recent months, unfortunately I must say, we have come to learn a great deal more about the TSB.

It really is not clear from the bill whether the reports produced by the Department of National Defence investigator will be made public. Obviously, these questions will be raised later in committee. I simply wanted to point out that we have some reservations about

part 2 of the bill.

(1115) Part 3 does not call for any major amendment. It pertains to the appointment of port authority directors. The appointments would take effect on the day on which notice of appointment is received by the port authority. I will not elaborate further on this part of the bill. This brings me to the two main parts of the bill that are of great concern to us and that we find especially important, specifically the amendment to the Marine Liability Act.

The bill provides for the coming into force of the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010, pursuant to an international convention concluded in 2010. This

part covers the costs and expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when a spill occurs. The company responsible for the spill must have adequate insurance in place to cover the financial cost of the cleanup. It is important to understand that tanker traffic continues to increase. Traffic has increased in recent years and is on track to quadruple by 2016. So then, given the rapid increase in tanker traffic, this is an especially important consideration today. As tanker traffic increases so too do the attendant risks. The same holds true for highway traffic.

The more automobiles and people travelling on our highways, the greater the risk of accidents happening. It is no different when it comes to oceans and waterways. Fortunately, accidents are not a daily occurrence, but when they do happen, the consequences can be quite devastating. We have a number of examples to draw on from around the world, whether it is ships that have spilled some of their cargo, or accidents occurring on offshore oil rigs. One recent example was the spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. I am sure everyone remembers the extensive damage done to coastlines.

The damage does not last only a few weeks. We are still seeing the effects of the spill today. It has had a major impact on ocean ecosystems. So then, it is important for companies that take the risk of transporting these products to be able to respond when an accident occurs. That is the least they can do. When a company is responsible for shipping oil products, it must be held liable when an accident linked to its activities occurs. The public or governments should not be held liable. By government we mean the public because the government operates on taxpayers’ money.

In short, the government should not have to bear the full cost when an accident occurs. The companies should be the ones assuming the risks. Moreover, government authorities should put in place regulations to ensure that everything is in order, that inspections are carried out and that shipping companies abide by a minimum set of rules. Every single accident cannot, however, be prevented. That is impossible. So, when one does happen, companies must be able to take responsibility for the damage that they have caused. This brings me to

part 5 of the bill which amends inspection provisions in order to ensure that companies have plans in place in the event of an accident and that they submit them to the government so that authorities, whether local, provincial or federal, can respond immediately to an accident. These authorities would therefore already have the plans in hand and would be aware of the nature of the products being transported. It would therefore be much easier to respond quickly and effectively in such cases. The bill is a step in the right direction. We support the small positive steps that are being taken.

Therefore, we will be happy to support the bill at second reading. In committee, we will look at what can be done to continue moving in this direction.

(1120) As opposition members, our job is to suggest measures. That is what we will continue to do when the bill is examined in committee. We will try to improve upon its provisions, so that it is the best possible piece of legislation by the time it is adopted. Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am struck by one thing. This government bill focuses on safety, a right to which the public is entitled. However, not every Conservative member is rising to speak to the bill.

I would like to get my colleague’s opinion on the fact that the government is not defending its own bill or speaking to it. What does my colleague think of that? Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault : I thank my colleague for her relevant question, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am just as amazed as he is. The Conservatives claim to want to make the bill a priority, and yet not a single one of them is willing to rise to defend it. The least government members can do is represent their constituents in the House and state their position by showing that they support the bill.

So far, it is hard to tell whether Conservative members even support it. They do not even dare speak to it. Perhaps the Prime Minister 's Office, which controls all, does not wish government MPs to speak for fear of what they might say. I can neither understand nor explain their silence. That said, I look forward to hearing them speak to the bill. I do hope they will state their position, which would be quite interesting and most appropriate given its importance. They claim the bill is important, yet their actions say otherwise. [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his time with me. He is a very eloquent speaker in the House and an extraordinary chair. As with the issue raised by my colleague, I remain extremely puzzled. The Conservative government prorogued Parliament because it told the public that it was going to reconfigure and have a whole new agenda. However, bill after bill is being tabled that is exactly the same legislation that was brought forward before the government prorogued.

One would have thought that if the Conservatives wanted to reconfigure and rethink their legislative agenda, this would have given them ample opportunity to consult and confer with the public, potentially impacted Canadians on the three coasts, and the official opposition. We have offered to recommend additional amendments and measures that could be taken to ensure greater marine and aviation safety.

I wonder if the member could speak to our complete puzzlement that none of the Conservative members seem to think that safety in aviation and the response to oil spills are matters worth debating. (1125) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault : My colleague asks a very good question, Mr. Speaker. I very much look forward to her upcoming speech. She is very knowledgeable about these issues. To answer her question, I too am puzzled as to why the Conservatives prorogued the House only to bring forward the very same legislation, as if nothing had happened.

One has to wonder why they prorogued in the first place, other than to get media exposure and distract people from the Senate scandal. I wonder what the real reason was for the prorogation. The first thing the Conservatives did when the House reconvened was to reintroduce all of their bills at the same stage they were at in the previous session. It was as if nothing had happened. I wonder what the real reason was for all this, other than to throw up a smokescreen and change the channel. In my view, that is the simplest and most obvious reason to have prorogued the House. [ English ] Ms.

Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3 . It is yet another omnibus bill and an omnibus bill that, frankly, our party would have been happy to support had it included many of the additional measures needed to improve aviation safety and the shipping of oil along our three coastlines. Bill C-3 amends a number of statutes, including the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act, and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. These are very important measures.

They are definitely worth a lot of discussion and consultation well in advance so that we can ensure that the bill is comprehensive. Mr. Speaker, I am having a little bit of trouble concentrating, because there is a lot of conversation on the other side. I am wondering if they could take it outside. The Deputy Speaker : Including myself in that regard, if we can, let us keep the chatter down. If members want to have an extensive conversation, perhaps they should move out into the foyer. Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, again, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this bill.

As my colleagues have pointed out, we are supporting sending the bill to committee. Our preference would have been that the bill go to committee before second reading. That would have provided, in the custom of the House, ample opportunity for amendments. There is a particular concern that the government is not open to amendments coming from the opposition.

In the interest of Canadian safety and in the interest of the public and the security of our three coasts, we certainly encourage the government to take seriously recommendations from witnesses, recommendations made by the opposition, and the amendments that we might put forward. For the record, I would like to share with the House a number of the measures that the New Democrats have called for to ensure the safeguarding of Canada's seas and coastlines.

They include: reversing the cuts to the Coast Guard; the closure of Coast Guard stations; the scaling back of services; cancelling the cuts to the marine communications traffic service centres in Vancouver and St.

John's; cancelling the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spills responses; cancelling the cuts to Canada's offshore oil, gas and industry research centre; reversing the cuts to key environmental emergency programs, including oil spill response for Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia; reinforcing the capacity of petroleum boards to handle oil spills as recommended by the environment commissioner who reports to Parliament; and requiring the Canadian Coast Guard to work collaboratively with its U.S. counterparts.

Additional recommendations were made by the official opposition in response to what the communities were calling for with growing concerns about the potential for oil spills. Of course we have offshore oil activity on our eastern coast, and there have been proposals for offshore in British Columbia, thus far not moving forward. The biggest risk being posed is tanker traffic, if the government in its wisdom decides to support any of the recommendations by the National Energy Board for the shipping of raw bitumen and other products to the coast and shipping by tanker.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the experience I had in the past when I was the chief of enforcement for Environment Canada. I became the chief in the wake of a very serious aeronautics accident in northern Alberta, which tragically killed a number of people, including the then leader of the Alberta New Democrats, Grant Notley.

To its credit, the then government, the Mulroney government, brought together a team in treasury board and justice personnel to take a look at Crown liability and to make clear, to all of the federal regulatory authorities, their responsibilities and liabilities where they failed to adequately inspect and enforce federal laws. It is a deep concern to me that the government in its wisdom has not seen fit to table an enforcement and compliance policy and strategy, coupled with this legislation.

If it is in fact sincere about improving our capacity to reduce the risks of spills and the capability to respond, I would certainly encourage the government to step up to the plate and do so. Of equal concern is the fact that I understand it has appointed a three-person panel to look into marine safety. The wise thing would have been to wait until the recommendations came from that panel before tabling a bill. One would presume that it will come forward with useful recommendations. I would like to raise a couple of specific provisions.

Part 2 of Bill C-3 adds a new

section 6(1), which gives complete discretion to the Minister of National Defence or an officer so appointed to exempt any persons or facilities from liability under the statute. There is no provision for any consultation whatsoever. It is complete discretion. That is a little worrisome given the issue at hand. I have some greater awareness of the necessity for expanded aerial surveillance. This certainly arises when we are talking about dealing with marine spills and the inspection of tankers coming into our three coasts.

I had the honour, when we had the program for members of Parliament, to spend a week with our armed forces, to spend it with the SARs, the search and rescue teams, on the east coast of Canada. That included flying with the surveillance airplanes, which communicate with the ships going into our ports. It became very evident to me and my colleagues that we were in need of giving greater attention to improving surveillance ability and to very dated aircraft, both airplanes and helicopters.

(1130) In

part 4, dealing with the Marine Liability Act, proposed

section 74.28 prohibits the entry into a port without a certificate issued under the act. There are various provisions. The certificate is issued by Canada if the ships are owned by Canada, but probably in the vast majority of cases these oil tankers will be owned by some other foreign national. It raises the question of at what point in time officers will be able to stop those ships if they are already in port and if we will be stuck with tanker ships that are not seaworthy.

There are a lot of big issues that merit discussion in committee, including the capacity, staffing, and training of officers to intercede in all of these ships. I see the need for the tabling, simultaneously, with an enforcement compliance strategy. Are we, as the government likes to say, “shovel-ready” to enforce these new provisions if they come into effect? What is the capacity on the coast? There have been a lot of cuts to enforcement and scientific agencies. As I mentioned, we would appreciate getting the report from the three-person Tanker Safety Expert Panel.

It would be very helpful to the review by the committee. We cannot ask the government the obvious question, because it is not standing up and being held accountable for the bill, but I am curious to know what marine law experts it consulted with. It is very important that we know our law is well-founded and that the provisions of the convention that are brought forward actually reflect what is stated in law.

In proposed subsection 74.4(3), the power to make regulations, there is absolutely no requirement to consult experts in the field, to consult on the potential impact to communities, or to consult military experts. The proposed provisions to amend the Canada Shipping Act are very interesting to me. I come from a province where there is a several-hundred-fold percentage increase in the rail shipping of raw bitumen. There are two major terminals now being built in Alberta that will allow for 24-hour loading and movement of rail-loaded cars with bitumen.

I would have thought at the same time the government would have come forward with legislation to ensure that when we set up these terminals, we would ensure we would have greater provisions to prevent incidents and respond to spills. A decade ago, there was the largest freshwater spill of bunker C oil in Lake Wabamun. The response was a complete disaster by both the federal and Alberta governments. I would like to see similar action by the government in all ways that we are shipping petroleum products to improve safety.

(1135) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw some movement on the Conservative benches for legislation that they said was so critical to their economic agenda, yet they refuse to speak to it or address any of the concerns we raise. I do not think that speaks to their confidence in the topic at hand, which is how we protect Canadians when we are sometimes shipping hazardous products by rail or on our oceans. I come from the west coast. My friend is from Alberta.

The proposal is to ship bitumen, in particular, from Alberta through British Columbia, which is a great distance, 1,100 kilometres in the case of Enbridge and twinning the Kinder Morgan pipeline. That brings with it questions.

Those questions deserve to be answered by the government, which promotes one side of the conversation enthusiastically, although the Minister of Natural Resources said in British Columbia the other day that the government did not promote any oil pipeline projects and it was neutral, except that it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars running around the world promoting the exact same pipeline projects. The question of balance is important. How do we protect the other economic interests on B.C.'s coast, which can be fishing or tourism and the public at large?

My friend, who worked in Alberta for many years trying to enforce basic public protections, has also seen, like me, many of the environmental considerations, laws and foundations that we hold in the country stripped away by the Conservative government. I am wondering how the people in Alberta view the stripping down of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act and the weakening of things like Canada's Coast Guard. The Auditor General of Canada has said that we do not have the capacity to clean up marine spills from supertankers. The B.C. government said the same thing.

Now B.C. and Alberta are in this discussion about how to promote the export of raw bitumen through British Columbia from Alberta. What does it do to the industry and the larger and broader public interest when governments introduce legislation that guts environmental protection or when they make efforts to perhaps enhance liability and protection of the public but refuse to justify or make any arguments as to why it is important or address the weaknesses and offer strength?

What does this do to the general public confidence and the social licence that companies are so often seeking from the public to promote their projects? Ms. Linda Duncan : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a deep love of his constituency, which would potentially bear the brunt of the major risk of proposed tanker trafficking of raw bitumen. The member raises a lot of cogent points. One of the most important ones is the abject failure of the government to respond to even its own officers' recommendations.

The commissioner for sustainable development has made recommendation after recommendation for either improving the legislation or improving the monitoring and enforcement of that legislation. The question is this: why is the government not responding to those independent recommendations coming from the leading experts in the country? Deeply troubling is the emasculation of federal environmental legislation, which I am very privileged to have had a

part in preparing. Scientists and technical people and even the industry are deeply troubled with the direction in which the government is going. Throne speech after throne speech and budget after budget have been clear. The government's intention is to fast-track resource extraction. What it has promised is balanced development. However, in committee yesterday, we heard from the MPMO, which is a body created relatively recently specifically to override all environmental protections and fast-track.

It was very clear in its presentation that it no longer really saw its role as this double one of both ensuring efficient reviews and ensuring they were effective, in other words, ensuring the environment was protected. Evidence of that is found in the Center for Global Development report issued yesterday, which stated that Canada had dropped from 12th to 27th place out of 28 wealthy nations in the world, for our environmental record. That tells us right there. How can the Canadian public have confidence in the government?

It is one thing to enact legislation that would put into effect an international convention; it is another thing to actually put into place the mechanisms that would ensure Canadian safety on the three coastlines. (1140) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : I must advise hon. members that the time allocated for 20-minute speeches has expired. The debate will continue with 10-minute speeches and five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, to begin, what strikes me in this debate is the deafening silence of the Conservatives despite their claim that this bill is important for the protection of the environment, for the Canadian economy and for the protection of Canadians. It seems my Conservative friends have nothing to say about their own legislation. Let us face it, this bill is not good enough. We, the official opposition, the NDP, feel that it does not go far enough even though, in some respects, it is a step in the right direction. It is incredible.

If, all of a sudden, the Conservatives are unable to speak, perhaps they can suddenly start listening. That would be a first. My colleagues from British Columbia and Alberta made that point very clear. It is about having the tools to better protect our environment but also, and more specifically, to better protect our coasts from the threat of toxic or dangerous spills for our ecosystems. Such spills would threaten the extraordinary Canadian biodiversity and the habitats close to areas where our fellow citizens live. Every step in the right direction helps avoid catastrophes that are not natural disasters.

These catastrophes are often the result of negligence, abandonment and a lack of seriousness in the rules. They are directly responsible for tragedies that have occurred all too often in the past. Canada is surrounded by water. We are even reminded of that by our motto. Therefore, we cannot help but be concerned by the protection of our coasts, particularly with respect to oil spills. Indeed, there is a lot more shipping of oil and gas products, or of very heavy products that can have a devastating effect on the environment.

We wonder why the Conservative government is suddenly so keen on protecting the environment. I have a feeling that some members opposite may have recently felt the need to soften their image and to balance their message to Canadians and Quebeckers since becoming a majority government. They always pit the environment against the economy. We, on this side, believe that the two must go together. It is only normal that sustainable and responsible economic development would go hand in hand with the protection of ecosystems and of the environment.

I am reminded of a quote attributed to David Suzuki that says “without an ecology there is no economy”. Without a healthy environment, we cannot do business or trade. This is why we need to find a good balance. I am delighted to see the Conservative government starting to show an awareness of these issues. The timing seems somewhat opportunistic, however, with less than two years until the next election. Nevertheless, if it can really make a difference, so much the better. Making a real difference requires resources. On the official opposition side, we have some concerns in this regard.

Do we have the resources we need to implement the rules in Bill C-3 , including protecting the coastline after a toxic or hazardous spill? If we look at food inspection or railway safety inspectors, the Conservatives' record is hardly reassuring. Nowadays, for inspectors who oversee and monitor railways, the ratio is one inspector to 4,000 railcars. That is beyond absurd. The Conservatives say they have not eliminated any inspector jobs. However, there has been a huge increase in rail transport of hazardous materials in Canada over the last five years.

Many more tanker trucks and railcars now go through our cities and towns, but no one has allocated resources to determine whether they do so in the safest way possible. We have every right to wonder: are we in the same situation again?

(1145) The government told us it would eliminate 19,600 jobs in the public service without affecting anyone. It said that there would be no impact, that it would save money on administration and red tape. One may wonder just what these people used to do at the office. They used to do things that no one is left to do now. We can also look at toxic spills from the other side of the issue. We can give ourselves the tools to conduct inspections and audits, but has a strategy been put in place to prevent spills? Is research being done to improve the equipment?

Are we having a dialogue with our international counterparts on international standards and the steps that must be taken to ensure that cargo ships are safer and that inspections take place elsewhere as well? The cargo ships that sail near our shores are not always Canadian. What can we do to work together internationally so that double-hulled cargo ships become the minimum standard and so that we can reach an agreement on the thickness of the materials used to build them?

Instead of cleaning oil off the backs of birds on the shore, we could ensure that the standards are the same for everyone, even if it costs a bit more. There would be a level playing field, as the saying goes. We would actually have an accident prevention strategy instead of just cleaning up after a spill.

Part 5 of Bill C-3 “amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to introduce new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities”. This has to do with the permanent equipment on our shores that enables us to import or export those types of products. The bill sets out the requirement to inform the minister of any operations and to submit plans to the minister.

Part 5 introduces a new requirement whereby the operators of oil handling facilities must submit a response plan to the minister. It extends civil and criminal immunity to response organizations engaged in response operations. It also introduces new enforcement measures and monetary penalties, in addition to granting new investigative powers to Transport Canada investigators. I wonder if there will be enough Transport Canada investigators to get the job done. My colleague from Edmonton pointed this issue out earlier. That is a valid question.

It looks good on paper, but if, tomorrow morning, the Transport Canada investigators are swamped because they must do everything and do not have the necessary personnel and resources, will there be a real impact? Will there be a real change in the right direction? We hope so. That is a small improvement and change. The NDP will support this because it is a step in the right direction. However, we would have expected the Conservative government to take this more seriously. We were expecting a more comprehensive strategy.

We are disappointed that the Minister of Transport did not reply to a letter from the NDP, dated April 5, 2013, in which we asked that the bill be sent to committee so that it could be examined more thoroughly and so that meaningful work could be done. Unfortunately, the Conservative government ignored that request. The NDP is committed to ensuring that an oil spill never occurs on our coasts. That should be our goal. The Conservative track record makes it increasingly difficult to believe that the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians are being taken seriously.

Bill C-3 is a thinly veiled attempt to compensate for past inaction and Conservative cuts to marine safety. The measures in Bill C-3 that are designed to improve safety are relatively weak compared to the risks posed by closing the oil spill response centre in British Columbia, closing the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and cutting environmental emergency response programs. It is so contradictory and muddled that I think the Conservatives should stop trying to tell people things. Either they seem to hurt themselves or they sit silently and do not talk, as is the case today.

They have no idea how agonizing it is for those of us who are trying to understand. We want to know where the Conservatives are going with this and what exactly the message is. Unfortunately, they do one thing and say another, or say one thing and do another. It is like saying that it was not me; it was the previous government. It is not my fault; it is the Liberals' fault. We, the official opposition, want the Conservative government to be straightforward, consistent and clear. Unfortunately, yet again, that is not what we are seeing today.

(1150) [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the discussion from the other side. The members fail to point out that this government has taken incredible steps in environmental protection. We have worked with our partners in Ducks Unlimited and Nature Conservancy. We have put in place Nahanni National Park in the north. We have preserved territory unlike any other government in Canada.

We will continue to do so because we know that working in partnership with our environment is so important to the health of Canadians and industry across this country. This is more of a comment than a question. I would encourage my colleague,who was not here in 2010, to go back and review the legislation we put in place. It requires ships anywhere in Canadian waters to have double hulls, because we know we want to prevent spills in our territories rather than clean them up. We also brought in the Arctic waters act. I was on the transport committee in 2008 when we put that piece of legislation through.

I am happy that my colleagues across the way will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, I would encourage my colleague to go back and review these other pieces of legislation. They have been put in place by this government, and we want to continue to work to keep our environment safe. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comment. I am sure it will make excellent YouTube videos for her constituents. I, however, find it unfortunate that she is wearing rose-coloured glasses.

She just confirmed what I said a few seconds ago—that sometimes the Conservatives should stop trying to tell people things because they are completely out of touch with reality. What the Conservatives are saying is not based on facts but on what they want Quebeckers and Canadians to believe. The Conservative government has a disastrous record when it comes to the environment. The Conservatives are using this bill to try to make up some lost ground.

However, the government basically eliminated the serious environmental assessment processes that this country had in order to expedite certain projects, with disastrous results. The government is not doing anything. It is standing idly by during the biggest environmental crisis the country has ever faced: global warming. The government has a terrible international record when it comes to the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, yet it thinks that everything is fine. I am sorry, but the government is completely irresponsible when it comes to the environment, and people will be there to judge that. Mr.

Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government is waging a misinformation campaign. Government members are patting themselves on the back and saying that they are the ones who required oil tankers to have double hulls in 2010, when an international agreement has clearly required tankers to have double hulls since 1993. The fact is that Canadians are concerned when they hear a natural resources minister taking credit for implementing a standard that actually dates back 20 years. Canadians know that double hulls have been required for 20 years.

However, it was not until 2010 that the Minister of Natural Resources woke up and realized that Canada had to comply with a regulation that had been in place for 20 years. Why is the government being so silent? Has the misinformation campaign affected even government members?

(1155) Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The government is losing momentum; it is tired, worn out and running out of steam. It is attempting to rejuvenate itself, but no one is falling for its political stunt. Let us not forget that this same government shut down British Columbia's oil spill response centre, shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and slashed environmental response programs.

If the government truly took this issue seriously, it would not have made those decisions and it would be sending a much more coherent message than the one it is unfortunately attempting to send today. Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was excited to come to the House today, knowing that the Conservative government wanted to reconsider things and explain the relevance of the measures in Bill C-3 . Surprisingly, no Conservatives are rising to justify the bill. That is ridiculous.

Not only are they gagging the opposition with motions to limit debate, but they are also not even participating in the debates. They introduced the bill and they do not want to hear the opposition debate it. They introduce the bill and could not care less about any amendments the opposition might suggest. This is an attack on Canadian democracy. “All you madmen, where have you gone?” Quoting Daniel Boucher seemed appropriate this morning. I would like to quote another songwriter: Sitting on the edge of the Cap Diamant, dipping my feet in the St. Lawrence.

I chatted a while with the great Jos Monferrand We spoke of rain and good weather, then Jos Monferrand asked, “Are you ready?” “Ready for what?” I replied. He said, “Are you ready for a huge spill in the St. Lawrence River?” The Minister of Natural Resources says we are ready. The Premier of British Columbia does not think we are ready for this kind of spill. There is massive pressure from the oil lobbies to export Alberta oil. One aspect of this strategy is to transport the oil to oil terminals in the St. Lawrence via pipelines. The oil would then be sent to foreign markets.

Right now, before the two pipeline projects have even been implemented, 82 ships with 150,000 tonnes of oil travel the St. Lawrence every four days. They supply the Ultramar refinery, among others. The idea is to reverse the flow and use the St. Lawrence estuary to ship refined oil, and probably crude oil, to foreign markets. The energy east pipeline would make it possible to transport a million barrels of oil a day to oil terminals in Quebec and New Brunswick. Now I am going to talk about the Gulf of St. Lawrence, my gulf, my St. Lawrence, my Big Blue.

It is a majestic, unique and fragile ecosystem, an incredible environment conducive to the reproduction of dozens of marine species, several of which are endangered. Some of those species at risk include the cod, the blue whale and the leatherback turtle. The gulf ecosystem plays a fundamental role in the health of the river's ecosystems and estuary. As many as 350 rivers flow into the St. Lawrence. Apart from its biological richness, the St. Lawrence is also characterized by its great geological richness. As a result of the sedimentation process, there are also oil sources in the St. Lawrence.

There are hydrocarbon deposits. The Old Harry oil exploration project, for example, apparently represents two billion barrels of oil. However, developing that oil, like exporting Alberta's oil via the St. Lawrence, entails incredible risks. Whether large or small, there will inevitably be spills. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is an inland sea one-sixth the size of the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, all the oil spill computer simulations show that oil spilled in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence, as a result of a platform failure or a supertanker on the river whose tanks have burst, would have an incredible impact on the five maritime provinces. One feature of the St. Lawrence River is that it is the largest water pump in the world.

(1200) The St. Lawrence River has what are called changing tidal streams. In large tides, the 12 km/h east-west current reverses to west-east at 10 km/h. As a result, everything that is spilled in the Gulf of St. Lawrence flows upriver to the secondary rivers and tributaries of St. Lawrence. The tide rises three or four metres. Oil spilled in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would thus not only wind up in the gulf itself, and therefore in the maritime provinces, but would also flow up the St. Lawrence into the Saguenay, Matane, Manicouagan and Outardes rivers. All those rivers would also be affected by a major spill.

Are we prepared to deal with that kind of spill? We know that oil tankers in the past managed to transport one million barrels of oil. Supertankers now carry as much as two million barrels. There is obviously a permanent risk involved in transporting this substance. Will there be other spills off our coasts? Of course there will. There have been 10,000 spills around the world since 1970. There have been some very large ones. Here in Canada, we obviously remember the Exxon Valdez , but 2.9 million litres of oil were spilled in the Singapore Strait, in Malaysia, in 2010.

Also in 2010, another tanker spilled one million litres of oil on its way to Texas. Currently, under the provisions of this bill, a tanker would be required to have an oil recovery capacity of 10,000 litres. We are not in the same league. Here we are talking about 1.7 million and 2.9 million litres of oil. How can we deal with that kind of spill under the proposed measures? The fund that would have to support all that oil recovery work represents $400 million. The oil-recovery and site-decontamination effort following the Exxon Valdez spill alone cost $3.5 billion.

We obviously cannot imagine the costs that would be incurred if that kind of spill happened in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. What we do know is that they would necessarily be borne by Canadian taxpayers, whom our friends opposite love and systematically defend. That is what we are going to do as well. We are going to do it better than they because we are going to demand that the ceiling, this minimum of 10,000 litres of oil, be increased. It is unrealistic to claim that we will be able to protect our coastlines with that guarantee when supertankers containing two million barrels could run aground there.

Moreover, as everyone knows, the St. Lawrence estuary is where there is the greatest risk of collision in the world. The ships that sail the St. Lawrence are required to use pilots to avoid the many shoals, crosscurrents and reversing currents. Hundreds of obstacles in the St. Lawrence mean that transportation by oil tanker is dangerous, especially with the cuts that have been made to maritime surveillance. I am thinking of the Quebec City centre that the government wanted to close and that is in the process of closing. That centre received no fewer than 1,500 calls. I would like to cite Mr.

Émilien Pelletier, director of the Canada Research Chair in Marine Ecotoxicology, who says that, for the moment, our oil recovery methods, particularly in wintertime—because it should not be forgotten that the Gulf of St. Lawrence freezes—are 30 years old, and we have not invested enough in research to develop more effective methods. We still use barriers, a system that is not effective and often fails. I will answer questions now.

(1205) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec. This is interesting, because people have very strong feelings about this issue. It is interesting to me because I am from the west coast. In north-western British Columbia, we have many questions about this government's plan—if such a thing exists—to approve natural resource projects, particularly those associated with oil. Canadians are asking a lot of questions because they want our rivers and the environment to be protected.

Currently, the government's problem is that it does not have the people's trust, and Canadians are wondering whether it is truly committed to the public interest. The government gives its full support to the oil companies and does not listen to the opposition, the experts or the witnesses. My question is, will there be a day when this Conservative government will listen to the opposition in order to improve such bills as Bill C-3 , and improve conditions for Canadians with respect to the transportation of oil and other hazardous substances? Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle : Mr.

Speaker, one would have hoped that, given the enormous pressure on the oil export issue, the Conservative government would take all necessary steps to ensure that this was done, not just according to the standards, but rather according to requirements that go beyond international standards. However, we see precisely the opposite. We see that the government is watering down all the legislation that ensures greater control of oil production and the laws governing oil transportation. They say they will be monitoring all this. I read Bill C-3 . We will be monitoring the movements of oil tankers from high in the sky.

I am sorry, but if there is a spill, it is nice that we can watch it from the air, but we must have the resources required to address this problem immediately, and clearly those resources are not there. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising because I am very worried about the marine park located at the mouth of the Saguenay. Whales are attracted to this area because of the special ecosystem and environment. I am worried, and I would like to know if the member shares my concern for these ecosystems and the resulting problems if a tanker accident were to occur.

(1210) Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am sure she knows that I sail a lot on the St. Lawrence, especially in this part of the marine park where whales are often spotted. However, there are some species that we hardly see any more. Of course, at present this is not due to oil pollution. It is common knowledge that the St. Lawrence River lacks oxygen. Scientists at the Matane or Rimouski marine centre who were studying this problem have lost their funding. My greatest concern is preserving the water quality and icebergs in the St.

Lawrence River and ensuring that the animal and human populations living in this ecosystem are truly protected from a catastrophe such as a two million litre spill of crude oil in the St. Lawrence, which would be a global, not local, catastrophe. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today. It is a bit of an omnibus bill, since it will affect five other pieces of legislation.

I have to say at the outset that I am originally from the Gaspé, from Grande-Rivière to be precise, a small village between Chandler and Percé. It is such a wonderful place. I invite all Canadians to come and visit this magnificent region one day. As I said, I am originally from Grande-Rivière, a small village between Chandler and Percé.

I mention this because, on the one side, we have Percé, well known for its rock, which is practically recognized as a world heritage site—and I hope one day it receives the UNESCO world heritage designation—and on the other side, we have Chandler, which was an industrial town with paper mills and the non-stop traffic of ships transporting lumber. They are on the St. Lawrence, which, as we know, is a seaway that allows oil tankers to travel to major centres and large cities and back again. I was born and raised in Grande-Rivière.

My father's family was born in the Gaspé and my husband's family was born in the Gaspé, so we are people of the peninsula. Water is as much a part of us as the blood that runs through our veins. One of my children was also born in the Gaspé. We began raising our family in the Gaspé before moving to the north shore. The St. Lawrence actually runs between the two regions. From there we regularly see boats passing by, including everything from small craft and sailboats to larger vessels such as tankers, cruise ships and so on.

Near Les Escoumins and Grandes-Bergeronnes, there is a small street called rue des Capitaines, which is where ships sailing on the St. Lawrence change pilots. Why would there be a change of pilots? Because, as we know, navigating the St. Lawrence can be very tricky, and a pilot from another country will not know the waterways or exactly where to sail to avoid serious accidents. Therefore, something very important happens there. The St. Lawrence River is a part of all of our lives. The NDP tried asking the Conservative government to refer the bill to committee so we might study it closely and broaden its scope.

Many foreign tankers navigate these waters. Several of them also drop anchor locally so they can be cleaned after they have been emptied. This increases water pollution, which we have to be increasingly mindful of. We are lucky that we have not had a major environmental disaster. I cannot help thinking about the magnificent marine park that is the mouth of the Saguenay River, where there are minerals and marine wildlife that are found nowhere else in the world, because this is where the Saguenay, the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean meet. These characteristics make for an extraordinary natural environment.

It goes without saying that we want that environment protected. The marine disaster response act directly relates to this sector, because it is very important to have the means to protect our waters in case of a marine disaster. We support this bill at second reading. However, it only moderately improves marine safety. We would like to see more in the way of protection.

(1215) I would like to read part of an

article by the David Suzuki Foundation about the devastating consequences of marine spills on the environment and on communities: It is quickly becoming clear that offshore hydrocarbon development is costly, polluting and dangerous, even before considering an oil spill. No matter how you look at it, the impacts are far-reaching and long-lasting. Five provinces border the Gulf of St. Lawrence... These are the same five maritime provinces, out of 10 Canadian provinces, that were at issue in the Employment Insurance Act.

That act affected seasonal work, which is very common in the eastern provinces that the government has left to their own devices. That is half of Canada. Once again, these five provinces are being affected because they are located along the St. Lawrence River, a major seaway. For example, fishing directly or indirectly affects about 75% of the people in the Magdalen Islands near Old Harry and generates close to $78 million in revenue. That is significant. It is a lot of money.

An oil spill near the islands would have a devastating impact on the inhabitants, not to mention that tourism, which is just as critical to the economy of the maritime provinces, would be decimated by an oil spill. In addition to that socio-economic aspect, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a unique and fragile ecosystem because it is key habitat for hundreds of species that reproduce, mature and migrate there, including the blue whale. Under ideal conditions, only 15% of spilled oil can be cleaned up, so it should be clear that the risks associated with development far outweigh the potential benefits.

In another article, Christy Clark said, “Canada is clearly not ready to handle any major oil spills.” We know that Coast Guard numbers have been cut. Responding will be difficult. That is why the committee needs to take a closer look at this issue. I think that supporting Bill C-3 , as my colleagues have done, is important as part of an approach that goes pretty far. However, this new measure does not undo the disastrous effects of the cuts in the first budget, including the closure of the marine rescue centre. This shows just how inconsistent, even contradictory, the government's policies are.

People are wondering whether this is a sincere initiative designed to protect our environment. I have a lot of questions about another issue that has been brought to my attention. I wonder why the members opposite, who are trying to defend this piece of legislation, are not giving any speeches today to elaborate on their ideas and better explain what they want to do. Just because a government has a majority does not mean that it can get away without explaining things to people so that they can better understand the issues and take more informed positions in debates.

Overall, as we know, Bill C-3 seeks to enact or amend five other pieces of legislation. One of the parts deals with the aviation industry indemnity. I am concerned about the fact that, regardless of the ability of participants to obtain insurance, the Minister of Transport will undertake to help and indemnify certain air carriers in the event of loss, damage or liability caused by war risks. We know that even private insurance does not cover those types of things.

(1220) [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in going through Bill C-3 , I found some oddities. It is my understanding that currently in this country, one of the petroleum products being discussed for piping and potential tanker shipping from the west coast, and potentially also from the east coast, is raw bitumen, yet when we look at clause 58 in

part 5 on the Canada Shipping Act, “oil handling facility” does not include the loading or unloading of bitumen. That raises the question of how carefully the government looked at the legislation. Did it simply take international conventions and reproduce them? I am increasingly seeing serious issues. The member has raised the concern about the lack of consultation on the development of the bill. The bill itself, in proposed

section 167.2, provides for the preparation of oil pollution emergency plans. There is absolutely no provision for public consultation. I wonder if the member thinks it would be worthwhile in the review at committee to have people who reside in communities in the three coastal areas come to talk about concerns and proposals they have for the improved development of the bill to ensure that their voices are heard. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Operators of oil handling facilities must submit an emergency plan to the minister.

However, there is no indication as to what the emergency plan will include. We firmly believe that we should meet with people in committee to ask them about the steps that will be taken from now on with regard to oil shipments. We know that when oil is shipped, if it is refined, sulphur and pollution levels go up. As a result, it is important to ship crude oil as much as possible. Some steps must therefore be taken. Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. This bill creates a paradox, in a way.

As my colleague pointed out, on the one hand, the government is weakening safety measures, by closing the Québec City marine rescue centre, for example. On the other hand, it is introducing some half-hearted measures to slightly improve safety. I would like my colleague to comment on the government's approach to transportation safety. We tend to forget that marine transportation plays a major role in Canada's economy. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day : Mr. Speaker, many Canadians may not be aware that all ships travelling on the St. Lawrence and other waterways pose a serious danger.

To go back to the member's question, the right word might be “unacceptable”. The services that the safety centre used to offer have been eliminated and are no longer accessible to francophones. Moving the centre to another part of the country has weakened our position; it has made our situation slightly more risky. If every ship's cargo were checked, things might be different. We do not realize how outdated the ships can be. Sometimes, they are like potential bombs travelling on the St. Lawrence. (1225) [ English ] Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. I come from British Columbia, and we are fortunate and very glad that we have ocean on one side of the province. The pristine waters right off the coast of British Columbia and also the inland waters generate a lot of economic activity, including a huge fishing industry in British Columbia that supports families. Also, there is a huge tourism industry that uses those waters. We get visitors from all over the world who come to experience the natural beauty of British Columbia.

Having said that, it is important that we protect those waters and keep them safe from any activity that goes on in the inland waters and off the north coast of British Columbia. The government has an opportunity here to show leadership in protecting those waters off British Columbia. I could go back into what the Conservatives have done over the last number of years. They have made cuts. They have closed a number of Coast Guard stations, including the one in Kitsilano.

They have made cuts to the marine communication traffic centres, including the marine traffic control communications terminal in Vancouver and in St. John's. They are closing the B.C. regional office for emergency oil spill response. The government has also made cuts to the offshore oil and gas energy research centre. Here was an opportunity to show leadership, to come up with a policy and legislation that would have a lasting impact on not only the environment but the pristine beauty of British Columbia. Bill C-3 addresses five different acts. It is sort of a mini-omnibus bill.

We have seen this from the Conservatives over and over when they try to ram through legislation that makes changes to a number of different laws without consultation with stakeholders and without involving those people who would be affected by the legislation. Time after time, the Conservatives have had the opportunity to address those concerns, and time after time I have seen them fail that test. Bill C-3 makes amendments to a number of different acts.

As we can tell from the title of the bill, it is an omnibus bill being introduced by the government in an attempt to push through as many pieces of legislation as possible, essentially undermining democracy. The bill literally covers everything from the bottom of the sea to above the clouds in the sky. Bill C-3 is an interesting contrast to the previous mode of operations of the Conservative government. In March, I stood in the House to address the $108 million cuts that the Conservatives have made to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

These cuts directly impacted the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, the marine communications traffic centres in Vancouver and St. John's, Canada's offshore oil and gas research, as I pointed out earlier, and also British Columbia's oil spill response centre. They have all been shut down. No one has forgotten those cuts, especially British Columbians, people in my riding, who are proud of the natural beauty and pristine wilderness that our province boasts. There has been no consideration to reverse those cuts and prove that the Conservatives value our environment and our country.

(1230) However, here we are now with a bill in front of us that attempts to compensate for the previous inaction and cuts to marine safety. It is difficult to trust the Conservatives trying to protect the environment, given their track record. The NDP, including my colleagues in the House, is fundamentally committed to ensuring that oil spills never happen on our coasts. My NDP colleagues and I have time and time again stood in the House demanding that the government pay attention to marine safety. Time after time, the government has failed to respond to our concerns and the concerns of Canadians.

I introduced a bill in the House last spring to protect a major creek in my riding, Bear Creek. Specifically in regard to Bill C-3 , the NDP requested that the scope be broadened by sending it to committee before this debate to include more comprehensive and specific measures to protect Canada's coasts. Again, this proposal was rejected by the Conservatives, a clear indication of their dedication to the issue at hand. Time after time over the last two and a half years the NDP has made num