House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transportation.

Topics

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to, on division?

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Health ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Pursuant to an order made earlier, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow night.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, it was on November 22 of last year that I rose in the House to put a question to my colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of the Environment, concerning the issue of threats to the health and environment from the Chevron oil refinery in North Burnaby, particularly after a major spill of MTBE. At that time I asked the Minister of the Environment what steps the federal government would be taking to ensure tough, enforceable standards for air emissions like sulphur dioxide and VOCs and for above-ground storage tanks at oil refineries in Canada.

I want to note that I have the opportunity of representing the community of Burnaby, and in particular in this case North Burnaby, which has been the home for several decades of a number of oil refineries, including the Chevron oil refinery. Over the years, the residents of North Burnaby frankly have had to put up with a fair amount of environmental contamination as a result of the presence of these refineries. Obviously there are also significant benefits from the refineries in terms of jobs and in other areas, but this comes at a cost.

For example: in December 1999 there was an excess emission of sulphur dioxide; in March 2000 there was a spill of jet fuel that gave the community six days of noxious fumes; in April 2000 two tonnes of catalyst was spread over the neighbourhood; in May 2000 there was a spill of 80,000 litres of MTBE; and then every so often there are noxious odours arising from Chevron's daily emissions.

Once again I am calling on the federal government to show leadership in this area, to establish rigorous, enforceable national emissions standards under the Canada Environmental Protection Act for sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compound emissions from oil refineries, with the power to regulate point sources such as the North Burnaby Chevron oil refinery. As well, I am calling on the federal government to establish water quality discharge standards for MTBE and, finally, to establish enforceable national standards for above-ground storage tanks based on the equivalent CCME guidelines in this area.

It is incredible that today there are still no enforceable standards in place for above-ground storage tanks of petroleum on federal lands. There are guidelines in place, but still no standards whatsoever. It is essential that the federal government show the kind of leadership that should be in place to protect citizens of communities like Bathurst and Burnaby and other communities across Canada in this very important environmental area.

Here I want to pay tribute to the local community organization in Burnaby, BRACE, Burnaby Residents Against Chevron Expansion. It really has played a key role in highlighting concerns about health and environment. Its hard work and dedication led to a number of studies being undertaken: an environmental compliance study, a public safety risk assessment, a subsurface groundwater study and, finally, a health impact risk assessment.

All of these studies point to the tremendous importance of federal leadership. That is what I am calling for today in the House: federal leadership. Where is the federal Liberal government in standing up for the health and safety of Canadians in communities which do host oil refineries? We need tough, enforceable standards, not voluntary guidelines but tough, enforceable standards. I call on the government and its representative to make a commitment that it will bring forward these standards.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

York South—Weston Ontario

Liberal

Alan Tonks LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for bringing the issue to the floor of the House and giving the government an opportunity to respond in a general context, and then work toward the specific incident that took place and the series of events that occurred from that point on.

The government is committed to ensuring cleaner air for Canadians and to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to implement Canada wide standards for particulate matter and ozone.

Our commitment is demonstrated through the series of initiatives we have put in place that are delivering cleaner air for Canadians. Among those commitments are: low emission vehicles and cleaner fuels because we all recognize--industry, governments and consumers alike--that transportation is a key source of air pollutants that cause smog. Cleaner vehicles, engines and fuels are an important step to reduce the threat to human health and the environment from air pollution.

Our regulatory initiatives would bring cleaner small engines and heavy off-road construction equipment. The vehicles, fuels and small engine initiatives would reduce smog pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, VOCs, that the member is concerned about, and particulate matter. But we recognize that VOCs also come from other products and sectors so we have started work on an action plan to reduce emissions of VOCs from paints, degreasing agents, solvents and other products.

We recognize that Canadian actions alone will not produce cleaner air in this country. We need emissions reductions in the United States from the industry and power sector and we are working to achieve those results. Particulate matter emissions would be reduced in both the United States and Canada thanks to agreements now in place. In addition, we are working to develop further projects with the United States that, as budget 2003 pointed out, would be especially important for southern Ontario and southern British Columbia. We recognize that Canadians need more information about air emissions and their sources in their communities.

For that reason, and for others in regard to the gasoline additive MTBE, in 2001 the federal government published a mandatory information gathering notice under CEPA 1999. The information gathered under the notice indicates that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute member companies, including Chevron, no longer use MTBE in gasoline produced at their refineries.

With respect to the storage tanks, the Chevron Burnaby Refinery has voluntarily committed to Environment Canada to upgrade its storage tank systems to conform with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment codes of practice. As well, a framework for achieving emission reductions from refineries is currently being developed with the provinces.

Its goals are to protect human health, to align the environmental performance of Canadian refineries and comparable U.S. refineries while preserving the competitiveness of the sector in Canada.

The framework is expected to result in provincial and/or municipal jurisdictional regulatory action to achieve caps and establish a level playing field. Environment Canada officials are working with the CCME to release a new edition of the environment code of practice for storage tank systems containing petroleum products and allied petroleum products. Environment Canada is developing new regulations under part 9 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Finally, these new regulations are expected to be published in part I of the Canada Gazette in the fall of 2003.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, that answer will be a huge disappointment to the people of North Burnaby because what it demonstrates once again is that while there is an awful lot of words there is still no concrete action and no real federal leadership in this important area.

The member talked about the provinces and municipalities providing regulations. I want to ask him a specific question with respect to the issue of above ground storage tanks.

He said that the Chevron refinery has voluntarily agreed to upgrade its storage tanks so that there would not be as much risk of spills, but the fact of the matter is there is no federal leadership and no mandatory rules in place. According to a document I have from Environment Canada, the voluntary approach has not achieved the desired environmental results and there are still leaks and spills from underground and above ground storage tank systems.

When will the government act to bring into force enforceable, mandatory and national standards for oil refinery storage tanks?

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's desire for specificity and I will be specific.

Development of the national framework for refinery emission reductions started in June 2002 and a draft framework document is expected in the fall of 2003 when a public consultation workshop will be held. The final draft of the framework document is scheduled for submission to the National Air Issues Co-ordinating Committee. Other air issues will be submitted in December 2003. The CCME approval will be sought in the spring of 2004. Further discussions on the adoption of the framework by different jurisdictions will continue into 2004.

If a specific chronology were to be required in terms of legislative framework that would govern refineries and storage tanks, that is the chronology to which we are dedicated.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I put a question in this House to the Minister of Finance. The question was as follows:

The Finance Minister had no difficulty getting in touch with a bank president to try to save the Ottawa Senators.

Now the minister has decided to let the Senators help themselves by giving the team a $60 million tax cut. Regrettably, this money is going to be taken out of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. It is unacceptable that millionaire hockey players are receiving this money.

The employment insurance fund has a surplus of $43 billion. Will the Finance Minister pick up the phone, call the Minister of Human Resources Development, and get the eligibility criteria for the employment insurance program modified?

The Minister of National Revenue responded as follows:

Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite has asked for information and it would be a Criminal Code offence if I answered.

It is a joke to hear the minister give that sort of answer to a question that is not criminal in the least. The reason I told the Minister of Finance to contact the Minister of Human Resources Development by phone is because it seems this is the method of communication used in her department.

The point I would like to raise again is the following: Does the Department of Human Resources Development not realize—or the Minister of Finance to whom I put the question—that there is room for improvement in terms of accessibility to employment insurance? This evening, we will hear a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

Let us look at the problem. Take for example people who make Christmas wreaths or people who work in fish plants, such as in southeastern New Brunswick. Officials launched an investigation because these people were banking hours. Now they are proposing that the government make changes to employment insurance.

Even the leader of the Liberal party in the New Brunswick legislature and the chair of the committee will be here in Ottawa tomorrow to meet with the minister to discuss necessary changes in the banking of hours. The Liberal leader and the representative from the Department of Human Resources Development Canada will be here.

We can also see the problem we have in the construction industry. We know that seasonal work is not a problem just in the southeastern part of my province; the situation is the same in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and even in Ontario. Even in Toronto, and in Kapuskasing or Timmins I am sure, there are people working short weeks in construction, finishing up on Tuesdays.

Is there some way for the government to make changes to employment insurance, to make the necessary changes so that people will not be forced to cheat the system because they cannot live with so little, in terms of employment insurance benefits. Employment insurance is there as protection when they lose their jobs.

I find it regrettable that my question, which I asked of the Minister of Finance, was answered by the Minister of Revenue, who is afraid of going to jail. Meanwhile, the government is more dependent on employment insurance than the workers are.

I would like to have more clarification than I got from the minister with her concerns about going to jail. I would like an answer to my question.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Oak Ridges Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his question, although I think it would be better directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development rather than the Minister of Finance.

The issue the member is now talking about has to do more with changes to EI and not about setting the rates, which is what I am familiar with, but more in terms of hours, et cetera. I would refer to his original question. He asked about the Minister of Finance picking up the phone to talk to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I am obviously not in a position to comment on that.

I can tell him with regard to the Ottawa Senators that the deal is off the table and in any event, the finance department would not be involved with any $60 million tax cut funded from EI.

This gives me an opportunity to simply say that the EI account is an accounting device used as a record for financial transactions related to the EI program. As the member well knows, the annual premium revenue is paid into the government's consolidated revenue fund, the CRF and the annual program expenditure is paid out of the CRF, plus any interest credited to or charged against the account.

The difference between the annual EI revenues and annual EI expenditures, including the administrative costs, results in the account recording an annual surplus or deficit in any year.

As the member knows, for the last 10 years straight the rates have been coming down. The minister has announced a process which has begun and will be concluded on June 30 that will deal with looking at a whole new approach and new regime in terms of the EI rates.

The annual surpluses or deficits recorded in the EI account have been consolidated. They were consolidated at the request of the Auditor General back in 1986 when the government acted on the Auditor General's advice. There is no separate EI account. There has not been since 1986. However, the cumulative balance recorded in the account is simply the sum of the annual surpluses minus the deficits and is entirely notional because the annual amounts in every year have been integrated into the consolidated revenue fund.

I conclude by saying to my hon. colleague that the specifics which he is looking for would be more suited for the HRDC department rather than finance. If he wants to talk about EI setting rates, et cetera, I would be more than happy to talk about that. The question he asked really was about picking up the phone and asking for changes. They are very legitimate concerns that the member has and I appreciate his concerns, but they do not fall within the purview of the Minister of Finance. They fall within the purview HRDC.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague opposite, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I wanted to tell him that I had asked the Minister of Finance the following question:

The employment insurance fund has a surplus of $43 billion. Will the Finance Minister pick up the phone, call the Minister of Human Resources Development, and get the eligibility criteria for the employment insurance program modified?

I asked the question to the Minister of Finance because we know that the government has balanced its budget on the backs of the workers who have lost their jobs. We also know that ,year after year, the unemployment insurance fund has more than $7 billion. The minister said that he had balanced his budget and there was a zero deficit.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development have the power to make changes to employment insurance, or does she need approval from the Minister of Finance?

If the Minister of Finance convinced the Prime Minister not to make changes to EI because he can balance his budget and attain a zero deficit, I think that it is fair to ask this question of him. It is, after all, the Minister of Finance who allocates the budgets.

My question was clear. It referred to one simple phone call by the Minister of Finance, saying that he was open to the idea of making changes to employment insurance. If these changes are presented, we, too, will support them.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the minister is very open. In fact, we have started a consultative process with regard to EI setting. The minister has indicated he wants to see transparency on how those rates are set. He has asked for independent advice. He is clearly interested in dealing with this issue. This is a structural issue which in fact he has signalled. This is very important and something that I believe, particularly with the input of the member opposite and other members in the House, will be very helpful in terms of setting a new regime.

I again point out it is a benefit to both employers and employees that EI rates have continually come down over the last 10 years. Previous to that, they were going up. Now they are coming down. I know the member applauds us for that. The rate will now be set at $1.98 and I know the member is very supportive of that.

I suggest if the member wants to make a phone call, he should actually phone the HRDC minister as far as the rates are concerned. If he wants to call us and give us support, we would appreciate that.

Canada Health ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.)