Ryan Cleary

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the most important of those 50 amendments that our party brought forward are as follows.

The first was that the bill would be reviewed after five years. That was very important. From my perspective, that was common sense and absolutely reasonable.

The second was that the hearings of the various boards and commissions would be held in public. I also look at that as common sense.

In terms of what will happen with respect to these amendments, as the hon. member who spoke just before me mentioned, when our party is in government in 2015, that will be the opportunity to take a second look at some of these amendments to see what we can do then.

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

There are three points with which I want to wrap up, Mr. Speaker. First, the New Democrats support consultation and consensus-based decision-making that respects the autonomy of the Government of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Second, more consultation should have been allowed under Northwest Territories surface rights board act.

Third, New Democrats, led by the member of Parliament for Western Arctic, will continue to fight for the rights of northerners and the long-term prosperity of northern communities.

Let me be clear. The New Democrats support the bill. We will vote for the bill because the intent is there and the intention is good. The bottom line is that New Democrats do not want to get in the middle of this agreement that the Government of Nunavut has negotiated. However, my party is concerned about the Northwest Territories surface rights board act and the fact that the act may have been rushed. That is why the series of the more than 50 amendments that we put forward were so important.

The Conservatives used their majority on the committee to block all those amendments: again, that the bill would be reviewed in five years, that a participant funding process would be created and that hearings would be held on the various boards and commissions in public.

How often does that happen, that the Conservatives—

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say at the beginning of my speech that I will be splitting my time. I am told that Phil Toone would be happy to fill in for the second ten minutes.

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who spoke before me. I particularly liked his expression near the end of his last question about drive-by consultation. If the definition of Conservative consultation is lowering the window and asking what people think, then he is pretty well dead on the money.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-47, an act to enact the Nunavut planning and project assessment act and the Northwest Territories surface rights board act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. The short title is the northern jobs and growth act.

Why is the member of Parliament for Newfoundland and Labrador, from the great riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, speaking to a bill for the Northwest Territories? I feel that the Labrador part of my province has a lot in common with the Northwest Territories. Labrador is a relatively untamed land. Labrador is a vast land. Labrador is known as the big land. Labrador is rich in minerals, ore and precious metals. Labrador is under constant exploration and development. Labrador's environment is under constant pressure, be it from renewable hydro development or from new mines. We must be vigilant to ensure that there is balance between development and the impact on the environment. We must ensure that there is balance in everything. The north must also be vigilant.

This legislation is far from perfect. We wanted to amend the bill at committee with changes based on witness testimony, but all 50 opposition amendments were voted down. The Conservatives ruled the amendments out of order. There were 50 NDP amendments and three Liberal amendments. I will come back to that in just a moment.

The bill packages together two bills that should be considered separately. The first bill, the Nunavut planning and project assessment act, is pretty well a straightforward implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Simply put, it would improve regulatory regimes in the north. It would create a more efficient, more predictable regulatory regime. The roles, powers, functions and authorities of all parties, including how the members are appointed, would be clearly defined. These parties include the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, Inuit groups and governments.

The act requires that Inuit and the Government of Canada establish a joint system to oversee the way resources are managed in the territory. I like the sound of a joint system or joint management. There have been calls in recent years for joint management of the east coast fisheries, for example, but I will not get into that right now. Give me time.

The second part of the bill is the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, and it is more complicated. It would implement sections of three aboriginal land claims agreements, but the board would apply to all parts of the Northwest Territories. The board would receive applications from one or both parties to a dispute when a negotiated access agreement could not be reached. A panel of the board would then conduct a hearing and would determine the compensation, if there was to be compensation, and terms and conditions related to access. The board would then make an order containing the terms and conditions by which access could be exercised and any compensation payable for that access. When making its decision, the board would take into account market value, loss of use, effect on wildlife, damage, nuisance or inconvenience and cultural attachment.

The Mining Association of Canada welcomes this legislation, particularly the inclusion of the Nunavut planning and project assessment act. The association says that it would help spur more responsible mining projects in the territory, which currently has one operating mine. This legislation would result in a framework to determine how environmental assessment and permanent processes in Nunavut will proceed as new land use plans for the territory come forward, and they will most definitely come forward.

I have a quote from Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada:

The legislation comes at a critical time for Nunavut, with its promising mineral potential and opportunities for economic development never before seen in the territory's history.

Here is another quote from Mr. Gratton:

By providing clarity and certainty around the regulatory framework, this new legislation will help give industry the confidence it needs to move forward with development decisions.

The key word there is “confidence”. Over the next decade, the Mining Association of Canada estimates that new mine development across the north could bring more than $8 billion of investment to Nunavut. That could translate into some 4,500 new jobs and a significant increase in local business development.

Mining is the largest private sector contributor in the north, making up 29% of the gross domestic product of the Northwest Territories. However, mining is also a boom and bust industry. The people of Labrador would tell us that.

There are 45,000 northerners in the Northwest Territories. In Labrador, there are just over 26,000 people. They are both vast lands with few people, but we must ensure that the people benefit. We must ensure that the industries thrive. We must also ensure that the impact on the environment is minimal.

Mining has incredible ups and incredible downs, depending on the price of ore or on world markets. I mentioned earlier in my speech about the amendments we proposed to the bill, the 50 NDP amendments, the 50 suggestions from northerners, which were all voted down, each and every one, by the Conservatives.

The proposed amendments included having the bill reviewed after five years. The amendments included creating a participant funding process and having hearings of the various boards and commissions held in public. One amendment in particular tried to change the language around appointments to the boards, which held that representatives must have knowledge of the land, knowledge of the environment and traditional knowledge.

The great MP for Western Arctic, whom we heard earlier today, said that all representatives should meet all three requirements: knowledge of the land, knowledge of the environment and traditional knowledge. That did not happen. Those amendments were not adopted, despite the best efforts of the New Democrats, the opposition. However, we still support this legislation.

There are three points with which I want to wrap up.

Do I have one minute left, two minutes, Mr. Speaker?

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, these partisan attacks on government websites make it clear that the Conservatives are running scared. Why else would they waste taxpayers' money and government resources attacking a New Democratic bill instead of answering Canadians' calls for a national housing strategy? It is a private member's bill. It costs nothing. People are hurting. The government is breaking its own rules and hiding behind partisan attacks.

When will the Conservatives stop using the public service for political cheap shots?

[Marine Atlantic Inc., February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic ferry rates are increasing on April 1. The fee hikes spell trouble for passenger travel in Newfoundland and Labrador, damaging its crucial tourism industry. It just reached the $1 billion mark. The trucking industry has said it cannot absorb a hike in commercial rates. Higher costs will be passed on to consumers. The price of goods will most definitely increase.

Why are the Conservatives pricing the ferries out of service and making life more expensive for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I like to believe that Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the way in this country in terms of green energy and green technology.

In one of my answers a moment ago, I mentioned Muskrat Falls, half of the Lower Churchill development. Basically, the green energy that will be brought on stream is one way in which we are leading the country.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very good point.

I had a conversation last night with the president of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. I asked him for advice again on points that he wanted me to bring up in this speech. One of his points was the fact that towns want to get away from application-based funding and want to have more flexibility with respect to the funding they do receive.

That is a very good point. The municipalities, and especially the small towns, need more flexibility without so many terms and conditions tied to the money they receive.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the floor brought up a number of different points. The first point was about Muskrat Falls, the hydro development in Labrador, which we voted for because that is a good clean energy deal that is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, is good for the Maritimes and is good for this country.

The hon. member across the way talks about infrastructure spending by the government; it is failing miserably at infrastructure investment.

I mentioned in my speech about boil water advisories. At any one time, we have between 100 and 150 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that have boil water advisories because they cannot afford to fix the problems they have.

When the member talked about infrastructure he mentioned new ferries. He did not mention the fact that a round trip for me and my car, including an overnight berth, on one of those ferries costs $560 and will be increasing by 4% on April 1. He did not mention any of that because it would point to the fact that the Conservatives are failing miserably on infrastructure.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with some infrastructure realities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we do not have superhighways. Most of the Trans-Canada Highway across my province is two lanes: one lane going east and one lane going west. We do not even have trains in Newfoundland. They were taken out, beginning in 1988. Labrador has trains to ship iron ore, but there are no passenger trains. Much of Labrador, in the year of our Lord 2013, does not even have paved roads. How is that for an infrastructure problem?

I was in Labrador West before Christmas. The parking lot of the local high school was filled with snowmobiles. The rural way is a different way of life, a more rugged way of life. Rural infrastructure needs are different from urban infrastructure needs. However, both are just as important.

Here is a stark reality of Newfoundland and Labrador life. There are towns in my province with chlorine water treatment systems that do not operate. They are not turned on because the towns cannot afford to run them.

Here is another stark reality of Newfoundland and Labrador life. There are towns that have had boil water advisories for 10, 15 and 20 years—not months, but years—because the towns cannot afford to fix the problems. On any given day in Newfoundland and Labrador, there could be 100 to 150 towns with boil water advisories because the towns do not have the money to fix the water problems.

The opposition motion before this House today, moved by the tireless member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, calls upon the Conservative government to commit in the upcoming federal budget to a long-term, predictable federal infrastructure plan to fix crumbling infrastructure, shorten commute times and improve Canada's lagging productivity. We have traffic gridlock. We have failing water systems. We have pothole-filled roads. We have an infrastructure deficit, calculated as the total amount of investments needed to maintain and replace decaying municipal infrastructure at $171 billion. These facts are not debatable. They are stark realities of Canadian life.

We need a long-term, predictable infrastructure plan. That is what municipalities are calling for. We do not need an ad hoc budget-to-budget funding model favoured by the current Prime Minister, better suited to photo ops rather than building strong communities. We need strong communities. We are trying to build those strong communities and towns with eight-cent tax dollars. By 8 cents, I mean that municipalities receive only 8% of Canada's tax revenue.

The work of municipalities is critical to our day-to-day life. To put this into perspective, I would like to quote Randy Simms, who is the mayor of Mount Pearl, in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. He stated:

You can invest in what you want—you can put millions in the fishery, millions into the university, put millions into education, millions into business. You can do whatever you want, but remember this. If you don't invest in communities, in healthy communities, you can't have a healthy province. And if you don't have a healthy province, you can't build a healthy nation. The guys that get the eight cents, they're like the hand that rocks the cradle.

Now that brings the point home. We can argue in this House about new jets. We can argue in this House about pipelines. We can argue about international trade deals. Those are important arguments to have. However, they do not mean a thing if our roads are not fit to drive on, our water is not fit to drink and our bridges are not safe.

This country has to get back to the basics: healthy communities, healthy provinces and a healthy nation. It is simple math, policy 101.

I had a conversation last evening with the president of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, a man by the name of Churence Rogers. I asked Churence what message he wanted me to bring to the floor of the House of Commons. His message is exactly what is in this motion today. He spoke about long-term predictable funding—there are those words again—with more flexibility on how municipalities, especially small municipalities, spend the funding. He spoke about less restrictions and more dedicated infrastructure funding, as opposed to application-based infrastructure funding, which is where the politics seep into the system and where the rot begins.

When it comes to transportation, one of the biggest problems in Newfoundland today is the Gulf of St. Lawrence ferry link. I recently took the ferry from Port aux Basques, on the west coast of Newfoundland, to North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and it cost me for a round trip, including an overnight berth, a total of $561.75 to travel about 360 kilometres. If I travelled that far by road, it would cost about a tank of gas, less than $100. That is our highway, and the cost for passengers and shipping commercial freight on the gulf ferry run is destined to increase on April 1 by another 4%. When we talk infrastructure and transportation, we are talking about business, and the cost of business in Newfoundland and Labrador is continually rising. The ferry link is our highway, and this poor infrastructure is affecting the cost of food, the cost of clothes, the cost of everything.

What do we want from this motion, this infrastructure plan? What should Canadians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, take away from this? We want a plan that is developed through continuous talks with provinces, territories, municipalities and aboriginal communities. We want a long-term plan that spans 20 years. We want clear funding, clear program targets and transparency. We want the politics taken out of it, if the Conservatives know how to do that.

What have the Conservatives said about a long-term, predictable infrastructure plan? The Conservatives made a promise in 2011 for just such a plan, but it was nowhere to be seen in the 2012 budget. We could only assume they did not change the existing budget-to-budget approach because they like the partisan politics, the photo ops, and putting Conservative Party logos on government cheques and parading them before the media.

I will end with a quote from the MP for Trinity—Spadina. She said:

Canadians are tired of boil water advisories and dodging potholes, and they're tired of being stuck in traffic jams and packed buses. I proposed a practical plan for long-term infrastructure and I'm hopeful that the Conservatives will work with me.

I am hopeful, too. Healthy communities make for healthy provinces, which make for a healthy nation. That is Canadian policy 101.