Bill C-3 (Historical)

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

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

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, which authorizes the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain aviation industry participants for loss, damage or liability caused by events that are commonly referred to in the insurance industry as “war risks”. The Minister may undertake to indemnify all aviation industry participants, or may specify that an undertaking applies only to specific participants or classes of participant or applies only in specific circumstances. The Act also requires that the Minister, at least once every two years, assess whether it is feasible for aviation industry participants to obtain insurance coverage for events or other similar coverage, and that the Minister report regularly to Parliament on his or her activities under the Act. Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 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. It also establishes privilege in respect of on-board recordings, communication records and certain statements, and permits, among other things, access to an on-board recording if certain criteria are met. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority.
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. Among other things, it gives force of law to many provisions of the Convention, clarifies the liability of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund with respect to the Convention and confers powers, duties and functions on the Fund’s Administrator.
Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to introduce 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. It extends civil and criminal immunity to the agents or mandataries of response organizations engaged in response operations. It also introduces new enforcement measures for Part 8 of the Act, including by applying the administrative monetary penalties regime contained in Part 11 of that Act to Part 8.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

It is very important for me to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-3. I will pull back a little bit and talk about some of the specifics related to this bill.

When looking at Bill C-3, we see it is something we will support at third reading because of the modest improvements in marine security that we have seen in this bill. However, it is important to recognize that, as usual, we try to bring forward some amendments at committee, really to make the bills better. That is what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be strengthening the bills and laws of this country to make them better for Canadians. However, as usual and once again, the Conservatives completely voted against all of our amendments. It is unfortunate. These amendments did not just come from the NDP; they came from witnesses and stakeholders.

We really need to ensure that the government starts to listen. What we heard from my colleague just a few minutes ago is that it is not listening to first nations in British Columbia. It is not listening to the Government of British Columbia, which said no when it comes to northern gateway. It is also not listening to, I believe, 67% of the population, which is against northern gateway.

We needed to ensure that Bill C-3 had a broader scope. It is something we asked for. We asked that this bill be allowed to go to committee before second reading to ensure we were looking at ways of enhancing this bill and making it better, making sure we can protect our pristine coastline on the B.C. coast. Unfortunately though, that never happened.

Let me give members some key facts and figures before I continue. What we have heard about tanker traffic is that it is increasing the chances of an oil spill in Canadian waters, yet the government has decreased the marine communications and traffic centres and environmental emergency programs. It has done this even though the estimates state that oil tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010, that tanker traffic is expected to triple again by 2016, and that the proposed pipeline expansion projects would increase crude oil deliveries from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels per day.

We need to ensure that we are protecting our coast, but again, this bill would not address it.

Let me talk a little bit about those amendments. We wanted to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook for cleanup costs and damages following the spill of hazardous and noxious substances. We wanted to ensure transparency regarding investigation reports of aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and the military. Those proposed reasonable amendments never made it past the committee.

Prior to debating Bill C-3, which I believe was the former Bill C-57 at second reading before prorogation, we requested that the scope of this bill be broadened by sending it to committee before second reading for a study that would aim to include a more comprehensive measure to safeguard Canada's coast. It would also, in part, reverse many of the cuts that we have seen from the Conservative government and the closures specific to marine and environmental safety. I believe that we sent a letter to the Minister of Transport back in April, 2013, to outline this request.

Bill C-3 would make amendments to five acts. I will touch on those briefly. The first part would enact the aviation industry indemnity act, which would authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain aviation industry participants for loss, damage, or liability caused by “war risks”.

The second part would amend the Aeronautics Act to provide the airworthiness investigation with the powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the DND, Canadian Forces, or a visiting force.

Part 3 would amend the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority, in that the municipality or the port authority notifies the port ASAP.

Part 4 would amend 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, or as it is known, the HNS convention.

The liability scheme that was created for this talked about shipowners' liability limited to $230 million. Damages in excess of shipowners' liability were to be paid by an international fund, which is that HNS fund, up to a maximum of $500 million.

In part 4, the availability of the ship-source oil pollution fund to oil spills would exclude HNS spills. We wanted to ensure, at committee level, that this is broader.

Part 5 really looks at the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It was introducing 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 some other segments to that as well.

I think it is important for us to then say that we believe, as I talked about in the last amendment, that Canadian taxpayers really should not have to pay the cleanup costs and damages following a spill of hazardous or noxious substances.

However, we have seen the government refuse reasonable amendments that may have prevented Canadian taxpayers from being responsible for damages exceeding $500 million.

It is also important for us to say that the NDP is committed to ensuring that oil spills never happen on our coasts. We have seen the Conservative record in the past. There was the closing of British Columbia's oil spill response centre, the shutting down of Kitsilano Coast Guard station, and the gutting of environmental response programs. This is making it increasingly difficult for us, and even for Canadians, to trust that their concerns are really being taken seriously.

Some of the things that we really wanted to see in this bill to safeguard Canada's seas include reversing those cuts to the Coast Guard and reversing the scaling back of the services; the cancelling of closure of the marine communication traffic service centres, including the marine traffic control communications terminals in Vancouver and of course in St. John's, Newfoundland, as well; the cancelling of the closure of B.C.'s regional office for emergency oil spill responders; and the cancelling of the cuts to Canada's Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research.

Those are just a few of the things we really would have liked to have seen in this bill. Unfortunately, they are not there.

When it comes on the eve of the announcement on northern gateway, what we are really seeing now are the concerns and the worries of Canadians being ignored by the government. As I heard earlier, 67% of people in British Columbia are opposed to northern gateway. We have the government saying no. We have first nations saying that they do not want this, and that they need to have some type of discussion. I wish the government would listen to first nations and have that communication with them. Unfortunately we are seeing that this is not happening.

To put it into perspective, we are going to see about 1,100 kilometres of pipeline pumping raw bitumen through the pristine forest and rivers in northern British Columbia. That is about 525,000 barrels of raw bitumen per day. What is really scary is Enbridge's record on pipeline safety. We have seen over 800 spills between 1999 and 2010, resulting in over 16,000 barrels of oil going into the environment.

We can all agree that no one wants to see that in northern British Columbia. We need to do everything we can to protect northern British Columbia.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member spent seven years of his life in British Columbia. They were, no doubt, the best seven years of his life.

He spoke briefly in his last intervention about social licence, which is a concept that is certainly gathering steam. It is tough to define how one actually gathers it. He comes from Sudbury, which was obviously built on the mining sector. It is not as big as it used to be, I understand, but that is what built the riding he represents, as did the transcontinental railway that went through there.

If we were applying today's social licence theories or practices, would any of the mines in his riding have been built; would there be the prosperity that currently exists in Sudbury; and would the transcontinental railway have been put through? Should we not be talking about the safest way to transport petrochemicals, not saying we should shut down large sectors of the economy, which is what I tend to hear from the NDP?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question and, of course, the acknowledgement that I lived in North Vancouver for seven years. Yes, it is one of the most beautiful places. Sometimes in the middle of winter when it is -40° and I am having to shovel snow in Sudbury, I wonder why I came back home. However, it is great to be back home and to be the representative for Sudbury.

In relation to the question he asked about mining, he is going back 100 years, but let us talk about the re-greening of Sudbury through the mining companies and what they have done. They have won awards from the United Nations on the re-greening, making sure that the environment is being protected. The people of Sudbury want to ensure that they have clean air to breathe, water to swim in, and that they can actually go fishing in downtown Sudbury. However, what we do not have, as he talked about, is the social licence to put through pipelines when people are choosing, voting, and standing up and saying no.

That is what is happening in northern British Columbia and throughout British Columbia. People are standing up and saying no. In Sudbury, we actually have the conversation, and the mining companies talk to and work with first nations. The current government is choosing not to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the northern gateway project, one thing that comes to my mind is risk. This is something we need to recognize: the risk to our environment and our economy. When we look at this particular project, we see that it is, arguably, an unacceptable level of risk in that region, and the resultant impact to the economy and the environment speaks volumes.

I am wondering if the member would like to comment just on the idea of risk and how this is an unacceptable level of risk that we are putting, at potential cost, by going forward with the northern gateway project.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, risk is paramount to this discussion, to this debate, and to the pipeline. We know Enbridge's record. There were 800 spills between 1999 and 2010, resulting in over 16,000 barrels of oil going into the environment. There would be 525,000 barrels of raw bitumen per day being shipped by massive supertankers along British Columbia's coast. The risk of one incident and the effects it would have on the environment are catastrophic.

Let us not forget about the risks that are related to the economy as well. There would or could be 45,000 potential jobs, according to statistics, impacted by a spill, from tourism jobs to forestry jobs. This is a huge risk, and with 1,100 kilometres of pipeline going through northern Alberta and British Columbia, I do not think the risks outweigh the merits right now.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for giving me a few minutes to talk about Bill C-3, which is about an issue that really matters to me. It is about safety and amendments to the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

I am concerned about this issue and it is a personal one for me because there is a big debate about it right now. Our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and several others have talked about a number of things, including the northern gateway pipeline. However, TransCanada has a project called energy east. They want to build a pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to Saint John, New Brunswick. The pipeline would go through my riding, Témiscouata, and through the lower St. Lawrence. They would build an oil port in Cacouna, which is not in my riding, but which is nearby. Cacouna is about a 45-minute drive from Rimouski.

This is important because some parts of this bill, if it is passed, would result in the construction of an oil port where there is currently a commercial port.

In addition, Part 5 of this bill amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, which is what an oil port is, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister.

I will not go into detail about this because I do not have much time, but I wonder why this has not always been the case. This bill seems to be a hasty response on the part of the Conservative government to implement measures that will reassure the public, particularly with respect to the northern gateway project, which has been on the agenda for a very long time.

Before the election, I worked briefly on the pipeline and oil transportation file in British Columbia. I picked up on people's concerns about security measures and navigation problems and risks along the British Columbia coast. This bill sets out to reassure people, but does not completely succeed.

We will vote in favour of this bill because it is an improvement over the status quo. However, I highly doubt that the bill has addressed everyone's concerns.

The reason is that the government's actions in the past—and I am not just talking about this bill, but also its decisions, particularly since 2011—have not really responded to the need for additional protection. Environmentally, these actions have not ensured that the work was done to protect Canadians and their livelihoods.

The people on British Columbia's coast still remember an incident that happened 40 years ago, the wreck of the Exxon Valdez. They were affected, and they now want to ensure that the coast is well protected, specifically the coast of the islands off British Columbia.

What have the Conservatives done since 2011, before we started discussing the bill? They have reduced Coast Guard service, including closing the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano.

They have made cuts to the marine communications and traffic services centres, including the centres in Vancouver and St. John's, Newfoundland. They have closed the British Columbia regional office for oil spill emergencies. Why? Why are the Conservatives not cancelling these closures?

There have been cuts to the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, as well as to the main environmental emergency programs, including in the event of oil spills in Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

All the decisions made in this matter, before the bill was discussed, fly in the face of the need for additional protection under this bill. No one really knows where the Conservative government is going.

As an economist, I am very sensitive to externality issues and issues related to the principle we support, the polluter pays principle. This bill contains elements that are not in line with that concept.

Let us take a look at part 4, which has to do with liability in the event of a spill involving noxious and hazardous substances or oil.

In committee, specifically at second reading where I had the opportunity to speak, we proposed that public funds not be used in cases where a disaster is caused by a private company. The bill caps that compensation at $500 million. Beyond $500 million, taxpayers could end up being forced, through the government, to pay the cost of the cleanup and compensation for the people who lose their livelihood or source of economic activity. This makes no sense.

It is the company that should take responsibility for this. When it comes to externalities, if the company had to take more responsibility or even full responsibility for the cost of an oil spill or a spill of hazardous and noxious substances, then it would take measures to ensure its own survival.

Currently, oil companies have a profit margin of tens of millions of dollars for every shipment of oil. If they have limited responsibility for a spill, then they have no incentive to take the protective measures they need to take. Their main incentive is their reputation, and their ability to maintain good public relations to minimize the hits to their reputation.

That is not enough incentive. A greater share of the responsibility for compensation should be taken by the private corporations that ship oil and hazardous and noxious substances.

This bill does not go far enough. We announced amendments at second reading and we proposed them at report stage. Many witnesses supported the opposition on this. In fact, that is what the Conservatives are grappling with on this day when the decision on the northern gateway pipeline will be announced.

Many people from British Columbia, and not just citizens and first nations, are talking to the Conservatives. We know that the Conservatives are not used to negotiating with the first nations or acknowledging their concerns on these issues. Even witnesses who work at port authorities and others who work in the field told the Conservatives exactly what needed to be done. In fact, their comments were often consistent with those made by the official opposition. However, these demands have been ignored. No amendment was accepted. The current bill is the same as it was when it was introduced at second reading.

A responsible government that wants to be known for good governance would realize that it does not have all the answers and that the bill has weaknesses that must be corrected so that it can be true to its objective. Instead, the government is turning a deaf ear. It is refusing to listen and to accept very pertinent comments that address the concerns raised about the environment and liability when it comes to the transportation of noxious or hazardous substances that could be detrimental to the economic activity of much of the community affected.

We find it difficult to understand why the government is remaining silent and intransigent. I do believe that we were all elected by our constituents, in my case the people of the lovely riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We have the duty to debate and improve bills.

The government members are remaining silent about this bill. No one is rising to debate it and to justify the proposed measures. We have pointed out this bill's weaknesses, and we will continue to do so.

As I mentioned, this will not prevent us from voting in favour of the bill at third reading because it is still better than what is currently in place. However, I mentioned that I do not understand why the measures proposed in part 5 have not been implemented already. They seem to be very reasonable.

In short, we will be supporting the bill. However, we are very disappointed with the Conservative government's silence and refusal to listen at every stage, including study in committee.

If the Conservatives were to ask me a question about this bill, I would be very pleased to answer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one of the members across the way that I have learned to respect over the last three years. He is very polite, very cordial. I respect that of the member, and also that he is an economist.

We have heard a lot of comments today about raw resource development and developing our resources in Canada, especially British Columbia. However, we always hear from the NDP members what they would not do. I asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition, a couple of years ago now, what New Democrats would do, short of developing our resources. Would they refine it in B.C.? What else would they do?

The question I have for the pragmatic member across the way is, short of having pipelines and developing our resources to ship across the world where our resources are needed, what else would they do?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments.

I also respect him. I have had the pleasure of working and talking with him on a regular basis, and I am pleased to be able to return the compliment to him.

Indeed, on this side of the House and as far as our leader, the leader of the official opposition, is concerned, we clearly do not want oil sands or their development to be eliminated, despite what people often say. We are looking for something geared toward development that is sustainable in the true sense of the word. People often gloss over the meaning of the words “sustainable development”, but we want to see development that is truly sustainable, both economically and environmentally.

All too often we see that the environmental aspect is swept under the rug. One of the things some people forget is the polluter pays principle. This has to do with external factors, the costs that all of Alberta or even all of Canada might have to bear. TransCanada's Energy East pipeline project, with the pipeline that would go through my riding, is a telling example.

The oil port project is well received by a segment of the population because people see the potential economic spinoffs. However, this still jeopardizes the tourism industry, and many opponents and people questioning the project say so. Beluga whale watching brings significant tourism and economic spinoffs. Some people say the benefits are even more significant, in absolute terms, than the potential benefits of the oil port.

This is therefore a very complex issue, and the costs and benefits of every project must always be assessed. This is the type of development we want, development that is responsible when it comes to the oil sands.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it bears stating that the final decision on the northern gateway project actually rests with the Prime Minister's Office. We need to emphasize the fact that the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do what is right on this issue. We need to factor in the risk and look at the potential negative impact on our economy and our environment, taking into consideration our first nations, people of aboriginal heritage, and the many different communities on which this pipeline is going to have an impact. They have raised their concerns and objections.

I wonder if the member might want to comment on how important it is that the Prime Minister of Canada listen to what the people of British Columbia have to say on it, because obviously, the members of Parliament in the Conservative Party who represent British Columbia are not expressing the concerns that many of their constituents are no doubt advocating for them to do.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which gives me an opportunity to touch on an aspect of the bill that I did not address in my speech.

This is a matter of externalities, the polluter pays principle and the responsible development of our natural resources. We also need to talk about social acceptability. The government needs to ensure that it has the support of the residents and the first nations of any community where a pipeline will be passing through and jeopardizing the economic activity in the community that is not necessarily related to the pipeline or to the general transportation of hazardous materials or petroleum products.

When we hear that 67% of the population of British Columbia and basically every first nation in the province oppose the project, it is clear that the government did not do the work required to achieve that social acceptability. This is a reflex that all good governments should have but that the Conservative government seems to be lacking, the reflex of consulting with people and responding to their concerns. Given the current lack of support for this project, we can see that this work was not done.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, which is yet another omnibus bill that only affects five bills this time. We should be lucky. In finance we dealt with a budget implementation act that would amend some 60 bills, so having only having only 5 bills is a bit of a luxury.

It is not so much the process I want to talk about today, but the substance. We can do much better than this legislation, which we will be supporting at this stage.

I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

It is interesting and somewhat ironic that we are here today on the eve of what we understand to be the government's decision day on the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. I had the good fortune of running in a by-election in my community of Victoria and Oak Bay coastal communities in British Columbia in November 2012. As we would expect, and as I am sure all members on all sides of the House will have done, I knocked on a lot of doors and met a lot of people from various walks of life, young and old. I did not meet a single person who supported the Enbridge northern gateway proposal, not one.

I have a duty and an honour to represent my coastal community, and I will do so to the best of my ability. However, I believe that if this bill is a bit of window dressing, greasing the wheels for this project, the Conservatives ought to know that it has met utter opposition in British Columbia. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of the opposition I encountered and observed was that it united British Columbians in a way that I had never experienced in my life. I have never seen aboriginal people leading protests of the kind and in the numbers. I have never seen retired teachers and bus drivers, people who are very young and people who are at the end of their careers and indeed at the end of their lives, all united in opposition to what the government intends to do, although I pray I am wrong.

I know the polls say that two-thirds of the population are opposed. However, if we scratch a little deeper, we will not find many people who think it makes sense to ship, in tankers the size of the Eiffel Tower along some of the most dangerous waters on the planet into Hecate Strait, diluted bitumen, a product of which we really have little understanding. We did not even know at the joint review panel whether it would sink or rise to the surface. That is the level of misunderstanding.

I taught environmental law for over a dozen years. People who appeared before that committee, fellow lawyers who cross-examined, said that they had never seen such dissonance between what a panel heard in testimony and what it concluded in its recommendations. It was two different realities. As well, the cost-benefit analysis that would say it is fine to potentially extirpate a herd of caribou, an endangered species, because it is in the national interest, with no evidence for that, is really quite shocking to British Columbians. It is also shocking that we would play Russian roulette with rivers full of endangered species, including certain salmon stocks that would never come back if there were a spill.

It is a product that is not heavy oil, but is diluted bitumen and it ought not to be confused with what happened with Exxon Valdez, which was bad enough as I will explain. That this could possibly be approved by the Government of Canada in the face of ferocious opposition by young and old, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, coastal and non-coastal communities, is frankly shocking to me. I just wish to reiterate that I will do, on behalf of the people of my community, whatever I can to ensure that this wrong-headed decision is never fully implemented in my province and in our country.

This bill deals with a number of matters that are somewhat germane to what I have been saying. Entirely, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act are three of the statutes that would be amended. Some of the regulatory changes are to be commended, and for that reason the bill will have our full support.

What the government has done in northern gateway is handed the industry a poisoned chalice. As one industry leader said very eloquently, we will get the permission perhaps from the government, but we will not get the permission from the people.

The phrase “social licence” has been used throughout this debate and I know exactly what that industry leader said. Even if government gives us the piece of paper, it will not have given us the legitimacy to proceed, because people know in their guts that this process is flawed. They knew that it was unfair and that a decision built on such a flawed process should not see the light of day.

It really is a poisoned chalice, and it is interesting that I see environmental organizations, first nations and industry holding hands around that phenomenon, recognizing that indeed industry will have been handed a poisoned chalice if the government were to proceed in the face of the ferocious opposition that is out there today.

At the second reading debate, the hon. Minister of Transport said a number of things about the bill, in respect of the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. She talked about the amendments that would increase marine environmental protection by strengthening provisions pertaining to pollution prevention and response. She said that the amendments would aim to strengthen requirements for spill prevention and preparedness at oil handling facilities by requiring certain facilities to submit both prevention and emergency plans to the Minister of Transport, to which I say “Bravo.”

However, when we do not have officials who are there to enforce those laws, who do not have the budget to insist on compliance, with the greatest of respect, it is irrelevant what the legislation says. We have seen the government consistently cut programs, cut offices that would deal with these very issues. It means nothing that legislation like this would contain pretty words, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, as Shakespeare would say.

This legislation, like so many Conservative initiatives, might look good on the surface, but if there is no personnel because it has all been cut, if there are no scientists because they have all been fired, if there is no office anymore, as in the case of the Kitsilano Coast Guard office, or spill prevention offices, who cares?

People are not being fooled. They know that what we do in passing pretty laws with no people behind them to enforce them and no political will, moreover, to enforce them, it really does not matter very much, and that is what is so frustrating. The Conservatives are full of sound and fury and really signify nothing in this kind of legislation.

On the amendment, if people do not, for example, submit those plans, what happens then? The minister tells us that the government has administered a penalty. There are $250 and sometimes even a range of $25,000 for a monetary penalty for some matter that may not have been complied with: a) we have to actually do it, we have to bring a proceeding; and b) we have to collect it.

Having worked on behalf of compliance with Canadian Environmental Protection Act, when I had the good fortune of advising the chief review officer under CEPA 99, these monetary penalties and these administrative regimes are excellent, but with no will to enforce them, who cares what they say, and who even cares what the amount is? The penalty amounts may sound impressive when they are increased but again, no will, no fines, no action, nothing. It is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I am not making it up when I say that the government has done so little by, in effect, closing the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station, by closing British Columbia's oil spill response centre and gutting the environmental emergency response program. Do British Columbians, do Canadians trust the government to look after their precious environment with these cosmetic changes? I think not, and I think we will find the members opposite, 21 of them, will face the wrath of British Columbians when they see if indeed, and I pray I am wrong, the government were to ever allow the monstrosity of the Enbridge northern gateway project to see the light of day.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of view of my colleague. Not only is he from B.C., but he understands the issue. I think all of us have more concerns based on what happened in Lac-Mégantic not too long ago.

The fact is that we have a government that chooses to turn a blind eye when it comes to enforcement. The government can put in all the laws and change all the legislation it wants to say that it is protecting people, but at the end of the day, if it does not enforce them, then there is no security for Canadians. The communities and taxpayers are having to pay for the brunt of the cost for cleanup and reconstruction.

Not too long ago, just on this particular piece, the Minister of Natural Resources stated, “to protect the environment...tankers will have to be double-hulled”. Well, all tankers are required to be double-hulled by an international agreement made in 1993.

The member talked about fooling the public. Could he talk a little more about that “fool me once” anecdote? This is a government that seems to want to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians, but Canadians will not be fooled.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, polluter pays should be the backbone of the legislation, yet we still seem to have the Canadian people being asked to be on the hook after a certain amount of money for an oil spill cleanup. How much is a cleanup? It sounds like a lot of money. As my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, it could be hundreds of millions of dollars.

Professor Rashid Sumaila at the University of British Columbia's Fisheries Economics Research Unit asked the question about who paid. We have a mechanism to cover $1.35 billion, but look at the example of the Exxon Valdez, at $6.5 billion to cleanup. The Gulf of Mexico was much larger. For northern gateway, the cost of cleanup and losses could be up to $9.6 billion.

If there is no political will to enforce and if the government is not serious about polluter pay, it will be the rest of us Canadians who will foot the bill, and that is wrong.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. He spoke a lot about accountability, which I think is important. He indicated, in a very articulate manner, that the bill serves as little more than window dressing designed to instil confidence in people, that it does not have enough teeth and that the government does not have enough political will to enforce it. That does not just apply to this case but also to a wide range of government activities related to oversight.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the parallel that can be drawn with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which has standards to enforce. If there is not enough staff to enforce the rules or employees are not given the power to enforce them, then there are going to be more problems like the ones we have already experienced. I would like my colleague to compare what is happening with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with the changes to the regulations set out in this bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, which raises the notion of monitoring activities and the failure perhaps to have the people there to do the monitoring. His example of what happened with the listeriosis outbreak and CFIA being essentially understaffed to do the job is an excellent illustration and exactly parallel.

This is another regulatory statute. There is no difference in principle among environmental regulation, health and safety, occupational safety, food inspection, railway safety, as my other colleague mentioned. These are all examples of when we put a regime in place, we expect people will be there to enforce those rules. If those rules are broken, we expect there will be some political will to go after the people who break those rules.

We do not have two of those three things. We have less and less people doing the job and we have virtually no political will to enforce our regulatory standards.