House of Commons Hansard #91 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.

Topics

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. member will have a five-minute question and comment period the next time the bill is before the House.

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

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a question I asked in the House on October 22 about shale gas. Quebeckers are very concerned about this issue. The fact is, this is a very controversial issue in Quebec, where there is a significant deposit of this resource. Some have called it the resource of the future because of its lower impact in terms of greenhouse gases.

Despite the impressive economic spinoffs exploiting this resource would generate, I have to emphasize that Quebeckers are very concerned about the potential negative consequences of activities related to developing it, specifically their impact on the environment and the beauty of the landscape, because there is talk of installing a lot of drills, and on the quality and quantity of fresh water in Quebec.

Farmers and people living in the regions are not the only ones with concerns and reservations about developing this industry. Last week, Guy Laliberté entered the fray by officially expressing his concerns and reservations about developing this industry. As you probably know, Guy Laliberté is the founder of Cirque du Soleil and the One Drop foundation, which focuses on the worldwide drinking water supply.

Let us be clear. As with the tar sands, shale gas is a resource that belongs to Quebec. It is a provincial resource under the Constitution of Canada, which is why I was surprised that it was the Minister of Natural Resources who rose in the House to answer my question. As I just said, shale gas in Quebec does not fall under his jurisdiction and neither do water reserves in the water table, I should add. I mention the water table because a lot of the discussions about the issue of shale gas development have focused on the impact that this industry's development could have on the water table.

My question had more to do with the impact developing this industry could have on surface water because fish-bearing waters are a legitimate concern for the federal government under the Constitution. The federal government has authority over anything that could harm fish-bearing waters.

So I would like to know what point the government has reached in terms of drafting regulations on water removal by the shale gas industry and the impact this could have on fish-bearing waters.

6:30 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the substance of the question from the other day. The member has changed a bit of his content, but I will go back to the question that he asked in the House the other day and I want to give him my thanks for bringing it forward.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question to reassure Canadians that the Government of Canada is committed, as I said earlier today in question period actually, to the safe, responsible and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.

It is also an opportunity to discuss the strength of the nation's regulatory system for the development of our natural resources sector. These regulatory standards can be easily summed up this way: they are modern, robust and constantly being improved.

As well, the policies and regulations that govern energy and other resource development in Canada are under constant scrutiny to ensure that they continue to be effective in all respects; that is, protecting the public, workers and the environment. This is done not only by the Government of Canada, but by the provinces and territories as well.

That brings me to my response to the question from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Simply put, resource development resides within provincial jurisdiction. Provinces own the resources within their borders. They are responsible for regulating their development.

While provincial authorities have the majority of regulatory responsibility for shale gas drilling activities, there are potential federal responsibilities. Federal regulatory responsibilities can be triggered in certain circumstances; for example, if the drilling occurs north of the 60th parallel, the National Energy Board then, of course, regulates it. If the drilling occurs within a province but on lands owned by the Government of Canada, a federal environmental assessment may be triggered. Chemicals used in drilling activities may fall under Environment Canada's chemical management plan. And lastly, water use for shale gas development or release of liquids into water bodies may involve regulation or require authorization from the federal government.

With regard to shale gas, the development of this resource is governed by the same rules and regulations that apply to conventional natural gas development. I think that is something that people need to understand. Each aspect of shale gas activity in Canada is regulated by the jurisdiction where the activity is occurring.

While we are respectful of jurisdiction, the federal government and my department in particular does collaborate with the provinces in a number of ways to support responsible and sustainable natural resource development.

Natural Resources Canada contributes geoscience information that provinces use in making exploration, resource management and environmental decisions. For example, the department provided a technical briefing to help the public understand the geology of Quebec's Utica shale formation at the ongoing hearings in Quebec. This type of information is also helpful to other areas where shale gas discoveries are being made, such as New Brunswick, British Columbia and Ontario.

I want to assure members that the Government of Canada has taken note of the increase in activity around shale gas development and is monitoring the situation.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's efforts to answer my question, but this issue does not concern the Department of Natural Resources. What is more, according to the media, the Minister of the Environment said last week that he was developing draft regulations for the shale gas industry. This is only natural because shale gas development will require that a lot of surface water be pumped into the ground in order to bring the gas to the surface.

My question on October 22 and today is what progress has the government made on developing these draft regulations? I also raised a related question on October 22 that concerns the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If we hope to draft regulations, then we have to know—

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Government of Canada has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to increase the supply of clean energy, while we also encourage innovation and job creation.

Natural gas is an important transition fuel to a low-carbon economy because it is a cleaner burning fuel than any other fossil fuel and is in abundant supply.

Our nation's endowment of clean-burning natural gas represents an opportunity to strengthen Canada as a clean energy superpower.

While shale gas development is relatively new in Canada, technological advancements in production methods are creating great new potential growth. It is not surprising that there is this increased interest in shale gas exploration and development in Canada.

The Government of Canada will always work with the provinces to help them realize the benefits of their natural resources. The Minister of Natural Resources is already working with provincial and territorial colleagues to undertake a fundamental review of Canada's regulatory system and this work will help ensure that our system remains the best in the world.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question I asked earlier in the session with regard to the costs of the G8 and G20 summits. The timing of the question that day was interesting. On the same day that the Government of Canada announced it would stop funding some lighthouses, including the famous Peggy's Cove lighthouse in Nova Scotia, it was funding fake lighthouses for the G8 and G20 summits. That unbelievably wasteful, extravagant decision contrasted so much with the historic and traditional nature of real lighthouses in coastal Canada. It was not just the $186,000 that was spent on a fake lighthouse. There was a fake Toronto stock exchange built at a cost of $208,000 metres away from the real stock exchange. There was the famous fake lake and fake animals as well. The Conservatives spend money like water off a fake duck's back. It is unbelievable. There was also the cost of communications around the G8 and G20 summits.

This spending has really hit a nerve among Canadians. They think at this point in time when the Conservatives have a deficit of $56 billion, to add another $1 billion is totally wasteful, inefficient, egregious and unnecessary, especially when we look at the cost of previous summits.

I want to bring people's minds back to 1995 when former prime minister Jean Chrétien and the regional minister, David Dingwall, announced that the G7 would take place in my home community of Halifax Dartmouth. It was big news. In fact, an article from that time states,

The Halifax Summit Office (HSO) confirmed today that its budget for this year's G7 Summit Meeting will be approximately $28 million.

And it came in on budget. The article went on to say:

The budget of the Halifax Summit Office encompasses all of the operational aspects of the Summit from staffing to printing and security.

The summit in Halifax was not a low-key event. People like Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin and John Major came to Halifax. It was a wonderful summit. Even at that what was very interesting is that according to a news article of April 30, 1995, a spokesperson for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that the federal government was wrong to put that G7 summit in Halifax because the city needed too many government funded fix-ups. The spokesperson said that the federal government “should have chosen a location which would not cost that kind of money”.

The person who said that is now sitting in the federal cabinet as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. In 1995, $28 million in his view was too much to spend on a summit and then his own government spent well in excess of $1 billion. People simply do not understand how that could possibly be the case. So much could have been done with that $1 billion.

The government cancelled programs like the Canadian Council of Learning, $80 million over five years. There have been cuts to literacy, cuts to victims of crime initiatives. Canadians understand the government wastes money and is the biggest tax and spend government in history. However, the government is showing its incompetence by spending $1 billion-plus on a weekend of meetings that were held in two separate locations. It could have been done a lot cheaper.

Other countries have done it cheaper. Italy, Japan, Germany, Russia held these meetings before and did it much cheaper than Canada did. It was an incredible amount of money to be spent at a time when we are reeling from the incompetence that already existed in the government's handling of the national finances. People do not accept that. It was too much. It was too rich. It was too extravagant. Canadians could not afford it and they made that known.

6:40 p.m.

Oxford Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and try to set the record straight from what my hon. colleague across the floor has just gone on about.

First off I would point out that 2010 is not 1995. This is post-2001. There is a tremendous difference in security and the security needed for important world leaders who came together to Canada. It was an opportunity for Canada to showcase our people and our country.

Some of the numbers that my hon. colleague has floated out there have now been corrected and I would hope that he will take the time to have a look at some of them.

Some of the issues are certainly different from what was initially said. Even last week we heard from the RCMP that its estimated numbers for overtime and for personnel just for the RCMP are going to be considerably less than it initially anticipated.

These were two summits that brought together world leaders to discuss important issues as we go forward, including the world economy, issues that affect all of us and certainly Canadians.

We also know as Canadians that when we belong to these organizations, as others have said, when the bill comes is not the time to get up and go to the washroom.

We are mandated to host the G8 once every eight years. We have done that. The G20 included more than the G20. It included a number of other nations.

Just for the security alone for the people who came, the security for the members of the press who numbered over 3,000, the security for lawful demonstrators and to keep the people of Toronto safe and secure, all of these things took nearly 21,000 security people.

Our security partners came from across the country. It is certainly different from what would have been required in 1995.

When my friend across the way talks about what the costs are in other nations, I think it has been very clear, and other independent bodies have said that other countries are not nearly as open and transparent about their costs. They bury their costs in a variety of places. Perhaps I used the wrong term to say “bury” but their costs come from a variety of places that are not listed on sheets as is done in Canada.

Very recently we have heard numbers from Seoul, South Korea, on what it anticipates the costs would be and they were extremely low. However, when the ambassador was recently asked he indicated that a billion dollars was not an out of line figure for South Korea to expect when some of the other associated costs are included.

Canada got its value. It was an opportunity to showcase this country. The City of Toronto has attempted a couple of times to host the Olympics but it did not get them. These summits brought the world to Toronto and showcased a beautiful urban city.

Just from that perspective that part of it was worthwhile, but the issues that were discussed were of importance to Canada and Canadians, and certainly made the summits in Canada very worthwhile.

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, to respond to a couple of points, my colleague said that the costs are different from what they were estimated to be. It is six months later and we are still waiting for the actual costs. It is about time we had some real costs.

He talked about a post-2001 world. In 2002 we hosted the summit for $93 million. The United States did it for $25 million. The United Kingdom did it in 2005 for $140 million. Germany did it for $124 million in 2007. For Japan it was $280 million in 2008. Italy did it for $124 million in 2009.

He said that the costs are buried. I doubt there is a more secretive command and control government in the world now, certainly not in the democratic world, than the one we have here. I find it hard to believe that costs would be buried any more anywhere else than they would be here.

Canadians are offended, and I think rightfully so, by the egregious amount of money that was spent, particularly on what the money was spent and the results that we got were very minimal.

Since then we did not get our seat on the Security Council. Canada's place in the world has gone down. We can do a lot better and it is not by spending--

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I dare say that my friend across the aisle is wrong. Canadians did get value. There were many issues discussed, including the international bank tax and maternal health care. A whole raft of things were discussed at those meetings. Certainly Canada is a leader in all of those issues, as Canada is a leader in many other issues on the world stage.

The opportunity that Canadians had to showcase Vancouver with the Olympics and the Muskokas and Toronto with the summits was certainly worthwhile. We have heard that over and over.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is the one who indicated that all of the numbers on the G8 were made available to him. He is looking forward to getting the final tally on the G20, but we cannot expect our security partners to all have their bills in and be paid until they have done their final auditing and submitted them.

I think they were very worthwhile summits. I would think my friend should compliment the government.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)