House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chairs.

Topics

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-3 which is the follow-up bill to Bill C-57 from the last session of this House, which has not passed by now, in part, because the House was prorogued for an unusually long period of time. It is unfortunate, because I think we would have dispatched this legislation much more efficiently had we been sitting here.

In many respects, what we are seeing in the bill is a piecemeal or what I might even describe as an incoherent approach to transportation safety policy in Canada. Small things are trickling out in dribs and drabs without a comprehensive approach to transportation safety in the country to deal with the important issues that have been raised, by many speakers, on marine transportation, rail transportation, passenger safety, and beyond, of course.

The bill is mostly about technical amendments, and the Liberal Party of Canada will be supporting sending the bill to committee.

It has different parts. Part 1, enacting the aviation industry indemnity act, would allow aviation participants, in the event of loss or damage, to deal with what are called “war risks”. This flows from the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, when insurance companies stopped offering air carriers liability insurance for what are typically called war risks. That is part 1 of the bill. I am looking to hearing more about it at committee.

Part 2 amends the Aeronautics Act to establish a new procedure for investigating accidents or incidents involving civilians and military aircraft. Again, for clauses 10 to 26, I am looking forward to seeing more evidence to substantiate the new process in the Aeronautics Act that will allow for investigation of accidents that involve civilians and military aircraft or installations. That will be important to go through.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective date of the appointment of a director of a port authority. That is more or less standard fare. It is very much housekeeping.

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. This effectively provides for the liability of ship owners and operators for damage caused by pollutants. In particular, it finally implements in Canada the liability scheme established pretty much elsewhere internationally by the several international conventions that are already in place.

We are making progress in terms of these small amendments.

Finally, part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act to introduce new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, ostensibly, the governments says, to help produce a world-class tanker safety system. I cannot help but be struck by “world-class tanker safety system”, when the government rushed through licences in the Beaufort Sea, with full knowledge that there is no technology to deal with potential spills should there be one in that most fragile Canadian sea.

Let us turn to the overall context within which I think this bill has been presented and what is happening out there among Canadians.

First, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy shook the country. Obviously, it affected Quebeckers, the people of Lac-Mégantic and their families. This tragedy, which still weighs heavy on the minds of Canadians, stunned us and affected us deeply.

We had also a bus-train collision here in the city of Ottawa. We had a derailment in Calgary, which Mayor Nenshi spoke of some time ago, and of course, we had the derailment over the weekend in Gainford, Alberta. There are so many more instances of rail safety questions.

The bill is being deposited at a time when we are debating pipelines. We are debating pipelines heading west, the gateway pipeline. We are debating pipelines heading south, the Keystone pipeline, and of course there is the question of Line 9, reversing the flow of a pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal to provide more feedstock for eastern Canadian refineries.

I would pause for a moment and say that I think the government has seriously compromised Canada's reputation with respect to its dealings on the Keystone pipeline. It has, in fact, weakened us. For that matter, to a certain extent, it has even weakened the democratic presidency of President Obama by actually not working with American congressional leaders and the President's office to show that Canada is serious about climate change. Because we have been delaying, denying, dragging our feet, making up stories, and hitching our wagon to President Obama, and at other points to somebody else or to some other factor, Canada is now very much behind the eight ball. When it comes to Washington, and, I can certainly confirm from international experience, elsewhere, Canada is now considered to be a pariah on the climate change file. In a sense, this is how the Prime Minister has seriously compromised our reputation in Washington and has put the Keystone pipeline very much at risk.

As I said, Canadians are very concerned about a few things. They see these instances on television and read about them in the newspapers. They are very concerned about passenger safety, community safety, and marine safety, of course. They are concerned about the transport of dangerous substances and what is happening in their local municipalities with trains running in and out. They are very concerned about environmental protection. One of the least well-known fallout effects of the Lac Mégantic tragedy is the fact that it is going to take decades, and probably hundreds of million if not billions of dollars to clean up the affected watershed in that region. That is something we let slip, to a certain extent, in coverage outside Quebec.

Another factor at play, of course, is that there is a trend toward moving more and more oil in Canada by rail. This is worthy of exploring so that Canadians understand what is happening. There are important fundamental questions about our aging Canadian rail infrastructure. There are important questions being raised about the types of railcars that have been used, both in Canada and the United States, for decades and their safety and engineering standards, for example.

Why is there such a trend toward moving more and more oil in Canada by rail? The first reason is that North American oil production is outpacing pipeline capacity. For example, rail shipments of oil to our coastal refineries or export centres have gone from about 6,000 train carloads in 2009 to almost 14,000 carloads this year. That is a massive and significant increase in moving oil by rail. We have seen a concomitant investment by the railway companies in new cars and new capacity to carry more oil, of course, because they want an ever-increasing share of that market opportunity, as one would expect from a private company.

The second reason we are seeing more oil carried by rail is that, as I mentioned, railways want to increase their market share. They have seized upon an opportunity here, because shipping oil by rail as a substitute idea is being encouraged by the Conservatives as a way to circumvent the approval processes, which they often have been weakening or undermining, whether it is the NEB or environmental assessment. We know that this is the case. We have seen it. It has been happening now for years. They are also trying, in certain quarters, to circumvent strong or ferocious opposition to different ideas being put forward by industrial proponents. That is having another effect. It is another force at play that is driving oil onto our railways.

The third factor is that there is enormous pressure on our infrastructure, and I alluded to this, for both rail and pipeline. Even if all current pipeline projects are approved in Canada, oil production will exceed pipeline capacity by one million barrels a day by 2025. That is, in 12 short years we will exceed our pipeline capacity by one million barrels a day.

The first thing I thought of when I came face to face with this statistic was to reflect on the words of the former premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed who asked some very probative and profound questions about the pace of development in our oil sands, whether or not we were having an adult conversation about that pace, whether the effects in the immediate areas were going to be properly mitigated, and so on and so forth. We see that there is a massive push and rush to increase capacity in terms of oil production but not the infrastructure to deal with it.

On that note, pressure on rail, of course, is coming from a plan of doubling oil sands exploitation over the next decade or so. The pressure is also coming from the 10 to 12-year life span of the very huge Bakken shale gas formation in both North Dakota and Montana. There we are seeing an oil and gas field that is presently producing some 700,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, the estimates are that would last for 10 to 12 years with production rising from 700,000 to one million barrels a day.

Interestingly, the light crude on board the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway that exploded in Lac-Mégantic came from this area, the Bakken shale gas formation, on route to an Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Bakken, as a project does not lend itself, say the energy economists, to a pipeline because it is not economic. It takes some 50 years for a pipeline to be judged to be economic, to pay for itself, and this, as I mentioned, has a 10 to 12-year remaining shelf life in terms of exploitation of the gas and oil in that particular reserve.

Another important question at play in context as the bill is brought to the floor is the following.

There are some very serious and legitimate questions being raised with respect to the enforcement of railway safety by Transport Canada. Nowhere is this more evident than in the safety management systems, SMSs, which rail companies are required to produce and abide by. For that matter, different companies involved and regulated by Transport Canada also have safety management systems; airlines, for example. However, these safety management systems are not rendered public. They are not made available or disclosed to interested parties, such as stakeholders, flying passengers, company executives, folks who work on railways, people who are in the business of insuring railways and the shipment of these risky products. These safety management systems are not disclosed.

I think we can do a lot better than that in terms of the probity and transparency that Canadians are asking for and deserve going forward.

Transport Canada, once these safety management systems are put in place, then perform audits on a company's SMS. However, for the audits on railways, and the same thing applies with pipeline companies, there is no requirement for an explicit, what we might call, safety culture assessment. An auditor can go in and audit against a document and spot check. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is an explicit requirement for the auditors and inspectors to sit down with senior managers, interview employees, deal with suppliers, talk to other regulators at the provincial level for railways that do not cross provincial boundaries, and so on and so forth.

We can do a lot better with respect to these safety management systems in making them more transparent. I think that transparency shining the light of day on these management systems would help improve them.

I have also heard from a number of inspectors who are retired from Transport Canada or presently working within Transport Canada. They are deeply concerned about the capacity of Transport Canada to perform these audits on safety management systems on a number of fronts, whether it is marine shipping, airlines, railways and beyond.

There are very troubling questions being raised by these inspectors who are good people, of good faith and goodwill, who go to work every day and try to do their jobs, but are now feeling the pinch as they try to cover so many different regulated companies and do not have the capacity to do so. That is something we are going to have to explore in a much more meaningful way at committee in due course, whether it is with respect to the bill or with respect to the promised, deep railway-safety study that the committee was supposed to undertake this fall in the wake of early findings from the Transportation Safety Board in terms of its learnings derived from the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic.

Shifting gears a bit, in some respects the bill would address the liability question but only tangentially, as I mentioned earlier. There are lingering questions. Most Canadians, once they are over the shock of something as dramatic as a bus in this city, here in my backyard just outside my riding, colliding with a train where citizens are killed, or 47 of their fellow citizens having died in Lac-Mégantic, then questions around who is responsible come to the fore. Here is where we as parliamentarians are going to have to examine very carefully the whole question of liability. Who is responsible for the liability, the costs? Who is responsible for indemnifying, for example, the Town of Lac-Mégantic? Who is responsible for helping the families of the victims, those who may be disabled in an accident and those who feel the effects on their human health, perhaps? Who is responsible with respect to spills at sea? Who is responsible for spills on land and environmental cleanup costs? I alluded to that earlier with respect to Lac-Mégantic.

We have seen what happened with a major spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in the United States. We have seen what the National Transportation Safety Board has said about that in the United States which, in parentheses, concerns me because that NTSB evidence is not being heard at the National Energy Board in Canada as Enbridge makes applications for different kinds of pipeline projects. I believe that we should be examining global practice. What has happened in one jurisdiction is something we should be learning from in this jurisdiction, and vice versa.

When our Canadian Transportation Safety Board issues a report eventually and finally on Lac-Mégantic and that terrible tragedy, there will be many findings that are capable of being extrapolated to other countries and locations. I do not know why the Conservatives have closed and narrowed the evidentiary acceptability gap, if I can call it that, at the National Energy Board to the point where the findings of the NTSB in Washington are not being factored into applications being made by a proponent in Canada. It just makes no sense. Most corporations today, as they work hard to earn their social licence, want to be able to have a global code and standard of practice and drive it up everywhere together, roughly at the same time and in the same way.

We have a lot of questions with respect to who is responsible and who is liable.

I had a constituent write to me recently and ask whether liability should extend here to the company that was actually importing the oil, and in this case, whether the Irving Oil refinery is responsible in part. Should it have some fiduciary responsibility? That is an important question for us to examine.

We need a comprehensive approach going forward. It is a wonderful opportunity for parliamentarians to get it better for Canadians. There is fear in Canadian society. We have an obligation to assuage that fear by doing good and better work. I am concerned about what the Auditor General concluded in a report in 2011, which stated that, “Transport Canada has not designed and implemented the management practices needed to effectively monitor regulatory compliance” with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods as set out by the department.

We can do better than that. We owe it to Canadians. We owe it to our companies. We owe it to shippers. We owe it to all the folks out there with good faith and goodwill who want to ensure we actually do better and do right by Canadians.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his thorough review of Bill C-3. Had the Prime Minister not prorogued, the bill probably would have been passed already. It is largely made up of inconsequential and non-controversial measures but they certainly would not achieve the much vaunted rhetoric that flows along with them.

My hon. colleague quite accurately described the legislation as somewhat incoherent in relation to these issues. Does he think we might have done better by taking the recommendations of the environment commissioner on the thematic purpose of where the gaps are in our transportation of hazardous goods, whether by rail, air, pipeline, tanker or by road and truck? Should we have taken those recommendations and looked at all the ways hazardous goods are transported in Canada? Are we addressing whether this are being done safely, whether municipalities have access to information that they should have about what materials are running through communities, and ensuring that the entire scheme of the transport of hazardous goods is addressed?

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, once again my colleague has asked a very insightful question, and in my view she is spot-on. There is an opportunity here to go back and examine the commissioner for sustainable development's report and recommendations to examine precisely the gap she has alluded to.

In July we convened a fairly urgent meeting of the transport committee. I was asked to speak a bit to an NDP motion at the time. I said it was going to be important for us to look back at what reports have been issued, such as the recent recommendations of the Senate report, which made a number of good recommendations. Here I would like to single out the good work of my colleague from Alberta, Senator Grant Mitchell, who really put his shoulder to the wheel to help think through exactly the kinds of ramifications the member's questions raise. We could be looking at other recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board in the past, which I alluded to in my closing remarks.

There is an opportunity here for us to collate and bring together the important good energies, which have already been expended to see how we can improve, and come up with a much more coherent and comprehensive approach.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, given that we do not know much about the contents of the hazardous material generally referred to as diluent, I have been doing some research into this. The hon. minister is telling us in her speech that we can ship oil safely by supertanker, but none of the current proposals for shipping Canadian fossil fuels to other countries actually deal with shipping oil. They all deal with shipping something called bitumen, which is not flowable and has to be mixed with something called diluent.

For example, the proposal by Enbridge called the northern gateway would bring supertankers up the B.C. coastline loaded with this diluent that it buys from the Middle East. It is off-loaded at Kitimat and then sent through a twinned pipeline to northern Alberta where it would be mixed with bitumen instead of upgrading it and refining it in Alberta. It is mixed with this diluent material, which is essentially a petroleum distillate called naphtha, which is mixed with benzene and which I have also discovered is mixed with butane. We do not actually know the chemical composition of diluent because it is more of a trade name. It is a commonplace term. It does not have a scientific meaning. It is definitely toxic. It goes two ways. If we were to allow this monstrous scheme to proceed, we would first ship it in, mix the bitumen in, and ship it out through a pipeline. We have no idea what is in those pipelines or in those railcars as the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic with this Bakken crude showed us.

I would ask my friend for any comments with respect to what he has been thinking in terms of whether we really know what is in those pipelines.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a debate about what is or is not and what the effects would be of this diluted bitumen with respect to pipelines. The debate is raging when it comes to existing pipelines, for example, when it comes to the question of Line 9.

I have a lot of constituents in my riding of Ottawa South who live just on the fringe of the existing location for the reversal of the flow of Line 9 from Sarnia to Montreal. They have some really serious questions about whether or not a 35 or 36-year old pipeline can withstand some of the toxicity the member alludes to with respect to this new product that is going to be flowing through it. The pipeline company assures us that the science is complete in this regard. I am not a scientist but there is one thing I know about science and that is that science is never complete.

There is a real opportunity here for us to hear more from experts at committee to find out whether or not we have a good handle on the type of diluent that is being used, the potential noxious effects, what happens if there is a spill, and what the effect would be with respect to the acidity and corrosiveness of pipelines. There are a lot of important questions that we should be asking as responsible legislators. The government has a majority at committee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the government to make sure it calls the right experts so that we can actually hear the evidence.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about this for some time now and there are some grave concerns with what the bill would do.

Does my Liberal colleague not think this bill is a bit too limited? On the fact that the Conservatives actually rejected the NDP's proposal to broaden the scope of the bill, does the member really think they would be open to some amendments?

We have not seen a government that is making real comprehensive changes to protect our coasts. Could he elaborate a little as to whether he believes the government is really being upfront about what it is trying to do here?

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of the ability to amend any bill brought forward by the government, my answer is that there is always hope.

There is always hope that the government might see fit to leave the sloganeering aside sometimes. The title of the bill is “safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act”. I hope the person who devised that slogan got a bonus, because that is not what the bill would do at all, but I suspect it is great marketing.

If the members of the Conservative caucus could see fit to leave that kind of stuff aside for a while, maybe we as legislators could come up with something to help improve the situation.

With respect to my colleague's question, there is always hope. There is an opportunity for all of us to bring amendments to bear to try to improve legislation for Canadians. If that is not why we are here, then why are here?

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, the oil spilled in the latest derailment is still burning. We are well aware of what happened with the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic this summer. There is no point in revisiting this disaster and rubbing salt on the wound—these people have suffered enough.

Does my colleague think that what happened today is trivial and insignificant compared to all other threats facing Canadians? These rail cars travel along rivers and lakes all across the country. I wonder what my colleague thinks about that.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important not to underestimate the risks involved. At the same time, there is no need to exaggerate them. In Canada a lot of products are moved by rail and this is done very safely.

As I mentioned in my presentation, it is important to remember that the percentage of oil transportation by rail is increasing rapidly in Canada—largely because the Conservatives favour rail to avoid the complexity of the regulatory systems in place in Canada. These systems may be complicated, but there is a good reason for that, namely to help protect Canadians and our land.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my remarks by congratulating the minister on her new post. I should also mention I will be sharing my time with the member for Western Arctic.

The minister talked about developing a world-class tanker safety regime for marine transport. She talked about job creation. She also mentioned that she would reach out to groups on the west coast that were concerned about marine safety. I would like to touch on those three things in my remarks and perhaps point out a few other measures she should take into consideration when thinking about the bill.

First, if the minister is serious about developing a world-class tanker traffic and marine safety system she should think about reversing the cut that was made to the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, which was shut down, as well as the proposed marine communications and traffic services centres, the MCTS. I am speaking specifically with respect to British Columbia, after a huge public outcry on the west coast regarding the shut down of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and the planned cuts to these safety centres.

I want to specifically talk about the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. This Coast Guard station has been recognized as playing a significant role in marine safety. In the last two decades in Vancouver, one of the busiest ports in the country, it has played a critical role in saving lives. It is estimated that the closure of the station will now double response times. As members know, in emergency situations time means safety. It means saving lives. Therefore, when we are talking about the doubling of response times because of the closure of the station, I really have to question if the minister is serious about developing a world-class marine safety system.

The Conservative government's short-sighted cuts to the Kitsilano Coast Guard station will put British Columbians at greater risk. The Kitsilano station is one of the busiest stations in the country. This cut will unnecessarily increase risk to British Columbians. The Coast Guard is essential for marine safety on B.C.'s coast and the action by the Conservatives who shut down not only the Kitsilano Coast Guard station but the marine communication and transport safety centres across B.C., and that is very alarming.

We have heard a lot from many groups that have spoken out about this cut and the risk to this. However, it does not seem that the government is listening. Therefore, I am asking the new minister if she will actually listen.

This was one of the busiest stations in the country. Over 300 distress calls went into this station a year. It is no longer there.

I will read what the Vancouver fire chief said about this closure. There were some actions by the government to fill in the blanks of what was left by the Kits Coast Guard station.

He states:

The temporary seasonal services announced for the harbour are no comparison to the professionally trained and equipped officers of the Coast Guard. This closure has put the safety of our harbour and waterways at risk.

This is alarming coming from the Vancouver fire chief when talking about the closure of this station.

The third point I raised was outreach. The minister said that she was willing to talk to and reach out to groups on the west coast. I will come back to that and ask specifically for her to talk to certain groups.

Let me first turn to tanker traffic off Canada's west coast. This is a critical issue in British Columbia as it is in Canada. Specifically looking at the north coast of Canada, British Columbia, I have a private member's bill that looks at banning tanker traffic off B.C.'s north coast.

There is a reason for that and there is a reason why other members have called for a ban on tanker traffic off the west coast. These are treacherous waters, with huge waves, the wind and the unpredictability of the weather systems that roll in. It is also an amazing marine ecosystem. These are reasons why we have to be extremely careful as to how much we want to open up that coast for marine traffic.

It is very important that we look at the safety of the men and women who are operating these large tankers, or vessels or fishing vessels that traverse our seas. I point specifically to the Queen of the North. That is a perfect example of why we need to have increased safety and our standards as high as possible so we can ensure the officers who traverse our seas in large ships are safe. The Queen of the North, which sank of B.C.'s north coast, is a prime example of just how treacherous these waters can be and just how important it is to have high safety standards.

I also mention the ocean ecosystem specifically in this area. I think many Canadians and people around the world know of the Exxon Valdez spill. That caused irreparable harm to the marine ecosystem on the north coast. The impact was felt for years. In fact, some say there are still impacts from that spill today. It just takes one spill or one accident to make a difference in the lives of men and women, of the officers, whether it is a fishing vessel, a large ship or even some of the recreational vessels used by men, women and families using these waters. We need to have the best safety and the best emergency response that we possibly can when it comes to dealing with the ecosystem in the north or the treacherous waters caused by weather in that area.

Canada is definitely not prepared for a major oil spill, especially of bitumen, which is what is being proposed by the government across northeastern British Columbia with the pipeline project by Enbridge, which would put an 1,100 kilometre twin pipeline to traverse bitumen, a very heavy tar-like substance. If that is filled into a tanker and there is a spill off the north coast, I cannot imagine what kind of damage that would do to our marine ecosystem. I also point out that we are not prepared to respond to a spill of that nature. This is a heavy substance. It is not something with which we are familiar in terms of response and cleanup, and B.C. is woefully unprepared for a major oil spill.

We know this because we have not even done a risk analysis of the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station to the MCTS stations off the west coast and the impact that will have on marine safety. I submitted an access to information request and this is the response I received in a letter dated May 10, 2013, “The Canadian Coast Guard has advised that there is no stand-alone risk analysis document”. This is unacceptable. We need to have a stand-alone risk analysis that can be vetted and shared with all parliamentarians and interest groups concerned about marine safety. It is unacceptable that we do not have a risk analysis document.

The minister mentioned she would reach out to the groups on the west coast concerned about marine safety. I hope she consults with the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver police and fire chiefs, the Jericho Sailing Centre, and so many others that are concerned about marine safety. In fact, if she does consult with them, she will find that they unanimously want the Kitsilano Coast Guard centre open, that they want the MCTS stations reopened, and that they want the reverses that the government has made in terms of the cuts to fisheries and oceans and the Coast Guard changed. They want to see an increase in resources and jobs, not the reverse.

I challenge the minister. If she is serious about a world class marine transportation safety system, she should start with reopening the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. Of course, he is also aware of the closure of the marine rescue centre in St. John's and the attempt to close one in Quebec as well.

I want to talk about oil spill response capabilities. Back in February, the environment commissioner talked about Canada’s lack of preparedness for a major offshore oil spill on its east coast and warned of a potential 300% jump in tanker traffic on the west coast. In June the B.C. environment officials warned the minister that even a moderate oil spill in British Columbia would overwhelm provincial resources and that industry requirements of Transport Canada are deficient in scope and scale.

I wonder why the minister is tweaking this bill and not doing a consultation across the country to find out what is actually needed to ensure that our tanker traffic, coastal communities, and waters are safe from the dangers that even a moderate oil spill would cause.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague very eloquently points out specifics of the reasons we are inadequately prepared for even a moderate oil spill response. I would add to the type of substance that is being proposed; a heavy tar-like substance, bitumen, is being proposed to be carried on these tankers.

My colleague mentioned a 300% increase in tankers off the south coast. If some of these projects go through, we could see the addition of 800 to 900 tankers a year off the south coast and over 300 tankers off the north coast. We do not have the resources to deal with even one spill, let alone the numerous spills that could occur from such a catastrophe. I mentioned the Exxon Valdez in my remarks, which was just one incident; there have been many incidents around the world.

Let us not make that happen in British Columbia or in Canada. Let us make a serious effort to consult with all stakeholders. I welcome the minister's input and I challenge her to get that input from the many interested stakeholders in marine traffic safety on the west coast.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is worthy to note that managing our waterways is critically important to all Canadians. When we talk about the waterways, we are talking about more than just the east coast, the west coast, up north, and Churchill. Even inland, there are many different issues that our waterways bring.

When we take a look at the legislation, two things come to mind. First, it is inadequate in that it does not do enough. Second, to what degree was there adequate consultation with the different stakeholders?

I wonder if the member might want to comment on those two specific points. From an economic, social, and environmental point of view, they are so critically important to Canada as a whole. Why does the member believe, or does he believe, that the government has fallen short in what it could have done within this legislation?

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a critical question. The government should be taking a serious look at all the impacts to marine safety. Yes, there is an obvious focus on the west and east coasts and the Arctic, but we need to look at all the waterways that will be affected by marine shipping right across the country.

We need to look at the MCTS stations in St. John's, St. Anthony, Saint John, Rivière-au-Renard, Montreal, Thunder Bay, Vancouver, Tofino, Comox, and Inuvik. These are centres that will be affected right across the country. Therefore, it is important that the government consider all the impacts and do a full and comprehensive look if it is really serious about developing a world-class safety system.

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill. I will stick with the Marine Liability Act amendments, because they would have a direct impact upon my riding in the Northwest Territories.

It takes me back to seven years ago when I first came to Parliament and proposed that we change the motto from “from sea to sea” to ”from sea to sea to sea” because the importance of the Arctic waters is increasing dramatically. Within those Arctic waters we need protection. We need to take care of them, and it is a complex issue.

We have in front of us the Marine Liability Act, which in some ways is the end state of protection of waters. The beginning of protection of waters lies with regulation, and right now at the Arctic Council we should be dealing with Arctic shipping regulations as internationally accepted. That is the body that can deal with that issue. In that way we could create regulations that would allow proper vessels to enter into the Arctic. Those are things that we should be doing right now. Those are things that should have the highest priority with the current government and with other Arctic governments.

However, that is not the case. Our environment minister, the chair of the Arctic Council, has chosen to highlight economic development as the main ticket in the Arctic right now, while we need to work on regulations that could protect the Arctic and could set the stage for the responsible use of the Arctic in the future.

Let us look at some of the ways that the Arctic is being proposed for use.

We are going to be shipping oil to Churchill, Manitoba, by tankers, through parts of the Northwest Passage. These are uncharted waters. These are waters that are heavily influenced by moving pack ice. What kind of regulations do we have in place to deal with that? What kinds of policies?

The second stage in most efforts to ensure protection of the environment is good policy, meaning we invest in the right places and make the right decisions in government to slow down the frequency of accidents and try to avoid oil spills. This is the second phase of any protection of waters.

The third phase is infrastructure. Right across the country we have heard that infrastructure is sorely lacking. In fact, in the Arctic we have no infrastructure for taking care of large-scale oil spills. In fact, the science does not exist today to remove oil from ice-filled waters.

What we do have in this situation is a failure to act in a sequential manner to provide protection to waters. Instead, laudably, we are putting liability forward as part of our primary objective. Whatever happens, we are going to ensure someone pays for some of it. That is the goal of the government right now.

However, where is the planning? Where is the planning that actually talks about reducing the potential for accidents that cause liability to companies and upset the system and destroy the environment? Where is that work? That is the most important work here. That is the work that would actually protect waters.

What we have is a situation in which we are bringing forward liability as the answer, and it is simply not adequate.

It is typical of the government to look at simple solutions, especially cost. Concern for taxpayers is always laudable, but without planning, we are really putting the taxpayer in a position to have even greater losses when liability cannot be covered by the insurance claims that companies are allowed to make.

How is that a sensible and practical approach to improving the safety on our three oceans? It is not there. It is not there because we are picking the last piece of the puzzle rather than outlining the whole picture of what is required to protect the waters of Canada's three oceans.

When I asked the minister a question about the scope of this bill, it seemed that she did not understand it clearly. However, it is pretty clear to me that the scope of this bill covers all of our waterways and the potential impact of ships on any rivers that reach the oceans. It perhaps has a greater significance in the Great Lakes area than in northern Canada, but theses are all issues that we need to look at and understand.

All across the north—

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies ActGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The member will have four minutes remaining to complete his speech when we resume debate on this bill.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Calgary East.

Celebrations in AlbertaStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, this was a challenging summer in Calgary.

The floods impacted southern Alberta, including the communities of Inglewood and Riverbend in my riding. Immediately after the flood, Calgary hosted the greatest outdoor show, the Calgary Stampede. The flood had extensively damaged the grounds, but the hard work of the Stampede board and the volunteers ensured a successful Calgary Stampede.

The floods did not dampen the celebration at GlobalFest. GlobalFest was held in my riding, and this year the Minister of Canadian Heritage was there. It was named in the 2000 top 100 events by the American Bus Association, and it attracted over 100,000 people this year. Each year multiple countries compete, through incredible pyro-musical displays as well as showcasing their culture through many pavilions that are set up during the five days of competition.

The civic, provincial and federal authorities all rose to the challenges of the flooding. Most importantly, residents of southern Alberta showed remarkable resilience. They all deserve a big thanks.

Impact AwardsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Marguerite MacKenzie, a linguist from Memorial University of Newfoundland, on receiving one of the prestigious Impact Awards for 2013, which was presented by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Dr. MacKenzie was recognized for her work over the past 40 years on the lnnu language, which is spoken by over 18,000 lnnu in Labrador and Quebec. The lnnu language project, led by Dr. MacKenzie, was a partnership involving several universities, together with Quebec and Labrador lnnu educational institutes.

It has produced the first dictionary in lnnu, English, and French, and is an impressive volume that includes more than 27,000 words. This dictionary, together with training and school curriculum materials, will be an invaluable tool, in both preserving lnnu language and culture and promoting the advancement of the lnnu people within Canada.

I ask all honourable members to join in congratulating Dr. MacKenzie and all those who collaborated in this project.

International TradeStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, Halloween is approaching, and Albertans fear a repeat of scary national energy program thinking.

The NDP wants to suck the life out of us with a $21 billion carbon tax. Those socialist bloodsuckers want to impale us with a gas tax hike of 10¢ a litre.

Then there is this evil Liberal name that haunts us still and wants to hand out drugs to our kids. This ghost of the NDP wants to acquire heroin with taxpayer money and inject it into the veins of Canada's children.

What is not scary is our Conservative government's recent trade agreement with the EU. This will benefit Albertans by increasing the demand for agriculture products, especially opening the door for our barley farmers. It will also provide better access to European clothing and many other products, at a reasonable price.

While the opposition parties continue with their scary policies, our Conservative government continues to work toward improving Canada's economy.

Status of WomenStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has been calling for a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls for years, echoing not only the urging of loved ones, but aboriginal leaders, the international community and all of the provincial and territorial premiers.

To bring this tragic situation to a close, a national public inquiry needs to be conducted and we need a national plan of action to mobilize departmental and administrative resources.

Today I would like to take the opportunity to commend the courage of the Conservative member for Yukon for standing up for his constituents by publicly calling for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have told us that they are tired of sending Conservative MPs to Ottawa to represent their issues when all they get back are messages from the Prime Minister to their communities.

The member for Yukon's refusal to be silenced by the PMO should be applauded. I call on his colleagues across the aisle to follow his example and tell the Prime Minister to finally listen and call a national public inquiry now.

International TradeStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, Friday's announcement that Canada reached a free trade agreement with the EU is great news for Canadian agriculture. Any reduction and elimination of tariffs opens a door of real opportunity for our producers.

Canadian farmers have long been leaders. They are determined, innovative and produce great products. They have always been quick to recognize opportunities and will, without question, seize this one.

However, it is regrettable that this momentous occasion is marred by the opposition's total lack of faith in our farmers. Their negativity and doomsday pronouncements are an embarrassment. Once again they show no confidence in our producers.

Our government knows that Canadian farmers from every sector can compete with the best if they are just given a level playing field. This is exactly what the government is providing. We are going to celebrate this tremendous achievement. We invite the other parties to join us in supporting Canadian agriculture as well.

Mia AndersonStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to congratulate Mia Anderson, an extraordinary and talented author from Portneuf. She won the 2013 Montreal International Poetry Prize for her poem titled The Antenna.

This biennial prize was created in 2011 and is one of the most coveted in the literary world. For the 2013 competition, poets from 70 countries around the world submitted nearly 2,000 works in the hope of taking home the $20,000 prize.

This year's head judge, the poet Don Paterson, said:

“The Antenna” is that rare thing—a conceit which has the good taste not to outstay its welcome, but which also makes us think again about its subject [or spiritual receivership] in an entirely new way.

However, winning this coveted prize is only one of Mia Anderson's many impressive accomplishments. She was also a familiar voice on CBC Radio dramas, a successful actress as well as a prolific author.

Congratulations, Ms. Anderson, and thank you for putting authors from Portneuf in the spotlight.

Korean War VeteransStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, 2013 marks the 60th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. It is also the Year of the Korean War Veteran, and it is our duty to pay tribute to the more than 26,000 brave Canadian men and women who served in South Korea fighting for our freedom. We have to also celebrate the sacrifice made by the 516 brave Canadians who gave their lives during that war.

This weekend I had the opportunity to speak at the opening of the Korean War exhibit at the Colchester County museum. It is a tremendous celebration of the sacrifice that the veterans made. There were many of them there. We appreciate their contribution. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Elinor Mahar and the staff at the museum for the amount of work they put into a tremendous exhibit. I encourage all the people of my constituency to stop in and see it.

Also, we have to give tribute to those veterans and those who lost their lives during this tremendous time in our country's history. Lest we forget their sacrifice.

Nobel Prize for LiteratureStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2013, the world took notice of something that we as Canadians have known for the past 40 years: Alice Munro is a great author. She is the first Canadian female author to win the prestigious Nobel Prize in Literature, and only the 13th woman to have ever won the award since its inception 112 years ago.

Alice was born in Wingham, Ontario, and now calls Clinton home. She has published more than a dozen collections of short stories, most of which focus on women living in rural southwestern Ontario.

The people of Huron—Bruce are immensely proud of her accomplishments, and I encourage all Canadians to pick up one of her books and have a read. Alice published her first collection of short stories in 1967 and has continued writing acclaimed Canadian works for the past four decades.

Congratulations to Alice and all Canadian writers, as this is a testament to the skills and the foresight of our heritage. I speak for all of us in this House when I thank her for representing Canada with such a passion and insight. We wish her all the best, in health, spirit and mind.

Genetically Modified AlfalfaStatements By Members

October 21st, 2013 / 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Union of B.C. Municipalities for passing a motion to make B.C. a GE-free area with respect to all plants and animals. This is a very important statement, especially when it concerns the potential release into the environment of GE alfalfa or GE Arctic Apple.

The so-called “coexistence plan” for alfalfa is currently being developed to pave the way for Forage Genetics International to sell genetically modified alfalfa in Canada. Coexistence does not work and GE alfalfa will contaminate other crops. A farmer's export alfalfa shipment in Washington state was rejected for this reason. Alfalfa is used as a pasture and hay for animal feed as well as for nitrogen fixation in the soil. It is also manufactured into pellets for export.

The livelihood of both organic and conventional farmers is under threat. I urge the federal government to respect the wishes of B.C. municipalities and farmers across Canada and prohibit the release of GE alfalfa in our country.