House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was marine.
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, employment insurance continues to be available to Canadians who need it.
The NDP's plan would increase taxes on jobs. For example, the NDP wants an $8 billion increase in benefits, which represents an increase of 65¢, or 40%, in employment insurance contributions. I know that the NDP has never created jobs and it does not understand job creation. By increasing taxes on jobs, it will kill jobs.
This government is creating jobs for Canadians.
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to protecting children, our government's record is unequivocal. We have already passed mandatory prison sentences for child sexual offences, including aggravated sexual assault and Internet luring. Unbelievably, yesterday, when the Liberal leader was asked whether he would repeal these tougher sentences, he said, “No, I wouldn't rule out repealing mandatory minimums for anyone.”
While the Liberals waffle, can the Minister of Justice explain how our government will strengthen sentencing for child sexual offenders?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, while sexual assault against children in Canada is actually on the rise, hearing that the Liberal leader is talking about repealing mandatory sentences for sexual predators is, frankly, appalling.
Both Liberal and Conservative governments have passed mandatory prison sentences. This includes an omnibus crime bill that was introduced in 1968 by—wait for it—the then justice minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Our government will soon introduce legislation to ensure multiple child sex offenders serve consecutive sentences. I hope that the Liberal Party and all parties present will support this important protection for Canadian children.
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment has alluded to what he might be doing for the plant workers in Leamington.
Is the government going to do anything for the farmers who have invested over $1,500 for every acre of tomatoes and have no market for their tomatoes next year?
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things. Of course we have a full suite of business risk management programs for farmers such as that.
We continue, with the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister, tracking down these great trade opportunities around the world. We continue to work on behalf of farmers in both those events.
I know the member from Chatham has had farm round tables talking about other alternatives for those farmers, and I have attended some of them down in his area. They trust this government to have their best interests at heart.
Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, drug shortages are a public health issue.
In recent years, those shortages have had a significant impact on the health of Canadians, the practices of health care professionals and system costs.
The NDP wants pharmaceutical companies to be required to report any disruption in the drug supply.
Will the government support our bill, which is designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that I recently announced a pan-Canadian strategy that is working with all of the provinces and territories and the drug companies to manage and prevent shortages and reduce their impact.
Part of that is also advance notices for shortages, including offering information on alternative treatments to physicians so that they can best take care of their patients.
I can reassure the member that I have also given the industry a very clear message that if this voluntary approach does not work, we will move to a mandatory approach.
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was concerned today to read that the president of Bell Media had delivered a speech warning Canadians about television unbundling.
With television bundling, cable giants force their customers to pay for channels they do not want to watch in order to access channels they do want to watch.
Bell Canada refuses to move powerful cellular antennae just 13 metres from a child's bedroom in Oakville, and now Bell is fighting consumer choice on cable TV.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister update the House on whether the government will continue implementing its throne speech commitments to defend consumers?
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadian families work very hard every single day, and they play by the rules. We know that every dollar counts for Canadian families. At the same time, we understand that companies are going to watch out for their bottom line.
It is our responsibility to look out for the bottom line of Canadian families. We believe that unbundling is a positive step to helping Canadian families. That is why last week the government directed the CRTC, under section 15 of the Broadcasting Act, to report back on options to fulfill this commitment by April 30, 2014.
Canadians deserve an à la carte option for their cable TV packages.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, housing markets across this country are facing different realities. Some are overheating and the minister must step in to calm things down. However, that is not the case everywhere.
The Government of Quebec is concerned about how the stricter incoming mortgage rules are going to affect the Quebec economy.
We understand the consequences of excessive household debt. However, before intervening, will the Minister of Finance take into account Quebec's concerns and consider mitigation measures for regions where the housing market is not overheating?
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we constantly monitor the housing market to ensure its ongoing stability.
That is why we took prudent action to strengthen the housing market by reducing the maximum mortgage period to 25 years on government-insured mortgages, lowering the maximum amount lenders can provide when refinancing mortgages to 80%, withdrawing taxpayer backing on home equity lines of credit provided by lenders, and reducing risk for taxpayers by limiting the use of portfolio insurance.
Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Citizens Climate Lobby is on the Hill this week calling on MPs to put a price on carbon pollution, specifically a carbon fee and dividend system.
Fee and dividend is far more effective than cap and trade. It is a revenue neutral fee that punishes pollution, puts money into taxpayers' pockets, and creates jobs.
Will the Conservatives protect the environment and taxpayers by supporting carbon fee and dividend?
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to address climate change. We have introduced new emissions regulations for vehicles and we were the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired plants.
Our actions speak for themselves. They are working. Carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. Again, we are doing all this without a carbon tax, a tax that would raise the price of everything for Canadian families. We are not going there.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the Conservatives about the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the Senate expense scandal, they seem to immediately forget the question and resort to the same meaningless lines.
We want to know which documents were handed over to the RCMP. We want to know which version of the story—because there are several—is accurate. We never get an answer. Here is another question.
Did Nigel Wright contact the Prime Minister's Office after he was contacted by the RCMP? Canadians deserve an answer.
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs
Again, Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility. What is very clear is that had the Prime Minister known about this scheme, he would in no way have allowed it to happen. Of course, we are continuing to assist the authorities in this investigation.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the Governor General’s History Awards: Catherine MacDonald, Matt Henderson, Neil Orford, Romy Cooper, Graeme Cotton, Lucie Jean-Mercier, Rachel Collishaw, Roy Mills, William C. Wicken, René Binette, Maria Luisa Romano, Ken Duncan, Ray Reckseidler, Julie Dumont, and Catherine Perron.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 gives communities real and meaningful input on decisions on drug injection facilities that can have a serious impact on those communities. In my November 7 Thursday statement, I had hoped that after hearing from their constituents last week, the New Democrats would end their filibuster of the bill, but that did not happen.
It is important that this key bill make progress this fall. Therefore, we will continue debating that bill on Thursday. That means that Tuesday, November 26, will now be the fourth allotted day.
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This is a piece of legislation that exists as a result of negotiations that have been going on for literally 12 years between the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. It mirrors legislation that has already been passed in both of those provincial legislatures, so we will not be amending it here. If we were to do so, it would mean that they would have to go back to the drawing board.
Bill C-5 is an attempt to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry, which have been separated and left to regulation. That is a problem that I have certainly seen with other legislation. In my former jurisdiction of Nova Scotia, the government for 20 years did the same thing with the Trade Union Act, on the one hand, and with health and safety legislation on the other. What we found out, certainly in the case of health and safety legislation, was that it was not good enough to do it all by regulation. We had to make sure that the rules of the road, the principles, were properly articulated. The regulations would be there to make sure that those principles were carried forward.
It is good to see that the three governments involved here see that this is important to have done. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.
The bill would put the practice into legislation based on three basic principles. Number one is that offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protection that is at least as good as what exists for onshore workers. This is a situation that has existed for far too many years and is finally being addressed here. Number two is the protection of employee rights; that is, to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal will be covered in the bill. Number three is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibility in the workplace.
We support this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction for offshore safety, but more work still needs to be done. We hope that the federal government continues to work with the provinces to strengthen offshore safety regulations and that an independent stand-alone safety regulator is created for the future. That last point is something that came out of the Wells commission that recommended that a stand-alone regulator be put in place. It was something that was not agreed to by the parties and therefore does not exist. We think it is very important. I am going to speak a little more about that here this afternoon.
As usual, a bill like this comes to the floor of the legislature as a result of hard lessons, and in this case, lessons learned from years of offshore tragedies.
It has been more than 30 years since Canada's worse offshore disaster. In 1982, 84 people were killed when the drill rig Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland. A royal commission was subsequently convened in 1984, and that commission criticized the industry for poor safety training and equipment and lax inspections.
I want to take a moment to read a section from a book that was written by a good friend of mine, someone who lost her brother in that disaster back in 1982.
Susan Dodd wrote an exceptional piece of work called The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, which not only talks about that disaster, what led to it, what resulted from it, and the devastation it caused to the families involved but very much documents the problems that resulted as a consequence of legislators not paying attention. It was a result, frankly, of the power of the oil and gas sector to basically have its way and go about its business and of governments saying, “Thank you very much. We'll take some royalty revenue from you, but we'll try not to get in your way”.
I want to read, if I may, a passage from the book, which I think underlines why it is so important that we not only pay attention to the bill but that we also think about the role we play here as legislators to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide the laws, the regulations, the rules of the road, and the protections that would ensure that people living and working in this country and for this country are safe.
Let me quote:
The shock of the Ocean Ranger disaster was not that oil production was dangerous, but rather the realization that governments had betrayed people's faith. People trusted governments to use reasonable regulation to mitigate the risks of oil jobs. That trust was misplaced. There were no provincial safety regulations in the Newfoundland offshore when my brother and his eighty-three co-workers died.... Time and again, publics trust governments to ensure that companies operate with reasonable prudence. Time and again we are shocked by a new disaster caused by corporate negligence. We say we will “never forget.”
We do it all the time in this House.
Then we forget. And then it happens again.
The author goes on to talk about the fact that the most recent example is 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, resulting in the worst U.S. marine oil spill in history.
It is a fascinating book. I urge all members, or anyone interested, to take a look at it. Again, it is The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, and the author is Susan Dodd.
It is particularly important for those of us living on the coast, and in my case, living on the east coast. We know that Shell has invested over $1 billion to further explore an oil field off our coast. BP, in another area offshore, is further investing nearly $1 billion in exploring a similar development.
In other words, we cannot pretend that it is not coming again, that we are not going to be out there again. There are rigs out there off Newfoundland. We know that there are drilling rigs and exploratory rigs out there. There is equipment moving around our coast. We need to make sure that the people working in our offshore and the people servicing the offshore are provided with the necessary protections to ensure that these kinds of disasters do not happen again. It is important that we do that now.
I should say, of course, that a more recent review of offshore safety came in 2009, after the crash of Cougar Flight 91, which killed 17 people. The Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash made a number of recommendations, most notably the creation of an autonomous and dedicated safety regulator, which is not included.
My colleague, the member for St. John's East, raised a question in the House today about a recommendation that has gone before transport to ensure that airplanes and helicopters are able to operate an hour after they no longer have any oil or have run dry. It is an important safety measure that would have ensured that the disaster I referred to, Cougar Flight 91, did not happen. We continue to ask the government questions about why it is that it is unwilling to introduce that particular requirement for the offshore.
While I am disappointed, as others on this side have said, that this bill does not call for an independent safety regulator, I believe that it is a step in the right direction.
Again, it implements many of the principles of occupational health and safety. As I have said, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers. The protection of employee rights to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal needs to be included.
That is an issue that has been raised in this session of the House in relation to Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill. In there are changes that lessen the responsibilities of health and safety inspectors. We are concerned about the implications those changes would have on Bill C-5. As I said, this bill talks about setting up a balance between health and safety protections onshore and offshore and about providing clear protection of the rights of employees to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal. We are concerned that the omnibus budget bill, in fact, lessens those rights in federal jurisdictions and therefore may have some implications here. I understand that in a recent briefing on this bill, we were unable to get answers to those particular questions, but we will continue to ask.
Finally is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.
As I have suggested to members, we will continue to see further exploration, further development of natural resources, off our coasts. We need to make sure that we provide the environmental protections necessary, if we are going to go forward, to ensure that no problems exist and that no problems are created that endanger our natural resources, coastlines, industries, fisheries, environment, marine life, or oceans. It is an issue that has come up on the east coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.
We know that the issue of the development of the Old Harry site is a controversial one. It is controversial for reasons like this. We must make sure that we have protections in place for the people who work on any particular drill site and that the environmental protections are in place before any company is allowed to proceed with any development.
In the Gulf, as we have heard in this House, if there is an oil spill, God forbid, it takes upward of a year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence to empty and the water to cycle around. It would be absolutely devastating to Quebec, New Brunswick, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, of course, to the waters that flow into and out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is important that we pay attention to how we are moving forward and ensure that all of our laws are properly constructed to cover any potential problems that may exist.
This is a situation where laws are just now catching up with a disaster that happened 30 years ago, in which 84 people lost their lives. We have to be able to respond more quickly. We have to make sure we can look forward and learn from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let us not wait until the worst case scenario actually presents itself, and let us bring legislation forward to prevent the kinds of disasters we have talked about, which happened in the past and are happening in other jurisdictions.
That is why we need to move forward and work closely with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. On another offshore related issue, the Province of Nova Scotia has extended a moratorium against oil and natural gas development in Georges Bank. That area was determined to be extraordinarily vulnerable, a very sensitive ecosystem, very much a nursery for the fishery throughout the east coast. It has been determined in the past by both the federal and provincial governments working together that we needed to prevent any industrial development in that area of the ocean.
As well, the Province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation to make sure that will not happen, but the federal government, this time, has failed to work with the Province of Nova Scotia. We will continue to push the government on that question. The moratorium must be extended to protect the industry that now exists, the fishery, to protect the ecosystem, to protect our oceans and to protect our environment throughout the east coast.
Again, that is another part of the legislative framework that needs to be put in place to ensure that, as developments continue to move forward, we have the protections in place to ensure that damage is not done to what already exists and what might exist well into the future.
Both BP and Shell Oil are set to conduct new deepwater oil exploration off Nova Scotia for the first time since 2005. We believe that our workers deserve nothing less than to feel safe not only in their workplaces but, in the case of the offshore industry, in transit to the workplace as well.
I hope the government will continue to work with the provinces involved to make sure that offshore safety regulations are strengthened and that we can avoid offshore tragedies like Cougar flight 91, the BP spill in the Gulf, and the Ocean Ranger disaster.
It was a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to any questions.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague with his understanding of the issue, particularly, coming from the Maritimes where so many people are involved in the offshore industry.
Where I live in northern Ontario, we have people who are on flying crews and in isolated communities. They are away from home for a long time. However, when we look at the offshore industry in particular, we see there have been a number of disturbing accidents and problems in the past. Certainly, the whole country still remembers what happened with the Ocean Ranger disaster and the lack of safety protocols that left so many men exposed and damaged so many families. We see the loss of the helicopter that went down recently off Newfoundland. There were the same questions and same issues of safety.
Now we see the issues across the country, with respect to various pipeline proposals, where pipelines have blown out because the proper safety systems were not in place, causing either loss of life or heavy damage to the environment.
Given the sensitivities in the maritime culture in terms of fisheries, habitat and danger to people out on the ocean, I would ask my hon. colleague this question: what does he think we need to do specifically in terms of safety issues and making sure there are clear rules in place?
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. The issues around health and safety in the workplace and otherwise are very important to that member. He does great work in his constituency on behalf of working people. He is right that safety is a big deal in the maritime environment. Fishing is one of the most dangerous businesses there is. Back in the late winter, five fishermen died in Nova Scotia when their vessel went down in a storm in the southwest just off the Liverpool area. They were out fishing for halibut. It is a dangerous industry.
We need to do more. I have talked with my friends and people within the industry about what we can do to make sure the people who toil in that industry are safer. It is a collaboration that needs to happen. Government needs to take some leadership on this issue to make sure there are rules and they are enforced. It is all well and good to establish the greatest workplace rules, but if we do not enforce them and hold people accountable then they will end up not doing their job.
We have only gone part way. That is why in this case we had hoped the government would also move forward with an independent regulator who people could deal with and speak to and who would help implement good safety and health laws on the offshore.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and the points he raised. I am on the heels of the member for Timmins—James Bay, who asked a question. He represents my hometown and knows full well that while growing up, if we felt an earth tremor, we looked at the clock to see who was on shift, because it might have been our dad, uncle, or brother who was working in the mines. We know full well that we need safety in the workplace.
I am sure my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour remembers when Shawn Hatcher died in 1999. He was crushed by a door on the Nordic Apollo. My colleague would remember that, because he was the provincial leader at that time. There were no charges laid.
I look to where we need to go. We do need an independent safety agency. Our colleague in Newfoundland, Lana Payne, who is the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, has said point blank that while this bill is a positive step forward, we need an independent safety agency. We need to have a body that oversees what is going on when it comes to the safety of our workers offshore.
I would say to my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that it is not in this bill. What is the problem? What is the holdup here? Why is it that the federal government will not move forward on creating an independent safety agency?
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, yes, I do remember that tragic incident in 1999. As the member said, no one was charged.
I was there in the legislature in 1992 when 26 miners died as a result of the explosion underground in the Westray tragedy. I was the labour critic in the NDP caucus in those days, and I sat down literally hours after that disaster with families in Stellarton and heard the stories and felt the grief. I sat through days, weeks, months, and years of investigations, of reviews, of debate, and we never did, as far as I was concerned, the legislation that we require to properly hold officials accountable for enforcing health and safety laws. There are the three Rs, in terms of the responsibility that both the employer and the employees have to have, but we were never able to hold the proper authorities accountable in that case.
It was the same thing in the case of the Nordic Apollo.
We have always said that government should have a dedicated prosecutor for health and safety. We need to make sure the legislation holds people accountable so that they will be charged.
There was a Westray bill that passed in the House, which dealt with corporate responsibility. It was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the former leader of the NDP in the House, Alexa McDonough, and that is a start; but still nobody has been charged under that legislation. It takes commitment by government to make sure people are held accountable.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his remarks. As a former miner myself, I was in the Brunswick mine in 1976 when six people were killed underground in 18 months. That is why we passed legislation on the right to refuse work.
I remember the Westray act, which—as the hon. member said just now—was designed to help the loved ones of the people who worked there. In Bill C-4, we see that the government wants to change the definition of unsafe work. It says that people are refusing too much work.
Is Parliament able to take the responsibility for passing a bill that actually does not make responsible people responsible? It is irresponsible on the part of the government to introduce bills that will encourage companies to adopt unsafe work practices. That is what will happen, just as it happened at the Westray mine, at the Brunswick mine, and at many other places of work. With the Conservative government, we are moving backwards.
Does the hon. member agree with me?