Debates of Nov. 26th, 2013

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There being no other members rising to speak, I invite the hon. member for Ahuntsic to take advantage of her right of reply. She has five minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all of my colleagues for their speeches and for their support for this bill. This demonstrates that when we work together in the interests of Canadians, we create positive results.

I will not use my five minutes because I know that we all wish to see this bill referred to the Senate so that it can follow its course. We have been debating this bill in the House for about a year or a year and a half, and it has unanimous support. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can understand that we are simply eager to vote unanimously to send this bill to the Senate.

Once again, I would like that thank everyone in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

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

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of the Environment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment responded to me a few weeks ago about in situ oil sands projects and federal environmental assessments.

In my question, I said that the Conservatives had dismantled the laws governing Canada's environmental assessment process. However, that was not enough to please their buddies in the industry. Now they are going even further to exempt in situ oil sands projects from any federal review, even though this kind of oil sands project is becoming more and more common, which is, in itself, a contradiction.

How do the Conservatives justify this decision, which does not seem informed and even seems dangerous? My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, compared the in situ oil sands projects to blueberry washing facilities. I do not know where that idea came from.

The in situ oil sands projects are nothing like a blueberry washing facility. The level of danger is not the same. If polluted water is spilled, the problem will not be the same. I did not understand and I do not think I ever will understand how my hon. colleague could keep a straight face while comparing the oil sands to blueberries. He would have to explain it to me because I do not get it.

According to the Conservatives, environmental assessment is costly and results in delays. On the contrary, good environmental assessments save money in the long term and result in fewer delays as there is less to go on the defensive about in the event of legal action. The Conservatives must learn that the environment and the economy cannot be separated. They are inextricably linked. They strengthen society and make effective environmental assessments possible.

As they say, prevention is better than a cure. We must not wait for the damage to be done; we must prevent it. Unfortunately, this exemption for in situ oil sands projects does not do that.

The Conservative government is ignoring extensive discharging of materials harmful to the environment caused primarily by the oil sands industry. Millions of litres of toxic water are dumped with disastrous environmental consequences. This is due to the Canadian government's lax approach, which is based on a weak environmental assessment process.

Canadians are worried about the government's laissez-faire attitude towards environmental protection. They are worried about the potential impact on global warming. We should remember that the government recently went to Warsaw, where it embarrassed itself once again.

I would like to know why the Canadian government and the parliamentary secretary believe that it is a good idea to exempt in situ oil sands projects. I hope that they will not use the blueberry comparison again, as it is a ridiculous response.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for the opportunity to elaborate on his question.

Our government is committed to environmental protection and sustainable development. In fact, it is this Conservative government that has been strengthening environmental laws, setting higher safety standards and has been committed to enshrining the polluter pay system into law. That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to inform the member opposite of a few facts pertaining to the federal environmental assessment process that he may not have been aware of prior to asking his question.

First, it is important for the member opposite to understand that in situ oil stands were never on the project list, so there has been no change there.

Second, this project list has been expanded to include projects that were not on it before. Therefore, in this regard, we have actually strengthened our environmental assessment process. Let me be clear. There has been absolutely no dismantling of the laws governing federal environmental assessment.

Quite to the contrary, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 strengthens environmental protection and brings the federal regime into the 21st century. This legislation brought in enforceable environmental assessment decision statements to ensure proponents comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment. Federal inspectors now have the authority to examine whether or not conditions of a decision statement are being met. There are penalties for non-compliance.

After this legislation was passed, the Minister of the Environment talked to Canadians about its implementation. Comments were sought on whether amendments should be made to the regulations that identify which projects may require a federal environmental assessment. A variety of interests provided their views, and those views were given very careful consideration. Changes to the regulations have been made to ensure they reflect those major projects that have the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction. This will increase certainty and predictability for project proponents and for all Canadians.

Let me again reiterate for my colleague opposite there has been no decision to exempt in situ oil sands projects from any federal review. In situ oil sands projects are not covered in the environmental assessment regulations that came into force through the amendments. They were not covered in the regulations before the amendments, and they were not covered in regulations under the former legislation. To make things perfectly clear for the member opposite, in situ oil sands projects have never been subject to federal environmental assessments, and federal permitting and approvals processes related to in situ projects have not changed.

Federal environmental assessment will continue to be implemented in a manner that supports responsible resource development to the benefit of all Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little angry. My honourable colleague, the parliamentary secretary, should not say that I do not know what I am talking about.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and I studied the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I can assure him that the list is new. The Conservatives are the ones who made that change and they are the ones who established a list that does not include in situ oil sands projects. They are the ones who excluded them.

There never used to be a list. Instead, there were triggers. When there was a trigger, we considered the in situ oil sands project. My colleague should not try to mislead me because I studied this issue for two years as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He should not say that I do not know what I am talking about because it makes me a little angry.

I do not intend to get angry at him because he is usually quite nice to me. However, he should not tell me that I am not familiar with this issue when I am quite knowledgeable on the subject. Before, when there was a trigger, we examined the in situ oil sands project. Now, the Conservatives have excluded those projects from the list, which is a very serious and dangerous thing. That is why we are speaking out about this and that is why I am saying that it is absolutely essential that in situ oil sands projects be included in the list or that we go back to using the trigger process that is set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We also need to let people share their views with regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Right now, environmental groups basically no longer have the right to express their views on these projects.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 had not been passed, we would continue to have a regime that requires environmental assessments of inconsequential projects with little potential for adverse impacts. That is what we talked about before in the answer with the blueberries. We would continue to have a regime without enforcement provisions. We would continue to have a regime lacking in predictable legislative timelines for the completion of an environmental assessment.

With the recent changes, environmental assessments will be focused on major projects that have a greater potential for significant adverse environmental effects. Federal resources will not be wasted considering assessments for an overly broad pool of projects.

Effective and timely environmental assessment is important for both Canada's environment and its economy. Our government's actions ensure federal environmental assessment is focused on the right projects.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.)