Debates of Nov. 4th, 2013

Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the young member for Sherbrooke. Yes, we are working for this generation and for all future generations.

Private companies, as in the case of Lac-Mégantic, are a very good example. So far, we know that up to $60 million or $80 million will be spent on the site. However, the MM&A was insured for $25 million only. It is unbelievable. We have not finished digging and decontaminating the site.

We must demand more protection for our constituents. To do so, companies that ship such hazardous materials need to have much more extensive coverage, especially when they go through the downtown core of a number of communities across Canada.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing by time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As we can see, this bill has a long title. Bill C-3 is an omnibus bill that seeks to enact or amend five pieces of legislation. For the benefit of those watching us, I will try to summarize it. The first part implements the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act that has allowed the Department of Transport to compensate certain airlines for any war-risk losses, damages or liability. As a result, the government can cover the cost of damages related to unlawful actions, such as rebellions, attacks or armed conflicts. The goal is to ensure the continued operation of Canada's major aviation services in the event of seizure, regardless of whether stakeholders are able to obtain insurance at that time.

With respect to Part 2, to provide certain persons with powers to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority.

Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010.

Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, by imposing new requirements on operators of oil handling facilities, including the obligation to notify the minister of their operations, and submit their plans to the minister.

Part 5 thus introduces a new requirement whereby the operators of oil handling facilities must submit to the minister a response plan, civil and criminal liability for response organizations engaged in response operations, the application of new measures and monetary sanctions, with new investigative powers for Transport Canada investigators.

After initial review of this omnibus bill, and despite the rejection of our proposal to expand its scope, I offer my qualified support for Bill C-3 at second reading, while drawing attention to the Conservatives’ lack of credibility with respect to marine and aviation safety issues, and their contradictory policies.

As the saying goes, this Conservative government does not put its money where its mouth is. This has become the trademark operating mode of this Conservative government. This bill is an attempt to make up for its lack of credibility in the area of transport safety, particularly with respect to tanker traffic on the West Coast and growing opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline, first proposed in 2006.

This bill also implements the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010, to which Canada is a signatory.

The government is trying to make up for lost time, which is unfortunately difficult to do. In the fall of 2012, two large ships at sea off the West Coast were wrecked because of the current volume of traffic. The amendments proposed in this bill are not enough to prevent a catastrophic spill. The context of the bill puts the emphasis rather on administrative organization and a real failure to improve the environment. Mr. Ben West of ForestEthics Advocacy has said that we have moved ahead quickly in the wrong direction on this matter.

If the Conservative government was really concerned about safety, why did it not apply what was agreed to under the 2010 convention immediately? If Bill C-3 was really designed to promote greater safety with respect to oil tanker traffic, a Conservative government should have seized the opportunity to cancel the cuts in the most recent budgets and the shutdown of marine safety programs.

The NDP is committed to the polluter pays principle. We also want to strengthen the petroleum boards' capacity, which is currently zero, to deal with oil spills, as recommended by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In addition we want the Coast Guard to be required to work with its U.S. counterparts and to conduct a parallel study to examine the risks resulting from additional tanker traffic in Canadian waters.

It is appalling that this government is constantly making cuts in structures that have proven effective in the past, or that it is closing them, just as traffic increases and the ships carrying oil and potentially hazardous substances get bigger.

I wonder what is the idea behind the bill before us. I moderately support the bill, but I would like it to go to committee and have experts speak out on parts 4 and 5.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks.

Like me, she lives in the Montreal area, through which flows the magnificent St. Lawrence. Like me, she recognizes the economic importance of the river, a priceless resource that is also a source of drinking water for the entire Montreal area. The St. Lawrence also represents a major thoroughfare for shipping as an economic vector for the transport of goods.

I would like my colleague to go into greater detail about the importance of setting up machinery to ensure that goods are transported safely. I would also like her to talk about the importance of protecting our magnificent St. Lawrence River, its importance economically and as a tourist attraction, and the fact that it is also a source of drinking water.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her timely question. She is well aware that I represent a constituency on the South Shore of our beautiful and mighty St. Lawrence.

Since my election to this House, I have noticed that the Conservative government is unfortunately not concerned about the environment or climate change.

We must protect our ecosystem, and our fauna and flora. We have a duty to preserve the environment for future generations. I would like my children and grandchildren to have access to drinking water that is not contaminated. God knows what that is going to cost them, because future generations will inherit a heavy burden through the inaction of this Conservative government.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will merely repeat the same question I asked my colleague about the requirement for parallel action by the government.

It is all very well to pass a bill that makes the polluter pay. As I have said, this is the polluter-pay principle long advocated by the NDP. At the same time, however, Canadians and Canadian organizations are not given the necessary resources to clean things up.

They make people pay, but they are closing marine search and rescue centres. Agencies are not even given the resources to do the cleaning up. It will therefore mean a higher cost for Canadian consumers, for the citizens.

Why this parallelism between two measures taken by the government?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my young colleague for her timely question. I will answer it by saying that unfortunately, this Conservative government is not concerned about the environment or the costs that could result from its inaction or its approach.

The Conservatives act only after the fact. Prevention is not part of their thinking. After the event, it is necessary to legislate and think about compensating people, instead of working within a preventive framework, step by step.

Unfortunately, however, we cannot blame this Conservative government, because as far as it is concerned, science does not exist. The Conservatives govern exclusively on the basis of their ideology.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the representative of the people of LaSalle—Émard to debate Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There is too much noise in the chamber. I would ask hon. members, if they wish to carry on conversations, to keep them really hushed or to go to their respective lobbies.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little about where I come from. My father was born in southwestern Nova Scotia, in Pubnico, by the sea. My mother was born in L'Islet-sur-Mer, Quebec, near the St. Lawrence River. I was fortunate to grow up by the Bécancour River.

I am fortunate that my constituency borders the St. Lawrence River. My partner often asks me whether I am a cowboy or a sailor. He is more of a cowboy, but I tell him right off the bat that I am a sailor. For me, water is a vital resource. It is a source of life. Not only is water part of my personal story, but it is also part of the heritage of Canadians and that of first nations.

Lakes and rivers were the highways. They made communication and transportation possible. That is a good thing because the bill we are currently debating happens to deal with that reality, which has been part of our history for centuries. I would particularly like to focus on the parts of the bill that deal with marine transportation. I am referring to the freight and passenger transportation using our waterways, lakes and rivers. Must I remind you that our motto is From Sea to Sea? Now, it has even become From sea to sea to sea to reflect the reality of Canada's north, where another ocean borders our country.

Earlier, my colleague from Nova Scotia spoke at length about the many kilometres of coastline that we have in Canada. We are surrounded by oceans. We have lakes and rivers. There is no need for me to tell you how important all of this is.

We have come to realize that more and more materials are being shipped today on our waterways. And not just any kind of materials. Tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010 and is set to triple again by 2016. Pipeline expansion projects would increase crude oil shipments from 300,000 to 700,000 barrels a day. This represents a challenge of sorts for Canada. I for one believe that we can turn this challenge into an opportunity.

I served as opposition science and technology and industry critic. Along with the challenges associated with the increase in shipments of materials, I see opportunities for Canada to become a leader in protecting the waterways that surround this country. We could also use our know-how to create jobs that would benefit science and technology, including oceans sciences and the fields of shipping logistics and shipbuilding engineering. This has been mentioned. The risk of accidents could thus truly be minimized.

Action needs to be taken in the area of prevention. We cannot act after the fact because we know that these disasters wreak havoc on fragile ecosystems and that the damage is sometimes irreversible. I am referring in particular to the ecosystems found primarily in Canada’s North.

So then, this is an excellent opportunity for us to talk about environmental protection.

As I said before—and I will say it again—protecting the environment does not conflict with responsible economic development. It provides opportunities for job creation, wealth creation and knowledge development for Canadians.

Still, the bill puts things in place. The NDP will support the bill because it contains things that ensure that we are moving in the right direction. The bill provides the following: intensification of tanker inspections, increased air surveillance to monitor maritime traffic and detect oil spills, a review of the requirements that apply to escort tugs, broadened research on oil products, and the list goes on.

This is exactly the direction I was talking about. In other words, we need to know the environments these goods will pass through, but we also need to have good knowledge of the goods themselves. In addition, we need to have plans in place in case of an emergency or a disaster.

Several steps are necessary to develop a coherent system and show that we are really serious about protecting the environment and about the transportation of petroleum products, in this case. This is important because we really have to consider the increase in the transportation of these goods.

Transportation of hazardous materials by rail has also increased. The tragedy this summer made us realize that Canada was ill-prepared and that we were then obliged to clean up the mess. Did we do it the best way possible? Were we prepared to do it? Did we really handle it well?

If Canada purports to reclaim Canadian sovereignty in Canada's far north and is really serious about it, we have to have fully studied the environment, we have to have the ships and inspections required to protect the environment, but above all, we have to have a rock-solid plan for what to do in case of a disaster. It is really important to allocate the resources required so that the measures are in place when there is significant marine transportation of petroleum products.

This bill is a step in the right direction. However, Canada needs to be really serious about allocating resources so that we can study or continue to study these fragile ecosystems in our oceans and drainage basins. We must also use the expertise of Canadians in science and technology and ocean sciences so that our expertise can be spread internationally.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LaSalle—Émard for her speech and for having mentioned growing up near the Bécancour River. I know she is very interested in environmental issues.

Earlier, I asked my colleague about whether or not companies should be better equipped and have the highest possible level of liability in case of very serious accidents that can impact our ecosystem for decades and centuries to come.

Should the companies that deal with the transportation of hazardous materials be responsible for their actions in case of an accident? Should they have sufficient insurance to pay for cleanup costs? At present, unfortunately, it is the public that has to foot the bill because companies are not adequately covered. What does she—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for raising this important issue. Responsibility for this matter should rest with the companies involved in developing resources and transporting them on Canadian waterways.

Indeed, these companies should be held accountable; it is the honourable thing to do. As the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development pointed out, protecting the environment makes good business sense. Companies that behave ethically and responsibly and treat our environment as a valued asset would receive social recognition for their efforts.

Our governments should also shoulder their share of responsibility. They need to implement strict inspection systems. They need to ensure that companies, which are always guided by profit whether we like it or not, implement emergency preparedness plans. Any responsible governments should see to this.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her excellent speech and for her participation in this debate.

I represent a riding with several coasts: the coast of James Bay, the coast of Hudson Bay and the coast of Ungava Bay. People understand the environmental, social, economic and historical importance of the St. Lawrence River. This waterway is not only beautiful; it is also historically important. In fact, we met more than 400 years ago along its shores, did we not?

I would like my colleague to tell me how she interprets this. I have a hard time understanding how the government can miss such a good opportunity to do things properly and express a broad vision that is desperately lacking from this bill.

Does she feel that the government is missing the boat?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like the expression “to miss the boat”. In the 21st century, we must understand that the economy is not an end onto itself.

The Conservatives believe that the economy is an end onto itself. But it is not. The economy provides a means for living in society and sharing wealth. The economy has several pillars, including social acceptance. We cannot run rough shod over communities, continue as though it was business as usual and ignore a lot of things.

We have to have a connection with communities, show social acceptance and protect the environment. Only at that point do we have a sustainable economy. However, for the Conservatives, the economy is an end onto itself. Everything else does not matter. We have to change this view and think of the economy as a means for living in a society. Protecting the environment is one condition for living in a society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-3. It is an interesting bill, to say the least.

I have some opening remarks that I would like to get on the record regarding what I think are some interesting points.

First, it is important to note that here we are in day two of debate, and I give credit to the government as it has not yet introduced time allocation. I think that is an encouraging thing. I hope that I do not precipitate the government bringing in time allocation, but I think it is important to recognize that it has not.

The other interesting thought I want to share with the House is in regard to the name of the bill. It is an interesting name, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. If one has listened to a lot of the debate that has taken place today, there has been a great deal of discussion about our environment and oil, and the importance of those two issues. I plan on adding some comment on that.

Suffice it to say that I believe there is someone somewhere within the Prime Minister's Office, who I suspect gets paid quite well with tax dollars, whose job it is to come up with creative names for the legislation that comes before the House of Commons. I have had the opportunity to briefly go through the bill and I never would have thought of it as being the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. To me, that is not necessarily the most appropriate name.

When I think of the bill, after having gone through it somewhat briefly, a lot of the changes are of a very technical nature. In fact, members will find more substantial changes to legislation affecting our waterways or our environment in budget legislation. We have had three huge budget bills that contained, for example, changes for our waterways. Hundreds, if not thousands, of waterways were profoundly affected by using the back door of a budget bill to make significant changes to our waterway and environmental legislation.

Of course, we had a bill within the budget bill, Bill C-38, which was passed, that I thought was quite an interesting change. I think very few people picked up on it, but it was a fairly significant change. In essence, it allowed the cabinet to get more politically involved in pipeline projects by getting the final say. As opposed to allowing our National Energy Board to review and base decisions on science and the best interests of the environment, we had legislation, again brought through under the pretense of a budget implementation bill, that made quite a significant change in allowing the cabinet to make the decision. The bill took the decision out of the regulatory regime and ultimately it now rests with the cabinet. Again, this was something that was done in a budget bill.

Having said that, I want to respond to a lot of the comments made by members of the New Democratic Party particularly, and to a certain extent members from the Conservative Party, that I found quite interesting on the whole issue of oil and the impact oil has on our environment. This has been widely covered in the discussions. The transportation of oil is of national interest. It is not something that Canadians take lightly. Indeed, it is a very serious issue that deserves a great deal of debate inside the House.

It has been interesting to follow some of the debate on this very important issue. Oil is a natural resource from which all of us have benefited immensely. Every Canadian from coast to coast to coast has benefited from Canada's ability to export oil. It is what has enabled us to pay for much of what we have today. It has improved the quality of every Canadian's lifestyle. It is encouraging when we see developments where we have capitalized on this wonderful natural resource, whether in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Saskatchewan.

It is also important that we behave responsibly with respect to our environment and the way we transport that oil, whether by train, pipeline, or ship. There are areas we can improve upon.

I have been following the debate on the Keystone issue, as have many Canadians. What I like about Keystone is that it has shown the different types of leadership for each political party. All three leaders have gone to the United States to deal with the transportation of oil via pipelines.

On the one hand, the leader of the New Democratic Party, a while back, went to the U.S. and dumped all over Canada, and to a certain degree, our natural resources. I do not think it went well.

The leader of the Liberal Party went to Washington and talked about the benefits of Keystone for both Canada and the U.S., with an emphasis on the benefits to Canada and how important it is that we also pay attention to our environment.

The Prime Minister, bypassed Washington and flew to New York. In New York, his statement was that the government would not accept no for an answer. I suspect that this profound statement by the Prime Minister in New York did not keep President Obama up late at night. Given the importance of Keystone to all the stakeholders, I believe that the Prime Minister should have gone to Washington, discussed it in a conciliatory fashion, negotiated in good faith, lobbied, and shown concern for the environment.

Pipelines are important for transporting oil. If it were not for the pipelines, the amount of train traffic would increase substantially. We are all aware of the rail lines and the number of accidents that have occurred.

We need to do a lot more in terms of rail line safety and ensuring that communities, where there is a high density of population, or even a low-density population, or a pristine environment, whether it is lakes or rivers, are being protected. We could do a whole lot more in ensuring a secure environment in the transportation of oil in our pipelines and on our trains.

When we look at the specifics of Bill C-3 in terms of what it would do, and when we reflect on what I have stated, I am suggesting that once it is all said and done, we could have done a whole lot more in taking that—and I often use these words—holistic approach. I do believe that it is an applicable term for this piece of legislation. I believe we could have taken a larger holistic approach in dealing with these issues, as opposed to it being done in a piecemeal fashion.

In order to illustrate that, I thought I would highlight specifically what is inside the legislation. This way the House will get a better understanding of why I am suggesting it should have been a stronger holistic approach.

In essence, the bill is broken into four different parts. Part one deals with the minister undertaking to indemnify all aviation industry participants. This gets back to the whole issue of terrorism and war risks. The issue of insurance has become a very hot issue in what role the government should and could be playing. This is something that has been deemed necessary. From what I understand, the government in the past has attempted to bring it in, and it has incorporated it into this bill. I suspect the genesis of the idea might be the whole 9/11 issue and the cost that followed 9/11 in terms of insurance. There is some benefit in acknowledging that part one is an important part of the legislation.

We would go on then to part two. I thought part two was interesting. It mentions that new powers, comparable to the powers exercised by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, are being given to the Canadian Forces air worthiness investigation authority to enable it to investigate military-civilian occurrences. Again, this is something that is hard to argue against. Based on my understanding and what has been provided to me, this is a movement in the right direction.

I was a member of the Canadian Forces for a few years. The area I was posted to was squad 435 search and rescue, in air traffic control in Edmonton. I had the opportunity to meet with a number of pilots, navigating officers, radar officers and aircraft professionals, and I can tell the House that there is a high degree of incredible individuals who have a level of expertise that should and could be tapped into. I would think there is some merit in what is being proposed here, and to that extent, there is merit for part two.

We then get into an area in which there has been a great deal of discussion today. That is the area I was referring to on the Canada Marine Act. In relation to the effective date of the appointment of a director of a port authority, we need to recognize we have 18 Canadian port authorities that are operating in Canada.

We are seeing a little more clarity in the appointment process in relation to the effective date of an appointment for the director. There is some merit there. When I say “merit”, it does not necessarily mean it absolutely, definitely should happen; I mean that there is benefit in allowing the bill to go to committee, and in principle I am supporting that aspect of it.

Part 4 is a very important aspect of the bill, and I suspect it is one of the reasons we are getting so much discussion on it. Hopefully I will be able to get through reading this part, because it is important.

Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010, in particular a couple of clauses.

The MLA provides for the liability of ships' owners and operators for damage caused by pollutants. In particular, it implements in Canada the liability scheme established by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage of 2001, which is known as the bunker convention; and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992, and in 2003, the protocol to that convention, the acronym being the IOPCF convention, creating the international compensation fund and a supplementary fund to compensate for oil pollution damage covered by the CCL and the bunker convention.

That, in my mind, emphasizes just how important it is for us to look at the whole issue of oil transportation. That is the reason I spent some time talking about the ways in which we transport oil. We have a lot of control here in Canada through our rail lines. We have control through our pipelines to properly regulate and protect. Where it becomes more challenging is once we get to our oceans and our ports.

It can be very difficult to ensure that we are providing the type of diligence that is important and providing the resources that are necessary for enforcement. We talk about what takes place within the line of responsibility, I believe 200 miles from our coastline, and we anticipate that it will be extended. We have to have an insurance scheme in place, which could lead to a wide variety of revenue sources to support it, but we have to have compensation sufficient to clean up the oil spills that will take place.

There are vast amounts of oil in our oceans today, and the question is what is actually being done to clean up that oil. Not only do we have a responsibility for Canada and our shorelines in that 200-mile zone, but I would argue that we can go beyond that. That is why it is important as a nation that we should be leading some dialogue on how we can have an impact on cleaning up oil spills throughout the world, whether it is the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or any other international body of water where the restrictions are not as strong. The need is still there, and the Canadian public want and desire strong leadership on this issue.

That is one of the reasons I believe the government could have come up with more substantial legislation to deal with the many concerns that Canadians have on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts and words.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned earlier that he spent some time in the Canadian Armed Forces. Therefore, I thought I would ask him his opinion on one aspect of Bill C-3 that we in the NDP think should be looked at carefully in committee.

In part 2, under section 19, it appears that the military is now being given the traditional Transportation Safety Board investigative powers in the event of an aviation accident involving the military. If we assume that might involve a military-civilian incident, the question then becomes whether the rules that the TSB used to have to follow, including making its report public, would apply to this new military process. At the moment it appears the military only has to report to the minister of defence.

Therefore, given his experience and interest in this kind of issue, does my colleague from Winnipeg North think we should make sure that reports of any incidents involving military and civilian aircraft are made public in the fashion of the TSB?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is merit to what the member is ultimately advocating. My biggest concern in regard to the Canadian Forces is to recognize the level of expertise they can bring to the table. There is some merit in us moving forward and taking advantage of that level of expertise in a more formal process. To what degree should they be leading investigations on military and civilian incidents that occur? That is something I would feel more comfortable with the Liberal Party critic addressing.

There is no doubt that we support the bill in principle in terms of sending it to committee. I suspect that there is a need for us to look at getting some answers to some specific questions, such as the member has just posed, and looking at ways in which we could improve the bill by bringing forward amendments that would make it a stronger and better piece of legislation.

I am not overly optimistic, based on the past, that the government would accept amendments. However, I am a guy that looks at a glass as being half full, so hopefully we will see some positive—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the concern that my colleague from Winnipeg North just expressed is very important and it worries me. The government has a record of not really allowing amendments to occur at committee. My colleague mentioned that the legislation affects the transport of Canadian energy to market. It seems to me that because of that we should do a very careful job with the legislation.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that it is especially important, because of that fact, that the government seriously consider amendments at committee on Bill C-3?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do share the concerns the member for Kingston and the Islands has expressed. It is important for us to recognize, as the member highlighted, that this is the way we transport a vital natural resource. Canadians have a vested interest in seeing that we are as successful as possible in protecting our environment and being able to use that natural resource to the best of our ability.

The legislation could be doing so much more. It does fall short. Using amendments to improve the quality of the legislation would be wonderful to see. We could only hope that the government would be receptive to those amendments because I am sure there is going to be a high level of interest in proposing amendments once that time comes.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have five minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question that is before the House.

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

Ethics

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the government a crucial question. However, as usual, I did not get a response. It is a question that has been on everyone's lips, particularly during the Conservative convention that took place this past weekend. It is a question about the Senate.

It is clear that a number of senators have to further justify their expenses. We have every right to be concerned. I would like to mention one senator, Mike Duffy. He was caught up in a story involving two cheques. Not one, but two. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, wrote him a cheque for $90,000. All of that took place under wildly suspicious circumstances.

Let me recap the facts. Together, we will try to find out the truth and understand what happened in the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister is aware of what happened. Did Nigel Wright resign or was he dismissed by the Prime Minister? I personally think Canadians have a right to know. They have a right to better understand what the Prime Minister did, how he did it, under what circumstances and especially in whose interest. What is the nature of the relationship? Why are Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright involved in a story like this? Clearly, other senators could benefit from a slush fund. Some people are wondering about the Conservative Party fund and taxpayers' money being mixed up. Is that the case, yes or no?

When the Prime Minister shrugs his shoulders and has trouble answering questions, we see that he lacks courage. He is not even able to say whether he fired his chief of staff or whether his chief of staff resigned because he did something unacceptable. The Prime Minister is not able to be frank and say what happened. The Prime Minister does not uphold Canadian values such as sincerity and respect for Canadian taxpayers, who are struggling to make ends meet each month.

I know that, right now, the Conservatives are saying that this story is fishy and that it will clearly haunt them long after Halloween and All Saints' Day. I personally urge the government once again to tell the truth. I want to know the truth. I want to know whether Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff was fired or forced to resign. This is a legitimate question and I would like an answer. I am happy to be here tonight, because I want to know the answer. I think Canadians deserve to have an answer.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, she has asked why Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy find themselves in this situation. The reason they find themselves in this situation is because Senator Duffy had some expenses which he was not entitled to and, unfortunately, Nigel Wright repaid those expenses. Nigel Wright, of course, understands that was a mistake. When the Prime Minister found out about this, he was very clear to Mr. Wright that had he known, he would have in no way approved of such a scheme and that is why Nigel Wright no longer works in the office of the Prime Minister.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Mr. Wright no longer works in the Prime Minister's Office. We know that he is no longer on the payroll. However, we want to know more. We do not want to know whether he regrets the $90,000 cheque, or other cheques we may not yet have heard about.

Sometimes what we worry about is not necessarily the tip of the iceberg we do know, but what we suspect is underneath, the rest of the iceberg that could be worse than what we know. That is what Canadians are worried about. They are wondering what, exactly, is going on. They want to know what is behind this whole thing. We still do not know whether he was dismissed or whether he resigned. It is easy to talk around the answer. Every time the Conservatives rise in the House, they talk around the issue instead of giving a straight answer of whether Mr. Wright resigned or was dismissed.

There are two options: (a) dismissed, or (b) fired. Which one was it?