Debates of Nov. 8th, 2013

Respect for Communities Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, they are not going to get those programs and services from the current government. The government is taking them all away.

This is a government that believes in punishment. That is what is wrong with this particular bill. It is what is wrong with the government's tough on crime approach in Canada. It is going to lead to greater crime 10 years down the road. There is no question about it.

Let me come back to the member's point on communities. Of course communities will make the decision about where these sites go. When it is being done on evidenced-based policies, then the community should see the full information and it would be up to the community to decide.

It should not be for us on this ground to order what the community should do. The community should have the choice and the opinion to make those decisions. What the government is doing with the bill is taking that opportunity to assist people away. It should be giving those opportunities to people and doing it in a way that would have the support of the community.

The municipality in Vancouver, the police services in Vancouver and the province of B.C. support the policy of InSite in Vancouver. The government would take it away.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque gave a very informed speech, with a just emphasis on the real evidence about the impacts of safe injection sites, not the fears the government is trying to create around safe injection sites with the bill.

I wonder if he shares with me the sense of irony that the government, which claims to be against bureaucracy and red tape, is actually using bureaucracy and red tape in the bill to prevent the establishment of any additional safe injection sites in communities around the country; communities like mine where 18 people a year are dying from overdoses, and where we might be able to get them into treatment programs if we had such a facility.

The bill sets out 26 criteria and then at the end it says that even if they have met the criteria, the minister does not have to grant the permit.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question shows that there is no question the government is talking red tape and that it is really a government of absolute contradiction. It says one thing and does another.

First, the very essence of the bill, from a to z, is more about punishment than support. Second, it is a series of restrictions that make it near impossible to implement those strategies in some other areas where they maybe could be implemented. Clearly, the member is correct. The bill sets up a regulatory regime that is pretty near impossible to master, if we want to do the correct human thing in terms of establishing other InSite locations to help other people.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, years ago, an addictions expert told me that being addicted to something means that a person pretty much has no freedom. It is the antithesis of being free, because one is addicted. Right now, in Canadian society, people are watching on television the goings-on and the playing out of a very troubled situation in Toronto, where there is a mayor who is clearly dealing with a very serious challenge with substance abuse.

Canadians know about substance abuse. They know about the difficulties around addiction. However, I want to ask my colleague a question about health care costs.

He talked about the Supreme Court saying that it is a balance between public health and public safety.

In the city of Ottawa several years ago, there was a meaningful debate about an InSite injection site. At that time, the public health officer informed the citizenry that it costs between $600,000 and $1 million in health care costs to treat one HIV patient. That is one HIV patient. That does not count the millions of dollars in costs from hepatitis C infections and beyond.

I would have thought that a fiscally Conservative regime like the one across the floor would be weighing heavily the implications of health care costs, with scarce dollars being allocated to our health care system. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the fact that the Conservative government is not even mentioning the health care costs that can be held in abeyance and prevented if we actually take a more public health approach to this than simply pounding people on the head saying that this is all about crime and then locking people up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the numbers are startling. It is $600,000 to $1 million to treat one patient with HIV. Clearly what these InSite injection sites do, which I said in my remarks, is prevent the use of dirty needles and an increased incidence of HIV.

I will quote a member who spoke about HIV the other day, the member for Vancouver Centre, a doctor, who has a lot of knowledge in this particular area. She said:

I just wanted to talk about HIV for a second. I wanted to paint a picture of what was then and why people felt it was essential to move forward on this issue. In 1989, there were 120 new cases out of 100,000 in Canada. After InSite, in Vancouver alone, this had dropped to 31. In the rest of Canada, the number of new cases remained the same.

The point is that the evidence is there if we want to look for it. We have to look for it. The government has a tendency to avoid the evidence. The evidence is there. Look at the economic savings to Canada, to say nothing of the potential for a better human experience. The economic savings alone as a result of reducing HIV and other health costs are tremendous.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to say that there is a system we can use to reduce the number of deaths and communicable diseases in a community, to reduce health care costs and drug use in public places, people would say that is absolutely fantastic and we should do it right away. Tomorrow, even.

Well, there is such a system. There is something that can achieve all of those goals: supervised injection sites like those found around the world, including the well-known InSite in Vancouver.

The bill we are debating today would stop that from happening. It would stop us from reducing the number of deaths, the incidence of communicable disease, health care costs, crime and drug use in public places. That is it in a nutshell. Nobody is asking about the real purpose of the bill, which is to shut down InSite and prevent similar sites from opening.

I am having a very hard time understanding what the Conservatives want. Do they want more sick people, more hepatitis and AIDS cases in our communities? Do they want more crime? Is that really what they want?

People in my riding, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, want fewer sick people, less crime and fewer problems. My riding certainly has drug use issues, but we also have a range of solutions. People working for CACTUS, L'Anonyme, the CSSS network and EMRI have great initiative. However, if we can do more, in consultation with the community, to prevent death, crime and disease, we should do more.

Consider drug use in public places. In Laurier—Sainte-Marie, I have picked up needles lying in the streets, needles that kids could have played with. Do we not want to try to avoid that kind of thing? I do not understand. I am not the only one who thinks that these sites deserve a strictly regulated place in Canada; the Supreme Court thinks so too.

Let us consider the facts. This all started in 2008 when InSite's exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act expired.

The InSite exemption expired, and the Minister of Health denied the organization's renewal request. The case obviously went to court. It first went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which ruled that InSite should receive a renewed exemption. The Conservative government of course did not agree. It appealed, and the case went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which ruled that InSite should remain open.

The case then ended up before the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the minister's decision to shut down InSite violated the rights of its clients as guaranteed under the charter. This is what the court had to say about the decision:

It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.”

I think that is rather clear and no one can claim that it was a partisan decision. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and that an individual can only be deprived of those rights in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The court also declared that:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for InSite cannot be ignored. These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the minister’s decision...

The Supreme Court determined that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted the exemption provided for in section 56, since the opening of such sites will:

decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety...

I raise this point because people often express concerns whereby opening such a site will have an impact on public safety. Studies and previous experiences in Canada and elsewhere have shown that there is no negative impact on public safety. In some cases, it even has a positive impact on public safety, by reducing, as I was saying, the injection of drugs in public, the violence sometimes associated with drug use and the discarded drug paraphernalia associated with illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear, as were the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal. Obviously, the Conservatives decided they wanted to circumvent the Supreme Court decision with this new bill. The Conservatives claim to like the rule of law, but they are not really willing to respect it when it does not agree with their ideology. This has nothing to do with facts and reality, it really is a matter of ideology. They do not have any justification to refuse to allow other sites to open or InSite to continue operating.

The Supreme Court was clear. If a site can cause harm to a community, it can be banned. That is official. However, this harm must be demonstrated and not just a product of unfounded fears. This is true and I will say it again, people are sometimes afraid. However, we should look at Vancouver and examine what is happening around InSite. Fully 80% of the people who live and work in the area around InSite support the project. This is quite impressive. We see the same numbers when we look at what is being done in Europe. People who live in the neighbourhoods of these projects and who can see the results show overwhelming support for this type of initiative. Obviously there must be a balance between health and public safety, but we can have both at the same time.

I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada quite often. Indeed, I think it very often hands down very carefully reasoned decisions. It is still our Supreme Court. The judges spend considerable time analyzing the issues and thinking them through.

However, the Supreme Court is not the only party defending the usefulness of safe injection sites. The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have both criticized the government for introducing Bill C-2.

According to the Canadian Medical Association:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The Canadian Nurses Association had this to say:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations—especially those experiencing poverty, mental illness and homelessness...A government truly committed to public health and safety would work to enhance access to prevention and treatment services—instead of building more barriers.

As you can see, all this bill does is create obstacles.

At new supervised injection sites, preparing an application will be such a cumbersome process that it may dissuade applicants from even opening a file. Department officials told us that if an applicant mistakenly forgets to include something, the application could be automatically denied. Even if an applicant manages to obtain all of the documents needed for the application, if the application is perfect, iron-clad from start to finish and has the community's full support, the minister always has the option of arbitrarily denying it.

The NDP feels that decisions about programs that could benefit public safety should be based on fact and not ideology. That is why I will be voting against this bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP very much for her wonderful speech. I know that she represents a constituency in Montreal. In fact, Montreal is one Canadian city that could be interested in a supervised injection site, along with Toronto and Ottawa.

Could the hon. member tell us how badly communities and people in the field would be hit if the Conservative government succeeds in passing this bill? Indeed, the bill aims not only to destroy any chances of survival for the site in Vancouver, but also to keep other sites from opening across the country, even though research has shown that these sites have a positive impact on communities.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, I met with many people. Most were from community organizations, but others came from all levels of the public sector. They discussed this issue, talked about the bill and expressed many concerns.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There will be about eight minutes left for questions and comments when we resume debate on Bill C-2.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Navigation Restrictions

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, following consultations with provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations, carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations with the objective of facilitating and accelerating the process allowing local administrations to request restrictions regarding the use of vessels on certain waters in order to improve how waters are managed, public safety and the protection of the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to move Motion No. 441, which aims to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.

At present, there is nothing to limit the right to navigate on our lakes. Motion No. 441 calls on the federal government to review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations in order to provide municipalities with a faster, more predictable, more effective tool to manage bodies of water located in their territory, whether to improve how waters are managed, or enhance public safety and the protection of the environment.

This motion is very important for rural communities across Canada, especially those located beside a lake. In my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and elsewhere, municipalities come up against considerable challenges when they try to manage their bodies of water better. The municipalities are close to their citizens and are well positioned to act on their behalf. That is why we believe that the current process needs to be streamlined, so that communities can have the tools they need to improve how waters are managed, and enhance public safety and the protection of the environment.

I hope that my colleagues will support this motion. This need not be a partisan issue. This would really have a positive impact on all Canadian municipalities. At first glance, Motion No. 441 might seem complex, so allow me to explain it in greater detail.

As we know, the Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament the power to legislate on matters related to navigation. Although the provinces have jurisdiction over riverbanks and shorelines, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over shipping and recreational boating.

Under the 2008 Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, whose enabling legislation is the Canada Shipping Act, it is possible to set out and enforce restrictions on boating on a waterway. The regulations allow for a series of restrictions to be enforced, to be listed in one of its schedules. For instance, there are restrictions on power-driven or electrical propulsion vessels, speed limits on entire waterways or at least limits to the size of motors, as well as guidelines for water skiing activities.

Under section 4 of the regulations, a municipality can, through the provincial government, ask the federal government to designate a body of water and add restrictions. To do so, local authorities must comply with the procedure established by Transport Canada in the Local Authorities' Guide to Boating Restriction Regulations. The problem is that the process described in the guide is extremely long, complex and costly.

The process is explained in a 20-page document. It requires local authorities to follow a complicated process that involves, among other things, holding a three-step public consultation, exploring non-regulatory alternatives and applying for a restriction on the body of water in question, as well as a complex review process that meets government requirements.

A number of Canadian municipalities, and also environmental groups and experts in the field, have expressed their displeasure with this process. They say that the slowness of Transport Canada's process and the guide's requirements make it very difficult, if not impossible, to request boating restrictions. These requirements include a wide range of stakeholders who must be consulted, as well as a detailed review of all the alternatives. This means that regulations can only be a last resort.

According to the Regroupement des associations pour la protection des lacs et cours d’eau des Hautes-Laurentides, several municipalities became discouraged and gave up before the end of the process.

In speaking with various stakeholders, I learned that in many cases municipalities just decided to withdraw from this administrative process.

In some cases, the battle lasted for years. For example, let us take the application for restrictions on power boats in the Columbia River wetlands in British Columbia. The efforts to restrict navigation have been going on for close to 15 years. Following a judicial process undertaken in 1998, an official application for an administrative restriction was submitted in 2002. To this day, only two of the three sections of the Columbia River have been regulated. It is unthinkable. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ellen Zimmerman and the whole Wildsight team for their hard work.

In my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, municipalities such as Nominingue have been preparing such an application for three years. The length and complexity of the process may have got the better of waterfront property owners. They wonder how boats with 350-horsepower engines can be allowed on a 0.85 km² lake.

Given such a void, municipalities are turning to voluntary codes of ethics to better control boating activities on their lakes. While we support such codes, they rely solely on the people's goodwill. Since these codes do not have force of law, anyone can ignore them and invoke his right to navigate.

We believe that a review of the regulatory process and resources allocated to its management could, in the short term, help municipalities better control the use of motorized vessels on bodies of water. Streamlining the process for enforcing the regulations would improve how waters are managed, the protection of the environment, and public safety and resolve many local disputes over the use of lakes and waterways. Motion No. 441 proposes such a review. A proper review must necessarily be conducted in consultation with the provinces, territories, municipalities and first nations. The use of existing legislation and regulations prevents jurisdictional disputes.

It is important to note that the idea is not to prevent pleasure boating. On the contrary, I am an avid fisherman and could not do without my time on the water. However, I firmly believe that, in order to retain this right to navigation, it is vital that waterways be properly managed by local communities. After all, they are the ones who have to put up with the inconveniences.

In my many discussions with various stakeholders, three main aspects came up over and over again: social peace through better municipal control, greater environmental protection and less red tape. I will quickly explain these three points.

As stated in the summary of the regulatory impact analysis, in 2008, the increase in waterway activity led to an increase in disputes between waterway users. Local administrations reacted by asking for restrictions on navigation.

However, since the entry into force of the regulations, municipalities have faced the same problems. The 2008 regulations, in their current form, are inadequate. I have too often witnessed situations where poor waterway management has created conflict among constituents in my riding.

We believe that municipalities should have easier access to a measure that exists only in theory. They know the people in their municipalities and are well positioned to ensure social peace.

This motion is also important because it will allow municipalities to better protect the environment. I do not feel the need to explain why power-driven vessels can be harmful to the environment if they are not appropriate for the type of lake on which they navigate.

On some of the more fragile lakes, larger vessels can cause significant shoreline erosion, increase the presence of algae and aquatic plants and cause premature aging.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the current process needs to be simplified. Since the government claims to advocate decentralization and says it wants to cut red tape from the federal regulatory system, it seems to me that this would be a good place to do that. The Conservatives have decimated so many laws that I have lost track. Why not streamline the process in an area where cutting red tape would actually benefit people?

The current regulatory framework shows that the system is slow and inefficient. It is about time we changed how it works.

I could go on for quite some time about the advantages of this motion, but I would like to share some of the feedback we have received over the past few months. All of my colleagues should support Motion No. 441.

Over 40 municipalities have each indicated their support for this motion. Several watershed committees and associations have expressed an interest in being involved in or represented during future consultations about this issue.

The Fédération québécoise des municipalités has gone even further than our motion does. It passed a resolution stating that the provinces and/or the municipalities should have the power to set navigation standards and rules.

Moreover, the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec, a coalition of watershed associations across the province, supports the approach suggested in the motion as a way of better managing vessel restrictions on the bodies of water they deal with.

In addition, the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society applauded the motion, which they say is a simple and practical solution for managing waterways, particularly for smaller communities that do not have the resources to handle the current approach.

Renaissance Brome Lake, a local watershed committee, considers this initiative to be critical to the protection and appropriate use of waterways.

In closing, I would like to say that we should support Motion No. 441 because it is critical to faster, more predictable, more efficient management of waterways from a waterway management, public safety and environmental protection perspective, not to mention for social harmony.

That is why I am asking my colleagues to support Motion No. 441.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hard-working member for Laurentides—Labelle, for his very thoughtful presentation today. I know him to be an avid boater, an avid fisherman. He is bringing this forward, I think he said for several reasons: social peace, more empowerment to the community, the environment and cutting red rape.

I would like to ask the member to explain a bit further the current problem for a municipality in getting such a matter through, under the current regulation. How does it work?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I will do him one better, Mr. Speaker. All the requirements to amend the regulations are set out in the 20-page guide.

The process can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some of the smaller municipalities do not have that kind of money. The process can be drawn out over several years, as in the examples I cited.

This is a virtual right. We are used to the Conservatives granting virtual rights.

In the real world, it is impossible to exercise. Discouragement sets in before the process even begins.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the process, so that we are clear, the member has referred to two things. One is regulations, and of course the other is a guidebook explaining the pathway to regulations. At times, it seemed as though they were used interchangeably, but I think we have to keep them separate here.

The way the process essentially works is that co-operation is encouraged among the municipality and its stakeholders to try to come to some agreement on this before the municipality then triggers an ask of Transport Canada and a very formal rule-making process that is standard for regulations across government.

I do not think that the member is suggesting we change the rule-making process to actually make the regulation. Where is he suggesting that the process be simplified? Is it that we should not ask the municipalities to work in a co-operative way first to try to resolve this? I am looking for some clear guidance or some suggestions on where the member thinks that this should be streamlined.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the issue is with the spirit of the regulations.

In order to amend the regulations, the applying municipality must prove beyond any doubt that all other options have been attempted. That implies consulting dozens of stakeholders. It would also require tremendous resources. A town of 1,500 people cannot undertake willy-nilly a process that could take years. It would need to retain legal counsel, which is resource-intensive. Worse still, the solutions it would find would never have any legal value. If the vast majority of people who live by a lake agree to impose a restriction, a single person can disobey the order and ride his 300-horsepower motorboat on a lake no bigger than this chamber. That is the problem. The process is too cumbersome and needs to be simplified. I am not saying it should be trivialized, but simplified in a way that communities would have a real chance of using that piece of legislation that already exists and that has already been used in hundreds of cases all across Canada, including some involving lakes in my own riding.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our government's position on Motion No. 441. As members know, this motion was moved by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, who has suggested that the process for restricting the use of recreational boats should be changed.

The hon. member has proposed that the government review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations to streamline the process and make it easier for local administrations to request restrictions on the use of vessels in certain waters.

Our government believes the process that is currently in place under these regulations needs no review. It is the result of consultation with Canadians and was designed specifically to provide an effective response to the legitimate needs of local communities.

This process has worked successfully for many years. Since 2008, it has been required under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, which falls under the authority of Transport Canada. Before that, it was covered by the boating restriction regulations, for which the Canadian Coast Guard was responsible.

I would like to outline the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations process for the House to explain how it works and why it is effective. First I want to make clear that navigation is an exclusively federal responsibility under the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, only the federal government can regulate it.

This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2010 decision. In Quebec, the municipality of St-Adolphe-d'Howard enacted a bylaw prohibiting access by non-residents to local jetties, but the court overturned it on the grounds that the municipality did not have the legal authority to set its own rules.

However, under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, any level of government, whether municipal, provincial or territorial, can ask Transport Canada to impose restrictions on the use of boats in a particular body of water. These restrictions may be requested to increase safety or to protect the marine environment. They may also be proposed in the public interest, for example, to reduce noise.

Restrictions may prohibit all boats from accessing a given waterway, or they may limit access only by certain kinds of vessels, such as those with a specified engine power or type of propulsion. The regulations make it possible to impose speed limits, restrict certain activities such as water skiing, or prohibit events like regattas.

These restrictions may apply at all times or be specific to certain times of the day, week, month or year. They may apply to an entire waterway or only part of it. That is flexibility. This flexibility allows local authorities to request restrictions that are fair and that accommodate boaters while also acknowledging the rights of other community members.

At the same time, imposing restrictions in this way should be a last resort. No one wants to be subject to regulatory requirements that can be made arbitrarily or without sufficient input from those who would be directly affected by them. The government would never consider making restrictions in that way.

For this reason, a requesting authority must demonstrate to Transport Canada that reasonable efforts have been made to work with communities to resolve any conflicts around use of the waterway in question. For example, alternative approaches must have been tried and documented. These include enforcing provisions of existing acts or regulations, as well as educating boaters and others through outreach about the effects of their activities.

This can be achieved, for example, by posting notices at waterway access points, organizing public meetings, contacting local associations to ask them to inform their members, conducting a flyer campaign, or appearing on local radio or television shows. These are inexpensive but effective means of reaching people in the community.

The authority should also show that all appropriate stakeholders have been consulted and have had the opportunity to make their views known. It is important to demonstrate that stakeholders have come to a consensus on what the best solution actually is and that this can be achieved only through a regulatory amendment.

Transport Canada offers assistance to local administrations that are considering how to address issues relating to recreational boating. Communities can also consult the local authorities' guide, which is available from the department.

What are some of the other legal considerations? If the requesting authorities are able to demonstrate a clear need for a restriction and can also show that all other possibilities have been exhausted, they can apply to Transport Canada for a regulatory amendment, something, by the way, that does not cost them anything.

As members of the House are already aware, there is a legal process in place for amending regulations. That process is guided by the Statutory Instruments Act and by the “Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management”. It applies to any proposed amendment to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, just as it applies to proposals to make any other regulations.

These instruments require a review of proposed regulations to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with the Canadian Bill of Rights. They must not exceed the legal authority under which they are proposed.

Additionally, the impact of any proposed regulation must be adequately assessed, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of expected costs and benefits, before cabinet considers the matter. The cabinet directive also requires that, where appropriate, first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples are to be consulted.

This review of the legal and social impacts of regulatory requirements is an essential part of the process. It forms an important system of checks and balances that helps protect all Canadians from measures that are unfair or that would infringe their rights.

Furthermore, any proposed regulatory amendment is normally also published in the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is then open to public comment for a specified period. This ensures that potentially affected members of the public have every opportunity to participate in the process. All comments received are recorded and duly considered.

In the event that a proposed regulation is significantly altered following such comments, it is then re-submitted to the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is opened up to public consideration a second time.

This careful but rigorous process for making regulations also applies to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations themselves, which came into effect only after the necessary review and public consultation.

Consultation with stakeholders does not end when regulations come into effect. Transport Canada regularly consults with Canadians in various ways. For instance, recreational boaters communicate with Transport Canada officials through the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council, which provides advice on all questions of interest to the boating community. These include safety, security, and enforcement issues and related regulatory initiatives.

The Canadian Marine Advisory Council and its regional counterparts also hold regular meetings with representatives of Transport Canada. At these gatherings as well, recreational boating is a topic of discussion, and there is a standing committee dedicated to it.

In these ways, Transport Canada maintains close ties with the marine community, including those with an interest in recreational boating.

This ongoing contact with stakeholders, including provinces and municipalities, keeps the department informed of their concerns. As a result, Transport Canada is well positioned to take their views on marine policy, legislation, and regulation into full account.

To conclude, if a complaint is made to Transport Canada officials about this process, we will continue to respond to and support the community by developing their boating restrictions and processing their requests, where needed, for Governor in Council approval.

The process includes appropriate checks and balances to make certain that the government does not intervene inappropriately. It encourages communities to find ways to solve their own problems, and it requires public input at several stages. It also contains safeguards to ensure that regulatory measures do not infringe upon Canadians' constitutional or other legal rights.

In short, the system already takes great care to prevent unnecessary or unjust regulation. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to vote against Motion No. 441.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle took the opportunity to list all the groups, municipal governments and associations that support his motion. I would like to tell him that he can add the Liberal caucus to his list, because we will be supporting this motion.

Indeed, we support it, not because we know in advance what will come out of the consultations that the member is calling for, but because our political philosophy is based on the principle that any system created by human beings can be reformed and sometimes improved to better serve our society.

We believe that the idea of a study and consultations with the provinces and territories, municipal governments and first nations to determine whether the current regulatory regime for navigation on our lakes could be changed in some way is a good idea in itself.

Unlike my colleague, I represent a non-rural riding. My riding is on the Island of Montreal. However, many of my constituents have second homes on the lakes in my colleague's region. This is an issue that concerns me in any case, and it is also relevant to me because I am the member in our caucus who focuses on water resources issues. That brings me to my comments.

Canada is recognized around the world for a number of very unique attributes. First, I am thinking of its natural attributes. Second, I would mention the system of governance that we created, and members mentioned the Constitution of 1867, of course. Third, we are recognized worldwide for our technological innovation, which has led to all kinds of products used not only by Canadians, but also by people around the world. To be a little more specific, my colleague's motion addresses these three aspects of our national identity and the image we project to the world.

Indeed, we are rich in water resources. We have about one million lakes in Canada. I say “about” because if you ask a scientist, he or she will say that it is impossible to accurately estimate the number of lakes we have in Canada, for a variety of technical reasons. We can say, for the sake of argument, that there are about 1 million lakes in Canada, and I would say that about 250,000 of them are in Quebec. This issue is of concern to many Canadians, since we have such a large number of lakes.

As my colleague and the Conservative member mentioned, navigation is an exclusively federal responsibility under the Constitution. We have built companies around recreational products for use on lakes and waterways in Canada, much like we have done for snow-related activities.

I believe that Bombardier may have moved away from that, but for years the company sold motorized recreational vehicles that were used on our lakes in Quebec, Canada and elsewhere. Clearly, this motion is very relevant.

Canadian society is constantly changing and evolving, even though our Constitution is very difficult to amend. I do not believe that my colleague is asking for a constitutional amendment to make navigation an area of provincial jurisdiction. However, even though our Constitution is relatively unchangeable, we need to find ways to work within its boundaries so that we have some flexibility. As I said, society is evolving, technologically, economically and in terms of democratic values.

There was a time when there were no motorized boats. It was not a challenge to limit navigation activities on lakes. There were rowboats and there were canoes. The problem did not exist.

Now we have a whole array of motorized vessels that people can buy for their enjoyment, sometimes at their summer home. That is a major shift that requires subsequent changes in order to manage conflicts that could arise between individuals. Some people enjoy boating or using other motorized vehicles. Some people go to their summer home, or live in the area, and enjoy having a place to relax and find a bit of peace and quiet, especially in a world that is always on the go and where some people work 60 hours a week. There are conflicts, and a balance must be found.

Our democratic values have also evolved. A few years ago, people did not think they had the right to influence this kind of decision, such as creating navigation restrictions for our lakes. There was a time when people would say that it was the government's job and that we, in Ottawa, had the power and the responsibility, and that people had nothing to say about the whole thing. We had to live with what we were told in terms of regulations and legislation. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, young people want to have their say. They want to be able to influence what is going on in their communities, even if the federal government, in Ottawa, ultimately has the jurisdiction. People want to have their say.

Based on what I have read about the motion, it seems as though the process to change navigation restrictions is rather cumbersome. It might make sense to find ways to improve and streamline this process to enable citizens—the people who live on these lakes, whether it is a primary or secondary residence—to influence what is going on in their communities. Maybe we could eventually find a better way for this to happen. As soon as we start talking about the duty to consult, things get complicated, especially when a lot of stakeholders have to be consulted: municipalities, associations, outfitters or marinas.

It gets complicated. There may not be a way around the problem, but we have to try. My colleague had the courage to suggest that we do something.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in favour of Motion No. 441, a motion to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, and I am so pleased to have the honour of seconding this motion presented by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

This is a very straightforward motion. It masks a complicated issue, but all it really asks this House to do is study and look at how we can improve and streamline the existing regulation that was passed. It speaks of creating a streamlined process to enable local administrations to request restrictions on the use of vessels on certain waters in an effort to improve how waters are managed, all in the interests of public safety and environmental protection.

It is pretty straightforward. All we are asking the government to consider is whether this 2008 regulation, in light of the evidence that my colleague has presented, is working effectively. We would really welcome the opportunity, speaking for myself as the seconder, to work with the government to see if we can make it better.

My colleague spoke of three principal reasons.

First is the need for social peace on some of these little lakes. I live in British Columbia, and I have seen the fisticuffs that can happen when we have people with Ski-Doos and powerboats versus people who want to kayak or have canoes. I think that is something we really want to talk about. I thought my colleague did an excellent job in outlining that objective.

The second reason, of course, is enhanced environmental protection, letting municipalities get at this issue and improve it for the purposes of environmental protection.

The third one, which I would hope would attract the government's attention, is red tape reduction, something the government has spoken very effectively on. This is an area where we could actually make a difference by working together.

As someone who comes from an urban riding in Victoria, I can attest to the kinds of conflicts that happen even in urban areas as people try to undertake outdoor activities on lakes. Sometimes, as I say, conflicts occur on lakes even in our area.

These regulations are five years old, and I think the simple plea that my colleague's motion makes is that we should try to improve them if we see problems. I believe, for reasons I will come to, that he has identified some very clear problems.

They start with the fact that the process set out in the guide that he spoke of pursuant to the regulation is extremely lengthy and complex. He talks about municipalities having to do a three-step public consultation process, explore non-regulatory alternatives, apply for a restriction on the body of water in question, and carry out a complex review in which the Office of Boating Safety reviews the file and ensures the process meets a particular cabinet directive, of which the member for Essex, the hon. parliamentary secretary of transport, spoke, namely the cabinet directive on streamlining regulation.

I think it is telling that my colleague's excellent and assiduous work on this issue has unearthed so much support from people in different areas.

The Quebec chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society applauds this motion. It says that:

It is a simple and practical solution for managing our waterways, especially for smaller communities that lack the resources needed for this kind of endeavour. We hope Parliament adopts this motion.

That is from CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités, the federation of all Quebec municipalities, applauded this motion as well.

There is a problem. People identify a problem.

The former mayor of North Hatley, Pierre Levac, talked about the difficulties and complexity. He said that even federal officials are saying that the process is much more complicated than before, that they are going to need a project manager just to apply for a regulatory amendment.

That is from the former mayor of the Township of Hatley.

My colleague has done so much consultation in trying to get to the bottom of this that many other people have come to the same conclusion: that there is a problem and that we should try to work together to fix it.

Again, what we are asking for is to work together to fix a problem that has been identified by many stakeholders. It is merely a request that we sit down and try to improve this regulation. I am disappointed that the government has apparently slammed the door in my colleague's face on this initiative. I am hoping we can persuade the government that this is a problem that we can work on together to fix.

My colleague was very clear in noting, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did as well, that navigation and shipping, under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is without doubt the exclusive domain of the federal government. My colleague was very clear that there is no effort whatsoever to derogate from that. All he is seeking is to empower municipalities and local governments, aboriginal and other, to address the problem when it arises, and to have real teeth.

He pointed out a very serious and specific problem. He talked about a tiny municipality, such as a rural municipality in northern British Columbia, or in the Laurentians, in the case of my colleague, say of 1,500 people. They have to get legal advice and do all of those steps I talked about, all that consultation and spending all that money. If it has 97% in favour, that is still not enough because one person can thwart the consensus that has been achieved in this code of conduct.

We can do better than that and put real teeth behind this. If it happens that a local government's people, having done the consultation with all the parties, including aboriginal and non-aboriginal, comes to a consensus position, they can get this passed without the kind of difficulty and red tape that my colleague has demonstrated so obviously exists in this process.

I know this has been an issue all over Canada. It has certainly been an issue in my province of British Columbia. The member even referred to the frustration on Columbia Lake, where after years and years only two or three sections have been able to be set apart and restricted, as per the wishes of that local area. The point I am trying to make, in short, is that there is an issue. With the greatest of respect, I do not understand why such a simple issue cannot be addressed in good faith by both sides of this House now that the issue has been identified so clearly by so many people. It is a simple matter to say that we have a regulation that is not working, so let us fix it. I thought that is how we were supposed to work together.

There is also the second issue of environmental protection. That is at the bottom of the complaints that local governments get, for example, there are too many motor boats and they are causing pollution in the water. There are other things about water management that has attracted municipal attention in the past, where power boats, for example, are involved. Eutrophication of the lake can be exacerbated by the use of motor boats. This could contribute to shoreline erosion. There can be greater turbidity in the water, which causes sediments to rise from the bottom of the lake. There can be increased density of algae that is created.

These issues come to the attention of local governments when the community is located right on the lake or the water body. The government officials say they know it is a federal issue, but they want to try to fix it and they try to use this legislation. My colleague has pointed out very, very clearly that it does not work. It seems to me fairly self-evident that we should try to take such a simple problem and work through it.

I would have thought that the red tape reduction initiative would attract the attention of the other side of the House. We hear a lot about that, but when we come to those members with a specific and demonstrable example, they seem to turn away from it. I do not understand that. This regulation costs nothing. This is a question, not of money, but about trying to reduce the number of obstacles thrown in the way when the people in municipalities want to get involved and take action on the waterway on which they are located.

There are many solutions that can be addressed. However, we are simply asking the Conservatives to review the regulations, consult with the provinces and the municipalities and the first nations, and produce strategies that would work for Canadians to simplify this process and make it work. We understand the regulation was enacted in good faith, with a desire to address this problem. We agree with the regulation; we just want to make it work better.

Again, I would ask that the Conservatives think seriously about how we could work together to address this very specific but very real problem.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his excellent motion, Motion No. 441, which calls for a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.

Basically, this motion wants to give greater flexibility to municipalities, especially rural municipalities, that have lakes or rivers within their territory, including waterways that some people might be abusing by failing to respect others regarding the use of vessels. My NDP colleague's motion will give those municipalities greater flexibility by giving municipal laws more teeth in order to deal with such people who disrespect these rules.

I would remind the House that navigation falls under federal jurisdiction. We should therefore be able to expect the federal government to take its role seriously and actively help the municipalities regulate navigation practices on their waterways.

Unfortunately, there is a vacuum in this area. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, perhaps the existing regulations are not up to date. The way Canadians, Quebeckers and the people of Saguenay use waterways has evolved over time. It is time to build a new partnership between the federal government and municipalities, in order to properly regulate recreational and commercial navigation practices on our waters.

We believe that the municipalities should have greater powers to propose changes to the management of waterways in their territories.

The municipal level is the one closest to the people. It is well positioned to ensure social peace on this issue. I mentioned social peace because, unfortunately, there are a lot of complaints. I come from a rural area, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and I represent the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which has one large city and many small municipalities.

As my colleagues have said, the current process is very expensive and is imposed on small municipalities by the federal government. The municipalities have to pay dearly in order to have their say on how their bodies of water are used.

I am proud to tell my NDP colleague that his motion even has the support of the municipalities in my riding. I have here a letter from Rivière-Éternité, a charming village of about 500 people. With so few inhabitants, its financial means are already limited. It already has many priorities for municipal investment in infrastructure, such as a clean drinking water supply, waste water treatment and roads.

Managing these priorities is taken somewhat for granted by large cities. However, small municipalities are not rich, nor is the provincial government. The federal government can be of greater assistance. We are not even asking for money; we are only asking to make things a little easier for small municipalities.

The Rivière-Éternité municipal council wrote a letter stating its support for Motion No. 441, which asks the Government of Canada to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. It points out that this motion addresses the concerns of many municipalities and that, moreover, the review of the regulations would foster the standardization of uses among the various users on bodies of water. He attached his resolution to this letter.

My Conservative colleague seemed to suggest that the government will vote against the motion. I regret that, because the Conservatives are showing how out of touch with reality they are. The NDP represents all regions in Canada—urban regions and rural regions. This is a rural issue. In 2011, during the federal election, the Conservatives slogan in my region was, ironically, "Our region in power". We see that the government has abandoned the regions. That is very unfortunate.

A government must represent everyone, whether they live in major cities or in outlying areas. As my colleague from Victoria said, we have the opportunity to work in a non-partisan manner on this issue. It is not a political issue. It will be good for rural regions in British Columbia and the prairies as well as for those in Quebec and Ontario.

We can all work together, and I believe that mayors from Conservative and Liberal municipalities would be very happy to see us set partisanship aside in order to work on this issue with them. The process is currently extremely complicated when municipalities want to regulate what happens on their waters.

I would like to explain the process. First, the municipalities must conduct a three-step consultation. Then, they must look at solutions other than regulations, then they must make a request to put restrictions on the body of water. Finally, through a complicated process, the Office of Boating Safety examines the file and ensures that it meets the requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation.

My colleague from Laurentides—Labelle brought out the document that is given to municipalities that want to change regulations for their waterways. It is not realistic, and the Conservative government is creating a lot of red tape for the municipalities. Municipalities do not have a lot of financial resources to dedicate to this long and tedious process, especially if we are talking about a municipality with 500 residents.

For example, the municipality of Rivière-Eternity has very few employees, because small municipalities have little room to manoeuvre. They therefore cannot hire someone specifically to work with this long process, which is not very practical. I referred to the support from Rivière-Éternité, but I should also mention Saint-Fulgence, a municipality of about 2,000 people in my riding. Their town council also passed a resolution to support the NDP initiative.

As I said earlier, the process is so long and tedious that municipalities often turn to other solutions, specifically codes of ethics. First, I would like to commend the municipalities for trying to find alternative solutions, despite all the obstacles that the Conservative government puts in their way. Unfortunately, a code of ethics is not mandatory, and municipalities would like to have more power and more regulatory control over what happens on their lakes and rivers. Their goal is not to prevent the majority of their community from enjoying water activities. However, we know that some people have a little less respect for the rest of the community and they may be a little selfish about how they do things. Smaller municipalities should be given more power precisely to handle these few people who are a threat to social peace and the collective good.

Municipalities therefore use codes of ethics to better manage navigation on their lakes. Even though we support such codes of ethics, they rely on people's good will. It is very problematic for people who resist the constraints that municipalities impose. People can pretty much ignore these codes because there is no law to legitimize them.

It comes down to the fact that the government has jurisdiction over navigation on waterways. It should therefore be up to the federal government to introduce a bill to do a better job of helping these municipalities. It has not done so for many years, which is why my NDP colleague had no choice but to do it himself. He represents a beautiful riding in Canada's boreal region, which is also where my riding is. He did an incredible job consulting people on this, and I would like to congratulate him on that. At the time I was writing my speech, over 40 municipalities, most of them in Quebec, had each expressed support for the motion. That is quite impressive.

In closing, I would add that this is also good for the environment. Enabling municipalities to better manage navigation on their waterways and to limit the presence of motorized vessels will help us do a better job of protecting the environment. This is good for everyone: for people, for municipalities and for the environment. Why would the Conservatives vote against it?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 18, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)