Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the polluter pay principle is at the heart of this government's environmental philosophy. We favour a policy of responsible resource development. As we have said before, responsible means enhanced environmental protection. The government has already announced particular measures in this regard.

In terms of the environment commissioner's report, it contains a number of useful suggestions in terms of the next steps we will be announcing.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk, then, about responsible resource development.

According to the environment commissioner, the number of fracking wells across Canada is expected to double over the next 20 years to 400,000. The chemicals used in fracking are known to contain dangerous carcinogens, yet companies are not required to divulge their full contents. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has a policy of disclosure by its members, but of course is powerless to enforce it.

Will the government make it mandatory for companies to disclose the dangerous chemicals used in fracking, yes or no?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know this area is under provincial regulation. A number of provinces have taken different approaches toward regulation of the sector.

At the same time, in terms of the particular substances used, this government does have a world-leading chemicals management plan and will evaluate the substances used in that regard.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, federal waters and fisheries are the federal government's responsibility.

Environmental protection is not keeping pace with development, and Canadians are paying the price.

That is exactly what is happening with the marine protected areas. Twenty years after the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed, only 1% of Canada's marine environment is being protected.

While pollution and overfishing threaten our oceans, why is the minister rushing into offshore development without proper protection?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to marine protected areas, it should be noted that it was under this government that Canada's protected parklands increased by over 50%.

We have established 12 marine protected areas. We know more work needs to be done. That is why we are having robust consultations with a variety of stakeholders to ensure we get things right.

When it comes to protecting parklands and our water, Canada has a good track record under this Conservative government.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats thank the environment commissioner for his work.

In today's report the commissioner warned us that despite repeated Conservative assurances, Atlantic offshore petroleum boards were not adequately prepared to respond to an oil spill.

Is the minister doing anything to ensure that the response plans are effective and that government action will be coordinated in the event of a major oil spill off the Atlantic coast, or does the minister agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who claims that oil spills will simply biodegrade in three years?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I am pleased to reiterate from yesterday, from the Minister of Transport, that we have commissioned a risk assessment study on readiness to respond to spills in Canadian waters.

I would like to remind my colleague opposite of the many environmental protections that came into force under CEAA, 2012 and recently implemented, including new regulations to enhance tanker inspection regimes by strengthening inspection requirements and improved navigational products such as updated charts for shipping routes.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.

The environmental commissioner's report shows that there is a significant gap between the pace of natural resource development and the capacity of the government to review that development and ensure environmental protection. That is a clear conclusion of the report of the environmental commissioner.

Does the Prime Minister agree with that central conclusion?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has already been clear that responsible resource development means that as we see the growth in resource development over the decades to come, there will have to be enhanced measures of environmental protection.

The government took some measures over the course of the past year and has indicated in a number of areas it intends to take additional measures. We thank the environment commissioner for his report. It will be a useful piece of advice as we move forward with these additional measures.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister just said, the Conservatives have reduced the federal government's ability to assure the public that people will really be protected in the case of accidents, whether they be nuclear accidents, accidents related to marine development or accidents that occur in the North.

The commissioner's report's findings are very clear: there is a difference between the problem and the government's ability to resolve it and to protect Canadians.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. When the government says that it supports responsible resource development, it is saying that it must increase its support for environmental protection.

We announced some measures last year and we have already indicated our intention to continue working on certain files. The commissioner gave us very useful ideas in this regard and we thank him for his contribution.

The Economy

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to receive reports with respect to the problem of consumer and household debt across the country.

What this debt really masks is the fact that in hard times Canadians are forced to borrow at the 20th of the month because they have to make ends meet by the end of the month. We are seeing this pattern across the board. Whether it is increasing lines of credit, or credit cards or even if it is going to loan sharks or loan companies, this is a problem facing ordinary Canadians.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that this is not simply a problem of people perhaps spending too much on a big screen television, as was suggested, but is a reality for Canadians who are facing hard times?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the growth in Canadian household debt over the past few years has been primarily in the areas of mortgages. Because Canadians have been feeling confident about the state of their own household and about their ability to handle additional mortgage debt, they have been able to purchase new homes or larger homes.

At the same time, along with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and others, we have expressed our concern about the growth of this debt, as interest rates will eventually go up, and have urged moderation. I am glad to see that some of the recent steps the government has taken have encouraged households to moderate their accumulation of debt.

The Environment

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are putting Canadians at risk. The absolute liability limit of nuclear facility operators has not been updated for 35 years. In other words, if an accident happens, Canadian taxpayers are on their own. The Fukushima catastrophe cost close to $200 billion.

Why are the Conservatives passing the buck to Canadians when it comes to paying for the damage from a nuclear disaster? Why are they being so irresponsible?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the irony is inescapable because the legislation would have been passed if the NDP had not opposed it the last time. The NDP members filibustered at every point.

We intend to raise the limit by 10 times. The House leader was the critic at the time and he did everything he could to stall the legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a nice try. Canadians would trust the environment commissioner over the PMO talking points any time.

The commissioner was clear. Conservatives are playing Russian roulette on oil spill clean-ups. There is a $30 million liability limit. However, supertanker spills cost billions of dollars. This negligence means that our tourism, fishery and economies of our coastal communities are all being put at risk. Even one tanker could leave Canadian families on the hook for billions of dollars in clean-up costs.

Why have the Conservatives left Canadians standing on the edge of a liability cliff? Why are they so irresponsible?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, our government is committed to periodically assessing the financial liability assessment to ensure that Canada's polluter pay system remains the strongest in the world.

With regard to our responsible resource development plan, we have undertaken many actions to ensure that there is increased pipeline safety inspections and increased safety with regard to tanker transport. All of these things were included in our responsible resource development plan, which the NDP voted against.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner does not mince words criticizing Conservative inaction on the risks of hydrofracking despite steadily accelerating development.

The commissioner is clear: Canadians do not have the information they need to judge the consequences of this industry's actions on their living environment, their health and drinking water reserves.

Why are the Conservatives letting development go ahead at the expense of protection? Why do they refuse to legislate the toxic substances used in fracking?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister already noted today, hydraulic fracturing in Canada is strictly regulated by the provinces and must be done using approved equipment and specific procedures. However, this gives me the opportunity to reiterate our world-renowned chemical management plan under which we have invested more than $500 million to assess toxic substances across the country.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act used to protect fish and fish habitat until the Conservatives gutted the act and rammed through changes without proper consultation. Even the department could not explain what those changes would mean. Now, according to the environment commissioner, it does not know if its own no net loss policy remains in effect. Nor does it know if it can cover the cost of fish habitat compensation plans.

How can the minister allow this kind of mismanagement with our fisheries?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act has and will continue to have strong protection against pollution to ensure that Canadian waters are clean. There are zero changes to the federal protections against pollution.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Conservatives are asking job-seeking Canadians to tell them how many resumés they send out each week. Those whom the minister calls bad job seekers are finding out a little more each day in the newspapers about the restrictive measures related to the so-called “reasonable search” that is now being added to the minister's quotas.

Why do the Conservatives not reveal the entire list of criteria they are going to use to cut the employment insurance benefits of those they call the bad guys?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, she is wrong. We want the unemployed to find new jobs because they are better off when they are working than when they are not. We are providing them with assistance and information about jobs available in their regions that match their qualifications. We want to help them find work.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the secrets keep leaking out. First we learn that Service Canada staff have to make quota for cutting job seekers off EI each month. Now we hear that the Conservatives are trying to quietly change what constitutes a job search.

The minister keeps demonizing hard-working Canadians and changing the rules without even telling them. When will the minister admit that all of these changes are not about fraud at all, but that she is quite simply hell-bent on cutting EI just when families need it the most?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is just the opposite of what we are trying to do, which is help Canadians who have lost their job through no fault of their own get back to work so they and their families are better off. That is why we have expanded the job bank and the job postings that are on it. That is why we are letting people who are on EI know what jobs are available in their area within their skill range so they can apply for those jobs so they and their families are better off.

I wish the NDP would help us help Canadians be better off.