Debates of May 27th, 2013

Employment Insurance

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for my colleague opposite, I think she will find, when her leader's office members review her statement tonight, that they will be quite disappointed in the fact that she pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition did raise the Dutch elm disease comment. It is a comment he has stepped back from, because he knows that the economic argument in there has been largely debunked by the Statistics Canada numbers, which have shown a growth in the manufacturing sector in Canada.

The member should also know that the manufacturing sector growth in this country is not just determinant on one sector being dependent on another. It is determinant on things such as input costs. I would suggest the member look at the policy of the recent Ontario government that increased electricity rates, which is an input cost of manufacturing.

The NDP hears something like Dutch elm disease and does not look at the oil sands or support them as a job creator. It is failing to look at basic economic principles on the validity of some rhetoric that the NDP leader might put forward.

The Leader of the Opposition did step back from these comments, because he knows how important this sector is to the economy. The member should review this statement and hopefully retract it in the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just before we resume debate, this is just another reminder to all hon. members that during the adjournment proceedings, members are welcome to take any seat in the chamber that happens to suit them.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled the 2012 fall report in this House. One of the topics this report dealt with was the financial guarantees that are supposed to be posted to cover the reclamation costs of mines in Canada's north.

The commissioner brought up a number of issues that he found. One was that there was missing information about some of the securities, and that they were not matched with particular projects or particular mines for which the financial value of those securities was supposed to pay for reclamation costs. For example, he found that there were 11 mines in Nunavut, and there was a difference of $11 million in the reclamation costs for those mines and the value of the securities.

The report also covered missing inspections of mines. This is important, because when a mine is started, companies do not know exactly what the ore body looks like below. They do not know how the mine is going to develop. They have to inspect the mine and see how the environment has been disturbed, and try to estimate how that affects reclamation costs, and then see if they have the financial securities to cover that.

In 2011, 70% of required site visits to natural resources projects were not made.

Then there were improper securities posted. The Environment Commissioner mentioned $17.6 million in promissory notes, which were not guaranteed by a bank in Canada, and stated that he had concerns about the continuing enforceability of the security. In other words, when it came time to clean up the mine, the commissioner did not feel confident that that money could be collected to pay for the cleanup.

This is important because of a number of values, one being honest accounting: an honest accounting of the liabilities, an honest accounting of the reclamation costs of mines and the actual value of securities to cover the reclamation costs. It is important that we have honest accounting so that we do not have hidden liabilities, surprises that our kids and grandkids would inherit, burdens on our future generations.

The second principle is the polluter pay principle, which I understand the government believes in and which I hope the government will apply honestly in all areas of environmental protection. It is important that the operator of the mine pay for the reclamation of the mine, so proper securities have to be posted.

This is important. It is important, in managing a business, to match assets and liabilities. It is important, in managing an economy, to make sure there are no hidden liabilities. It is important to run a tight ship when managing an economy.

The government should realize this. I know that from time to time the government has other problems to worry about, but I think it is important to have honest accounting of assets and liabilities so that one properly manages an economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing upon which my colleague and I can agree, it is that the development of our natural resources in this country does play a significant role in our economy. It creates jobs and economic growth. That said, it does have an impact on our landscape; it does have an impact on Canadians. One principle I certainly share with him quite strongly is that these resources need to be developed in an environmentally sustainable way. It is something Canadians demand and something in which the international community seeks us to be leaders.

Overall, Canada has a very good track record in this regard. We have, both federally and within provincial jurisdiction, very robust environmental assessment regimes, so on the front end of a project we are looking at what the costs are to the community in which it is being developed, be they actual or defined in other ways, and whether things are being done in an environmentally responsible way, all the way through build out, through safeguarding, through the operation and through the abandonment of projects.

This particular principle, in which our government believes, is reflected in the responsible resource development package that we tabled last year, wherein we did things like increase safety inspections for pipelines and increase the strength of the tanker safety regime. This is a principle that certainly I bear very near and dear to my heart, and I know the government does as well.

The concept of polluter pay is one that is very important and it is one about which I know the Prime Minister has spoken in the House, where he says our government recognizes the importance because it ties into the overall concept of the environmental safeguarding of our country while we balance the need to develop our natural resource sector. Again, it is important to the economy.

My colleague opposite brought up the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which we talked about at length in the House of Commons during various question periods. We also had the environment commissioner at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We asked him some questions around this report, and I will note a couple of things he talked about with regard to the specific report my colleague referenced. He said, “I don't have the slightest doubt that this government is absolutely focused on closing the gaps we've identified”. Therefore, where we need to ensure we have increased policy and tighter rules, we will be sure to follow through with that.

However, it is important to note that we as a government have also, in other areas regarding liability, put forward legislation that has been overturned time and again by the House of Commons. I am speaking specifically to nuclear liability. I believe it was Bill C-63 in a previous Parliament, and Bill C-5. Time and again, this was actually a concept that was voted down by the New Democrats.

This is a concept with which our government has been seized. I certainly hope that, if we have bills put forward in the House of Commons again, my colleague would work with me to see them pass, and perhaps convince our colleagues who are in apt numbers in the House of Commons right now to support it. However, certainly this is something our government respects and on which it is working very hard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments. First, I would like to get my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to address this. She did the same thing that the Minister of the Environment did in question period, the one behind this particular adjournment proceeding. That is, they both failed to address the issue of northern mines. They talked rather generally but did not talk about northern mines, and I want to give my colleague a chance to talk about northern mines.

The second thing I would tell my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, about liability caps for nuclear operators is what became of the three bills. The first bill died because of the election that was called before the fixed election date mandated by Elections Canada. An early election call by the Prime Minister killed the first bill. The second bill was killed by prorogation, again a choice of the Prime Minister. The third bill was tabled in 2010, but it just sat there and nothing happened to it, again a choice of the government, until the election in 2011 killed that bill.

Now we have a majority Conservative government, and no bill has been tabled. Therefore, I do not think the Conservatives really want to pass legislation related to raising the liability caps for nuclear operators. I would make that point to rebut the parliamentary secretary's statement, and I would also ask her to address northern mines and the financial securities that should be on deposit to cover the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are well over the one-minute mark.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points for my colleague opposite. I think he is failing to remember the countless amendments and filibusters by the opposition during the introduction of this bill. There is always a reason something dies on the order paper, and certainly I hope he would agree with me that filibustering an important bill like that was something he omitted from the history of the passage of those bills. It was certainly detrimental to its passage.

With regard to northern mines, obviously Canada's north is blessed with an abundance of wealth and natural resources, but it is also one of the most sensitive ecological areas in our country and indeed in the world. I absolutely agree with him that when developing these resources, the utmost environmental standards need to be reviewed and applied to the development of these situations. It is not just on the front end, on the review of these projects, but also through abandonment and risk planning.

The important point to note in the commissioner for the environment quote, which I mentioned earlier, is that we are focused on closing any gaps that exist, and he recognized that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:31 a.m.)