Debates of May 6th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts and the changes to employment insurance would actually hurt jobs in the tourism sector for sure, as well as probably the fisheries, and since our hon. colleagues on the other side of the House do not understand the life in seasonal communities such as those in Atlantic Canada or in British Columbia in the tourism sector, let me ask all of us here to consider the House of Commons operations.

Do my hon. colleagues here know that the restaurant staff get laid off when we go back to our ridings for Christmas, and are later hired back? They will not be able to find a job. What employer wants to hire someone for two weeks or three weeks, knowing that staff who have been working in the parliamentary dining room for multiple years are expected back to work as soon as we come back?

The system was designed around—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We are really running out of time.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will have a little surprise for the member here.

I like her question. Maybe she does not know that in the employment insurance rules, they are not allowed to say they work in the parliamentary restaurant. A woman is not allowed to say she is pregnant, because that would damage her chances to get a job. They are not allowed to say they are driving a school bus, because that would stop them from having a job. They have to lie to the employer. That is in the employment insurance rules—and the Conservatives say they are there to protect the employees, the workers?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Just go and look at the rules. I will show it to the member who just said “Oh, oh!”. It is in the rules.

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

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am rising to follow up on a question I asked in the House a little while ago on the very topical environmental issue of fracking, or natural gas fracturing, as they call it. It is a very topical issue, an environmental issue, but the answer we get to any question we ask about fracking is that it is entirely a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government does not really have anything to do with it. I find that is a very narrow interpretation of the role of the federal government in environmental policy in this country. I also find that this is part of a trend on behalf of the government to move away from involvement in environmental policy in many areas. One gets the sense that, if it can, the government will unload responsibilities for the environment to the provincial authorities at any chance.

I would remind the House that this is a contradictory position because the federal government claims, for example, to be working on regulations for emissions in the oil sands sector or in the oil sector generally, which is a natural resource sector, of course. When it comes to GHG emissions in the oil sector, it has no problem getting involved. Similarly, the federal government has brought in regulations on sulphur emissions that result from the exploitation of oil resources and so on.

I would remind the House that the federal government has a constitutional role in environmental management in this country, and that role is not given by virtue of the Constitution, by virtue of the British North America Act, but through jurisprudence. We have the famous 1997 Hydro-Québec decision, which gives the federal government the power to regulate in matters affecting the environment, not only to prohibit under criminal law, but to regulate under criminal law. So there is a role for the federal government.

When we talk about fracking, we are talking about potential impacts on ground water. Some would say that is under the ground so it is a provincial matter. Yes, it is under the ground, but any expert would say aquifers cross boundaries. They cross provincial boundaries and they cross international boundaries. Right there, even though we are talking about ground water, we are talking about an area that could potentially interest the federal government and require some kind of intervention on the part of the federal government. Again, this is another reason why one could say there is a role for the federal government.

Also, when we talk about fracking, we talk about waste water, because fracking produces waste water. Then the issue becomes what the rules are that would govern effluents of the waste water or the treatment of the waste water. I am not sure if they are true, but there have been reports of waste water from fracking being brought to municipal waste water treatment plants; yet the government regulates in this area of waste water effluents.

Again, I have trouble seeing that the federal government does not have any role whatsoever in the issue of fracking, and I would like to hear the government's response.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made several statements in his opening remarks today. He made comments about government moving away from environmental policy and unloading responsibility for the environment, this being a contradictory position, and greenhouse gas emission regulations. I find all of his comments very interesting as he comes from a party that all but abdicated its responsibility to look at policy that would improve environmental quality in Canada.

Since the member opened the door about greenhouse gas emission regulations this evening, I would like to remind him first and foremost that when talking about environmental policy credibility in the House of Commons, it was actually his government when it was in office that failed miserably in putting forward any sort of plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in our country.

The data that we are starting to see through our emissions trends report, which shows the decoupling of greenhouse gas emission growth with economic growth, is very positive. It has occurred under our government's tenure. That is why we have chosen to look at a sector-by-sector regulatory approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The member also has to recognize that natural resource production and the rules that govern that are primarily the focus of provincial jurisdiction. Our government has done an excellent job with programs such as the chemical management plan. We assessed thousands of chemicals in the country. We have come up with ways to ensure that Canadians have safe drinking water and so on. We also understand that this is primarily an area of provincial responsibility.

We will continue on the path of ensuring that Canadians have a healthy and safe environment through our other regulatory portfolios.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the member's point. We are talking about natural resources. Provincial governments play a major role in the management of natural resources. If the government really believes that it has nothing to do with natural gas fracking, then this begs the question of why it has decided to study the issue. To its own great fanfare, the government has said it will study fracking and no doubt the potential consequences of fracking.

My question was really about whether the government was applying its own rules. There is a regulation that requires companies in Canada to report their release of pollutants to the national pollutant release inventory. All industries are required to do that, whether they are natural resource industries that are mostly regulated by provincial governments or not, yet when it comes to fracking, which introduces about 800 chemicals into the soil, the government does not seem to want to stick to that requirement. I find that another contradiction.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it rich that, after months of debate and questions from Liberal members about science in this country, my colleague would ask a question as inane as why study something.

I would like to point out in my closing remarks that natural resource development is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Our government will continue to provide environmental health and safety for all Canadians through the measures that we have taken to protect groundwater, clean up our lakes and rivers, and our current greenhouse gas emissions program.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take this opportunity to express once more the need for the government to create a national food strategy.

Several months ago I rose in the chamber to question the government about the severe food insecurity issues facing northern and aboriginal communities. The difficulties relating to access to nutritious, culturally appropriate and sustainably developed food are problems that disproportionately affect aboriginal and northern communities in Canada. This is an issue that goes beyond food production and is as much about the equitable distribution of those foods.

At the time of my question, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food had just finished his visit to Canada. He expressed concern that we were not meeting our obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we had only just signed in 2010.

Certainly there are a number of factors that limit anyone's ability to access nutritional food. In northern and aboriginal communities, one of the major factors is income. In fact, over 20% of aboriginal people fall below the Statistics Canada low-income cutoff rate. By way of comparison, only 11% of the rest of our population share this circumstance.

Therefore, we see how certain factors that affect one's ability to purchase food are disproportionately felt among Canada's aboriginal population. The concerns of the UN special rapporteur are reflected in the 2007-08 Inuit health survey prepared by the Centre of Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment. That study showed that 70% of adults living in Nunavut are food insecure. These are some of the highest figures among all developed nations.

These figures also show that federal programs such as nutrition north Canada, which are aimed at addressing this issue, could be improved. For example, when the food and mail program was replaced by nutrition north Canada, 31 communities that once qualified for food and mail did not qualify for nutrition north. Also, with a lack of transparency in the program, it becomes difficult for observers to determine if the subsidies directed at food suppliers are actually being passed along to consumers.

What is really happening is that food costs in northern Canada are continuing to rise despite this federal program designed to remedy the problem. Nutrition north also misses out on the fact that some of the best and most nutritious food consumed by aboriginal peoples is available through the traditional means of hunting and fishing. This oversight amounts to an incomplete program and speaks again to the need for a strategy.

We have to remember that this issue is not limited to aboriginal peoples and is increasingly faced by more and more Canadians. Since the 1980s, we have witnessed food banks become permanent fixtures across the country, and in March of last year, they were used by more than three-quarters of a million Canadians. Worse, almost 40% of those were children.

We see that while the government does little to address the problem of food insecurity, volunteers and organizations across Canada continue to work hard to help Canadian families that struggle with the choice between rent and good, nutritious food.

However, the government has a role to play to ensure that the most vulnerable in our population have access to nutritious and culturally appropriate food. The UN report on the right to food highlights some practical ways to address food insecurity. Among them is language that encourages the federal, provincial and territorial governments to meet with northern and aboriginal communities to discuss access to land and natural resources and how this affects nutrition north Canada and the right to food.

When will the government start talking about these issues? How many more people must struggle for access to adequate food before we start developing a national food strategy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I do not think I have had the opportunity to address her directly in the House before, so this is a pleasure tonight.

I will speak to a few components of the member's statement.

First of all, our government agrees that we need to ensure a safe, healthy and adequate food supply for northern Canadians. I will speak to some of the programming that we have put in place to address that in a moment, but I think my colleague opposite intimated that somehow our government was not addressing the need for economic opportunity for all Canadians.

We just spent the day today addressing budget 2013. The whole point of budget 2013 is to create jobs and economic growth for all Canadians, including northern Canadians, with programs such as the Canada job grant, which is aimed to ensure that all Canadians can get the training they need to access jobs. We understand that when Canadians have jobs they have better economic opportunity and they have better access to products. We want to make sure those opportunities are available for all Canadians, including northern Canadians.

Regarding the report the member mentioned from the UN, my colleague the Minister of Health spoke, I think, quite eloquently to it in the House. She is a member of the Inuit community and quite proud of her cultural heritage. I think she was quite disappointed that the outcome of the report was that this particular individual decided not to meet with local hunters and elders to understand the traditional way of life there. She has already addressed the House as to her opinion on the validity of that report, given that it probably did not understand the cultural sensitivity of that area. I will leave her comments to speak for themselves.

Specifically on the nutrition north Canada program, my colleague intimated that somehow residents of the north would not benefit from this program. However, I would like to point out to her that community residents benefit directly from the program because registered northern retailers must pass on the subsidy to their customers when they buy eligible items in the store. They must do this. Also, registered southern suppliers must pass on the subsidy to individual and commercial establishments. There is a component to this program that ensures those savings are passed on.

The member also suggested that traditional foods, or country foods, are somehow not a component of this program, which is not the case. Country foods, for example, Arctic char, muskox and caribou, are important sources of nutrients, and we understand that they play a key role in the diet of that region. Under nutrition north Canada, the Government of Canada subsidizes country foods that are processed in eligible northern processing plants as well as country foods shipped from the south.

I understand that there are more than 103 northern remote communities that benefit from the nutrition north Canada program. This is a program that is designed to support this area and meet the nutritional needs of that area. We are proud to see it launched and working effectively to date.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2013 is just a shell game. Let me be very clear. Under the Conservatives' NNC program, 31 communities are now ineligible for nutrition north Canada but were eligible before. Therefore, obviously, we can see that aboriginal people across the country are starving.

Also, the report indicated that Inuit are facing severe food insecurity. The report recommends a food strategy that defines the responsibilities of every level of government. Again, the Minister of Health should understand this given the fact that she comes from some of those communities. We are not talking about 31 people; we are talking about 31 communities that do not have access to that program anymore.

Will the Conservative government be part of the solution instead of the problem when it comes to safe, affordable nutrition for Inuit living in Canada's north, and will it put forward a Canadian food strategy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the somewhat ill-informed comment that budget 2013 is a shell game. If we want to talk about what a shell game is, it is the shadow budget that the NDP put forward that has absolutely no costing in it. How can she even speak to economic policy when she cannot even cost out her own program? It is a question that begs to be answered.

When we look at our government's overall approach to economic policy, we see it is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of region, regardless of demographic or ethnicity, have access to economic growth and prosperity, not just now but in the long term. That is why we refuse to speak against, as the NDP has done, certain sectors of our economy such as the natural resource sector.

We want to ensure that we have a healthy environment. We want to have safe food and access to it, but we also have an eye to long-term economic growth.

I hope my colleague will charge her mind and decide to support budget 2013.

Telecommunications

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 11, 2012, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, announced plans to create a code of conduct for wireless service providers in order to address issues related to the clarity and contents of wireless contracts.

All Canadians who are watching at home right now must be thinking about the contracts that they have been stuck with that are full of fine print. That is precisely what I want to talk about.

This plan to create a national, mandatory code for all wireless service providers is extremely important because the CRTC has not looked at issues related to the wireless industry since the mid-1990s. Given that it has been quite a while since anyone has looked at this matter, it is high time someone did so, especially considering all the changes that have taken place in this industry over the past few years.

The federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services processed 10,678 complaints in 2011 and 2012, an increase of 35%, yet he has issued only 55 recommendations and 11 rulings. This illustrates just how much the 27 million Canadians who use a cellular telephone feel their rights are being infringed upon, and with good reason. This also means that the vast majority of complaints are resolved between the consumer and the service provider. Unfortunately, in that regard, we have every reason to believe that these matters are not being resolved in the consumer's favour, which is why it is so important to have a closer look at what is going on.

That is why I rose in this House and asked this government to look into the problem and examine a number of aspects regarding wireless services. It is not just three-year contracts that pose a problem, although this issue is often at the top of the list of the most frequent complaints. Three-year contracts are too long and are a big problem. Other problems include the locking of cellular telephones, exorbitant roaming charges and excessive service charges.

The chairman of the CRTC himself admitted that the current market is dysfunctional and that the situation needs to be fixed. I am not the only one calling for this; the CRTC also believes that progress needs to be made. The Conservatives' inaction means that telephone service in Canada is two to four times more expensive than in Europe or Asia. We have the highest fees of all OECD countries, which says a lot.

Canadians absolutely need protection. Consumer advocacy groups have urged the CRTC to ban three-year contracts and cap them at two years, for example. They are also asking that this change be applied to all current contracts, not just new subscribers. The federal Competition Bureau also indicated that it supports measures to limit the length of contracts. However, for now, the CRTC has decided not to listen to calls for banning three-year contracts, and the federal regulator has instead focused on issues such as early cancellation fees to allow consumers to cancel their service at any time.

Many Canadians expressed their views during exploratory discussions, and they talked about more than just the length of contracts. They also talked about their concerns with locked cellphones and roaming charges. All of those contentious issues will be addressed during the hearings. I am calling on the government to take action on this issue.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Québec regarding protection for cellphone users. First, I would like to talk about the government's telecommunications policy.

The telecommunications sector is an important part of a prosperous, productive and competitive Canadian economy and society. Our government's job is to ensure that appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place to encourage competition and investment so that Canadians can benefit from access to advanced telecommunication services at competitive prices.

Our government has taken a number of important measures to build on our strong record of encouraging greater competition and consumer choice in telecommunications.

In the last wireless spectrum auction in 2008, the government reserved a portion of the spectrum exclusively for new market entrants. In 2012 and 2013, the government announced that it was taking further action to support competition in the telecommunications sector through the following measures: lifting foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies that hold less than a 10% share of the total Canadian telecommunications market, which will help telecom companies with a small market share access the capital they need to grow and compete; ensuring at least four providers in every region can acquire spectrum in the upcoming 700 megahertz and 2,500 megahertz spectrum auctions; reviewing the policy on spectrum licence transfer requests, with an eye to sustaining competition; applying specific measures in the auction of 700 megahertz spectrum aimed at seeing that Canadians in rural areas have access to advanced wireless services in a timely manner; and extending and expanding the existing policy on roaming and tower-sharing to further support competition and reduce unnecessary proliferation of new cellphone towers.

In the past two decades, cellphones have become a basic necessity for many consumers, whereas they were previously used primarily in the business world. Now, the vast majority of Canadians use cellphones and many Canadians are giving up their land lines in favour of wireless devices.

These telephones are used for much more than talking and sending text messages. The use of data on smart phones is increasing at lightening speed, and Canadians are using their cellphones to stay connected, be entertained and conduct business. Wireless services are increasingly important for consumers and businesses.

As the minister has previously noted in this House, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, is currently carrying out a proceeding to develop a mandatory code of conduct for consumer wireless services.

This government recognizes the importance of both competition and strong investment in digital infrastructure. The measures we are taking will ensure that Canadians enjoy the benefits of choice and access to advanced services in the telecommunications marketplace.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that regulations are imperative. We absolutely have to think a little bit about consumers. That is what we are doing on this side of the House.

We must remember that telephone services in Canada are two to four times more costly than in Europe and Asia. Our rates are too high, so we need regulations.

On this side of the House, we are not against a little more competition. However, there must be a real benefit for consumers. I will quote the Competition Bureau in that regard.

First, certain industry practices have tended to impose costs on consumers who wish to avail themselves of competitive alternatives. Second, consumers are not always provided with sufficient information in an adequately clear manner to make informed purchase decisions. These features can deprive consumers, competitors, and the Canadian economy of the beneficial effects of competition in this industry, namely lower prices, higher quality service, and greater innovation.

I will put the question to the government once more: Does it intend to take into consideration all those Canadian consumers who want much cheaper rates than those currently available?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to provide an economic climate that allows Canadian firms to prosper and that protects Canadians consumers. The government has taken measures to promote competition in order to ensure that consumers have access to a wider range of options on the market.

These measures include setting aside spectrum in 2008 exclusively for new entrants. We amended the Telecommunications Act to lift foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies that hold less than a 10% share of the total Canadian telecommunications market. We are applying caps in the upcoming spectrum option so that both new wireless competitors and incumbent carriers will have access to the spectrum up for auction.

As the hon. member knows, the CRTC is currently carrying out a proceeding to develop a mandatory code for mobile wireless services and the issue she raises is one that may be addressed.

This government recognizes the importance of both competition and strong investment in digital infrastructure. The measures we are taking will ensure that Canadians enjoy the benefits of choice and access to advanced services in the telecommunications marketplace.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)