Debates of Oct. 21st, 2014

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act is the federal government's main and, by far, most powerful legislative instrument for protecting Canada's lakes, rivers, and streams. In other words, the Fisheries Act is at the heart of federal water policy.

Since first being elected, the Conservative government has waged an almost incessant crusade to progressively undermine the Fisheries Act; in other words, to effectively weaken the act's prohibitions against harming fish and, by implication, polluting Canada's watercourses.

First, the government used schedule 2 of the Fisheries Act's mining effluent regulations to open the door wide to converting more and more northern freshwater lakes into dumping grounds for toxic mine tailings. The original intent of the regulations was to grandfather lakes that had already been destroyed by mine tailings in clear contravention of the Fisheries Act. In other words, the intent was to retroactively make these toxic lakes legal under the act.

In 2012, the government weakened section 35 of the Fisheries Act, the act's provisions for fish habitat protection, by restricting the section's application to recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries, and aboriginal fisheries only. In regard to section 36 of the act, the section that prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into fish-bearing waters, absent an explicit regulatory exemption granted by entire cabinet, the budget gave greater power to the minister of fisheries to, by himself or herself, carve out exemptions to the act. In other words, he or she could accord permission to those who wished to be allowed to legally pollute waterways for purposes of research or in the process of conducting various industrial activities, including agricultural production.

In the case of agriculture, the government's aim is to make it easier to allow pesticides to leach into waterways.

In budget 2014, the government followed up on the broad enabling provisions adopted in the 2012 budget, by more precisely defining the regulatory framework within which the minister could create blanket exemptions to the water pollution prohibitions found in section 36 of the Fisheries Act.

Is the government's aim to carve out exemptions for the oil sands industry specifically? It is an industry that, despite persistent and, I would say, stubborn earlier denials by the government, has been found by scientists, including the government's own scientists, to be causing to harm to the Athabasca River watershed.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a little clarity on the question that was asked.

Our government is committed to taking real action to ensure the protection of the environment and sustainability of our resources. We take our responsibility for pollution prevention very seriously.

The scope of the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act has not changed. It prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances unless authorized under regulations. These provisions represent a strong and effective legislative regime for environmental protection in Canada.

In 1978 Environment Canada was assigned the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the pollution protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. A designation order made March 12, 2014, by the Governor in Council has formalized this arrangement and provides clarity for Canadians regarding responsibility for section 36 of the Fisheries Act by designating the Minister of the Environment as responsible. This order also identifies the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the minister responsible for those same provisions, but specifically for the purposes of aquaculture, aquatic invasive species, and aquatic pests.

Our government has modernized and clarified the way these regulations are administered. For example, in some circumstances, such as dealing with an aquatic invasive species that could have a significant impact on Canadian fisheries, there is a new ability for ministerial regulations to authorize deposits for the control of these destructive species, such as Asian carp or zebra mussels.

In putting forth these new ministerial regulations, our government has ensured the appropriate safeguards are in place. Conditions set out in GIC regulations ensure that ministerial regulations can only authorize deposits if they are for aquatic research purposes or they deal with aquaculture, aquatic invasive species, or aquatic pests and are for the purpose of proper management and control of the fisheries or the conservation and protection of fish, or they pose a low risk.

For this last condition to be met, there must already be a federal or provincial instrument that requires that the deposit meet science-based water quality guidelines.

Canadians are engaged in this process, as all ministerial regulations authorizing deposits must provide an opportunity for public comment through publication in the Canada Gazette, part I.

Let me be clear. These ministerial regulations provide a new tool to effectively manage deposits, but they do not provide a blanket authorization. They do not offload responsibility for pollution control to the provinces. These regulations simply recognize that when deposits are for research purposes or are necessary for the conservation and protection of fish, or where an effective provincial or federal regulatory scheme already exists, these deposits can be authorized by ministerial regulations under the Fisheries Act.

This is a common sense change and provides stakeholders with certainty that they are in compliance with the act without the need to create an additional or duplicative regime to manage the same activity.

In fact, the Minister of the Environment has already made use of this new tool by developing the Experimental Lakes Area Research Activities Regulations, which allow for the continued use of substances in experiments in the Experimental Lakes Area. This regulation is an important component of the government's commitment to ensuring a new operator is well equipped to take over the Experimental Lakes Area and to facilitate those ongoing experiments.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the federal government remains responsible for pollution prevention and takes this role very seriously. The new tools our government has created allow us to maintain this current high level of environmental protection in a more efficient and clear manner. They also facilitate greater regulatory certainty for Canadians by allowing the government to use ministerial regulations when they are already well managed by other instruments or jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, waste water from a Suncor oil sands project was accidentally released into the Athabasca River. We were surprised to learn that the test applied to determine if this was a violation of the Fisheries Act was whether more than 50% of affected fish died. I am told this is a provincial standard, one that appears to be in contradiction with the traditional federal standard that says nothing that could be harmful to even one fish should be allowed to enter water.

How can this more lax standard be allowed to exist under the enforcement provisions of the Fisheries Act? Is it because Fisheries Act enforcement has been devolved to the province, where the provincial Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act applies weaker standards? Are the regulatory changes in budget 2014 at least partially aimed at allowing the minister to retroactively exempt this and other industries from more stringent federal anti-pollution prohibitions in favour of more lax provincial ones?

If so, which other industries and provinces will be benefiting from the minister's new power to single-handedly exempt pollution-generating activities from Fisheries Act prohibitions?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, our government is committed to taking real action to ensure the protection of the environment, and we take our responsibility for pollution prevention very seriously.

For any protection regime to be effective, stakeholders need certainty and clarity respecting what activities are within the law. The changes that our government has made to the Fisheries Act allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment to take the steps necessary to reduce red tape and increase compliance certainty amongst stakeholders, while at the same time protecting fish and fish habitat.

As I noted, these changes only allow for ministerial regulations authorizing deposits of deleterious substances under very specific conditions. These conditions will ensure effective protection of Canadian fisheries by only granting the ability to use ministerial regulations to authorize deposits in areas that are already well managed.

Our government will continue to ensure that the pollution prevention provisions of the act are enforced.

Democratic Reform

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I want to talk about the state of this House.

Let us face it, Canadian democracy is in deep trouble, especially since the current government came to power. It is not just the Conservatives, though, that are responsible for this mess we are in. The leaders of the Liberals and the NDP are more interested in crushing dissent within their parties than encouraging debate. MPs are often forced to vote against their consciences and against the will of their constituents. Anti-democratic attitudes abound in party backrooms.

For the past year, we have been discussing the proposed reform act introduced by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I truly believe that with this reform act, in its current form, we have an opportunity to transform Canadian democracy for the better.

Canadians can imagine my disappointment, but not surprise, when the three main parties waffled on their positions and criticized parts of this important bill. Canadians want change. They want democracy restored. The groundswell of support from ordinary Canadians for this bill is significant. Everyone I have spoken to has told me they are calling on their MPs to support this important legislation.

This reform act makes some long overdue changes that will make Parliament work better for Canadians again, instead of for party leaders. It would make party leaders more accountable to their MPs by establishing a leadership review process. It will end the requirement for a candidate's nomination papers to be signed by the party leader, the anti-democratic but little-known change to the Elections Act made by Pierre Trudeau in 1970.

This reform act will empower MPs to once again stand up for their constituents. It is the primary reason why I am supporting the bill in its current form. I even introduced a similar motion back in 2012. The reform act is important because it scales back the excessive powers of party leaders and restores local control over party nominations. However, recently, changes were proposed, I can only assume to placate the party leaders, that will weaken the most important parts of the bill and hand endorsement power right back to party leaders.

The reform act is only the beginning for democratic reform. Several other changes must be made to make Parliament more productive and less partisan. We must make our voting system more proportional to reflect the actual choices of Canadians. We must increase cross-party co-operation to end mindless partisan tribalism. We must take away the power of the Prime Minister to declare any bill a matter of confidence and to stop him from bullying Parliament, imposing bloated omnibus budget bills, and ignoring his own fixed election date law.

It is time we prevented parties from forcing their MPs to vote with their party. This summer the Green Party unanimously passed a resolution to ensure that their MPs would always be free to vote independently.

We must also restrict the unilateral power of the Prime Minister to appoint, without any oversight, senators, judges, parliamentary officers and many other positions.

The reform act, in its current form, is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to recognize that it is time for all MPs who care about democracy to re-empower themselves and support the reform act in its current form, without weakening it further.

Will Conservative MPs, and indeed all MPs in this House, have the courage to vote for the reform act in its current form?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. This may be a brief response, not because it is not an important issue but because it is.

Democratic reform is a very serious and difficult task. I begin by commending the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his important work in strengthening our democratic institutions and for bringing forward the reform act.

The reform act is an effort to strengthen Canada's democratic institutions by restoring the role of elected members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The member opposite said in his original question that the leaders of the three major parties threatened to kill the bill if it was not watered down. I would like to point out that, as with all private members' business, we said we would take time to carefully review the amendments proposed by the member to his own bill.

The reform act, Bill C-586, has now been read a second time and has been referred to committee, where it is right now. Of course, the committee is the master of its own destiny, but the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills proposed two changes in response to consultations held over the summer and to build support for his bill.

First, he concluded that perhaps the way it was written with respect to party nominations was too prescriptive, which would make it difficult for parties to, for example, meet diversity targets. In fact, the member opposite is from a party that is exactly 50% male and 50% female here in the House of Commons, but other parties have not reached that target yet.

The amendment the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has proposed is that instead of insisting that it be only a local decision in terms of who signs nomination papers, the party could determine who would sign these nomination papers. It could be somebody locally. It could even be the leader, but it would not be prescribed to be the leader, as it is currently in the Canada Elections Act.

The second change he is proposing is that each House of Commons caucus, after every general election, as its first item of business, in a recorded manner, could vote on whether members wanted to accept the template laid out in his bill or a different set of rules, and they would have the freedom to do so.

Quite simply, the bill takes the current unwritten convention and makes explicit in statute the rules and process for the caucus to review the party leader. Additionally, the reform act proposes that a party leadership review may be initiated by the submission of a written notice to the caucus chair, signed by at least 20% of the caucus members, and would mandate that the caucus chair make public the names of those caucus members requesting a vote.

When a majority of caucus members voted in favour of a leadership review, a second vote by secret ballot would occur, and they could select a person to serve as the interim party leader until a new party leader was elected.

Our government has continually delivered on its democratic reform commitments. More backbench MPs have passed bills into law through this majority Conservative Parliament than under any government since 1972, and we still have a year to go.

I should add that The Globe and Mail analyzed 162,000 votes over almost two years and found that Conservative MPs are far more likely to vote independently from their party than opposition MPs, as opposed to the NDP, for example, in which not a single MP voted against the party line.

As the member opposite knows, the Prime Minister and our government supported the bill, and as it comes back from committee, this House will have the privilege to examine the bill again at third reading.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite on his thoughtful comments tonight, which were logical and clear. I do not agree with many of them, but they were a cut above the average we hear sometimes in this House.

I really do not understand why some Liberal, NDP, and Conservative MPs fear supporting the reform act in its current form and want to weaken it further.

As elected representatives of our constituents, who have expressed a clear preference for the current bill, I would hope that all members would think long and hard before trying to water down a bill of this importance.

The current version of the reform act would re-empower MPs and get them once again working for their constituents rather than for unelected back room apparatchiks. It would allow MPs to put the needs of Canadians ahead of narrow party interests.

While I will support the bill in its current form as an important step forward, I will have to think about it if it is significantly watered down as changes are made later.

I ask, will all MPs in this House support the current version of the reform act and restore democracy to the House of Commons?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has demonstrated for all of us an effective approach to doing business in this place. After he produced the bill and it was in the public domain he indicated that he welcomed suggestions to improve the bill to make it more palatable to a broader number of members, and that is what he has done.

As with all private members' business, we said we would take the time to carefully review the amendments that have been proposed by the member. These amendments would keep parties in control of their nominations and allow caucuses to set their own rules.

In light of these proposed changes, the government supported Bill C-586 at second reading and looks forward to seeing it when it comes back from committee.

[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 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.)