Debates of Oct. 27th, 2014

Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite concluded his remarks by saying that he hopes we will be supporting the Korean free trade deal. As I hope he has heard from our previous remarks, we certainly will be. The Korean deal is important and I think is widely supported in this House, partly because it is an important opening for Canada into Asia.

I would love to hear the member's view on the TPP talks, which are the very essential next step, and whether he has a view on when we might expect those talks to be concluded.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member reiterating her support, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada's support, for this important free trade agreement. I do think that when we have good deals and bring them here and debate them, we can also see some support for things. It makes sense, not just for my home province of British Columbia but for Canada.

The trans-Pacific partnership is one of many deals that the government is working on. Obviously that is a wider effort because there are so many different countries involved. In fact, other countries are looking to perhaps join in. However, I would not want to give an impression other than to say that efforts are ongoing. I am concerned that we have seen slowdowns at the WTO, where there has not been agreement.

In the lack of progress on these large regional or multilateral agreements, I do think that the government has taken a prudent approach, and we are able to open up significant markets such as Korea, which is a gateway to the Asia-Pacific region, as the member said. Those bilateral agreements are important, because Canadian businesses and farmers, as I said in my speech, are at a competitive disadvantage compared with others such as the European Union or the United States.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on creating jobs and opportunities for hard-working Canadians in every corner of this country. That is why we have launched the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments.

In our volatile global economy, one of the greatest opportunities for our country to expand trade and create prosperity is in the fast-growing markets of the Asia-Pacific. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is our first bilateral free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region. This landmark agreement would bring enormous benefits to both our countries. It would create thousands of good jobs for Canadians, boosting Canada's economy by an estimated $1.7 billion, and increasing Canadian exports to South Korea by an estimated 32%. It would lead to greater investment in both of our countries and would mean more choices and better prices for Canadian consumers.

South Korea is already Canada's seventh-largest merchandise trading partner. The movement of goods between our countries was nearly $11 billion in 2013. That number would only grow with this new agreement.

This agreement will cover all aspects of the Canada-South Korea trade relationship. It will eliminate many tariffs and other measures that hinder trade between our two countries, providing greater transparency and confidence for investors. Right now, some of the areas with the greatest potential for growth are Canada's minerals and metals, which includes oil and gas, forestry, and value-added wood product sectors.

With the entry into force of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, the potential for even greater growth in trade of these commodities is huge. For example, South Korea imported an average of $2.8 billion of Canadian metal and mineral products per year between 2011 and 2013. South Korean tariffs on these goods can reach up to 8%. Once this agreement is in force, South Korea will immediately remove tariffs on iron, steel, nickel, and non-ferrous metals, and immediately eliminate tariffs on almost 100% of exports of aluminum, with all remaining duties eliminated within five years. South Korea will also immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly 100% of mineral product exports, again with all remaining tariffs being eliminated within five years.

South Korea relies chiefly on imports to meet most of its energy needs. Over the next five years, South Korea's demands for energy are expected to rise dramatically due to its growing industrial sector. Canada is in a good position to help meet that growing demand. Canada is a global leader when it comes to energy. We are the sixth-largest producer of oil, with the world's third-largest proven oil reserves. We are the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, and the second-largest producer of uranium, which is a critical resource for South Korea, one of the world's top generators of nuclear energy. Once this agreement is in force, South Korea will immediately remove tariffs on more than 88% of Canadian exports of petroleum products. The tariffs on the remaining petroleum products will be phased out within five years. Import duties on petroleum coke will be immediately eliminated. With respect to natural gas, South Korea's current duty of 3% will be eliminated upon entry into force of the agreement.

South Korean investors also have a keen interest in Canada's growing liquefied natural gas market and the potential for export of LNG. As you know, Canada has enormous natural gas reserves and the potential to become a major player in the global LNG market. The challenge has always been a lack of infrastructure in Canada to meet global demands. However, all of that is about to change. If the seven major LNG projects proposed for B.C. go ahead, they could generate more than $1 trillion in economic activity over the next 30 years. Over the next decade, hundreds of major resource projects, worth more than $675 billion, are planned or currently under way, so there is enormous economic potential. This agreement opens up the possibility for Canada to become the North American platform for LNG exports to Asia.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement also builds on the positive relationship we have built with the Republic of Korea in the field of clean energy technology. Canada and South Korea have a long and fruitful research partnership in clean energy technology dating back decades. The South Korean market offers many opportunities for Canada in niche areas, such as smart grids, biomass energy and waste energy, all areas where Canada has strong expertise and proven technologies. We are working together with the goal of translating research into demonstration projects and commercial ventures in the field of renewable energy, including smart grids, and carbon capture and storage.

Beyond energy, the trade agreement also opens the door to strengthening trade ties with South Korea when it comes to forestry. South Korea is currently the fourth largest market for Canadian forest products, with exports averaging more than $597 million per year between 2011 and 2013, of which an average of $92 million per year is subject to tariffs up to 10%. Within 5 to 10 years of implementation of this agreement, South Korea will eliminate all tariffs on Canadian forest products.

Building on this agreement, the Prime Minister and President Park of the Republic of Korea recently witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding for co-operation in the field of forestry. It represents an important milestone for sustainable forest management in both our countries.

We stand with Canadians incredibly disappointed that the NDP members tried to completely gut the bill at the trade committee, where they tabled amendments to remove the investor protection provisions, which are cornerstones of modern trade and investment agreements. This is just as harmful as the neglect of international trade under the Liberals who took Canada virtually out of the game of trade negotiations, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in this era of global markets.

In less than seven years, our government has reached free trade agreements with 38 countries, bringing Canada's total to 43 agreements. Thanks to these actions, under our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers, businesses and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

In our global economy, free trade paves the way to prosperity. South Korea is not only a major economic player in its own right and a key market for Canada, it also serves as an important gateway for Canadian businesses to the dynamic Asia-Pacific market.

With this ground-breaking agreement with South Korea and the trade agreement our country recently negotiated with the European Union, Canada has now concluded free trade agreements with nearly one-quarter of the countries in the world. It means that Canada will now enjoy access to more than half of the global economy.

We know that as trade increases so does our nation's prosperity, which creates jobs and puts more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. By continuing to actively pursue broader market access and new investment opportunities, we are providing Canadian businesses and exporters with access on preferred terms to the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing economies and regions around the world. To put it simply, this agreement is a game changer for our country.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great pride when I hear people talk about new markets, because I represent the riding of Newmarket—Aurora. I am always happy to hear about opportunities for people in my riding to find new places to sell the things they manufacture and to purchase new products.

I know my colleague comes from a riding where there are natural resources, and they will be looking for new markets. Would she like to speak about some of those opportunities for her constituents?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House last week, trade is very important to my home province of Saskatchewan. Not only are we resource rich with resources like potash, uranium, oil, coal and forest products, but Saskatchewan's agricultural exports to South Korea were worth an average of $149.5 million from 2010 to 2012. This was led by wheat, canola, oil, unroasted barley malt, animal feed, rye and pork.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on 86% of agricultural tariff lines and continue to open up new markets for Saskatchewan.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House for the entirety of my hon. colleague's speech, but I was advised by some who were that she and some others on the Conservative side of the House were making some sort of accusation that somehow the NDP was holding up the bill in committee, or seeking to kill it entirely. That is 100% false.

During the clause-by-clause study of the bill, the New Democrats did our job as opposition and of course studied the clauses. We proposed six amendments that were debated very briefly and voted down by the government. We actually passed the bill at committee after second reading in one meeting. That is because the New Democrats have, from the beginning, listened to the testimony of the business community that it would like to see this agreement in place by January 1, if at all possible. The official opposition has been co-operative in doing so.

Would my hon. colleague correct any remarks she may have made that would erroneously suggest to Canadians that the New Democrats were somehow working to kill or slow down the bill?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that when it comes to free trade and free trade agreements, there is almost always very little support from the member and his party. We are very thankful to hear today that they will support the passing of this free trade agreement.

The Canada-Korea free trade agreement is our first bilateral free trade agreement in the Asia Pacific region and represents one of the greatest opportunities for our country in the fast growing markets of the Asia Pacific. Our prosperity depends on our expansion into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

I am very grateful to hear that the NDP and the members of the committee will support the passage of the agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate.

I must inform the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles that she will only have about seven minutes before the debate ends.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-41.

I would like to reiterate my support for this bill and for the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement. I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade with the NDP's international trade critic. He is always very diligent and thorough when it comes to international trade issues. It was also a pleasure to work with my other colleagues on this committee.

When I sat on this committee, we also studied other bills such as the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Although I am proud to rise in the House today to support the free trade agreement with South Korea, I would also like to condemn the Conservative government's approach to free trade, an approach that is not critical of countries that do not respect democratic institutions. The government wants to negotiate free trade agreements with all countries, no matter how they govern their affairs, for example in terms of the environment or lack of respect for human rights.

The NDP has a balanced approach. We believe that a free trade agreement with South Korea would benefit Canada, and in particular certain sectors, such as aerospace, which is very important for the Montreal area.

The NDP also believes that we need to assess every free trade agreement on the basis of its merits. The free trade agreement must therefore benefit Canada and generate significant economic spinoffs for our economy and for Canadian industries. Free trade agreements must also be negotiated with countries that respect human rights, have fairly strict regulations regarding the environment and workers' rights, and have fairly high standards.

That is not the case in Honduras. In that country, journalists continue to be murdered. In committee, witnesses such as Bertha Oliva, an advocate for human rights in Honduras, spoke about the human rights situation there. She campaigned for justice for missing and murdered persons in Honduras. We also heard from witnesses, such as PEN International, who spoke about human rights. All of these witnesses agreed that the free trade agreement with Honduras would not improve the human rights situation there. In fact, it could even make an already horrendous situation worse. Witnesses from PEN International spoke about journalists in particular. Journalists are often in danger because of their profession. Those who write or speak about free trade agreements or the economy are often in even greater jeopardy.

These witnesses also said that the agreement would not benefit most Hondurans, a large percentage of whom live in poverty. Economists also told us that the Honduran economy was similar to that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region. Its economy is not huge. Few consumers will buy Canadian products because they simply do not have the means. These people live on very little money per month. This agreement will not have a huge benefit for Canadian industries.

I would also like to talk about the agreement with the European Union, which was also debated in the House. I will speak on behalf of the cheese producers in my riding and my region, since I have the pleasure and honour to represent a riding that is both urban and rural. Our community has a lot of farmers and cheese producers. They are wondering when they will hear from the Conservative government about the compensation they are supposed to receive as a result of the implementation of the free trade agreement with the European Union.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé moved a motion in the House that was debated and voted upon. Fortunately, the Conservatives voted in favour of this NDP motion to ensure that cheese producers will not be overly penalized by this free trade agreement with the European Union. The Conservative government just needs to put its words into action and give us some more specific information about how cheese producers will receive this compensation.

I look forward to continuing my speech the next time I have the opportunity to do so in this House.

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

Health

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to revisit a question I asked on September 26 regarding the underfunding of our health care system and the Conservatives' budget cuts. The people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles are very concerned about this.

Whenever Canadians are asked about their universal health care system, they are always very proud. For over 10 years now, surveys have shown that health is a top priority for Canadians and that most people support the idea of a strong, public, universal medicare system. However, instead of recognizing the value of this system and working hard to preserve it, the Conservative government is destroying it.

In 2011, the Conservatives unilaterally decided to slash $36 billion from the health care budgets the provinces had been expecting for the next 10 years. They changed the structure of the the Canada health transfer, which is no longer allocated based on needs. The Conservatives even axed the Health Council of Canada, the organization responsible for identifying improvements in the system and best practices across the country.

My riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, will certainly feel the effects of the Conservatives' ongoing attacks on our health care system. Studies show that the population of my riding is growing and aging faster than the provincial average. The population of the Lower Laurentian region will have grown an estimated 15% from 2006 to 2016, which is twice the growth rate in Quebec. During that same period, the number of residents 60 and over will have increased by 67%, which is also much higher than the Quebec average.

The more the population grows and ages, the more it needs adequate, specific funding for health care to meet the residents' needs. There is already a funding problem in the Lower Laurentian region despite the population's great need, and 60% of services are received outside the region, often in Laval or Montreal. Every day, many residents of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles have to leave their region to get the care they need. People in my riding are actively campaigning to raise awareness of the lack of regional funding and the serious impact that has on health and well-being.

These demographic changes will result in many services, such as home care, ambulatory geriatrics, mental health services, dialysis, oncology and nuclear medicine, becoming increasingly essential to residents.

The NDP will work hard to ensure that our health system remains universal and public for the good of all Canadians. We believe that palliative and long-term care should be recognized as essential services, just like hospital treatments.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to explain to me why his government is determined to cut our health care system's budget and put Canadians' health at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the record that in fact there are no cuts, but only increases going forward to provincial health care budgets.

Let me reiterate that through record transfer dollars and significant targeted investments, this government continues to work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to improve access to services where they are needed most.

I noted as a result of this strong partnership, we have made significant gains in increasing the numbers of physicians, including family physicians practising in Canada. We also recognize that determining the right mix and distribution of health care providers is critically important in meeting the health care needs of Canadians. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories to optimize their health workforce so Canadians, including those living in rural and remote areas, can access the care they need.

Our government is providing the highest recorded health transfer dollars in history to the provinces and territories. This record funding will reach $40 billion annually by the end of the decade, and it provides stability and predictability to the system. While primary provision and delivery of health care rests with the provinces and territories, including matters related to the training and hiring of the health workforce, our government is providing record supports.

Between 2009 and 2013, the growth in the number of physicians was three times higher than population growth rates and was even higher in the rural communities.

Medical school enrolments continue to be at an all-time high as do the number of graduates, including family physicians. According to the Canadian Institute of Health Information, last year Canada had the most physicians per capita in history, over 77,000. In addition to record levels of investment, our Conservative government supports targeted efforts to address challenges related to the health workforce.

Internationally, educated health professionals, for example, play an important role in meeting health care needs of Canadians. More than one-quarter of physicians who entered the workforce in 2014 received their medical training outside of Canada. That is why this government is investing $18 million per year to support the integration of internationally educated health professionals so they may quickly become of Canada's highly qualified workforce.

Additionally, the government is working with provincial and territorial governments to help integrate health professionals with overseas credentials through the pan-Canadian framework for the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications.

We know, however, that numbers alone are not enough to improve access to health care providers in areas where they are needed most. That is why our government, working in partnership with provinces and territories, has invested $39.5 million to train family medicine residents in rural and remote communities.

In addition, we have launched the Canada student loan forgiveness program, providing up to $9 million in Canada student loan forgiveness to new family physicians and nurses who practise in rural and remote communities.

We continue with research that is important as well. We are supporting innovation in health care to ensure our system is sustainable and meets the needs of Canadians now and into the future.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Despite the government's claims that no cuts are being made to health care budgets, the figures show the opposite.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, federal health funding will reach a historic low under the Conservatives. With their irresponsible cuts, the share of Canada health transfers in provincial and territorial health spending will decrease substantially from 20.4% in 2010-11 to less than 12% over the next 25 years.

The NDP and most Canadians want to protect our public health care system, and we are proud of the legacy of Tommy Douglas and previous NDP governments.

I will ask again: will the Conservatives cancel their cuts and restore adequate funding for the health care system?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the New Democrats are not noted for their mathematics, but let us be clear. Under this government, we have delivered an increase in health care of 6% per year. We are reaching record transfer levels, notwithstanding the expiry of the health accord. Those increases will continue in absolute dollars every year.

We have made some adjustment with respect to having it tied to economic growth, but in each and every year, even in years where the economy will not perform well, there will be increased funding.

I encourage the member to embrace that and get on board with our historic increases for health care.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period on October 3, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport about a statement by the president of Canadian Pacific concerning rail safety, particularly in relation to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

We were outraged to hear the comments by Hunter Harrison, the president and CEO of Canadian Pacific, who believes that regulatory agencies overreacted to the rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. He said that the accident was the fault of one negligent person who did not apply the brakes properly and that regulations would not stop that type of behaviour.

Many aspects of his comments are disturbing. First, we must not forget that 47 innocent people died in this rail disaster. Forty-seven people. In addition, 6 million litres of crude oil were spilled. The families of the victims, the people of Lac-Mégantic and all Canadians deserve to be safe when close to railways. It is not just necessary that we thoroughly examine rail safety regulations, it is crucial.

Second, in its most recent report, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada highlighted the shared responsibility for this tragedy. The Conservative government did not do its job, namely, properly monitoring the offending companies, like MMA, on Canadian soil. It was also recognized that Transport Canada was not conducting audits of rail companies frequently enough or thoroughly enough.

Wendy Tadros, the chair of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, stated:

Accidents never come down to a single individual, a single action or a single factor. You have to look at the whole context. In our investigation, we found 18 factors played a role in this accident.

Eighteen factors—not just one person, as the president of Canadian Pacific claimed.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Transport stubbornly continues to place all the blame on MMA. It is not worthy of the Canadians who have mandated us to protect them through regulations and legislation. In this case, the coroner and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada came to the same conclusion: the government did not meet its obligation to protect the public.

The role of the government is to ensure that companies follow the rules, that the rules are adequate and that there is comprehensive monitoring. If the Conservative government does not want to do that, then we will do it in 2015.

We know that Lac-Mégantic is not the only municipality where a rail accident occurred. Right now, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is conducting 18 investigations into derailments and collisions that occurred in 2013 and 2014 alone.

Increasing amounts of crude oil are going to be moving across the country. Unlike what Mr. Harrison thinks, we need more regulations and we need to ensure that private companies comply with Canada's laws and regulations to improve safety regarding the transportation of hazardous materials.

Is the Conservative government going to accept such statements from companies operating in Canada? Is the government going to strengthen regulations and monitoring in order to keep Canadian families who live near railway lines safe?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians and communities, and a safe, dependable, modern transportation system to support the continuing well-being and prosperity of this country.

The Transportation Safety Board's August report for the Lac-Mégantic derailment did conclude that the rules were not followed, but it also highlighted areas where the Government of Canada could improve, a fact that the minister has said repeatedly in the House.

This government takes all the Transportation Safety Board recommendations seriously. Transport Canada officials are currently thoroughly reviewing its latest recommendations to determine the appropriate course of action.

In the past year, however, our government has taken decisive action to further strengthen Canada's regulation and oversight of rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods specifically, such as removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars, and requiring railway companies to share data about the dangerous goods they ship with officials in municipalities and with first responders. We will continue to work on more prescriptive rules for the securement of trains.

This past July, officials from Transport Canada also prepublished new railway safety management system regulations in part 1 of the Canada Gazette. These proposed changes include new or updated processes to encourage employees to report contraventions of safety concerns to the railway company; to analyze data and trends to identify safety concerns; to manage organizational knowledge so that employees can perform their duties more safety; and to improve work scheduling to prevent employee fatigue.

Let me assure the member that our government does not hesitate to take enforcement action to ensure rail safety. Transport Canada can proceed with a letter of concern, notice or notice and order, ministerial order, emergency directive, investigation and prosecution, or order of the court. For example, under the Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada may issue a ministerial order requiring a federal railway company to provide an action plan with corrective measures to address a deficiency that risks compromising the safety of the railway company's railway operations. Additionally, railway safety inspectors have the authority under the Railway Safety Act to require the production of documents to verify a company's compliance with applicable requirements.

These actions also reflect our determination to honour our railway and dangerous goods safety commitment in last year's Speech from the Throne. Our government does not only intend to continue to improve rail safety. It has improved it over the past years and will continue to take action to improve it even further for the long term. We will continue to work with our municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers to explore and implement measures that will help inform communities and make our railways safer.

Our government remains committed to the safety of all Canadians and concrete railway safety measures to date attest to this fact. We will continue these efforts going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to note that these measures are not as effective as they should be.

Again yesterday, there was a CN derailment in Rand Lake, which is 130 kilometres from Sault Ste. Marie. A car carrying diesel fuel leaked, and the train was also pulling a dangerous goods car containing sulphuric acid. This happened again yesterday.

Despite the new measures taken as a result of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, it seems that rail accidents are still occurring in Canada.

Did the government think to check the tracks and their condition? Can the Minister of Transport assure us that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada went to investigate this new derailment on site and that Transport Canada is going to take corrective action so that Canadians living near railway lines will finally be safe?

The government needs to enforce the regulations, not just make them.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in point of fact, the government is doing both of those things.

The Transportation Safety Board investigates any accidents or incidents that are under its mandate to do so.

As I have noted with respect to Lac-Mégantic and other reports, the government takes those very seriously and they inform the decisions of the government. We will be hearing in due course additional measures to comply with the Transportation Safety Board's report into Lac-Mégantic. I know members of the House, including those opposite, will be interested to hear about those actions.

The Environment

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to continue with this special Quebec edition in Parliament this evening, after the Quebec Bridge, I am pleased to speak to you about the Port of Québec, which is another rather embarrassing situation under the circumstances. Let me put things into context.

In October 2012, the first cloud of dust escaped the Port of Québec and came down mostly on the Limoilou neighbourhood. The incident triggered a strong public response and resulted in increased monitoring of the port's activities ever since. This led to the finding that an unusually high rate of nickel dust settles onto Limoilou. A watchdog committee was set up thanks to the exceptional work of a remarkable person, Véronique Lalande, and her spouse, Louis Duchesne.

In April 2013, Quebec's ministry for sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change, found that the nickel dust was definitely coming from the Port of Québec. The activities surrounding shipping nickel in bulk, particularly by St. Lawrence Stevedoring, are the main cause.

Studies showed that the concentration of nickel in the air was five times higher than Quebec standards. After measuring the concentration, the Direction régionale de santé publique de la Capitale-Nationale established that the nickel dust in the air affected people's health, primarily by causing allergies and asthma, and had the potential to become carcinogenic with very long-term exposure.

The Port of Quebec is part of the Canada Port Authorities, and falls under Transport Canada, which owns and manages Canadian ports. The department is also responsible for supervising the environmental management of leased facilities, for example, by a company such as St. Lawrence Stevedoring, which is under federal jurisdiction.

However, there is a problem and it is a legislative problem. This is not just about health and public safety. First of all, the legislation is not effective. That is why we are here this evening. As federal MPs, we are primarily legislators, and that is why we must fix the law, which has many gaps at this time.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is leaving it up to the Port of Québec to use its own criteria in conducting environmental assessments of projects such as the expansion, which is a hot topic in Quebec City nowadays. This means the Port of Québec is in charge of assessing the environmental impact of its own infrastructure projects.

We are at this point because provisions that threaten the objectivity of environmental impact assessments of major federal projects were introduced in the Conservatives' mammoth bills, sometimes known as Trojan horse bills. These bills included many provisions. Often, a single law changed many bills, meaning that lots of little pieces of legislation could be eliminated with a single vote. Unfortunately, that is how these provisions were changed, and that is how we got to this point.

My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou is doing exceptional work on this file. In June, he introduced Bill C-612 to subject Canadian port authorities to audits by the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

What we are asking is simple. We just want the government to look closely at this issue and make the necessary legislative changes. Will the government stop treating the port like a state within a state? It is absurd.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to address the question from the hon. member for Québec regarding the modernized federal environmental assessment regime in Canada.

In line with the objectives of responsible resource development, the modernized federal environmental assessment process focuses on major projects with the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction.

This government is focusing federal resources on the assessment of major projects that pose a risk to the environment, the public, and aboriginal peoples. However, I would emphasize that all projects will continue to be subject to a wide range of federal and provincial environment-related requirements, such as the requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, for projects located on federal lands, including those falling under the responsibility of the Quebec Port Authority. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, authorities with responsibilities linked to federal lands are required to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects that might result from potential projects.

I want to emphasize that port authorities responsible for federal lands have a legal requirement to look at all environmental effects on federal lands. They cannot ignore these obligations. They cannot simply turn a blind eye to these requirements that are written very clearly in the act. It is clear that they must determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental impacts.

Federal authorities have established processes for conducting this analysis. The approach and depth of this analysis reflect the risk and likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects.

They also put in place measures to mitigate the environmental impacts. Authorities have extensive experience in determining whether their projects may potentially cause environmental effects, and it is fully expected that authorities will bring this expertise to bear on any potential project.

To ensure a timely analysis, authorities are also encouraged to work co-operatively with experts and all other authorities who may have a decision to make on a project. Authorities with responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 to carry out this work have access as well to operational policy guidance. In addition, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency leads a working group that brings together authorities, including port authorities, to discuss their obligations and to support them in meeting these requirements.

This government has legislation in place that holds federal land managers to account. We are confident that the authorities will continue to make decisions that will ensure that projects on their lands are carried out in a careful and precautionary manner to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is confirming what I am saying.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, that he keeps quoting was amended because of the changes made to its provisions when this government's mammoth bills passed.

Now, it is just an empty shell that no longer contains any coercive measures. It now contains voluntary measures that are supposed to be encouraging. The port can do whatever it wants. The government does not care. The federal government does not have jurisdiction.

It is sad because in Quebec City, everyone is worried about this situation: the general public, community boards, and Quebec City council. The Government of Quebec had also indicated that it was concerned. The federal government is there. We know that the port is located on federal territory. However, the government is doing nothing. It is truly shameful. We could build a wall of China in the Port of Québec and that would not bother the federal government. It does not care.

I find that shameful because we are talking about public health and safety here, and with that I am calling on the government to respond and do something about this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those ramblings were utter nonsense.

I commend the member. One cannot argue in this House that there is legislation that has requirements and then turn around and suggest that they are voluntary. That is completely contradictory. There is a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. It imposes obligations. I invite the member to actually read the legislation and see, as well, what additional support the federal agencies provide to the port authorities, such as the Port of Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.)