Debates of Sept. 15th, 2014

Speaker's Ruling

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, rare is the day when I have a colleague in the Liberal Party asking me to help him beat up colleagues in the NDP. However, I will take the bait, because here is what the NDP is proposing.

The NDP and the Green Party simply do not want nuclear facilities in Canada. I will answer my colleague's question directly. My understanding is that raising liability to $1 billion would cost the average household a couple of dollars a year on its utility bills to cover it. However, if we were to move to unlimited liability and the vast amount of liability being proposed by other parties, it would result in a hefty increase to those premiums. Ultimately, as we all know, regulated utility industries are regulated to the point where they will make a profit. That is the way those systems are set up, and those costs will be passed on through those energy utility boards in the various jurisdictions to those consumers. That much we do know.

It is a responsible approach to go to $1 billion of unlimited liability for the offshore sector for oil and gas and for nuclear liability. We have seen from various countries around the world that we are in line with what everyone else is doing. We are going to protect our environment but also not place an unreasonable burden. We will strike that right balance not only to protect taxpayers but to ensure that there is money left over on the kitchen table at the end of the month.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before resuming debate, I understand that there is a motion from the member for Leeds—Grenville.

Business of the House

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek unanimous consent for the following motion that you will get it.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House after working in the constituency all summer. I am glad to see my colleagues' smiling faces around, all ready to co-operate as we move forward into this session.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, and enacting the nuclear liability and compensation act. I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East whom, I am sure, will have lots to say about how the bill would affect Atlantic Canada.

I do have an admission to make. George Bush has been very influential in my life, and I somehow cannot seem to get nuclear and nucular straight sometimes, so I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I do accidentally misspeak. I promise that is as far as I will go toward copying Mr. Bush.

I also thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her hard work on the bill. She is an outstanding member of Parliament and also a great leader within the NDP. She has led the natural resources committee since taking over recently very well, so I thank her for her work.

Although we supported the bill at first reading, we did so with the hope that the committee would accept some of our amendments, would listen to the witnesses, listen to what we had to say on our side. Unfortunately, we will not be supporting the bill at third reading because we did not really feel we were listened to. We put forward 13 amendments, which we thought would improve the bill quite a lot, but the Conservatives rejected all 13 of those amendments.

I was formerly a member of the natural resources committee and quite enjoyed my time there. I found my colleagues on both sides to be open to suggestions, willing to bring in witnesses who were not partisan, and really conciliatory. I quite enjoyed my time in that committee. Even sometimes they would accept motions from the opposition parties for study, which I thought was quite good of them.

I do not actually think that the rejection of these amendments came exclusively from the members of the committee. It was probably from the PMO. As we know if we have been on enough committees in the House, no matter what kind of debate we are having or what kind of witnesses we hear from, we do have dictums that come from central office to say what exactly will show up in bills. Again, it is sad that this happens.

In fact, I think that perhaps this is related to the bill. There is a member of the natural resources committee from Saskatoon—Humboldt who has a private member's motion where committee chairs would have much more freedom over the content of their reports and also the committee agenda. I am proud to say I jointly seconded that motion and support it as it moves through the House, hopefully to enactment. That bill points out what should happen in committees.

However, I do think the members of the natural resources committee are reasonable on all sides and would do a very good job if they were freed from the constraints of the Prime Minister's Office. I really do not fault the natural resources committee for rejecting all our amendments, but we know that the all-seeing eye that is the PMO has probably made this happen.

My second comment about the bill is that it is all about energy, once again. It seems that all the time of the natural resources committee was spent talking about energy usage and disposal all across Canada. I find that this not only engages the natural resources committee but also the industry committee, which I have also sat on.

We have had many bills tabled in the House that specifically deal with how we use energy in Canada. This one is no exception. This one is about how we extract oil and gas or how we use nuclear power and what happens in the event of accidents. It is tied in to our consumption and usage of energy. It shows us a sliver of the complexity of energy usage in Canada.

For example, just to outline a little bit of what is included in the bill, it updates Canada's nuclear liability regime to specify the conditions to compensate victims following an incident at a nuclear power plant and the levels of liability of operators. That is needed. Every country in the world that uses nuclear power has to have these kinds of provisions. It is a needed step forward but a very small part of Canada's energy portfolio.

The second is dealing with oil and gas exploration off the coast. The measures in the bill are supposed to explain what happens in the event of an accident, so they are important. This is off the Arctic and Atlantic waters.

There are important issues that are dealt with in the bill. Although we know it has been tabled five times and finally coming through the House, whether it will make it all the way to the end I do not know. However, it is too bad that it was rushed through at this stage and none of our amendments were taken.

Part of our problem with the bill is that it does not really uphold the idea of polluter pays. It does discuss this notion but it does not really deal with polluter pays when it comes to the nuclear energy sector. For example, there are provisions in the bill, as I understand it as I was reviewing it again this morning, that allow the minister to make adjustments as to how much a company or operator would have to pay in the event of an accident. It does not mandate an inclusive consultation process for specific projects.

In my riding where this is not specifically related to oil and gas but the industry, when there is no proper consultation there are problems with getting the social licence from the local community. Therefore, whether it is pipelines, drilling offshore, or dealing with nuclear energy, if there is no proper consultation there will never be social licence and there will be problems.

We have had a pipeline rupture in my community in 2007. Because there was not an inclusive system in terms of how we deal with pipeline spills, there are still ripples within the community and real resentment toward the company for these types of accidents.

The other problem with the bill is that it removes company liability for oil spill chemical dispersants. That is also a problem because if we think that we have to clean up the oil and we use something that is as bad as oil or even worse, then there is no liability for the companies and we think that is a problem. I think the folks listening at home or reading what we propose would say that these are things that are worth including in the bill, but of course they have been rejected.

Our 13 suggested amendments were consistent with the principle of polluter pays, including the removal of the liability cap, which reduces taxpayer liability. As we have seen, these offshore spills, the BP spill in the gulf in the United States is a recent example, can run into the billions of dollars for cleanups. The liability cap right now is far below the costs of such a cleanup. Our amendments also included the principle of sustainability by adding non-use value damages, which are important to consider.

When I think about what we are debating here, what we are talking about, what is going through on this third reading, it is the whole idea of how we deal with energy in Canada. We do not have a comprehensive plan. Most countries in the world have a national energy strategy. They have not only a long-term view of what should happen in the country but also a comprehensive view, which is thematic. For example, in the United States energy security is probably the key principle of its national energy strategy and everything kind of falls from this key principle.

We have a sliver of a bill that deals with a very small component of our overall energy plans in this country. Unfortunately, it is not very comprehensive and non-inclusive. It is kind of a shallow vision instead of what we really need for Canada, which is a large vision. That is what people will get when they elect an NDP government in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his important presentation. I share his concerns about the nuclear industry.

There has been no industry that constitutes such a giant white elephant in terms of its fiscal impact on Canadians. Contrary to what we heard earlier from a Conservative colleague, this industry has gobbled up about $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Removing the cap would not affect provincial electricity rates in any provinces that still use nuclear energy.

The reality is that, there but for the grace of God go we, every single event that occurred at Three Mile Island had previously happened in Ontario nuclear plants but not all on the same day and at the same reactor. Human error is always the biggest risk. As more reactors are brought on stream, the promises made when they are built are never fulfilled. We are always told they are going to be reliable and then we find that retubing is required or that the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick is over budget, as always, or that it takes much longer than the government thought it would take. The government of the day in New Brunswick that approved retubing Point Lepreau ignored the recommendations of its own public utilities commission to do so. It ignored the advice, by the way, of the current leader of the Green Party of New Brunswick, David Coon, who clearly said more money would be wasted.

It is interesting to hear Conservative members defend an industry that has gobbled up things that they usually would have opposed, massive subsidies to something that simply cannot bear market forces.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree to just removing the cap on liability and making this industry pay its own way if, God forbid, we ever have a nuclear accident.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to deal with in the member's question.

Those of us who live on the west coast are very conscious of nuclear accidents. We were concerned about possible radiation coming on the shores of British Columbia as a result of the Fukushima plant accident. Government monitoring has been cut, so it is hard for us to determine the exact extent of this radiation.

However, I am quite excited about a new technology called fusion. A very active company in my riding called General Fusion is trying to move toward a much safer use of nuclear energy. I try to visit it every year and see its progress and it is going quite well. I am proud of its work and hopefully that technology will develop.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue that sets us apart from the members across the way, it is natural resources.

Today, in response to a question I asked as to why nuclear energy was not included in Bill C-22, the minister more or less said—I do not have his exact words in front of me—that when disaster struck Japan, it was so bad—those are my words—that the government had to take matters into its own hands.

If I understand what this government is saying, we will pay once disaster strikes. Canadians will pay for everything that happens with regard to health, cancer, the environment, and cleanup. We saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

The NDP prefers to plan ahead. When a company sets up somewhere, can we estimate the environmental cleanup cost in the event of an accident? What would be the human cost and the health-related cost in the event of an accident?

We have to look at this from a sustainable development standpoint. That is the right approach. We need to have green development—we are indeed a green party—for our country so that Canadians can have what is best for them and their children.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, planning is essential and that is what we have been proposing since we were elected as the official opposition in 2011, and beforehand. My colleague from St. John's East could probably tell us how long we have been arguing for the need for a national energy strategy when we do forward planning, not only inclusive but comprehensive. That is greatly lacking on the other side. Those members are content to have foreign companies come in and do whatever they want in Canada. We think that is not the right way to go and more Canadians are agreeing with us.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak on third reading of Bill C-22. Third reading, of course, is the opportunity to debate the bill after the committee has, we hope, improved it during committee hearings by listening to experts from all sides, accepting recommendations from experts as to how the bill can be improved, and, in most Parliaments, accepting amendments from the opposition seeking to make the legislation better.

Unfortunately, in this Parliament we do not see much of that. In fact, it is very rare for amendments from the opposition to be accepted by the government, even when it agrees with them. In an incident during the debate on a justice bill, 88 amendments were made in committee; the government rejected them all, only to try to make them itself at third reading, and they were ruled out of order. That is how obstinate the government can be.

I spoke as well on second reading, and my colleagues in the NDP, the official opposition, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, supported this bill at second reading. We saw it as an improvement over the existing regime and we supported it in the collegial hope that when evidence was heard from experts in committee, their expertise, knowledge, and understanding would be taken into account and there would be a better bill at third reading. Unfortunately, the 13 amendments that were presented by the official opposition were all rejected by the government. Not only that, it limited the debate. There was a request for an additional week to deal with some of the debates and discussions that needed to take place, and that was refused.

I can say that there are some things New Democrats like about this bill, and I will repeat them because I think we are responsible for some of them.

This bill, in one form or another, without the oil and gas part of it, the nuclear side, has been before Parliament previously. This is, I think, the fifth time. At one time, the NDP was the only party that opposed the bill when the cap was raised from $75 million to $650 million. It is now up to $1 billion, so that is an improvement over what would have existed if the bill had gone through a couple of years ago, and New Democrats take credit for arguing that the $650 million limit was inadequate. There has been an improvement in that way, so we are pleased to say that we have had some effect on this aspect.

The real problem, of course, was that for some 38 years Canada's nuclear industry has had a cap of $75 million of liability. This is an industry that can cause enormous amounts of damage not only to the environment but also to the health of individuals for many years to come. We noticed that with the Fukushima situation in Japan, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, and, of course, with Three Mile Island a number of years ago in the U.S. These were very serious accidents, and to say that we are going to have an absolute total liability of $75 million is clearly a direct subsidy to an industry—a licence, in fact, to not only pollute but also to cause extraordinary harm to the citizens of a country.

That is what we are talking about here. Some people might call it a subsidy to the industry, but it is also a licence to pollute, to destroy the environment, and to take risks.

One of the things about liability is the obligation to look after the damages that are caused. That is what the polluter pays principle is. If people pollute the environment and make a mess, they need to clean it up. If someone says they do not have to clean it up, there is going to be a bigger mess. Anybody who has teenagers in their homes knows that. If teenagers are told they do not have to clean up after themselves, that they can leave their dishes wherever they want and throw their clothes on the floor because someone else will look after that, then there are going to be a lot of messy dishes and a lot of clothes on the floor. Saying that people have liability and responsibility makes the operators, whether of offshore oil and gas or of a nuclear facility, care more about safety. Obviously there is going to be a safety regime, but it makes them take responsibility in a way that they might not otherwise and it gives safety a bigger priority.

The $1 billion sounds like a lot, but not when it is put into perspective. I heard the member for Wetaskiwin. I think he was trying to be reasonable. He said that the $1 billion liability is going to cost and that it will be the consumers who will have to pay for it. He said it would add $2 or maybe $3 a year to each consumer's electricity bill. I will take him at his word; I do not know the numbers. He must have some reference for those numbers.

However, if it was $5 billion liability, it would cost consumers $10 or $15 per year. We are talking about $1 a month. For the protection that we are talking about here, maybe that is reasonable. Maybe people opposite think it is unreasonable. I do not think it is unreasonable if we are talking about having protection versus not having protection and about having an incentive for a nuclear operator to pay greater attention to avoid accidents.

It is a little bit a question of degree, but it is also a question of principle. We have asked to see the polluter pay principle in both aspects of this bill. In the oil and gas section there is a $1 billion absolute liability, whether the operator is at fault or not, and in the case of fault on the part of an operator in the oil and gas industry, there is an unlimited liability. They have to find the resources or insure against the resources up to whatever the cost of the damage is.

It can be argued, and we would argue, that the $1 billion is enough in terms of absolute liability if we are looking at an accident in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or in the Arctic. Absolute liability means that it starts getting cleaned up right away, regardless of who ultimately has to pay.

That is what fault is all about. Lawyers will fight over who is responsible or what percentage of the fault lies with this party or that party. That is fair. I am not opposed to lawyers, as some people in this House seem to be. Lawyers have a role to play; I played one myself. The Speaker probably did a fair bit over his career as well. In the meantime, absolute liability is designed to make sure that the job gets done.

This is a question that has to be dealt with. Although the liability may be spread in fault after it is all over, and we are still seeing that in the Gulf of Mexico case with Deep Horizon, absolute liability means that it gets started right away. The work is done to clean up the damage that has been done because they are going to be responsible regardless of what the fault is, and we have that.

I am going to just end here. The reason we are not supporting the bill now is that it does not include the polluter pay principle on the nuclear liability side and it does not include the principle of sustainability. Even with the $1 billion absolute cap, it gives the minister the right to waive it or lower it at his discretion. That is the wrong thing to do, because it opens up the door to all sorts of lobbying and favouritism.

Everybody would lobby, presumably, because if it is available to them, why should they not? Why should they not seek an exemption? Why should they not seek to lower their liability because of the consequences it might have for shareholders of the company or for some other aspect of their operation?

Based on those problems, the failure to accept reasonable amendments to this bill, and the failure to recognize these principles in the bill, we cannot support this bill at third reading.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which truly enlightened us about the possibilities and the limitations within this bill. I would like my colleague to elaborate on some of these limitations he talked about in his speech.

In his view, what improvements could be made to the bill? Can he talk about the NDP'S proposals to improve this bill that the government unfortunately left out?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the improvements that we sought to make would have been to ensure that the principle of sustainability was contained in the bill and spelled out to demonstrate the requirement that there be a recognition of these principles of sustainability when one is dealing with inclusive participation, the precautionary principle, and equity or fairness with sustainable development between the environment and industry, but we do not have that. One of those aspects is, of course, the issue of absolute liability.

The total maximum liability for the nuclear industry is set at $1 billion. However, we know the extent of the accidents that have happened. Experts say that these accidents can happen somewhere in the world every 10 years, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Obviously the industry tries to be as a safe as it can, but why should the people of Canada accept that liability beyond $1 billion when it seems that it is possible for the industry itself to accept it for a reasonable amount of money?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

If we look at the nuclear sector specifically, one of the deficiencies of the bill is the issue of financial liability for all the suppliers and contractors working with operators. Right now, they are unfortunately not included and that might create problems in the supply chain, leaving only operators liable.

That seems problematic to me. I think my colleague will agree that, if all of the stakeholders in the supply chain are liable for problems and damages caused by a nuclear accident, we can obviously hope that they will adopt better practices. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit complicated in one sense, but the insurance principle is basically that we spread the risk. The more people who share the responsibility, the easier it is to manage the risk. That is the basis of insurance.

Why should there not be liability for people who happen to be suppliers? If they are excluded from liability, then that seems to be a problem. We believe that they should be included in the responsibility for accidents. If they are participating in that industry, they should participate by bearing some of that risk themselves.

Ebola Outbreak

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the Ebola outbreak.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

The Ebola epidemic is truly a major crisis and, unfortunately, we are not talking enough about it. It is a potential transnational threat. The World Health Organization is now saying that it is an international public health emergency.

It has been reported that there are 4,000 cases of Ebola, but everyone knows that there are probably more because even the countries affected by this epidemic are unable to identify all those affected in their area of responsibility, not to mention the people who are hiding because they do not want anyone to know that they have Ebola. More than half the people who contract the disease die. There is no treatment.

All of this is already very worrisome, but the main concern is the speed with which the disease is spreading. It is spreading quickly because, at this time, we are unable to respond to the crisis.

Doctors Without Borders is probably the most active organization on the ground at this time, and it has to send patients home. It cannot admit them to the treatment centres, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Needless to say, the health services of these countries are also unable to meet the needs.

I would like to provide an overview of the situation in Monrovia, where every day Doctors Without Borders has to send 10 to 30 patients who are infected with the disease home because there is no room in their treatment centres. Those 10 to 30 patients may then spread the disease to dozens of other people who will also not be able to get into a treatment centre and will continue to spread the disease. We are witnessing a potentially exponential phenomenon with dire consequences. If we do nothing, the number of cases will only continue to rise.

Liberia has been particularly hard hit and its health care system has collapsed. There are not enough people to cope with the problem, medical personnel are often sick themselves and other doctors and nurses are afraid to go into the health care centres because they might catch this horrible disease.

It is not only patients who are suffering as a result of the collapse of the county's health care system, but everyone. Treatment is not available for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, and pregnant women no longer have access to care.

The effects are devastating. Riots are starting to break out in these countries. We are concerned about security and stability in these countries and in other countries that may be affected. We must not forget that this disease is spreading slowly but surely.

This is also having an impact on our development efforts. For example, Liberia is collapsing. All of the development efforts in this part of West Africa could be derailed or set back years by this terrible epidemic.

This is of concern to us from a humanitarian standpoint since we are talking about very poor countries that cannot deal with such a crisis.

I am going to read a quote from a Médecins Sans Frontières staffer working in Liberia, and I think it says it all. He said:

In decades of humanitarian work I have never witnessed such relentless suffering of fellow human beings or felt so completely paralysed and utterly overwhelmed at our inability to provide anything but the most basic, and sometimes less than adequate, care.

This person has several decades of work experience in this type of environment.

We also must not forget that as the number of cases of the disease rises in West Africa, where this epidemic is occurring right now, the risk that the disease will spread to other places also rises, even though that risk is marginal right now. I would like to quote another individual.

I would like to quote Michael Osterholm who is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He said:

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has the potential to alter history as much as any plague has ever done....If we wait for vaccines and new drugs to arrive to end the Ebola epidemic, instead of taking major action now, we risk the disease’s reaching from West Africa to our own backyards.

This also definitely affects our border services, since agents must monitor people coming into our country.

I would like to share another quotation.

For example, Kayt and Stefan Mahon in Canmore are waiting for twins they adopted in Sierra Leone, but because the state is so overwhelmed, they cannot get the papers. They are waiting for these children and they are afraid that these children do not have access to health services anymore because Sierra Leone is overwhelmed with the crisis. That is the kind of effect it is having right now on Canadians.

I see my time is short. I could have talked on the issue longer, but I would like to congratulate the Canadian government for what it has done so far, but it is far from enough. We need to do more. We need to show leadership. The UN has asked for $600 million. The U.S. has given $100 million to fight this epidemic. We need to give money. We need to help with laboratories, which we have done, but with transport if needed and to involve military. We need to offer to deploy DART in this region. People are asking for that. We deploy DART in times of natural catastrophes around the world. We have a catastrophe in West Africa now. This would be the time to deploy DART.

The Ebola epidemic began six months ago. It is the largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded. At this point, we are losing the battle. It is not only the people of West Africa who are losing it, but humanity as a whole. We are putting our own long-term safety at risk.

We are currently losing the battle, but we can turn that around if we show some leadership and do everything we can now to combat this terrible epidemic.

I would remind everyone that the longer we wait, the more it will cost to solve the problem. There are more and more cases every day.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague and congratulate her for having taken the initiative that has allowed us to debate this undeniably urgent matter and show that Canada is a compassionate country that cares about others. We also want to do our part to help our neighbours and friends, our extended family, which is indeed all of humankind.

She mentioned an acronym I have heard before, but I do not remember exactly what it stands for: DART. I wonder if she could talk about what this acronym means and the impact such an intervention could have on the current crisis.

I would like to point out that as the member for LaSalle—Émard, I have the honour and privilege of representing many members of the African diaspora who have been seriously affected by this epidemic and have suffered because they have family and loved ones in those regions. In my riding, many members of that community have received deportation orders to various countries in Africa. This is causing a great deal of stress for these African families, which I am fortunate enough to represent. I have met with them many times in my office.

My question has two parts: how are we showing solidarity with the people of Africa, and can my colleague talk a little more about the DART initiative?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, yes, this is about humanity and solidarity with other human beings struggling with what is basically a calamity. It is also the smart thing to do. The longer we wait to take action, the more that action will cost and the farther-reaching the consequences.

As I said, of course, we have to monitor our borders. There are people who have adopted children but cannot go get them. There is always a risk—slight, but a risk nonetheless—that Ebola might appear in Canada. There is no treatment for Ebola.

My hon. colleague also talked about all of our constituents of West African origin who are watching what is going on in their countries of origin, where they might have family and friends, and who are very worried. My colleague raised a very important point about deportations. All deportations must be postponed until this situation is resolved.

DART is a team that can be deployed rapidly. It has been deployed in a number of places, such as the Philippines, if I remember correctly, to respond to natural and other disasters. This is a disaster. I think DART is the ideal response to this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have met with people in my constituency who have family members in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. Their stories are absolutely heartbreaking, such as talking with their loved ones back home, hearing about some of the quarantines, concerned about the health and safety of strong friends and family members who are in those countries.

Canada is not untouched by this epidemic, as the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has rightly pointed out. Canada is very much touched by this. Even if it is touched by family and friendship links, we are touched by this massive epidemic that is spreading throughout Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and potentially other countries in West Africa.

I listened to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's wonderful and important speech in this regard, and I am glad that she has triggered this emergency debate because this is something that all of us should be seized upon. It is an extremely important issue. What specifically should Canada be doing now to help those countries? What should the Canadian government and Canadian parliamentarians be saying to those people of Sierra Leonean, Liberian and Guinean origin who have family members who are in peril by this epidemic in their countries of origin?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that people with family and friends in that part of the world would be absolutely devastated.

In Sierra Leone, bodies are lying in the streets and women are giving birth without medical care. The situation is tragic and its impact reaches far beyond Ebola sufferers. Entire systems have disintegrated.

Just as an aside, I lived in West Africa for three years. I have friends there too. When I found out that Senegal was affected, I thought of all of the friends and former colleagues I left behind. As a Canadian, I am affected by this issue, but I am also personally affected.

This is a perfect opportunity for Canada, which has always had a strong relationship with West Africa, to show leadership. We have to send DART, money, mobile labs and support for transportation because transportation assistance is a big issue in West Africa. We also have to share our expertise in responding to biological disasters. There are many things we can do.

Many organizations on the ground have asked us to deploy DART to respond to the crisis.