Debates of Sept. 18th, 2014

Reform Act, 2014

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak very proudly in favour of the reform act introduced by my friend and colleague, the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills.

At the outset, I would like to commend him for the substance of this bill and the substantive debate that he has caused both here in the House of Commons and across the country, as well as the manner and the process that he has followed in presenting his reforms. He presented a first version of this bill last year and sought meaningful input from members of Parliament and Canadians across the country. In fact, I can personally attest to the fact that he came to my constituency and engaged directly with many people in the riding. It was an excellent example of real citizen engagement, and I want to thank him for that.

After receiving all of the input, he proposed two different sets of amendments. One he proposed as reform act 2014 and the second, I believe, he proposed on September 11. It is my understanding that the government, as well as members of the opposition, will be supporting the bill. He made a real effort to hear constructive criticism of the bill. I know there are people who were supportive of this legislation and wished that he had kept it in its original form, and I say to him that he has shown some courage and real flexibility in trying to get a piece of legislation that can be supported by a majority of the members of this House and, hopefully, a majority of the members of the Senate as well.

To review the reform act itself, it proposed three main reforms: restoring local control over party nominations, strengthening caucus as a decision-making body, and reinforcing the accountability of party leaders to their caucuses. The purpose of these reforms is to strengthen Canada's democratic institutions by restoring the role of elected members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

The proposals in the reform act would reinforce the principle of responsible government, something I will return to over and over again in this speech. It would make the executive more accountable to the legislature and ensure that party leaders maintain the confidence of their caucuses, something that has existed since Parliament began.

If one wants to review, especially on the Conservative side of the House, an excellent example of party leaders having to maintain the confidence of their caucuses, one only has to go back to perhaps the greatest parliamentarian of all time, Winston Churchill, who became prime minister during World War II, a period in which someone else held a majority of the seats of the House of Commons. A Conservative government had the majority of seats in the House of Commons and Churchill was not party leader, but that change was made, and I think for all of our sakes it was much better. That is certainly a historical example, especially for Conservative parliamentarians.

Responsible government, as we know, is the principle that the executive council, the cabinet, is responsible and accountable to the elected legislative assembly, the House of Commons, not the appointed governor. This was a change that was made in Canadian history.

Much of this debate has focused upon the present-day situation or the concentration of power that has occurred over the past 40 years, but I want to commend the member for Wellington—Halton Hills because he has tried to say that this is a fundamental realigning of Parliament, that one has to go beyond the present personalities and circumstances of today. We all have our present-day debates, but we need to think fundamentally of the relationship between the executive and the legislative. This is something that has, frankly, perplexed political thinkers since the advent of political activity and political organization, since people started distinguishing between the different roles that the executive and legislative, or those who dispense funds and those who raise funds, ought to have.

Why is it so important to restore the proper balance between the executive and the legislative? Why should we care about responsible government? In my view, democracy is the best form of government, to turn around one of Churchill's phrases, and parliamentary democracy is the best form of democracy. However, in order to truly be a parliamentary democracy, it must be both representative and responsible. It must be representative in that the legislative branch, members of Parliament, must be duly elected and accountable to their constituents. It must be responsible in that executive branch, the cabinet, the government, must be accountable to those legislators. It requires those two absolute functions.

If one surveys the early histories of Parliament, as I have done recently, especially excellent works like J.R. Maddicott's The Origins of the English Parliament, which I recommend to everyone in this place and across the country, one will see that the powers of the executive, meaning the king or queen, during the early Parliaments actually existed outside of Parliament.

Parliament started as sort of a council of advisors, some from the property classes, some from the ecclesiastical classes, and even at that time they started two important functions that we continue today. That is, they started challenging the sovereign with respect to the raising of money, taxes, most often to fight wars, and with respect to the review of spending.

These two essential functions that Parliament still fulfills today, in terms of ways and means motions and the estimates process, actually started centuries ago in these early parliaments. However, at that time the executive power actually resided outside of Parliament with a king or queen. What happened over time was that these executive powers moved, in effect, from the crown to the advisors of the crown, the privy councillors, as they are still called today, and over time to ministers of cabinet and the prime minister within the legislature.

This was a very fundamental change that occurred over many years. Is this wrong? Some may perceive there is an actual problem with this. In fact, the Americans, in my view, saw this as a problem and chose a different system. They opted for a different system and very formally separated the executive—the president and the administration—completely from the Congress, which is the Senate and the House of Representatives.

It is very straightforward to ensure formal responsibility between the executive branch and the legislative branch. It is also simple to ensure that American citizens have more than one vote and can split their votes. They split the votes between a vote for the president and a vote for a member of the Senate or a member of the representatives.

As we know, Canadians have one vote. They have a vote for their member of Parliament at the federal level. I do not see having the executive within the legislature as a problem. In fact, I think it is a benefit. I think one of the beauties of the parliamentary system is that it is organic. As Edmund Burke would say, it's one of the advantages of the parliamentary system. It can respond to situations. It is a benefit to have the executive residing within the legislature.

What needs to happen then is responsible government. All parliamentary democracies must ensure, with this real transfer through the history of executive power from the sovereign to the privy council, the cabinet and the prime minister, that we have responsible government where the executive resides within the legislature and is responsible to the legislature. It is much more complicated than the American system. I think it is better than the American system, but we must ensure that responsible government applies.

In my time remaining I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised. It is very difficult to do so because some of the concerns were raised by people who have raised issues about political parties. I think members of all political parties have raised concerns about MPs possibly usurping some of the role of political partisans in terms of selecting or deselecting leaders. However, the role of caucus, in terms of having responsibility for the leadership, has always been there throughout history. My view is caucus members will respond to it in a very meaningful way.

I was in a situation in my first term in Parliament where we had a very destabilizing situation. It would have been helpful in fact to have a set of rules to guide us in how to deal with that in a much quicker way.

Second, I appeal to those who say the bill has been amended too much and not enough has been retained from the original bill to pass. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has introduced a piece of legislation and has tried to be as constructive as he can to get support from all political parties so it has near unanimous support to pass in the House.

I therefore ask all members of Parliament to support this important bill to redress the imbalances that have occurred over decades in our country. The powers of the executive have grown and the strength of the legislative branch, unfortunately, has diminished. We need to restore the proper balance between the executive and the legislative. A true parliamentary democracy requires representative institutions, but it also requires responsible government. We need to honour these fundamental traditions of our parliamentary democracy.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills is part of a much larger debate we are currently having about making our parliamentary system more democratic, reforming our democratic institutions and recognizing the role of each member within his or her caucus.

When talking about a topic as important as this, it is critical that we remain open-minded and that we are prepared to hold an open discussion and listen to the ideas coming from all sides. No one can claim to be the keeper of absolute truth. With a topic as complex as this, we need to be able to admit that discussion is the only way we will all win.

That is why I would like to thank the hon. member. From the moment he introduced his bill, he has been open to discussion. I have been able to speak with him about my concerns and fears about his bill. He took them into consideration and showed that he was willing to amend his bill in light of those concerns. That is the kind of attitude we need if we are going to reform our democratic system. What we definitely do not need is having bills introduced to reform our democratic system without the willingness to accept any amendments whatsoever. We will not be able to change our parliamentary system by setting things in stone before debate even begins.

I wanted to take the time to thank the hon. member for that.

This bill will make rather substantial changes to the nomination process and the process of admitting or readmitting a member or the party leader to the caucus.

I would like start by taking a moment to talk about what the NDP is doing so that people can then understand the concerns I had.

Our internal bylaws call for a biennial leadership review. Even if our leader is Prime Minister, they must submit to this review. We also take steps to ensure the transparency of our nomination process.

We also have affirmative action policies in place. As far as nominations go, we have processes in place to ensure that at least half of our candidates are women. We also encourage persons with disabilities and LGBT, Aboriginal, and young people to run in the nomination process.

In fact, my main fear regarding this bill is that it will weaken the parties' affirmative action policies. I am not talking about a party leader who blocks a candidate in order to shoehorn in a friend or acquaintance, but of someone who tries to promote one person's nomination because they belong to one of these affirmative action groups.

I do hope the amendments my colleague intends on bringing forward in committee will not weaken the affirmative action policies put in place by the parties to increase representation of under-represented groups. Once the bill gets to committee, if the amendments my colleague will propose to improve his bill are rejected, the subsequent vote will surely have a different outcome. If they pass, however, my fears will have been assuaged and I will be free to continue down the same path.

When we talk about a process to expel a member from a parliamentary group or elect a party leader, we have to keep certain facts in mind. In some legislatures, in Canada and elsewhere, sometimes there are people who do things that may not be not illegal but are certainly not well received.

Currently, if a caucus member did such a thing, it would be up to the party leader to decide whether it was serious enough or still within the bounds of acceptability and decide whether that person would remain a member of his parliamentary caucus or not. It is much more appropriate for that decision to be made by all the members of the caucus.

This also applies to the leader. When he or she does something that is not illegal, but is not well regarded, the members of caucus can vote to determine whether that person still has the moral authority to be the leader of a parliamentary group. What is more, it is appropriate to ask that question.

Medical issues may also come into play when it comes to the leader. Some people might refuse to give up the position of leader while experiencing medical problems affecting their judgment—for example, because of substance abuse or an illness that is affecting their cognitive abilities, self-examination and judgment. In that case, a mechanism would enable members of caucus to decide what to do next.

It would be interesting to discuss this in committee. In some exceptional circumstances, these measures might help parliamentary groups make a decision that would not be based solely on the judgment of one person or a handful of people within a group, but on the majority of the members of a parliamentary caucus.

When I read my colleague's bill, I was surprised. Sometimes we can be a little naive and not think to look through all of the rules. In the NDP, we elect a chair every year and we have gender parity, so if the chair is a man, the vice-chair will automatically be a woman and vice versa. I was surprised to find out that that is not the norm everywhere. Naively, I figured that all parties elected their chairs. It seemed logical to me. I would therefore like to thank my colleague because now I know that some parties have a lot to learn from the NDP. I think that is a bit of a shame.

With these changes, the election of a caucus chair once per Parliament would not be a strict rule but the minimum standard. If a party wants to hold an election every year, as the NDP does, it can continue to do so. The important thing is that caucus chairs have to be elected. That is very interesting. That way, people can elect an individual who is competent and who is also ready to listen to them.

Choosing the right person is key to maintaining harmony within a parliamentary caucus. The chair has to have sound cognitive abilities and knowledge of the parliamentary system, as well as human relations skills allowing him or her to accurately assess situations and intervene at the party level and the caucus level for the good of the members. Electing the caucus chair is therefore a very good way to operate.

I would like to thank my colleague one last time for his openness when we were discussing my concerns.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, there are eight minutes remaining before the right of reply, for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise and speak to the reform act, 2014, brought my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills.

My dear friend from Edmonton—Leduc gave a little history about governments and the Westminster type of government. I have travelled all over the world and have seen numerous forms of government across the world, not only the Americans but we have the French. We have military regimes and we have dictatorships and we have all kinds of other governments. However, what is very clearly important is the form of democracy that we have elected here in Canada, the Westminster style of democracy, which has stood the test of time coming from U.K.

However, in what I am saying, it is dreadful that our Senate is not an elected Senate. Having said that, the House of Commons indeed is an institution that, for all everybody says whatever they want to say, is a very respected institution giving good governance to Canada, based on my own experience travelling around the world.

I have been a member of Parliament for close to 17 years now. Through this process, I have gone through a tremendous amount of political flux that has taken place in this country. I started as a Reform MP, then a member of the Canadian Alliance, then the old Progressive Conservative Party, and then the new Conservative Party. As I like to say, I never crossed the floor, the parties crossed on me.

Going through all this system over here, we learned one thing: where is the basic situation. Sure, there are always ways and room to improve, but the main basic thing I learned from all this here is that our process has checks and balances, not through legislation and that discipline but through practice. Let me give an example of that. My friend from Leduc talked about the crisis we had during the time of the Canadian Alliance. I went through all of that and I must say I give great credit for what happened over there to Stockwell Day, who realized that the caucus was not with him at that given time and took the right step, but went back out there to seek the leadership again from the members. These are the kinds of decisions that are in practice, which we have as part of us. However, I do want to commend my colleague here for trying to formalize it.

Where I had a very strong objection to his bill was where I felt that membership's voice was being taken away by giving more power to the caucuses, to Elections Canada, and so on. However, to his great credit, he heard all of our objections, and I want to commend him for bringing in the amendments that he did, which address many of the concerns we have had. I must say that gives back, in my opinion, the powers to the membership as, for example, in his first amendment by letting the parties decide who is going to be the person in charge. It does not matter who is the person in charge, whether it is the Prime Minister or whoever, but it is the membership that will decide, and that is part of his amendment.

I want to thank the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who worked throughout the summer with the others in bringing in a lot of amendments that have now made us feel very good, so that I feel I am in a situation where a lot of positive things are now coming out of this bill. One of those positive steps that I am quite comfortable with is the election of the caucus chair. A democratically elected caucus chair is an absolutely good idea. Also the caucus would have the ability to admit or re-admit people who have been removed from caucus. That should be a caucus choice, which makes it a democratic institution. So that is excellent.

However, I do still have some little problems over here, which he has of course addressed. Again that comes to the issue of the leadership, which he said caucuses can update. What I am saying now is that it is a bill that we can all debate and all talk about. There are some positive aspects to it that we can move forward. When the bill goes to the committee, we can talk about other areas where we have concerns. I will talk to him again about concerns that I do have, and see how best we can bridge that gap. It can allow us, at the end of the day, to make a bill that is acceptable to all of us, which will strengthen the democracy in this country.

I want to give him credit for bringing it forward. We are waiting for this. We will vote for the bill to go to the committee, and then at the committee we will bring further amendments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

With his five-minute right of reply, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced Reform Act, 2014, I said I would welcome comments and amendments. Since being introduced, Reform Act, 2014 has generated a lot of interest and discussion. In these past months, I have received recommendations and comments from colleagues from both sides of the House and from Canadians across the country.

I want to thank all members of the House who have contributed to this debate, particularly the member for Edmonton—Leduc for seconding the bill. I want to also thank many members of my caucus, as well as the members for Mississauga, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Toronto—Danforth, Burnaby—Douglas and the other members from New Democratic caucus who have been up today to debate this bill.

I would like to thank the members for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and Saanich—Gulf Islands, who has been a big supporter of this initiative all along, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. I also thank all who have voiced concerns and constructive criticisms about the original bill.

Change is never easy. The changes proposed last week and the changes incorporated into the bill introduced last spring reflect the input that was received.

I want to take this opportunity to respond directly to one concern, which is the general concern about imposing on parties, whether they be party caucuses or registered political parties, mandatory rules about how they operate, whether that concerns the selection of party candidates, or the rules regarding the review and removal of the party leader, or the selection of a caucus chair or the expulsion of a caucus member.

I believe the changes announced last week will directly address those concerns. These changes, which I hope the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will adopt, would leave it to the parties, whether they are party members at a national convention or members of a party caucus, to decide on how to implement these particular changes. Any rules would have to be voted on, either by party members on the floor of a national convention or by caucus members within a caucus. Regardless of the outcome, it would be a recorded vote so that members of Parliament could be held accountable, not just to their constituents but to party members, as to why they voted the way they did.

It is also important to note that this bill would not affect in any way, shape or form how registered political parties outside the House would review the leader or how those parties would elect the leader in the event that they had a leadership race. All the bill would do is clarify the rules concerning the review and removal of a party leader by caucus. In the event that the party leader is removed or in the event that the party leader becomes incapacitated, suddenly dies or resigns, the bill would provide for the clarity and rules on the election of the interim leader.

It is important to point out that party caucuses are not private organizations. If they are private organizations, we have semi-privatized the election and removal in part of premiers and prime ministers. It is important to point out to colleagues that in the last nine months two premiers have been removed from office as a result of caucus action: Premier Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador and Premier Redford of Alberta. It is also important to point out that party caucuses in the last nine months at the provincial level have elected four new interim leaders during that time.

There is a greater need for clarity and transparency about how these changes take place at the federal level and why we need to pass the bill.

Many wanted to see this bill pass in its original form. I understand. However, in this case, we need to acknowledge that perfection is the enemy of the good. The bill in its original form would never have passed Parliament. The bill in front of us today is very good, and has a good chance of passing and becoming law. I reserve the right to not move this bill at third reading if the committee makes changes that are not acceptable.

In closing, I urge members of the House to adopt this bill next week. More important, I urge members of the procedure and House affairs committee to deal with this bill as expeditiously as possible. Time is short. There are a mere few months before the dissolution of Parliament and the onset of the general election. We cannot allow this bill to die on the order paper. Canadians are watching.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 24, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Fisheries and Oceans

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 4, before we left for the summer, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans why she allowed drilling in Cacouna without checking with scientists. She said that her decision was based on the opinion of so-called experts. We now know that the conditions imposed on TransCanada for its energy east pipeline and its marine terminal project for exporting bitumen products are not enough for protecting the belugas.

Belugas are a species at risk and we must protect them. The drilling, which began on September 4 in Cacouna, is putting the whales in jeopardy. In his affidavit of August 26, 2014, Robert Michaud, one of the leading scientists in beluga research, said that the measures imposed on TransCanada by Fisheries and Oceans Canada do not go far enough to protect this species at risk.

More specifically, the measure that stipulates that TransCanada must respect a noise level of under 120 decibels at a distance of 540 metres is not adequate since it has been shown that this affects 50% of belugas. The scientific recommendation is 2,000 metres when it comes to protecting a species at risk. The minister would know this if her decision to authorize the drilling in Cacouna was based on real scientific expertise. If the minister made her decisions based on science, she would also know that 540-metre exclusion zone is not sufficient and that even a 2,000-metre exclusion zone poses significant risks and problems.

TransCanada's presence in the drilling zone may scare belugas and prevent them from coming to feed on resources that are located in the same area as the drilling. If the minister had consulted scientists, she would know that the drilling zones in Cacouna are in an ideal feeding area for beluga whales. What is more, TransCanada's drilling disperses the resources necessary to the survival of the calves of this species at risk.

The minister cannot claim that she was not aware of this. In his August 26, 2014 affidavit, Robert Michaud clearly explained why the decision made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not based on the “best scientific information available”. He explains that the decision made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to authorize the spring 2014 seismic surveys and the geothermal drilling that is currently taking place do not take into account “the disruption caused to belugas that are forced out as a result of a presence in an area of high residency within their critical habitat”.

The decision does not take into account the disturbance caused by the noise level or the potential impact on pregnant animals, the calving process or the calves' chances of survival. Finally, the decision ignores the recent data that propose adjusting the minimum distances based on the sensitivity of the species. This adjustment, which Robert Michaud spoke of, refers to the limit of 540 metres imposed on TransCanada. It should be 2,000 metres in the case of belugas. Robert Michaud clearly explains this in his affidavit. The most shocking thing is that he states that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had all of this information before it made its decision. Once again, the Conservatives chose to ignore science.

Canadians deserve a government that makes decisions based on science, not on ideology. That is why the NDP's position is clear. We want a clear and specific scientific opinion and we want it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to provide a little more background on this particular question.

I can assure the member that the Government of Canada is committed to the protection of species at risk, and DFO takes this responsibility very seriously.

As we are all aware, the St. Lawrence beluga whale is a species at risk, and when proponents of projects want to undertake activities, the department's mandate is to ensure that specific criteria for the protection and recovery of species at risk are respected.

It is important to note that in addition to the measures under the Species at Risk Act, beluga whales are also afforded protection under the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act as well as the Marine Mammal Regulations, which prohibit disturbance of whales and other marine mammals.

As the member may be aware, TransCanada Pipelines proposes to construct its energy east project to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in eastern Canada. This project includes the construction and operation of a shipping terminal near Cacouna, Quebec. The proposed location for the shipping terminal is in a part of the critical habitat for the St. Lawrence beluga whale used by the animals to calve and nurse their young.

In preparation for the proposed terminal, TransCanada submitted a proposal to Fisheries and Oceans to conduct seismic testing and exploration drilling in order to define the geological structure of the proposed terminal site. The department reviewed the proposal to determine whether it would adversely impact listed aquatic species at risk and whether it was likely to cause serious harm to fish, which is prohibited under the Fisheries Act. The proposal was reviewed in accordance with well-established science-based processes.

Following the review, a SARA permit was issued for the seismic survey project specifically in the critical habitat of the St. Lawrence beluga whale, but was limited to a less sensitive time when whales were less likely to be present or would be present in reduced numbers. The seismic testing was completed by April 30, 2014, to ensure that beluga whales would not be impacted.

Following the review of the proposed drilling project, DFO staff provided a letter back to TransCanada that included measures to avoid potential impacts on the St. Lawrence beluga and its habitat. Measures included the presence of a marine mammal observer, ongoing monitoring of beluga presence, and the creation of a protection zone around the work site such that if belugas were observed within 500 metres of the work site, that work would stop.

DFO advised the proponent that provided these mitigation measures were incorporated into TransCanada's plans, DFO was of the view that the exploratory drilling would not result in serious harm to fish, nor would it contravene the Species at Risk Act. No formal approval was required from DFO under the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act in order to proceed with the drilling.

The project proponent committed to avoiding impacts to the species by undertaking seismic activities during less sensitive periods as well as implementing mitigation measures during drilling to ensure that the St. Lawrence beluga whale was protected.

Drilling is currently ongoing, and DFO officials are closely monitoring the activities. In fact, on September 17, yesterday, as per the protocol, drilling operations were shut down because of beluga presence in the area.

This is an example of how a successful review and approval process should function, whereby impacts to species at risk are considered and avoided and human activities are allowed to proceed in a sustainable manner.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary. His comments are interesting and are definitely worth noting.

I want to point out a few inconsistencies.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the pipeline that TransCanada pipeline is planning on building, its energy east project, was being built to send petroleum products to refineries. Cacouna is not a refinery. It is simply a project to ship oil products to another destination. As we know, the international markets can just buy up the product and send it wherever they like. We have no idea where it is going to end up. It is an export project.

We are not talking about Saint John, New Brunswick, where there is a refinery and where the energy east pipeline was originally supposed to go. We are now talking about an energy east pipeline project that is also going to be sending petrol through Cacouna and whose purpose is a mystery to most people. We do not understand why it cannot continue as originally planned and go to Saint John, New Brunswick.

I would like the parliamentary secretary's comments on that particular aspect of the project.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just review the facts. DFO conducted a thorough scientific review of the work. All of this information was made available to the public and media, and work is only proceeding under strict conditions, which include constant monitoring for beluga whales.

However, it is important to note that TransCanada has not yet submitted the construction of the marine terminal for review to the National Energy Board, but when it does, the work will be carefully reviewed. Our government has been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

Rail Transportation

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question back in April was triggered by a report on CBC that railroads in Canada were hiding the truth from Canadians and that in fact there were some 1,800 incidents in the past few years, 100 last year alone, that had occurred but went unreported by the industry. My question was when the government would punish the rail industry.

There are $250,000 fines for breeches of rail safety available to the minister, and 100 unreported incidents in a year would result in fines of $25 million for CN.

CN had profits of $847 million just in the second quarter of this year, so $25 million in fines is somewhat laughable, but it is something. However, no fines were ever levied. In fact, the only fine I can find levied against CN is for failing to deliver enough grain. We do not punish railways for being unsafe.

Today our Leader of the Opposition asked the minister what she would do about the sixth derailment in the last four months in the small town of Slave Lake, Alberta. That is 2.5% of all rail traffic through that town. He asked if she would acknowledge that these are not isolated incidents. Her response was that the government has been working on rail safety since 2006. Again, that is quite laughable.

We have seen cutbacks in the number of inspections by government inspectors. We have heard from the Auditor General that Transport Canada has only managed to perform 29% of the necessary audits of the safety management systems of railroads. Finally, we have heard from the Transportation Safety Board that MMA had virtually no safety management system and was not audited before the crash in Lac-Mégantic.

It is true that the 47 deaths caused the government to act. Railroads can no longer run dangerous goods with one-person crews. We only have to wait three more years until the dangerous DOT-111 rail cars are phased out, which safety boards have been calling for for 25 years, and railroads running dangerous goods through dense urban areas must slow down from 60 miles an hour to 50. Of course, the Transportation Safety Board says the DOT-111s will fail at 20 miles an hour.

In the U.S., railroads must reroute dangerous goods around major urban centres. Here, the government has left it up to the railroads to decide whether they want to do that.

The fundamental problem is that Liberal and Conservative governments have decided that railroads can essentially be responsible for public safety and that government need only review the results and do the occasional audit.

The wheel that gave way in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, which caused an explosion of oil cars, luckily in an unpopulated area, would have been spotted by government inspectors in the old system. It is unlikely that inspectors would have allowed the myriad of problems with the MMA train, which killed 47 in Lac-Mégantic.

We have the government and the industry mantra that things are getting safer, but if incidents are not reported, how can the government say that with a straight face?

One has only to look at the most recent statistics from the TSB for further confirmation that railroads are getting less safe. Virtually every category of accident was higher in the most recent six-month period than the last five-year average. Main track derailments have gone up, three- to five-car derailments have gone up, and non-main track derailments have gone up. In fact, accidents per million train miles have gone from 12.8 to 13.27 in this six-month period. It is not true that railroads are getting safer, and that is without the unreported incidents.

The CBC report was only about CN. How many other unreported incidents are there on the other 50 or so railroads in this country?

In conclusion, the government has failed to prove that the system it has imposed on Canadians for keeping them safe with railroads is not working, and the evidence is out there. We can see with the derailments, most recently in Slave Lake, that it is not working and that something major needs to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me open by saying that last statement was absolutely false.

Our government takes the safety of the Canadian railway system seriously and is committed to ensuring that appropriate levels of safety are maintained. Should an issue of non-compliance be identified, there are a range of enforcement tools available under multiple acts, up to and including prosecution.

Under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, which provides the legal framework that governs transportation safety board activities, railway companies must report all accidents. Should a railway company not comply with the requirements of the act, appropriate action will be taken.

Railway safety regulations exist to ensure the safety and protection of the public. If these regulations are not followed, we will not hesitate to take whatever course of action is available to us. Further to this, railway companies are required by law to ensure the safe operations of their trains, and our government increased fines from $200,000 to $1 million for companies found to be in breach of the Railway Safety Act. To reiterate its commitment to a safe railway transportation system, not only for communities across the country but also for Canada's economic well-being and to further strengthen the railway safety federal regulatory regime, Transport Canada is currently accelerating the development of several regulations.

Transport Canada has a variety of tools available to enforce compliance and respond to safety concerns or threats to safe railway operations, such as an order to respond to threats to safe railway operations and an emergency directive ordering a railway company to cease a particular unsafe action or take specific action to mitigate the immediate threat identified.

Following the accident in Lac-Mégantic, the government took a number of actions. Continuing with our record on railway safety improvement, we have issued emergency directives, protective directives and ministerial orders requiring, among other things, all railway companies to further enhance the safety of their operations and the security of railway transportation; any person who imports or offers for transport crude oil to conduct proper classification testing; the railway companies to share information with municipalities, which will further support municipal emergency planners and first responders; the railway companies to reduce the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods and implement other key operating practices; and the removal of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service.

That builds of course on a broader record of safety since 2006, which includes everything from the important continued hiring of the inspectorate; the training of the inspectorate, also in audit functions and capabilities in light of the Auditor General's recent report; an investment of $100 million in railway safety improvements in the regime in this country.

The list goes on and on. I believe our government has clearly demonstrated that it has not hesitated to take action when necessary to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. I can assure members that it will not hesitate to take any action in the future.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that just proves my point that, in fact, there was no action taken against CN for failing to report 100 incidents in the past year alone.

The government does hesitate to enforce the law and to make railroads comply with the law using the tools at its disposal. Canadians expect our government to protect them, not just with F-35 jets but with regulation, inspection and punishment of railroads, airlines and food processors.

The Liberal and Conservatives governments over the past 25 years have systematically deregulated these industries and created a system where the industry itself, not the government, is responsible for protecting the public. Under the government, we have seen massive failures of this approach, deaths due to listeriosis, the largest recall of beef in history, and 47 dead in Lac-Mégantic.

The government is merrily handing the airlines exemptions of the rules regarding the numbers of flight attendants on aircraft in Canada, making the skies less safe. Just ask the survivors of the Air France crash in Toronto or the recent crash in San Francisco whether they would have been safer with fewer flight attendants.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite is not suggesting that federal railway companies should not be primarily responsible for the safe operations of their companies for the sake of their workers and communities. If so, that would be a first in the world.

We actually expect, and the regulatory regime is very clear, that the primary responsibility for safety rests with railway companies. The role of Transport Canada, of course, is in the field of oversight. We have taken the important recommendation that this oversight does not meet the level of expectation of the public and it is being continuously improved.

As I said, we did make significant investments in improving the ability to have oversight, over $100 million in railway safety. We have additional actions and measures that are under way. Of course we expect Transport Canada to deliver a higher standard in terms of its oversight.

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during another session, I asked a question about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We have been waiting for years for standards on greenhouse gas emissions from this sector.

The last time, the Minister of the Environment told me that it was premature to unveil the standards when, in actual fact, we have been waiting for them for three years. It is not premature. On the contrary, they are overdue.

On Sunday, there will be a global march. In Drummondville, many of my constituents will be participating in this global march for the climate. The clock is about to strike midnight. We need to take action. We need to shoulder our responsibilities.

That is why UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. President Barack Obama invited every world leader and head of state to New York for a major meeting to find solutions in the fight against climate change. It is urgent.

We expect Canada to be at the forefront, to take a leadership role and show some initiative, demonstrating that it, too, is part of the solution. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister will not be at that meeting. It is very unfortunate and disappointing.

That said, it is important to understand that it is even more disappointing, because greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing in Canada, but rather increasing.

In 2020, according to Environment Canada's own figures—and not those of radical environmentalists or extremists, as the Conservatives like to call them—Canadian emissions are expected to total 734 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Yes, the Conservative government has made some commitments, but it must be said: their targets are weak. In Copenhagen, the Conservatives reluctantly chose a target, saying they would adjust that figure to 612 million tonnes. Well, no. The expected number is 734 million tonnes, and that is not all: greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, primarily because of emissions from the oil and gas industry.

What is the Conservative government doing in the meantime, while it goes over its own target, however weak it was to begin with? I will not even mention the Kyoto target. The Conservatives will not achieve even that target.

According to a report, the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Philippe Calderon said:

[Our] report refutes the idea that we must choose between fighting climate change or growing the world’s economy. That is a false dilemma.

I wish the Conservatives would stop saying that they have managed to reduce climate change while maintaining the economy, because that is not a real dilemma. We can fight climate change while stimulating the economy.

What is the government waiting for? What are the Conservative waiting for? What is the minister waiting for? What is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment waiting for? When will they finally impose some regulations on the oil and gas sector? This is urgent.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for his question and welcome him back to the House. I am looking forward to working with him on the environment committee.

Our government's priority is to protect the environment while keeping the economy strong. We have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world. Canada accounts for less than 2% of global greenhouse gases, and for this reason, Canada is pursuing an international agreement on climate change that includes real action by all emitters.

At present, our government is doing its part nationally by taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In Canada, we have already taken action with respect to two of the major greenhouse gas emitters in the country: the transportation and electricity sectors.

The federal government is focused on an approach to greenhouse gas regulations that will reduce emissions while continuing to create jobs and encouraging the growth of the Canadian economy.

In view of the fact that Canadian and U.S. industries are integrated, it is important to work with the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in key sectors. That is what we are currently doing by aligning our greenhouse gas emissions regulations with those of the United States in the transportation sector.

The U.S. has proposed a draft regulation that is expected to reduce CO₂ emissions from the power sector by approximately 30% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

In Canada, strict regulations are already in place for coal-fired power plants, and these will cut emissions in the electricity sector by 46% over the same period.

We will continue to build on our record and work with the United States to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the comments made by my hon. colleague, whom I welcome back to the House of Commons.

First of all, with respect to the fact we generate only 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, we nevertheless must realize our collective and individual responsibility as Canadians. Canada is one of the 10 worst countries in the world in terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions. It is about on par with Saudi Arabia. Our emissions record is terrible when we look at the per capita figures. We have nothing to brag about, far from it.

With respect to working with the United States, it is the U.S. that is inviting the most important leaders on the planet to New York to find solutions. We are talking about Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon. What is the Prime Minister of Canada doing? He is crossing his arms and staying home. You do not do that. He must go to New York.

When will the government actually do its job and abolish subsidies for oil and gas companies?