Debates of Sept. 29th, 2014

Social Development

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his justification and a kind of a cover-up for what is happening to those who are waiting for hearings about their social security, their pensions, and EI.

First let me say that a lot of these people are now being told they are just going to get an administrative review, and for the first time, our government does not even have the numbers for those it rejects out of the appeal process.

What we are really talking about here are the most vulnerable in our society. Many of these people have no other income source. Others have very little. They usually have run out. I have dealt with constituents who have come into that office because they have used up their own resources, yet they still do not have a date for their review.

Let us have a system that looks after the vulnerable. They have paid for the system; let us not make them suffer.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course we encourage the Social Security Tribunal to execute their appeals as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible, but they have to take the time to make sure they get it right.

We want to make sure that all Canadians, as they have their appeals heard, are treated fairly and efficiently. However, the data information has to be there, has to be collected, and has to be administered. Then the tribunal has to look at it and compare it to the correct criteria to make the effective decision.

This is not only for those people who are having their appeals heard but also for Canadian taxpayers, to ensure that people who deserve to have their appeals approved actually get them approved and receive the funds that are due to them. It is also to make sure that people who do not meet the criteria are treated fairly and that the taxpayers are treated fairly.

We have a system now that we put in place. We have added extra staff to administer the system. We are making sure that all Canadians, including Canadian taxpayers as well as those who are having their appeals heard, are treated fairly.

Natural Resources

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to come back to a question I asked about the National Energy Board and the new role that the Conservatives gave it. By that I mean responsibility for the environmental safety of pipelines and major projects.

When I asked the question on June 16, we were rather concerned about the fact that the National Energy Board had decided to spend $21 million to move a few blocks, since that was almost double the amount of funding announced for pipeline safety. The Conservatives claim to be good at managing federal money, but this is a striking example to the contrary.

In June, there were some inconsistencies in my hon. colleague's response. He said that he was proud of the work done by the National Energy Board and that its decisions were driven by scientific data, contrary to our ideological approach.

I did a little research to find out whether the National Energy Board's work was really based on science. Given the changes made to the environmental approval process for pipelines, I submitted an access to information request to find out how many National Energy Board employees have training or a specialization in environmental impact studies; I also wanted to see what percentage of the National Energy Board's efforts are focused on environmental protection—since the organization was given responsibility for all that—versus energy development and resource exploitation.

I was completely blown away by the answer. The National Energy Board said that it did not keep track of the number of employees who had studied or specialized in environmental matters and that no information was available on the efforts made in the area of environmental assessments.

I was absolutely astounded to find out that all of this responsibility had been transferred to the National Energy Board in 2013 and that the organization does not have any information on the number of employees with a specialization in environmental science or on the percentage of the work done on environmental assessments. I was shocked to find that out.

Before Christmas last year, in December 2013, Ottawa further streamlined the environmental approval process for pipelines. The government transferred to the National Energy Board all the environmental responsibilities that once belonged to Fisheries and Oceans Canada—where we know how many environmental specialists there are and how much effort goes into environmental assessments. Now, it is up to the National Energy Board to do that work.

Even after I submitted an access to information request—I have a copy of it here—I was not able to get the information I was seeking on environmental specialists. The same thing happened to my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who was looking into beluga whales and the lack of scientific evidence to back up the action being taken in that area.

How many experts are there and what efforts is the National Energy Board making to protect the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the strategic importance of the National Energy Board. As members know, the National Energy Board is an independent federal regulator overseeing Canada's energy industry. Ensuring the safety of Canadians and protecting the environment are its top priorities.

For over 50 years, the National Energy Board has regulated all aspects of Canada's energy industry in the Canadian public interest, including trade pipelines and energy development. What many Canadians may not know is that the NEB's funding is cost recovered from the energy industry. This is an important fact because it means that taxpayers are not on the hook for these expenses.

Allow me, then, to talk for a few moments about what the NEB is responsible for and how it ensures the safety of Canada's energy infrastructure.

The National Energy Board regulates approximately 73,000 kilometres of pipelines, which carry over 105 billion dollars' worth of energy products annually to Canadians and to export customers, mainly in the U.S. We know that pipelines are a safe and economic means of transporting large quantities of natural gas and crude oil over long distances and our government has been clear that projects will only be approved if they are proven safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. That is why it is so important to have a strong and robust regulatory review board, and the results are promising. Canada's pipeline safety record is near perfect.

Between 2008 and 2012, over 99.999% of crude oil transported by federally regulated pipelines was transported safely, without incident. That is a very impressive number.

Today, our oil and gas industry is facing a period of tremendous opportunity. Right now, hundreds of major resource projects worth more than $675 billion are currently planned or under way. Few countries in the world are bringing on natural resource projects of this scale or at this pace, creating a truly once-in-a-generation opportunity. Therefore, this is a critical time for the National Energy Board with many important and high-profile activities under way across the country.

The National Energy Board's move took place in June with no disruption of services. The move allows the NEB to meet new Government of Canada Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards. As I mentioned already, the appropriations for the move were cost recovered from industry.

Our government will continue to ensure that the National Energy Board has the tools it needs to ensure that energy infrastructure in Canada is safe and well regulated.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I want to say right off the bat. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said that the projects approved are safe. However, she did not say how she knows that, since no one knows.

We do not know how many environmental experts the National Energy Board has, or how much time and effort these experts put into their environmental assessments. We do not know. If she knew, she would say so. She does not know because she did not tell me.

A number of experts have criticized this new idea of transferring environmental assessments and approvals to the National Energy Board. Biologists at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have been critical, as have others.

The risk of spills is very high with pipelines. The number of incidents involving pipelines has doubled in Canada over the past 10 years.

Where are the environmental assessment experts at the National Energy Board? Who are they and what are their names? Why do we not have this information?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that an opposition that voted against increasing pipeline safety would be attacking the National Energy Board. Canada boasts a near-perfect pipeline safety record. In 2012, our government increased pipeline safety inspections and audits to make sure that Canada has a world-class pipeline safety system.

The National Energy Board is an independent federal regulator overseeing Canada's energy industry, charged with protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. Its purpose is to regulate pipelines, energy development and trade in the Canadian public interest.

Our government supports actions that will improve energy safety and security. That is why we have brought forward legislation to increase the liability limits in the event of an accident and implemented fines to hold companies to account. On this side of the House, we recognize that any incident is one too many. We will continue to take steps to make pipelines as safe as possible, and of course, taxpayers are protected as costs incurred by the NEB are recovered by industry.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

(The House adjourned at 9:11 p.m.)