Debates of Feb. 26th, 2015

Pipeline Safety Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want to see strong legislation that will provide a sense of security and safety related to our pipelines, whether it is the ones currently in place or future pipelines. To that degree, we have been supportive of the legislation the government has brought forward and see it as a step forward in this whole process.

One of the concerns the leader of the Liberal Party expressed yesterday in question period was the opportunities that have potentially been lost, and I should not use the word “potentially”, because of the government's inability to work with industry, with U.S. law-makers, and in particular, with President Obama in regard to the Keystone XL pipeline. The government talks about the benefits of the pipelines and what they prevent in terms of rail traffic and traffic on our roads and so forth. When it comes to the expansion of the pipelines, the government has not done that well.

Could the member explain why she believes that the government has not been able to take more tangible action with regard to the Keystone XL pipeline?

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issues south of the border are complex, and it is certainly a political situation. President Obama is dealing with issues in his country the way he feels is necessary.

We are offering some of the best opportunities in pipeline safety. This is something I believe will be a growing opportunity for Canadians, because we have great liability and compensation plans in place, preparedness and response and prevention plans we have put in place, and increased inspections. All the things we are putting in place will alleviate the fears and concerns people will have.

Opportunities are going to present themselves. Things do not happen overnight. Certainly they are being worked on.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

I will begin by stating that Canada's natural resources are a tremendous asset and the energy sector is a critical component of our economy. From oil, gas, trees, fish to mining, the New Democrats recognize the vital role that natural resources play in the Canadian economy.

However, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, the NDP has presented a clear vision which leverages our natural capital to create wealth and prosperity, while maintaining a high level of social, cultural and environmental integrity. The New Democrat vision for resource extraction focuses on three key principles of sustainable development.

The first principle is environmental integrity. It requires us to ensure that polluters pay for environmental impacts they create instead of passing those costs on to future generations.

The second principle is partnerships. It requires that government ensure that communities, provinces, territories and first nations benefit from resource development and that we create value-added middle class jobs right here in Canada.

The final principle is long-term prosperity. It focuses on leveraging Canada's natural wealth to invest in modern, clean energy technology that will keep Canada on the cutting edge of energy development and ensure affordable rates into the future.

For far too long, Canadians have been told that they have to choose between the economy and our environment. That is a false choice. It is an approach that is stuck in the past. In articulating our balanced approach, the New Democrats believe that our natural resources must be developed sustainably. Polluters must pay for the damage they cause. This is common sense and is fair.

While natural resources are undoubtedly a central component of the Canadian economy, only Canada's New Democrats recognize the need to move away from our overreliance on fossil fuels and have a vision for development that promotes economic prosperity and job creation that goes hand-in-hand with social, economic and environmental responsibility.

For most residents of B.C.'s Lower Mainland, like those in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, having government approach natural resource development through a collaborative approach, with the principles of sustainability at its core, is a necessary precondition for their support of resource projects.

While the Liberals and the Conservatives have been happy to rubberstamp pipeline projects, the New Democrats believe that major resource projects must be judged on their merits. That means projects must be subjected to a rigorous and robust environmental assessment process. Assessment criteria must include an impact assessment of our emissions and climate change impacts on Canadian jobs and on national and regional energy security.

Public consultations must be credible and democratic, not shallow, limited or paper-based. Projects must honour the legal obligations of our duty to consult first nations. Clearly, such rigour has been absent in the review of the northern gateway and Kinder Morgan proposals in British Columbia, and the same flawed process is now being applied to the energy east pipeline.

Despite the divisive pipeline politics that the Conservative government has created, Bill C-46 is a much needed and long overdue first step toward a polluter pays regime for pipelines in Canada. Although the bill can be seen more as an initial step than a giant leap forward, the fact that polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill is a step in the right direction.

Once passed, Bill C-46 will ensure that any company operating a pipeline will be liable in the event of a spill, even if it has not been negligent and has not broken any laws. For companies whose pipelines have the capacity to move at least 250,000 barrels per day, that limit will be up to $1 billion. That monetary amount can be increased by the government in the future, but the bill would prohibit cabinet from lowering it. That too is a good thing.

Despite the purported goal of implementing the polluter pays principle, Canadians may still be at risk as the limit in Bill C-46 places a liability of $1 billion when there is no proof of fault or negligence. This means that taxpayers may still be on the hook for oil spills costing more than that.

While the $1 billion limit for some companies may be a big improvement over the status quo, it still would not completely cover the cleanup cost of an accident, such as the Enbridge Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan. According to recent estimates, that spill, the largest in U.S. history, cost more than $1.2 billion to clean up, not including compensation for damages, and still damages remain today.

While not a pipeline spill, I think of my home province of British Columbia and the disastrous Mount Polley mine spill that happened last August as an example of how a breach of a tailings pond can have a major environmental consequence, which may not be immediately apparent. With Mount Polley, which many say is the worst environmental disaster in British Columbia's history, the extent of the damage is predicted to remain unknown for years, even decades, as toxins can slowly accumulate in the environment, from lake bottom, to fish and wildlife, to people. This underscores that the $1 billion threshold might not be high enough, given the ambiguous cleanup times often associated with these types of disasters.

Finally, Bill C-46 would actually take a step backward by eliminating the government's ability to recover cleanup costs for a pipeline spill under the Fisheries Act, which applies in certain circumstances to make a polluter absolutely liable without limit. In the absence of such unlimited liability, the government, and therefore Canadian taxpayers, may still be on the hook for oil spills. This is just plain wrong and highly unfair.

If the government is so convinced that pipelines operate within a mature industry, then the industry is one that can and must pay for itself. Instead, the fact that the bill would not completely enshrine the polluter pays principle, means Conservatives are giving yet another handout to their friends in the oil patch by making taxpayers liable for oil spill risks.

I support imposing liability for oil spills on pipeline operators. However, ultimately, it remains imperative that we prevent oil spills from happening in the first place instead of concentrating solely on who is responsible for the cleanup.

To that end, we need better regulation and oversight. The New Democrats are committed to rebuilding a robust environmental assessment process to undo the damage done by the Conservative government.

The New Democrats understand the need to move away from our overreliance on fossil fuels and have a vision for development that promotes economic prosperity and job creation, hand in hand with social and environmental responsibility. However, until modern society can curb its dependence on fossil fuels, ensuring the utmost precautions are in place to prevent environmental degradation caused by spills, including imposing a financial liability on the operators of these pipelines, is vital.

As we have witnessed, a failure to properly regulate the natural resource sector can have a disastrous consequence for natural habitats and the environment in which we live. I will relay the impact of a spill that happened in a neighbouring community of mine.

Kinder Morgan was ordered by the courts to pay a mere $150,000 for a 224,000 litre spill of albian heavy synthetic crude oil into Burnaby's Westridge neighbourhood and Burrard Inlet, which my riding is connected to and shares. Nearly 78,000 litres poured into Burrard Inlet, impacting 1,700 kilometres of shoreline. Following that spill, Kinder Morgan spent almost $15 million in remediation costs and millions more for personal property damage. Imagine this pipeline twinned and the amount of tanker traffic in the Inlet doubling or tripling.

Residents along this pipeline are hugely concerned about an oil spill that would impact their property, neighbourhood, community and, indeed, the surrounding environment. Many people are concerned, and we need to address these issues. As I said, the bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the New Democrats are being fully transparent on the issue of their positioning with respect to pipelines. When we listen to members speak to it, they give the impression that pipelines and the potential building of pipelines to meet market demands, not only for today but going into the future, is a bad thing, that we should not be building or adding to the 70,000-plus kilometres of pipeline infrastructure we currently have.

My question for the member is related to what he truly believes. Does he recognize the potential of getting more resources out of the ground for export purpose, for local consumption in Canada? If so, that would require either additional pipelines, increased train traffic or semis on our highways. Which one does he prefer?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich that my hon. colleague feels our position is not solid when the Liberal position is all over the map. That is the issue. If we look at the record, it is much closer to the Conservative approach than the New Democrat approach.

The New Democrats feel we need to have proper liability costs. We need to move to a value-added system where we increase refining in our country. If we take oil out of the ground, we must get the most value out of that by ensuring as many good-paying jobs are created from it. We also need to look at a transition to renewable clean energy future. Canadians are looking for that. They are calling for it around the world.

A critical piece my colleague is overlooking is the social licence that is needed from communities in which we are proposing resource projects, whether it is communities in cities or in rural areas and first nation communities.

Both those parties have not taken seriously the importance of having to work with communities, provinces, first nations and individuals.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on an excellent speech and for the fine work he does on behalf of a balanced and intelligent energy and environment policy in our country.

My question is one that I asked my Conservative colleague a few moments ago, and that is about the relationship between pipelines and climate change.

Conservatives, to their shame, pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord. Liberal Party Eddie Goldenberg, the former assistant to the Liberal prime minister said that the Liberals never had any intention of every implementing Kyoto. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions rose under Liberal administration.

If we are to increase pipelines in the country, if we are to move resources, what are Canada's obligations or the proper policy course for us in order to play a responsible role on the world stage in dealing with climate change?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know how much work my hon. colleague does in his riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

It is a good question and it is an important one. It is an often overlooked question, especially from the government, dealing with climate change, which some would argue—certainly our youth would argue—is the most pressing challenge of our time.

My colleague mentioned that the government had pulled out of the Kyoto accord. Many Canadians are just flabbergasted, to be honest. They cannot believe a government would show not only a lack of leadership, but would pull us out of a world agreement.

The New Democrats believe we should go forward and tackle this tough problem. We had the climate change accountability act. It went through all the stages of the lower House and unfortunately was killed by the upper house, the unelected, unaccountable Senate when it called a surprise vote to kill it. Unfortunately, it would have been the only national bill on climate change.

This is an important element that must be linked to any kind of resources extraction or pipeline proposals. We must accommodate for how we reduce the carbon in our atmosphere.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise, and I wish to salute my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for his excellent speech just now. I wish to avoid repeating some of the fine points he made, but I need to say a couple of things at the outset.

First, this false dichotomy of environment versus the economy, as he explained so eloquently, is simply a relic of the past. It is another example of the Conservatives' effort to divide Canadians, as they have done so effectively using terror as a wedge. They do this on the environment all the time as well. The rhetoric of the $20 billion carbon tax comes to mind, to their everlasting shame. However, that need not be the case at all in a bill like this.

Second, I want to congratulate the government for finally moving forward with something to deal with pipeline liability. It is long overdue. It is something that has been so long called for that the Conservatives have finally woken up and done the right thing.

I wish to say at the outset that I am going to talk about three things in the bill that bear repetition.

The first thing is the enormous amount of discretion given to the cabinet and to the National Energy Board. It looks great to say we are enabling a whole bunch of things to be done. The legal reality on the ground, of course, is very different. It is only if the regulator chooses to go ahead that anything meaningful will happen. I just hope Canadians are not deluded into thinking that somehow things are going to change. They may change—it is an excellent first step—but only if regulators choose to exercise the discretion that has been given to them in the bill so frequently, as I will say. That is what this bill is about.

The second thing that needs to be said is that environmental legislation and liability legislation ultimately have to do with whether there is enforcement. To use a Shakespearean metaphor:

...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That is unless and until the bureaucrats make the rules that would be enabled in this bill. Again, it is an enabling statute. If those rules that are made, once made, are not enforced because there are deals between the companies and the regulators and the like, so what? That reality needs to be put front and centre as we debate this enabling legislation.

I also wish to speak about orphan pipelines. I think that bears some discussion. First, this is an effort, no doubt, to increase the public's confidence in the regulation of our pipelines. A recent Harris/Decima poll conducted by the government pointed out that only 27% of Canadians are confident that the Government of Canada is able to respond effectively to a significant oil spill on water; a few more, 32%, think it can do better with oil spills on land. Canadians do not feel confident that pipelines, tankers, and trains that are transporting dangerous goods will do so safely. That is what the polling suggests. When it comes to rail transport, only 29% of Canadians feel confident that it is safe, and only 37% of Canadians believe oil tanker transport is safe; yet 47%, almost half, are confident pipelines can be made to transport oil safely. I say that because we need to talk about the enormous amount of diluted bitumen that is being moved through our waters, across our land on trains, and in pipelines. If Canadians have little or no confidence in those measures, then of course we need to work on that. To the government's credit, this bill is some effort to do so, if anything is effectively done with the powers that would be given.

I wish to say at the outset that this is indeed a good first step, and should therefore be taken in that context.

When the minister was speaking to this bill at first reading, he talked about how the bill would stipulate that companies have a legal obligation to respond to requests that the National Energy Board may make in relation to audits. It is passing strange that companies do not have to do so now, I gather. That is rather disturbing.

It says that the National Energy Board would strive to align federal and provincial pipeline safety zones. That is not good enough. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is an excellent example of co-operative federalism where, for dangerous goods that are moving by trucks or other ways, we have a federal set of regulations inches thick that are incorporated by reference in each of the provinces. We have a one-size-fits-all, coast-to-coast approach for the transportation of dangerous goods. For the minister to say we would strive to align pipeline standards surely is not sufficient.

Speaking of things that are not sufficient, the thing that concerns me the most is this notion of companies remaining responsible for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity. I have some experience with that. After a company has abandoned a pipeline, is long gone, and has had an amalgamation or transfer of ownership, in what practical way is the National Energy Board going to be able to make it continue to be responsible for that abandoned asset?

Some people will be aware of the Britannia Beach mine in British Columbia as they go up to Whistler. It was a copper mine during the First World War. It was a multi-billion dollar liability. There was acid rock drainage seeping into Howe Sound. When the companies were finally hit with a cleanup order by the province under the Environmental Management Act, they had to go back and do forensic accounting to try to find out who the successors in title were to the ancient companies that were the owners of the assets of the mine over time. It took a lot of time and money. Ultimately, they were found.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go after people. To blithely say that there is liability for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity needs more than just mere words. It is a very complicated matter to seek liability.

I said I would be positive about the bill, and I wish to say that the idea of unlimited liability in certain circumstances is an excellent idea. Absolute liability for up to $1 billion, regardless of fault, is an excellent idea. However, what happens after $1 billion? I suppose then that negligence has to be proven in a court of law.

To people listening, $1 billion might sound like an enormous figure, but that is only until we put it into context and understand it. Simply, the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan has already cost $1.2 billion for the cleanup, let alone liability to others. Enbridge owned that pipeline. It wants to bring us another pipeline in our province, called the northern gateway pipeline.

That sum of $1 billion sounds like a lot, and I congratulate the government for the notion of absolute liability, but in context, it may not be adequate. After that, one would have to prove negligence in a court of law. Sometimes, fault and negligence are not easy things to establish.

Another thing in the bill that I think is an excellent idea, and I congratulate the government for it, is providing the government with the ability to recover costs associated with so-called non-use value environmental damages. There is no guidance on what that means, but the Supreme Court of Canada has contemplated that damages to the environment itself and the cost to the environment is worthy of cleanup. That is excellent to find in a Canadian statute, and I congratulate the drafters for putting it in. In the future, I hope that courts will pour meaning into what “environmental damages” might mean.

As I mentioned, the problem with section 48 of the National Energy Board Act as amended for abandoned pipelines is of concern. The NEB would be given the power to take necessary measures when a company does not comply with a particular cleanup order, but only given this power with respect to abandonment and abandoned pipelines. It does not relate to operating pipelines. It is not clear. I suppose in committee we could understand, if the government is open to amendments, whether that could be clarified. I say “open to amendments”, because in my experience, the Conservative government is rarely, if ever, open to amendments, unless they come from its side of the aisle.

The bill is a comprehensive bill. I mentioned some of its deficiencies. I need to say, as I go back to where I started on public confidence, that it was way back in 2011 that the environmental commissioner pointed out that the National Energy Board was failing to fix a number of known problems and ensure that pipelines would be properly maintained. Here we are, and the Conservatives have still not implemented the regulations for proper oversight and inspection from four years ago. Action would be required.

To conclude, it is a nice first step. It is good to see that there are things there, all of which require discretion and enforcement. I hope that, when we get this bill to committee, we can make it better.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the public could be justifiably quite confused by what the NDP is putting forward here today, because what is false is that the member claimed the Conservatives are somehow setting up a false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. What is actually the case is that the Conservative Party is the only one in this House that has been consistently standing up for our environment and for our economy, and today's bill shows just that.

In fact, we have been moving forward with protecting lands the size of the entire country of Greece, at the same time as putting forward legislation, like the pipeline safety act, which would ensure that we have a very safe transportation method for some of our energy products.

I would like to ask the member opposite why the NDP continues to undermine public confidence in what is the safest pipeline system in the country, in the world. This is a fantastic pipeline system. Would the member opposite explain this to us? Does the NDP support what can fairly be described as the best pipeline safety system in the world?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure, but there were perhaps a dozen questions in there. The one I will start with is the one that dealt with the false dichotomy between the environment and the economy, asking me to comment on the wonderful things the current government has done about the environment.

I am standing here because I ran in a by-election, because people in my community are outraged by the current government's environmental record. The gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, the failure to consider first nations in environmental assessment in a meaningful way, and the Conservatives' abysmal record on climate change are only starters.

To suggest we should stand to salute the eradication of our environmental legislation is something I shall not do. I am embarrassed, in fact, to be a Canadian when I think about our environmental record.

Setting aside vast tracts of land in the Arctic does not constitute environmental management if we do not manage those parks, if we do not provide a budget for parks officers to actually do something with those lands.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, what I would like to do is emphasize the magnitude or the size of the infrastructure for which the federal government is responsible. We are talking about well in excess of 70,000 kilometres of pipeline. There is a responsibility we have as a national government to ensure that we provide a sense of security and safety around those pipelines and that there is a consequence, in certain situations, that the company that ultimately put that pipeline into place would be held accountable for mishaps that would take place.

The idea of the polluter pays principle is incorporated into the legislation. There are other aspects of the legislation that would move us forward.

I disagree with the Conservative member's assertion, in terms of the best in the world. I think our companies here in Canada strive to be the best in the world, in terms of providing that safety, but that is no thanks to the government. The government has not been providing leadership on that issue.

However, for the first time we do have this, and my question to the member is this. Would he not agree that having a polluter pays principle would force companies out there to give extra consideration to the importance of having safe and secure pipelines because, ultimately, they would have to pay for their mistakes?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point that I think was being made is the importance of the polluter pays principle as a recognized concept in environmental legislation. I believe the bill would go some distance to achieve that.

However, again, I want to say, as other Liberal members have said in first reading debate, that really there is a lot about discretion that needs to be nailed down here. The government may; the NEB may; and if they do not, so what?

That is what I find so disturbing about legislation like this. It kind of hoodwinks the Canadian people, because what if there is no budget given to do anything? Would the polluter pay then? I do not think so.

It is full of sound and fury, but I hope signifying something.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I was wondering whether the member thinks, as I do, that social licence is also extremely important in efforts to carry out huge energy projects like this one.

We are talking about new rules associated with transporting natural resources and the dangers this involves, but I wonder whether the member could also talk about the importance of social licence for these projects and the fact that we also need to take that into account.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thoughtful question by my colleague from Sherbrooke. Social licence is really the order of the day on pipelines, tankers, and the like. It is really critical that they achieve it. I really believe companies can achieve it if they follow some important principles set out in the bill, such as polluter pay and internalization of their costs, working with the National Energy Board.

As the Leader of the Opposition has put it so effectively, sometimes the Conservative government gives companies a poisoned chalice. They get these great regulations that they need not necessarily comply with, and then they cannot build their pipelines because no one, certainly in my part of the world, wants anything to do with ones like the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. They do not have social licence because the government has tried to jam them through without any public involvement.

Sex Education

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anything demonstrates the need for the House to quickly pass Bill C-26, our Conservative legislation for tougher penalties against child predators, it is the decision by the Liberal Party in Toronto to introduce sweeping changes to how grade school children are taught sex education.

This curriculum was written by someone charged with two counts of distributing child pornography, one count each of making child pornography, counselling to commit an indictable offence, and agreeing to or arranging for a sexual offence against a child under 16. As a hand-picked provincial Liberal deputy minister, this powerful party insider was caught only after an international online probe. If withdrawal of this Liberal policy can prevent one child from being groomed for exploitation, it really must be withdrawn.

On behalf of the parents, grandparents, and the vulnerable children of Ontario, we demand that the federal party leader order this outrageous policy to be withdrawn now.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of Beauport—Limoilou tell me they find it tough to deal with the rising cost of various living expenses, including housing. In the Quebec City region, low-cost housing is getting harder to find. The situation is quite serious because we know that one in three people in Quebec City spends more than 30% of their income on housing.

According to the 2011 national household survey, the gap between the increase in the price of housing and the increase in salaries gets bigger every year. The federal government's contribution to building affordable housing, which is quite small for a G7 country, has been in steady decline for 20 years. It went from 1.3% of the budget in 1993, to 1% today.

It is time to reinvest heavily in order to provide housing to every Canadian in a difficult financial situation. When will this government understand that housing is a right?

Alzheimer's Disease

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, Julianne Moore won the Academy Award for best actress for her portrayal of a college professor suffering early-onset Alzheimer's disease. Still Alice is a powerful story of an accomplished and engaged professional, fighting to stay ahead in a race she knows she will eventually lose.

Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia in Canada. It is also a progressive and irreversible disease. Sadly, there is no cure. The number of Canadians living with it is expected to double by 2031, and women represent 70% of new cases.

Our government understands the tremendous burden that dementia can place on those it touches, as well as on society in general, and has invested over $220 million dollars for research into Alzheimer's disease and related dementias since 2006. Government partners include the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Women's Brain Health Initiative, and Baycrest.

Ms. Moore said in her Oscar acceptance speech that people with Alzheimer's deserve to be seen, so that we can find a cure. I agree, and I encourage all Canadians to witness this performance that is very much worth seeing.

Bahá’i Community in Iran

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the global day of action for the Education is Not a Crime campaign to dramatize the painful reality that education is a crime for the Bahá’i community in Iran, a case study of the persecution and prosecution of the Bahá’i, Iran's largest religious minority, who are treated as non-citizens devoid of fundamental rights, including being arrested for their beliefs at an alarming pace; violent attacks on the Bahá’i continuing to go unpunished amidst a culture of impunity; state-sanctioned incitement to hatred of the Bahá’i dramatically increasing, by tenfold in 2014 alone; and seven Bahá’i leaders continuing to suffer arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and detention, in which the trial of the seven is a trial of the Bahá’i community as a whole.

The Iranian government has made being a Baha'i a crime, but we can change that. We can give voice to their rights. We can tell the Iranian government, as Bishop Tutu put it, that banning the Bahá’i is hurting Iran and the Iranian people. As former Iranian Canadian political prisoner Maziar Bahari put it, and the slogan for this global campaign reads, we can light a candle on their behalf.

Religious Freedom

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I extended an invitation to colleagues to join an international network of legislators committed to advocating against religious persecution and supporting religious freedom for all.

Last June, a small group of parliamentarians gathered together in Oxford. An agreement was reached to begin to build a wider international coalition. This plan became a reality in Oslo in November 2014 when interested MPs from around the world met to launch the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief. They pledged to work together to see an end to belief-based persecution.

Members of IPPFoRB hold various political perspectives, diverse religious beliefs, and hail from many different countries. These currently include Argentina, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. What we share in common is our belief in the importance of freedom of religion or belief. We are committed to see those freedoms strengthened worldwide.

Again, I extend the invitation to any interested legislators to join.

International Women's Day

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

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of International Women's Day, which falls on March 8, I would like to salute the women of LaSalle—Émard.

They are vibrant and engaged in our community organizations. They encourage young people, help families in need and provide activities for seniors and people who are isolated. Through their work at Centre du Vieux Moulin de LaSalle, Corporation L'Espoir, Table de développement social de LaSalle, Cercle de fermières du Québec or Groupe des Aidants du Sud-Ouest they show they are always attuned to the community's needs.

I want to salute the women of LaSalle—Émard who volunteer for numerous causes, at the H.O.P.E. Food Bank, the Legion, the Action Centre, and in other cultural associations. They bring comfort to people in need and help build a better community.

The women of LaSalle—Émard are resilient and optimistic and bring together the people of their community. They are compassionate and creative. I salute them and thank them for their ongoing efforts to build our community, a community where no one is left behind.

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of my riding and the many wonderful organizations and groups that are doing great things. Our local francophone community in Cornwall is an excellent example.

Today I have the honour to welcome members of Cornwall's francophone community. Today on Parliament Hill, people from the Centre culturel de Cornwall are presenting a great project that they worked on with local students.

In celebration of National Child Day, students from the La Citadelle school and their teacher, Josée Poirier, created a unique art campaign. Each student received a chair, chose a theme and then chose a style and method of presentation.

Quite simply, their work is beautiful and unique. I invite my colleagues to stop by the Speaker's salon to see these beautiful works of art immediately after question period.

Metropolitan Mefodiy

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, an ecclesial leader of great repute, a proponent of Orthodox unity, the devout head of the worldwide Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church passed away on Tuesday.

Metropolitan Mefodiy stood for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, from the Orange Revolution to Euromaidan. He advocated for the unity of the Orthodox church in Ukraine.

I met with Metropolitan Mefodiy in January in Kyiv. For hours, we discussed Ukraine and Orthodox unity. He believed that Orthodox unity would lead to greater social and political stability in Ukraine.

Ukraine, indeed the world's Orthodox church, lost a great ecclesiastical leader on Tuesday, a pious man of the people.

On behalf of Canada, I would like to express our sincerest condolences to Metropolitan Mefodiy's family, his ecclesial colleagues, friends, and everyone with whom he had a human and spiritual connection. Memories eternal.

Burnsview Secondary School

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students of Burnsview Secondary School in my riding of Newton—North Delta. Following a project about social change, these students wrote personal essays reflecting their lived experiences. They have published these essays in a book that will be on sale at their school next week. The proceeds will go toward a new playground for children living in a transition house in Surrey—Newton.

As a teacher, parent and grandparent, I make no secret of the fact that young people are my inspiration, and the efforts of these students demonstrate why.

To the students at Burnsview Secondary, I applaud their project. Their passion and commitment to a better future for their generation is commendable. They are leaders in our community and we adults are learning from their example.

I would also take this opportunity to recognize all the amazing teachers that do an awesome job every single day across this country from coast to coast to coast.

B'nai Brith Canada

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome B'nai Brith Canada to Parliament Hill today. Led by a team of experts, they are here to testify before the human rights subcommittee regarding the threat posed by Iran.

Their message is clear: Iran is one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism and the driving force behind international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. The Iranian regime also continues its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. This despotic regime has repeatedly threatened to “wipe” Israel off the map.

Israel, like Canada, faces many threats. Canadians are being targeted by terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents.

That is why it is so important to hear from an organization like B'nai Brith, which, since its founding in 1875, has been engaged in combatting anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racism in Canada and abroad.

Canada does not sit on the sidelines when our values are threatened as some would have us do. Therefore, we are grateful for the leadership and insight that organizations like B'nai Brith Canada have shown. I know all of us on this side of the House would like to thank B'nai Brith for their commitment to the values that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

Mount Saint Joseph Hospital

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mount Saint Joseph Hospital has an emergency department that is staffed by excellent medical professionals. However, it is severely overcrowded and under strain. The emergency department was built to handle 14,000 visits per year. It is now seeing over 28,000. Up to three patients are being housed in rooms built for one and physicians are treating patients in the hallways. There is no proper isolation capability, which is a serious concern for the control of infectious disease. Patient privacy, proper medical histories, and staff safety are being sacrificed.

The hospital requested $24 million from the provincial government to build a new emergency department. Unfortunately, this funding was refused by the B.C. Liberals.

MSJ provides the only emergency department conveniently accessible to east Vancouver residents. Because the department is only open until 8 p.m., residents are put at unnecessary risk as they are forced to travel to Burnaby or the west side of Vancouver to receive emergency care.

I request that the federal government work with its provincial counterpart to ensure that this important facility can better protect the health of Canadians.