House of Commons Hansard #191 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-26.

Topics

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

I see the hon. member for Oxford rising on a point of order.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Shall I see the clock as 1:30 p.m.?

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 21, 2014, consideration of the motion.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has six minutes left to conclude her remarks.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete my remarks, begun some months back, in support of the motion by my colleague, the member for Manicouagan. To reiterate, his motion calls on the government to submit natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with first nations and other citizens affected by such activities, and that public willingness be included as a measure of public interest. He is calling for a central voice for communities in decision-making, respect for commitments made to first nations, and assurance that the benefits of resource projects flow to the impacted communities.

Interestingly, just yesterday a joint first nations and federal government working group issued its final report, called “First Nations and Natural Resource Development Advancing Positive, Impactful Change”. This report urges Canada to eliminate socio-economic disparities by making resource revenue sharing with first nations a priority, and to involve first nations directly as participants in the regulatory processes, including project reviews, and the planning, design, management, ownership, and reclamation phases of all projects.

This working group was among pledges made by the Prime Minister more than two years back, when he promised to commit to a nation-to-nation relationship. I am pleased to note that the working group included Alberta Regional Chief Cameron Alexis, a highly regarded first nation leader in Alberta.

The recommendations echo those by the government-appointed special advisor on west coast energy projects, Douglas Eyford. His report determined that delays in major energy projects can be attributed, at least in part, to the failed efforts by the federal government to properly consult and accommodate first nations. The recommendations also mirror recent determinations by the Supreme Court of Canada, in particular its 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision confirming the fiduciary duty of the Crown to recognize and respect aboriginal title and to consult and accommodate their rights and interests.

In recent publicly held pipeline hearings in Alberta, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was denied timely access to the environmental reports on a proposed bitumen pipeline. It was finally forced to pull out of the hearings because it was not given reasonable access to the document or a reasonable time period to review this major document regarding a pipeline that could potentially impact its traditional lands. Remarkably, the proponent claimed that it had absolutely no duty to assess impacts on these lands. The question is, where was the federal government, which has the fiduciary obligation to protect the rights and titles of first nations?

It is not just in federal review processes where the government has downgraded the reviews and downgraded federal environmental laws so that many impacts to the environment, first nations communities, and their health, peoples, lands, and waters are now not being considered. It is also happening in the provincial review processes, where the federal government is absent.

The ball is now in the court of the government to finally act to change policy, process, and procedure in accordance with these sound recommendations that have come forward. The courts, the Constitution, Canadian law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples all clarify that the rights of indigenous peoples and other Canadian citizens are to be given a voice in resource decisions impacting their health, environment, lands, waters, or cultural practices. Regrettably, over the past decade, as I mentioned, the government has instead intentionally set about eroding those rights and opportunities and limiting first nations' and other Canadians' rights to participate in resource project reviews or design.

The special fund established under the MPMO in support of aboriginal consultation, recommended by Mr. Eyford in his report, which was commissioned by the government, sunsets this year. Even the funds that were previously set aside, where there was this great commitment two years ago to engage and help finance the constructive participation of first nations, are sunsetting. We do not know what will happen next because we are still waiting for the next federal budget.

There is a clear recommendation to the finance minister. Let us hope that the Conservatives not only bring back that fund, but substantially increase funds to deliver on the recommendations from Mr. Eyford and the government's own task force.

Last year, the Minister of Natural Resources, at an aboriginal minerals summit, apparently committed to better engagement of first nations. Yet, we discovered this week that he has done nothing but go across western Canada, insulting first nation leaders and their councils. This does not bode well for a new, positive, constructive nation-to-nation relationship. We can only hope for better.

We therefore anticipate, given all of the recent reports and undertakings, that we can expect unanimous support for this motion, and hopefully real concrete action.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Perkins Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this motion before us and to reinforce some of the points made so persuasively by some of my colleagues.

Canada already has a robust, independent, and science-based review process for natural resource projects. In fact, the existing review process involves some of the most extensive public consultations that Canada has ever seen, including unprecedented engagement with aboriginal communities.

Our government understands and fully agrees that successes in responsibly developing our natural resources is dependent upon open and sustained dialogue with all Canadians. We have taken practical steps to build partnerships with aboriginal communities, including creating our major projects management office – west, which engages aboriginal leaders on energy resource development on the west coast.

One example of the work being done by that office is the series of workshops it has held with aboriginal communities. These workshops discussed how communities can play an enhanced role in our marine and pipeline safety systems, as well as the training and resources needed to make this happen.

Every day, we dedicate ourselves to building trust and fostering inclusion in the review process for major projects. We are committed to promoting better communication and stronger dialogue.

Unfortunately, this motion would do nothing to enhance those efforts. Instead, it would short-circuit a review process that is specifically designed to foster full and meaningful public engagement. Indeed, it could pre-empt efforts to achieve a comprehensive determination of whether a project is in Canada's broader public interest. Quite simply, this motion would replace extensive science-based decision-making with one based on perceptions.

Canadians deserve better. That is why our government has implemented its comprehensive plan for responsible resource development. Under our plan, we have developed a process that provides for inclusive public participation, a process that ensures environmental, economic, and social impacts are appropriately considered in determining whether a project should proceed. Our government has been clear time and again: projects will not proceed unless they are proven safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

Responsible resource development strengthens environmental protection and enhances aboriginal engagement in every aspect of resource development. Indeed, over the past two years, our comprehensive approach has significantly enhanced marine, pipeline, and rail safety.

We are confident that we are creating one of the safest energy transportation systems in the world. It all starts with ensuring that we take every possible step to prevent incidents from occurring.

Our government recently introduced the pipeline safety act, which will enhance Canada's world-class pipeline safety regime by building on the principles of incident prevention, preparedness and response, as well as liability and compensation. The pipeline safety act will enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. This will ensure that as pipeline companies respond in the unlikely event of a major incident, they will be required to maintain the highest minimum financial resources in the world.

We are also expanding the power of the National Energy Board to enforce compliance. To further boost safety, we will also ask the National Energy Board to provide guidance on the use of best available technologies in the materials and construction of federally regulated pipelines.

For both marine and pipeline safety, we have mandated major increases in surveillance inspections and safety audits, as well as greater powers of enforcement.

In the case of marine safety, we have enhanced Canada's world-class tanker safety system by investing in state-of-the-art technology and modernizing navigation systems.

With all of these efforts, we are seeking to foster great public confidence in our country's ability to develop its resources and to do so responsibly. We know that building public confidence in major resource projects requires a comprehensive approach.

In the case of engaging aboriginal people, that means making progress on reconciliation and treaty negotiations. That is why the new measures announced last summer by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development are so important. These efforts are advancing treaty negotiations and reconciliation in a number of ways, and are clarifying the Government of Canada's approach to resolving shared territory disputes in the context of resource development.

Our government's goal is to work in partnership to promote prosperous communities and economic development for the benefit of all Canadians. The impact of a major resource projects extends well beyond a particular local area. While the NDP has opposed all forms of resource development, our government takes a balanced approach to resource development.

The natural resources sector is significant to Canada's economy, and it provides nearly 20% of our GDP and supports 1.8 million jobs. All of this activity generates royalties and revenues for governments to provide important social programs, from health to education to pensions, for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The motion before us may be well intentioned, but it is poorly defined, and it would only serve to undermine the exhaustive process we have already established for considering resource projects. As I have noted, Canada already has an extremely rigorous regulatory regime in place to consider major resource projects.

Let us also remember that any recommendations on projects are made by independent regulators based on the entirety of the evidence collected. It simply makes no sense to cut short such an exhaustive process and ignore scientific-based facts for evidence. Canada deserves better, and Canadians know they can count on our government to deliver it.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the private member's motion. It is long overdue.

The real issue is, why is it even needed? One would think that with the Supreme Court ruling the government would understand that consultation with first nations was not simply a courtesy or something that might be good to do but in fact an obligation under the treaties. It has been proven time and time again that not only is it a good idea to consult with first nations, it is one of the ways to get projects moving more quickly. For a government so intent on getting resources to market and so intent on getting resources out of the ground, one would think that reaching for better practices would not be something that the opposition would have to compel it to do, it would simply adopt the idea and move forward. One would think it would listen to the Supreme Court and move forward.

I listened to the previous speaker talk about the exhaustive process that is under way in terms of processing these applications. What has actually happened is the processes have been exhausted. They have been retired. They have been gotten rid of. The federal environmental assessment in particular has been reduced to such a telescoped and shortened process that it is virtually laughed at by cities, first nations and environmentalists. It is even laughed at by the proponents because they know how simple it is to clear a hurdle. That is why these projects so often end up in court.

We have a project, not a resource extraction project but a proposal from a federal agency in Toronto that is going through an environmental assessment right now. The proponents get asked, “Is this a good idea?” and if they answer “yes”, it is done. It is a project that has been developed on the lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. Have they ever been consulted about it? No, they have not, not once. They sit back in opposition to the project waiting for the environmental assessment to be completed because that is the day they march off to court and say, “You forgot to consult with us”.

It is critical for a modern economy to move forward in concert with its partners. Any mayor in our country worth his or her salt knows that when municipal partners are not included in the planning of infrastructure or economic development or federal programs, when city councils and mayors are not included, they end up designing programs badly that do not land or work in the cities of choice, effectively. They end up in front of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its federal conference held once a year being screamed at by hundreds of mayors from across the country.

We are a confederation. Our Constitution implies collaboration. It rewards collaboration. Our economy moves forward more quickly with collaboration. Instead, what we get is a government that, when it cannot rule out collaboration and act unilaterally, refuses to meet with other levels of government, including first nations, but also the provinces and the municipalities. As a result, private members' bills are required just to force the government into a conversation. That is ludicrous in this day and age.

I would be impressed if the government opposite, in an act of collaboration looked across the aisle, looked to this private member's bill and took a lead. It would allow it to respect rulings from the Supreme Court and respect treaties that all of our ancestors have signed and all of us are governed by. It would allow it to work with provinces in a particular municipality in co-operation and we could start to build a country instead of simply building arguments.

The government continually looks for the battleground instead of the common ground. It talks about being a government that is embracing the new economy. There is not a private sector company out there that looks to go around creating fights with people in order to make progress in this modern economy. In fact, what we see is private sector companies doing the consultation in spite of being told by the federal government they do not need to, because even the private sector understands that collaboration is far less costly than being tied up in courts and in front of regulatory bodies.

We would hope that the government would learn from the lesson that is being offered here and the legislation that is being tabled here, would stop its knee-jerk reaction to opposing it and start looking at the benefits of working together with Canadians, whether they come from first nations communities, municipalities, provinces or from other political parties. There is no monopoly on good ideas in our country. Ideology alone will not get the problem solved.

Members of this government, this Parliament, need to learn how to work together. This bill is an excellent opportunity to show the country that the last 10 years was a mistake and the future is a better one.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight right off the bat.

The mining industry provides good jobs, as does the oil industry. We are not talking about $15 or $12 an hour, but $30, $35 or even $40 an hour. There are people who like having good jobs.

Obviously setting up a mine or a refinery has its advantages. However, believe it or not, Canadians are a strange bunch: they know that there are two sides to every story. Although one side might be quite attractive, they still want to get a full picture of the other side. That is the problem here.

Right now, there are 350,000 jobs in Canada connected to natural resource development. These jobs come with a whole lot of benefits that we do not want to give up. However, since we are responsible, we would like to ensure that the proposed new operations do not pose problems. That is the issue here.

Rather than solving the problem, the government made it worse by trying to force things down people's throats. It is unbelievable. Today, every time anyone wants to build a mine or refinery, legal action is immediately taken. In the past, during a time that was less Conservative and more favourable to informed development, projects were discussed and changes were made, a process that took several years.

However, the Conservative government wants to get things done in a year, a year and a half or two years at most. Here are the results: the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario has been rejected; the pipelines in northern British Columbia have been rejected; the pipelines that cross Quebec have been rejected; and the uranium mines have been rejected—and I hope they always will be.

This does not take two or three years. Before, it took four or five. Now it takes 10 years because of the legal proceedings. The whole notion of the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario is at a standstill because of this great government. This shows that when you do not do things right, you do not necessarily get the results that you want.

Whenever something as big and invasive as a mine, a refinery or a major industrial facility is proposed, people should be consulted and should be able to participate throughout the decision-making process. My colleague who spoke earlier said that the government had done everything in its power to make these projects safe. I would like to hear her say that to the people of Lac-Mégantic.

In northern Ontario, there have been three derailments in less than two months. Is that what they call safety? They say they will make companies liable. Sure they will. An oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, sank in Alaska. That was when Ronald Reagan was president. People paid a terrible price for that oil spill, so they asked for compensation. They are still waiting. The companies that made terrible messes in the Gulf of Guinea, the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Alaska are the same companies operating here in Canada.

Now the government is telling us that these companies that have behaved badly elsewhere will have to respect the environment and Canada's peoples. I am skeptical, because we sometimes have little problems, like the one in Lac-Mégantic.

It is extraordinary that the first person who appears after a disaster is not a someone from the company itself who arrives with a cheque in hand and says that the company will pay for everything. No, no. Instead, the company's lawyer appears and says that before the company will pay for anything, we must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the company is indeed guilty. They ask for help, they ask people to be understanding and, above all, they want to get out of paying anything and they want to shirk their responsibilities. This practice must stop.

Some projects must have a social licence. When a project does not havea social licence, it can get lost in the legal weeds and absolutely nothing happens. Sometimes, even great projects that create jobs might prompt people to say that progress is being made, but without a social licence, they do not work. One example I can think of is a uranium mine.

People are afraid, and they will continue to be afraid even if we give them the best arguments in the world. At some point we may just have to accept the fact that the people do not want a project.

The Conservatives have introduced their pipeline bill, and that has people worried. I can guarantee to the House that no one in Quebec is interested in seeing four inches of oil floating all over the St. Lawrence River.

Nonetheless, we can build refineries and secure the energy supply because certain aspects make this attractive. People are prepared to listen to what the Conservatives have to say, especially when they say that this type of project will bring in billions of dollars for the province and create an awful lot of jobs. People will listen closely, but they will also look at the other side of the coin and will have a say.

As for the people who have to live with a major industrial, mining or oil development project in their region, they are entitled to not only have a say, but also to be listened to and take part in the decision-making. If we dismiss them out of hand, then the whole process will go nowhere, and that is what is happening right now.

Many projects are not approved, from shale gas development in many municipalities to oil development in certain national parks. It is too bad, because some of these projects deserved to be better defended.

It is not true that people are short-sighted. It is not true that the NDP, and everyone for that matter, is automatically opposed to every mining project and that the first nations are starting a civil war. No, no. They are interested in having discussions and listening, especially if they get an attractive offer.

However, if the offer is not an attractive one and profits only one side, while the people assume all the risks, only the Conservatives are surprised that the people are not going to like this type of deal where they will always be the losers and the friends of those in power will be the winners.

It is vital that at some point the government finally decide to be Canadian for a day. Is it so horrible to ask that the government be Canadian from time to time? Unfortunately, the government does not often listen to us. However, we should not take it to heart.

The election is fast approaching and the good Canadian people may decide one day to give the boot to those who systematically defend interests that are not those of Canadians.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult act to follow, but I will do my best.

Motion No. 533 is very specific in what it requests. It talks about how the federal government, in exercising its jurisdiction, should be submitting natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with first nations and citizens in communities and urban areas. That is the breadth of what is being proposed here. It makes a very broad yet very succinct request of this House.

In addressing the motion, I would like to talk about the nature of public participation, the nature of environmental assessment processes and the aboriginal issues relating to that, and finally about projects in British Columbia that are before us today, namely the Enbridge northern gateway and the Kinder Morgan projects, a lens through which I hope to examine the failure of a credible public participation process—not only, as the motion said, for first nations, but also for citizens in our various communities.

There is a vision for a new energy future that the Leader of the Opposition has articulated in the Policy Options magazine in September and October last year. It is quite interesting, because in that article he starts by talking about the crossroads we are at when it comes to aboriginal involvement in development. He talks of the Supreme Court of Canada's watershed case in the Tsilhqot’in matter that has driven home the fact that resource development will simply not happen without proper first nations consultation and accommodation.

I stress the word “proper” because it is not a “nice to have”, as the government treats public participation; it is a constitutionally required activity, a consultation that is not just about counting boxes and putting little ticks beside them to confirm we have had a chat. It is about a genuine good faith engagement with first nations when resource development affects either their rights or aboriginal title. When I say “title”, of course that is the burden of the Tsilhqot’in case that has been such a watershed development in our part of the world and across Canada.

Let us remember that in the Haida decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said:

Prior to establishment of title, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups.

In comparison, the court was clear in Tsilhqot’in that after aboriginal title has been established, the default focus is consent:

After Aboriginal title to land has been established by court declarations or agreement, the Crown must seek the consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group....

What has the Government of Canada done in response to that? What has it done in response to the excellent report by its hand-picked appointee, Mr. Douglas Eyford, who worried that projects are failing because industry has been left alone to navigate the consultation and accommodation process? The government has done nothing. It has left us with a vacuum. It has left us with projects that may or may not be in the public interest but will never proceed, because first nations have not had the constitutional rights accorded to them by the current government.

The government first tried to download it to industry, which pushed right back and said that it was the honour of the crown that was at issue and that industry was not the crown. That has been a bit of a dead end, and it is tying up development that may be in the public interest across this land. It is simply shameful.

The ultimate form of consultation in our province is called the treaty process. This past week we heard that the Government of British Columbia is essentially walking away from the BC Treaty Commission. It cannot seem to find a person to appoint to that process.

Has the Government of Canada been yelling from the rooftops that it is committed to this process, that it has spent billions of dollars trying to engage first nations in unceded land and that through the process of good faith negotiations, it is trying to address those land claims? The answer is no. I have not heard the government say one thing about the crisis facing the BC Treaty Commission. I have heard Chief Sophie Pierre say it and I have heard Jerry Lampert, the federal appointee on the commission, say it, but I have not heard the Prime Minister or a single parliamentarian address that crisis.

It is a crisis not only because billions have been spent, but because that is the way in which we truly engage with first nations to achieve resource development that is meaningful and in the interests of not just the first nations communities but the people of Canada. It is a crying shame the Conservatives seem to have let that wither on the vine.

Douglas Eyford, whom the government appointed after the debacle of the Enbridge process, recommended a special fund for consultation with first nations. That dies this year. The government will not bring a budget forward and we do not know whether it will be continued and, if so, to what degree. That is another example of the lack of concern the Conservatives have for engaging in what the courts have termed “nation-to-nation consultation” with our first nations communities.

It is no wonder this motion was brought forward to demand that this occur. It is not only in the interest of first nations, it is in the interest of all Canadians that the process of reconciliation, which the Supreme Court has demanded of us, be finally addressed, and it is not.

I could spend time on first nations and more so, but I want to talk about the environmental assessment process.

Everyone knows that Bill C-38 gutted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We heard that loud and clear in the travesty of the Enbridge northern gateway consultation process. Over 130 first nations across British Columbia announced their opposition. Nearly 10,000 Canadians told the joint review panel that they opposed this project. Towns and cities across Canada oppose it. The community of Kitimat, in a referendum, told the people of Canada that they did not want any of this. Was it approved? Yes. The Government of Canada did not seem to care. So much for consultation. The level of cynicism that the Conservatives have engendered in the people of my province is absolutely tangible.

When we talk to younger Canadians about their engagement in the process, they say “Why bother?” The Conservatives create these little processes and ignore them. It does not matter how many people speak out because it does not seem to make any difference.

If we get into a protest, for example on Burnaby Mountain, and Grand Chief Stewart Philip is arrested, he tells us that under the new and improved national security legislation, his advocacy, protest and dissent will not be in that context lawful because it is subject to an injunction and that he will somehow be on a terrorist list. So much for participation in that project.

What the Conservatives do not seem to get is that they cannot proceed with resource development that may well be in everyone's interest unless they get a social licence. People in our province are having none of these projects because they realize the process by which they are being reviewed completely ignores the consultation that is required.

That is why I was so proud to stand in this place and support a bill introduced by my colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Bill C-628. It would, among other things, absolutely improve the level of consultation that this motion would require us to do. One of the things that bill would do would require a report to be submitted to a joint review panel or National Energy Board, as the case may be, that would include a summary of those positions taken by municipalities, first nations and individuals and specify how the board took each position into account in deciding whether to recommend the issuance of a certificate for a pipeline. Accountability is about that. It is ensuring what people say actually matters. That is why they would be unable to ignore the 10,000 people opposed to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline proposal. Yet the government has the audacity to simply say no problem going ahead.

Closer to home, in my community, we have another proposal coming forward, and that is the famous Kinder Morgan project, in which Trans Mountain's application to double its pipeline and radically increase the number of tankers on our coast is being considered. How can the proponent ever achieve the social licence required when so many people have said that the process of consultation is broken?

The former head of BC Hydro, in a scathing letter, withdrew, saying it was a joke. Standing is being restricted to those “directly affected, reducing the number and diversity of interveners and limiting the participation to a single letter”. That is of course is subject to a charter lawsuit claiming it violates freedom of expression.

Consequently, that is another example of why the motion is so desperately required that government can begin to take consultations seriously so it would improve the life of not only first nations, but all Canadians.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to have the opportunity to speak in support of Motion No. 533. As the urban affairs critic for the NDP caucus, I take a special interest in the motion, and I especially applaud the member for putting forward a motion for the inclusion of urban areas that are affected by the establishment of a natural resource development.

Too often, we are presented with false dichotomies by the government and the false choices that flow from them. That people see remote rural life as distinct and separate and unconnected to urban life has a partial explanation in the phenomenology of those lives. They are very different. They are very different experiences. People see very different things on a day-to-day basis.

People say I am talking about an urban agenda for Canada, but what about rural and remote Canada? This is not to deny that there are issues distinct to rural Canada and distinct to remote Canada, nor is to deny that there are distinctly urban issues and considerations. In fact, our party has urged consideration of the peculiarly urban issues in the cities of Canada by the government, and as the critic for urban affairs, I developed and released an urban agenda for Canada for all Canadians to read and consider.

However, the urban agenda and our views on cities and urban life in this country are very much mindful of, and informed by, the fact that urban Canada, our cities, sit in a broader context. They are part of a broader ecosystem. Our water comes usually from somewhere other than our cities. The preponderance of our food usually comes from somewhere other than our cities. It is captured in that common phrase that we see on the bumper stickers: farmers feed cities.

Therefore, cities are shaped by the broader landscape in which they are embedded, and the converse is true as well. Cities shape the broader landscape in which they are situated, and this is true of all cities. It was true in a city in Saskatchewan that I visited. It was in the context of a booming extractive economy there that the chamber of commerce told me it is not just about environmental assessments but that they also need to have community impact assessments for resource development happening outside the boundaries of the city. The suggestion was that before the next big project goes in, there needs to be an assessment of whether that city can handle the traffic that flows from that project, handle the housing required by the influx of workers for that project, and so on.

In another city in Saskatchewan, a large community service agency told me that it was only when the rural and remote extractive economy started to boom that the extent of the true challenges of homelessness in that city actually emerged. As with any ecosystem, the system flows one way or another.

I would like to tell a story about a natural resource development project close to Toronto. It was the Melancthon Township megaquarry.

Melancthon Township sits about 80 kilometres north of Toronto. It is class 1 farmland and provides about half the potatoes eaten by the citizens of Toronto annually. The land is called the headwaters because it sits atop a number of watersheds that provide fresh water to about one million people in cities in Ontario.

Thousands of acres of the headwaters and of class 1 farmland were purchased a few years back by what was then considered to be the tenth-largest financial hedge fund in the world. The plan was to build a megaquarry where that farmland existed. It was to cover 2,300 acres and go down 200 feet for the purpose of getting aggregate rock to ship into our cities to continue to build out the sprawl of Toronto and the surrounding municipalities.

Now, 2,300 acres is actually about half the size of my riding of Beaches—East York, so it was obviously worthwhile to share with people a vision of what this thing would like. It would be half my riding, going down about 20 stories. One of the interesting things was that being the headwaters, the water table sat just below the surface, about 20 feet down, requiring the pumping of water in perpetuity for the mining of this aggregate.

Efforts were made repeatedly to engage the environmental assessment process on this, but that process has been so ravaged and degraded that there were really no hooks.

What was understood by thousands upon thousands of residents in Toronto was that this issue was their issue, that the building of a megaquarry on class one farmland, 80 kilometres outside of Toronto, was in fact an urban issue.

At one point, thousands of Torontonians went north one weekend and clambered across fields and through the woods for a local food cook-off put on by professional chefs. On another occasion I organized a bus tour for constituents of mine and other NDP MPs in Toronto to go north to meet the farmers who were holding out on the hedge fund and hanging onto their farmland.

Finally, there was a soup day to support the fight against the megaquarry. It was held in my riding in a park, and 40,000 Torontonians came out to my park to buy soup, but most importantly, to support the concerns of those farmers and other residents living in and around Melancthon Township about the development of this megaquarry.

Similar activities have taken place outside of Toronto and have engaged the citizens of Toronto. Not all of these have been about natural resource development. Some have been quite the opposite. In fact, on the federal lands in Durham region, the government and previous governments, going back to the 1970s, have proposed taking class one farmland and building an airport, just paving it over, for the continuing development of the city.

However, like the megaquarry, the citizens of Toronto understand that issue and that project to be an urban issue. Those farmlands outside the city are important for local food security for our city so that we have, close to urban life, easy access to fresh food.

As with the megaquarry, it was easy to fill a bus of constituents and head out to tour those lands in support of farmers who are living lease by lease on those lands.

It is clear that where there is an ecosystem, where our cities are embedded in a broader landscape, there is also a social ecosystem, and we are connected. The first nations both within our city and outside our city, whose lands these are, the farmers whose lands these are, and urban residents, as well, understand that we are connected this way.

This was and remains my attraction to the opportunity Bill C-40 presented to us. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity spoiled. It was an opportunity for Canada's first national urban park so that we could begin to at least aspire to the notion that urban Canada and the concept of ecological integrity in our cities, being more energy sufficient and more food sufficient and secure in our own cities, is possible. We can begin to build and shape our cities so that urban life can exist in this landscape.

Let me conclude by applauding the motion in its entirety. More specifically, let me applaud the inclusion of urban communities in the motion and by extension the kind of collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes that will rise up from the passage of this motion.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will use this right of reply wisely and focus on the points raised by my colleagues in their remarks about the motion on public willingness with regard to natural resource development.

I would like to dispel some of the doubts and reservations that were expressed by members of the House who believe that the expression of public willingness is equivalent to a right of veto.

That is not the case. We need to put the whole thing in context. When I talk about taking into account public willingness, I am talking about one criterion in the permit process. There are other criteria, which seem to be more important to some, such as the economy, jobs, the environment and health. The expression of public willingness would be part of the criteria that are already taken into account out of necessity before a permit is issued to develop a mine or extract a natural resource.

In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources emphasized the need for the public to provide evidence to back up their claims regarding natural resource extraction undertakings. She said: “People's views need to be substantiated with evidence”.

I agree, and that is why the information about resource extraction or mining initiatives must be made available to the public. Canadians need to have access to all of the information, not just when the matter is closed and everything has already been signed, but in the preliminary stages, when people are called upon to express their opinions and take a position. It is essential that everyone have all the information.

Making all of the information about a given project available is an inherent part of the notion of expression of public willingness, which is at the heart of the motion before the House.

The parliamentary secretary stressed the need to base a position on facts and science. I would like to acknowledge the informed position taken by a number of people, including people in Sept-Îles. I am talking about people like Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Gagnon, who have based their position on scientific data. It was a huge job, especially if you consider that they did not have extensive financial resources at their disposal. They did everything they had to do to get the information they needed. Now they are practically experts. I am, of course, referring to Mine Arnaud, a proposed apatite mine in Sept-Îles. These are people who taught themselves over the years and developed expertise out of necessity.

As I said, I think it is essential that the public have access to all the information associated with a project. That is precisely the problem with Mine Arnaud. At the end of the day, the information does not get beyond the employers and the industry. The information is not passed along, which is why we are seeing this public outcry from the people of Sept-Îles and other places.

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources demonstrated openness to people taking a stand by telling the House that claims have to be based on evidence suggests to me that all parliamentarians can work together to reduce the harmful impact of public opposition to economic initiatives in Canada. I have talked about that harmful impact several times in the House. Every public outcry has a direct impact on stock market value. We can see that by looking at stock market value. At least for corporate entities that issue IPOs and are publicly traded, we can see the effects of public uprising: their market value plummets.

I would also like to talk about my meeting with the parliamentary secretary to the minister in her office because I want to illustrate the inclusiveness underlying this motion. I told the parliamentary secretary that I was open to amendments and that I wanted to work inclusively and collaboratively with the Conservatives, the Liberals and my own colleagues. That remains the key feature of this motion. It would ease tensions across the country and prevent that uprising.

The Conservatives could really benefit from this motion, since we will be having an election In October, and that is pretty bad for their brand.

I submit this respectfully.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

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

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday April 1, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)