Debates of March 9th, 2015

Pipeline Safety Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for his excellent speech and for saying that there are, in fact, some good points in this bill. We will support it and try to improve it with appropriate amendments.

Still—and this is important—he did refer to what this bill does not contain. This bill does not mention the environmental laws that have been attacked, diminished and weakened during the years of Conservative rule.

That does not help to build pipelines; quite the opposite. We have a serious problem if the necessary consultations are not carried out. For example, in the case of the energy east pipeline, there is a slapdash rush to finish the consultations in a way that makes no sense, without doing the environmental assessments needed to ensure that the project is solid, environmentally responsible and safe for the public. No one has asked for public approval or social licence.

I would like the hon. member to tell us what is missing in this bill with respect to environmental assessments and social licence.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

For more than a year we were both members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. While I was on that committee, the government made cuts to environmental assessments. Now they have added time limits. When someone asks for approval of a pipeline or similar project, there is a time limit and even if the environmental assessments are not complete, the government can decide that the time is up, whenever it likes.

Of course, that worries me. Also, even though the members on the other side of the House tell us that pipelines are 99.99% safe, people will not be happy if the remaining 0.01% happens in their back yard.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to tell us more about social licence for the pipeline project. I would like to know if he can add some information on this subject and tell us, for example, what the mayors of various cities say about pipelines in their areas.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in Laval know that a pipeline will be going to the riding of Honoré-Mercier, where I lived for several happy years.

Everyone, including the mayors, is worried and wonders what will really happen. Are we adequately prepared in case of a spill? Neither this bill nor our current resources will be enough to respond to a spill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish you a very happy retirement. We have all appreciated your time in this House.

I have a lot of worries and questions as I enter this debate on the bill. The pipeline safety bill is a contemporary issue that links transportation and safety.

In recent years, a number of serious incidents all over North America have repeatedly brought this issue to the forefront of many citizens' concerns, including the people of my riding, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. For example, many of my constituents have said they are worried about the oil terminal proposed for the port of Cacouna. Pipeline safety and security are under close watch by the Canadian people.

Moreover, this is a crosscutting debate that affects several levels of government, such as municipalities, provinces, territories and other social groups and communities, including first nations.

As I speak today, I hope the government will listen to my fears, take note of my questions so it can answer them, and show its good faith and its openness to dialogue and to the amendments we will be proposing later.

I want to tell the House about three main aspects of this bill: the importance of favouring prevention over reaction; the cap of $1 billion on the polluter pays principle applying to private companies' spills; and the future of our energy resources.

I have a lot to say about the importance of favouring prevention over reaction. After a decade in power, the Conservatives are looking tired, or maybe even lazy. They are tired of having to meet the needs of the population and the middle class and tired of facing criticism. Their masks are beginning to slip, and we can see what lies behind.

The Prime Minister's stubbornness has caused considerable damage to our environment and our economy. Why did he not seize the opportunity afforded by this legislation to be proactive? The Conservatives always seem to be in reaction mode, as if they have to wait for the very worst, for things to hit rock bottom, before they will take action. It should not be that way. Canadians expect better.

There is a total lack of leadership when it comes to pipeline regulation in Canada. However, the real question we need to ask ourselves is this: is that because of laziness or is it because it is in the Conservatives' interest to help oil companies? The statistics, data and testimony about the effects of spills are compelling.

The Conservatives are dragging their heels on this. Pipeline incidents have been happening for a long time now. Maybe they should stop by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's website a little more often. The website posts monthly statistics on pipeline incidents, and there are incidents every month.

The Conservatives also introduced disturbing new standards for reporting incidents. This is what a Radio-Canada article had to say:

Until July 2014, any spill, no matter how small, had to be reported to the TSB. On July 1, the federal body harmonized its regulations with those of the National Energy Board, the NEB. From now on, only spills of 1.5 cubic metres or more have to be reported.

That means that pipeline-related incidents need to be reported only if they are in excess of 1.5 cubic metres. Our government agencies do not record spills that are smaller than that.

Am I the only one who finds that disturbing? The Conservatives have kept us waiting quite a while when it comes to figuring out who is liable for oil spills resulting from broken pipelines.

I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize the dire need for more inspections and more monitoring, as well as measures to prevent oil spills. We cannot allow this government's lack of leadership to endanger communities, infrastructure, wildlife and plants.

It is also important to talk about the polluter pays concept.

The NDP has been defending this principle for quite some time. Since the Conservatives are stuck working with us, our ideas seem to have inspired them. Still, it took a tragedy for them to act.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy served as a lesson for the Conservatives. We cannot allow companies to operate on Canadian soil if they cannot respond appropriately in the event of fault or negligence. However, we must realize that it does not take long to spend $1 billion in the event of a spill. Consider the costs associated with decontamination, compensation, damage to infrastructure, and so on.

A number of experts shared their concerns regarding this $1 billion limit, indicating for instance that a spill in an urban setting could easily cost $5 billion or $10 billion. We have to make sure that polluters pay for the pollution they create, rather than pass the cost on to future generations, namely, our children and grandchildren.

Ian Miron, a lawyer with Ecojustice, has said that no liability regime can truly be considered a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm.

As for the cap, it will certainly be the taxpayers who end up paying cleanup costs over $1 billion when fault or negligence cannot be proven.

We admit that Bill C-46 does make some important improvements in the liability regime for pipelines in Canada. However, why should the taxpayers have to pay the bill if there is a spill or some other accident?

I am also worried that the bill does not include absolute liability for gas companies and other operators of non-oil pipelines and small oil pipeline companies. Why not? The Conservatives want to do this later, through regulation or a cabinet decision. Why not do it now, while we are having an open, transparent, public debate?

We know that the government likes to work behind closed doors. Too many aspects of this bill are left to the discretion of the National Energy Board and the cabinet. The Conservatives seem to be leaving a lot of leeway for politically motivated decisions and secret agreements between the operators and the National Energy Board, a regulatory body that lacks credibility regarding pipelines.

That is why we are not certain this bill goes far enough to protect the safety of all Canadians.

Finally, with regard to the future of our energy resources, the NDP has a vision of long-term prosperity. The Conservatives are trying to make people believe that a New Democratic government would not be good for the economy, but that is completely wrong.

Canadians have been told for too long that they must choose between the economy and the environment. That is a false choice. We propose a different course that will favour economic growth and protect the environment.

I would like to say something about something that is very close to my heart, and that is the principle of sustainable development. When we talk about sustainable development, we are talking about social licence, environmental protection and economics. If more attention had been paid to social licence, there would not have been so many failed pipeline projects. No one is making the effort to consult people and make sure that Canadians are safe.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

She is probably already aware that there was another explosion last weekend in northern Ontario, as another train exploded. Over the past three years, the transportation of petroleum products on our railways has increased by 1,600%. This size of increase is completely overwhelming. By 2024, even if we build the three oil and gas pipelines that have been planned, there will be an additional 1 million barrels of oil that cannot be transported through the pipeline system and that ultimately will be carried by rail, by train.

Perhaps she could tell us how she views this increase and the fact that there is only $1 billion in freight liability? We have seen that the cost for Lake Mégantic has now reached $600 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Indeed, there was another oil spill and this time the trains were involved. It happened on Friday night. It was called a “Lake Mégantic 2.0”, because it happened 4 km outside an urban area and it could well have resulted in another human disaster.

Clearly, our railways, our tracks and our crossings, are in a terrible state. Canada is responsible for making sure the system is safe. The system is in fact far from being safe. I travelled across Canada on the train and I hoped to arrive at my destination without having an accident, because I think it is unsafe.

Regarding the pipelines, we must ensure that they are safe, in terms of oil spills and terrorist activity. That is what we are looking at now. However, a pipeline that goes from one end of the country to the other means that there are great distances to be monitored and secured. Social acceptance is related to the environment, security and the economy. We are therefore asking the government to look into this issue again.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her excellent speech.

I wonder whether she knows why the Conservatives have been telling us for some time now that the pipelines are 99.99% safe, and why they are so resistant to increasing the liability to more than $1 billion if they are so sure it would never be used.

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

Mr. Speaker, previously, just before the excellent leader that we have currently, we had a leader who went to war against the major oil companies, big business and the banks. There was a reason for that. It is true that we see a problem in terms of social acceptability and safety.

The $1 billion cap is not sufficient. These days, $1 billion is the same as $1 million was back in the 1980s. It is proportionally the same in terms of accidents. There are far too many claims and the consequences of an accident are too great to put limits on liability. We should have a polluter pays regime and it should be paid for entirely by the users and operators.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in northern Ontario right now, in the Gogama region, where there has been a third derailment. Crude oil is burning in the Mattagami River. We know there is a major environmental impact from the movement of bitumen and crude. Questions are being raised in terms of the Gogama accident about oversight and safety. This is the same argument that is being dealt with on the pipelines.

We have a government that has stripped the environmental protection laws of this country to push the pipelines through, which has created a serious backlash in the population who do not trust the government to put the interests of environment ahead of the very narrow interests of the Alberta oil lobby.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks needs to be done to ensure that, however we are transporting crude oil, whether it is through pipelines or on trains, we ensure that public safety is first and foremost a priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is another ecological disaster just a few kilometres from people's homes. The people living there were really very close to a major disaster. The consequences are enormous. We really have to look into the issue of safety, as I was saying earlier. In this case, the cause was not a pipeline but a railway. The railway tracks and crossings are in an absolutely deplorable state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the bill on pipeline safety. In my view, it is a good first step toward ensuring pipeline safety, but there are still problems.

I want to speak to the overall scheme of pipelines in Canada, acknowledging, as I said, that this is a good first step. There is much more that needs to be done. There are some areas of vagueness in this piece of legislation. Overall we still have the problem, which I will start with as an overarching concern, with the current energy strategy that sees us wanting to get raw bitumen out of the oil sands, particularly when the price of a barrel of oil was trading internationally at levels that allowed this to be a profitable activity. The strategy appeared to be to get as much raw bitumen out of the ground as fast as possible and ship it quickly to other places for processing and refining.

I take issue with some of the comments that were made earlier in this place by both Liberal colleagues and Conservatives. The assumption that getting raw bitumen to other countries is in Canada's best interest or even in Alberta's best interest is, in fact, opposed by the major trade union that represents workers in the oil sands. There are far more jobs to be created in the oil sands if the material is upgraded near the resource and preferably refined near the resource before being diluted with a diluent, fossil fuel condensate, which is shipped to Alberta to make the bitumen flowable.

It is this combination of bitumen and diluent that would be the product to be shipped under all the controversial current pipelines that we hear about, whether energy east or Keystone heading south, or the two very controversial and unacceptable projects that British Columbians do not want to see, the Kinder Morgan project, or the so-called Enbridge gateway project. All of these pipelines are about getting raw bitumen to tidewater for refining in other countries. Therefore, we should be questioning the whole strategy.

What is missing is actually having an energy strategy, having an energy policy in Canada that allows Canadians to know that we are maximizing the benefit of our natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of their exploitation. To maximize value, one of the first principles should be that we get as many jobs as possible out of every ounce of raw material, whether we are talking about shipping out raw logs from the forest industry, which we should oppose, or whether we are talking about shipping out raw bitumen from the fossil fuel industry, which we should oppose.

That also speaks to the dangers of pipeline spills and tanker spills. Under previous legislation, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, the current administration has brought up the liability levels for tanker traffic as well. I just want to note parenthetically that around liability and the Green Party's larger concern around tanker safety, each supertanker is independently and individually incorporated. Therefore, in the event of a catastrophic accident, we can have all the laws in the world that say that they are going to be absolutely liable and they will pay for their damage, but the reality of tanker traffic is that, in the case of a major accident with billions and billions of dollars of damage, they are much more likely to go bankrupt and leave Canadians holding the bag.

I do not want to overlook that there is an international fund into which the industry pays for tanker safety, the ship-source oil pollution fund, but that is only accessible for up to $250 million per incident. Again, we know from the experience with real disasters that tanker accidents can be in the billions of dollars. That is speaking to our previous history with tankers carrying conventional crude, the Exxon Valdez being the most notable and still not cleaned up. We know now from Enbridge's gross negligence in Kalamazoo, Michigan, that a pipeline rupture with dilbit is virtually impossible to clean up. Dilbit does not behave the way conventional crude does in freshwater environments. We have no experience whatsoever, and I underscore that, with dilbit in the marine environment.

As an intervenor on the Kinder Morgan hearings, I read through its evidence. It claims it has done experiments that show how dilbit will behave in a marine environment. It took large free-standing tanks in Alberta, added salt to the water, stirred, as they said to replicate wind and wave action, and then poured in dilbit to see how it behaved. That is the sum total of the knowledge base in Canada for how dilbit would behave in a marine environment.

Unalterably, the Green Party will oppose putting dilbit in tankers and open waters. We oppose putting dilbit in pipelines, not just because it will be hard or impossible to clean up and because the liability limits will not cover the damage, but because every pipeline is intended to take this stuff into tankers where we know the liability regime will not work because of the corporate structure of offshore oil tankers. The liability for Kinder Morgan, Enbridge, TransCanada and the like for dilbit stops at the end of the pipeline. Once they ship it into a tanker, it is not their problem.

Getting back to the bill, let me cover briefly why it is a good first step in a couple of areas and needs strengthening in others. Where it is a good first step is by enshrining the polluter pays principle into law. It is also good to see what is called “non-use value” for public resources being a compensable category. Non-use value basically means that environmental damage can be compensated. That is a good step as a principle. Some of the later clauses as to how this would come into force are unfortunately rather vague; there are still gaps in terms of how environmental damage would be compensated. I want to commend the administration for putting forward the concept of non-use value as a compensable form. It might create the potential for the National Energy Board to create new tools to go after polluters to get the money back as a result of a spill.

I do support the work of an environmental law group called Ecojustice, which has done a good synopsis of the bill for anyone who wants a quick review without having to go through the bill in detail themselves. The bill is too discretionary. It leaves a lot for the National Energy Board to develop its own rules and regulations around how this would be implemented. It does have significant gaps. For instance, oil pipelines carrying less than 250,000 barrels a day would not be covered under this regime. That is the scale of pipeline that would have the absolute liability.

Again, as has been evidenced by quite a bit of the debate earlier today, the $1 billion cap is not sufficient to cover the full costs of a spill involving dilbit. We know that from the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill, which hit $1.2 billion and has not cleaned up the spill, as parts of the Kalamazoo River remain contaminated.

The other part of the bill that needs more work is that it does not impose unlimited absolute liability. There are ways in which that would be limited with the capping, and additionally with other provisions that the NEB can bring forward. Bear in mind that is taking away what existed under the Fisheries Act where the government had the ability to recover the cleanup costs for a pipeline spill to the full costs. In certain circumstances, we already had some provisions that would make a pipeline owner face unlimited absolute liability. That liability regime is now gone.

I will quote from the legal opinion of Ecojustice, which states:

No liability regime can truly and comprehensively be termed a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm.

This bill represents a good first step, even with the criticisms that I have included in this presentation this afternoon. I want to make it clear that I will be voting for this bill. However, I would like to see the work done to improve and fill the gaps to make it less discretionary.

Overall, I would like us to focus more in this debate, which is often a dialogue of the deaf on the subject of what is in the pipelines. If it is dilbit, we should not be shipping it at all. Dilbit requires a two-way flow of toxic substances. First, the diluent has to be shipped. In the submission by Enbridge to the NEB, it said it would be buying its fossil fuel condensate from the Middle East. Therefore, tankers from Saudi Arabia would come all the way around and go through the tricky channels into Kitimat to put it into the western end of the twin pipeline, ship the diluent from Kitimat into Alberta, stir it in, and then ship it west. That is a cockamamie scheme.

I appreciate the attention of this House. This bill is a good first step, but the whole scheme needs to be reviewed.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for, as usual, setting the global context in very environmentally sensitive terms.

I have a very specific question because the member appears to have read the Ecojustice summary that I have not yet had the chance to read.

There is one provision in the bill where it says the Governor in Council cannot make regulations that “...provide that the loss of non-use value”, which the member has already said means environmental damage, “...in relation to damages to the environment caused...is a loss for which the [pipeline claims] Tribunal may award compensation”.

It seems that it is saying that the pipeline claims tribunal cannot be charged with assigning compensation for non-use value damage. Is that a correct reading, or is there something else going on here to her knowledge?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is correctly reading that, but there is also a liability section that I would direct him to, proposed section 48.12, that does allow for loss of non-use value. I think it is when they set up the special claims tribunal that they are limited. However, I believe the member understood that exactly right, and it is a weakness.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That will bring the debate to an end at this time. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will have approximately three minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate on this bill.

Ivan Messmer

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House that last evening I Iearned of the passing of a distinguished citizen from my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. Mr. Ivan Messmer was a leader who gave greatly of his time and wisdom in serving the community of Penticton and also the citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Messmer served as the mayor of Penticton for two terms, and later was elected as a member of the B.C. legislative assembly, where he served as the MLA for our region and as B.C.'s solicitor general. In later years, Ivan remained active behind the scenes providing sage advice and support to other elected officials.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Messmer's family and his friends during this most difficult time.

2015 Telus Cup

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Rivière-du-Loup is hosting the 2015 Telus Cup, the National Midget Championship of Canada. From April 20 to 26, the best AAA midget team players from Quebec, the Atlantic and Pacific regions and central and western Canada will be welcomed by one of the proudest and best organized communities in the country.

Whether during the first Quebec Games in 1971, or during the Canadian speed skating championship in 1982, Rivière-du-Loup has shown that successfully hosting elite athletes is part of its DNA. Numerous NHL players have participated in the National Midget Championship since it was created in 1974. Among them, there were 55 first-round draft picks, which speaks to the national interest in this event.

What is more, the Collège Notre-Dame de Rivière-du-Loup team, the Albatros, will take part in the tournament. The intensity of the team's players and team captain Raphaël Bastille, who finished first among the top goal scorers of Quebec's AAA midget league, promise great hope.

Congratulations to all the members of the event's organizing committee. Thank you to the players' families and the countless volunteers who will make the tournament a success. In closing, good luck to the Albatros.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Carleton-York

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, and that saying will ring true this coming weekend when Big Brothers Big Sisters of Carleton–York hold their annual Bowl for Kids Sake.

The vision of Big Brothers Big Sisters is that every child in Canada who needs a mentor has a mentor. Big Brothers Big Sisters offers a wide range of mentoring opportunities to meet the varied needs of volunteers, children, and families. Currently the local organization has 10 matches of bigs and littles as well as an in-school mentoring program.

Serving as role models, the mentors teach the importance of giving back, staying in school, and having respect for family, peers, and community.

I want to express my sincere appreciation for the work done by this local group, led by executive director, Mary-Beth Rideout, her board of directors, the event sponsors, and numerous volunteers who make these fundraisers happen.

This weekend will see 34 teams and 200 participants lacing up their shoes at the Woodstock Bowlacade. I encourage everyone in the local community to provide their encouragement and financial support to this event that leads to the development of young people, and, as a result, makes our rural communities stronger.

While this weekend is about raising money, we need to say a big thanks to all of the bigs who give the most valuable gift of all, their time.

International Women's Day

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day, when we celebrate the tremendous women in our lives who care for us, inspire us, and fight for equality, freedom, and justice.

We celebrate the many milestones achieved on the road to gender equality. Despite the strides, women still lag behind men in critical areas such as political representation and wage equality.

Canada ranks 19th among 142 countries regarding the gender gap, 42nd in female parliamentary representation, and a shocking 100th on health and survival.

Let us all recommit to fight for the rights and opportunities of women and girls in Canada and around the world. Empowering women is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. When women succeed, nations are more prosperous, safe, and secure.

Let us work together to create a world where our daughters and sons can achieve their full potential.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Status of Women who last week led Canada's celebrations of International Women's Day and Week with the theme “Strong Women. Strong World. Improving Economic Opportunities for All”.

The good news is that educational achievement among women has increased their economic opportunities, yet they remain under-represented in many sectors.

That is why our government has made significant investments through Status of Women Canada in projects that support women in skilled trades and women entrepreneurs. On January 8, the Prime Minister announced that the Canada apprenticeship loan is now accepting applications.

Throughout this year, I invite all Canadians to celebrate the tremendous achievements and potential of young women and girls.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I joined the leader of the official opposition and NDP Toronto caucus colleagues at the CBC headquarters in downtown Toronto, the building a Conservative-appointed board is signalling it wants to sell off.

New Democrats are demanding that the Conservatives reverse their $115 million in cuts to the CBC, which have led to 650 layoffs since the 2012 budget. Those cuts are on top of $440 million in cuts under previous Liberal governments.

We are also calling for an independent process for appointing members to the CBC's board of directors.

I frequently hear from constituents of Toronto—Danforth who are extremely concerned about the future and the fate of our public broadcaster. They want to see stable and adequate funding to keep it strong.

To quote one constituent, Nora, “I know mine is a very small voice in a very large auditorium, but please promote a good, independent and effective CBC. I think Canada needs this, and I know I do”.

I urge the government to heed this call.

UN Special Envoy on Ebola

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome the United Nations' Secretary-General's Special Envoy on Ebola, Dr. David Nabarro.

Dr. Nabarro's visit to Canada marks an important time in the international community's fight against the spread of this deadly and highly infectious disease. Without the strong leadership of individuals like Dr. Nabarro, the goal of getting to zero cases worldwide would be no more than a dream.

When it comes to confronting the Ebola virus, Canadians can be proud to support a government that is leading global efforts against its spread. To date, Canada has committed over $110 million in health, humanitarian, and security contributions to help fight the spread of Ebola.

From coordinating the world's response to malaria in 1999 to managing crisis response operations in Darfur, Sudan, and in countries affected by the 2004 tsunami, Dr. Nabarro has made his life's work about protecting the health and the humanity of this world.

I want to thank Dr. Nabarro for his continued service and leadership in protecting global health and for strengthening the international communities' abilities in the fight against infectious disease.

Organ Donation

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again highlight the importance of organ donation.

In Ontario alone, over 1,500 people are currently waiting for a life-saving organ transplant, while only 26% of the population are registered donors.

Each of us can relate to the importance of having hope in our lives. When my wife Betty died in May 2011, my personal faith and knowing that her organs saved the lives of five people allowed me and my family to find hope in the midst of our grief.

George Marcello, founder of the Torch of Life initiative and a transplant survivor himself, has made it his life's mission to raise awareness of organ and tissue donation and to offer others the same chance he received to enjoy a healthy future with friends and loved ones.

Tomorrow George will bring the Torch of Life to the Hill. I look forward to commending George for all of his important work.

I want to encourage every member to urge their constituents to register as donors at beadonor.ca.

Espanola Autism Acceptance Event

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, autism takes many forms and is spread across our population with no exceptions.

Often what families and individuals facing the challenges of a diagnosis need most is acceptance and community awareness. That was the goal of the second annual Espanola Autism Acceptance and Espanola Rivermen event that took place on March 1st. In the lead-up to World Autism Day on April 2, this event brought more than 150 people together to raise awareness and have lots of fun.

Families from the North Shore and Manitoulin took in a number of activities, ranging from swimming, bowling, and Zumba to watching a hometown Rivermen hockey game.

The event was coordinated by Dennis Lendrum, who has been a champion of this issue since his grandson, Alex Bertrand, was diagnosed on the spectrum.

Dennis is already organizing for next year's event. Anyone who wants to stay informed or get involved can be in touch through the Espanola Autism Acceptance Facebook page.

I am sure all members will join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to the volunteers, organizers, and participants involved in this exemplary event.

Gwich'in Internship Pilot Project

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP and the Liberal Party, our government is focused on what matters most to all Canadians: jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity, including for northerners and first nations.

That is why I am pleased to report that on February 23, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and James Wilson, President of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, signed a memorandum of understanding announcing the launch of an innovative new training and development pilot project, the Gwich'in internship pilot project.

This pilot project will provide Gwich'in participants year-long full-time internship positions within Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the Gwich'in Tribal Council.

The paid internships will prepare Gwich'in participants for jobs in the public service and provide them with professional work experience in a variety of government functions. Our government will continue to get results for Yukoners time and time again.