Debates of May 28th, 2015

Consumer Protection

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in economic action plan 2015 we proposed to amend the Bank Act to strengthen and modernize Canada's financial consumer protection framework to respond to the diverse needs of Canadians. For example, the financial consumer protection framework would provide improved access to basic banking services by allowing a broader range of personal identification, cooling-off periods for a greater range of products, and a new requirement that advertising be clear and accurate. These measures would benefit all Canadians, including the most vulnerable consumers.

With respect to the middle class, let us not forget our record of supporting middle-class families by putting more money in their pockets. I cannot think of a better way to help the middle class than by letting them keep their own money rather than imposing the drastic tax hikes proposed by the opposition.

Again I find myself confused at the irony of the hon. member's question here today, since the opposition continue to vote against all of our measures to protect consumers as well as all of the tax cuts that benefit all Canadians. I hope the opposition will finally get on board and support economic action plan 2015.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I imagine that it will be no surprise to anyone this evening that I will be talking about the Port of Quebec and its problem with contamination. However, I must say that in addition to the contamination problem, there is also the issue of the expansion project that the Port of Quebec announced in very succinct terms on its website. The problem is that the expansion project became controversial when a journalist pointed out that the port was planning to export crude oil from western Canada.

Unfortunately, instead of being up front and openly answering the questions, overnight the Port of Quebec erased all mention of oil exports from its website. It also tried to do damage control by saying that the liquid bulk terminal, which could be used for oil exports, was the second phase of the controversial expansion project.

In addition, I asked a question at the beginning of the week. The entire assessment process for this project is very questionable, and even suspect, for the reasons I will outline. I would like to remind members that for almost three years, or ever since the infamous red dust incident of October 2012, I have raised the issue with the government many times. My question was about the contamination with various types of dust, including nickel dust, and the attitude of the Port of Quebec and Quebec Stevedoring, through its affiliate, St. Lawrence Stevedoring, which is the source of the problem. There was at least a small victory: the Quebec ministry for sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change found that St. Lawrence Stevedoring was responsible for the nickel contamination. The federal government also acknowledged this.

Now the situation is getting out of hand. The planned expansion project is not a designated project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Unfortunately, because of its status as a Canadian port authority, the Port of Quebec is both judge and jury, the absolute authority when it comes to the assessment of this project. I would like to remind members that, during the construction of the two wood pellet terminals in Anse au Foulon, the Port of Quebec released the assessment conducted by Quebec Stevedoring, the company that was building the infamous terminals, after construction had already begun. Consultation, or at least public access to the information, had been short-circuited.

Given the two extra berthing spaces and the space for additional bulk storage that are planned, the situation has not improved for residents. They are living in a dust cloud and two days after they have cleaned the outside of their houses they have to clean their patio furniture again. We do not know whether the measures that have been taken by Quebec Stevedoring and the Port of Quebec have improved the situation, and the project is likely to create even more pollution. People find it very hard to deal with the uncertainty. They have already been dealing with this problem for far too long. What is the government going to do to reassure people about the expansion project?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question from the member for Beauport—Limoilou regarding the expansion of the Port of Quebec.

Our government is committed to a robust environmental assessment process. That is why we increased funding opportunities for aboriginal consultations and public participation over the course of the environmental assessment and why we renewed funding for the next five years for these consultations.

The Canadian Environment Assessment Act, 2012 requires federal authorities, such as the Quebec Port Authority, when contemplating a project on federal lands, to first determine whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. If so, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 prescribes the steps the federal authority must follow before the project can be carried out. If the federal authority determines that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely, the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, 2012 provides that the federal authority can proceed to carry out the project.

Ports, airports, crown corporations, federal departments, and agencies responsible for managing federal lands are best placed to understand these unique environments and to make responsible decisions about projects on their lands. I want to emphasize that this is a legal requirement, and port authorities responsible for federal lands cannot ignore these obligations.

The Quebec Port Authority must look at all environment effects on federal lands that may result from the project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 is very clear on this requirement. Because of similar requirements that date back to 1999, port authorities have extensive experience in assessing projects on their lands. The Quebec Port Authority will bring this expertise to bear on the expansion project.

Port authorities also work co-operatively with other federal experts, such as Environment Canada, and other authorities who may also have a decision to make on a project.

The hon. member has asked for reassurance that the port authority will be transparent. I can assure him that the Port of Quebec is required to report annually to Parliament regarding its activities on federal lands that are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Legislation is in place to hold federal land managers accountable. We are confident that these authorities will continue to make decisions that ensure that the projects on their lands are carried out in a careful and precautionary manner so as to avoid significant adverse environment effects.

In this spirit, the Quebec Port Authority announced a new environmental impact assessment process for all projects carried out on port territory at the beginning of this very year. This is to adhere to best environmental practices and is an integral component of their sustainable development action plan for 2014-15.

In conclusion, I want to assure the House that there are no deficiencies when it comes to the environmental monitoring of projects on federal land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer, but I am obviously not satisfied.

He knows very well that the environmental assessment process was completely gutted of anything of value or of anything resembling independence. In the past, the Port of Quebec has proven that it does not take assessments seriously, as I have shown.

I want to address another topic. A few months ago I questioned the Minister of the Environment. I thank the parliamentary secretary for responding at the time regarding the National Pollutant Release Inventory, in which St. Lawrence Stevedoring and Quebec Stevedoring are nowhere to be found.

The parliamentary secretary, whom I thank again, told me that he would get back to me on that question. The answer I received described the criteria for signing up. However, unfortunately, since that time, I have not gotten any indication that Quebec Stevedoring or St. Lawrence Stevedoring have started the process of signing up to report to the NPRI.

Is that the case? Did the Minister of the Environment look into whether Quebec Stevedoring or St. Lawrence Stevedoring should comply with the inventory, in light of the scale of operations?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is determined to have a strong federal environmental assessment regime.

The regime that is in place goes beyond the assessment of major projects. It also addresses projects of any size proposed to be carried out on federal lands.

Federal authorities have established credible processes for conducting this analysis. The approach and depth of analysis reflects the risk and likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects. They also put in place measures to mitigate environmental impacts.

Our government will continue to support federal authorities in the important work they do for Canada's environment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)