Debates of April 13th, 2016

Impaired Driving Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate with the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I remind him that we will be cutting him off in about three minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that although this bill has some flaws, it is still worth studying.

I would also like to recognize my colleague from Jonquière. She is new to the House, but she has already been working hard to lessen the impact of impaired driving.

As members know, this is a problem, whether we are talking about Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, a region I know well since I lived there for many years, or about my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. This is important. We must all work together to bring down the rate of impaired driving and reduce the number of deaths each year. I just wanted to recognize my colleague from Jonquière, because I think she is doing excellent work on this matter.

What is lacking in the bill is the whole notion of crime prevention. We saw this under the previous Conservative government that gutted funding for crime prevention right across the country. What that does is simply silly. The education and crime prevention element is extraordinarily important. Yet, we saw a Conservative government that gutted the funding that would actually serve to reduce crime rates, including impaired driving.

Members know that if we spend a dollar on crime prevention, we save six dollars in policing costs, courts costs, and penal costs later on. Therefore, it makes good sense to make the investment in crime prevention. It makes good sense as well to have bills that would reduce the rate of impaired driving.

Although it is interesting to study this particular bill, it does raise questions about the Conservatives' record on crime prevention which was deplorable. I will have more to say on that when I get the other seven minutes when we consider this bill at a future sitting of Parliament.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on adjournment proceedings to pursue a question that I asked in the House on February 23. My question related to actions of the previous government, and I want to stress this. This issue primarily rests with actions taken by the previous government where multitudes of British Columbians, first nations, and conservation groups were looking to the new government to correct a wrong to right an injustice.

I asked about this. In the dying days of the federal election campaign, in fact in the last two weeks of September 2015, 14 federal permits were issued for destruction of riparian zones along the Peace River in pursuit of a British Columbia project referred to as “Site C”. This is a massive hydroelectric project that will flood some of the best farmland in British Columbia and it offends treaty rights. I will give more specifics about Site C later.

In the last two weeks of September 2015, the minister of fisheries and the minister of transportation under the previous government issued 14 permits, some under the Fisheries Act and some under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to allow construction activities to begin. Further backing up the actions of the previous government, this project, Site C, went to an environmental review. The findings of the joint federal-provincial advisory panel were very damning, no pun intended.

The joint federal-provincial review found that this project would probably cause economic losses to British Columbians. It found that the proponent had not adequately considered alternatives. It found that the proponent fell short of proving any need for the project. It also found that this project would cause permanent damage to the environment, including:

...probable extirpation of three species and would further unbalance the species diversity in the River through the ascendancy of [various]...introduced species, into the reservoir...would act cumulatively to affect fish throughout the remaining, previously undammed sections of the...River...

In other words, it would result in “...significant adverse cumulative effects on fish”.

The panel review also found that this project would cause a net loss of habitat, profound change in the type of character of remaining habitat during construction and operations that would be “...probable, negative, large, irreversible and permanent so long as the Site C Dam remains”.

In relation to first nations rights, which was the main point of my question, the panel review found that the first nations peoples of this area, namely a number of communities within the Treaty 8 First Nations, specifically the Halfway River, Doig River, Prophet River, and West Moberly First Nations, jointly within Treaty 8 protections would suffer permanent losses of cultural rights and treaty rights.

Against this backdrop, the previous cabinet met and decided the economic benefits of this project, which were not found by the panel review, outweighed the permanent environmental damage and permanent damage to treaty rights. This matter remains before the courts.

The treaties were issued by the ministers of fisheries and transportation. Further permits from these ministries will be needed for the project to continue. My question for the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs was this. Will the new government honour its commitments to the first nations and not issue a single additional permit?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the issue and the question raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding Site C. I appreciate the passion with which she speaks of this matter.

During and subsequent to the recent election campaign, we on this side of the House have clearly stated that we are committed to working collaboratively with Canada's indigenous peoples to achieve results that will be beneficial for all Canadians.

As members know, a key focus of budget 2016 is on investments related to ensuring that indigenous peoples have similar opportunities and prospects for the future as all Canadians. Our government is committed to building a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people that is based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Our government has also made it a priority to review Canada's environmental assessment processes, with the goal of developing and implementing a federal process that is robust, based on science, protects our rich natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous peoples, and supports and provides certainty for our natural resources sector.

This review, which will be launched later this year, will be conducted in close consultation with indigenous groups. One of its aims will be to enhance consultation, engagement, and the participatory capacity of indigenous peoples in the review of major projects.

With respect to the specific matter of Site C, as the member opposite is aware, the matter is presently before the courts, and as such, it would be inappropriate to comment in great detail. What I can say in answer to the hon. member's question are a few comments as to how we got here.

In the fall of 2014, the former government approved the project and set legally binding conditions with which the proponent must comply. Permits were issued in the fall of 2015, and the project is now in the construction phase. The project proponent, BC Hydro, is required to meet the conditions that were set out in the decision statement. Environment and Climate Change Canada is actively verifying compliance with the conditions. Going forward, we will continue to engage in discussions with indigenous leaders on how we can work together on issues related to consultation, environmental protection, and natural resource development.

Consistent with this commitment, the minister met recently with Chief Roland Willson and Chief Lynette Tsakoza of the West Moberly and Prophet River Nation first nations to discuss their concerns on the Site C project. During that meeting, she heard their suggestions and their concerns.

In closing, I want to reiterate to the House that this government takes environmental assessment matters very seriously.

In addition, we are firmly committed to renewed nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

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

Mr. Speaker, with no offence to my friend and colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I do believe that the wrong department has responded. My question is specifically in relation to indigenous issues, and it is very clear that the ongoing construction is an ongoing daily violation of treaty rights, which the new Liberal government has sworn to uphold, as the hon member says, on a nation-to-nation basis.

This project underwent a robust evidence-based environmental review because it was reviewed under the legislation that pre-existed the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, which wrecked our environmental assessment process and within which the current government finds itself trying to jerry-rig bad processes. This was a fair process. It was a fair federal-provincial review which said that this would cause irrevocable damage, and cabinet overturned that good advice. The current cabinet can overturn that bad decision, stop the project, and respect the rights of first nations.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the key background elements of this project, including those that occurred before our government came to power. However, as this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the specific case.

I would say that our government is fully committed to renewing nation-to-nation relationships with Canada's indigenous peoples. The crown will execute its consultation and accommodation obligations in accordance with its common constitutional and international human rights obligations, including aboriginal and treaty rights.

Gasoline Prices

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today with respect to a question I asked in the House of Commons on February 25 with regard to oil and gas prices and the need to have some expansion with regard to authority and accountability on this file.

We noted that oil and gas prices rose by 2% in January, the highest rate increase in more than two years. Even the Bank of Canada has noted that falling oil prices have not been matched by lower prices at the pump. New Democrats asked the government to investigate this, and we put forth two suggestions, one for an ombudsman and the other for a petroleum monitoring agency. I was pleased to hear the minister's response in the sense that the government is looking to work toward solutions and is open to suggestions.

In the House of Commons, numerous suggestions have been made over the years on this particular file. In fact, I wanted to bring them here today, whether from the Liberals or the Conservatives, but I was concerned about the carbon footprint of the truck that would be necessary to deliver the documents that I have been accumulating over the years.

The fact of the matter is that we have a really good opportunity to do something, and I am hoping that the current government returns to where it was at one particular point in time.

At one point in time, the Liberal government, in its previous manifestation, was interested in this issue and had actually adopted some very good policies, but those policies were later nixed by the Conservatives and were never put in place.

In particular, we could have a Canadian weekly petroleum status report that would go to the petroleum monitoring agency or the ombudsman, whatever we want to call it, as a third party. This would be very similar to the U.S. Department of Energy's weekly petroleum status report. This report would be published every week, which creates accountability. If there were a problem with it, there would then be some accountability to follow up.

This would also be in line with pushing back against some of the privatization that has occurred and the potential lines of conflict. Right now, Kent Marketing and M.J. Ervin and Associates actually do some of this reporting, but they also have clients that include big oil, so the reporting is basically done through a connection in the industry. That arrangement is similar to the safety management system, whereby companies have to self-report their errors, and that is not acceptable for consumers, because it does not allow for accountability.

The problem is that when there are big upswings, consumers pay for them at the end of the day and do not see the benefits. Even if prices go down one day, within a week or sometimes later, the profit margins still increase, and that is the problem. There is no accountability. Accountability through an ombudsperson who would have authority and third party independence would be extremely important to the process.

That is just one of the simple solutions that the NDP is proposing. This is done in the United States, and it adds a layer of accountability that we do not have right now.

The self-policing model for gas pricing is over. It is done for. We now have an opportunity. We had an opportunity in the past but never got it up and running properly because the Conservatives actually nixed that idea. It came from a former Liberal member over on that side who is known as one of the country's best experts on this subject matter, if not the best expert.

I would encourage the minister and the parliamentary secretary to take us up on these suggestions, which have been tabled in motions in the House of Commons multiple times, and do something for Canadians and their pocketbooks.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Windsor West. He has a lot of experience, and I have had the pleasure of getting to know him better on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I appreciate his advice and, especially, his observations.

I know that the member asked the government to create an oil and gas price ombudsman and a petroleum monitoring agency. I will start by saying that the government recognizes that gas prices have a real, significant impact on the Canadian economy, the public, and Canadian businesses. We are determined to ensure that consumers are paying fair, competitive market prices for gas. What the hon. member said is true. The government has a role to play in preventing price fixing and collusion. We certainly recognize what the hon. member called for.

That is where the Competition Bureau, the independent body responsible for administering the Competition Act, which includes provisions against price-fixing, price maintenance, and abusive behaviour by dominant firms, comes in. All of its provisions apply to gasoline and other petroleum products markets.

However, the act does not provide the Bureau with the power to regulate prices. In fact, the federal government does not have the constitutional power to enact legislation to regulate the retail price of gasoline except in a national emergency. We know that the price of gas can vary from place to place because of a number of factors. I want to emphasize that, even when retailers charge similar prices, they are not necessarily violating the Competition Act. Furthermore, high prices in and of themselves are not a violation of the act. There has to be evidence that the competitors agreed to set those prices.

The Competition Bureau's mandate is to enforce the law in order to protect competition and consumers. If there is evidence, in any sector, of anti-competitive behaviour that violates the Competition Act, the bureau does not hesitate to take the necessary action. We witnessed that last April when a company was ordered by the Quebec Superior Court to pay a $1-million fine for its role in a gas price-fixing scheme that affected many markets in Quebec.

This case was part of a broader investigation by the bureau that ended with charges being filed against 39 individuals and 15 companies. To date, 33 individuals and seven companies have pleaded guilty. Fines of over $4 million have been imposed, and six individuals have been sentenced to a combined total of 54 months in prison.

In closing, the companies that joined together to fix prices increased costs for consumers and created problems for law-abiding companies. One of the Competition Bureau's key priorities is to go after those who have participated in price-fixing schemes. When it has proof of practices that violate the Competition Act, the bureau does not hesitate to take measures to protect competition and consumers.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the parliamentary secretary, and I have enjoyed getting to know him on committee.

However, I think it is important to put perspective here with regard to the Competition Bureau and what has been taking place. The resources have been gutted. It is limited in its actions and capabilities. It is kind of like asking somebody to go after an elephant with a fly swatter. That is a good type of analogy, because at the end of the day, yes, there have been a couple of incidents that have actually gone forward, but those are the rarity.

Over the last number of years, in fact two decades, there have only been a few cases in this perspective, so I would argue that there is nothing wrong with, at least at the bare minimum, the government requiring—maybe even reporting to the Minister of Industry—the rack pricing and the individual amounts that have to go in the weekly reporting that is done with the U.S.

If we are looking at some of the harmonization we are taking in industry, why not do it for consumers on this issue?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with adjournment debates is that we do not have enough time to learn more about the issues raised.

The hon. member raises some very important points. I am very familiar with the former Liberal MP, Mr. McTeague. He was an expert on the subject who was recognized Canada-wide.

We now have the Competition Bureau, a system that has produced good results. We could perhaps do better. For example, we could consider amending the law to address the concerns that the member just raised. However, for the time being, the system is working under the current legislation. If the hon. member would like to suggest improvements, I am prepared to work with him to reach that objective.

Justice

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 25, the member for Scarborough Southwest and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice answered a question of mine in which I pointed out what I thought was confusion that Canadians were experiencing about the status of the government's policy on marijuana reform.

I want to point out his answer to my question. He said:

...we want to remind all Canadians that until that important work is completed, the only control that is in place is the current criminal sanction for the production and trafficking of marijuana, and those laws remain in effect.

Of course, the member is an expert on this topic, so we know it was a slip of his tongue when he forgot that the word “possession” should have been included among the remaining criminal sanctions for marijuana. I acknowledge that. However, it is time for the government to stop denying that there is indeed confusion among Canadians about the current legal status of marijuana and about the government's intentions.

The parliamentary secretary and I sit together on the justice committee. In that committee, we have also learned that the government may spend up to $4 million this year alone prosecuting simple possession cases. Who knows how much more the provinces are spending, who of course are responsible for the administration of justice and pay crown council, have court rooms available with judges, and the like? How much are they spending for prosecuting possession of marijuana?

It needs to be said that the Liberals are spending this money despite the government's promise to legalize marijuana and despite what we hear is a growing concern from judges regarding the continued prosecutions for marijuana.

Indeed, we have obtained from the director of public prosecutions the recent case of Regina v. Racine from the Ontario Court of Justice, in which the hon. Justice Selkirk refused to accept a guilty plea for possession of marijuana. This is the court transcript of what Mr. Justice Selkirk's remarks were in December 2015.

I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana....

You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous.

That is not me speaking. That is a justice from the Ontario Court of Justice.

By all means, the government must take the time to craft a responsible framework for legalization, but do not ask ordinary Canadians to keep paying the price.

My question is a simple one. Why does the government refuse to take the common-sense step of immediately decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, may I also express my gratitude to the member for Victoria, both for his question but also for his ongoing interest. We have worked closely together over the past several months and I am really looking forward to his continued contribution, advice, and assistance as we move forward on this very important issue of public policy which I truly believe, when done effectively and right, will result in safer communities, better protection for our children, and a more just society.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to attempt to bring more clarity to the government's position. With respect to the comments just quoted from Justice Selkirk, who said that the Prime Minister rose in Parliament, and perhaps he was alluding to the throne speech, and said that we were going to “legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana”.

If the judge recognized the entire quote and the clear articulation of the government's intention, he would have a better understanding of the path forward. It is this government's intention to replace the existing criminal sanction with what we believe to be a far more effective regulatory regime of a public health framework to respond to the risks associated with the use and abuse of marijuana.

We believe that through regulation we could do a better job of protecting our children. We could do a better job of taking profits away from organized crime. We could do a better job of making our communities safer from the violence and victimization associated with the involvement of organized crime in the illegal trade of marijuana. We believe that we can do a better job of providing real, factual information to Canadians about the very real risks that marijuana use presents to them and through public education, we can help keep Canadians safer and healthier.

While that work takes place, it is important that it be done right. It is important that it be based on the evidence and the best advice that we can obtain from experts, so that we are given an opportunity to examine other places around the world. If we follow down this path, we could learn from their experience and we could do the right job of ensuring that the regulatory regime that we put in place allows us to effectively control and regulate the production, distribution, retail, and consumption of marijuana in this country to affect our very important public interest purposes of keeping our kids safe, our communities safe, and all Canadians healthy.

The control that currently exists for marijuana in this country is the criminal law. It has been that way since the 1920s. We believe that it could be done better, but until that regulatory framework is put in place, we have to rely on the existing criminal model to proceed. There is, within that criminal law, discretion for police officers, prosecutors, and judiciary. We acknowledge and respect that, but the law is also required to help keep our communities safe. In some instances we see flagrant abuses of that law.

We remind all Canadians that the law must be upheld. The law should be obeyed and enforced. Until we replace the existing criminal law with a more effective regulatory regime, it is necessary and appropriate that we continue to uphold the laws that have been passed by Parliament and deemed to be constitutional by our courts.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary very much for his kind words. I definitely wish to continue to collaborate with him in trying to get, as he put it, the best regulatory framework for the future of cannabis use in Canada that we can. I want to make that clear and welcome his leadership on this file.

I respectfully disagree with my friend opposite. There is confusion that persists as the government does its necessary work to create safer communities and to do the things my colleague referred to. I do not understand why young people would still be prosecuted, have their lives impacted dramatically for who knows how long, for what will apparently be legal shortly thereafter.

It seems to me we need to address the status quo now while waiting for effective reform regulation in the future.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the further enquiry from my friend from Victoria. I will say a number of things in response to that. The enforcement of the current law is really determined through judicial discretion. Our expectation is that law enforcement, prosecutors, and our courts will continue to uphold our laws to maintain a safe environment.

Earlier, the member for Victoria suggested that we could have an interim step of decriminalization. It is important to address that particular suggestion. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in its review and recommendations for a public health framework, clearly identified and stated this, and I will try to quote it as accurately as possible: decriminalization is a half measure that “does nothing to address the health harms” that we are attempting to effect with a regulatory framework. It does nothing to protect our children or to reduce organized crime's involvement in this. It does nothing to improve Canadians' health. What it does do is facilitate easier enforcement. Therefore, the decriminalization would likely—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 7:08 p.m.)