House of Commons Hansard #207 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mpas.
Jati Sidhu Liberal Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to repeal the decision to remove Elsje and Ronel to South Africa and grant them landed immigrant status to Canada. They are seeking a safe place to become productive members of our open and welcoming society.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by campers who stayed at the Bevaline Cottage Resort in Barry's Bay, a quiet, carefree, and relaxing destination in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
The petitioners call on the government to ensure that campgrounds with fewer than five full-time, year-round employees will continue to be recognized and taxed as small businesses. They are especially concerned that now with the full assault on small businesses, some of their campers, like those who have construction companies, will also be hit with the definition of being a small business, requiring them to have a minimum of five full-time, year-round employees as well.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitioners to present today, which came in over the summer months.
The first is electronic petition no. 968, which received almost 600 signatures. It is in relation to Ukraine and the conflict in Donbass and Crimea.
The petitioners call upon the government to do a number of things, including signing the Canada–Ukraine Defence Cooperation Arrangement, which the government did, by the way, after a year and a half delay; government reinstate RADARSAT-2 imagery to the Ukraine military, which the Liberals took away and which President Poroshenko asked to receive back, and provide lethal equipment to support the Ukrainian military; and, finally, add Ukraine to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List, which the Conservatives have called on the government to do for quite some time.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in relation to the Falun Gong and the ongoing persecution of those individuals.
The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada condemn the illegal arrest of a Canadian citizen, Ms. Qian Sun, who practises Falun Gong. She was arrested in China on February 19. They call for her immediate and unconditional release.
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by residents of British Columbia, including constituents from my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to condemn the illegal arrest of a Canadian citizen and call for the immediate and unconditional release of Ms. Qian Sun.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, Barrie—Innisfil is commonly known as “Terminal 4”. My riding is home to many pilots, flight crews, and many industries that support Pearson International Airport, commonly known as YYZ.
Today, I present e-petition no. 1051, a petition that has generated much conversation around flight safety and flight duty time. I have met with air carrier owners and representatives, pilots' associations, and pilots themselves. This petition has also made it possible for some of these stakeholders to be aware of the changes proposed by Transport Canada. All want to make air travel the safest in the world.
The petitioners ask the government and the Minister of Transport to seriously consider the input of all concerned, and address the proposed flight fatigue rules. The petition has 9,056 signatures. I support this petition, and proudly present it in the House today.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce petitions.
The first petition is from almost 2,000 Canadians who demand an end to the carbon tax coverup and ask for simple, straightforward answers on what the carbon tax will cost them.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from hundreds of Canadians who are outraged by the government's unfair tax changes.
The petitioners call on the government to cancel these tax increases and lower the small business tax rate.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition is from some constituents requesting changes to the electoral system.
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of people in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk who are deeply concerned with clause 14 of Bill C-51. As it stands, clause 14 will remove the only provision in the Criminal Code that directly protects the rights of individuals to freely practise their religion, whatever that religion may be.
The petitioners call on the government to remove clause 14 from the proposed legislation and to protect the religious freedom of all Canadians.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Beloeil—Chambly. They are calling on the Minister of Immigration to grant permanent resident status to my constituent Sophie Thewys and her son Louis Pollack. She had been originally granted that status but then it was rescinded when her partner Nicolas tragically died. We hope that her case is resolved soon and that she can get some good news.
This petition shows the community's solidarity with this person. We have been supporting her since the tragic event occurred and we hope to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
On a lighter and less serious note, I am pleased to say that this is the 1,000th electronic petition.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents are here in Ottawa today for the presentation of this petition.
This petition has to do with employees of Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport. In March, an investigation by TVA and the Journal de Montréal showed that four airport employees had been radicalized. Two of these employees were fired, but the two others remained employed by Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport.
The petition calls for these employees to be removed from their jobs, which are quite important. Radicalized individuals should not be able to work at the airport and on the tarmac. This petition, signed by more than 700 people across Canada, calls for these employees to be removed and for the government to take action.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I am asking for an emergency debate on the decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce to slap Bombardier C Series aircraft with 220% tariffs. Members will recall that, last May, Boeing falsely claimed that the C Series aircraft had been illegally subsidized. Boeing claimed that Quebec's flagship aerospace company was selling aircraft at below-market price to Delta Air Lines, a process called dumping. Boeing claimed that this dumping was hurting the company, so it asked the Department of Commerce to impose 80% tariffs on C Series aircraft entering the United States.
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to drop a nuclear trade bomb and imposed tariffs that are three times higher than what Boeing was asking for. This is a completely ridiculous decision. Delta was paying $20 million for an aircraft that it will now have to pay $60 million for. This decision is particularly worrisome because it has absolutely no basis. The government's participation in the development of the C Series is in no way considered a subsidy. It is an investment, and Quebec and Canada accepted their share of the risk in this project. They will be reimbursed from sales revenues.
What is more, Boeing remains unscathed because it was not even on the list for the Delta Air Lines contract. At a time when NAFTA renegotiations are ramping up, we might legitimately question the wisdom of negotiating agreements with those who are undermining the agreement and the process. Quebec is a much more technologically advanced society than the rest of Canada in large part because of its aerospace sector. While Boeing and Airbus traditionally shared the global airliner market, Bombardier and Quebec play in the big leagues. Clearly our talent, our ingenuity, and the quality of Quebec's aerospace industry is starting to be perceived as a threat to our neighbours to the south. That in itself is good news, as long as we do not allow the United States to get away with breaking the law and violating trade agreements to prevent the 21st century from entering their aviation market. Urgent action is needed. The punitive duties that Washington announced yesterday are not in effect yet. It is vital that no punitive duty is slapped on the aircraft when delivery of the C Series planes begins in the United States, likely in spring.
The House of Commons needs to send a strong message. Hon. members need to have the opportunity to share the concerns of the people they represent. That is why an emergency debate would also allows us to offer the government some solutions for dealing with this situation.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you please grant an emergency debate as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I appreciate the arguments of the hon. member for Joliette.
I must say that this request does not meet the necessary requirements for an emergency debate.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, this morning I wrote you requesting an emergency debate, in accordance with Standing Order 52. The finance minister's unfair tax changes will lead to dire consequences for our local businesses and family farmers. The government has allotted exactly zero hours to debate them before the end of the consultation period on October 2.
Parliament, and not the government, is the final authority on taxation. The government cannot tax what Parliament does not approve. Despite this, the government has not even given the opportunity to members of the House, the House of the common people, who will pay the bill for this tax increase, to hold a debate on the costs. In the spirit of non-partisanship and co-operation, our House leader, the member for Portage—Lisgar, asked for the government's consent for a take-note debate on this subject. Unfortunately, the government refused. Therefore, we are appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to schedule an emergency debate.
These consultations were announced in the middle of the summer, with just 75 days of feedback from Canadians, including during a time period when our farmers were in their fields harvesting their crops, unable to defend themselves against a tax change that will give major advantages to large international corporations seeking to take over the family farm.
Every day the House has heard statements from affected Canadians, delivered through members of the opposition: from farmers who plan to hand down their farms to their sons and daughters but who now will face a much larger tax bill for doing so and whose kids may therefore be turned into tenants of foreign corporate landlords; from the local grocer, who saved for his retirement and protected himself against a downturn in his business; and from small-business owners, who played by the rules while the government referred to them as tax cheats.
Canadians are concerned, and they deserve answers. This matter is urgent, not only because of the consultation period closing just next week but also because the minister plans to impose this taxation retroactively to when the consultation was released on July 18. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow the government to impose retroactive taxation without any debate or scrutiny in the House.
To conclude, these proposed changes have been subject to intense media and opposition scrutiny for almost two months outside of this chamber. They deserve to have the same kind of scrutiny inside the chamber, where the final decision on them will be made. Therefore, I ask you to schedule an emergency debate on this subject, to take place prior to the October 2, 2017, consultation deadline.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention in this regard and his arguments in respect of the matter. I must indicate that the requirements of the emergency debate proposal do not quite meet the exigencies of what is necessary to begin an emergency debate, so we will leave it at that.
We will carry on with orders of the day.
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries
moved that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak in the House on this important legislation at the beginning of second reading debate. It is the first chance I have had as Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to speak on a piece of government legislation in my portfolio, so you can imagine how pleased I am to be standing in the House today and to have a chance to talk to colleagues about an important element of our government's agenda.
Canada is uniquely blessed with an abundance of freshwater and marine coastal areas that are both ecologically diverse and economically significant. Our government knows that we have a responsibility to steward these resources for future generations.
In my mandate letter, I was asked by the Prime Minister to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5% by the end of 2017 and to 10% by 2020. I am pleased and proud to say that thanks to the efforts of so many people and so many organizations, we will meet these targets. It is a commitment we made to Canadians, and Canadians should know that we will meet this important obligation.
Internationally, Canada's commitment to meet the 10% target was confirmed when we signed on to Aichi target 11, under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and again, in 2015, when we supported the UN General Assembly's 2030 sustainable development program. These efforts have garnered multi-party support over many years, and I want to thank colleagues on all sides of the House for their commitment to protecting Canada's marine resources.
Our approach to achieving Canada's marine conservation targets includes creating marine protected areas and networks, and is guided by three foundational principles: science-based decision making, transparency, and advancing reconciliation with indigenous groups.
Co-operation is essential to advancing our marine protection work, and we are working with the provinces and territories, indigenous groups, industry, and other environmental stakeholders to establish networks of marine protected areas.
We are committed to furthering reconciliation while these zones are being established. We strive to work more closely with indigenous groups, including Inuit communities, of course, to inform the process and make the most of their traditional knowledge.
Our government has a clear plan to reach these marine conservation targets. Not only is this plan guiding our domestic efforts, it is also helping us reclaim Canada's position as an international leader in ocean conservation. We are making excellent progress. We have now protected 3.63% of Canada's marine environment. At over 200,000 square kilometres, this new total includes long-term fisheries area closures, which the Prime Minister referred to a few moments ago in question period.
The first piece of our plan is to finish what was started, to complete the designation of marine protected areas that were already in the regulatory process. We currently have 11 Oceans Act MPAs in all three oceans. This year alone we have announced the establishment of the Hecate Strait MPA, off British Columbia, which provides protection for globally unique glass sponge reefs, which are thousands of years old. We also created the St. Anns Bank MPA, off Cape Breton, which is home to many endangered species, such as the leatherback turtle. There is more on the way as we progress with the establishment of, for example, the Laurentian channel and Banc des Américains MPAs as well.
Last month, my colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced the final boundaries of the Lancaster Sound national marine conservation area. This was a very significant step, obviously in partnership with the Inuit people. The boundaries of this marine conservation area, the largest in Canada, were developed by the federal government in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut and are located in the Northwest Passage. This area is of particular importance, as it is home to one of the largest narwhal populations in the world.
The second point in our plan is to protect large offshore areas. In May, a new area of interest in the offshore Pacific was announced. This new area of interest will protect underwater seamounts and a series of hydrothermal vents, recognized as unique marine ecosystems in our offshore.
Our development of this network of MPAs speaks to the third point in our plan: to protect areas under pressure from human activities.
We have made great progress on the fourth part of our plan, which is to develop guidelines to identify other effective area-based conservation measures. These other measures are an important part of our marine conservation tool kit, which is recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Thirty-two closures of fishing areas reflect our rigorous criteria and will help us meet our conservation targets. Other measures will be proposed in the future.
The final point in our plan addresses the need to establish marine protected areas faster under the Oceans Act, but without in any way sacrificing scientific research, socio-economic activities, and our consultation and co-operation efforts with our partners.
Bill C-55 speaks directly to that last point. The proposed amendments will streamline the process of creating new marine protected areas while guaranteeing their protection. These amendments are collaborative, in that they will require the participation of indigenous groups, provinces and territories, industry, and other stakeholders in the process of creating and managing MPAs.
For instance, pursuant to the minister's new authority to delegate enforcement powers, indigenous groups like the guardian watchmen or other environmental groups could be granted enforcement powers to monitor protected areas in their waters. The amendments can improve our marine protected areas, though not at the expense of our working relationships, of course.
In short, Bill C-55 proposes amendments to the Oceans Act to more clearly reflect my responsibility, as Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, to establish a national network of marine protected areas.
I would like to focus on a few major changes, if I may. Currently, it takes seven to ten years to officially designate an Oceans Act MPA. Through all those intervening years, the potential MPA gets no protection at all. The solution we propose in Bill C-55 is to provide interim protection for these vital, unique areas in Canada's oceans by means of a ministerial order. This will be done after the scientific assessments and the initial consultations, in just 24 months, while the rest of the federal regulatory process to designate the MPA unfolds over the following five years. It may still take up to seven years for an MPA to be fully established, but interim protection could be provided within the first two years.
Currently, an Oceans Act marine protected area can only be designated through Governor in Council regulations, which do not offer any protection to an area of interest until the final designation regulations are published.
The lengthiness of this current process is due in part to the time required to take scientific assessments and broad consultations. These are important steps that ensure an MPA achieves its intended objectives while supporting the local culture and obviously, the local economy.
However, we know there is often a clear understanding from the beginning of what needs to be protected. For example, we may know that a species reproduces only in a certain area of the ocean, or that glass sponge reefs are a priceless natural wonder that need to be protected, even if we may not yet know all of the specifics of how these species are affected by surrounding ecosystems, boat traffic, or fishing activities.
Establishing boundaries and conservation objectives through an interim protection MPA would mean a much shorter timeframe, ensuring that while scientific research and stakeholder engagement continues, the essential elements of these important ecosystems are, in fact, protected.
An interim protection MPA would protect an area by effectively freezing the footprint of ongoing activities until the final regulations are completed, as I said, within five years. Only ongoing activities, those activities that had taken place, for example, within the preceding year, would be allowed to continue. Allowed or prohibited activities would be determined by the class of the activity, not according, obviously, to the individual or company conducting those activities.
This bill would require application of the precautionary principle when deciding whether to designate new MPAs. The precautionary principle means that the absence of scientific certainty should not be used to postpone decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. Under this legislation, incomplete information, or a lack of absolute certainty could no longer be used as a justification for avoiding the establishment of a marine protected area where there is a significant and immediate risk.
Bill C-55 also updates, modernizes and strengthens enforcement powers, fines and penalties.
Provisions relating to enforcement, fines, and penalties will support the people who manage and monitor marine protected areas.
Enforcement officers will get the tools and authority they need to manage marine protected areas.
Bill C-55 also proposes amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act that would complement the freeze-the-footprint process of an interim marine protected area. These would provide the competent minister the authority to prohibit authorized oil and gas exploration or development activities, like, for example, seismic testing, drilling, or production, within a designated marine protected area.
Proposed amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act recognize that where there interest of an oil and gas exploration and development overlap with a marine protected area, ambiguity and uncertainty in the effectiveness of the prohibitions could sometimes result. Natural Resources Canada and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada would continue to discuss with all of our partners how this principle could best be operationalized.
I would like to briefly describe what we have been doing to engage with our regulatory partners, indigenous groups, and other interested parties, familiarize them with proposed changes to the act, and address their concerns.
In recent months, we have met with provincial and territorial representatives, indigenous groups, and stakeholders in the fisheries, marine transportation, and oil and gas sectors, as well as environmental groups and a number of other Canadians.
On the whole, we have received broad support for the proposed changes. For the most part, Canadians are happy with what we are doing to protect our unique and precious marine ecosystems.
I would like to talk about something this bill does not set out to do.
The proposed changes are not meant to short-circuit the development of reliable scientific data or deprive Canadians of the opportunity to contribute to the creation of interim marine protected areas. Our government knows that the effective management of Canada’s oceans depends on an in-depth understanding of the marine environment acquired through peer-reviewed science, the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, as well as information from the fishing industry and local communities.
This kind of comprehensive study and mobilization takes time, something that certain vulnerable areas of the ocean might not have. That is why we are proposing the implementation of the precautionary principle, in conjunction with the option to use ministerial orders to ensure immediate interim protection. In light of the concerns of industry stakeholders, we will apply the precautionary principle judiciously.
Many people fear that we do not have sufficient scientific resources to carry out the work needed within the five-year timeframe following the ministerial order, or that the precautionary principle could serve as an excuse for not doing any research at all. That is false. Our commitment to science and data collection remains unwavering. We have heard people's concerns, and we agree that our fundamental principle of science-based decision making must not be compromised under any circumstances.
In conclusion, if Bill C-55 would speed up marine protection without sacrificing science, or the ability of Canadians to shape this important process, then I hope all members of the House would join our government in enacting this legislation. This is a powerful step forward that our government is making on one of the key commitments we made to Canadians by protecting 5% our marine and coastal areas this year, and by 10% in 2020.
I am happy to be participating in this important debate today. I look forward to working with colleagues on all sides of the House, and members of the standing committee should this legislation get to committee, to ensure we have all of the details of this important legislation right. We look forward to hearing from Canadians in the committee process of not just this House but also the other place.
If we work together on the shared objectives that Canadians care deeply about, such as protecting our marine resources for future generations, then Canadians can be proud of the work that this Parliament is doing, and we can improve not only the protection of valuable ecosystems but also the economic livelihood of coastal communities all across the country.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Speaker, at the tail end of the minister's speech he said that he looked forward to hearing feedback through the committee work of this House and indeed the other place. However, while the committee is working very hard, and I will admit that all colleagues on each side of the House are working very hard to get this right, the government continues to move forward with its very aggressive targets. Just this week we heard from one of the minsters from Nunavut, Johnny Mike, who said the current government has failed in its due diligence to consult with the minister and the constituents in Nunavut.
Has the minister addressed the concerns also raised by Premier McNeil in Nova Scotia, and by our territorial governments, with respect to the Liberal plan for the MPAs?
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Madam Speaker, we recognize and have said many times that the participation of provincial and territorial governments is critical in order to achieve these objectives. I have had numerous conversations with my provincial and territorial counterparts, as recently as late June at our federal-provincial meeting, which was held in Yukon.
I had a chance to talk to Premier McNeil, when we were together at the memorial service for the late Honourable Allan J. MacEachen, as recently as 10 days ago not only about the importance of these areas but about the importance of collaborating with his government.
The industry that talks to provincial and territorial governments, as well as our government, has understandable concerns. It is looking for details of our plan. It wants to understand the whole plan with respect to what areas on every coast of Canada are being considered.
We plan to share that in a very open and transparent way with all of our partners. As my hon. colleague noted, the provincial and territorial partners are key to its success. They have to be very blunt. They have been valuable and reliable partners for us in this exercise, and we very much hope that continues.