Dean Del Mastro

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the great thing about Bill C-16 is that it makes the fundamental recognition that Canada's current enforcement regime is out of date.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to act and make polluters accountable. Canadians want us to crack down on polluters, poachers and wildlife smugglers, and that is what the bill would do. The legislation delivered on the government's three main goals: deterrence, denunciation and restoration of the environment.

With respect to specific incidents, there is obviously a difference between being negligent and looking at environmental contamination as a cost of doing business. This bill would come down very hard on companies that are negligent and companies that are merely acting abhorrently toward the environment and looking at fines as merely a cost of doing business. Through this bill, we will ensure that companies understand that this government and this party stand firmly behind the environment and its protection for future generations.

[Environmental Enforcement Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading of Bill C-16, the environmental enforcement act, which has been reported to the House by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with minor amendments and all-party support for its fundamental principles. I thank the members of the committee for their work on the bill and the improvements they have made to it.

The bill fulfills a Conservative Party election promise to bolster the protection of our environment through tougher enforcement. It complements a number of steps the government has taken since coming into office three years ago, including a $22 million commitment in budget 2007 to increase the number of Environment Canada enforcement officers by 50%, and a further $32 million in budget 2008 over two years to enhance the enforcement operations of Environment Canada and Parks Canada.

Bill C-16 proposes extensive changes to the fine, sentencing and enforcement provisions of nine environmental protection and wildlife conservation statutes. The bill has three primary purposes: to ensure convictions act as strong deterrents, to express society's abhorrence for environmental offences and to contribute to environmental restoration and enhancement.

Especially important to the deterrence objective of the bill, is its modern, tough fine scheme. I am please to say that the bill has been reported to the House with no amendments to the fine scheme it proposes.

While the bill does not change the existing requirements for environmental compliance in Canada, its modernized fine scheme is intended to provide better guidance to courts about what constitutes appropriate fines. The purpose is to ensure that penalties for environmental offences are not simply seen as the cost of doing business. The bill does this by introducing minimum fines for the most serious offences, requiring courts to consider aggravating factors and increasing most maximum fines.

As such, if Bill C-16 becomes law, fines for individuals who commit the most serious offences will be liable to a fine ranging from $5,000 to $1 million per day fine. Large corporations that commit the most serious offences will be liable to fines ranging from $100,000 to $6 million per day per offence. These ranges represent significant improvements.

Currently, the statutes amended by the bill contain only maximum fines and completely lack direction on appropriate starting points. This has led to inadequately low fines that have never anywhere near reached the maximum amounts possible. Currently, for example, although CEPA allows for fines up to $1 million, the highest fine ever imposed under that act was $100,000, so substantially less than the maximum penalty.

It is our goal, through our environmental compliance regime and enhanced enforcement, to try to prevent environmental damage and preserve our environment for all Canadians. However, if we contemplate the possibility of a significant environmental offence, we may also, through the provisions of the bill, contemplate significant sentences as a result.

The fine scheme introduced by the bill is further enhanced by requirements for the court to consider the principle that fines should be increased to reflect every aggravating factor associated with an offence. Examples of particular aggravating factors are listed in the bill to ensure consistent treatment across the country. As with the fine ranges, the committee made no amendments to the provisions concerning aggravating factors.

Another key component of the bill is its proposed enhancements of court order authorities on sentencing. It is widely recognized that fines alone are not sufficient to deter offenders, denounce their behaviour and ensure environmental restoration. That is certainly something we heard from witnesses who appeared when the bill was before committee. As such, the bill seeks to improve the creating sentencing power of judges by harmonizing and improving existing authorities provided by the statutes amended by the bill to courts upon sentencing.

I am pleased to say that the committee made several important amendments to these court order provisions. The bill, as introduced, was intended to ensure courts have access to a full suite of creative sentencing powers upon sentencing, such as remedial orders, compensation orders and orders concerning community service. As reported to the House by the committee, the bill's amendment to the court order powers are even stronger, ensuring consistency across statutes and clarity in the language used.

For example, collectively, the members of the committee ensured that courts would be able to direct the offender to pay money to community organizations to assist in their work in communities affected by these offences. In the same vein, I am happy that the bill's provisions concerning public disclosure of environmental offences, especially with respect to corporate offenders, have remained intact.

Members of the committee recognized the important deterrent and denunciation effect of the provision obliging the minister to maintain, in a registry accessible to the public, information about all convictions of corporations for offences under the act and the provision obliging courts to order corporate offenders who have shareholders to inform their shareholders of these convictions.

Beyond its focus on the outcome of prosecutions, the bill would give enforcement officers better options for addressing offences that require immediate action. The bill does this by allowing officers to issue compliance orders. I am happy to say that the committee also recognized the value of this important tool and made no amendments to it whatsoever. Furthermore, the bill, as reported to the House, has stronger provisions concerning analysts. These are scientific and technical experts who can play an important role in gathering evidence of offences.

I thank the committee members for their cooperation in ensuring all provisions necessary for analysts to function effectively were included in this bill.

Finally, and of note, the bill, as reported to the House, also retains its original proposed environmental violations administrative monetary penalty act. This proposed act would ensure the benefits to environmental enforcement from modern and efficient enforcement tools, tools that will ensure a consistent response to serious environmental infractions.

Again I thank the members of the committee from all parties for their excellent work. Bill C-16 is an impressive, important initiative that would strengthen the federal environmental protection regime and protect our environment for future generations.

[Official Languages, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this government has held firm to our commitment to both official languages in this country.

We support each and every Canadian regardless of which official language he or she chooses to work in, and we will continue to do so.

[Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years, Ted Dawes has teamed up with the UFCW locals 175 and 633, and has raised closed to $75,000 in support of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada.

This year, Ted and his team are taking their efforts on the road and he is walking 440 kilometres from Parliament Hill to Nathan Phillips Square. Event coordinator, Sue Amsbury, and her team have worked tirelessly to organize this event and with great success.

Many companies have stepped up to support, including Imprinted Apparel, Jack McGee Chevrolet, Gold's Gym, the law offices of McGillen, Ayotte and Dupuis, Coca-Cola, Reebok, Del Mastro RV, as well as many individual donors.

Ted's official department from Ottawa will be tomorrow at 11 a.m. and he expects to arrive in Toronto on May 22 where the Toronto Argo cheerleaders will cheer him across the finish line.

I encourage all of my colleagues to come out to the reception this evening and support the “Ted on the Road” team and meet some of Peterborough's finest citizens.

With each step, he is putting the boots to leukemia and lymphoma.

[Canadian Flag Pins, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I guess this causes me to bridge back to something called an economic action plan. That is where we are standing up for Canada.

I heard the member talk about standing up for Canada. That is why we are trying to create Canadian jobs and make investments in infrastructure right across the country.

We will not be lectured by the NDP about creating jobs in Canada. We are the party that is working to create jobs in the country. It is the party that votes against every one of those initiatives.

[Canadian Flag Pins, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated yesterday, the NDP members are somewhat confused on this issue. As the House knows, the decisions to purchase items available at the gift shop are made through the Board of Internal Economy.

The NDP is a member of that specific committee related to internal economy, and that concern has never been raised, to the best of my knowledge, or to anyone on this side of the House.

[April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we went through a number of hearings at committee. Perhaps, for the member's benefit, she should know that it was not the case that Trade Routes sent people throughout the world. In fact, Trade Routes had locations in five cities. They just happened to be the most expensive five cities to set up agencies like this. It was spending $5 million in administration but delivering only $2 million in benefit, clearly not a program that has the type of efficiency that I believe Canadians expect when we are spending their hard-earned dollars, their taxpayer dollars that they are sending here to Ottawa.

What we are determined to do is provide unprecedented support to arts and culture, which is what we are doing, but we are also ensuring that each and every dollar gets results for Canadians.

[April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Department of Canadian Heritage was among 17 departments and agencies that participated in a strategic review of all program spending. During the strategic review, the department reviewed the bottom 3.4% of program spending within the context of the $2.31 billion spent by the Canadian Heritage portfolio, not the full 5% as requested.

The strategic review process was a budgetary exercise completely covered by the concept of cabinet confidence. Every document, opinion and any advice provided to the government cannot be revealed. Laws exist that maintain the security of these documents.

As I have said before, our government supports the overall objectives of Trade Routes but did not agree with the overall results of the program. Five million dollars in administrative costs cannot justify $2 million in direct benefits. This is an opinion that many in the arts community share, including Alain Paré, president and CEO of CINARS.

The member opposite seems to forget that we are contributing some $22 million in support of international touring and export through the Canada Council, Telefilm, the National Film Board, FACTOR, Music Action and the Association for the Export of Canadian Books. There is an awful lot of support that this government is conducting.

We know in budget 2009, of course, that the government announced an additional investment of more than half a billion dollars over the next two years for arts, culture and heritage, including $276 million in new funding, including $60 million in new funding for cultural infrastructure and $20 million in new funding to train the next generation of Canada's most promising artists, while spending $100 million over two years for marquee festivals and events that draw tourism and related spinoffs right here in Canada. It is a great program. This builds on the $30 million in permanent appropriation of funds to the Canada Council for the Arts, bringing its budget to at least $180 million a year and $181 million this year.

I would like to note for the member opposite that this past fall the Prime Minister announced that our government would be reinvesting $25 million over five years in additional support to the international francophone television network TV5. This investment increases our contribution to $13 million a year, which should greatly help promote Canadian content to the some 180 million households around the globe that watch TV5.

In closing, I want to reiterate that this government believes in efficiency and ensuring that that maximum support possible goes to creators and to sharing their work with audiences. We want to get value for money. We are absolutely supporting arts and culture, as we are so many facets for which this government is responsible, but we are also ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is respected.

[March 31st, 2009]

Once again, Madam Speaker, I take issue with the quoting of the number of $45 million. The member knows full well that the overwhelming majority of that amount was for programs where those funds were no longer required because they had achieved the objective and had nothing to do with the arts or artists. We are talking about accurately reflecting what those numbers actually mean.

There is one thing I will never apologize for in the House, and, in fact, I am very proud of. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to responsibly spending taxpayer dollars and ensuring we get the best possible result for every hard-earned taxpayer dollar that is sent to the Government of Canada in support of not just the arts but every facet that government is called upon to serve. The government must be responsible in how it spends dollars. Our government is doing that and I am proud of it.

[March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, you are putting in a long day today. I have a great appreciation for your work ethic. You were here this morning and you are here tonight. It is very impressive.

With respect to the question before the House, the hon. member has not put forward the numbers accurately to reflect what has actually occurred. She mentioned the figure of $45 million, but she knows that is not what actually was taken in trade routes. Trade routes was a $7 million program. We have reallocated that money and provided record funding in support of arts and culture in this country. In fact, the Canada Council for the Arts received a 17% increase, record funding of $181 million annually.

Frankly, we have heard from artists around the country who have celebrated that increase to the Canada Council. Those are artists helping artists. Those are artists promoting the arts right here in Canada. That is an arm's length organization that we have heard an awful lot of good things about at committee. The artists are happy with it. Our government is the one that has provided record funding to the Canada Council. I hope the people in Quebec are listening to that. They should not have to listen to constant misrepresentation of those numbers. Those are the facts. The Canada Council is receiving record funding.

However, we did not stop there. Just this year we added $276 million to the arts over the next two years. Our record investments include $540 million in support of the arts. That is in this year's economic action plan. Of course, as we all know, the Bloc voted against that. We also brought in $100 million in support for festivals. I know the member is aware that there are festivals in Quebec. Some of the festivals are having a difficult time raising advertising revenue for this year. We want to make sure that those Quebec festivals and festivals from coast to coast across Canada go ahead as planned. We know how much they mean to the communities. We know how much they mean to artists. That is why this government has stepped up in a major way to support those festivals.

Of course, the Bloc members went the opposite way. They said they did not want to support those festivals. That is what they did when they voted against the economic action plan. They said they did not want to support magazines. That is what they voted against. They said they did not want to support expanded funding to the Canada Council. That is what they voted against. They said they did not want to support the new funding for the Department of Canadian Heritage and support for arts and culture. That is what they did when they voted against the budget.

It is very difficult at committee where we fight for truth. People come in and put forward the truth. Then the truth is manipulated and comes out the other side and it is no longer reflective of what the witnesses said. For example, the member mentioned the figure of $45 million. She knows full well that figure is not reflective of arts and culture. She knows full well that is not accurate, but we continue to hear it in the House.

I think that is unfortunate, because I would like to talk about the investment the government is putting behind artists. I would like to talk about the record amount of investment that we put behind artists. The Bloc has no interest in talking about that, because if the Bloc members went back to their ridings and indicated that it is this Conservative government that is putting record funding behind arts and culture and into support of artists from coast to coast to coast in this country, frankly, there would not be as many of the Bloc members here.