Erin O'Toole

[Veterans Hiring Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. I had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when I first joined Parliament in 2012. His passion and commitment to the Canadian Forces and our veterans, and his family's service in the Canadian Forces, have been clear to me from the first time I met him, as it has been to all members of the House.

He has raised some of the fundamental reasons why the veterans hiring act is before Parliament. There are groups of Canadians in Canada Company; True Patriot Love; and Treble Victor, a networking group of former men and women of the Canadian Forces and allied services, already doing veteran hiring, networking, and connecting. There are employers across the country hiring veterans not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is accretive to the bottom line of the company, because are hiring people with training, loyalty, and the inherent ability to stay on the job and complete tasks.

My question for the member stems from the comments of the member for Guelph, who seems to think that a lot of people might not be hired through this. I would like to ask the member how important it is that one of the largest employers in the country, the Government of Canada, puts as a top priority the hiring of veterans. The symbolism of that action, showing that we are putting veterans as a top priority for hiring and encouraging other employers to do that, is as important as the dozens or several hundred who might be hired as a result of this program. Could the member comment on that?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the wide-ranging remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, which were often not on the child predators act that is before the House.

This shows the fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side. They cling to only one element of sentencing and criminal justice principles in Canada, which is rehabilitation. That is important, but as the Criminal Code also outlines, principles like deterrence, denunciation, and public safety are also very important to our criminal justice system. I find it shocking that those principles, particularly when we are dealing with crimes directed at children, would not be paramount to principles of rehabilitation and the sorts of things that are the traditional areas for the NDP in criminal justice.

When it comes to crimes against children, I would ask the House leader of the NDP whether it is not more important to ensure public safety, denunciation of the actions, and those elements of our sentencing and criminal justice system.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question. Certainly his experience in the Manitoba legislature gives him the background on the hog moratorium, which, in the case of the Brandon Maple Leaf facility, has impacted its ability to meet production levels to a point that the facility runs at a high efficiency rate.

The member mentioned the South Korean deal. That is a very big win for that plant in particular, and they acknowledge that. The CETA deal is also, because as I said in my remarks, the more markets they have, the better overall price they will have.

The specific issue of temporary foreign workers has been addressed by our modernization of the program, which recognizes that the program is only intended for areas like Brandon that have almost full employment because of resources, agriculture, and other opportunities there. However, in areas of Ontario, like mine, the program was being abused and needed to be reformed.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, and I would like to thank my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for recognizing that I said the “four pillars of supply management” when there are actually three pillars. I was thinking of a table as opposed to a stool, I guess. We know that those fundamentals are import levels, production levels, and price.

The hon. member is asking about timelines. I would ask him to recognize one thing. When the Prime Minister was in Brussels for the historic signing of the final negotiated outcome, when the negotiators had reached the essential terms of the agreement, the only industry the Prime Minister raised in his remarks at that international event was the supply-managed dairy sector. That was the case because it is a very important sector. Over a timeframe, we are going to see that if the slight adjustment to imports leads to a change in quota, and indirectly, therefore, to a change in the income of the farming family that is at the centre of what we do, we will build in a compensation structure to address it. That is a guarantee that, at the end of this, farmers will remain whole despite the small change in import levels.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise tonight in this debate on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, negotiated by our government over several years in a form that is truly revolutionary for trade agreements. This agreement anticipates not only trade in mercantile goods and agricultural products but trade in services and sharing of professional services and professional recognition across the ocean, dipping into procurement and infrastructure projects. This is truly the 21st century benchmark for trade agreements.

As with all trade agreements that enter the House, one of the critical sectors for our negotiators has always been agriculture. The agriculture sector is well understood by this government, but more important, farming families across Canada are at the centre of much of what this government does on its trade policy work.

I would remind the House that Conservative governments have granted Canadian exporters, including our farmers, 98% of their market access around the world. Ninety-eight per cent of our trade opportunities have been negotiated by Conservative governments. In many ways, trade and our success in the last few years under the present Prime Minister is one of the hallmarks of our economic track record of success that is leading the G7.

At the focus of the reason these new markets and new opportunities are important are farming families. I am speaking of farming families like the Mustard family in my riding of Durham, sixth-generation dairy farmers, and that of my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who came to Parliament from a dairy background. We have farmers in our party. We heard from my colleague from Prince Albert. We have farmers in the House who bring their experience and their knowledge of what is important to farming families to the debate and to the negotiated outcomes of our trade agreements. We have always said we will not reach a trade agreement unless it is a win for all sectors, and that includes supply-managed sectors.

That 98% of market access that our government has secured was done while we have been able to maintain the four pillars of supply management. That, particularly in the global economy, is a real accomplishment, and it is an accomplishment because it is a priority. Our government set it out as a key priority when entering into these negotiations and obtaining outcomes that are wins for all sectors, including the supply-managed sector.

It is my privilege in my role as parliamentary secretary for international trade to meet with these sectors, including our supply-managed sectors. They see that we have been careful in our negotiations to secure wins for all agricultural commodities but, in particular, not sacrificing one for the other. We are proud of that.

The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, is an example of such success. When this agreement is implemented we would have 50,000 tonnes of access for our beef farmers. I have spoken to farmers in Alberta and Ontario who told me that they were struggling for many years, and only in the last two years have margins on beef become profitable. We have seen improper trade actions from our largest partner to the south, so those have encouraged us even more to get access for these farmers in global markets.

I am proud to be part of a government that has secured that with South Korea. It was so good that the NDP, after 50 years of opposing trade, had to acknowledge it was a great deal. Those members stood in the House to support it.

The European deal is equally ambitious, because our beef producers, some of the world's best, are effectively blocked by a huge 20% tariff. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has estimated that CETA, when implemented for Canada, would represent a $600 million win in that industry alone. That is truly incredible.

Equally important is pork. We would be able to get 81,000 tonnes of tariff-free access for fresh or frozen pork products. I have met with the industry across the country, particularly in Brandon, Manitoba, where there is an underutilized facility needing new markets. If we can get the provincial government to address the moratorium on hog barns and get production levels up, we will have one of the world-class facilities there ready to ramp up to gain access to markets like South Korea and Europe for our pork products. It is another industry that has seen some challenges in the last decade, so securing new markets would be important.

Why is that important? It is because price would be assured, and a higher price is assured when there is more than one customer. Canada has been very lucky to sit on the border of a very large and hungry market, so we have been able to rely heavily on the U.S. trade relationship, which is still critical for our country, but having more markets secures better prices for our farmers and reduces risk by diversifying the markets into which we can export.

In debate tonight, members have already mentioned a range of other products, so I am not going to repeat a lot of them. I am going to focus on a couple that are very important to my riding of Durham in southern Ontario, which has some of the best agricultural land in Canada. Fresh apples have a 9% tariff rate that would come down with the European deal. The Kemp and Gibson families at Algoma Orchards in Bowmanville and Newcastle have been ramping up their operations, building a facility for processing. This would be a brand new market of 500 million consumers. Not far from them is the Stevens family, Charles, Judi, and Courtney, who are famous for creating the first blueberry marshmallows in the world. Fresh blueberries are at a 14% tariff.

When we start adding tariff rates like that to the cost of goods, they are essentially a wall to access. Through the work of this government in the last few years, we have been able to reach an agreement that would get rid of these tariff rates and allow these producers to gain access to a market that represents a bigger market than NAFTA, with some of the largest and most diverse economies in the world and with a strong middle class that wants world-class Canadian food products—across the board: meats, livestock, grain oil seeds, fruits, produce.

I met with the produce producers today, who are very bullish on the future due to trade, and this is an opportunity and a deal that represents a win from coast to coast on agriculture. We have heard about the wine and some of the fruits in British Columbia, through to the grain and oil seeds and durum wheat in the Prairies, to the beef and pork in Ontario, to fruits and maple syrup in Quebec, to frozen potato products, which have had a tariff rate as high as 17% for P.E.I. and parts of the Maritimes.

It is really once in a generation that we get such a tremendous opportunity for the agricultural sector as the CETA European trade deal represents. The last generational opportunity for Canadian exporters was the U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiated with the vision of the Conservative government at that time. It really takes the Conservatives to open these new markets for our farmers, to allow them to diversify their markets and raise their average price.

It has been an honour for me as parliamentary secretary to meet with stakeholders from coast to coast to coast to work with them on their plans to get ready for the market access that CETA would represent. Whether it is the cattle or pork producers in western Canada or some of the fresh fruit and horticulture sectors here in Ontario, they are ambitious about this opportunity because we have some of the best agricultural businesses in the world and some of the best products to sell. Now we are giving our farmers more markets to sell them in. It is a huge opportunity, and I hope the NDP will finally get behind it.

[An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands referenced the national household survey a couple of times in his remarks today. That survey provides much of the data that planners need for their public policy planning. He also referenced that some countries collect data through new or different means. I am wondering if he could comment on the national household survey perhaps learning from some of the international approaches beyond just the long form.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for her intervention and for her passionate work across Canada. She certainly has a soft spot for the Durham region, and that is appreciated by me and all of the MPs. For a time she was one of the leading surgeons in our area, and it was deeply appreciated.

She certainly also understands the importance of this industry, not just to Ontario but to the Canadian economy. If we look at the generation and supply network, there are 71,000 jobs in a very high-tech and innovative sector. Canadian technology, represented by CANDU technology, is world class, with a perfect operating record. We should be promoting this more internationally.

We do have plants in half a dozen or so countries around the world, generating greenhouse gas emission free power. However, our regulatory regime, the safety and environmental represented in Bill C-22, needs to be updated. This should not be an opportunity where the NDP, and even the Liberal Party, because the Liberal candidate in the by-election called the nuclear industry “a necessary evil”, stand in the way of modernizing the regulatory framework for some of our leading energy industries, the offshore and nuclear. This is about world-class regulation and promoting jobs in Canada.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for asking the question in the way that he did because it allows me to politely chastise his party. This is the fourth time that our government has tried to bring this type of legislation before the House, only to be delayed, blocked, and impeded by the New Democratic Party, which has a very bizarre position on nuclear energy. New Democrats, and the member for Winnipeg North, oppose nuclear-generated electricity which provides the majority of Ontario's power, yet they want more reductions on greenhouse gas emissions.

They do not seem to realize that in certain provinces with an industrial base, like Ontario, we cannot pull out 50% of the electricity generation which is all greenhouse gas emission-free, and replace it with wind or solar. It shows that the NDP does not understand the modern economy.

I would ask the member to speak to his leader, and members like the MP for Winnipeg North, to tell them to stop blocking this legislation to update our standards.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. I will be splitting my time with my neighbour, the very capable member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

This bill has been a long time coming to the House. It addresses a number of specific provisions for the offshore oil and gas industry as well as the nuclear energy industry. It is our government's effort to modernize legislation and regulation around these industries. We are hoping that this will not be the third or potentially fourth time that the NDP attempts to delay and block such important modernizing legislation.

The offshore industry is an area where the federal government works collaboratively with the Atlantic provinces. There are accords with the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those provinces will update their legislation following the passage of Bill C-22. For offshore exploration in the north, it is the National Energy Board that is responsible for the oversight of exploration and drilling, whereas with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the offshore petroleum boards that are the specific and expert regulators.

This bill is our attempt to make sure that Canada continues to have world-class and modern regulation of these industries, which are parts of Canada's dynamic energy economy; to make sure that safety is at the forefront of these industries; and to make sure that the environment is respected in the process as well.

As I said, the two areas addressed by this bill are the offshore industry and the nuclear industry. I will speak to both briefly in my remarks on elements of the bill, and then I will discuss something dear to my heart, which is the nuclear energy industry in Canada.

On the offshore oil and gas exploration side, this bill would carry out an important act by clearly enshrining the polluter pays principle in legislation. That is important. It would recognize that when there is fault or negligence on the part of operations in the offshore environment, there would be unlimited liability for people who are negligent or at fault in their operations in that sector.

In the no-fault regime, this legislation is important because it would update and modernize an approach and compensation levels and structures that are remnants of the 1970s. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industries, the no-fault provisions would be increased from a $30 million range for compensation to a $1 billion range for compensation. I think most Canadians would agree that these things should be updated at least every 25 to 30 years. In this case, we are looking at a gap of almost 40 years in updating the regulatory approach and updating those limits and insurance requirements for operators.

The bill would also make it much easier for the government to be directly capable of seeking damages for environmental impact from operations. We all want to make sure that those things never happen, but this bill, which promotes safety and security, would address these liability issues with unlimited liability where there is fault, as I said, and with requirements for compensation of up to $1 billion in the no-fault regime. Canadians think that that is important.

The other aspect, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is the nuclear industry. This is another case in which the regulatory regime and compensation levels would be updated after a lag time of 30-plus years. In cases of incidents in nuclear energy generation, the old cap of civil liability, which is in the $75 million range, would also be increased to $1 billion. Absolute liability would rest with the operators.

The operators, who have a terrific track record in Canada, a perfect track record, I might add, certainly know that they are required to keep the highest standards and ensure that they have adequate operating and insurance coverage to meet the new limits, which would be updated with Bill C-22.

Importantly, on the nuclear side, we are also increasing the limitation period from 10 years to 30 years. This is important because claims may arise from an incident. Remember that we are talking about the what ifs, the very unlikely scenario of any incident. The claims period for accessing compensation should be longer than 10 years. As a lawyer, I know limitation periods are important, but it is important to have a limitation period that acknowledges that some damages or injuries will present themselves long after the incident. This is another way of bringing this up to a modern era.

This bill would also allow Canada to be a signatory to an international convention, the International Atomic Energy Agency's convention on supplemental compensation. This would bring us up to a standard where we could be a signatory to that important international convention, which deals with transborder and international issues with respect to offshore and the nuclear energy industry. This would also make sure we would be world class. Our compensation levels are among the top in the world, particularly in the top for countries with active industries in these sectors.

This is an important modernization of the regulatory and compensation structure for these important industries.

As the member of Parliament for Durham, I am also very happy to be an active proponent of nuclear energy in Canada. Our world-class excellence in this area is something we do not talk about enough. I wanted to do that as an MP, someone who had worked in some energy regulatory matters as a lawyer beforehand, so I helped create the nuclear caucus in Ottawa to promote the industry, to try to raise the level of knowledge among parliamentarians and certainly among Canadians on the important role this industry played in Canada.

Canada was the second nation to have controlled nuclear fission, to create cheap and affordable clean energy. That is an achievement we sometimes forget. The great part of our experimental work in industries in the nuclear sector is that we were never a nuclear nation in terms of warheads. We always used nuclear energy peacefully, and our technology remains among the world's best.

There are 71,000 jobs connected to the nuclear and supply industry in Canada, representing a $7 billion benefit to our GDP. There are 19 operating reactors across Canada. In Darlington, there are four reactors, which, in 2013, were awarded an international safety award from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

If we look at the Durham region at large, beyond just my riding, 50% of Ontario's electricity is generated by nuclear power, a good portion of that coming from the Durham area. This is important because this power is affordable and predictable, it is baseload power, and it is GHG emission-free. So many people in the House, particularly in the NDP, talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but then, at the same time, oppose nuclear energy. It is really an absurd position.

I would note that the member for Winnipeg Centre actually said in the House, “We do not want to see the Darlington nuclear power plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down”. When 50% of the baseload electricity in Ontario is from nuclear, we cannot set up a few wind turbines to replace that. It shows the absurdity of the position of the member for Winnipeg Centre and many of his colleagues.

I have been a proud supporter of working not only with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in my riding, but also the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries. Our government provided it with an $88,000 global opportunities for associations grant to sell technology abroad. AECL Candu technology is present in China, Romania, India, Pakistan, Argentina, and in Canada, with a perfect track record. I do not want to forget that It is also in South Korea. When I was in South Korea, people talked positively about our industry. It has an error-free record and some of the best technology in the world, so we need to celebrate industries that are world champions.

I would also like to mention the University of Ontario Institute of Technology's clean energy research laboratory, where nuclear power can help work with hydrogen and isotopes to create clean technology.

The bill is important to modernizing our regulatory structure and allowing our industries' offshore industry and the nuclear industries to excel.

[Ethics, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that Conservative governments in Canada have granted 98% of the market access our exporters have.

The European Union market represents 500 million consumers, $17 trillion in its economy, and a huge opportunity for our businesses and for creating employment. One in five Canadian jobs are attributable to trade. We are going to pursue this agreement with gusto.

The real question for that member is this: Will the NDP finally come out and say it opposes this agreement?