Guy Caron

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's East.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the opposition motion on the CIBC report on job quality.

We often debate the issue of employment in the House. The government likes to boast about how many jobs have been created since the depths of the recession. We sincerely hope that jobs will be created after a recession as bad as the one we recently went through.

However, contrary to what the government and its members are saying, job quality plays a key role in people's quality of life. The results have not been as clear-cut and successful as the government likes to claim.

In its report, CIBC clearly shows that its employment quality index has dropped dramatically since the 1990s. It has gone down by 15%, which is a fairly big drop. It has dropped by 10% since the early 2000s, and last year, the latest year of the index, there was a significant drop of 1.8%, despite the fact that a rather large number of jobs were created.

The reason has to do with the effectiveness of the government and its policies. When we talk, for example, about full-time and part-time jobs, the government's efforts have greatly encouraged the creation of part-time and low-paying jobs, which has led many Canadians to choose self-employment over paid employment, often involuntarily.

Take for example the issue of high-paying jobs versus low-paying jobs. In my opinion, this is a key issue, and CIBC recognized that.

In fact, CIBC noted that low-paying jobs rose at twice the pace of high-paying jobs. An important example of the consequences of this reality and the government's misguided approach is Burger King's acquisition of Tim Hortons.

We can debate this acquisition. I think that it is having a negative effect and that it shows the impact of the corporate tax rate in Canada, which is well below that of the United States. This creates a phenomenon called tax inversion, which makes companies more attractive to American businesses.

I want to come back to the announcement made at the end of January by Burger King and Tim Hortons, when 350 well-paid corporate Tim Hortons workers were laid off.

When we raised this issue in the House and asked the Minister of Industry questions, he said, quite proudly, that following consultations with the newly merged company, he was promised that there would be 500 new franchises in Canada. When he says 500 new franchises, that is exactly what we are talking about. These are not steady jobs. They are often part time and not well paid. He was comparing these poorly paid jobs and the jobs that will be created with the 350 high-quality, well-paid jobs that were lost as a result of the merger, and he put a positive spin on it to boot.

That is where I take issue with the government's idea that any job is a good job, that a part-time job is just as good as a full-time job, or that a poorly paid job is the same as a well-paid job.

The CIBC did a fine job of painting the overall picture of the employment situation in Canada, going beyond the anecdotes that the government likes to recite to us in the House.

One of the things the Conservatives often like to talk about during question period, but not during answer period, because the answer is totally inconsistent, is the article published in the New York Times last November, according to which the Canadian middle class is now richer than the American middle class.

However, the Conservatives neglect to say how this came to be or why this is currently the case. The New York Times article showed that three main reasons explain this situation, but the government never mentions those. The primary reason is the failure of the U.S. elementary school system, which is training a workforce that is less qualified or not as well qualified as the previous generation.

If we take the time to read the article, we find that Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have above-average skills compared to their peers in other industrialized countries. As for the 16 to 24 year olds, their literacy, numeracy, and technology skills lag behind those of their peers in Canada, Australia, Japan, Scandinavia, among others. One of the main reasons for the gap between Americans and Canadians is the education system. The government has very little to do with it because education is a provincial jurisdiction.

I will quote the second reason given in the New York Times article to explain the reduction of the income gap between the American and Canadian middle classes.

A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.

From the New York Times article we can infer that the relative strength of the union movement in Canada compared to that in the United States is one of the factors that has contributed to the positive wealth gap between the middle class in Canada and that in the United States. We will not bring Europe into the discussion.

However, we have a government that is fighting to undermine union strength in Canada. The difference in wealth, therefore, is not the result of the government's policies. On the contrary, this is true because the Conservatives have not yet reached the high point in their policy to destroy a rather strong middle class.

Third, the New York Times article mentions the level of redistribution of wealth. In the United States, the redistribution of wealth is much less efficient than here in Canada. Once again, most of the policies introduced by the government since 2006 do not target more equitable redistribution, as shown by increased income inequality among other things.

The government prides itself on the fact that its economic policies have helped make the middle class stronger. However, according to that New York Times article, our middle class did not become richer than the American middle class because of the strength of our economy, but rather because of the weakness of American policies.

If I were the government I would be very careful about drawing any significant conclusions from one story that draws on a set of interesting data to give a snapshot of the quality of life of our middle class compared to that of the United States. As with any other economic situation, there is often much more to the snapshot than they would have us believe.

Economic experts urged us to be cautious when analyzing these documents and not to draw broad conclusions. William Robson, the president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute, said that the wealth of Canada's middle class was growing more slowly than that of the rest of the population, meaning Canadians who are either wealthier or poorer.

The government can boast all it wants and say that we are in a good position compared to the United States, but there is no evidence that the government's policies or actions contributed to the strength of the middle class. On the contrary, the middle class continues to get weaker compared to the rest of the population, which was one of the findings of the CIBC study. If jobs are less stable and the number of part-time jobs is increasing at a faster pace than the number of full-time jobs, the country will not be in a better place—quite the contrary.

These are measures we need to examine, which is why I am proud to say that the NDP is starting to unveil parts of our economic agenda, which will strengthen the middle class. In fact, this is something we have been doing for a quite some time.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources for her question. We have both served on the committee together.

I would not necessarily use such laudatory and glorious language. Nevertheless, we will support the bill at second reading because it really is a good step forward. However, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that this is a pure and complete application of the polluter pays principle.

The reason is that if there is an absolute liability of $1 billion without having to prove fault or negligence on the part of the company, and if the disaster or catastrophe costs more than $1 billion, taxpayers—the government—could be affected and forced to pay part of the cost. According to the polluter pays principle, those costs should be covered by the company, which must take every precaution to minimize the risk of a disaster. Even though this is a positive step in that direction, it is not a complete application of the polluter pays principle.

When it comes to statistics, I do not necessarily want to talk about the ones that the government likes to bring up. However, other studies indicated that in the case of TransCanada and energy east, the company would be unable to locate leaks amounting to less than 1.5% of the flow. Now, 1.5% can add up to millions of litres along the length of the pipeline, so that is a huge amount of oil that could cause significant damage and affect individuals.

I do not necessarily want to get into statistics, but it is important to look at this kind of study, respond to it, and determine whether the statistics are wrong. If the study is correct, then we need to be able to address that concern. That would improve and optimize the safety of the pipelines we are talking about.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. It is a very important one.

The concept of social licence is fundamental to the first nations, which are involved in these processes, but often not as a partner. More often than not, they are pressured on the projects, whether it is political pressure or pressure from the companies.

As I mentioned in my speech, I also agree that the oil and gas industry is hugely important to Canada's economy. This is evident not only in the west but also all across Canada. I was pleased to see that the bill included the two primary means of transportation: pipelines and rail transportation. In both cases we need regulations to keep everyone safe and to hold the companies involved accountable, whether we are talking about pipeline operators or, in the case of rail transportation, rail operators.

We know that the government introduced another bill to make companies more accountable. We will study its merits, as we are currently studying the merits of the provisions to increase the accountability of pipeline operators. We will also study the merits of the provisions for the environment and for landowners who could be affected by a spill and who have concerns.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for her question. The issue of social licence is important. Projects such as energy east would have no social licence without any real consultation. TransCanada and the National Energy Board held consultations and set up booths in the various municipalities and communities that are affected. However, they must do more. There must be real dialogue with the municipalities and communities, which have the impression that TransCanada and the National Energy Board are just trying to convince them.

Take for example, the liquefied natural gas or LNG industry, which still has it merits. A company that I will not name wanted to set up an LNG tank, following one of the three diagrams prepared by the engineers. When these three options were proposed to the public, people identified weaknesses in the two options that were the cheapest for the company. The third option did not seem to present any problems. The company therefore submitted the third project, even though it was more expensive, and set up the reservoir.

This community therefore had its say before the project was carried out. These people did not feel as though the company was trying to convince them to accept the least expensive option. Accordingly, social licence was easier to obtain. This bill also makes it easier to obtain social licence because it responds to some of the concerns that municipalities and communities have about the responsibility of companies. However, it does not address all of their concerns.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-46. I am even more pleased about the fact that this is the first bill on natural resources that I have the honour to debate in the House as the official opposition critic for energy and natural resources.

This is an extremely important issue, particularly because of the various challenges we are currently facing and the projects that are under way. In my riding, the energy east project will pass through Témiscouata. It is a major project. Clearly, there are many other major projects all over the country that are directly affected by Bill C-46, which seeks to make the transportation of oil via Canada's pipelines safer.

The government asked us how we are going to vote at second reading. I can confirm that we are going to support the bill at this stage. We are not doing so because the bill is perfect, and in the next few minutes I will have the opportunity to explain the problems with this bill that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources should work on.

In our opinion, this bill is a good first step. Finally, after putting so much pressure on the government, we are truly pleased that the government is willing to reinforce the polluter pays principle, not just in words but also in the legislation.

As my colleagues no doubt know, since our leader, the member for Outremont, took over the reins of the New Democratic Party, he has spoken at length about this country's need to enforce the polluter pays principle, not only in the area of natural resources but also in all of our country's industrial and economic sectors.

He has also spoken about the need to take into account external economic impacts, for example the cost of the pollution caused by various industries, in order to reflect the actual cost of production, not only from an economic perspective for the consumer or the producer, but also from an environmental perspective and from the perspective of how it could affect large communities.

On this side of the House, we recognize the importance of the oil and gas industry across the country. We know that this industry accounts for approximately 7% or 8% of Canada's GDP and that it has an impact not only on the western part of the country, but also on regions such as Quebec and Ontario. However, if we want to enshrine the polluter pays principle in law, we will have to do so in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

In describing the bill, which is what I plan to do for the next few minutes, we realized that the generally positive points might not go far enough, such as establishing no-fault liability. Thus, at the end of the day, all companies could be liable in the event of a disaster. Even if it is not the company's fault or if negligence is not proven, the liability could be as high as $1 billion, depending on the amount established by the National Energy Board, by cabinet or by the governor in council.

While the $1 billion is positive when you consider that there is currently no implicit responsibility in Canadian legislation or regulations, it does minimize and water down the polluter pays principle. Even if the company is not at fault, it is nevertheless a question of a pipeline built and operated by a company that must eventually take full responsibility for it. We are therefore faced with the following problem: even if there is no fault assigned, taxpayers could end up bearing financial responsibility.

If a disaster occurred that cost more than $1 billion in cleanup and environmental costs, some of that burden could be placed on taxpayers through the government. We see this as one of the bill's weaknesses.

If we really want to remain true to the polluter pays principle, we need to follow through on the reasoning and make the company fully responsible.

Clearly, if the pipeline has a defect and the company is not responsible and a third party is, liability could be placed on the third party. However, if there is an operational issue and the company is responsible for the pipeline, then it must be fully responsible for any damage caused and for all environmental costs.

However, if the company is found to be at fault or negligent, under the bill, costs and damages could be much higher. This amount would be determined by either the governor in council or the National Energy Board.

We support the fact that this legislation will finally hold companies responsible for abandoned pipelines. Beforehand, the responsibility was implied but not necessarily very clear. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned in her speech that this is a serious problem in Alberta, where there are many abandoned oil wells connected by equally abandoned pipelines. These abandoned infrastructures pose a problem, because most of the time, the companies that owned them no longer exist, which creates legal uncertainty regarding cleanup costs.

It is therefore good that the responsibility of companies for these underground pipelines in Canada, even after they stop operating, is explicitly stated in this bill, because we are talking about major projects and companies that are relatively stable economically and financially.

How can we ensure that the companies will assume these costs? Under the bill, any company that is operating a pipeline that matches the standards set out in the bill, namely pipelines that have the capacity to transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil per day, must have liability coverage of up to $1 billion. Once again, we support that. This money will be used to ensure that the company is immediately liable in the event of an incident and will also serve as a deposit in case a pipeline ceases operations, so that the company remains responsible for any potential cleanup costs or costs associated with subsidence, for example.

The bill thus provides for protection against any damage that could result on the land under which a pipelines passes. It is perhaps minimal compared to the growing costs associated with these pipelines but it is still a recognition of the company's responsibility.

It seems like I am praising the government, but we have to acknowledge the progress that has been made in pipeline safety and the positive aspects. For example, the bill authorizes the National Energy Board to establish a pipeline claims tribunal for claims following a pipeline leak or disaster.

It used to be extremely complex and onerous for a land owner to get compensation for a major pipeline spill. The legal system is very complex and there are a lot of costs up front for a person who suffered damages.

This bill includes a provision authorizing the National Energy Board and the governor in council, at their discretion, to establish an administrative tribunal following a disaster in to order hear and compensate the parties who feel adversely affected by the disaster. This is progress because it will make the administrative process easier—if the National Energy Board and the governor in council use their discretion wisely, that is.

Those are the positive aspects of this bill as I see them. This is progress, and it is why we are voting in favour of this bill at second reading. We could then consider the bill further in committee and propose amendments to improve these provisions, which seem more watered down than they could be.

As far as the bill's flaws are concerned, we can name three. First, I mentioned several times the issue of the discretion of the National Energy Board and the governor in council, or cabinet.

It would have been preferable to provide greater certainty in this bill and give it more teeth, if you will, so that some elements would be triggered without relying on the National Energy Board or the Governor in Council to provide good governance or wise decision making.

In fact, a number of these tools that, in principle, should improve the safety of pipelines are not guaranteed. Their application will be at the discretion of the National Energy Board and the Governor in Council. We all hope that will happen, but it will be determined on a case-by-case basis with no guarantees.

Furthermore, we really wanted the government to understand that pipeline safety impacts not only the transport of oil, but also the transport of natural gas and other products, such as solvents used in the oil sands. Quite often, the bitumen is treated in one area and the solvent, after being separated from the bitumen, is reshipped to the extraction site. These solvents are highly toxic and very dangerous. It would have been good for such a bill to cover the transport of these products, whose risk to the environment is similar to that of oil.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand why the government limited its new safety standards on pipeline transportation to pipelines that transport more than 250,000 barrels a day. Why did it not impose these standards and new restrictions on pipeline transportation safety on all interprovincial pipelines that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and the federal government?

Yes, it is a step in the right direction that the government is now applying, even partially, the polluter pays principle. That is why we will support the bill. It is also an important issue for the government and the industry, because it is a question of confidence in the industry. I can speak from personal experience, because one of the main concerns in my riding and in Quebec as a whole, given what I have heard about the energy east project, has to do with transportation safety with respect to rivers, waterways and watersheds, among others. That is a big concern that recently came up in a Harris-Decima survey of Canadians' views on the transportation of oil and gas, either by rail or by pipeline. Less than half of Canadians have confidence in the pipeline transportation system.

Lots of people talked about social licence. That is why it goes without saying that for the in-depth study and to reassure people that transporting oil by pipeline will not have a negative impact on their community, there must be elements in place to ensure safety and rapid response in case of a disaster. There must also be a mechanism in place to ensure that companies pay adequate compensation for all environmental disasters that occur on private property or even on public property. The government should have gone in that direction.

One could even argue that they took too long to go in this direction because it has been some time now since the government was reminded of its responsibility for pipeline safety and the safe transportation of oil and fossil fuels in general. It should have taken action on this long ago, and many members of society have criticized it for that, not just environmentalists, but also communities directly affected by that transportation, be it underground or by rail.

If we look at all of the projects, some will certainly be influenced or affected by this bill. It could help the communities that are stakeholders in this. I am talking about energy east, of course, and northern gateway is another one that is affected. This might enable communities to look at this from another angle.

We should not necessarily expect the government to have carte blanche when it comes to getting its projects approved by the communities. It can take a positive approach, or a relatively positive one in this case, but communities have still expressed a lot of concerns. I am not talking just about municipalities; I am talking about aboriginal communities too. For example, in the case of northern gateway, Kitimat could be severely affected if there is a disaster, and that has been brought up a number of times. The government seems unable to reassure that community. The government should have a responsibility to intervene directly in talks about pipelines with first nations; that should not be left up to the company. The government, which has a responsibility toward first nations, should be able to get involved in these matters.

It refuses to do so. As a result, these projects have no social licence. Ultimately, not only is the government doing nothing to increase safety standards, but according to most experts, it is also limiting consultation periods as well as the effectiveness of the environmental assessment process. It has sped up the process to supersonic speeds. I am using that language because, in the case of the energy east project, the National Energy Board has only 15 months. In fact, the deadline for intervening or even commenting on the energy east project in Quebec is March 3, which is next week. The problem is that TransCanada, which of course is the company behind the energy east project, has not yet even decided if there will be an oil port in Cacouna. Rumour has it that the route could change significantly. Apparently, Cacouna could be replaced by Baie-des-Sables, Bécancour or Lévis, for example. It is not clear if plans have been finalized, but the board seems to think that it has to act immediately because of the extremely tight deadlines that were imposed by the federal government's legislation.

The same thing goes for the issue of environmental assessment, given that there used to be separate processes. The National Energy Board dealt with the pipeline itself while environmental issues went through a separate process. To address some of the shortcomings, the government obviously could have changed the two processes to try to increase their effectiveness. However, in the end, by merging the processes and handing responsibility over to the National Energy Board, the government did not do the industry any favours, quite the contrary. These days, there is a lot more resistance to these projects, precisely because the process seems extremely inadequate for people who want to intervene and for those who are affected and worried and are feeling dismayed about how quickly everything is moving. In the case of energy east, we are talking about a major project involving 1.1 million barrels that the board has to handle in 15 months.

We are talking about the polluter pays principle, the federal government's responsibility, and the principle whereby the federal government should ensure the best provisions for the industry. These provisions are not just intended to make shipping and economic expansion easier. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the economic, regulatory, and legislative conditions governing the oil and gas industry are stable enough to ensure long-term consistency. The companies and industry need to know that their economic environment is secured for the long term. At present, given how the government operates and the changes that were made, the companies are right to question the merits of the government's policies.

In the case of Bill C-46, the measures are a step forward in pipeline safety. That is why we support the bill. However, there is still some uncertainty when it comes to ensuring that natural resource development, which is important to Canada's economy, could grow responsibly and sustainably, as we gradually transition Canada's economy to one that is based more on renewable energy, of course.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

We are talking about the fundamental polluter pays principle. She talked quite a bit about balance. I would like to know what she thinks as a member of Parliament and a member of cabinet about the government's reasons for introducing such legislation, which affects oil pipelines but not other products like natural gas or solvents, which can also be transported via pipeline.

I would also like to know why she thinks the bill, if it is amended, would only affect pipelines transporting more than 250,000 barrels of oil a day and not those that transport 100,000 barrels, for example.

Why does the government's plan have this limit?

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I am honoured to serve with her on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I will have the pleasure of giving a speech on Bill C-46 this afternoon, but I would like to ask my colleague a question about liability. The bill limits liability to $1 billion in the case of a disaster caused by a pipeline where there is no proof of fault on the part of a company. Why did the government choose that amount? In Kalamazoo, in the United States, costs have already reached an estimated $1.2 billion, and only a tiny proportion of the mess has been cleaned up.

Why did the government peg liability at $1 billion? Would it not be better to set a higher amount? That seems to me to be nothing more than a round number.

[Taxation, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we hear that more than 400 of Canada's wealthiest people and businesses had secret bank accounts at HSBC in Geneva.

Honest Canadians who pay their taxes are exasperated at the government's inaction on this. Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Conservatives rejected our motion to get to the bottom of this tax avoidance scheme.

Why is the Conservative government refusing to work with us to fight white collar criminals who are benefiting from tax havens?

[Official Languages, February 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board's failure to respect the French language regarding the energy east project is unacceptable. Last November, the NDP even filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages about this.

It seems that a significant part of the 30,000 pages that TransCanada submitted to the board are still not available in French, even though a large part of the route would go through Quebec. People who own farmland, as well as municipalities in Quebec, feel cheated.

Does the minister find the National Energy Board's contempt for Canada's francophones to be acceptable?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that in most of his speech, the member from Yukon preached to the choir. No one has spoken against integration. Every single member of Parliament who has spoken so far is in favour of integration. They are in favour of those services working together.

The element that was completely absent from his speech, which we are raising as a problem, is that currently House security and Senate security are working under the authority of the Speaker, who ultimately responds to Parliament. This motion would change that by making the authority in charge of security the RCMP, which ultimately responds to the government. It is a major shift, a major change. It is actually disrespectful of the members of our House and Senate security, who did a pretty good job during the events of October 22.

If the member for Yukon says this is no slight to our House and Senate security, why does he want to place the authority under the RCMP instead of our joint House and Senate security?