Jinny Sims

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it should be polluter pays, and at no time should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of cleanup, whether it is nuclear material, oil, or gas.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear about transparency and accountability from that side of the House. It is absolutely because we want accountability and transparency, and because we want the polluter pays principle applied to the nuclear branch as well, that we are opposed to the bill. The bill is deficient. We would not be doing our homework.

I hear about the minister. This legislation proposes to give discretionary power to the minister that could lower the amount from $1 billion. That seems asinine to me.

This is not about transparency or accountability. This is about doing favours for the government's corporate friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in opposition to Bill C-22. It is called “an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts”. I suppose, compared to some other names I have seen for bills coming before the House, this one is not as reactionary or volatile.

I have a major concern. We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is critical, and I am hearing that from colleagues on the other side. First, it took them forever to bring the bill here. They could have done it a long time ago. Now they keep moving time allocation on it. Here we are, once again, speaking to a bill, and it is one out of eighty bills that has had time allocation.

This is getting to be ridiculous. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that. Not only has the government placed time allocations in the House, but at committee stage it prevented a full array of experts and other witnesses from coming forward to present testimony so that the legislation can be well thought out and based on opinions of those in the field. It prevented experts from talking, who know a lot more about this issue than many parliamentarians in the House.

Once again, we, as parliamentarians, have been denied access to that kind of expertise and science. Knowing the government's allergic reaction to science and expert opinion, I should not be surprised, but I am still very disappointed.

I have heard a number of times today that the bill is an improvement on what we have. I agree.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. My apologies to her.

The bill has taken a long time to come here. The changes are long overdue, but once again my colleagues across the way have failed to address fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

I always hear from my colleagues about how the U.S. does it, and that if the U.S. is dropping missiles into Iraq we have to follow because we are very close friends. However, it seems in this case that they are quite willing to ignore what the U.S. is doing in this area, and what other countries are doing. Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants. We are not talking about one or two countries;.this is a series of countries that I have listed.

The Conservatives have set the bar even lower than the U.S., the closest to us border-wise. That causes me major concern. When it suits us, we have to be like the U.S. and follow it here and there. However, when it does not suit us and it concerns the pocketbooks of Canadians and our future well-being, then they are quite willing to look the other way.

Even the U.S. has standards that are much higher than the ones proposed in the bill. The U.S. has an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S., compared to $1 billion. We can all see, even my grandchildren in school would be able to see, that there is a huge difference there.

However, if the companies are not paying, guess who is paying? It is the taxpayers. The current government, which is always talking about being good managers of taxpayers' assets, in this case is willing to land the taxpayers with billions and billions of dollars worth of liability. I am not exaggerating. We only have to look at what has happened in the past when it came to cleanup.

It is not as if we do not have any examples. We can look at the cost of cleanup around Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Japanese government estimates that the cleanup for the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant could be over $250 billion.

I am not grabbing these numbers out of the air. This is a country that has experienced that reality, and it is giving us its best opinion. Japan has already spent well over hundreds of billions on this.

What do the so-called smart economic managers for our Canadian taxpayers do, who are sitting on the other side? They are proposing a total liability of $1 billion. That does not speak well for being good managers of taxpayers' money.

We are pleased to see that the bill would bring some changes, which include unlimited liability for gas and oil companies. Coming from beautiful British Columbia and being very proud of our pristine coastline, we are very concerned. We want to see obstacles put in the way so that the business community, oil explorers, and other companies, will make sure that they take every precautionary step possible to avoid a leakage, spill, or any other kind of disaster.

If this measure is good enough for the oil and gas industry, it should be good enough for the nuclear industry as well. I am finding it very hard to get my head around why we would treat two industries so very differently. Neither industry is new; they are both well established.

After years of experience as the environment minister in Quebec, I believe that the NDP leader knows environmental protection and sustainable development inside and out. I absolutely believe that he would not support, nor would he bring forward, legislation that would put liability for nuclear companies at only $1 billion.

Subsidizing the most profitable industries in the country and leaving taxpayers on the hook for a massive nuclear disaster or oil spill does not make sense. However, the Conservative government would do exactly that.

I would say that the Conservatives are going against the common sense test. If I were to put this idea forward to a grade 5 class in my riding, they would say “Really? That's not fair”. It is not right, and it concerns me. I think it is shameful that we have a bill before us that does not put the interests of the taxpayers before narrow corporate interests, and that is what we are seeing here.

I will finish with wishing everyone in the House a happy and productive week in their ridings. I know that all of us will be participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies, which are always filled with pathos, sadness, and memories as we honour those who sacrificed for us. However, this year, in light of the events we have personally experienced here, they will take on a different level of poignancy.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a person in this House who would not agree that we need rules and regulations, but we need rules and regulations that make sense. We need to ensure that health and security and safety are preserved. This week we have seen an example of what happens when we do not have processes in place.

The other thing I will say is that we cannot demonize the idea of regulations, because without regulations, health and safety are threatened.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We sit on a committee together, and I will say that her constituents are fortunate to have her as their member of Parliament. She does an amazing job on the committee.

I believe I said this in my speech. Sometimes we see rules and regulations as a bad thing. However, if we did not have rules about how we drive, we would have a disaster on our freeways. Not all rules are bad.

Robyn Benson, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said:

Regulations, and their proper enforcement, can literally save lives. But sometimes only a horrific mishap will make the point—and even then, not always.

Let me remind the House that we do not support regulations that serve no purpose and just create work. However, there are regulations we do support. Health and safety issues and environmental protections are regulations that should be in the body of this legislation and not there as an afterthought in the preamble.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time for me to tabulate all the concerns I have with respect to this bill, but these are some of my key concerns.

My first is with respect to the inordinate amount of power being put arbitrarily in the hands of a minister, without any parliamentary oversight.

Second is the fact that health, safety, and environmental issues are in the preamble.

What is more critical is that I have no trust in my colleagues across the way to deliver a system in which paperwork would be reduced, because every time they have tried to do that, it has led to disastrous consequences. Either there have been huge delays, or when they have deregulated in other areas, we have had some tragic consequences.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that I know that our critic will be going forward with amendments to ensure the bill does what it purports to do or what I am being told it is going to do. However, we have colleagues across the way who do not have a good track record on reducing the paper burden.

Let us look at what the Conservatives did with the building Canada fund. Rather than helping municipalities and SMEs start infrastructure projects within reasonable time frames, the Conservatives implemented a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for all projects over $100 million. The new screening requirements will add delays from six to 18 months and will delay important projects. This is their idea of speeding things up.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her thoughtful question. They cannot put health and safety and the environment in a preamble and think they have done their job. That is just a huge travesty.

“Rules that are necessary to protect health, promote safety and protect the environment are important”; that was said by Laura Jones of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

It is not just the NDP saying this. This is being said by the independent business association as well.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point that you have made, but I am setting the context. The context is that we have a government that purports to want to help small and medium-sized businesses. The reduction of red tape, especially if it is useless red tape, and regulations would help them, as would the other issue that I raised. I was just using it as another example in the way of educating my colleagues across the way.

What I hear from owners of small and medium-sized businesses is that they hear a lot from government and members of Parliament in their ridings and all across Canada about how much they want to support small and medium-sized businesses, but the owners often tell me that what the government says it is going to do does not always end up helping them or tackling the real issues.

We are looking at the track record of how the government has managed this in the past. Being New Democrats, very practical and down to earth people, of course we want to support any common sense solutions. Common sense should prevail. We want to use those common sense solutions to reduce the paper burden and compliance costs small businesses face when dealing with government. We absolutely want to do that.

We also want to assist small businesses and support the government by eliminating unnecessary red tape and allowing them to focus on what they do best, which is growing their businesses and creating jobs. We know that small and medium-sized businesses are the engines of Canada's economy. I always say that when people shop locally and invest in small and medium-sized businesses and when we make it easier for them by taking away a lot of the bureaucracy, they are the ones that grow jobs. They are the ones that hire people from the community and the people they hire then spend and put money back into the community, and the economic engine is invigorated. We absolutely need that.

It is said that the devil is in the details, and once again, there are details in this bill that are causing New Democrats concern. I mentioned it at the beginning, but let me stress it again. Bill C-21 would give the President of the Treasury Board arbitrary powers that would make him the arbiter of eliminating regulations that he deems unnecessary.

There are colleagues across the way who seem to have an allergy to science, data, experts or the people who actually do the work. I would say that in order to do this, we need to consult and engage the small business community so that they have a say in this, not to have a minister go behind closed doors and do some kind of pseudo-consultation online, talking to his buddies or the people who give him money. That is the not the kind of consultation or partnership needed as we move forward on such an important issue.

The other thing is that there are the important critical areas of the health and safety of Canadians and there is nothing specifically in the bill that says this bill does not apply to those regulations. It is mentioned briefly in the preamble, but I am always concerned when things are in preambles due to what I did in my other life, because things in preambles are just that, a kind of lead-up. However, those are the kinds of things we need enshrined in the bill. Health and safety are absolutely critical and nobody should be more conscious of that than members of Parliament after having seen what played out over the last few weeks and especially this week in the House.

Also, in the bill there is absolutely no mention of environmental issues. I know that a lot of my colleagues in the House across the way are in denial about climate change, but we are getting dire warnings in new reports coming out that the time to act is now and the time to talk is over. Therefore, there had better be something in the bill to address environmental protections as well.

I believe many of my colleagues across the way are absolutely serious about the health and safety of Canadians. I know some of them. I have worked on committees with some of them. They do care about the health and safety of Canadians, and they do care about the environment. I would urge them to urge that part of the House to accept our amendments, but also to bring forward changes themselves so that the health and safety of Canadians is an integral part of the bill, as well as the environmental issues.

Sometimes we talk about regulation and getting rid of red tape. Red tape is always a bit of a downer. No one ever wants red tape, the useless paperwork. At the same time, we have to remember that some regulations are good.

I am very nervous when the minister has that kind of arbitrary power, that on a whim, from a lobbyist pressuring him or her, what could happen in the future is deregulation occurring in areas where it should not. I do not want anyone to stand up and say that would never happen. We have seen that happen in this House, over and over again.

We are not the only ones saying this. Many people talk about the red tape irritants, and of course we want to get rid of those. We want to focus on growth and innovation. As parliamentarians, it behooves us to make sure that we do all of those things.

The government adopted a red tape reduction action plan that outlines 90 actions to be taken by government departments and six systemic reforms, including the implementation of the one-for-one rule. This guideline would require the government to eliminate one regulation for every new regulation it adopts. I think that is so that we do not run short of storage space, which would happen if we just keep adding regulations and never take any away.

Buried in this, is the fact that we have to look at which regulations actually do good and are there for the public good and to the protect businessmen, and which are not.

There are many things in the bill alone that will create more bureaucracy. The bill mandates a review after five years, thus triggering more administrative red tape. Then of course we will need the red tape police, and the red tape police will have to oversee those things.

I was looking at some of the failures that we have seen when regulation is looked at in such a limited way that all regulation is seen as just being in the way. What we are saying is that now is the time for a real consultation.

In the coming months, the NDP small business critic will be launching a national consultation with representatives of small businesses. That is the kind of parliamentary work we need. Young entrepreneurs and family businesses are key to a prosperous economic future for Canada. New Democrats will make sure that we focus on practical, common sense solutions to help them succeed. We are not going to do that by sitting here in Parliament. We are going to do that when we listen to those on whom our legislation is going to have a direct impact, in this case, the business community.

Only recently a businessman was telling me how much the hiring credit for small business in the 2014 budget would have helped him, but of course that is not there. When it comes to taking real action, my colleagues across the way just talk. Then we see this bill being rushed through.

I want to talk a little about the Conservatives' track record when it comes to safeguarding regulations and protecting the health and safety of Canadians. I say that because those are not protected explicitly in the legislation.

Let us just look at the Canadian aviation regulations when WestJet lobbied and got its staff to passenger ratios changed, just at a whim like that. That is what really scares me more than anything else, that the minister is going to be so prone to these lobbyists that will come forward. Of course, the Liberals do not have a clean record on this either because in 1999 the Liberals deregulated rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach adopted by Mulroney's Conservative government. They did not start it, but they did not stop it either.

We have seen some of those things happen, so finally and absolutely let us look at making it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to function but let us look at the full story on how we can support them.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-21, an act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, but let me make it clear that we are supporting it at second reading so that when it goes to committee, we can bring forward robust amendments. In the way it is being explained, the intention of the bill may sound good, but we believe there are major flaws and we believe these flaws could actually make it harder for small businesses, rather than easier.

The other thing is that I am always very nervous whenever I hear talk about getting rid of red tape, whether it is from the Liberal government in B.C. or the Conservative government here in Ottawa. I always wonder what the real agenda is and what the real issues are, because getting rid of red tape back in B.C. meant that hundreds and thousands of children who were designated special needs and therefore eligible for additional services lost those designations. That was considered getting rid of red tape and just simplifying things.

One of my other major concerns comes down to having very little trust in the current government to actually do what it says. Over and over again, I have seen MPs on the other side granting more and more power to ministers. That is also a major flaw in this piece of legislation. In this bill, just as in many immigration bills we have looked at in the past, we see a growing amount of power being vested in the hands of the minister so that actions can be taken without any parliamentary oversight, either through debate in the House or through debate in committee. That is very dangerous for our parliamentary democracy.

The whole idea of having parliamentarians here is so that we can have informed debates and bring forward amendments and move forward that way. The government talks about accountability and transparency but places more and more power in the hands of ministers, so very little comes to the House to be debated. When an issue does come to the House to be debated, Conservatives cannot bear the light to be shone on it or for real debate to break out, because at that time they move either closure or time restriction. All kinds of procedural angles are taken to cut off debate.

Before I get into talking about the bill itself, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to say that Sikhs in my riding of Newton—North Delta, which is one of the largest Sikh communities in Canada, are celebrating the Parkash, or the birth of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, and Gurpurab, along with Sikhs across our wonderful land from coast to coast to coast and Sikhs around the world. I want to wish all Sikhs celebrating this momentous occasion the very best. It is also a time when we reflect on the teaching that Guru Nanak Sahib Ji left for us, which was about doing service and about the value of honest work. It was about the value of sharing and building healthy communities. I do wish anyone who is celebrating this day, all the Sikhs around the world, happy Gurpurab day.

To get back to this legislation, it is very important to me and to my riding, which is spread along all the many arterial routes in Surrey.

I have a community that is made up of a huge number of small businesses. Entrepreneurs have come to this country, have made it their home, and through their hard work have added much to the tapestry of our Canadian way of life.

I hear from the business community constantly of the major challenges they face. Therefore, if the bill before us can reduce the bureaucratic requirements and the endless sheets of paper they have to fill out, of course we would want to do that.

I also hear from the small and medium-sized businesses that there are other things that would make their lives a lot easier. One of those things is an idea that we have been putting forward, which so far my colleagues across the way have not really heard. I do not know if those members are talking to the small and medium-sized businesses in their communities, because if they were, they would be hearing the same thing that I am hearing, which is that what is killing many of the small businesses is the transaction fees on credit and debit cards.

Just the other day, I pulled out my credit card to pay, but the business person told me that they only took cash or cheques. I was not buying a huge amount and I do not tend to carry cash, but as soon as he said that, I was reminded of how mindlessly we use credit cards. We forget that when we do a transaction that may be worth three or four dollars, the transaction fee that the businessman has to pay for processing the credit card is huge. For that small businessman in Toronto, that fee really cuts into the profit margin. As this businessman told me, it actually cuts into his ability to survive month to month.

I think that if we really want to help the small and medium-sized businesses, we should look at examples. We are so good at quoting England, the U.S., Australia, and other countries when we want to go to war, but let us take a look at some of their economic policies as well.

In Australia, if my memory serves me right, the transaction fee for a credit card is 0.6%. That is a huge difference from what some of our businesses pay, which is anywhere from 3% up to 6%. Of course, it all depends on the kind of credit card we are using.

We can just imagine—