Joan Crockatt

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to be getting up to speak on Bill C-22.

The energy safety and security act should actually boost Canadians' confidence in what is already a very world-class safety and regulatory regime for our offshore and nuclear industries.

Bill C-22 is important, and it is important to the marine environment that we all love. It demonstrates here today, with concrete proof, that our government is committed not only to protecting the safety and security of Canadians but also to protecting our environment.

Let us make no mistake: we are the only party in this House of Commons that is looking out for our environment and for our sustainable energy development. This energy development pays many of our bills, bills for education, pensions, and health care, things that vastly increase all Canadians' quality of life.

As we have said, under our responsible resource development plan, the development of our natural resources will proceed only, and I highlight this, if it is safely done in a way that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.

I want to give a little background.

Management of offshore oil and gas in this case is carried out jointly by the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government of Canada has been working very co-operatively with these two provinces to create a really strong offshore safety system for oil and gas exploration and operations, and it is world class.

That is not just rhetoric. In fact, an independent consultancy group, PFC Energy, rated Canada, the U.K., Norway, and Australia as the world leaders in offshore regimes, in contrast to what the NDP was trying to feed us a few minutes ago.

This is based on our unique combination of extensive regulations and processes. Bill C-22 is going to take those even further. The energy safety and security act reflects the continued collaboration with the provinces and really strengthens regulations in three main areas. Those are prevention, response, and accountability.

Today, given my limited time, I am going to focus on response, and pollution response specifically.

Bill C-22 enhances our response capability by adding what we are calling a new tool to the emergency response tool kit in the very unlikely event of a spill. That tool is spill-treating agents.

I will address what spill-treating agents are, why they are a very effective response option, and the stringent safeguards this bill puts in place so their use is environmentally safe.

I am sure all members in the House would agree with me on one thing, which is that in a world-class response regime, it is critical to have the capability to respond in the most effective way possible if there is ever an incident. A key component of Bill C-22 involves giving responders the very best technology and scientific advancements available so that they can have that swift and effective response.

Spill-treating agents are scientifically determined to be the best way to mitigate the environmental effects if there is a spill. Of course, our aim is to prevent any spills, and Canada does have an excellent track record. In fact, the vast majority of spills are under one litre. That is right: under one litre. I think it is important that Canadians know that so they can put this issue in context.

Our largest spill, regrettably, was 1,000 barrels at Terra Nova in 2004. The next-largest Atlantic Canada spill was just 38 barrels. That lets people know what we are dealing with here.

No spill, of course, is one we want to see, but when used appropriately, generally within the first 12 hours, spill-treating agents can reduce the impact of an oil spill on the environment. When these substances are applied to the oil spill, they change the behaviour of the oil so that they can help control the path that the spill is going to take and they can mitigate the effects of the spill on the coastal or marine environment. They will also assist in the natural process of biodegradation.

Spill-treating agents are not new. In fact, they are an accepted part of the offshore oil and gas safety regime in a number of countries with regimes similar to Canada's, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway.

At present, spill treating agents are not used here in Canada, but in 2013 the tanker safety expert panel, an independent panel that was commissioned by Transport Canada, recommended that the government approve the use of these spill treating agents. Therefore, with this bill today we are accepting that recommendation. We believe it really does make sense. I should stress that these agents would only be used if their use would result in an overall net environmental benefit.

With that in mind, there are four conditions we have put in place in the bill. These agents could only be used if the conditions are met. First, the spill treating agent must be on an approved list prescribed by the government. Second, the spill treating agent must be included in the operator's spill contingency plan, which must be approved by the offshore regulator before the operator begins operations. Third, the regulator's chief conservation officer, who is an individual with a wide range of powers, has to determine that the use of the spill treating agent is really likely to achieve this environmental net benefit. Fourth, the spill treating agent has to be used in conjunction with the regulations and conditions that are imposed by the chief conservation officer I just spoke about.

I will just explain these conditions in a bit more depth. The first condition states that the spill treating agent has to be on a prescribed list. The minister of the environment, not the minister of natural resources, would actually establish this list based on scientific evidence regarding the potential for these agents to provide an environmentally beneficial effect. It is setting that bar very high.

The second condition is built into the operating licence. Every operator has to submit a contingency plan in order to actually obtain an operating licence. If the operator wants to use a spill treating agent, it has to be included in that plan. The regulatory bodies here are the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Unless one of these two boards determines that the use of the spill treating agent is likely to achieve this net environmental benefit, it would not be accepted as part of the spill contingency plan.

The effect of all this is to require really careful consideration of whether the spill treating agents are actually appropriate and environmentally beneficial, both at the front end of the planning process, as well as later on in the planning process when an event might actually happen. This planning would also allow for informed decisions to be made quickly, because in the event of a spill we want to act fast, so that we can contain it.

The third condition, that the offshore board has to determine that the use of the spill treating agent must be likely to achieve an environmental net benefit, is a way to verify that the response options that are put into that plan at the beginning are actually going to be appropriate on the scene, as every spill has different conditions. It would be assessed on both ends. There are a lot of variables that can be present at the time of a spill that might make the agents appropriate or not. They are things like waves and tides and how much the product might be dispersed.

The fourth and final condition is that the spill treating agent would have to be used in accordance with the regulations and any additional conditions that are imposed by the chief conservation officer. This gives some flexibility to further fine tune the conditions on the scene as our use of scientific and technical know-how evolves.

In conclusion, spill treating agents are part of a comprehensive toolkit of spill response techniques. Responders have indicated that they want them in their toolkit. Currently, the mechanical techniques they are using that we are most familiar with, booms and skimmers, can be quite effective but superior results can often be gained by using these spill treating agents.

Bill C-22 provides numerous checks and balances, which I have gone through, to ensure they would only be deployed when their use would be of a net environmental benefit. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, in his fall 2012 report, supported these measures.

Bill C-22 is one more reason Canadians can have confidence that their government is diligently protecting all of our interests in developing offshore oil and gas and protecting our environment every step of the way. I ask my hon. colleagues opposite to join us in supporting Bill C-22 at second reading so it can move on to committee.

[Women Entrepreneurs, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, women entrepreneurs make up one of the fastest-growing segments of the Canadian economy but are still a huge untapped engine of economic growth. That is why our government spearheaded an initiative in budget 2014 to encourage leadership and entrepreneurship in young women.

Last week we heard what works with fantastic clarity from two great women leaders: Christine Day, CEO of Luvo, formerly of lululemon; and Heather Kennedy, vice-president of Suncor. It is thanks to champions who got them off the sidelines and encouraged them to run with the ball and take on big challenges like starting their own business.

Our Minister of Status of Women is a huge champion of women. Her champion was Jim Flaherty. My champions were my mom; one of my first editors, Bill Peterson; and Ken King, now of the Calgary Flames.

I challenge everyone listening to champion a young woman so that she can go and be the best that she can be and reach her dreams. It will also be one of the best things we can do for our country.

[Access to Information Act, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I intended to oppose.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite could not be more wrong. That is typical of the NDP, the protest party. Its members will look for any protester in any way that they can bring forward on any bill. I would urge them to look at what the bill would do and get behind first nations in Canada that want to move forward. They should not stay with the patriarchal old system of the past, but rather move ahead with the first nations educators who are ready, willing and able to take control of first nations. They have been waiting for this is an historic agreement for 40 years.

I urge the members opposite to look forward.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians really want to know is if this makes the future better for our aboriginal kids. That is the bottom line.

I can go through the nooks and crannies of the bill. However, the nub of it is that this is an absolutely historic bill that gives first nations control over their own education. We are doing that as a government because first nations are ready for that control. They have magnificent models. Right now they have well-educated first nations people who run schools and who can bring other first nations along. They will deliver the kind of education their kids deserve.

Incidentally, this agreement is similar to something the Liberals brought forward. However, our bill, which they are not supporting, also gives them control over language and culture. Those are two very important new components that make this a truly historic bill.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked that question, because it was historic that this legislation was announced in Alberta, her home province and mine.

The number of first nations leaders who were there, the chiefs who were there, the diversity of the chiefs from across the country, the quality of the educators who were there was positively phenomenal. We really do have a core of amazing leaders in first nations education who are ready to take on this mantle and do a tremendous job with it.

The member was asking about consultation. The national panel led by Chuck Strahl, who we all know did an amazing job as minister, visited 30 communities and 25 schools. There were seven round tables, telephone town halls, 30 teleconferences, and 600 chiefs and councils had this document shared with them. In every first nation in Canada, the joint council of education professionals will carry that forward.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education act.

I had an opportunity to travel to the Kainai First Nation in February. One morning there was an absolutely magnificent sunrise on the trip from Calgary to Kainai. It was so apt, because this really is a new dawn for our first nations. This is an historic agreement. It has been 41 years that they have been waiting for control over first nations education, and this is a bill that all opposition members should be fully behind. This changes the trajectory for our first nations people in giving them control over their own education. It really is a huge accomplishment. We on the government side of the House recognize the inherent value of working together with our first nations to achieve this kind of a breakthrough in first nations education.

The NDP in particular continues to perpetuate myths and distort the bill. I would like to take the opportunity today to set the record straight. I feel very passionately about this because I spoke to the leaders in education, people like Chief Charlie Weasel Head, who really believe that this is going to change the future for them.

I would like to examine each of these myths one by one.

Some are saying that first nations do not need the government to tell them how to educate their children and if the government would just give them funding without strings attached, first nations would be better off. In fact, as it stands now, first nation students are the only students in this entire country who do not benefit from minimum legislated standards for such things as teacher qualifications or attendance requirements. The result is that kids from these reserves have diplomas from first nation schools that are not recognized by post-secondary institutions.

Do the NDP and Liberals really want that? Do we want those kids to finish their schooling thinking that they can get into post-secondary institutions and then be denied that opportunity? No, we do not want that.

The bill, in consultation with our first nations, proposes five basic minimum standards that would ensure our first nation kids would have access to the same high-quality education as kids from the rest of the country. As well, it would allow for flexibility to incorporate first nations language and culture. Those are two things that are really key in the bill, including first nations language immersion.

Another misconception being spread about the bill is that it would not actually give first nations control over their education systems. Well, Chief Charlie Weasel Head, National Chief Shawn Atleo, the educators I spoke to, and the many other leaders who were there for that announcement on that day entirely disagree.

It has been claimed that the minister would have the ability to appoint temporary administrators to take back control of first nations education because the joint committee would also be appointed by the minister. Let me set the record straight on that too. The goal of the bill is to improve outcomes for first nation students on reserve, and both first nations and the government agree that this is best achieved through first nations control over education.

To this end, the bill has been structured to, one, allow first nations to choose their own governance model; two, develop and deliver their own curriculum; three, choose how they are going to incorporate language and culture if they wish to do so; four, choose their own inspectors; five, control the hiring and firing of their teachers; and six, determine how their students are going to be assessed and how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days.

The joint council of education professionals would have five to nine members, all of whom would have to have knowledge of and/or experience in elementary or secondary education. Four of them would be nominated by the AFN, based on their own selection process. These are people who are very skilled in education. They have a strong track record and they want to mentor their own people to be able to deliver this kind of quality education.

The chair of the committee would be recommended by the minister in consultation with the Assembly of First Nations, and, further, the legislation would ensure that the minister must consult with the joint council on matters related to the creation of first nation education authorities, appointing temporary administrators, and creation of regulations.

This shows an unprecedented level of both trust and respect for the idea that first nations people will know how to deliver education that is going to meet the future needs of their first nations kids.

Another erroneous myth surrounds money. The NDP claims that the core funding is not enough. It says that $1.2 billion over three years does not go far enough and that the new funding supports have to begin immediately.

It does not surprise me that the NDP is mistaken again. The bill would establish a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister not only to fund education but also to do this in a way that allows for quality services that are reasonably comparable to those off-reserve services in the provincial system, and that is key.

Economic action plan 2014 confirmed the new investments of $1.252 billion in core funding beginning in 2016, in addition to the $1.55 billion that we already spend on first nations education every year. These are big numbers, and they need to be there because education is so important.

We removed the 2% cap that was put in place by the Liberals and we replaced it with a 4.5% escalator that is going to ensure the sustainability of this funding. It is estimated that over the next five years we are going to spend $9.2 billion in core funding alone for first nations education. Our Conservative government has committed all along to the principle of investing in these reforms.

It is worth noting that the NDP voted against this much needed funding, which was included in economic action plan 2014. What else is new?

Members from the NDP also took issue with infrastructure investments, in one case even claiming that the government should be spending upward of $50 million per school in over 600 communities. We do believe that investments are needed in infrastructure, but we do not want all the money that should be spent on the education of these kids, our kids, on these reserves going into bricks and mortar. We have to do that efficiently and make sure that, yes, our first nations students have safe and proper facilities in which to learn, but, more importantly, that they also have funding for the teachers and the programming that are going to help them succeed in the future.

We will use $500 million to support new school projects and renovations to existing school infrastructure across the country in a way that ensures healthy, quality, safe environments for first nations students.

Another common refrain that we hear is that Bill C-33 is simply a cosmetic change from the draft legislative proposal released in November. Our first nations leaders certainly do not believe that. I would like to point out that the five conditions for success were set out in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations at its Special Chiefs Assembly in December. Our Conservative government worked collaboratively to respond to these conditions in the first nations control of first nations education act. These conditions are now going to be entrenched in law.

This is truly amazing. This is one of the moments that all Canadians should be celebrating as absolutely historic.

We will establish, in legislation, control by first nations of their own elementary and secondary school systems, recognizing first nations treaty rights and respecting their inherent right to self-government. We will create an independent joint council of education professionals with a robust oversight role to ensure that ministerial powers are only used as a last resort. It would ensure in law the ability to incorporate first nations language and culture programming into the education curriculum, including immersion. It would establish in law, for the first time in history, a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister for education on the reserves. It would establish in law the requirement for ongoing, meaningful engagement on first nations education by the Government of Canada, supported by the joint council.

Anyone who suggests that Bill C-33 did not take into account the input of first nations is simply wrong. I hope that I was able to reassure the House that the misconceptions being perpetuated by the NDP hold no water.

I call on all members to support this bill, including the NDP and the Liberals, who have been strangely silent on this bill despite the fact their own government proposed something very similar just before it fell in 2005. They have been silent on this bill. I call on all of them to support this bill.

As Shawn Atleo said:

This work is simply too important to walk away and abandon our students to the next round of discussions....

It is time to act. It is time to pass this historic legislation and give our kids on first nations reserves the education they deserve and first nations the ability to control that education.

[Fair Elections Act, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday our government announced it would support amendments to the fair elections act. The amended bill would end the use of the voter information card, which is an unreliable form of ID and a move that many of my constituents in Calgary Centre say is needed.

Also, it will not be possible for voters to show up with no ID and have someone vouch for who they are. While the amended fair elections act would end the use of vouching and all voters would have to show ID, if their ID has no address on it, which is a concern for students, they could have someone with proper ID co-sign an oath of address. However, those who give false information would face up to a $50,000 fine, or even jail time. The law would require Elections Canada to check people who take the oath as well as their co-signers to ensure that no one votes more than once. A post-election audit would ensure that these rules are followed.

Canadians believe that these changes are common sense and reasonable, and they support them.

[Tragedy in Calgary, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we experienced a horrific tragedy in Calgary, with the murders of five beloved young Calgarians. At a time when university students should have been celebrating the end of exams and the beginning of the holidays, Lawrence Hong, Joshua Hunter, Kaiti Perras, Zackariah Rathwell, and Jordan Segura were taken from us.

Like all Calgarians, I was absolutely devastated.

I am sure that all members of this House join me in offering our deep condolences to the families and friends of these remarkable young Canadians. Their loss is all of our loss. Kaiti's drive, Lawrence's volunteerism, Zack's charisma, Jordan's compassion and humour, and Josh's unique beat will always be remembered. Through direct actions in the community, these five gave so much of themselves.

Seeing our city gathered together to remember them over the last week is a testament to the lasting and positive effect that they have left on all of our lives. We will remember them.

[Housing, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, housing first is simple. The greatest urgency when dealing with chronic homelessness is to get people off the streets and into a home, yet the Liberals oppose housing first, and the Westmount—Ville-Marie MP has expressed concerns that focusing on housing excludes other very important initiatives.

Well, today we have more proof that it works. A Mental Health Commission study found that 2,000 homeless Canadians with mental illness found stable housing through housing first. What is the government doing in ridings like mine to benefit homeless Canadians by putting housing first?