House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 43% of the vote.
Natural Resources January 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Centre for her very timely question.
As we all know, the Keystone XL pipeline would enhance national security and create tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. It has been the most studied natural resource project in the history of the world. The time for decision is now.
It is shameful that the NDP continues to stand against job creation and the interests of middle-class Canadians.
Foreign Affairs January 27th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome again the member for Provencher.
I was honoured to join the Prime Minister on his historic visit to Israel, a friend and ally with whom we share the core values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
The Prime Minister's extraordinary speech in the Knesset, the receipt of an honorary doctorate, the moving visit to the Holocaust museum in Yad Vashem and the Western Wall were among the memorable visits. I was also encouraged by the potential to build our bilateral trade and co-operation in science and technology and our overall strategic relationship.
Natural Resources December 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince Albert for his insightful question.
Recently, the NDP leader escalated his shambolic opposition to resource development by saying that he would overhaul the regulatory process and prevent some projects from applying for an independent regulatory review.
This sends a very unsettling message to capital markets about the NDP at the very moment domestic and international investors are considering multi-billion dollar investments in energy projects. In contrast, our government allows the regulators to do their job.
Natural Resources December 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, our government will wait to hear from the independent scientific review before it makes its determination.
I have spoken to many first nations and they understand the importance of the transformative opportunities of responsible resource development to the economy and to the communities in their area.
I am very encouraged by their response to the Eyford report. Going forward, we are going to work together in their best interests.
Questions on the Order Paper December 3rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the C-NLOPB, continues to act on the recommendations in the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, the OHSI, that are within its purview, including in the area of worker safety on helicopters.
While industry has signalled its interest in extending flying hours, the C-NLOPB has not yet received a formal application. Once received, the C-NLOPB will conduct a thorough analysis and ensure that the eight conditions required by the Board are met. Until then, night flights will not resume.
Further information on the C-NLOPB eight conditions may be found at http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/advdoc12.pdf.
With regard to (a), the following four publicly available studies on helicopter night flights to oil facilities, related to the safety of day flights versus night flights in transporting employees to and from the offshore work site, have been conducted and can be found on the C-NLOPB’s web site: report by SMS Aviation Safety Inc. in support of the OHSI implementation team, entitled “Operational Safety Risk Analysis of Night Helicopter Transport Operations in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Industry”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/osrareport.pdf; operators’ report, entitled “Return to Night Passenger Transport Operations”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/nightpassengerupdate.pdf; “Level of Service Requirements for First Response Helicopters”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/levofserv.pdf; and “Level of Service Analysis Gap”, by Cougar Helicopters, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/losanalysis.pdf.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada takes the recommendations of the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry seriously and continues to work with the boards, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to strengthen worker safety in Canada’s offshore.
The government has full confidence in our experienced, independent offshore regulators to responsibly manage occupational health and safety requirements as well as oil and gas development. The C-NLOPB has been structured in such a way as to ensure that worker safety is managed separately under the supervision of a chief safety officer, a CSO, with considerable independent authority. The CSO can order the discontinuation of an operation at any moment if he or she believes there is risk of serious bodily harm. Such an order can only be overturned by a judge.
Further, following consultations with industry, regulators, and labour groups, the Government of Canada, in partnership with the Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, is proposing improvements to legislation that will establish a clear occupational health and safety framework in legislation that is enforceable by law and free of any jurisdictional uncertainty. The proposed changes will also provide modern enforcement powers to new occupational health and safety officers and existing operational safety officers and will clarify that the occupational health and safety regime applies to employees and other passengers in transit to and from offshore workplaces.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada has not conducted a detailed cost estimate for an independent safety regulator.
Questions on the Order Paper November 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, CRL, is safely and securely stored and managed in a number of above-ground and in-ground waste management structures and areas at the site. Several options are being considered for the long-term management of these wastes. The range of options being considered includes surface, near-surface, and deep geologic facilities. The investigations are currently in the option assessment stage. Feasibility studies are under way or planned to inform decision-making on the types of long-term waste management facilities required to safely manage these wastes over the long term.
With regard to (b), all low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at CRL, including that stored in above ground concrete structures, is maintained in a safe and secure condition, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, licence conditions. The integrity of this storage is verified on an ongoing basis through appropriate monitoring of the containment and the surrounding environment. This waste will be maintained in secure storage until permanent disposal facilities are available. The design life for the above-ground concrete storage structures, commonly referred to as shielded modular above-ground storage, or SMAGS, is 50 years.
With regard to (c), long-term performance is evaluated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, via monitoring to confirm that the wastes continue to be stored safely, and the results are reported to the CNSC. The first Canadian SMAGS was constructed in 1982 by Ontario Hydro on the Bruce nuclear site and has been in service, without issue, since that time. AECL has two such facilities in service at CRL, as well as an earlier-generation facility with less shielding, which is for low-level radioactive waste only.
With regard to (d), a number of long-term management options are being considered for AECL’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, including the possibility of a deep geologic facility. AECL is currently conducting a site suitability assessment of the CRL site for a deep geologic facility for its intermediate-level radioactive waste. The study is part of AECL’s efforts to define the infrastructure required for the long-term management of radioactive waste at CRL. The site suitability assessment is not yet complete and, as such, neither a project description nor a project scope has been developed.
With regard to (e), the cost assessments completed to date have been high-level estimates for possible deep geologic facility concepts and are not sufficiently developed for public release. The high-level estimates are, however, in line with estimates for other similar proposed facilities.
With regard to (f), a long-term performance assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a long-term performance assessment has not yet been completed. Such an assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.
With regard to (g), a post closure safety assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a post-closure safety assessment has not yet been completed. This assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.
With regard to (h), public awareness of the feasibility study has been promoted through interaction with the local environmental stewardship council for CRL and presentation of results at conferences.
With regard to (i), should the site suitability study indicate that a deep geologic facility would be feasible for the Chalk River site, directed public consultations would proceed on the options for managing Chalk River’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste over the long term. This would include the possibility of a deep geologic repository. The process would involve the local community, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the broader public. If a decision was made to proceed with a deep geologic facility, an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, would be required, providing further opportunities for public involvement.
With regard to (j), as no decision has been made on whether to proceed with a deep geologic facility, no peer review process is in place. It would be important to include a peer review process if the project moves ahead.
Natural Resources October 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, our government is running a marathon for Canada. Meanwhile the leader of the Liberals totes up without a semblance of a plan, while the leader of the NDP throws roadblocks in our way and urges on our competitors.
At the finish line, Canadians will know who brought them jobs, economic security, and prosperity as opposed to those who stand on the sidelines or use every tactic in the book to block the path to Canadian success.
Offshore Health and Safety Act October 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, discussions with the province led to the conclusion that it was impossible to define the term “danger”. It was decided that the best course of action was to rely on the standard interpretation of that word, but to create a power to define the term if the standard definition or legal interpretation changed to a point that altered the effectiveness of the OHS portion of the accord acts. That is why we are seeking power to define certain terms by regulation when this is traditionally a power reserved for Parliament.
The terms “dive site” and “diving operation” and “incident” were later added to this list. The provinces also requested that the definitions of Nova Scotia's social legislation and Newfoundland and Labrador's social legislation be amendable in this fashion as it most closely follows the existing accord acts. This is a practical way to achieve the public policy objective and it is more effective done through regulation than through legislation.
Offshore Health and Safety Act October 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the member for the question because this area, as I indicated in my comments, is crucially important not only for Atlantic Canada but for all Canadians.
Offshore oil production from Atlantic Canada contributes significantly to national production, including 35% of total Canadian light crude production and 10% of total Canadian crude production in 2009.
The offshore oil and gas industry is important to provincial economies. In 2009, it was 3% of Nova Scotia's GDP, and directly and indirectly employed over 4,700 people, while offshore oil and gas accounted for 33% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2011. The offshore oil and gas industry has also provided approximately $8 billion in royalties to those provinces since the offset of production. The industry also provides economic benefits through spinoff activities and contributes to federal and provincial tax revenues, which are so important for funding critical social programs such as health care, education and housing.
The offshore oil and gas industry contributes more to national GDP than all other ocean-related industries, such as fisheries, government, tourism and transportation, by a significant margin.
Providing safety for workers is a critical underpinning to this industry. That is why we ask all members to support the bill.
Offshore Health and Safety Act October 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, those are two rather different questions, one is non-fiction and the other is closer to fiction or science fiction.
Let me deal with recommendation no. 29 of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, the recommendation to establish an independent safety regulator.
Canada's offshore regulatory regime is world-class and strong. I want to emphasize that it has independent regulators and high standards for worker safety, environmental protection and resource conservation. These are independent boards and are not beholden to industry in any way. It is important to note that the federal government does not support the proliferation of regulators when the result would do nothing to enhance safety, worker protection or environmental protection, for that matter.
Nevertheless, senior officers at Natural Resources Canada remain in close contact with their counterparts in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on a host of issues relating to offshore oil and gas production and in respect to this particular recommendation. We will be continuing to pursue that dialogue and hope that we can arrive at something that will be satisfactory.
Moving on to the fiction, the allegation, those words, which I will not repeat, were not stated by me but attributed to me on a number of occasions by political opponents and others. We very much respect the concern that Canadians have for their safety as well as for the environment and our beautiful natural heritage. We have done a great deal to protect the environment and will continue to do so.