John Barlow

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member missed in my speech was that this is an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and first nations. There is a consultation process to come to these types of agreements. The proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act would allow the minister, after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, to give this binding agreement. However, it would be after consultation with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, and those consultations would have to take place before these agreements were reached.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me tonight.

No government in Canada's history has done as much for the north as ours. From regulatory improvement to safeguarding Arctic sovereignty, our Conservative government has stood by northerners. Bill S-6 is just the latest measure we have taken to ensure the true north remains strong and free. By driving economic development and encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, Bill S-6 would make sure that Yukon and Nunavut remain attractive places to live, work and invest long term.

Bill S-6 is only the most recent endeavour in our government's plan to improve the northern regulatory regimes. Like all the legislation passed to date under the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, Bill S-6 is designed to increase efficiency, clarity and certainty respecting the regulatory processes. At the same time, the act would strengthen environmental protection and enhance consultations with aboriginal people, reaffirming them in their role in this regulatory process.

Let me cite just a few examples to illustrate how Bill S-6 would achieve these objectives. I will start by noting that the act would implement the principle of one project, one assessment. Under the current version of the YESEAA all kinds of small, routine modifications to projects get caught up in time-consuming and costly reassessment processes.

During meetings held this fall by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, senators heard complaints about this from numerous companies and industry associations. I would like to quote David Morrison, president and CEO of Yukon Energy Corporation from September 25, 2014. He said:

You might get a two-month delay in an assessment process that costs you a year from a construction point of view, because you have missed the construction window. Those things really add up. They add up significantly.

For years there have been calls for a less duplicative and cumbersome review process to evaluate these projects, one that encourages development while also ensuring sound environmental stewardship. This is exactly what Bill S-6 would do.

Consistent with other northern environmental legislation, the act would lead to more predictable and timely reviews, in part due to less duplication and reduce regulatory burden. Going forward, there would be no need for a reassessment, for renewal or modification to a project unless the decision body, or bodies, determine the project has undergone significant change from what was originally assessed.

By retaining the integrity of the initial environmental assessment, but reducing unnecessary duplication, we are protecting the northern environment without resorting to drastic measures, like the job-killing carbon tax the Liberals and NDP favour.

Another example is, Clynton Nauman, president and CEO, Alexco Resource Corp. also told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on September 30, 2014, that work was needed to ensure Yukon remains competitive with respect to investment in resource development. He said:

The current uncertainty has had a negative impact on our ability to efficiently plan and operate our business, and by extension, it impairs the competitiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to assert certainty in the mine development and production process.

The Fraser Institute's 2014 survey of mining companies confirms this. Since 2011-12, Yukon has fallen from being ranked as the most desirable jurisdiction in the world for mining corporations to invest in, to the ninth. Our government and Yukoners like Clynton Nauman know it is important for Yukon to return to this impressive standing. The measures contained in Bill S-6 would help Yukon regain its previous success.

These measures are essential for the people of Yukon to realize the territory's full potential. It would also meet the needs of investors, developers and employers by providing a clear and predictable assessment process that would allow Yukon to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

As I mentioned earlier, to avoid duplication with respect to environmental assessments in the Yukon, Bill S6 would eliminate the need to reapply for water licences in Nunavut, unless there is a substantive change in the nature of the project. Substantive changes are modifications like diverting the course of a stream, increasing the size or changing the location of a tailings pond, or a large increase in the use of water. Again, similar to the YESEAA amendments found in Bill S-6, this provision would protect the environment without implementing a costly job-killing carbon tax.

Another way Bill S-6 would address the regulatory burden is by providing an extension to the terms of board members under YESAA. This was one of the jointly agreed upon recommendations in a five-year review of YESAA by the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, the Government of Yukon, and the Government of Canada. This will increase predictability and certainty by ensuring that the assessment continues to function smoothly, even as its members transition onto the board.

A further example of how Bill S-6 would reduce duplication is evident in Nunavut. I am referring to amendments related to security arrangements to rectify the situation known as over bonding. Let me first explain briefly what this means and how it relates to posting securities. Securities are monies companies set aside to ensure that at the end of a development project, there are adequate funds to remediate the impact of any project on the surrounding environment. Under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, securities for future remediation of resource development projects that use or impact the water in any way are paid or posted by companies. This money is held in trust by the federal government until the end of that project.

Where a project is wholly or partially on Inuit-owned land, the regional Inuit association can request that additional security be posted for the part of the development on its lands. In some cases, this has resulted in over bonding, meaning that a company is required to provide more security than would be required to remediate a project at its completion. This is a significant disincentive to development and places an undue burden on proponents.

Proposed amendments in Bill S-6 would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to enter into agreements with Inuit landowners and proponents. These agreements would recommend the amount of security to be posted on a project situated partially or wholly on lnuit-owned land. When the Nunavut Water Board determined the amount of security required to be furnished by the proponent, it would have to take these agreements into consideration. The introduction of security arrangements to address over bonding would help unlock the economic potential of Nunavut by removing a disincentive to investment while ensuring sound environmental stewardship.

Because Bill S-6 would reduce regulatory duplication and the burden on Yukon and Nunavut, it is little wonder that Bill S-6 has earned widespread support among industry groups and northern governments. From the Yukon Chamber of Mines in the west to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines in the east, from the Government of Nunavut to the Government of Yukon, we have heard both praise and calls to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

We want northerners to have the ability to drive economic development in the north. Passing this bill would create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for the north. This is why I strongly urge all parties to heed this advice and vote with us to move this legislation forward.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is being overlooked here is the impact the bill would have on the economy of Yukon and Nunavut. That is very important. We are talking about resource extraction and mining.

Our government has made it very clear that growth and creating jobs and long-term prosperity for the north are a top priority for us. The bill would have a very prominent role in guiding Yukon to its future success.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little about what the bill would do for the economic development of Yukon.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall anything in this legislation about Mr. Obama or the Keystone pipeline. This is specifically about pipeline safety. We can go off track if the member likes, but I would like to bring it back to what we are talking about here.

We have had a world-class safety regime in place. Opposition members may not like the fact, but the fact is that we have a 99.999% safety rating already, which goes to show that we have had an unbelievable safety record. However, that does not mean that we have to stop there. As I said in my speech, one incident is one incident too many. We want to make sure that every avenue is available so if there ever is a spill from a major pipeline, there will be regimes in place to address it. That is why the $1 billion dollar liability was put in place, so that if anything ever happens in the future, there will be is a strong safety net to ensure that it is cleaned up.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason that was not included is that we want to focus on the major pipelines, the ones that would be the most damaging to the environment if something happened to them. That is why the $1 billion liability was put in place. It far exceeds any other regime in the world. We looked at the numbers and the average cleanup, if anything ever happens, is between $20 million and $50 million. So the $1 billion is more than enough to cover the vast majority of any accidents that would happen.

However, with these changes to the act, there will be funds there for the National Energy Board so that it can step in and address some of these cleanups, should there be a spill. I hope that answers his question.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wild Rose for sharing his time with me, and for his presentation.

I am delighted to participate in this important debate today. This is an important discussion because pipelines are one of the lifelines of our economy. They get the energy we use every day to Canadians across the country.

By amending the National Energy Board Act, Bill C-46 proposes a number of new measures to make our pipelines across Canada even safer.

For many Canadians the National Energy Board, the NEB, may not be something they are very familiar with, so I would like to take some of my time today to focus on what it does, the role it plays, and some of the changes to it that we are proposing.

Established 56 years ago, the National Energy Board has a very clear mandate: to regulate international and interprovincial pipelines, power lines, and energy trade. Today, that means overseeing 73,000 kilometres of pipelines and transporting more than $100 billion of natural gas, oil, and petroleum products each year.

The NEB boasts a staff of about 450 highly skilled experts with a wide range of experience, from engineers to inspectors, to environmental specialists and economists. Their expertise makes the NEB one of the most renowned regulators in the world. I want to make that very clear: it is one of the most renowned, respected regulators in the world.

Equally important, the NEB is independent. It reports through Parliament but is independent of it. Quite simply, it operates at arm's length and has full autonomy. The board uses that independence to rigorously apply science-based analysis to every review it conducts. Those reviews, which are among the most robust in the world, are based on a number of criteria, including the environmental, economic, and social aspects of each and every proposal.

Canadians may ask, what is the end goal? What is the overarching goal of the National Energy Board? The goal is to keep our pipelines and the public safe while, at the very same time, ensuring that the environment is protected.

If an application is successful, and only then, it is still subject to further conditions established by the board.

To enforce its rulings, the NEB has a number of important powers. It can impose administrative penalties on pipeline companies, lower the amount of product allowed through the pipelines, or even shut them down entirely. In some cases, prison sentences from one year to even five years could be imposed for violations to the National Energy Board Act.

Only when the board is confident that a pipeline can be built and operated safely does the company earn the right to proceed with that project. However, the board's role does not end there. It oversees the full cycle of a pipeline, from concept to construction, to operation, to eventual abandonment of that pipeline. That means ongoing audits, inspections, and emergency exercises, with some 300 such compliance actions being conducted in 2013 alone. These ongoing audits and inspections are important. It also means that they continue to raise their standards, requiring more of pipeline companies, imposing stricter conditions, and also conducting rigorous testing.

Under this regime, the board has performed exceedingly well. For example, between 2008 and 2013, 99.99% of oil and other products transported through federally regulated pipelines was moved safely.

Let me be clear here again. That is an outstanding safety record, a record that any country in the world would be envious of. It is a wonderful tribute to the work of the National Energy Board and Canada's pipeline operators.

While we are gratified, we are certainly not satisfied. Our goal must be to have no incidents whatsoever. One incident is one incident too many. That is why, as part of our government's plan for responsible resource development, we have already strengthened the NEB, enabling it to increase its annual oil and gas line inspections by 50% and to double the number of annual comprehensive audits. These inspections and audits are critical proactive measures, because they can identify potential issues and prevent incidents from occurring, which we heard quite a bit about today.

The changes proposed in the bill are another good step toward ensuring that these accidents do not happen. We have provided the NEB with new powers to improve prevention by imposing tough monetary penalties against pipeline operators who do not comply with those regulations. These penalties, which range from $25,000 to $100,000 per day per infraction can also be cumulative, should the infractions not be addressed.

Now, with Bill C-46 we would go even further. Additional amendments to the National Energy Board Act would set a new standard for pipeline safety, ensuring that we have world-class protection. New measures would focus on preventing incidents from occurring, improving our ability to prepare and respond to events, and ensuring that the polluter pay through a tougher liability and compensation regime. In terms of prevention, we would tap into the expertise of the National Energy Board by seeking the board's guidance on the best available technologies for constructing and operating pipelines. As new technologies are developed, we want to ensure they are put into practice. We want to ensure that our safety systems remain evergreen and ever on the cutting edge.

We would also clarify the audit and inspection powers of the NEB, as well as the obligations of the pipeline companies to respond to requests arising out of these actions.

Moreover, we would modernize the damage-prevention regime to further harmonize it with provincial guidelines to prevent accidental damage through digging or other activities.

On preparedness and response, we would amend the National Energy Board Act to require companies that operate major pipelines to have a minimum of $1 billion in financial resources, a portion of which must be readily available to quickly react to any incident.

If a company is unable or unwilling to respond immediately, the NEB would have, in exceptional circumstances, the power to take over response operations and to recover the costs of those operations from the industry. In other words, the Government of Canada would provide the NEB the authority to respond and provide a financial backstop, in addition to giving the NEB the authority and funds to complete any cleanup. The bottom line here is that in the unlikely event there is an incident, the response would be swift, it would be thorough, and it would not be paid for out of the pockets of Canadians.

This bill would also strengthen our system of liability and compensation. Not only would pipeline companies now face unlimited liability when found to be at fault, but companies would automatically be responsible for damages up to a set amount. This is called “absolute liability”. It would not matter who or what caused the incident; the company would be responsible regardless. In the case of companies operating major oil pipelines, once again, that liability would be $1 billion, more than in any other country in the world.

What is more, this bill would allow the government to pursue pipeline operators for the costs of environmental damage, and it would empower the NEB to order reimbursement of cleanup costs incurred by either government or individuals. Finally, the NEB would be able to recover its own costs by stepping in to coordinate a response.

These are among the most sweeping changes to the National Energy Board Act since it was passed in 1959. This is a clear indication of how committed this government is to ensuring that Canada can safely transport the energy Canadians need and use every day.

Canadians understand that the energy sector is a critical part of our economy. It provides jobs and opportunities from coast to coast to coast. Canadians know how important the energy sector is to our quality of life and to our communities. However, they also want be reassured that our environment will be protected. Our government shares those priorities. That is why we are bringing forward this bill and I urge all members to support it.

[Okotoks Legion 291, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Legions in my riding of Macleod, as I am sure they are in many other areas of Canada, are vital to the success of our rural communities. Not only are they responding to the needs of veterans, which is critical, but they are supporting essential community programs.

I am proud to say that the legions in my riding are renowned across the country. For example, Turner Valley Branch 78 spearheaded the establishment of Birth of a Nation Day, and Crowsnest Pass is home to three of Alberta's oldest legions.

Now I am honoured to say that Macleod is also home to one of Canada's newest legions. In October, the Royal Canadian Legion Okotoks Branch 291 earned its charter, celebrating the rebirth of the legion in Okotoks after more than a 20-year absence. The Okotoks legion already boasts more than 150 members, many of whom have served in the Canadian and British armed forces.

The establishment of a new legion is something I think we should all be celebrating. I would like to congratulate the organizers on their success and the beginning of what I hope will be a long legion tradition in Okotoks.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. This is precisely why our government has deployed the Canadian Armed Forces in the fight against ISIL.

Every day we hear new reports of crimes against humanity committed by this terrorist group. Yesterday was no exception. According to human rights groups, ISIL terrorists abducted at least 90 people from Christian villages in northeastern Syria.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please provide Canada's update on this atrocity?

[Natural Resources, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have an important opportunity to build on our record of responsible resource development while securing long-term security for all Canadians, which I think is particularly important for the people of my riding of Macleod. This is why our government is taking action to ensure that we benefit from the economic potential of our natural resources.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on the Prime Minister's exciting announcement yesterday?

[Violence Against Women, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as a father of two daughters, violence against women and girls is a profound concern.

I am proud to say that under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this government is working hard with community stakeholders to address this issue.

Our commitment is clear: funding the global maternal, newborn and child health initiative; a national action plan to address violence against aboriginal women and girls; and enacting laws against cyberbullying. Also, the status of women committee, of which I am a proud member, is in the midst of a comprehensive study on best practices to stop violence against women.

The statistics on this issue are concerning. One in three women across the planet will be beaten or raped in their lifetime; that is one billion women and girls.

On February 14, I will be participating in One Billion Rising with the Rowan House and Pincher Creek emergency shelters in my riding.

I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to lend their voice to this fight, especially the men. We have to change the narrative. This is not just violence against women; this is also about men perpetrating violence against women.