Kennedy Stewart

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and other related acts. The bill has been a long time coming. It is a positive and necessary step forward to improve worker safety in the oil and gas industry in general.

My mind drifts back to the Ocean Ranger disaster. When I was a teenager living on South Mountain in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, we did not have a TV, but my family was glued to the radio listening to reports of that tragedy on February 1984. There were 84 lives lost and no survivors. I know that the Ocean Ranger tragedy really prompted a hard look at how we regulate the oil and gas industry, especially offshore, but increasingly closer to shore.

For me, the Ocean Ranger tragedy was a dramatic coming of age event that really forged my first thoughts about what government does. It really helped a lot of Canadians make a connection between worker safety, the oil industry, and the importance of what government can do to make sure it protects workers and the public. This kind of tragedy cannot happen again.

I am glad we can support the bill and the work of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia governments in putting this in place. I feel that the bill would go some way to improving safety for those who work in the oil industry and would make sure that we never again have a similar disaster.

The bill also shows what can be achieved when the federal and provincial governments work together to further the public good, something that happens all too infrequently under this government. In fact, I know that the government often refuses to talk to provincial governments about matters of such importance. However, in this case, it has been prompted to act.

I would like to expand my speech a little to comment on the attitudes of some of the companies involved in this industry, why this legislation may not go far enough, and why we need to improve or have even better regulation of the oil and gas industry in Canada in general.

Because I am from the west coast, representing the beautiful riding of Burnaby—Douglas, the examples I am going to use are from the west coast.

While Bill C-5 would increase safety in the oil and gas industry on the east coast, there is still much work to do on the west coast. As we know, two companies have applied to build two massive new pipelines through British Columbia. They are Enbridge and Kinder Morgan. These two companies plan to move almost two million barrels per day of bitumen-based crude oil by tanker through B.C. waters to foreign ports. This would mean approximately 600 new supertankers off the B.C. coast, with no extra protection.

The biggest oil port in the world is in Saudi Arabia. It moves about nine million barrels a day of oil. In combination, if Kitimat and Burnaby ports were to be expanded, we would be close to two million barrels a day of oil, which would move us within the top 10 exporting regions in the world, which is a sizeable expansion of our exports. In fact, although we are considering these new pipelines and an expansion of tanker traffic, the government is really going in the opposite direction of what it should be doing, and instead of improving safety measures on the west coast, it is putting British Columbians at risk.

For example, the Conservatives closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in February 2013, which was the busiest coast guard station in the country. The government also closed the Port of Vancouver monitoring centre, which provided eyes on port traffic. When we think we are going to be increasing oil tanker traffic to the extent the government seeks to do, this really seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Instead of closing coast guard bases, one would think we would be opening new ones, and instead of closing monitoring stations, one would think we would be expanding those facilities. Instead, we have gone in the opposite direction, making tanker traffic less safe on the B.C. coast rather than making it more safe. Actions such as closing these facilities cannot do anything but weaken safety on the west coast. It really seems absurd, considering that companies are proposing to move millions of barrels of oil by tanker.

These two pipeline projects are of course highly contentious and vehemently opposed by local communities, including the cities of Kitimat, Burnaby, and Vancouver and many other municipalities up and down the coast. Over 130 first nations have signed an accord against the two pipelines, citing safety as one of their main concerns.

It would appear that the only supporters of these pipelines are the Conservatives, who have stated on a number of occasions that they want to put in these pipelines, ram them through British Columbia.

The Liberal leader, on February 9, in the Calgary edition of Metro, stated:

I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

Here in the House, both the Liberals and the Conservatives are in overwhelming favour of these pipelines, where most British Columbians have huge concerns. Most of these concerns are related to the safety issues, impacts on the environment, worker safety, and public safety in general.

New regulations are put in place because oftentimes the companies will try to get away with as much as they can, and it is up to governments to make sure that they are safe.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who spoke so well, talks about the privilege of speaking here today. I have to say I do feel privileged as well on this issue, especially with respect to the comments regarding the LGBTQ community. My riding of Burnaby—Douglas was home to the great Svend Robinson, who was the first openly gay MP, and Bill Siksay, who was the tireless champion of the LGBTQ community. Now I have the privilege of sitting beside my friend, who is our critic for this area and who I would say is probably the foremost champion of LGBTQ community issues in the House. I thank him for his work. I was struck by his comments about the absence of transgender rights in this bill and was wondering if he cared to comment on that more and what we should do to fix that in committee.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question about funding agreements for co-operative and non-profit housing. By 2020, 200,000 households in co-operative and non-profit projects will lose their federal rental assistance. This is going to have a huge impact in Burnaby—Douglas, and lots of other ridings across Canada. I am wondering, will the federal government agree to renew these housing agreements and not just shovel it off to municipalities and provincial governments? These are very low-income households and they are a staple housing product for all ridings, including his own, I am sure. Perhaps the member could answer that question.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the debate we are having here today. It would be nice to have more of these. I thank the hon. member for intervening. Our party, the New Democratic Party, has also registered as an intervener.

It gives me an opportunity to bring up how the National Energy Board selected which of the 2,200 people would be acceptable to this process. Literally, at my office, I had two gentlemen who live along the route. Both made fairly identical applications, and one was kicked out and one was allowed to participate in the process.

It really has been a botched job by the National Energy Board, brought about by the Bill C-38 changes that the government brought in two years ago.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of debates we should be having.

Our leader has been very clear that west-east pipelines are the way to go. He has stressed that over and over again.

I want to clarify that this is not about blocking a particular project. That is not what my speech was about. It was about the fact that, the way the process is constructed now, there are homeowners who were not informed that this pipeline would go through their property, who under the National Energy Board Act can have their property expropriated, and now under the provisions of this act would not be able to send a letter of objection.

I think that is too much. Whether one is for pipelines or against pipelines, I think the process has to be fair. If not, the whole process of government is delegitimized. We might as well just cancel the National Energy Board hearings altogether and just have it rammed through, as cabinet will probably do anyway with the northern gateway pipeline.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, adding extra fees onto the backs of new Canadians is always a problem.

My speech really had nothing to do with that. It was more about his leader's comments. He said:

I am, however, very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through.

I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

Again, it would have been helpful if perhaps the member had raised a question about that, because I find that quote quite disturbing.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. First, I would like to thank our shadow minister for finance, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for all his work in preparing us for this bill and defending Canadians within and outside of the House. I am really proud to have him as a colleague, and he serves British Columbia very well.

I have to say that I am opposed to this bill for much of its substance, as well as for the process by which these laws are being passed. I will elaborate at length about my procedural objections to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 would fail to take adequate action to create jobs or reverse cuts to infrastructure funding, which is apparent from the speeches we have heard. That is why I would like to focus mostly on the process by which these omnibus bills are passed through Parliament.

Bill C-31 would fail to create jobs, it would cut infrastructure funding, and it would also continue the sorry tradition set by previous omnibus budget bills of forcing hundreds of changes through Parliament without proper oversight. This is an all too common Conservative practice, and it is disturbing as it undermines the work we do here in Parliament. The tabling of such a wide-ranging bill in such a short time frame undermines our ability to properly scrutinize the bill and denies MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications.

The bill has over 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and would amend dozens of bills, including a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget speech. This is the Conservatives' fifth attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny of their economic agenda.

In the remainder of my time, I would like to use an example from a previous omnibus budget, Bill C-38, to show the damage these omnibus budget bills can cause and why it is important that we break these bills apart and debate them piece by piece.

Among other things, Bill C-38 rammed through changes to the National Energy Board Act regarding the approval of new oil pipelines. In addition to shortening the length of time the NEB has to review new projects to just 15 months, whereas previous reviews had no time limits, the NEB is now only a mere advisory body, with the cabinet now having the final say on any project.

Now, the changes that were rammed through the House in Bill C-38 with little consideration or debate are hitting the road in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. Again, we had a large package of bills bundled up in Bill C-38 and passed through with little debate, and now the effects of those bills are impacting my riding in a negative way.

I would like to use the example of Kinder Morgan's proposal to build a new pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby to illustrate why the current omnibus bill should not be rammed through the House.

Last December, the Kinder Morgan company filed an application with the National Energy Board to build a new export-only bitumen based crude oil pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. This application includes a request for permission for a 150 metre-wide right of way to dig a trench as large as one that would be required for a subway or SkyTrain. The project would bring 400 new oil tankers to Burrard Inlet. The project will likely be built using temporary foreign workers. It will not use Canadian steel, limiting the economic benefits to B.C. However, the benefit to Kinder Morgan is obvious, with the company standing to make as much as $5 million per day if the project is approved.

Before the changes brought in by Bill C-38, any company proposing to build a new pipeline of this size would have filed an application with the National Energy Board. The NEB would have reviewed the application to determine that it were complete, and if complete, the NEB would have issued a hearing order and called for public participation. Any Canadians interested in speaking to the project could have either sent a letter of comment, given a short oral presentation, or applied to be a full intervenor. This was the case for the Enbridge northern gateway project, which, incidentally, is about the same size as Kinder Morgan's proposal.

After the changes in Bill C-38, the process has been completely changed and, I submit, undermined. First, due to a new 15-month time limit, the NEB has had to cut the public almost completely out of this approval process. To do so, the NEB has cancelled scheduled public information meetings; issued a call for participation without as much as a press release; reduced the possible participation routes from letters, oral presentations, or full interventions to just letters or a full intervention; and ruled that if the potential participant fails to register, he or she cannot even send a letter to the National Energy Board. The NEB has also issued a hearing order for this project, even though the company has filed an incomplete application. For example, Kinder Morgan has not even determined the final pipeline route.

This is serious, because if this project is approved, the company would have the right to expropriate homes and land along the proposed route through the NEB Act right of entry clauses, and we could find ourselves in the absurd position that those who might lose their homes would not even be allowed to send a letter of objection to the board. These changes were all brought about because Bill C-38 was rammed through the House without proper debate.

Although the NEB wanted this whole process to proceed without public input in order to meet the conditions prescribed in Bill C-38, 2,200 people still registered to participate in the process. However, last week we learned that all but 400 of these applicants had been kicked out of the process, including many homeowners. That means they will not even be able to make an oral submission or appear before the National Energy Board. Whereas companies were almost universally accepted, including one that filed after the deadline had closed for participation, the vast majority of those now excluded from the process are residents and landowners whose lives could be turned upside down by this project.

Not everyone is upset by how this project is being rammed through my community in British Columbia. The Conservatives are certainly pleased and have referred to these pipelines as “a national dream” and label anyone who asks questions about the logic of these pipelines—they do not even have to be opposed—as “radicals”.

However, the support for this pipeline and a process by which it is being approved does not stop there. In the January 22 edition of Metro News in Calgary, the leader of the Liberal Party said:

I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we are going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

To reiterate, the leader of the Liberal Party said he certainly hopes we would be able to get this pipeline approved. This quote was again confirmed in an article published on February 26 in the Vancouver Observer.

While others in the House may view the Bill C-38 omnibus bill as a dream, my constituents, especially those who might be negatively impacted by this project, see this process and project as a nightmare.

I too am worried. This pipeline is not only slated to run through the communities I represent, but is also slated to run through 15 first nations reserves and 80 territories, and 130 nations have signed a declaration against this pipeline.

My nightmare scenario is that bulldozers show up in B.C. neighbourhoods or reserves, start digging trenches without consent, and then we have conflict. This is a real possibility. Because of the way Bill C-38 was rammed through the House, because of the way the NEB process was undermined and shortened, now the National Energy Board really has had no choice but to limit public participation. This means excluding residents, people who own homes and land and businesses along the route, but also first nations.

Many first nations did not register to appear before the National Energy Board, thus they will be cut out of the process. They will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want the pipeline to go through their community.

This is unacceptable, and I think the changes to the National Energy Board Act and the negative impacts on my community are a direct result of these omnibus bills. They are cobbled together so that the government can force its agenda through and perhaps facilitate these very large projects like energy pipelines.

It is important to realize that now that we are here discussing a new omnibus budget bill, an implementation act, we should take the time to break it apart to make sure that we have an adequate discussion of these different clauses.

Perhaps I have not stressed enough how this project and these changes have affected my community. I have literally had hundreds of constituents call or come into my office to express their concerns, completely oblivious to the fact there will basically be something as large as a subway going through their backyard and that they will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want this to happen.

I think it is a disgrace, and I apologize to my constituents. We fought against Bill C-38 as much as we could. We will fight against this current budget implementation act until the government sees fit to make sure that Canadian voices are heard when we are debating this important legislation.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question last week along the same lines but I did not get an answer from that side of the House, so I am hoping that the minister will answer this question.

The recent issue of The Economist shows that GDP growth in Canada is slated to be 2.3%, Australia 2.7%, the U.S. 2.8%, and Britain 2.9%. We are starting to lag behind our biggest trading partners in terms of economic growth.

Would the minister care to comment that perhaps the cuts the Conservatives have made over the last couple of budgets have been too deep and are stifling our future economic growth?

[Election of the Speaker, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 489 which requests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker of the House.

I would like to congratulate the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for this motion, which I am supporting.

I would also like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for all his hard work, on this and other issues. He is an outstanding member of Parliament, and I am very proud to call him my colleague.

I am glad to say that I support this motion, and I support it for two reasons. First, the motion itself has considerable merit. Second, it adds to the spirit of reform that is about this place these days. There are a number of discussions, as the previous speaker mentioned, that are being considered in the House and at the procedure and House affairs committee, and this motion adds to that debate in a positive way.

It is an exciting time in the House of Commons. I am a first-term MP, proudly representing Burnaby—Douglas. It has been a great pleasure to be part of the debates about reforming or abolishing the Senate, changing our electoral system to perhaps proportional representation, establishing electronic petitions, changing our committee system in how we choose committee chairs, and giving members more power over their leaders.

It has been a great pleasure to be part of these debates. However, I must say that my excitement does not extend to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. It is an abomination by my count, roundly denounced by all election experts and democratic protectors right across the country.

However, I will not dwell on Bill C-23, but will focus more on the positive efforts that are before us today. As mentioned by the previous speaker, Motion No. 489 proposes that the PROC committee study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker. This would change us from our current practice of having members vote several times, with each round having members with the least of votes being eliminated, and one member receiving the majority of vote eventually elected.

This motion proposes a preferential balloting system in which members would only have to vote once, except in the event of a tie. They would do so by voting for the candidates of their choice in order of preference. This is a common system that is used around the world, and there are plenty of examples for us to draw upon, whether it is through an electoral system or through a selection of speakers.

This morning I was reading the hon. member's speech from the first hour of debate, and was very interested to note that between 1867 and the 1980s, Speakers were elected by an open show of hands, with the Speaker being chosen by the prime minister of the day. It was only in the mid-1980s that the Speaker was elected by a secret ballot vote by members of Parliament.

When we think about how large a change that was, from the prime minister of a majority government essentially hand-picking a Speaker, until now, where we have lessened the power of the prime minister and broadened it to all members of Parliament electing a Speaker by a secret ballot, that is a much better way to go.

That spirit of what was happening in the mid-1980s, to where we lessened the power of the prime minister and put more power in the hands of regular members, is what is creeping into the discussions we have been having in the House during the weeks and months that we have been debating various motions and bills coming before Parliament. Members are proposing adjustments to our parliamentary procedures in an attempt to improve the process, and in some cases lessen the concentration of power in the hands of a prime minister.

I think there is a range of bills and motions that are being discussed here. Some are more on the housekeeping side, making sure that we tidy up our procedural matters, and some are much more radical in nature. I will get to those in a second.

I noted from the speech by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington in the first hour that he feels these changes are necessary because the current process takes too long, there is no mechanism currently on the Standing Orders for resolving ties, and he thinks it is important to destroy ballots to preserve the dignity of contestants who do not happen to win the contest.

These are all very good reasons for why we should support this bill. It is a tidying sort of measure, and of course PROC will go through it to make sure that we get the details right. However, from first glance, it does look like a good thing to do. It is something that would tidy our procedures here, save time for the members, make sure that we have written down the procedures for resolving a tie, and make sure that we preserve the dignity of all people who put their names forward to stand for leader.

However, also in his speech, the member mentioned Motion No. 431, the motion that was put forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He does not say that he supports the motion outright. Rather, he said that if both motions survive a vote in the House, which Motion No. 431 did, that they would not only draw upon the same pool of experts to discuss the preferential ballot proposals before us today, but also as to how we might select committee chairs. The member suggested that we should study efficiency, which is what is on his mind here, because he suggests that this pool of experts could be used to look at both motions to inform PROC as to whether they should go ahead. It is a good suggestion that we draw upon the expertise that we develop for one motion to look at the other and perhaps save some time.

I would like to make a larger point. The motion before us is not only similar in nature to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt's efforts to reform how committee chairs are elected, but it is also similar in spirit to my motion, Motion No. 849, with respect to electronic petitions, and perhaps Bill C-559, the reform act, put forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I look at these as a kind of range in terms of how much they would change the structure of how we do business in the House of Commons.

The motion before us, Motion No. 489, is probably the most modest change that we could make. My idea for electronic petitions, which is currently in front of PROC, would adjust our processes a little more radically. Then, when we move to Motion No. 431, with respect to selecting committee chairs from Parliament, that again changes things a little more radically. Finally, Bill C-559, the reform act, would make the most change. Therefore, I would put my motion, Motion No. 489, more in the category of what the member is suggesting here today, a minor change to modernize our processes and make them more efficient.

One of the questions is on why we do these things. Why do we take the time? I only have one motion or bill that would come forward for a vote in the House, as does the member who is putting this motion forward today, as do the other members I have just mentioned. What we are trying to do is to think of ways to make this place better, how we can improve our processes, and how we can make our democracy better for Canadians. Then we look at what is feasible in the House.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has hit the nail on the head. He has suggested a change that would be palatable to all members of the House, providing it has proper study. I think it is wise of him to do so. What I tried to do with Motion No. 489 with respect to electronic petitioning is to pick something that would perhaps please many members of the House. Hopefully, PROC will see that through.

As we move to the other motions and bills that I have mentioned, they are more radical. We will require considerable debate on those motions in order for them to pass.

What it shows is that there is a genuine spirit of reform in this place. We are trying to figure out how we can debate these things and come to a consensus, more or less, on what changes are appropriate. I support this motion because the member has correctly calculated that his changes would more than likely be adopted. He would succeed in reforming this place, maybe not quite in the current form that his motion suggests, but after a discussion at PROC there is something that would happen.

Again, I feel positive vibes in this place from various speeches. I am hoping that the member will assist the rest of us who are interested in reform in this place, just as we are assisting him. It is only through this co-operation that we can move the democracy of Canada forward. I think we are all interested in making Canada a more democratic place.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to this motion.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side today that the government is focused on growth and that on every measure it is outperforming other countries.

However, I would like the Conservatives to reconsider their statements. This week's issue of The Economist shows that Canada's economy is predicted to grow by just 2.3% in 2014. This is well behind the U.S., which is slated to grow at 2.8%, and Britain, at 2.9%, and Australia, at 2.6%.

I wonder if the member will revise these statements and admit that Canada's growth is beginning to lag behind our partners.