Larry Miller

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member agrees with the bill in principle, that protecting our waters is the right way to go.

However, I have to respectfully point out that the member is trying to throw a bunch of different issues into the mix. This is a national bill. It covers transboundary waters. I do not want to put words in the member's mouth, but it appears he is implying we should get into provincial jurisdictions. I know from experience that if we were to try to do that, first, it is not necessary because they are covered by the provinces and territories, but, secondly, provinces like Alberta or Quebec would be the first ones to tell us to get out of their jurisdiction.

The bill covers it very well, and the member's issue is not really part of this, at all.

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, February 8th, 2013]

moved that Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to rise to begin third reading debate on my private member's bill, the transboundary waters protection act.

Since its introduction just over a year ago, we have had a fulsome, positive debate at second reading and again at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I thank all members of the House, and specifically those on the committee, for their contributions to the debate. I am hopeful that we will soon see the bill enacted.

The strong support that Bill C-383 has received thus far reflects the opinion of the vast majority of Canadians, who strongly oppose the bulk removal of water from Canada's freshwater basins. This is something I hear continuously from my constituents, family, friends and colleagues on all sides of the House.

This is an issue that I believe unites us as parliamentarians. Indeed, it is rare to have an issue that is so clearly one-sided in a country as large and diverse as Canada.

Canadians want to know that their federal and provincial governments will take the necessary steps to prevent bulk removals of water from ever happening. Why? Not only do bulk water removals pose a significant threat to ecosystems, but water is also an important component in the fight against invasive species. By removing a potential pathway for these species, we could help prevent the devastation these species' movement between basins could cause.

When I was before the foreign affairs committee in October, I commented that no bill was ever perfect. All along I have been open to ways in which this legislation could be strengthened, which is why I would like to briefly explain one amendment that was made to Bill C-383 in committee, an amendment that I believe makes it a strong bill. Here I refer to the addition of purpose clauses to the sections of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act that contain the bulk water removal provisions. In my view these clauses clearly articulate that the purpose of these bulk water removal provisions is to prevent the potential harm these removals could cause to Canadian ecosystems and to reinforce our desire to prevent harm to the environment.

As most members know by now, Bill C-383 amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to bestow on transboundary waters—those that flow across the boundary—the same protections currently in place for boundary waters, those waters that straddle the border.

Speaking of that, I live on one of the Great Lakes, and that water also borders on the United States. I know exactly where we are coming from on that.

While the provinces have laws, regulations or policies in place to prevent the bulk removal of waters from their territories, our hope is that with Bill C-383 we will enhance protections at both the federal and provincial levels. Rest assured that we will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that these waters are protected.

The second amendment provided for in Bill C-383 is an amendment to the International River Improvements Act, which prohibits the issuing of a licence for an international river improvement that would link waters that are neither boundary nor transboundary with an international river if doing so would increase the annual flow of the international river at the boundary. This specific provision would ensure that an international river is not used as a conveyance or a pathway to move water in bulk outside of Canada.

This last amendment was recommended by water experts from the program on water issues at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto. In fact, testifying before the standing committee on October 25, the water experts voiced their support for Bill C-383, with one stating that:

—the goal of protecting Canada's water resources from bulk export is significantly accomplished by way of this proposed legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Munk School experts for their role over the years in Canadian water policy debates, and especially for the assistance they have provided to me on the bill.

Next, Bill C-383 moves some definitions and exceptions from the regulations of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act into the act itself. As has been touched upon in previous debates, moving definitions and exceptions into the act would entrench key definitions such as what constitutes the removal of water in bulk.

These exceptions would allow for the removal of water temporarily for emergency or humanitarian purposes such as firefighting, but not for commercial purposes. These exceptions are reasonable and are not inconsistent with the purpose of the bulk water prohibition. Now that these definitions and exceptions are to be moved into the body of the act, any changes would have to be approved by Parliament. This would provide members of this House with much greater oversight.

During committee consideration of Bill C-383, there was some discussion about the definition of “bulk removal”. In the bill, “bulk removal” is defined as removing water from boundary or transboundary waters and taking it outside the Canadian portion of the water basin in which it is located. If the means of diversion include canals, tunnels, pipelines or other channels, for example, any removal is prohibited. In other words, any attempt to transfer even a drop of water outside the basin of a boundary or transboundary water using a canal or some kind of channel would be prohibited. By other means, one could not take more than 50,000 litres outside the basin per day.

Some members of the committee were concerned that this would be a potential loophole in the legislation. I want to be clear that this would not be a loophole. Even though 50,000 litres seems like a large number, it is no larger than a tanker truck or average residential swimming pool. As such, this could not be considered a bulk removal, and in fact could not be considered economically feasible.

I would like also like to address another area of the bill raised at committee regarding manufactured products containing water. As the bill states, “bulk removal does not include the taking of a manufactured product that contains water...outside the water basin...”. This includes water and other beverages in bottles or containers. This is included to ensure legitimate commerce, such as the products of breweries, soft drinks, juice, or even bottled water manufacturers, is not interfered with. My goal in introducing this legislation, and I believe it is the goal of others in this House, is to remove the threat of bulk removals of water, not prevent breweries and other manufacturers from selling their fine products around the globe.

Finally, I would like to take a minute to highlight the deterrence aspect of Bill C-383. Bill C-383 proposes amendments to strengthen the enforcement authorities, fines and sentencing provisions of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

These amendments include mandatory minimum fines for designated offences and increased maximum fines for all offences. For instance, violations of this act could result in a fine of up to $1 million for an individual and up to $6 million for a corporation for a first offence. In addition, these fines would be cumulative, meaning that every day the violation occurs is considered a separate violation. Fine totals could increase very rapidly. I believe that in itself would provide a strong deterrence against even contemplating violating the terms of this act.

Added to this, there would also be the potential for further fines under this act. Bill C-383 contains provisions that would allow the courts to add increased fines for aggravating factors such as damage to the environment.

As members know, my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is nestled between Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. It is basically surrounded on three sides by waters that would come under this act. It is an area where we have some of the greatest sources of water in this country. Coming from this part of the country, I have a deep appreciation for Canada's water resources.

Although water seems abundant and everlasting, I do not, and we should not, take this resource for granted. I understand that we, as Ontarians, and we, as Canadians, must be responsible stewards of our water. I want to ensure this resource remains protected for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren and for generations into the future. I introduced Bill C-383 in order to play a small part in protecting Canada's water.

We all agree that potential harm to Canada's water from bulk removals is too great to ignore. I urge all members of the House to vote for this measure.

[Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the House regarding Bill C-459, the air passengers' bill of rights, which would establish terms and conditions including compensation and rerouting for the treatment of air passengers under various circumstances when air travel is cancelled, delayed, or baggage is misplaced.

This is a big country and as a result Canadians travel more by air than most people elsewhere. Many of us have experienced situations where our flight was delayed or cancelled due to weather conditions, mechanical issues or other reasons that we may not understand. Occasionally the delivery of luggage may be delayed due to tight connections, mishandling, malfunctions and various human factors. That is the key part.

People make mistakes every now and then. We do not like them, but they are a fact of life. Sometimes as passengers we feel we have not been treated fairly. We all find these situations frustrating. I have been there and I am sure all members have. One thing should be noted though. We are fortunate that in Canada there is a mechanism that provides passengers with a means to address these situations efficiently without engaging in onerous or costly legal wrangling.

Consumers have the right to expect to be treated fairly by airlines and therefore a process is in place for the impartial investigation of concerns. In particular, this means that a passenger, who has been inconvenienced and feels that his or her concerns have not been addressed adequately by the airline, can choose to file a formal complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. The agency is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that has a mandate to review unresolved consumer complaints against air carriers and to assist consumers to the extent possible.

Please allow me now to describe the regime that exists in Canada for the protection of air passengers' rights. As I have noted, Canada's policy for airline passenger consumer protection is based on a complaints-driven process. The carriers are expected to comply with their terms and conditions of carriage, which must be made readily available to the passenger. The terms and conditions of carriage are set out in carriers' policies with respect to important consumer protection matters including, but not restricted to, acceptance, loss and damage of baggage, taxes and fees, reimbursement, claims, flight cancellations, et cetera.

Air carriers are required to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites and to live by these terms and conditions. This is enshrined in legislation through specific provisions in the Canada Transportation Act. If a passenger feels that a carrier is not respecting its terms and conditions of carriage, he or she should begin by bringing a complaint first to the airline. As I mentioned earlier, if not satisfied with the airline's response, passengers may then take their complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is empowered to provide recourse.

In 2007, our government took action to strengthen Canada's consumer protection regime for air travellers by introducing measures as part of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, which improved the transparency of carriers' terms and conditions of carriage and made the complaints process under the Canadian Transportation Agency permanent.

During the same period, our government introduced Flight Rights Canada, an initiative to inform the travelling public of the consumer protection approach that we have in place in Canada, their rights under this approach and how they can seek redress if something goes wrong when they are travelling by air. Flight Rights Canada included a six-point, plain language code of conduct defining service standards.

Canada's largest airlines have adopted these standards into their terms and conditions of carriage. They are now accountable for them as they are for all their terms and conditions of carriage. As my colleagues have no doubt noticed, Bill C-459 also includes provisions that regulate full fare advertising. On this issue, I am pleased to remind hon. members that this government has already taken action with the recently announced all-inclusive airfare advertising regulations.

On December 14, 2012, new air services price advertising regulations came into force that required any person who advertised the price of an air service to display the total price, inclusive of all taxes, fees and charges when selling flights within or originating in Canada. That is something I have experienced. Individuals book a flight, they think they have a price and all of a sudden all the other little things get added to it and it is not what they thought it was at the start. That is no more, thanks to this government.

The two key objectives of this new regulation are to enable consumers to readily determine the total price of an advertised air service and to promote fair competition between all advertisers in the air travel industry. When Canadians are travelling by air, they expect to be treated fairly by their carrier, as well as to be able to readily determine the full price of the air services they are purchasing.

Hon. colleagues must consider this private member's bill with prudence, as we cannot overturn the current policy by implementing a prescriptive and more burdensome framework. The bill could result in consumers having to take their cases to court in certain situations, as well as changes to the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. It could translate into more red tape and costs to the taxpayer. That is the last thing we need.

Furthermore, elements of the bill could potentially have significant financial implications for airlines, which would translate into higher costs for travellers. This is not what we want. For example, while the bill recognizes that airlines should not be held responsible for incidents that are caused by third parties, such as air navigation service providers or airports, the onus could be on the carriers to prove that this is the case in a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Similarly, under the bill, carriers would not be responsible for cancellations caused by weather, which is a major factor in our country. However, again, they could be placed in a situation where they would have to prove this by way of submissions to the agency. All of this would result in additional work and cost for both the airline and the agency. I need not remind members that higher costs to carriers would definitely translate into higher fares for air travel.

Let me underscore that this government is, as always, firmly committed to promoting a healthy Canadian air industry, without compromising the protection of the rights of Canadians. We have a robust system for protecting air passengers' rights and this government is proud to reiterate that it has taken steps to reinforce this and will continue to do so.

We do not have a perfect system, but it is a pretty good one. The bill would definitely make it worse, not better.

[Committees of the House, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to supplementary estimates (B) 2012-13.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did have the pleasure of being in the riding of my colleague from Peace River this summer. I actually worked up there when I was 17 years old, and it was great to get back and see some of my relatives who are still there.

However, with the growth from when I was there in 1973, I saw the kind of spin-off and economic benefit that the oil sands and industry in general have on his riding. It is the driver there. Of course, there are other things like agriculture and forestry, but the riding would be devastated. That $21 billion tax would affect his riding as badly as, if not worse than, any other riding.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the easy answer is that we can always say “fewer politicians”. This is not a bad thing, but Parliament decided on an increase in members of Parliament. It is not the first time. Years ago, the number of members in this House was closer to 200 and now it is over 300. That is the way it is.

As far as the issue of services to constituents goes, there are many different ways for anybody to look after his or her constituents. However, one thing that would not help my constituents, or anybody else's in this House, is a $21 billion carbon tax.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, they just do not get it. The member talks about the countries that are facing problems bigger than those Canada is facing, yet he wants us to take the same approach.

The New Democrats have never seen a tax they did not like; they have never seen one they did not want to increase; and they have never seen one they did not want to add. In fact, just at our transport committee in the last week or two, the member for Trinity—Spadina proposed another 1% tax on everything to help out infrastructure. It just goes to show the New Democrats are thinking “tax, tax, tax”. We are the opposite; we lower taxes.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

I hear comments from both sides, even my friends in the corner, who agree that a $21 billion carbon tax is definitely not the way to go.

Canada has always maintained, as I was saying, an open immigration system and, as such, there is a strong need for close regulation on who is entering the country and ensuring that people are in fact here legally.

The time for action is now. The global economy remains fragile, as we can see with the economy in Europe slipping back into recession and the United States, our closest economic partner, approaching a financial cliff.

Canada has been a leader when it comes to economic prosperity and we have emerged from this recent recession atop all G7 countries. However, the global economy is just that, very global, meaning that Canada is included and affected by all issues facing the global economy. We cannot simply take the wait-and-see approach to the economy that the opposition would have us do.

That is why I am pleased to support Bill C-45, a bill that would implement and enforce various measures of our economic action plan. I urge all hon. members in the House to support economic growth in Canada and Bill C-45.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. I am also honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation and present some of the measures within Bill C-45 that I am very happy about and that I think will be of great benefit to Canada, unlike a $21 billion carbon tax, which would not be good for Canadians.

First, I want to address the comprehensive nature of the budget. The basis of economic success lies in the ability of government to address all issues facing the economy. This budget does just that. It is through legislation, such as Bill C-45, that we will work hard to ensure that we address the entire scope of issues facing the Canadian economy.

The number of threats, and I take the NDP carbon tax as an example, facing the security of our economy is not small in size. and, therefore, a plan of action should not be either. A comprehensive plan is the only way that we can ensure a secure economic future for Canada.

Before I get into some of the specific measures of the legislation, I want to take some time to highlight the economic success that has been seen by the government through previous economic action plans.

Since 2006, Canada has created over one million net new jobs and has had the best job growth rate in the G7. Furthermore, Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the number one country in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs. Anybody who thinks that would be possible if the government had brought in a $21 billion carbon tax is living in another world.

Along with this focus on job creation, there has been an immense amount of work put into lowering taxes for Canadians. Since 2006, taxes have been cut or eliminated 140 times. The overall tax burden has been reduced to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. That is something to be proud of. I am very pleased that Bill C-45 continues this focus on lowering taxes for Canadian families through several different measures.

For example, extending the hiring credit for small businesses for an additional year will help up to 536,000 employers with additional hiring and will reduce small business 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

Further measures include improvements to the registered disability savings plans and increased travellers exemptions on the value of goods that Canadians can bring in duty and tax free.

In line with keeping money in the pockets of Canadians, we are also concerned about having a strong, stable and fair pension program. That is why Bill C-45 contains measures to implement a pooled registered pension plan. This would allow for well regulated, low cost, private sector pension plans to be accessible to many hard-working Canadians who have not, up to this point, had access to these important plans. Furthermore, Bill C-45 contains measures that would improve the administration of the Canada pension plan.

Navigable waters are not only a vital part of this country's trade system but they are also an essential part of the livelihood of many Canadians. I represent a great riding in Simcoe North that borders the Great Lakes and their harbours that will certainly benefit from the protections and funding for improvements that are in place in the bill.

The protections in place in Bill C-45 are of great importance. They will ensure that these vital waterways are protected from activities such as de-watering, dumping of waste and the construction of obstacles in the waterways. Further in line with protecting navigable waters is the attention that this bill puts toward strengthening environmental protections. Through amendments that will be made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, there will be strengthened protections for the environment that will also allow for economic growth.

This issue was brought forth by a western member back in 2006-07 on the rural caucus of the Conservative Party, which I was very fortunate to be chairing at the time. It was through this caucus that changes were slowly made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These are changes that the municipalities and organizations that represent municipalities right across this country were asking for and they will now have.

Among the major amendments is the streamlining of the environmental assessments that I talked about. This would reduce red tape for businesses by placing a two-year time limit on assessments of environmental projects. This would allow for inclusive and proper study of the environmental impacts within a reasonable timeframe. I was listening to the previous speaker, who comes from a riding where a project was held up for 25 years plus because of delaying tactics. This would eliminate that kind of thing. If it is not a good project, it should be turned down and allow the business or industry spend their money on development somewhere else, or make them go through the process, which this would do, approve it and get on with business.

Furthermore, Bill C-45 would protect our environment by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment and would also phase out tax preferences for the mining and oil and gas sectors. It would not be like the NDP's $21 billion carbon tax that would totally reverse that.

Finally, I am pleased to see that Bill C-45 would improve Canada's immigration system by requiring any foreign national coming to Canada to apply for an electronic travel authorization. Along with this and other measures contained within the legislation, there would be an increased amount of security when it comes to immigration in Canada. Immigration can promote new and innovative ideas that contribute to the health of Canadian economy. This can translate into new jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers.

However, we must ensure that those who come to Canada are coming for the right reasons and legally. In this regard, we must look at ways to stop those who are looking at coming here illegally, as they take job opportunities away from Canadian workers. That is exactly what this legislation would do. Bill C-45 would encourage new and innovative ideas in Canada while protecting Canadian workers by preventing those who try to take advantage of our open system by immigrating here illegally.

Canada has always maintained an open—

Am I running out of time, Mr. Speaker?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the 10th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region held in Akureyri, Iceland, September 5-7, 2012.