Murray Rankin

[Health, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has a moral obligation to help thalidomide survivors.

They have paid a lifelong price for the government's belief that thalidomide was safe, but three months after the House unanimously passed a motion calling for full support, the minister announced a package that may or may not meet the needs of the thalidomide survivors.

There was no consultation and very little communication from the minister. Before making the announcement, what did the minister do to ensure that the compensation would meet the needs of the thalidomide survivors?

[Health, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about pandemics and communicable diseases, but instead of investing to improve public health, the Conservatives have cut billions in funding. The estimates have now revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada's budget is being cut by 7.7%. This includes a $53.5-million cut to health promotion and disease prevention and the sunsetting of a major program for hepatitis-C survivors.

How can the minister justify these cuts to such vital public health services?

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thoughtful question by my colleague from Sherbrooke. Social licence is really the order of the day on pipelines, tankers, and the like. It is really critical that they achieve it. I really believe companies can achieve it if they follow some important principles set out in the bill, such as polluter pay and internalization of their costs, working with the National Energy Board.

As the Leader of the Opposition has put it so effectively, sometimes the Conservative government gives companies a poisoned chalice. They get these great regulations that they need not necessarily comply with, and then they cannot build their pipelines because no one, certainly in my part of the world, wants anything to do with ones like the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. They do not have social licence because the government has tried to jam them through without any public involvement.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point that I think was being made is the importance of the polluter pays principle as a recognized concept in environmental legislation. I believe the bill would go some distance to achieve that.

However, again, I want to say, as other Liberal members have said in first reading debate, that really there is a lot about discretion that needs to be nailed down here. The government may; the NEB may; and if they do not, so what?

That is what I find so disturbing about legislation like this. It kind of hoodwinks the Canadian people, because what if there is no budget given to do anything? Would the polluter pay then? I do not think so.

It is full of sound and fury, but I hope signifying something.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure, but there were perhaps a dozen questions in there. The one I will start with is the one that dealt with the false dichotomy between the environment and the economy, asking me to comment on the wonderful things the current government has done about the environment.

I am standing here because I ran in a by-election, because people in my community are outraged by the current government's environmental record. The gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, the failure to consider first nations in environmental assessment in a meaningful way, and the Conservatives' abysmal record on climate change are only starters.

To suggest we should stand to salute the eradication of our environmental legislation is something I shall not do. I am embarrassed, in fact, to be a Canadian when I think about our environmental record.

Setting aside vast tracts of land in the Arctic does not constitute environmental management if we do not manage those parks, if we do not provide a budget for parks officers to actually do something with those lands.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise, and I wish to salute my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for his excellent speech just now. I wish to avoid repeating some of the fine points he made, but I need to say a couple of things at the outset.

First, this false dichotomy of environment versus the economy, as he explained so eloquently, is simply a relic of the past. It is another example of the Conservatives' effort to divide Canadians, as they have done so effectively using terror as a wedge. They do this on the environment all the time as well. The rhetoric of the $20 billion carbon tax comes to mind, to their everlasting shame. However, that need not be the case at all in a bill like this.

Second, I want to congratulate the government for finally moving forward with something to deal with pipeline liability. It is long overdue. It is something that has been so long called for that the Conservatives have finally woken up and done the right thing.

I wish to say at the outset that I am going to talk about three things in the bill that bear repetition.

The first thing is the enormous amount of discretion given to the cabinet and to the National Energy Board. It looks great to say we are enabling a whole bunch of things to be done. The legal reality on the ground, of course, is very different. It is only if the regulator chooses to go ahead that anything meaningful will happen. I just hope Canadians are not deluded into thinking that somehow things are going to change. They may change—it is an excellent first step—but only if regulators choose to exercise the discretion that has been given to them in the bill so frequently, as I will say. That is what this bill is about.

The second thing that needs to be said is that environmental legislation and liability legislation ultimately have to do with whether there is enforcement. To use a Shakespearean metaphor:

...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That is unless and until the bureaucrats make the rules that would be enabled in this bill. Again, it is an enabling statute. If those rules that are made, once made, are not enforced because there are deals between the companies and the regulators and the like, so what? That reality needs to be put front and centre as we debate this enabling legislation.

I also wish to speak about orphan pipelines. I think that bears some discussion. First, this is an effort, no doubt, to increase the public's confidence in the regulation of our pipelines. A recent Harris/Decima poll conducted by the government pointed out that only 27% of Canadians are confident that the Government of Canada is able to respond effectively to a significant oil spill on water; a few more, 32%, think it can do better with oil spills on land. Canadians do not feel confident that pipelines, tankers, and trains that are transporting dangerous goods will do so safely. That is what the polling suggests. When it comes to rail transport, only 29% of Canadians feel confident that it is safe, and only 37% of Canadians believe oil tanker transport is safe; yet 47%, almost half, are confident pipelines can be made to transport oil safely. I say that because we need to talk about the enormous amount of diluted bitumen that is being moved through our waters, across our land on trains, and in pipelines. If Canadians have little or no confidence in those measures, then of course we need to work on that. To the government's credit, this bill is some effort to do so, if anything is effectively done with the powers that would be given.

I wish to say at the outset that this is indeed a good first step, and should therefore be taken in that context.

When the minister was speaking to this bill at first reading, he talked about how the bill would stipulate that companies have a legal obligation to respond to requests that the National Energy Board may make in relation to audits. It is passing strange that companies do not have to do so now, I gather. That is rather disturbing.

It says that the National Energy Board would strive to align federal and provincial pipeline safety zones. That is not good enough. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is an excellent example of co-operative federalism where, for dangerous goods that are moving by trucks or other ways, we have a federal set of regulations inches thick that are incorporated by reference in each of the provinces. We have a one-size-fits-all, coast-to-coast approach for the transportation of dangerous goods. For the minister to say we would strive to align pipeline standards surely is not sufficient.

Speaking of things that are not sufficient, the thing that concerns me the most is this notion of companies remaining responsible for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity. I have some experience with that. After a company has abandoned a pipeline, is long gone, and has had an amalgamation or transfer of ownership, in what practical way is the National Energy Board going to be able to make it continue to be responsible for that abandoned asset?

Some people will be aware of the Britannia Beach mine in British Columbia as they go up to Whistler. It was a copper mine during the First World War. It was a multi-billion dollar liability. There was acid rock drainage seeping into Howe Sound. When the companies were finally hit with a cleanup order by the province under the Environmental Management Act, they had to go back and do forensic accounting to try to find out who the successors in title were to the ancient companies that were the owners of the assets of the mine over time. It took a lot of time and money. Ultimately, they were found.

The problem is that it is very difficult to go after people. To blithely say that there is liability for abandoned pipelines in perpetuity needs more than just mere words. It is a very complicated matter to seek liability.

I said I would be positive about the bill, and I wish to say that the idea of unlimited liability in certain circumstances is an excellent idea. Absolute liability for up to $1 billion, regardless of fault, is an excellent idea. However, what happens after $1 billion? I suppose then that negligence has to be proven in a court of law.

To people listening, $1 billion might sound like an enormous figure, but that is only until we put it into context and understand it. Simply, the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan has already cost $1.2 billion for the cleanup, let alone liability to others. Enbridge owned that pipeline. It wants to bring us another pipeline in our province, called the northern gateway pipeline.

That sum of $1 billion sounds like a lot, and I congratulate the government for the notion of absolute liability, but in context, it may not be adequate. After that, one would have to prove negligence in a court of law. Sometimes, fault and negligence are not easy things to establish.

Another thing in the bill that I think is an excellent idea, and I congratulate the government for it, is providing the government with the ability to recover costs associated with so-called non-use value environmental damages. There is no guidance on what that means, but the Supreme Court of Canada has contemplated that damages to the environment itself and the cost to the environment is worthy of cleanup. That is excellent to find in a Canadian statute, and I congratulate the drafters for putting it in. In the future, I hope that courts will pour meaning into what “environmental damages” might mean.

As I mentioned, the problem with section 48 of the National Energy Board Act as amended for abandoned pipelines is of concern. The NEB would be given the power to take necessary measures when a company does not comply with a particular cleanup order, but only given this power with respect to abandonment and abandoned pipelines. It does not relate to operating pipelines. It is not clear. I suppose in committee we could understand, if the government is open to amendments, whether that could be clarified. I say “open to amendments”, because in my experience, the Conservative government is rarely, if ever, open to amendments, unless they come from its side of the aisle.

The bill is a comprehensive bill. I mentioned some of its deficiencies. I need to say, as I go back to where I started on public confidence, that it was way back in 2011 that the environmental commissioner pointed out that the National Energy Board was failing to fix a number of known problems and ensure that pipelines would be properly maintained. Here we are, and the Conservatives have still not implemented the regulations for proper oversight and inspection from four years ago. Action would be required.

To conclude, it is a nice first step. It is good to see that there are things there, all of which require discretion and enforcement. I hope that, when we get this bill to committee, we can make it better.

[National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day Act, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak on this important initiative introduced by my colleague, the member for Montcalm. I am grateful to her for raising the awareness of the House and grateful that I could second the bill.

I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her remarks just now. I am very hopeful that the bill will pass the House for the very reasons she suggested so persuasively a moment ago.

The bill would designate the third Friday in September as a day to remember those who have been struggling with spinal cord injuries. What it would not do is create a legal holiday, but rather, just a day for awareness, as the title of the bill suggests. That is a very simple and important thing to do without the economic consequences of another day off. Therefore, it need not be of any concern to employers or others who might be worried about that.

My colleague, the member for Montcalm, suggested very persuasively that this is not just important for the victims of spinal cord injuries, which I certainly understand, but also for the caregivers and their families. She saluted the critical role of caregivers in her remarks, which is something that ought to be remembered by all members as we debate the bill.

People ask what this would be for. It would be a tool for awareness, and also for fundraising. It could be a focal point for those who are trying to raise awareness of spinal cord injuries. That in and of itself would be a good enough reason for us to support the initiative.

I want to give a shout out to Spinal Cord Injury Canada. I did a little research. The organization, which used to be called the Canadian Paraplegic Association, has been around for 70 years. It has been making an enormous contribution, not just to victims but also to their families in so many ways. I am hoping that it will support this initiative.

One of the things that Spinal Cord Injury Canada does is to sponsor an event on the Hill every year. Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that on May of last year, six members of Parliament and one senator got into wheelchairs, even though they were not disabled, to gain a better understanding of what the reality is for people suffering from this disability. My colleague, the member for York South—Weston, and my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, spearheaded that and participated in it.

I want to acknowledge that the government has pledged over $30 million in funding over five years for spinal cord injury research, which I think has been very well received by stakeholders and the medical community. That needs to be acknowledged as an important contribution.

The cause of spinal cord injury, as my colleague from Montcalm noted, is most frequently injury or trauma of some sort, but it also has to be remembered that sometimes these injuries result from acquired diseases that cause, for example, tumours on the spine or viral, and bacterial infections like polio. It is not just those caused by trauma, although I am sure those are majority of situations the bill would address.

My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, made reference to one of my heroes, and I am sure a hero for many Canadians, Rick Hansen. How many of us would ever forget his Man in Motion Tour? I can still hear the Bryan Adams song in my head as I mention it. I remember driving into Vancouver one day when he was coming in after his national tour across the country in his wheelchair. I will never forget the emotion of people listening to the CBC that day and phoning in to try to make a pledge. No one could get through because the lines were absolutely jammed. In my part of the world, he is one of our true heroes.

I am sure I speak for all Canadians when I acknowledge that he has given back in so many important ways since then. Not only has he raised awareness, as my colleague pointed out, but has also, through his Rick Hansen Institute, done a number of important things, like coordinating a national strategy called the access to care and timing project, which involved multiple research centres across Canada, with the goal of scaling up effective clinical practices and providing more timely access to care for patients in this area.

I thought it was important that my colleague from Montcalm noted the reason for the proposed day being the third Friday in September. She said that it was because it was after the summer when so many people are affected by this terrible trauma due to injuries occurring during the summer. It occurs more frequently, it must be said, in the demographic of risky behaviour primarily by younger men.

However, the point of getting this initiative out at that time would serve as a message during the summer for people to remember to take greater care: do not speed while driving, be careful when playing sports, do not dive into shallow water, and these sorts of things.

The number of people afflicted with spinal cord injury is quite staggering and the costs, both human and economic, are immeasurable. There are 86,000 people in Canada living with spinal cord injuries and that is expected to grow to 121,000 by 2030. There are 4,300 new cases a year in this country and the majority are as a result of injuries to young males between 20 and 29 years of age. However, as we have an aging population, as others have acknowledged, there will be more affected because of falls among the elderly population.

The economic cost is $2.7 billion every year. Of course, the use of the medical system by those with spinal cord injuries is obviously enormous as well. In comparison, they are re-hospitalized 2.6 times more often than the general population. They require contact with a physician 2.7 times more often. They require home care services 30 times more than others.

These are important statistics, but they do not tell the whole story. They do not tell the story about the tragic changes in people's lives who are affected by spinal cord injury. The bill before us would bring awareness to that.

My colleague spoke eloquently about the importance of prevention, but also about the impact on families, caregivers and individuals who are affected by spinal cord injuries.

I pay tribute to the government for its funding efforts in this regard, but many people continue to live in real poverty as a consequence of these spinal cord injuries and we need to address that. We must do more with workplace accommodation for those people with disabilities trying to find work and keep work with mobility, access and accommodation issues.

We must do better with the caregiver tax credit, which is a non-refundable tax credit. It does not cover many disabled people who are affected or the spouses who take care of disabled partners and the like. These issues, among others, must be addressed.

Nevertheless, this is not the time, as colleagues have pointed out, for partisan commentary. It is to work together across the aisle to see if we can agree on this. It sounds like we will be able to achieve a bill in this regard. I am so grateful to my colleague from Montcalm for bringing forward what appears to be an initiative that will be successful in this House.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the member shares a concern that the opposition party has with respect to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the way the government is currently appointing members to that body.

Members will recall the compromise in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which is the reason we do not have what our friends in the United Kingdom or the United States have. They have security-cleared parliamentarians who provide real oversight vis-à-vis the security service in their respective countries. The reason we had the compromise here was because we were going to have people whom the Prime Minister, in consultation with the other parties, would appoint to this agency to provide that review function.

Now, of course, there is nobody on the Security Intelligence Review Committee in whom the official opposition would have any particular confidence, whereas in the past, it was very different.

Does the member have any concerns about the way that the Security Intelligence Review Committee currently operates?

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very powerful presentation. I wonder if she shares our concern about the new power to disrupt that this legislation would bring in, which would transform an intelligence service into a law enforcement agency, contrary to the McDonald commission of inquiry after which CSIS itself was created.

Does she share our concern that the warrant that would be given to allow disruptive activities could override the charter and other Canadian laws in many circumstances? It seems to me an extraordinary change in our rule of law system. I would be interested in knowing if my colleague shares those concerns.

[Health, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that the Conservatives act as if they had nothing to do with extra medical fees, when the main reason hospitals, clinics, and doctors are looking for money is that the provinces do not get enough from the federal government. These kinds of practices threaten the universality of health care, which is a fundamental part of the Canada Health Act, yet the Conservatives are still planning on cutting health transfers to the provinces over the years.

What does the minister have to say to Canadians who now have to pay hundreds of dollars each year in extra medical fees?