Randy Kamp

[Search and Rescue, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we have taken a very careful look at where the search and rescue facilities are, where the services are located and how they can best meet the needs of mariners, and that is what we have done in this case.

With respect to the particular station the member refers to at Kitsilano, it is 17 nautical miles from Sea Island, and that station will be able to continue to operate. In fact, it is that station that got the new hovercraft in the 2010 budget to be able to better service this area.

[Search and Rescue, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we are doing our part in reducing the deficit. We have taken a very careful look at where our services are, where they need to be and where they can be administered in the most effective way. That is what we have done on the west coast and, in fact, that is what we have done throughout the country.

I can assure the member that the safety of mariners will not be affected.

[Search and Rescue, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the safety of Canadians and mariners is the top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard. The efficiencies that are proposed by the Coast Guard are balanced and will contribute to its fair share to reducing the deficit. However, the proposed changes to the Coast Guard will have no impact on our ability to provide the world-class service that Canadians and mariners have come to expect.

[Search and Rescue, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard is the safety of mariners.

He referred to the consolidation on the west coast, which we are very familiar with. I can assure him that the service will remain the same and will be in line with other major Canadian ports. I would also remind him that the search and rescue capability in that area was actually improved through the addition of a hovercraft in the 2010 budget. I would also tell him that the Coast Guard will be establishing a new inshore rescue boat station for the summer season in the Vancouver port. He has no reason to be concerned.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Chair, as I mentioned, we have worked collaboratively on responsible resource developments and the focus of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is on the protection of commercial and recreational aboriginal fisheries. I wonder if the Minister of the Environment could comment on that focus and tell us whether he agrees.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Chair, I would like to focus my comments on environmental assessment and the work of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This, of course, is a key part of the environment portfolio and a very important part of what the federal government does. The funding being considered as part of the main estimates is necessary for the continued application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and preparation for the implementation of the proposals in Bill C-38 should that legislation receive royal assent.

Environmental assessment sits at a crucial intersection between the environment and the economy. Environmental assessment is a way to ensure responsible resource development. It allows the Government of Canada to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of projects that represent billions of dollars of potential investment for Canada.

While founded upon the best of intentions, the current federal process is overly complex and dated. Accountability is spread across government, and there have been inconsistent application and delays as a result. This situation actually harms the economy. Project proponents face unnecessary costs. Investment decisions are put off. Jobs for Canadians are put on hold. The argument can be made that this actually harms the environment, too.

Limited government resources are consumed by unnecessary process steps and the need to assess small projects that pose minimal risk to the environment. There are also few enforcement provisions. The current law is based on concepts and approaches from the late 1980s. It is time to build on our record and move forward. It is time to modernize federal environmental assessment.

A responsible resource development plan sets out a path to modernization that relies on four pillars: one, making reviews more predictable and timely; two, reducing duplication; three, strengthening environmental protection; and four, enhancing consultation with aboriginal peoples. The new Canadian environmental assessment act supports all four pillars through responsible and certain timelines, better integration of federal and provincial responsibilities to avoid duplication, fair and consistent enforcement measures to ensure the environment is protected, and an explicit requirement to ensure that changes to the environment that affect aboriginal peoples are assessed and mitigated.

Environmental assessment is receiving much attention, inside and outside the House, as part of the debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Let me take this opportunity to set the record straight on some of the myths that have unfortunately dominated this debate.

The first myth is that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency budget has been cut by over 40%. Perhaps members have heard that. The opposite is true. At a time of fiscal restraint, the agency's capacity has been protected. Its budget is in fact increasing by 5% as a result of budget 2012. Additional funds are being provided for consultations with aboriginal peoples. Fundamentally, the provision of funding to the agency will ensure that it continues to provide Canadians with high quality environmental assessments.

The second myth permeating this debate is that environmental assessment is somehow being gutted by Bill C-38. A brief comparison between the current law and the bill is in order to explain this point. As I just noted, the government is providing additional funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency because we expect it to do more, not less.

For an environmental assessment to be required under the current act, there has to be a federal decision associated with the project. No decision means no environmental assessment, even though there might be serious effects on matters within federal jurisdiction. The bill proposes to address this gap. An environmental assessment may be required when there are adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the project is on the project list or specifically designated by the minister. A federal decision about the project is not a prerequisite.

When there is a federal decision associated with the project undergoing an environmental assessment, the environmental effects of that decision will be assessed. This is a requirement today. This is a requirement in the updated act.

The current law requires follow-up programs for major projects. These follow-up programs verify if mitigation measures are protecting the environment. Unfortunately, application of this requirement has been fragmented across government. Follow-up information is not being put to the best use possible.

The bill proposes to fix this problem. Follow-up programs would be mandatory after all environmental assessments. The results would flow to one of three responsible authorities: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board. These bodies would use this information to help manage unanticipated environmental effects and improve the practice of environmental assessment.

A final area of comparison relates to enforcement. The current law has no enforcement provisions. This is a very significant shortcoming. As parliamentarians we expect bills to be enforced when they become law. Bill C-38 proposes to make this the case for environmental assessment through several measures.

The act would prohibit a proponent from proceeding with a project identified in regulations unless it underwent an environmental assessment or the agency decided that one is not required. At the end of an environmental assessment, proponents would have to comply with the conditions set out in a decision statement. Federal inspectors for the first time would have the authority to examine whether conditions in an environmental assessment decision statement were met. Finally, there are proposed penalties for violations that range from $100,000 to $400,000.

Bill C-38 proposes to close gaps in what projects can be subjected to a federal environmental assessment. It would strengthen how follow-up information is managed and used. New enforcement powers would be provided. All of this adds up to a strengthening of environmental assessment in a significant way.

Now I would like to turn to the third myth. Some are saying that the government has not consulted nor heard from Canadians on how to improve environmental assessment. There has been a wealth of input from various sources under both this government and the previous government. Let me run through some of the highlights.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report entitled “Beyond Bill C-9”. Among other things, the standing committee recommended creating a system of environmental assessment permits. Bill C-38 proposes to do so through the enforceable environmental assessment decision statement.

The standing committee also recommended that the agency look into the use of regional environmental assessments as a means to deal with cumulative effects of multiple projects and activities. This examination of the potential of regional studies was done in cooperation with provinces and territories through a task group of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in 2008-09. The result can be seen in proposed provisions for regional studies.

In 2004, the government appointed the external advisory committee on smart regulation. Environmental assessment was the issue that generated the most complaints from stakeholders during this study of the broader federal regulatory system.

The smart regulation committee recommended the creation of a single federal agency for environmental assessment, better integration of federal-provincial assessments, timelines and more emphasis on follow-up programs. Proposals consistent with the spirit of these recommendations are all found in Bill C-38.

In 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment also issued a discussion paper and held consultations on the issue of one project, one review. The outcome is reflected in the bill's proposal for substitution and equivalency.

These new tools allow provincial environmental assessments to substitute for, or be recognized as equivalent to, a federal review as long as the substance of requirements of the act are met.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development members, many of whom are in the House tonight, reviewed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act this past year. The majority of the committee's recommendations have found their way into the bill, including the use of a project list to avoid requiring assessments of small projects, such as a blueberry washing facility.

This project list approach includes a safety net authority for the Minister of the Environment to require the environmental assessment of a project not identified in the regulations. This power could be used in unique circumstances where a relatively routine type of project is of concern because of its proposed location, for example, in a sensitive environmental setting.

Two standing committee reports, a public consultation by federal and provincial governments and a blue ribbon committee have all contributed to the development of this important bill.

We have listened to what is being said about environmental assessment over the past decade. We are moving forward to protect the environment while promoting jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

[Basketball, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Rich Goulet, a man whose achievements have been recently recognized through his induction into the Basketball BC Hall of Fame.

Rich has been a successful high school basketball coach for 43 years, the last 33 of them at Pitt Meadows Secondary School in my riding. His many accomplishments include winning the 1989 and 2000 B.C. Triple-A Championships and the 1983 Double-A Championships. In fact, he is the only coach in the Basketball BC Hall of Fame to win both triple-A and double-A high school championships.

Rich has also coached numerous provincial teams that included some notable basketball players, such as Steve Nash and other talented university players.

Clearly, Coach Goulet is committed to the sport of basketball, but more impressive is his commitment to moulding teenage basketball players into confident and productive young men. Hundreds of young men and their parents owe him their thanks.

I invite my colleagues here in the House of Commons to join me in thanking Rich Goulet for his service to Canada.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today signed by constituents in the riding that I represent, and they are both on the same topic.

The petitioners are concerned that Canada's 400-year-old definition of human beings says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, which, in their opinion, is contrary to 21st century medical evidence.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that we did not go out there to discuss any particular policy—not owner operator, not fleet separation, not any one of the complex web of policies that exist out there.

Our commitment is to improve Canada's fisheries, so we went out there to talk to those who are involved in the fisheries. It is our sense that the fisheries can contribute more to the Canadian economy than they are currently doing. If we continue with the status quo, we will probably not get to that point. Therefore, we went to ask them whether there were policies that were hindering them and the enterprise in which they were involved from being as prosperous and profitable as they could be.

As I mentioned earlier, we heard a variety of issues about that, including some of the opinions that the member has expressed. We are considering all of them at the current time.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his interest in this issue and other fishery-related issues. I appreciated his occasional involvement in the fisheries committee and was pleased when he was made a permanent member just recently. I look forward to working with him on issues such as this one.

First and foremost, no decisions have been made to eliminate any part of the current fisheries management policy regime. What we are doing is listening to views about how to give the fishing industry the tools it needs to operate in an environment that is more sustainable, stable and economically prosperous.

It is for these reasons that we went out to speak with Canadians with an open mind to hear their views on what works and what does not. We have heard from my colleague and his constituents, but we wanted to hear directly from those who make a living in this business about what they need not only to survive but to thrive in an increasingly competitive and global marketplace.

During this process, we did receive thousands of comments through regional face-to-face meetings, online submissions and even via fax. The opinions expressed were as varied and diverse as the policies and management measures that we are speaking to today. They share many common values: a deep-rooted respect for the sea and fellow fishermen, a duty to their communities and a strong sense of perseverance and entrepreneurship. Although differences in opinions have emerged, all expressed a passion and commitment for the fishery, which my colleague has reflected today, and we must appreciate and respect these.

Many expressed the need for change. Just as there are fluctuations in resources and shifting market demands, policies and management measures must work to meet the needs of today's harvesters. Many of the rules currently in place were established decades ago in response to issues that emerged under then new management regimes. This is not to say that they are all outdated, but there is a valid need to examine these management measures to see whether they are helping or hindering those who work in the fisheries and to continuously improve how we do business.

The concerns raised by the hon. member have been raised before. They have been raised when visiting with members of the fishing industry, stakeholders and representatives from various governments. These people and Canadians in general are concerned about the future of many fisheries, the challenges that exist and the opportunities for change.

When we went out to speak with and, more important, to listen to Canadians, it was our intention to get feedback and input on ways to improve the sustainability of the resource. We wanted to hear people's thoughts on how the complex web of rules currently governing fisheries management could be streamlined.

To be fair and objective, we set no preconditions on what could be suggested. We wanted to hear all views. When someone suggested that we change a specific policy, our reaction has been, “Why?” and not, “Sorry, we cannot consider that”.

In examining an issue as complex as Canada's fisheries management regime, we cannot arbitrarily exclude key elements in our analysis. We have to look at the whole system and all of its rules, policies, practices, management measures and regulations, and we need to look at how each of those parts interacts with the others, and that is what we did.

In general, the response to this process was very encouraging. It is now up to us as a government to review and analyze all of the submissions, and that is what we are doing.