Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the critic for natural resources, I am pleased to rise in the House at third reading to debate Bill C-46.

This bill moved to report stage very quickly, because clearly, the parties did not really have a chance to properly present their case, especially the independent members in the House.

At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Conservatives imposed a motion similar to the ones it imposed on all committees, since it has a majority on all committees of the House of Commons, whereby, and I am paraphrasing, when the committee clerk receives an order of reference from the House in relation to a bill, the clerk must write to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee to invite the member to send a letter to the chair of the committee, in both official languages, stating any proposed amendments to the bill subject to the order of reference. During the clause-by-clause, the chair of the committee will allow a member who proposed an amendment to make brief comments in support of it, although the member cannot join in the debate or vote.

That is how the committees always operate, and the Standing Committee on Natural Resources is no exception.

We essentially believe that these manoeuvres violate the rights of independent parliamentarians or members who belong to a parliamentary group and who are nonetheless elected just like any other member.

The big book of procedure tells us that it is the House, and only the House, that designates members and associate members of these committees as well as the members that represent the House on joint committees.

The Chair has already established that that is a fundamental right of the House. As for the committees, they have no power in that regard, especially since the rules specifically state that an MP who is not a committee member may not vote or move motions.

Report stage was usually the opportunity for these members to have their amendments heard, to debate them and to participate in the vote. Instead, practically everything is now managed, debated and voted in committee, sometimes even in camera.

This is a very important change in the functioning of the House and it greatly affects the rights of members and their ability to properly carry out their duties of representing their constituents and holding the government to account.

However, despite everything, I must highlight the work done by my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who had two amendments passed despite this unfair and undemocratic government tactic.

Bill C-46 establishes a liability regime for federally regulated pipelines in Canada, and although this regime leaves many questions unanswered, the existing legislation does not provide for much of a regime.

The NDP proposed some 20 amendments at report stage, many of which were virtually the same as those proposed by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. That is why I am pleased that these requests were heard. We must understand that she was not able to propose her amendments at report stage. She was asked to present her amendments in committee, which is what generally happens. She came to do so and she got just one minute for each of her amendments.

This is a systematic problem at committee stage. Committees should be a place for debate, so that we can identify the strengths and, especially, the flaws of each bill. However, this Conservative government's method is something completely new to Parliament, and it is undermining our ability to properly debate bills.

In the case of the amendments that passed, the government tried to make first nations members believe that the addition of a definition about them to the bill was a show of good faith and openness on its part.

Like other levels of government, aboriginal governing bodies will be able to sue companies connected to pipelines for recovery of reasonable costs incurred in managing a spill on their land.

I think this is a major collective victory. It shows not only that aboriginals are full-fledged nations, but also that there is a will to treat them as such. As I said, the parties were on the same wavelength and proposed many similar amendments that targeted the same flaws in Bill C-46.

In short, Bill C-46 is a first step toward integrating a real polluter-pays principle into federal pipeline regulations.

However, entrenching that in law is not the end of it. We also have to make sure that the provisions of the law respect its principles.

The NDP voted in favour of the principle underlying Bill C-46 because that step forward was better than the status quo.

I must nevertheless point out that at least one witness gave very engaging testimony during the committee's study of Bill C-46. Ian Miron of Ecojustice described this bill as a step forward, just as we have done. He also said that it was more of a “polluter might pay” principle than a polluter pays principle. The reason is that Bill C-46 is highly discretionary. It makes a number of tools available to the National Energy Board and the government, but they have complete discretion when it comes to using those tools. The lack of absolute regulations, if I can put it that way, means that this legislation does not fully respect the polluter pays principle. It means that the principle will apply if the National Energy Board and the government want it to.

These regulations and this liability regime will now be governed by the National Energy Board, which has an especially important role to play given that Canadians' trust and their sense of safety with respect to infrastructure and the regulations in place will depend on how well the board fulfills its mandate.

The report published in 2013 following a comprehensive study by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources clearly states that those two concepts go hand in hand:

If an accident occurs, there must be trust that the “polluter pays” principle, a principle applied to all modes of transport, is backed by concrete action. Social license is earned when citizens have trust in emergency and spill response capabilities, based on clear plans for well-organized recovery and rehabilitation of the environment, as well as a means for compensating for damages.

Even the president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association at the time, Brenda Kenny, suggested in the study that, “it is not enough in today’s climate to obtain a regulatory license or permit in order to proceed with energy projects”.

This illustrates how important it is for businesses and the industry to have public confidence. This was corroborated by the testimony in committee of a representative of Canada's Building Trades Unions, who said he agrees with the polluter pays principle, which indicates to us that the unions and workers truly understand that environmental protection and robust protection, prevention and accountability standards are ironically the things that are going to help them keep their jobs.

For a culture of safety to take hold, there needs to be interaction between common values and beliefs on one hand, and the structures and oversight mechanisms of an organization on the other hand, with the aim of producing standards of behaviour. Unfortunately, we are way off the mark. With its bills and regulations, the government has done nothing but cause the public to lose confidence not only in the industry, but also in the key regulators. If the oil companies want public approval for the pipelines, then Canadians need assurance that these projects are sustainable and that approval processes are open, rigorous and fair. That is clearly still not the case, and this bill will not change much, unfortunately.

In fact, only 27% of Canadians believe that the Government of Canada can respond effectively to an oil spill at sea, and only 32% share the same view for spills on land. The English Bay oil spill in Vancouver in early April should serve as an example of the government's readiness to respond. Civil society groups and environmentalists have been saying for years that Canada is not prepared for a major oil spill. The 2010 Kalamazoo spill in Michigan was a turning point for the oil sector. New standards were established and discoveries were made about how oil from the oil sands behaves, which requires new standards for research, prevention and response.

The problem is that instead of working with the utmost transparency, the board encourages corporations to be secretive. According to the 2013 Senate report:

By regulation, every pipeline company is required to submit Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) on a facility-by-facility basis and the ERPs must be approved by the NEB. These plans require companies to assess the risk of a spill and outline the details of a response. They must be up-to-date with corresponding emergency manuals and must be reviewed regularly. On June 26, 2013, the federal government announced that it would require ERPs to be more accessible to the...

Guy Caron

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)