Mike Wallace

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the 23rd annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, APPF, in Quito, Ecuador, January 11 to 15, 2015.

That conference is coming to Vancouver next January.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's honesty. He was clear in his speech that his party is in favour of increased taxes to pay for a number of the programs the New Democrats have indicated they are interested in. I am actually looking forward to debating those issues at election time also.

However, I am a little confused. On one hand, in his speech he talked about corporations needing to pay their own way, and then the previous speaker from his party was taking credit for the small business tax rate going from 11% to 9%. Ninety per cent of the businesses in the country are small businesses.

Are the New Democrats for increasing taxes on business, or are they against taxes going up for business? It is a very confusing message. I do not think they know what they actually stand for. I would be interested to hear what he has to say about that.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here all morning. It is now a little after one o'clock. I would like to go through the process. The bill was introduced by the minister. There was second reading debate. Everyone in the House agreed, and it went to committee. There was a discussion at committee and witnesses. It came back here.

There have been comments about why the Conservatives have not been up to speak to this. The fact of the matter is that the whole House agrees with the bill. What opposition members are arguing about today is the short title. They do not like the short title. One party is carrying the debate from ten o'clock until two, is my understanding. Then on another date, we will hear about not having enough time to debate issues.

There is other legislation we could have introduced that the opposition members may actually disagree with, and we could have a real debate in the House.

Based on the respect I have for the member who just spoke, would it not have been a better use of the time of the House to deal with legislation and actually have a debate on other than the short title?

[Petitions, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present. The petition is with respect to small scale farming, and preserving, exchanging and using seeds.

[Committees of the House, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to speak today to Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act. In response to the previous question, we on this side agree that this is part of a three-part analysis or attempt to make rail traffic as safe as possible in this country. One pillar, which the parliamentary secretary talked about in his speech earlier today, is prevention. In the second pillar, we need to be ready for response in case there is an emergency. What we are dealing with in Bill C-52 is the part about accountability, making federally regulated rail companies accountable for what they are doing.

In the next few minutes I want to talk about some of the questions that have been asked of the government and of this legislation before it goes to committee so that more discussion can happen, and I know my opposition friends are eager to have witnesses at committee to discuss the bill in more detail.

Why is the government changing the liability and compensation regime for rail? I think it is relatively obvious to all of us in the House, and it was mentioned by every member who has spoken to it today, that the issue of having the government responsible for the safety of Canadians is a number one priority for our government, and it should be. Unfortunately, we have had some very tragic incidents in terms of rail safety issues in this country, such as Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, with the terrible tragedy that happened there in July 2013. I am from Burlington, Ontario, where we have had rail derailments. Unfortunately, the most recent one was a passenger rail issue and people died from that derailment also. However, this discussion is really about product that travels by rail, not people, so this is important to the people of Burlington to have the opportunity to make sure that there is accountability with rail lines and what they are shipping through our neighbourhoods across the country.

When would this new change come into effect? This is basically about changes to the insurance requirements of rail companies, and we are giving them about a year from when it comes into force to get ready for that, which means they will have to make sure their insurance coverage, the accountability aspects, are in place prior to one year from when the bill gets royal assent.

Did we consult stakeholders? Of course we consulted stakeholders. That is important because, whether it was municipalities or railway lines or others affected, there were a couple of rounds of stakeholder outreach in terms of getting feedback on what can be done as the accountability piece. I believe we received feedback from approximately 27 stakeholders on this, from railways, shippers, and local municipalities.

This is important because the issue of rail travel for products and goods is important. Let us face it: it was important in bringing Canada together as a country, and we need to make sure everyone is involved in that discussion of where we are headed in terms of accountability, of being proactive and prepared to respond, and of prevention. That is why the stakeholders played a big role in coming up with what is in the bill.

I think it would be naive to say that everyone agreed on exactly what to do and at what level, but that is why we have consultations. We think that the polluter pay principle should be put forward as the number one tenet of the accountability portion of this.

What does polluter pay mean for rail? It is an important principle that those who cause the damage as a result of their operations would pay for the damage. It is important that it is the company and, in this case, we are adding a fund from shippers. They need to take significant responsibility in terms of the levels of insurance coverage they need. It should not be the taxpayer. That is what the polluter pay principle is, that it is not the general taxpayers' responsibility. It is the government's responsibility to develop the safety standards, to make sure the rail system is safe, but if something does go wrong, it is not the taxpayers' responsibility to cover those costs but the polluter.

These measures of liability should not be new to companies. No company should say it is not its responsibility, it should be the taxpayers' responsibility. At the end of the day, based on the consultations with stakeholders, including the rail companies, we came to an agreement, which we see in Bill C-52, to deal with this.

Let me go over the proposed amendments. They would make all railways hold a minimum level of insurance, which we have heard many times today, based on the risk posed by the type and volume of dangerous goods being moved. It makes sense that if a company is moving non-dangerous goods, its liability should be less, but a company moving dangerous goods, including oil products and others that can cause significant damage, has to have higher liability. It has to have more insurance to cover the costs because if there is an accident, the damage that is done is much more significant with dangerous goods. We came up with a proposal that railways would have to carry higher amounts of insurance for dangerous goods. It is common sense and something that both the public and the railways clearly understand is the railways' responsibility.

There would be an initial requirement for them to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance, depending on the type and volume of the dangerous good being carried. That is an initial requirement. Then one year after that, those requirements would double to $100 million and $250 million, respectively. These are the carrying costs that would have to be built into the operational aspects of running a railway. It is important for the railways to have the coverage so that taxpayers would not be on the hook for the cleanup of any damage done from any unfortunate accident. When I say “damage”, it can obviously be both physical damage, property damage, damage to the environment, and, of course, to human life. There have been tragedies in this country where that has happened. We need to make sure that taxpayers are not going to be responsible for that, but the actual railway shipping the goods is responsible.

Another question was with regard to what we think the financial impact would be, particularly on short-line railways. People tend to think about CP and CN, the big railways in Canada, but we would also require the short-line railways to carry the same requirement. It would be part of railways doing business in this country. It would be part of the decision to carry goods and it would be included in this new regime. This would increase their operating costs, there is no doubt about it, but it is much-needed protection for taxpayers as we continue to implement the polluter pay principle, including short-line railways.

Is there insurance available at this level? We are assured that there is. We have had a number of insurance brokers say that it is possible for them to provide that level of insurance and are willing to take the risk. Therefore, they cannot use as an excuse that they cannot get the insurance, which was an issue we needed to resolve to make sure it was available.

I will conclude by saying we have had some tragic rail accidents in my own riding of Burlington in the last number of years. We have also seen across the country other very significant accidents in the railway system, mainly dealing with the shipping of dangerous product. We need to have assurance that the polluter needs to pay and we need to protect the taxpayers, and this is what Bill C-52 would do.

I look forward to the bill going to committee for discussion and back to this House quickly so that we can pass it and make it law, because it would not take effect until a year after it has royal assent. Therefore, we need to get royal assent as soon as possible.

[National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day Act, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-643, An Act to establish National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Day. We have a number of awareness days in the House, and for me, this is one of the more important ones we have had since I have been here, which is nine years.

I would first like to congratulate the member for introducing this legislation. It is obviously an important issue to the member for Montcalm, but it is also important for members from ridings across the country. Spinal cord injuries are happening all over Canada because of accidents and other things. As the previous speaker mentioned, disease can cause issues with the spinal cord.

My spouse works for an organization that helps young people with physical disabilities, and spinal cord injuries is one of them. It is a tremendous burden, if that is the right word to use. “Challenge”, I think, would be a better word. Such an injury is a tremendous challenge not only to the individual who is suffering from a spinal cord injury but also to the family members and friends who are asked to look after them.

The previous speaker from the Liberal Party mentioned that about 95,000 Canadians live with neurological conditions caused by spinal cord injury. My research shows that it is actually likely that in 2011 it was closer to 120,000. There are a significant number of people in this country suffering from issues due to spinal cord injuries. They are often life-altering, of course, to individuals and their families. We see that in the House with our colleagues. We have been very fortunate that our colleagues who have spinal cord issues overcame those challenges, ran for office, and were elected to the Parliament of Canada. It took a tremendous amount of courage on their part to make that happen.

These injuries also have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. It sounds cold for me to say that, but there is a loss of opportunity both for individuals who suffer from spinal cord injuries and for their families, who have to take time and effort away from what they might otherwise be doing in terms of being productive in jobs or other areas and instead look after their loved ones. That is a loss.

In 2013, a study supported by Health Canada and the Rick Hansen Institute estimated the following:

...the lifetime economic burden per individual [with traumatic spinal cord injuries] ranges from $1.5 million for persons with incomplete paraplegia to $3.0 million for persons with complete tetraplegia....

Bill C-643 reminds us of the importance of recognizing the courage and determination of those with spinal cord injuries as well as the perseverance of the scientists whose research has improved the lives of hundreds of people with spinal cord injuries.

We have a lot of bills these days. This one in particular is important, because it would bring attention at least once a year to the challenges that individuals face and would also bring awareness to the public. We need to leverage these days that we have and not just pay lip service to the issue.

That particular day of the year would be an opportunity for all organizations, individuals, and families to rally together to make sure that governments, organizations, not-for-profit organizations, communities, and even community planning have an understanding of the issues and challenges facing people who suffer from spinal cord injuries. It would be an opportunity to make sure we have the resources and opportunities for those who have suffered from a spinal cord injury, whether those resources are in finance, research, or a physical plant, as was previously mentioned.

I think the mover of this bill should be fairly excited, because I think the vote is going to be unanimous in the House. I certainly support it. I know that our government supports the actions we need to take to help prevent these injuries in the first place and supports research for the development of innovative treatments for those who are suffering from spinal cord injuries.

From 2006 to 2014, the Government of Canada invested close to $57 million in spinal cord injury research, including more than $6.5 million in 2013-14 alone, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which we all know is a great organization. It provides support in a number of areas of health research for the betterment of Canadians.

Research projects supported through this investment cover a broad range of issues related to spinal cord injuries, from regeneration to repair of damaged nerves and nerve fibres in the spinal cord to the development of new guidelines on best practices for the treatment of patients. This investment also contributed to improving our understanding of how the spinal cord transmits neural signals between the brain and the rest of the body.

For example, last June, CIHR announced an investment of $1.7 million for a research project at Dalhousie University on mapping how a family of neurons in the spinal cord controls subconscious movements. This fundamental knowledge is an important first step in the development of new tools to restore movement in patients suffering from neurological injury or disease.

As we learn new things that are brought to us, it always amazes me the importance and quality of scientists we have in this country. We are proud as a government to be supporting those scientists who are doing great work, which is way beyond my comprehension. I am very thankful that we have people with that skill level, knowledge, and commitment to finding health solutions, including for spinal cord injuries in this country.

Another good example of research supported by CIHR is the project of Dr. Yves De Koninck of Laval University. It aims to improve our understanding of how nerve cells regulate pain and how this process is altered in the spinal cords of individuals with nerve damage. This research will contribute to designing treatments for preventing and alleviating chronic neuropathic pain or increased pain sensitivity in people with traumatic spinal cord injuries.

This fantastic scientist received the Barbara Turnbull award for his contribution in this important area. The annual award has been presented since 2001 by CIHR, the Barbara Turnbull Foundation, and Brain Canada to raise awareness of the thousands of Canadians who are living with a spinal cord injury and to promote research in this area.

CIHR is also supported by a number of research initiatives that have contributed to advancing knowledge on the effects of spinal cord injuries and the most effective treatments to address them. For example, from 2004 to 2010, CIHR and its partners invested more than $82 million to support a major strategic initiative called the regenerative medicine and nanomedicine initiative. Research supported through this investment focused on the renewal of bodily tissues and organs, the restoration of function with natural and bioengineering means, and the development of new materials to diagnose, treat, and repair damaged tissues.

Many of us have a friend, a neighbour, a family member, or a colleague right here in this House who have suffered a life-altering spinal cord injury. While there have been many scientific advancements to help in treatment and sometimes in recovery from these injuries, there is still much to be done. Bill C-643 will help raise awareness so that everyone can learn how they can play a role in preventing spinal cord injuries.

I would like to thank hon. colleagues for their attention and invite them to support this legislation when it comes to a vote.

[Committees of the House, March 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 60th report on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented in this House yesterday, March 24, 2015, be concurred in.

[Public Safety, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country will remember the tragedy one year ago in Moncton, where a cowardly gunman killed three RCMP members and left families, a community, and a nation in mourning.

Canadian businesses are leading the development of new surveillance and targeting technologies that are essential to Canada's defence, security, and search and rescue. Can the Minister of Industry please update the House on our government's latest investment to keep Canadians safe?

[Committees of the House, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the subject matter of Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The committee requests a 45-day extension to consider it.