Philip Toone

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is worthy of support, certainly, but there are some questions that were raised at committee.

I want to raise one point that he raised during his speech, that currently ships need to voluntarily request a licence to be able to come to Canadian port. With the bill, we could react to a flag state making that same request of a ship that is possibly carrying illegally fished product.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how often a flag state actually asks Canada to inspect one of its ships? It strikes me from the reports that were brought to committee that this never happens, or if it does it is extremely infrequent. What would the bill actually do regarding bringing ships to our ports for inspections?

[Petitions, May 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, today I also have the honour to present a petition against the sales tax on feminine hygiene products. Hundreds of people all across Canada are calling for this. We hope the government is listening.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents, who are calling on Canada Post to improve its services. They denounce the loss of service as a result of privatization and the decision to install community mailboxes that people do not want.

We want to see an improvement, and that is what these petitioners are demanding.

[VIA Rail Canada Act, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to close this first debate on Bill C-640, VIA Rail Canada Act. This bill is very important to me personally. For one thing, it guarantees passenger rail service to my region, in the Gaspé. Regions like the Gaspé need reliable, affordable passenger rail service. In our regions, bus service is far from exemplary, and air travel is simply too expensive.

Our regions need a Canada-wide passenger rail system. It is more affordable than air travel, it is the best option for the environment, it would connect our remotest regions, and it would help develop the economies of the regions served. Let us be clear: this bill is in the best interest of our environment, our economy and our regions.

I cannot emphasize enough the benefits such a passenger rail service could have, not only in the communities that are served directly, but also for society in general. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, every dollar invested in passenger rail service produces between $3 and $4 in economic spinoffs.

However, our current system is not reaching its full potential. The status quo is simply not working. This becomes clear simply by comparing VIA Rail with the Amtrak passenger rail system in the U.S.

With Amtrak, a traveller can get from Seattle to New York in three days for the equivalent of 275 Canadian dollars, and departures are offered daily. With VIA Rail, a trip from Vancouver to Montreal takes a day longer than with Amtrak, four days in other words, and costs an extra $200, or $475. What is more, VIA Rail offers just three departures a week during the summer and only two departures in winter. In fact, it would be cheaper, better and faster to travel with Amtrak in the United States to get from Vancouver to Toronto.

In the United States, politicians of all stripes understand that a modern country cannot afford not to invest in passenger train services. In Canada, we recognize the importance of investing in public infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and fire stations. We even allocate a lot of money to road and air transport. Why then refuse to recognize the importance of passenger rail service?

It is not a question of nationalizing a private company because VIA Rail is already a crown corporation and is already subsidized by the federal government. Bill C-640 simply proposes to clarify VIA Rail's role, rights and responsibilities. Canadians deserve to know what they are getting for their investment and to have the power to ensure that their expectations will be met.

The VIA Rail Canada Act would give passenger trains priority over freight trains. This is not all that outrageous. Such a system is already in place in the United States. What is more, VIA Rail was created to free CN and CP from their obligation to provide passenger service. In return, CN and CP now allow VIA Rail to use their rail lines for a fee. It is important to note that VIA Rail pays more than Amtrak for those same rights.

Bill C-640 would allow VIA Rail Canada to negotiate on equal footing with these host railway companies and would ensure that it had scheduling preference in order to promote increased passenger use. Let us not forget that the preference of passenger trains would not apply if it were to unduly impair the freight service of a railway company. This is not about penalizing railway companies. It is simply about ensuring effective passenger transportation.

Bill C-640 would also establish a list of mandated routes. We are paying for a Canada-wide network so we expect to see a Canada-wide network, especially since the service would generate economic spinoffs in the communities being served. This model was very successful in the United States.

I would like to close by quoting the former president of Amtrak, David Gunn. He said:

No national rail passenger system in the world is profitable. Without public subsidy, there will be no passenger rail transportation systems....

We cannot get along without a national passenger rail transportation service in the 21st century. Privatizing VIA Rail is out of the question. The reason why the crown corporation was created was that the private sector was unable to provide this essential service. We must have a Canada-wide service. This bill is the first step in that direction.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the lobster-fishing season in the Magdalen Islands is scheduled to begin on May 9.

However, yesterday, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans published contradictory administrative notices that are mandatory for some fishers but not for others. The department is requiring fishers to complete a logbook every time they go out to sea, a logbook that is filled with questions that have nothing to do with species management.

Why will the minister not grant a reprieve to allow for real consultation?

[Rail Transportation, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last point. It is very clear that if VIA Rail were to invest in new rolling stock, it would improve its efficiency substantially. It currently uses what they call “renaissance cars” to travel on the eastern side of this country. These cars were not designed for northern climes such as ours. They were designed to cross the Channel in Europe. The doors are frequently frozen in the wintertime and unable to open. The cars are not adapted to the rail that we have.

Were we to have rolling stock that was performing properly in our conditions, we could build them in La Pocatière, Quebec. We could build them in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The multiplication factor of that kind of investment would be enormous for those regions. VIA Rail could be an economic tool and a motor for the economies of many regions in this country, and the government is slowly starving VIA out.

We need more investment. We need reliable investment, and this is why we need a legislative framework. The Conservative government, unfortunately, does not seem to understand that passenger rail is essential in this country.

[Rail Transportation, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple: will the government support a legislative framework for VIA Rail?

VIA Rail has been a crown corporation since it was created in 1977. It was created as a crown corporation because passenger rail is an essential public service and one that has the potential to generate significant economic, social and cultural benefits, especially for rural regions.

Our country was built on railroads, yet successive governments have left VIA Rail adrift, without a mandate and without a clear delineation of its rights, powers or obligations. Look where that has gotten us. Routes are in jeopardy or have been cut, service has been reduced and schedules are unreliable.

In the meantime, Amtrak in the United States is flourishing. A rail transportation network covers the United States with the help of passenger trains built in Canada by Bombardier, among others, some of which can reach speeds of up to 200 kilometres an hour. True, Amtrak's budget is three or four times bigger than VIA Rail's, but it serves nearly 10 times more passengers.

The difference is that Amtrak's role and mandate are clearly defined in the legislative framework. The difference is that in Canada, since 2007, the federal government has sunk over $900 million into VIA Rail. The government invested $900 million of taxpayers' money without addressing the fundamental problems. We have had enough of temporary solutions. Is the government now prepared to roll up its sleeves and do what needs to be done?

The fact that VIA Rail has been able to survive for such a long time without a legislative mandate does not mean that the status quo can be maintained indefinitely. It simply shows that the concept of passenger rail is a solid one. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, every dollar spent on passenger rail service generates three to four times that amount in economic returns. American politicians from all parties understand that the issue is not whether they can afford to invest in passenger services but whether they can afford not to.

It is time for the government to stop wasting taxpayers' money on temporary solutions and start investing in a reliable crown corporation. Let us start by clearly establishing what we expect from VIA Rail in return for its public funding.

A legislative framework for VIA Rail would serve as a charter of rights for passenger trains. It is time to give VIA Rail the tools it needs to provide Canadians with a national public passenger rail service that is reliable, safe, effective and worthy of 21st-century Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who asked a very relevant question.

It is important to remember that the government likely has no greater responsibility than to protect the public and put rules in place so that people know that they can count on the government in case of an emergency. This government is doing the opposite. It has tried multiple times to dismantle the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre; the marine traffic centres; scientific institutions, such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute; and protections that people expect.

The government has to stop thinking that it is enough to take action after the fact, or to have the capacity to deal with problems after they occur. Canada is a 21st century country and Canadians expect us to use the technology, knowledge and expertise our country has to protect against foreseeable incidents. We know that there are going to be spills and distress situations at sea.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is ignoring that knowledge. It is disregarding it. It is time that the government took that knowledge seriously.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question that should be posed to members on the government side, because I do not work with the same math they do, and I do not think my hon. friend works with their math either. Perhaps the Conservatives should go back to using slide rules, because clearly the software they are using is not working properly.

We should be looking at creating real standards. When we adopted legislation recently in this House regarding the responsibility that polluters pay, it was a step in the right direction. However, the problem is that we are solving a problem after the fact.

What we are trying to bring forward here today is that the government is not giving that ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure. That ounce of prevention is precious. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that all they are doing is passing the buck to future generations, who will be paying through the nose for all of the bad legislation that the current government has brought forward.

The Conservatives need to stop closing emergency response centres. They need to stop laying off scientists. They need to actually invest in the environment. They need to look back at the bills they have adopted in this House that have seriously curtailed our capacity to protect the environment. They have to start taking what they say for real and actually put some real emphasis on protecting the environment, the environment upon which the Canadian economy depends.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased and honoured to present my views on the opposition motion on the Kitsilano Coast Guard and the marine traffic centres across Canada.

I have heard repeatedly in the House that the incident in Vancouver was handled properly. Quite frankly, if that is what we consider a proper response in Canada, then we have a problem. People in eastern Canada had similar experiences and understand that we are a long way from handling this sort of thing properly.

I would like to remind members that the environment commissioner was very clear in the report he published in early 2013: when it comes to eastern Canada and the St. Lawrence estuary, we are not at all prepared to deal with an oil spill.

We need to learn from what happened in Vancouver so that people in eastern Canada have a better understanding of what went wrong in the west coast. Western Canada should also remember what happened in the eastern part of the country. I would therefore like to briefly discuss the incidents that have occurred recently and show that, unfortunately, this government is not handling these situations properly.

On the contrary, it is gutting our country's protection system, which is certainly not good for Canadians. I am therefore wondering who will benefit from the dismantling of search and rescue services and protection services for our coastal communities. This jeopardizes the lives of our fishermen and sailors, not to mention the state of our ecosystems and the industries that depend on them, such as tourism and the fishery.

Finally, the Conservatives are saying that they have greatly improved the Coast Guard's capacity since 2005. I would like to give some examples that clearly show that the Coast Guard's capacity has diminished at the expense of safety.

Remember that the NDP went to the mat for the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, the main eastern Canada centre ensuring the safety of fishers and sailors as well as the environment. We need real resources in the regions so that we can respond to distress situations.

In eastern Quebec, the Rivière-au-Renard marine communications and traffic services centre, which is in my riding near the city of Gaspé, is being shut down. They are talking about shutting down the marine traffic centre in St. Anthony and transferring its functions to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and they also have the centres in Vancouver; Comox; Saint John, New Brunswick; St. John's, Newfoundland; Tofino; and Thunder Bay in their sights. All of those centres are slated for closure, thereby weakening our ability to respond to distress situations.

The people who work at these marine traffic centres are the first line of defence for fishers and sailors. When a fisher is in distress or there is an oil spill, marine traffic centres are the first to respond to the distress calls. Closing these centres will weaken our ability to respond to distress situations.

In Vancouver, the response was extremely slow, even though help was not far away. In eastern Canada, such response teams are located hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away. The marine traffic centres that respond to distress situations are being closed.

When people make a distress call, they are often the ones in distress, and therefore they are unable to give us their exact location. They expect whoever answers their call to know where American Bank is, for example. When a ship is sinking, that is not the time to consult a manual to find out where American Bank is.

The same is true when it comes to a cleanup following a spill. We cannot rely only on the liability that the Conservatives' new bills place on the shipping companies that use our waters when it comes to cleaning up after a spill. No, we also need to protect ourselves.

With the Conservatives saying that they have improved the Canadian Coast Guard's capacity since 2005, I have to ask a question. If that were true, why did the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment each say, in 2010 and 2012 respectively, that we did not have the ability to clean up an oil spill? The situation has not improved, quite the contrary. I would like to see the government show a real interest in improving our cleanup capacity.

Some 82 million litres of oil are transported through the vast region of eastern Canada, and 25 million litres of oil are transported through the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence every year, and yet we do not have the capacity to clean up a potential spill.

Once again, although the Conservatives are saying that they are up to the task, on the contrary, the people of eastern Canada know very well that we are not even close. I will use a recent leak as an example. Last year in Cap-aux-Meules in the Magdalen Islands, there was a leak of 100,000 litres, and we had to push really hard to get Environment Canada to issue a statement. We must not forget the recent spill in Vancouver involving 2,800 litres, and probably more.

We fault the government for the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard failed to communicate with local officials in the Vancouver area. The same thing happened in Cap-aux-Meules, where communication capabilities were practically non-existent when 100,000 litres of oil spilled.

With the help of the Canadian Coast Guard and private companies, we were able to put up barriers in an attempt to recover 20,000 of the 100,000 litres. Nonetheless, 80,000 litres dispersed into the water or the ocean. We are not entirely sure.

However, since then, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have told us that the situation was very worrisome. They are prepared to move forward with a plan of action, but that plan has yet to materialize. We do not know what direction they will take.

Fifty years ago, the Corfu Island ran aground near the Magdalen Islands, and we are still finding oil on the beaches today. In September 2014, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was finally prepared to move forward with a plan of action. As of April of this year, we still have no plan of action. That was 50 years ago. This just goes to show that the successive governments of Canada have not taken huge oil spills in eastern Canada seriously on many occasions. There are oil spills there almost every day. Some are small; some are big.

As my colleague from Surrey North said, there are thousands of spills every year, and we see that the cleanup capacity is abysmal.

When we talk about closing marine communications and traffic services centres, not only are we losing expertise on how to respond to distress situations, but we are also losing people in our regions. Marine communications and traffic services centres are often located in the regions. If we close those centres, people will leave with their families and their knowledge. The regions will suffer tremendously from this attempt to save some money at the expense of fishers, mariners and the environment.

The Rivière-au-Renard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre is supposed to close this year. Its services will be provided by Les Escoumins MCTS Centre, which is on the other side of the gulf. It will be a long time before the centre closes because the communications system just does not work.

When the Conservatives tell us that they have made major improvements to the communications system, we need to ask questions. They have been trying to close the Rivière-au-Renard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre and transfer its responsibilities to the Les Escoumins centre for two years. However, they cannot do it because the communications system, which was installed at a cost of $40 million, does not work. Les Escoumins and the other communications and traffic services centres are not operating properly. We have to wonder about how well they are functioning.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives are going to buy an European communications system. Perhaps it is time that they invested in Canadians, not just in technology but also in the health and safety of people in their environment.