House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was railway.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Court ruled in favour of Dennis Manuge and other veterans who have been waging a court battle with the Conservatives over pension clawbacks. The government was wrong to litigate in the first instance, and now the court has ruled.
Will the Minister of Justice commit today to not appeal this ruling and leave these veterans alone?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite is a lawyer. He would know this decision has just been rendered today by the Federal Court.
The Department of Justice and the Department of National Defence will review this case. Until such time, it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act is on the Conservatives' chopping block.
Further to my complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages, in his report on the appointment of the Auditor General, the commissioner stated that the government should never have hired a unilingual individual and that, as a result of its actions, it was impossible for the Auditor General to provide service of equal quality in both official languages.
Why does the government not respect its own hiring criteria and its own laws, which were passed by this House?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, as I just said in response to a similar question from a member of the Liberal Party, our government will certainly protect the French fact throughout Canada and will make responsible appointments that respect both languages, French and English, in every corner of our country. We will continue to make responsible appointments to meet the needs of Canadians.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, while the NDP joins big union bosses and their fellow socialist comrades today to rally for a return to reckless, unsustainable, big-government deficit spending, including higher punishing taxes, our Conservative government is focused on helping Canadians by promoting jobs and the economy, and protecting taxpayers with prudent and responsible spending.
While our plan is positive and forward-looking, the NDP would take Canada back to an era of protectionism and restrictive trade practices.
Can the Minister of State for Finance please explain how economic action plan 2012 will support Canada's—
Ted Menzies ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians--that is, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Although nearly 700,000 more Canadians have jobs, the global economy remains fragile. That is why, in budget 2012, we have taken action to enhance trade and investment relationships with fast-growing economies. Not only that, we are reducing red tape, which will generate savings for our manufacturers by providing a single window of business opportunity—
The BudgetOral Questions
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, we in northern Ontario know the economy is suffering under the government's watch.
In the March budget, the government chose to cut money that is used for economic development in northern Ontario. It has taken $1 billion from the forestry sector, millions more in tourism and marketing grants that went to small towns like Dryden, Atikokan, Gore Bay, Red Rock, Terrace Bay and many others.
Where is the common sense in cutting economic development money for a struggling region during a fragile economic recovery?
Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the hon. member to his new critic responsibilities. Indeed, right after the budget, he was claiming over northern Ontario airwaves that we had actually eliminated the federal economic development Initiative for Northern Ontario. He had to backtrack on that. I am glad he is learning his portfolio now.
I would say to the hon. member that since April 2006, FedNor has invested over $263 million in support of over 1,200 projects around northern Ontario. FedNor continues to do that. It is looking for great projects that will grow jobs and grow economic opportunity for northern Ontario. That is what our regional economic development agencies do across the country. The hon. member should be proud of that.
I know he was proud when we announced the—
The BudgetOral Questions
Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, May 1, is International Workers' Day, and I would especially like to focus our attention on the people who have lost their jobs and those affected by the economic downturn. They are going through difficult times, and the government should be paying attention to their concerns.
The government is really not doing anything to improve access to employment insurance, even though many requests to that effect have been made. It still refuses to improve the system, and the program seems to be a burden for it.
Why does it not take the best course of action and transfer the employment insurance program to Quebec, as the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses and the Parti québécois are calling for?
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, there is a shortage of workers and skills throughout the country. For that reason it is very important that the unemployed have access to training that will give them the skills needed to apply for jobs.
For six years, we have poured a great deal of money into helping the unemployed find new jobs with skills that are in demand today and will be in the future.
Presence in GalleryOral Questions
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Madeleine Dubé, Minister of Health of New Brunswick.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, in light of the answer given by the Prime Minister today to my questions with respect to the testimony in the public accounts committee, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to read the relevant section of the testimony in that committee into the record.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the third time and passed.
Safer Railways ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
There are five minutes left for the hon. member for York South—Weston. I am sure he would appreciate all his colleagues leaving the chamber if they need to carry on conversations so the House can hear what he has to say.
The hon. member for York South—Weston.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to continue my discourse on Bill S-4.
As I suggested earlier, the new Bill S-4 contains some amendments to the environmental protection portion of the bill which would give more power to the minister to enforce environmental protection. As I started to say earlier, one of the things that gives residents in urban areas, and in particular in Toronto, significant worry is the exhaust from diesel trains.
New York City is 104 years ahead of Canada because it banned fossil fuel-burning trains from Manhattan Island in 1908. Since that time, only electric vehicles have been permitted to operate in Manhattan, to the point where engines actually have to be changed on the way in. That has resulted in a much cleaner and more manageable environment in the city of Manhattan.
The citizens of Toronto would like the same courtesy. As such, they are pushing GO Transit in particular but ultimately all the other train operators, CN, CP and VIA, to use electric vehicles wherever possible.
I note that environmental regulations are currently stronger in the United States than they are here and I hope the minister will make Canadian railroads adopt tier 4 standards for all their engines in 2015, as is the case in the United States.
The other piece of safety worry for residents in the city of Toronto is derailments. One only has to witness the kind of destruction that takes place in adjacent areas when there are derailments.
In the city of Toronto rail corridors traverse significant residential populations. The rail industry requested that this bill be amended to allow it to have some say over how close houses can be built to the rail corridor.
In Toronto the rail corridor is being moved closer to homes by the rail company itself. It beggars belief that it would actually do this, but that is happening. In one case, CP Rail expropriated the backyards of several homes in order to move its rails 20 feet closer to the homes. If a derailment occurs in that piece of my riding, the devastation will be unimaginable.
Therefore, what does the rail company do? It is now building a crash barrier for protection, but it will not protect the homes. The crash barrier will be between two sets of rail corridors so if a crash happens, CP freights will not damage CN and VIA rails, but nothing has been built to protect the homes. The bill should provide the minister with the power to look into this. Why are we protecting against a crash if the crash happens toward the rail corridor rather than toward the homes?
A school is right on that rail corridor. The play yard is literally five feet from the rails. When that was criticized, the rail company said that people should not build schools so close to a rail corridor. The trouble was the school was there first and the rail company just did not know that.
One cannot talk about rail safety without saying something about the deteriorating infrastructure of our railway system. My colleagues in the NDP from coast to coast see rail service being closed for safety reasons as a result of deteriorating tracks and a lack of adequate maintenance. Clearly, track maintenance is an issue in rail safety. Significant investment needs to be made in rail infrastructure across Canada, not only to improve rail safety but to continue to provide, and hopefully expand, rail service both in terms of passenger service as well as freight service.
Passenger and freight services were closed recently in the Gaspé and on Vancouver Island as a result of deteriorating rail infrastructure. These services were handed to the local authorities by the big rail companies in what was almost an unfit state. The local authorities do not have the funds to keep them up the way the rail companies did. Therefore, we need federal action to create rail safety on these and other such rail corridors.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague’s words. I particularly appreciate the last thing he said, when he spoke about something that is of enormous concern to people in my riding: the fact that the railway has deteriorated to the point that it no longer offers its services. The train no longer goes to Gaspé, and that is of enormous concern to us. The federal government is not stepping up to provide us with the assistance and improvements that are needed to get the railway back in service.
I would like to ask my colleague what the government could do and how the bill that is before us could be improved so there would be significant improvement in terms of the deterioration of railway services everywhere in Canada.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Railway Safety Act on its own would merely determine that a railroad had become unsafe, but that having been determined, I think it is incumbent upon the federal government to determine the best mechanism for reinvigorating it or making that section of rail useful again to the public
. In the case of the Gaspé and in the case of the Vancouver Island passenger rail service, both of those corridors are now owned by small local community groups. They are not owned by the big powerful rail companies, which handed them off knowing that they were in a deteriorating state. The federal government needs to assist with the maintenance of these rail corridors financially. I am not suggesting that it needs to pay all of it, but when a rail corridor is owned by small local municipalities, there needs to be a sharing of that responsibility federally, provincially and locally, and there needs to be some recognition by the government that those infrastructure improvements are for the good of Canada and for the good of those communities.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, in northern Ontario many communities, including the city of Sudbury, were created when the rail line came through back in the 1800s, so rail has been an important economic link for most Canadian communities right across the country from coast to coast to coast. It linked coast to coast to coast for many of us.
Now we have seen the government not investing in the infrastructure to support rail and we have seen the safety of rail service decrease. We have lost rail in northern Ontario, which could be the life hub for many to get from community to community. Passenger service has stopped because rail has become so unsafe. There is not enough infrastructure in place. I know my hon. colleague has spoken to that. I would like to hear his comments and hear what we can do to continue to make rail safe and get people using the trains once again.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good point that rail actually built this country in large measure and opened up cities like Sudbury. The community that I come from, Weston, owes its size and diversity in large measure to the fact that the rail corridor was encouraged to come through the town back in 1852, with the building of a huge trestle over the Humber River. That trestle is still in existence. The original brick and the original pillars at the bottom of that trestle are still there, exactly as they were placed in 1852. They just do not build them like they used to.
However, the member's point is about what the government needs to do to encourage the use of passenger and freight rail as the medium of choice for travellers. For passenger rail, the service has to be frequent, convenient, on time and reliable. That currently is not always the case.
Certainly in a place like northern Ontario, where it is difficult to get around by any other means, rail is essential. In the case of freight rail, we have to realize that it is the way we have to move. We have an undertaking to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2050; that is not going to happen unless we move a lot of our goods transport away from trucks and onto trains. The only way we are going to manage all of that is if the current government is part of the investment into our rail system in Canada.