House of Commons Hansard #75 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 26, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would request that we see the clock at 6:30 p.m.
The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion.
Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Pursuant to order made April 10, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, during the humanitarian crisis associated with the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in the summer of 2006, and following the earthquake in Haiti in 2009, our country allowed Canadian children to return accompanied by both their parents, even if they were not Canadian.
That is currently not the case for Canadian children in Syria, which has been at war since 2011. Why this double standard?
The only concession the government is making in theory—again, in theory—is that these children can be accompanied by one non-Canadian parent. Families are being separated.
Out of the 14 cases of Canadian children that I identified in Syria, only one family agreed to make such an application and to live with the separation imposed by the government. Even in that case, the mother's visa was denied. That is why I say “in theory” because in fact, the Conservative government is doing nothing for these Canadian children stuck in Syria.
The question is: what is the situation in Syria? It is a terrible humanitarian crisis. On January 10, 2014, the United Nations announced that it would no longer update the death toll, which it estimated had gone well beyond 100,000. In April 2014, the death toll is estimated at more than 150,000, according to Le Monde. The situation for the children is catastrophic and despicable. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of orphans.
On March 13, 2014, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict said that the number of children affected by conflict had doubled in one year and that Syria has become one of the most dangerous places on earth for children. Three million Syrian children are being deprived of an education.
In March 2014, the United Nations estimated that 9 million Syrians had left their homes because of the violence and that 2.5 million of them had taken refuge in neighbouring countries. Half of them are children.
Lebanon, which has a population of 4.8 million, has reportedly taken in a million refugees. Turkey and Jordan have reportedly taken in nearly 600,000 refugees each. Iraq has reportedly taken in nearly 220,000 refugees and Egypt just over 133,000.
During the summer of 2013, the government announced that it wanted to welcome 1,300 refugees here in Canada by the end of 2014 but that only 200 of those would be resettled by the government. The others would be the responsibility of individuals.
While the demand for asylum increased by 28% throughout the world in 2013, Canada became known for reducing the number of asylum seekers it accepted by nearly 50%. That is appalling.
We are all members of the same big human family, and we should be sharing the burden of others' suffering. Like Canadian children, Syrian children are our children. We need to open our hearts and oppose the violence that these children are experiencing.
Unfortunately, what I am seeing today is that this government lacks compassion and humanity when it comes to this unthinkable situation. I find that extremely sad.
Costas Menegakis ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, I cannot speak to specific cases with respect to citizenship and immigration issues, but I would like to respond in the following fashion.
All visitors to Canada must meet the requirements for temporary residence in Canada as set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We understand that people are disappointed when their visa applications are refused; however, our responsibility is to make sure that all visitors meet the requirements to come to Canada as set out in Canada's immigration law.
I listened to the member opposite and I have to disagree wholeheartedly with her comment that our government is not showing compassion with respect to the Syrian people or the Syrian situation. The Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the crisis in Syria and will continue to do what it can to best help the Syrian people.
Canada is one of the world's largest providers of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. The member should know that to date Canada has committed more than $630 million in humanitarian development and security assistance to the Syrian crisis.
Canada has one of the most generous refugee policies in the world. We welcome about one out of every ten of all resettled refugees globally and are consistently among the top three countries accepting resettled refugees.
In response to the June 2013 UNHCR appeal for assistance with extremely vulnerable cases, Canada committed to resettling 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014: 200 refugees through the government-assisted refugees program, GAR, and 1,100 through the private sponsorship of refugees program. Canada is on track to meet its commitment to resettle these refugees through the government-assisted refugee program by the end of 2014.
In the time I have left, let me share a personal story.
In the month of January 2014, along with some colleagues from the governing party, I had an opportunity to visit Jordan. While we were there, we took the opportunity to visit a northeastern crossing of the border of Jordan with Syria.
While we were there, we were welcomed by Brigadier-General Hussein Al-Zyoud of the Jordanian Armed Forces, who was showing us the refugee resettlement camp that bordered the Syrian border. It was by chance, and I would like to say by fortune, for us to be there, because we had an opportunity to witness something very moving.
We saw about 150 Syrian refugees within 20 minutes of our arrival coming through the desert after having walked three days in the desert to this crossing point. Most of them were women and children. There were some gentlemen there, but older gentlemen. We assumed the fathers had stayed back to defend the family properties or had met with some misfortune. However, the women and children came to us. They were so happy to come and see that they had finally arrived in a place of safety. This is what was really moving for us as Canadians and Canadian parliamentarians.
A colonel with the Canadian Armed Forces was there with us, and along with Brigadier-General Hussein Al-Zyoud they showed us the impact of Canada's investment in helping the Syrian people. They actually showed us the equipment and the maintenance plan moving forward.
Therefore, as a Canadian parliamentarian, I have to say that I am very proud of the action that our government has taken and will continue to take to support the plight of the Syrian people.
Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point something out to my colleague. He may have missed it and I can understand that.
During the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the Canadian government—the same one that is in power today—ensured that Canadian children—not Lebanese, but Canadian children—could return to Canada with both their parents, even if the parents were not Canadian. We had the same program for Haiti.
We do not have this program for Syria. Why? I identified 15 children—there are surely more than that—who cannot return to Canada at this time because one or both of their parents are not Canadians. Why this double standard?
With regard to refugees, the former immigration minister announced the arrival of 1,300 refugees in 2013. How many of these 1,300 have come to Canada to date? There are perhaps a dozen, one hundred, or not even that. What is happening? The refugee camps are overflowing. There are one million refugees in Lebanon, which has a population of 4.3 million.
What are we waiting for to do our part and what is the Canadian government waiting for to do its part in this terrible humanitarian crisis?
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, in order for me to answer specifically to that particular question, I would have to bring up examples of the specific cases that she is referring to, with some of the children that she has seen who have not been able to come back. As everyone in the House knows, due to the Privacy Act, it would be inappropriate for me to comment about that.
However, the fact is that we have issued a record number of visitor visas this year. We will continue to do so. We will continue to protect Canadians and Canadian interests in our immigration system at all times, but we will also continue to be compassionate to those who are in need. When we bring legislation to the House that reaches out to people who are in difficulty, I would urge her to vote with the government, not against the government, which has been her record and the record of members opposite certainly since I was elected here in 2011.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is rare. I know this is the first time I have had an adjournment proceeding to follow up on a question asked in the House of Commons, my question of February 24, where there has been such clear action by the government that I can start my adjournment question by commending the Minister of Transport for moving against the DOT-111 unsafe railcars. I know the hon. minister is unlikely to participate in the debate this evening and it will likely be the parliamentary secretary, but I am encouraged that Canada has taken action.
In the time that I have, I would like to go over this in terms of what the issue is in a nutshell, and proceed to ask what further safety steps the current administration is considering. Because, as the Minister of Transport has said in a number of the news stories, it is clear that rail safety is not assured even by moving to remove the DOT-111 railcars off the tracks. It is going to be a phased-in process. That is one issue of concern that I know some parties have spoken to. There is the concern that 5,000 railcars will be taken off initially, but another 65,000 will be removed over a period of three years. As we know, phasing out these cars is complicated by the fact that replacement cars are not being manufactured quickly enough to replace the most dangerous cars. We know we have the shipment of hazardous goods through Canadian communities and that it is a cause for concern.
I have noted that in the media coverage of the decision taken by the Minister of Transport to remove the DOT-111 cars there is also going to be an examination and risk assessment of the routes which are being used and ensuring that as much as possible is being done for rail safety.
So in line with what we know is taking place, I have a couple of questions that I would like to pursue this evening in our adjournment proceedings. Again, I am so pleased that we are moving to get rid of the DOT-111 cars because the Transportation Safety Boards in both Canada and the U.S. have said that these cars are unsafe for the shipment of hazardous goods. Canada has taken action ahead of the United States, and that is to be commended.
However, this issue remains, and I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary will be able to share this with the House. What other steps are being taken? Is the federal government now prepared to find a system of advance notification for prior informed consent for any communities that are located along rail lines that are carrying hazardous goods where they would like to have advance notification? We all know the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic happened with no notice whatsoever to the community that anything hazardous was being shipped through it. I think it is fairly clear from the investigations that perhaps even the shipper did not know how dangerous the unconventional Bakken crude would be.
I would also like to know if the federal government is considering following the lead of the U.S. rail safety improvement act a few years ago that instituted something called “positive train control” systems to ensure that an operator in a control room would know whether the brakes were working and whether all systems on the train were on track through sophisticated software on board the trains.
I would also like to know whether we are prepared to say that some goods are simply too hazardous to be shipped by rail.
Those are the questions to proceed tonight, but again, I am extremely pleased that my question on February 24 took place when we had no action and that tonight, April 28, we have seen substantial action.
Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member opposite for her intervention in this proceeding tonight.
As was noted, there have been a number of actions taken by this government with respect to rail safety. I have been on the transport committee since 2007, prior to my appointment as a parliamentary secretary last year, and a number of important safety remedies have been undertaken.
I recall back then that an independent rail advisory panel was struck to make recommendations to the minister and the government at the time. A number of those recommendations, in fact almost all of them, have been fully implemented.
The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did an important review as well, and many of its recommendations were put into place.
Bill S-4 came forward with a number of important amendments, among them, everything from mandating that a company executive be appointed specifically for safety at the company, the requirement for environmental management plans, and whistle-blower protection. A number of important measures came out of that as well.
A number of important steps have been taken in light of Lac-Mégantic as well, and important new directives from the minister regarding the proper testing and classification of dangerous goods.
An important consultation took place between the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that resulted in an important information-sharing protocol that establishes a registry of designated first responders in communities, who will be contacted with respect to historic information about the types of shipments that will be passing through communities, and the additional requirement that if there is any market change in that regard, that there would be a more immediate notification to the people on that registry of what is passing through their community.
That was important obviously for the ability of first responders and communities across the country to begin planning what resources they need for what typically would come through their communities, and what types of exercises they need to do in modelling response.
A number of additional consultations resulted in directions as well. The requirement now is for environmental response action plans for very flammable, dangerous goods, things like aviation fuel, ethanol, crude—things that were not there before, and a task force that would come, bringing together first responders and municipal officials to talk about that response and how we do that.
As the member alluded, important steps were taken on DOT-111s, the immediate banning of the worst offenders and the phase-out of retrofit over three years for the remaining ones.
I should also note that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has also been asked by the minister to look into a number of additional measures in all modes. The rail aspect of that will be wrapping up in about another two weeks and interim findings will be coming in a report on that particular segment.
There has been testimony regarding positive train control, which is a broad term for a number of different possible automatic braking features that could be done. The question of advance notification has been raised in the questioning, and the committee has not come to a decision on that or a recommendation to the minister, but I invite the member opposite to stay tuned to what the committee is doing in terms of its important work.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to know that positive train control is being examined and could be brought in.
We have a lot of hazardous goods moving on rails, and I think over the years we have seen cutbacks in the number of crew. I remember that when a number of significant derailments in Canada were analyzed forensically afterwards, had there not been such cutbacks, for instance having rail crew travelling in a caboose to know what was going on, there would not have been a derailment.
I see my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona in the chamber. I may misspeak the name of the lake near where her cottage was.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
At Lake Wabamun, there was a significant derailment, where it appeared that there was a lack of train crew on board.
It was clear that we have seen real problems in rail safety before Lac-Mégantic, although nothing has ever been as devastating.
I encourage the current Minister of Transport and congratulate her. I do not think we say often enough in this place when something good has been done. I thank her and congratulate her. I look forward to working with her for greater rail safety.
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister will be pleased to hear the commendation. In light of the announcements last week as well, we know that there have been positive things that have been said from important stakeholder groups in this regard. The president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Claude Dauphin, has spoken very highly of it. He said:
The new safety measures announced today respond directly to our call for concrete action and are another major step forward in improving the safety of Canada's railways and the communities around them.
The NDP's transport critic, on the issue of the three-year phase-out, said, “The three-year period is the best thing that can be done”.
The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has also said very commendable things about this.
It has been a consultative approach that has resulted in very concrete steps to improve public safety. Again, the standing committee on transport is very involved in this. There will be interim findings in June, with a final report and recommendations by the end of the year. I encourage members to see what is going on in that particular committee. If they have suggestions, of course, let us know. If there is more that we can do and it is reasonable, believe me, we will be making those recommendations.
