Debates of April 22nd, 2015

Motion in Amendment

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

(Motion No. 3 negatived)

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

moved that Bill S-219, an act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Rail Transportation

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we only have to go back to 2013 to remember what a worst case scenario for derailment looks like, but even in the aftermath of the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, we are still wondering whether the government has a real understanding of the importance of rail safety, especially in rural areas.

Events this winter in northern Ontario suggest there is still work to be done on that front. Proof of that came in February when trains went off the rails on three separate occasions in a matter of weeks. In the worst of these instances, an incident near Gogama, 29 cars derailed, some of which caught fire, and it took six days to extinguish.

In addition to that, a million litres of crude oil was released into a pristine watershed that the Mattagami First Nation had just stocked with walleye in order to entice tourists to the region. I have to advise that there is a ripple effect because it also affected the VIA passenger train by preventing it from going on to its regular schedule, which means that there is an economic impact on communities such as Hornepayne, where the stops are usually made.

One of the key takeaway items from the event that occurred was proof that the new standards put in place in 2014 for tank cars are still inadequate. In fact, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is urging Transport Canada to quickly introduce enhanced protection standards for more robust cars.

The frequency of derailments has come after years of deregulation and a huge increase in the use of rail to transport crude oil. To put this into perspective, in 2009, 500 carloads of crude oil were moved by rail in Canada. By 2013, that number had ballooned to 160,000 carloads and is expected to jump to 510,000 carloads by 2016.

No matter how one views it, that is a staggering rate of growth for the transport of one commodity and the corresponding increase in demand for tanker cars capable of safely moving this volatile product. Add to those factors questions about the suitability of tracks being used to transport these extremely heavy loads. That was among the items highlighted in an interim report on the more severe Gogama area train derailment from the Transportation Safety Board. It suggests that the sheer weight of trains carrying oil has a higher than normal impact on tracks, which may have been a factor in that derailment.

We would not be covering our bases in this debate if we do not address the way that deregulation has left us with fewer tools to ensure that public safety is a priority. Before the floodgates of deregulation opened in 1999, federal inspectors had direct oversight of safety management and enforcement.

Now the job is done by in-house safety inspectors and the federal role has been limited to enforcing the Railway Act, reviewing corporate documents on safety, and data analysis. In the past, Transport Canada inspectors would make regular and unannounced inspections. Today, those same inspectors are merely verifying reports.

Now, it takes a complaint about unsafe conditions or violations before an inspector gets involved. The practice has gone from ensuring that rail is safe to letting the companies tell us it is safe. However, the time has come to stem the tide and inject some sense into the rail safety process.

Without action, we are ensuring there will be more Mattagami River type events. Without a more responsive plan, we are risking another event as horrible and avoidable as the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

My question is simple. Will the government put effective standards in place and when will that happen?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this government is and will continue to take actions to protect public safety while dangerous goods are being transported. This government has demonstrated it in the actions we take every day to enhance public safety. We remain committed to finding the appropriate solutions to enhance the rail system and regain the confidence of Canadians in the safe transport of dangerous goods, particularly in the wake of recent derailments, such as that which took place at Gogama, Ontario on March 7.

Transport Canada has been deeply involved in work to improve the safe transportation of dangerous goods by tank car. Actions to date include: first, issuing a protective direction requiring the removal of the least crash resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service in Canada; second, issuing a protective direction to require emergency response assistance plans for certain flammable liquids and this requirement has since been regulated under the transportation of dangerous goods regulations; third, requiring railway companies to reduce the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods and implement other key operating practices to help improve safety; and fourth, creating an emergency response task force to bring stakeholders such as municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers together to review and strengthen emergency response capacity across the country, for instance, involving flammable liquid transported by rail.

The Transportation Safety Board has noted that not enough was known about the properties of the cargo carried on the train that exploded in Lac-Mégantic. As a result, Transport Canada is conducting research into the properties, behaviour and hazards of crude oil. The results are expected in the spring of this year.

Transport Canada continues to take actions based on a holistic risk-based approach, one that includes new train operation requirements, new compensation and liability requirements, increased inspections, among many others. As for an enhanced flammable liquid tank car standard, this government is in the final stages of developing, in collaboration with our American counterparts, the next generation of tank car for the transportation of flammable liquids, which, as part of a holistic approach, will reduce the risk of leaks in the event of a derailment.

Transport Canada has developed this new proposed tank car design, TC-117, to replace the current DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars for the transport of flammable liquids by rail such as those involved in the recent Gogama derailment.

This new class of tank car would be the most robust tank car design for flammable liquid transport. In addition, the department has drafted retrofit requirements to meet the minister's direction on the phase-out refit schedule for the legacy DOT-111 tank cars announced on April 23, 2014. Transport Canada intends to publish the tank car standard this spring.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are easy enough to understand.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says that the new standards adopted in 2014 for DOT-111 tank cars are inadequate for the transportation of crude oil. It says that these tank cars are simply not safe enough and has asked Transport Canada to adopt stricter standards to prevent another tragedy.

In addition, there are still a number of other important questions about whether railways are appropriate for the transportation of volatile substances, such as crude oil, and about whether deregulation and self-monitoring really work.

All of this is taking place as the movement of crude oil by rail is increasing at a dramatic rate. Lac-Mégantic was a worst case scenario, but the damage done in derailments like we saw in the Mattagami River cannot be viewed as anything less than a failure either. The system that is meant to protect Canadians is doing more to protect the rail system that is increasingly marked by incidents.

When will the government turn the tide on this problem and put effective standards in place?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The member is not listening, Mr. Speaker. The government is putting in place a number of tough standards. She should update her statistics, by the way. I know she stopped at 2013, but oil by rail is actually significantly down, though it is still the government's responsibility. Should the economy pick up, we want oil by rail to continue to be safe. That is why we take actions.

There is no deregulation in our country. There are tough regulations. There are also operating rules that have the force of regulations because they are approved by Transport Canada. Therefore, we expect that rail companies should operate safety, that is the first thing. That is why they have to conduct inspections themselves, look at their equipment, but we check their homework. The number of inspectors are up as are the number of Transport Canada TDG inspectors. The number of inspections are at record levels over the last three years, some 30,000-plus inspections each and every year.

We are taking strong action. The member opposite should support that.

Employment

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, I asked a question that is very important to me because it has to do with something that has been the focus of my entire professional life, and that is women's rights. However, as has been the case a number of times when I have asked this government a question, I was not impressed with the answer.

Nonetheless, I am glad that we are having a debate on the employability of women in Canada as we assess the new budget.

Since the beginning of my mandate, I have been meeting with the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I have always listened to their concerns. What they tell me is very clear and echoes what we are hearing throughout the province and across the country, from coast to coast. Middle-class families are suffering; household debt has never been higher; there has been a series of significant layoffs in the country; the price of food is skyrocketing; and there is a serious shortage of child care spaces.

In yesterday's budget speech, the Minister of Finance was talking about the opportunity for Canadians to work hard, dream big and make their dreams come true. However, families are not going to be able to do any of that under this government.

The NDP submitted a number of recommendations to the Conservative government for the budget, and many of them were unfortunately left out. The Conservatives like to steal the NDP's good ideas when it comes to the economy. However, they forgot about the ones that have to do with child care.

In 2006, however, the Prime Minister promised to create 125,000 new child care spaces. My question is simple: where are those spaces?

After nine years of waiting, we can say that the Prime Minister did not honour his commitments to Canadian families. Let us come back to what the Minister of Finance said about the importance of dreaming big and achieving those dreams. In the NDP's view, families will be able to do that when every child has a space in child care for which parents pay no more than $15 a day.

The statistics are clear: affordable child care helps families and stimulates the economy. In Quebec, 70,000 more women have been working since affordable child care was introduced. Furthermore, our economy grows by $2 for every dollar invested in child care. We cannot afford to lose our workforce because of a lack of child care spaces.

Some mothers and fathers will be forced to quit their jobs or their studies for these reasons. Too many women are putting their careers on hold because they cannot find affordable child care in this country. At this time, 900,000 children do not have access to affordable child care. That means 900,000 families are suffering because of this situation.

Child care costs are sometimes too much for families to bear, since they can run to more $2,000 a month. How are families supposed to pay the rent and pay for their car on top of that? How are they supposed to pay off their student loans and their mortgage? How are they supposed to have any purchasing power to stimulate the economy?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our approach is pragmatic and clear. Instead of simply talking about Canadian families and children, we are acting to support them. Our approach is to trust the real experts on families in this country. They are moms and dads. After all, are parents not the best at identifying their own family's needs, especially when it comes to child care? Let me provide some examples of the kinds of actions we are taking to support Canadian families and children.

Last fall we announced a major enhancement to the universal child care benefit. Yesterday we demonstrated that commitment to Canadian families. With this change, Canadian families will now receive close to $2,000 per year for each child under the age of six. On top of that, we introduced a new benefit of $720 per year for children ages six through seventeen. This is not just frivolous talk; this is concrete action in support of Canadian moms and dads. Thanks to these measures, more than four million Canadian families will now benefit from the universal child care benefit.

Our government wants all Canadian families to succeed. That is why since 2006 we have reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, introduced the tax-free savings account, and as announced yesterday, we will double it. We have introduced the children's fitness tax credit, and so many more.

Further to these benefits we have provided to Canadian families, we provided even more help yesterday with the tabling of budget 2015. We have proposed a $1,000 increase in the maximum that can be claimed under the child care expense deduction, introduced the family tax cut that will provide up to $2,000 in tax relief to families with children under the age of 18, and doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000.

Maybe I should remind my hon. colleague of the disability tax credit that is available to parents of children who are disabled to help them reduce the amount of income tax they may have to pay.

Moreover, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's art tax credit now allow parents to claim a tax credit to further help families.

Let us not forget about the Canada education savings program, which encourages families to start saving early for their children's education.

Last but certainly not least, we now provide over $1.2 billion a year to provinces and territories for early childhood development and early learning and child care through the Canada social transfer. Altogether, we are currently investing over $6.5 billion in support of childhood development, early learning and child care through transfers to the provinces and territories, direct spending, and tax measures for families.

We are talking about the largest investment of this kind in our country's history. I am proud of what our government is doing to respond to the needs of all Canadian children and families.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance forgot to explain to the House that the $720 for teenagers is taxable, as are the amounts it is giving for young children. What will be left once families pay their taxes? This means that half of that money, more than 30%, will go back to the government and be taken away from these families again.

Nine years ago, the Prime Minister also promised to foster work-life balance. That was more wishful thinking and a white lie. Consequently, parents of preschool children are having difficulty achieving work-life balance, which is costing Canadian companies billions of dollars a year and hurting our economy. However, there was nothing about work-life balance in yesterday's budget.

Furthermore, when it comes to women's entrepreneurship, one thing is very clear: more men than women run their own companies, in all age groups. It is important to invest in women's entrepreneurship, but without child care, women will not succeed.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the choice is crystal clear. We have the official opposition who would raise taxes dramatically and would direct that money to expensive bureaucracy for child care for only less than 10% of Canadian families. By contrast, our government's approach is simple. It is lowering taxes, providing benefits that go directly to parents of up to $2,000 for children up to age six and $720 per child for children ages six to seventeen, and offering a direct child care choice to 100% of Canadian families.

That is a record we are proud of and one that we know Canadians would prefer over that of the opposition.

Rail Transportation

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the government has said on many occasions, it is important to recognize that VIA Rail is an independent Crown corporation. That means that the government does not operate the railway, nor does it get involved in its day-to-day operations.

VIA Rail is responsible for making business decisions about its operations, including the best way to meet its objective of operating a safe and efficient national rail system, while lowering its costs to reduce its reliance on federal taxpayers. Introducing a bill, as the member opposite did, that dictates the service frequency of certain routes or requires a lengthy approval process for VIA to adjust its route network would only increase VIA's costs and make the service unresponsive to changing needs.

VIA Rail continuously assesses its markets and operations to decide how to best provide the most economically efficient service to passengers. Every day, VIA reviews its prices to match the number of seats offered on its schedules to the expected demand for its services. In many of VIA's markets, customers have choices. Often, they can also choose to fly, drive, or take a bus. As one would expect, if VIA operates inefficiently, customers will either move to alternatives or not travel. This direct link between service and passenger volumes keeps VIA's feet to the fire and explains why it is good business for VIA to ensure that it operates both safely and efficiently.

Intercity passenger services are an important component of our transportation system that benefit our economy and our society as they connect Canadians from coast to coast. Recognizing this, despite VIA's efforts to achieve efficiencies, our government still provides VIA with annual subsidies to support its services. The government provided VIA with $305 million in 2013-14, a significant amount of funding, to operate and maintain its network. In addition, our government continues to make unprecedented capital investments in VIA to allow it to make important improvements to modernize its operations. These, by the way, are measures that were opposed by the party opposite.

The government has made available more than $1 billion in capital funding over the past seven years to upgrade and modernize portions of its rail network and many of its railcars. The government's role is to support an environment that allows VIA to succeed by providing the business conditions and the freedom to make commercial choices, and by providing the necessary funding to allow it to invest in the equipment and infrastructure it needs to operate.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We do, in fact, recognize the importance of passenger rail in this country. That is why our government has been supporting VIA Rail substantially, not only in the operations of its network, but with important capital investments over the last seven years. There has been over $1 billion in capital investments.

I know that the opposition likes to talk about VIA Rail, but at the end of the day, whether it is in the estimates that come before the House or committees, or whether it is in the budgets that we set aside, every single time we move to make an investment in VIA Rail, the opposition votes against it. It is time for the opposition to do more than talk about support and start showing that it can stand on its feet and vote in favour of support for VIA Rail for a change.