Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2016

Rail Transportation

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am again raising the issue of the Belledune project in an adjournment debate, it is because when I posed my question to the Minister of Transport in the House, I received an answer from the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities that was unsatisfactory to say the least. I said to myself that since it was not exactly his area of expertise, I should probably ask the question again. Therefore, I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport here today.

To truly understand the concerns that gave rise to no less than 23 resolutions by the town councils of Quebec municipalities and calling for an assessment of risks to their inhabitants, I will quickly describe what these municipalities have been exposed to.

I will provide some figures to illustrate the situation. One tank car transports about 720 barrels of oil. The convoy of tankers being considered would carry 80,000 barrels of oil. The Belledune project calls for two convoys a day. All told, 58 million barrels a year would travel through the heart of many Quebec municipalities. What financial compensation or support will there be? Absolutely none. What are the risks? All the risks that we are familiar with.

The Quebec municipalities are therefore calling on the federal government to require railway companies to disclose the nature of the dangerous goods that are being carried across their municipalities, not after the fact in an annual report, but before said merchandise is transported.

Does the minister, or the parliamentary secretary who is with us this evening, not believe that such a large project is worth assessing, and will she require that an assessment be conducted? The municipalities have requested such an assessment and it is absolutely justified.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is aware that he has the great responsibility of making sure that we do everything humanly possible to ensure a tragedy like Lac-Mégantic never happens again. This is why he takes the concerns of communities about the transportation of dangerous goods through their neighbourhoods to heart.

The July 2013 accident, which cost the lives of 47 people, has underlined, in the most dramatic way possible, the importance of rail safety in transporting dangerous goods. Transport Canada completed a significant amount of work following the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. This included new rules pertaining to the safe transportation of dangerous goods by rail, new compensation and liability requirements, new tank car requirements, new classification requirements, and new emergency response assistance plan requirements.

Since the start of the minister's mandate, the regime has been further strengthened, particularly in transporting dangerous goods by rail. For example, in February 2016, he announced the rule respecting key trains and key routes. The rule imposes new speed limits for trains carrying dangerous goods; requires railway companies to conduct increased track inspections; and requires railway companies to assess and address risks, in order to incorporate the safety concerns of municipalities and other levels of local government in their risk assessments.

In addition, the railway safety management system regulations require that companies establish a risk assessment process to identify and address risks on an ongoing basis, in particular when a railway company intends to start transporting dangerous goods or a different type of dangerous goods.

Then, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the minister also announced several measures including requiring railways to provide municipalities and first responders with even more information on dangerous goods. This will help improve emergency planning and risk assessments, and help train first responders. Other examples include the phasing out of DOT-111 tank cars that were used to transport flammable liquids including crude oil and ethanol in Canada.

As of November 1, 2016, these least crash-resistant tank cars can no longer be used for crude oil service. This is a crucial step towards strengthening our rail safety system. On October 12, 2016, the minister announced the new rail safety improvement program with over $55 million in funding. This new program increases overall funding, expands the list of eligible recipients and broadens the scope of projects that could be funded to enhance rail safety.

Finally, the minister was grateful to have Denis Lauzon, the fire chief of Lac-Mégantic, with him as he announced Transportation 2030, a plan that will notably accelerate the review of the Railway Safety Act in order to further improve railway safety across Canada.

Improving rail safety is the Minister of Transport's top priority and these are positive developments in his mandate. However, he realizes, and we realize, this is only the beginning.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is giving us a great list of good intentions, but very little is actually being done to respond to the municipalities' concerns.

This is what I would have liked to hear. It reminds me of Cyrano, who said, “Oh no, young man, that is a bit brief”. The parliamentary secretary could have said a number of things. She could have said that the government must take action in order to maintain a good relationship with the municipalities. She could have said that the NDP's bill requiring railway companies that are transporting dangerous goods to obtain a special certificate makes sense. She could have said that, at the request of the NPD, the minister will make all transportation of dangerous goods subject to a mandatory environmental assessment.

It is true that the self-management regime for rail safety, which is another suggestion, requires an independent analysis in order to ensure that everyone who lives along the path of these trains is kept safe.

Can the parliamentary secretary give us some concrete examples of policies that will be put in place, not in three or four years, but in the coming weeks and months at the very latest?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, following the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, Transport Canada took immediate action to further improve railway safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. The Minister of Transport is committed to taking these actions even further.

For example, the “Rules Respecting Key Trains and Key Routes” came into force this year. These are permanent rules for railway companies that further maintain the safe and secure transportation of dangerous goods by rail. Specifically, they impose speed restrictions for trains carrying dangerous goods, require increased track inspections, and require more robust risk assessments that incorporate input from municipalities and other local governments into their risk assessments. We also established new legislative measures to improve emergency planning and risk assessments and to help train first responders.

These are just a few examples of how this government has invested in rail safety to safeguard Canadians that live along rail corridors. The minister will continue to present initiatives that will strengthen rail safety in Canada.

International Trade

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to address a failure of the government to bring home a new softwood lumber agreement, and in that vein, a failure to answer a simple question. Since I know we have all worked hard and we would like to get back to work, I will once again ask: Why is the government so against forestry jobs?

The previous Conservative government spent nearly a decade building an envious reputation when it came to international trade, and it took the Liberals just over a year to destroy it.

I have a few names I would like to rattle off, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me for a moment. They are: the member for Mississauga—Malton, the member for Kings—Hants, the member for Beauséjour, the member for Regina—Wascana, the member for Cardigan, and finally, the member for Markham—Thornhill. What do all these senior Liberal cabinet ministers have in common? When they were on this side of the House, in the official opposition where I stand right now, they all chose to vote against softwood lumber. How can the hard-working Canadians in the communities that depend on forestry truly believe that the government has their best interests at heart?

The last softwood lumber dispute cost the Canadian forestry sector $5.3 billion. It was settled by the previous Conservative government, negotiating an agreement within three months of coming into office in 2006. Our Conservative government put to bed the costly and longest trade disagreement with our major trading partner, because Stephen Harper had a vision for Canada and a plan for the economy. Those Liberal members stood in the way of high quality, well-paying jobs, jobs that my constituents depend on.

It is no wonder we do not have a new deal when the hon. members chose to vote against having billions of dollars in duties returned to this side of the border. It is clear the Liberal government once again stands against the resource industry that fuelled the Canadian economy in its entirety. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister is on record as saying under his tenure the world will come to know Canadians more for its resourcefulness than its resources.

First, it is a carbon tax, then a failure to deliver a deal for our forestry families, and finally now, higher energy bills that give Canadians pause for concern. When will the final nail be put in the coffin? When will it stop?

I urge the Prime Minister to get on the phone with the president-elect and bring home a deal that will not result in mill closures and widespread job losses for hard-working constituents. We know from experience that this will happen. As a matter of fact, I had a mill owner in my office during riding week saying he cannot afford to go through a long and protracted litigation period. We simply cannot afford it.

What is the government doing to protect jobs? It put a measly $30 million aside for litigation. It just gave $25 million to a foreign organization that is known to support Hamas, a jihadist terrorist organization. Canadians deserve to know where the Liberal government is in the process. They do not need more platitudes and empty rhetoric from the Minister of Trade about how hard she works. We need answers.

I know my constituents are not better off today than they were a year ago. My only hope is it does not get worse for them. Canadians need to know that this government is not against the hard-working Canadians and the communities that depend not just on our forestry jobs, but our natural resource industries.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not really ask a question. He gave a speech, the basic premise of which was false, ridiculous even.

Softwood lumber is a pillar of the Canadian forestry sector and, more broadly, the Canadian economy. Nearly 260,000 people across the country earn their living from Canada's softwood lumber industry. Many of them are in rural areas or communities that depend heavily on the industry.

Canada has diversified its markets over the years, but the United States is still the primary destination for Canadian softwood lumber exports. Our government is acutely aware of how important the softwood lumber industry is to Canadians across the country and of the fact that maintaining stable, predictable access to the U.S. market is essential to ensuring the ongoing success of Canadian companies.

That is why our government made the softwood lumber file a priority upon taking office. In his joint statement with President Obama on June 29, 2016, the Prime Minister detailed the key features of the new agreement. The Minister of International Trade, Ambassador MacNaughton and I have all been deeply engaged in advancing this file, and we have held consultations with stakeholders across Canada.

The Minister of International Trade also worked closely with her American counterpart, Ambassador Michael Froman. Together they issued a statement on October 12, 2016, in which they indicated that, although the moratorium had expired, the two countries would continue negotiations in order to reach a new mutually acceptable agreement.

Officials from Global Affairs Canada have negotiated at a rapid pace with their American counterparts and they continue to do so. They have met 18 times since October 15, 2015, in addition to having held regular informal discussions at a time when the previous government had not even begun any negotiations with the Americans despite the knowledge that the agreement was about to expire.

Our government recognizes the vital importance of the softwood lumber industry to Canadians across the country. We are working tirelessly to protect Canadian jobs. The Government of Canada is looking for a good deal, not just any deal. It will vigorously defend the interests of Canadians when it comes to softwood lumber, including through the courts, if necessary.

The Government of Canada believes that Canada, the United States, and Mexico all benefit from NAFTA because of the open and predictable trade environment that is founded on the rules set out by the agreement 22 years ago. The elimination of tariffs and the rules established under NAFTA allowed for greater efficiency in our supply chains. Many sectors now have integrated supply chains, which extend throughout the three countries and allow them to compete on an international level.

No country is a closer friend, partner, or ally to Canada than the United States. We look forward to working in very close collaboration with the new administration, as well as with the U.S. congress, including on matters of trade and investment.

There is no doubt that we will continue to work on concluding an agreement. That is a priority of the government.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know, and those Canadians who are dependent on the forestry industry need to know, that when the government is sitting across the table from our closest friend and ally, it is fighting for Canadians and standing up for Canadian jobs.

I am not quite sure we have seen it at this point. We have had the hon. member stand in the House and have had our Minister of International Trade stand in the House and say that this new relationship with the outgoing president, the outgoing administration, is unprecedented and will yield the same announcement they referenced in June. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister both said that we would have something in 100 days.

We are heading down a long and protracted period of litigation, which means that probably, likely, if history dictates, we will see mill closures, job losses in my riding, and job losses in rural Canadian communities right across the country.

I implore my hon. colleague to provide an update to Canadians on what the government is doing and whether a deal is imminent.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric from the hon. member, he knows full well that we are working exceedingly hard on this file. The only reason we have not yet reached an agreement with our American friends is that we have not reached an agreement that will respect the needs of the Canadian industry from coast to coast to coast. It is that simple.

We are going to ensure a stable, fair, and equitable access to the American market. To do so, we have to reach an agreement that meets the needs of every region of the country, and we intend to do that. We are working very hard at it, with numerous contacts and negotiations all the way through. However, the agreement has to be mutually acceptable. Until we find a mutually acceptable agreement, we will keep all strategic options open in order to reach an agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)