Debates of April 18th, 2016

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is referring to the actual wording. We have heard from members of Parliament from the Liberal benches that they are expanding it to ensure greater parts of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba will have these jobs. However, the clause that is very important is section 4. When they are talking about giving Air Canada the freedom to change the type, volume, and level of employment, it is very clear that they will give the corporation carte blanche to ship those jobs overseas so it makes sense for the corporate bottom line.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have approximately six minutes remaining the next time that this issue is debated.

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

Rail Transportation

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to follow up on the question that the Minister of Transport was asked a few weeks ago about rail safety.

I am pleased to be able to bring this issue up again in the House because it is something my community has been concerned about for a long time.

The deadliest accident in the history of Canada occurred in 1864, three years before Confederation. Ninety people lost their lives in the accident, which occurred on the black bridge between Beloeil and Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

Looking at more recent history, members will recall what happened in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. On December 30, 1990, an accident happened that looked a lot like the tragic incident in Lac-Mégantic. A train transporting petroleum products collided with another train because of a problem with the railway, and that caused an explosion involving chemicals that the fire department was unable to identify. The fire burned fiercely for days, giving off multicoloured smoke. It was terrifying. That was in 1990, which is really not that long ago. When the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened, the people in my riding, particularly those in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, were very worried. Like the Richelieu River, the railway goes right through the heart of my riding.

My former riding was Saint-Basile-le-Grand. This issue affects a number of municipalities, including McMasterville, Beloeil, Mont-Saint-Hilaire, and Otterburn Park. That is why we asked the minister our question. He said that rail safety is a priority for him. Why has he not yet done anything? I read the budget because I know that is the answer I will get again tonight, and I know that it is full of nice ideas. It talks about how important it is to retire the DOT-111 tank cars and increase the number of inspections, but unfortunately, there is no money to do those things.

As we learned from testimony at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the budget allocates 21% less money for inspections and rail safety. That is very worrisome. My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who is also our transport critic, and I raised this issue with the minister again last week. Once again, he was not able to give us an answer. He simply said that he would consult with municipalities and acknowledged that this was urgent. He said this was his top priority.

However, six months have gone by since the election campaign, and words are no longer enough. We need action. I agree that it is important to consult the municipalities. They have spoken out since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic and were even speaking out before. We know what they need. They need information before hazardous materials pass through their communities, not after. They need to be informed so they can take preventive measures instead of simply reacting. We need to remove the outdated DOT-111 cars. We need more human resources to conduct proper inspections. There are too many hazardous materials passing through our communities, and my constituents are very concerned.

I want to assure the people of Beloeil—Chambly that I will continue to stand up for them and their concerns in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, this subject is a priority for both the Minister of Transport and the Government of Canada.

This government is committed to continuously improving railway safety for Canadians. I would like to assure the member that Transport Canada has a rigorous and robust rail safety regulatory framework and oversight program in place.

The oversight activities include monitoring the safety of railway companies operations, as well as compliance with rules, regulations, and standards through audits and inspections, and taking appropriate enforcement action as required.

The government takes the safety and security of the railway and transportation of dangerous goods very seriously, and is committed to ensuring that the appropriate levels of safety are maintained.

Since the tragic accident at Lac-Mégantic, Transport Canada has put in place a significant number of measures to improve railway safety, including requirements for securement of unattended railway equipment, improved tank car standards, emergency response plans, and a new liability and compensation regime for federally regulated railways.

Most recently, we introduced the rule respecting key trains and key routes governing the transportation of dangerous goods by rail in Canada. The objective of this rule is to further strengthen railway safety, and the requirements in the rule seek to improve safety and reduce the risks of transporting dangerous goods by rail. In addition to imposing speed limitations, the rule puts emphasis on track inspection and maintenance, risk assessments and mitigation, and allows for the incorporation of safety and security concerns of municipalities and other levels of local government in risk assessments to be conducted by railway companies.

Our government makes it a priority to be there for communities in both the short and long term when Canadians need us. The Minister of Transport announced the federal contribution to the reconstruction office in Lac-Mégantic on January 30. This action reiterates our commitment to support the reconstruction and economic recovery of the city of Lac-Mégantic.

Furthermore, the minister will return to Lac-Mégantic next week to meet with citizens to hear their concerns, and answer any questions they may have regarding rail safety in their municipality. The minister and the government are and will continue to be there for the people of Lac-Mégantic. In addition, the city has mandated a firm to conduct a feasibility study on the bypass track.

Approximately half of the cost of the study is financed by our government through Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, from its multi-million dollar envelope for aiding Lac-Mégantic's economic and commercial recovery. The federal contribution is $441,000.

While work has been done on the issue of rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods, we need to do more. As mandated by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport will continue to examine further measures to enhance railway safety in Canada and continuously improve railway safety for all Canadians.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's and the minister's good intentions. I have no doubt that when the minister goes to visit Lac-Mégantic, he will have a heavy heart when he thinks about the tragedy that happened there.

The problem with all of this is that despite good intentions and the measures that have been taken since the tragedy occurred, urgent action is still needed. When I go home on the weekend and during our break weeks, and when my constituents reach out to me, everyone says the same thing: the trains are still too long, they are still going too fast, and they still pose a danger because they are carrying hazardous materials.

Lastly, if we look at the needs of municipalities, they still cannot get the information they need in time, for instance, to find out what kind of dangerous goods are passing through their area. That is extremely important to the municipalities, especially for fire services, for prevention purposes.

Once again, I thank my colleague, and I want to reassure my constituents. I will continue standing up for them on this issue.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to continuously improving railway safety and the transportation of dangerous goods for Canadians, and has rigorous and robust rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods regulatory frameworks and oversight programs in place.

Since the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic, Transport Canada has put in place a significant number of measures to improve railway safety. However, more needs to be done. The government is well aware that the Canadian public continues to have concerns.

That is why the minister will be in Lac-Mégantic next week to meet with citizens to hear their concerns and answer any questions they may have regarding rail safety in their municipality.

We will continue to examine further measures to enhance railway safety in Canada and act on the mandate that the Prime Minister has given to the Minister of Transport.

Telecommunications

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to continue the debate about wireless rates in Canada and what the government plans to do to bring in more fairness. I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for joining me tonight.

A recent poll by Angus Reid found that only 8% of Canadians believe that they are getting a good deal on the wireless service they pay for. We know that Canada has some of the highest wireless rates in the world, and a report out last year showed that they are still growing.

When Canadians apply for jobs these days, they are expected to be reachable at all times. Telling a potential employer that they do not have a cellphone will not help their chances. Wireless services are crucial to the economic lives of Canadians. Increasingly, wireless services are how we stay in touch as a country, but the price to be connected should not be prohibitive.

In my riding, where the median income is well below the national average, families are having a tough time making ends meet and are making difficult decisions regularly. The ever-increasing cost of wireless rates certainly is not helping. The median income in my riding is $26,000 a year. In Canada, it is $31,000 a year.

Cellphones today are necessary for security. I talked about employment, but it is a really difficult cost for low-income earners. In an area that is facing challenges, where it is getting harder and harder for families to make ends meet, we need to find ways to reduce costs to constituents.

Earlier this year the big three telecoms—Bell, Rogers, and Telus—all raised their prices for their wireless plans even higher. They blame the low dollar as the cause, but experts say it is unlikely to be the real driving force behind these prices.

Why are prices so high? We have to ask what kind of competition exists in the industry. Are there any forces lowering telecom prices at all? Sadly, it is left to a New Democrat to explain the benefits of market competition to the Liberal government as well as the previous Conservative government, which failed to take any real action after a decade in power.

Two months ago, Canada's telecom regulator, the CRTC, refused an appeal from a group of small Internet service providers that would have allowed them to resell wireless services and add a healthy dollop to competition in the market. Bell, Telus, and Rogers successfully argued against the small ISPs and their submission. They said that rigorous competition already existed.

As a former small business owner, let me say that there is a lot of frustration out there when the three largest companies in an industry simultaneously raise their prices and then tell Canadians that there is plenty of competition in the marketplace.

The minister might point to the wireless code of conduct, but if it were having the desired effect, we would see rates going down, which unfortunately they are not. We are still seeing Canadians being surprised by phone bills with massive add-on charges.

In February I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development what new actions the government was taking to stop the price gouging. Today I am asking that same question.

Since then, we have seen the government table its first budget, so one would think we would have more clarity on this question. Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing in the budget addressing the incredibly high rates Canadians pay. The word “wireless” does not appear in the budget, not even once.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development now take this opportunity to outline what action the government is taking to protect consumers, encourage true competition in the wireless market, and stop price gouging?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni regarding wireless service policies. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, whose office is virtually next to mine. He has a great deal of experience in Parliament, and I hope that I will provide satisfactory answers.

The government has a keen interest in the telecommunications sector. It is an essential platform for innovation and a leading factor in the growth of our digital economy.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been given a mandate to support competition, choice, and availability of services, and to foster a strong investment environment for telecommunications services.

I am pleased that my friend mentioned that our government announced, in budget 2016, that starting in 2016-17 we will be investing up to $500 million over five years in a new program to expand and improve access to broadband Internet service in rural and isolated communities.

By investing in the quality of broadband networks, we will foster access to a multitude of innovative services that will help improve education, health care, productivity and the local quality of life.

Numerous areas of government contribute to the policies and regulations for the wireless telecommunications sector.

The minister is responsible for the Telecommunications Act, which sets the overall direction for telecommunications policy. He is also responsible for the Radiocommunication Act, which governs policies relating to the allocation and use of spectrum frequencies and the airwaves used by wireless providers.

When it comes to wireless spectrum, the government will continue to work to make additional spectrum available to wireless providers to enable competition, investment, and innovation to benefit all Canadians.

These new frequencies will build on the spectrum available to both incumbent operators and newer entrants to the market.

Any decisions we make relating to spectrum will be made in the context of the mandate and objectives that I just mentioned. We will consult the industry and Canadians before setting rules for future spectrum auctions. That is important.

The CRTC is responsible for regulating and supervising Canada’s communications system in the public interest. The CRTC has taken a number of actions to support wireless consumers, such as creating a mandatory national code of conduct for wireless service providers and regulating wholesale roaming rates, which are the rates that large incumbent carriers charge smaller providers when customers roam on their networks.

Finally, the Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency, ensures that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. The bureau investigates anti-competitive activities, including mergers, price-fixing, and false or misleading representations, and takes other measures.

I would like to close by reiterating that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member will be able to finish his conclusion when he speaks next.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments, for being here, and for bringing his energy.

We certainly welcome the investments the government has made in supporting the broadband network in Canada. However, rate users are not seeing the benefits of that on the wireless side of things. They need vision. They need action now.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary feels that the rates are okay today.

The CRTC is showing inconsistency in its approach to wired broadband versus wireless. On the wired side, the regulator has rejected arguments from the big network owners that allowing wholesale access will discourage their investment, yet it has accepted that line of reasoning with respect to wireless. Therefore, it is one or the other.

We want an approach that will serve all Canadians and all consumers. I hope the parliamentary secretary can help provide an answer to that. We want a vision. We want some action on that.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can certainly understand my hon. colleague's impatience in wanting to see some work being done on this very quickly. I can tell the hon. member that this is an issue about which we are concerned. It is a big issue, and we are very concerned about how that plays out in Courtenay—Alberni, as well as in regions across the country, especially rural regions.

Every action we are hoping to take is one that will encourage competition. We could also use the money we have put aside in the budget to make sure we leverage a partnership with the private sector, with those who have a stake in this, and to allow for new players to get on the scene, so we can encourage more competition and better diversity and certainly more services to the member's riding and other ridings in rural areas of our country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 6:49 p.m.)