Debates of Sept. 19th, 2016

Food and Drugs Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very far-ranging and knowledgeable speech. He comes from Windsor and I know he has done an incredible amount of work on both sides of the border to help facilitate greater understanding between Canada and the United States, and of course in nurturing that very important trade relationship.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the implications he sees in this legislation for opportunities to enhance Canada's relationship with the United States. We have been talking about the TPP and CETA being other trade arrangements with other countries of the world, but Canada and the United States always will remain the number one trading relationship for our people.

Does he see opportunities or challenges in respect to this legislation with respect to the Canada-U.S. trade relationship?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question is very important and is one that I did not get a chance to discuss. As we are increasing our trade, which is good, we also require the same investment for our processing and our infrastructure. That is critical, because right now we are deficient on both fronts.

We are trying to build a new border crossing in Windsor, which was supposed to be built in 2013 and now has been delayed for the RFP process because they want to do a public-private partnership indefinitely. That is giving a lot of people cold feet, because the RFP has been sitting in a box, so to speak, for seven months.

We have to invest in those allocated resources necessary for infrastructure, but also CBSA. Our men and women, who are not only checking the devices and the things coming in, but are very important in protecting against organized crime. Put the workers who were laid off back to work. They were doing investigative work with the CIA, the FBI and the RCMP.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time for government orders has expired and therefore the member will have approximately eight minutes left for questions and comments when the House takes on the topic again.

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

The Environment

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, in April when we discussed the longstanding problem of abandoned vessels, Transport Canada said it was developing options, that it was on top of it, that it was taking care of the issue. It said it was developing a comprehensive approach and was addressing the issue as quickly as possible. All of those things were said in our debate on that day. That was five months ago when a solution sounded imminent.

I am interested today in hearing what the elements of the government's plan are now, five months later. In the spring, I secured a Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreement to remove the Viki Lyne II, an abandoned vessel that had been languishing in Ladysmith Harbour for four years since Transport Canada towed it there. It was deemed by the Coast Guard to be at imminent risk of sinking.

It is great news that the government agreed with my proposal to remove it. The government is now negotiating a bid, and we hope that the contract will be awarded shortly.

However, the worrying part is that initially DFO thought that the vessel would be removed by the end of August. Now we are at the end of September. We still do not have a contract in place. These things are moving slowly.

This summer I heard the views and advice of 2,500 community members on abandoned vessels. We heard from marina operators, businessmen, businesswomen, and local governments. They all told me that the abandoned vessel problem has not gotten better but worse. We know that not dealing with the problem has real costs.

A BC Ferries vessel hit a submerged vessel in the spring, and that ferry service has said that abandoned vessels endanger the safety of its passengers and crew and that it has cost them in terms of travel delays.

The shellfish industry says that jobs are at risk. If an abandoned vessel is submerged, shellfish harvesting is shut down. As Kathleen Nicholls from Limberis Seafood Processing in Ladysmith says, “we... suffer economic losses (no product = no sales)”.

Tourism operators on our coast throughout our region say that it costs them. It is frustrating to see problem vessels shifted from one bay to another.

What are the solutions? We need to end the run-around and finger-pointing by adopting Bill C-219 to designate the Coast Guard as the responsible department to deal with abandoned vessels; to build Coast Guard budgets and staffing back up, so that we can look after our coast responsibly; to create more recycling facilities for fibreglass and support local salvage businesses; to create a vessel turn-in program, like Oregon state has; and to update the vessel registration system and use license fees to pay for disposal costs, like Washington state has.

There are great ideas out there. I am eager to hear the government's plan. What is your good news? How fast is your timeline? Five months ago it sounded like the work was well under way. We want to hear the elements of your plan to solve the abandoned vessel problem once and for all, and to protect our coasts from their environmental and economic risks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address the chair on questions, as opposed to using “you”.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to reaffirm this government's commitment to protecting Canada's marine and coastal areas, while also improving marine safety. These are important elements of the mandate letters of the Ministers of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment and Climate Change. We take very seriously our evidence-based approach to decision making and understand that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. I want to assure members that we are aware of the interest in this issue from across the country.

It is clear that coastal communities in British Columbia, Quebec, and in the Atlantic region consider the issue of abandoned and derelict vessels and wrecks as one that negatively affects their enjoyment of their local marine environment. Several of these communities have gone so far as to endorse resolutions calling on federal action to address this problem, including with new legislation. We are aware of the issues these vessels of concern can present to the marine environment, safe navigation, public health and safety, and to the local economies.

In May of this year, this government spoke in support of private member's Motion No. 40, which lays out a comprehensive approach to begin to effectively address this issue. Motion No. 40 supports our government's commitment to protect Canada's freshwater resources and oceans. It proposes that the government addresses gaps in existing authorities.

This a complex, multi-jurisdictional issue at the nexus between safety, environmental, and commercial interests. We will have a comprehensive plan soon. There will not be a vote by vote approach. We need to ensure we have in place a prevention regime that is solid before focusing extensive efforts on remediation. We are carefully examining best practices from other jurisdictions, such as Washington state's derelict vessels removal regime, and are looking at how best to adapt them to the Canadian context.

In the meantime, the Canadian Coast Guard is managing the environmental risks and Transport Canada is managing the navigation and safety risks. In addition, Transport Canada created an abandoned boats and wrecks web page in May 2015 to strengthen owner awareness of their responsibilities regarding vessel end-of-life management and enhance accessibility of information for the public.

Our government's support of Motion No. 40 clearly signals our intent to move forward with concrete action to tackle the issue. We are currently studying a number of options. We are exploring measures to prevent owners from abandoning their vessels in the first place. We need to engage stakeholders to ensure we get it right. We are working with our partners in enhancing consultations with provinces which also have an important role to play.

I wish to reiterate that this government takes the issue of abandoned vessels and wrecks very seriously and we will have more to say on this in the coming months.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect, a web page or a motion does nothing to address the real environmental and economic costs that coastal communities have been suffering for two decades now under successive Liberal and Conservative governments. I know this. Over 12 years elected to local government, we passed several dozen resolutions calling for federal action and provincial action on abandoned vessels. I appreciate the government's intention to support the motion from my colleague opposite, but the motion does not change anything on the ground for coastal communities.

When we spoke in April, it sounded like the Liberals' comprehensive plan was imminent. These were direct quotes from Hansard. Therefore, please tell me what is the government's timeline to table legislation in the House that will deal with abandoned vessels legislatively forever, once and for all?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are exploring a proactive national strategy to address the problems posed by abandoned vessels and wrecks. However, as I mentioned, the issues are complex and getting the details and the collaboration right is critical. These challenges have emerged over decades, as the hon. member said, and cannot be fixed overnight.

A key lesson we have learned from other jurisdictions is to ensure we get the prevention regime right first. We must also be mindful of the cost to taxpayers of addressing problem vessels. Owners must be held responsible. Any action by governments must be focused on a risk-based approach. All levels of government have a role to play.

This government takes the issue of abandoned vessels and wrecks very seriously, which is why we supported private member's Motion No. 40 on abandoned vessels that was tabled earlier this year by the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, and are committed to working in an open and collaborative manner to improve marine safety from coast to coast to coast.

Employment

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to ask again why the federal government continues to exclude Regina from extended employment insurance benefits.

The federal budget extended employment insurance for certain regions in response to the drop in oil prices. However, it left out Edmonton, southern Saskatchewan, and Regina. The NDP challenged those exclusions, and the government eventually added Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan. However, it still left out Regina.

Of eight EI regions across Alberta and Saskatchewan, seven are now receiving the benefit extension. Regina is the only one that has been kept out. This anomaly has real consequences for laid-off workers and their families.

I spent the summer knocking on doors in Regina—Lewvan and talking to constituents. I spoke to many people who were out of work or on employment insurance and about to run out of benefits. If they lived in any other part of the province, they would have several extra weeks of benefits available, but because the federal government has left out Regina. they are now at risk of running out.

These are not just anecdotes. Statistics Canada's most recent report indicates that EI use has increased more in Regina than in the rest of the province. Specifically, over the past year, the number of workers receiving EI was up by 32% in Regina, 25% in Saskatoon, 20% in smaller Saskatchewan cities, and 13% in rural Saskatchewan. Despite experiencing the sharpest jump in EI use, Regina remains the only part of the province left out of extended EI benefits.

On June 24, Evraz steel, Regina's largest private sector employer, wrote to the Minister of Employment and copied Regina's members of Parliament. The company explained that it has laid off workers due to the drop in energy prices and asked the government to help these workers by including Regina in extended benefits.

On June 27, the minister's office acknowledged receipt of the letter. However, as of today, the company reports not having received a response from the minister or from her department.

When I say that the government is ignoring Regina, that is not an overstatement or a metaphor. It is a literal description of what has happened.

I want to ask the government to reconsider whether it makes sense to exclude the part of Saskatchewan that has suffered the sharpest increase in employment insurance use.

The government eventually did the right thing by including all of Alberta in extended EI benefits. It should do the same for Saskatchewan.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the adjournment motion question brought forward by the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

Let me assure members of the House that we are giving Canadians the help they need right now. We understand that employment insurance is a critical program. It is critical to supporting Canadians who are faced with a job loss or a life event, and we have responded in all regions of the country where there has been this type of extreme job loss.

Improving access and flexibility in the EI program to better support the needs of Canadians is indeed a top priority for this government. Let us look at the facts. While the level of unemployment in certain areas of the country is very troubling, it is clear that EI is supporting those who need it. Today, there is double the number of EI claimants in Alberta compared with a year ago. In recent months, the number of claimants is also up by roughly 30% in Saskatchewan. Helping Saskatchewan is not just about paying out benefits.

Rather, we are attacking this issue from all angles, and we are working with the province to understand and manage the effects of the economic situation. We have been helping match people with jobs that are available within the regions in which they live. Our government is also monitoring the levels of employment and unemployment right across the country.

The Prime Minister took a positive step by offering support to western provinces that were hit hard by the economic situation. As members can see, we have been taking action as these troubling circumstances arise. These measures are only an immediate response. However, we are committed to doing more.

As announced in the federal budget, the amount of EI regular benefits has been expanded by five weeks, up to a maximum of 50 weeks, for eligible claimants in 12 EI economic regions that have experienced sustained increases in unemployment. Furthermore, we also recently extended EI benefits to three new employment insurance economic regions to reflect the impact of the downturn in oil commodity prices.

We are clearly modernizing the employment insurance program, and these changes will improve EI to make it more fair, flexible, and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

First, we are eliminating discrimination against workers who are newly entering or re-entering the workforce. Next, we are modifying the changes that came into force in 2012 that forced unemployed workers to move away from their communities and take lower-paying jobs. That was not right and we have corrected that. Our government is also providing more flexible parental benefits and more accessible compassionate care benefits, something Canadians have been asking for as reforms under the EI program.

This government knows that when it comes to collecting EI benefits, time is of the essence, and Canadians expect to receive their benefits as quickly as possible, especially when they have lost their job unexpectedly. That is why our government is reducing the EI waiting period to one week and improving service standards to all regions of the country. Therefore, efforts are already under way to improve service delivery and streamline program rules.

I hope that these changes are supported by the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would thank the member opposite for that laundry list of changes that the federal government is making to employment insurance. However, I really did not hear an answer to the question of why Regina is being left out of the benefit extension. We did not hear on what criteria seven EI regions across Alberta and Saskatchewan are getting extra weeks of benefits and Regina is not. We really have not heard an answer to the issue that I raised at all.

What we did hear was a suggestion that the government is continuing to monitor the situation and will take action. I would interpret that as meaning that the government might be willing to extend benefits to Regina at some point in the future, which is a very hopeful thought.

However, the Prime Minister, in extending benefits to three additional regions beyond those in the budget, indicated that no more regions would be added. Therefore, I would like to hear some clarification on that, and we should end discrimination against—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out again for the member opposite that the number of EI claimants in Saskatchewan has already increased in recent months by 30%. I also want to point out that as a result of improving service delivery and streamlining the program rules under the EI program, we have invested $92 million over the next two years to meet the increase in demand in employment insurance claims to ensure better processing and to improve access for services for Canadians who need to use the employment insurance call centres.

Our government is committed to supporting all Canadians, and not just through the employment insurance program, although it is a key component, especially for those who lose their jobs. However, we know that deteriorating economic conditions and changes in the labour market have an impact, and that is why, as the Government of Canada, we have stepped up in many regions across Canada to help reduce this problem.

Rail Transportation

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those in the House on the first day back in this parliamentary session for staying here. I would not have stayed and made the parliamentary secretary stay to respond to this, except that I think the topic is very important to all Canadians.

Over my tenure as transport critic, I have become increasingly aware of the depth of concern across the nation about rail safety.

Last April, in this place, I raised a number of serious railway safety issues with the minister. Despite the minister's response that rail safety is his top priority, Canadians have seen minimal action on many of these outstanding critical issues. That includes in any substantive way addressing, first, runaway trains; second, demands for public access to risk management reports prepared by rail companies; third, the frustration expressed by rail workers about failed resolution of rail-worker fatigue; fourth, a growing number of communities, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with concerns about risks from increasingly dangerous cargo traversing their communities; fifth, mounting concern about overreliance on self-management of the rail sector, including by inspectors; and sixth, concern among rail workers about whistleblower provisions.

Many of these concerns echo those expressed previously by the Auditor General of Canada. Three months back, the transport committee tabled a report in this place recommending action on a litany of concerns identified by rail inspectors, rail workers, legal experts, and communities alike who called for deeper reforms. However, as yet there has not been a government response tabled in the House. Perhaps at the top of that list from the committee is the recommendation to accelerate the five-year statutory review of the Railway Safety Act as a comprehensive independent study. When will this be announced?

That is enough of the one-off responses to serious incidents. It is time for an open public review of the shift to self-management and whether that is a proper response to ensure public safety.

Since last April there have been at least seven major rail incidents, including collisions, derailments, and runaway trains. Most recently, a collision in midtown Toronto, between two trains carrying dangerous cargo, spilled over 1,000 litres of diesel fuel near a residential neighbourhood. The accident shed light on the absence of a failsafe physical automatic defence to prevent train collisions, a matter that has been called for many times in this House. In a previous investigation, the Transportation Safety Board recommended that Transport Canada require major Canadian railways to implement physical failsafe train controls, but to date, there has been no action from Transport Canada.

In April it was revealed that Transport Canada had withheld information on the 500 most dangerous rail level crossings. Two of those listed on the most-dangerous top-20 list are in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona. My mayor would welcome federal dollars to address these risks but has yet to receive information on how. I am hearing the same concerns from smaller communities across the country.

Every year, approximately 200 accidents and 30 fatalities occur in Canada as a result of train-vehicle collisions at rail crossings. Transport Canada officials say they have committed $11 million to improve these crossings, but the municipalities have yet to get information on how to access that funding. That is a drop in the bucket, with 21,000 rail crossings, let alone to address 500 of the most dangerous.

Inaction will not improve rail safety. When can we expect the government to take the initiative to make rail safe?

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

Madam Speaker, rail safety is a top priority for our government, and that is why in the last budget $143 million over three years was allocated for rail safety. Specifically, funding will sustain existing measures and support new and expanded activities to strengthen oversight and enforcement, and to enhance prevention and response capabilities related to rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.

With respect to grade crossings, our government supports the safe coexistence of railways and communities. Under the Railway Safety Act and related rules and regulations, federally regulated railway companies and road authorities, usually municipalities or provinces, are ultimately responsible for the maintenance and safety of grade crossings, and for ensuring that grade crossings are compliant with the regulatory requirements.

First, I would like to highlight that several factors could contribute to one crossing having a higher risk ranking than another. Just like road intersections in a city, all railway crossings have an inherent risk due to everyday factors, such as volume of traffic, train and road speeds, number of tracks and lanes, proximity to areas of pedestrian traffic, and busy urban versus quiet rural environments.

Second, it is important to understand the distinction between risk and danger. Risk factors do not necessarily mean that a crossing is unsafe. It means that when you compare two different crossings against these risk factors, one may deem one crossing to be higher risk than the other.

Lastly, Transport Canada officials use GradeX, a web-based analysis tool that assesses various factors using a snapshot of a pool of crossings' characteristics. It is just one of the tools used by the department to design and implement its oversight of grade crossings.

On April 28, 2016, Transport Canada's list of grade crossings produced by the GradeX system was made public as part of our government's efforts to increase transparency and openness. This information will help municipalities and road authorities in their planning.

We continue to make progress on improving rail crossing safety. We are constantly updating information that we collect to ensure that improvements are made. We also have programs in place, such as the grade crossing improvement program, which provides funding assistance for safety improvements at public grade crossings that are under federal jurisdiction.

Through this program, the department funds up to 50% of safety enhancement costs at many sites across Canada every year. In reviewing applications under this program, the department allocates funds based on those sites where safety enhancements would most benefit the public. This year, we will provide more than $10.9 million to upgrade over 400 rail crossings across the country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, $140 million has been committed over three years. That is about $46 million per year over the next three years, and $11 million of that is for rail crossings. Given the extent of the changes needed for even the two most serious rail crossings in my riding, let alone additional ones in the surrounding area, I cannot conceive that is going to address the problem. Therefore, there needs to be more discussion. I am concerned that my mayor still has no idea of where he can access the dollars. He is concerned that he has to use the infrastructure dollars he gets from the federal government simply to address the problems with rail.

What the hon. member has not addressed is the overriding issue of the move by the previous Liberal government to rely on self-management rather than regulation. If ever there were an issue that is overriding, that increasingly legal experts are raising, particularly in their analysis of what happened in Lac-Mégantic, it is a call for a rethink about the way we are dealing with this industrial sector. If we think about it, rail, which is moving increasingly dangerous cargo, is not subject to environmental impact assessments, while other sectors are.

I would appreciate hearing broader—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that rail safety is a top priority for our government. That is why in the last budget we announced $143 million over three years to sustain existing measures and support new and expanded activities to strengthen oversight and enforcement and to enhance prevention and response capabilities related to rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.

The department identifies safety concerns through regular inspections and communicates them to the responsible municipalities, railways, and road authorities so that they can be addressed. We are working toward implementing new mechanisms through which even more information can be shared with municipalities.

Our government recognizes the value of meeting with community groups to hear their concerns, and the department regularly meets with municipalities, railways, and road authorities to discuss railway safety.

On April 28, 2016, Transport Canada's list of grade crossings, produced by the GradeX system, was made public as part of the Government of Canada's efforts to increase transparency and openness.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)