Debates of Nov. 1st, 2017

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the data we presented today and the data on asylum claims the hon. member is referring to are not related. Those asylum claims are very different. They are not part of our immigration levels plan, which is completely separate from those asylum claims. The Immigration and Refugee Board will handle those asylum claims.

To come back to the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement, it is currently being upheld. We will continue to work with our U.S. counterparts on this file to ensure that the agreement is respected.

Infrastructure

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, one month ago, I asked whether the Liberal government would make some of the public transit infrastructure fund available to restore needed bus service between Saskatchewan communities. The context for this question is that five months ago the provincial Sask Party government eliminated the Saskatchewan Transportation Company in hopes that private enterprise would fill the void, but there is still no bus service, even between Saskatchewan's largest cities, Regina and Saskatoon. This lack of bus service has caused many problems.

My original question highlighted the difficulty seniors were having getting to medical appointments. Just today the media reported on a message from Saskatchewan's deputy minister of health, which stated, “Do we co-ordinate medical taxis or other transportation with federal [government] that mitigates STC loss...?” It would be interesting to know how much the Government of Canada has had to spend on medical taxis in Saskatchewan since the closure of STC. Would that money not be better spent sustaining bus service?

This brings me to the public transit infrastructure fund. Of course, this fund is mostly about public transit in urban areas. However, when the Liberal government unveiled this program, it included a lot of language about meeting the unique infrastructure needs of rural and remote communities. This leads me to believe that some of this money should be available to support intercity bus service in Saskatchewan to connect our communities.

This year's budget provided $20 billion to the public transit infrastructure fund and allocated it between provinces according to a formula of 30% population and 70% existing transit ridership. Saskatchewan has more than 3% of Canada's population, but we have less than 1% of Canada's existing transit ridership. According to this formula, we receive only about 1.5% of federal transit funding, in other words only about half of our per capita share of the money. Most federal transfer programs to provinces are allocated on a purely per capita basis.

Therefore, the good news is that Saskatchewan will receive about $320 million from the public transit infrastructure fund. The bad news is that according to our population, we should be receiving more like $640 million. However, at the end of the day, both of those numbers vastly exceed the $85 million that the Sask Party says it will save by getting rid of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company.

Therefore, it should be possible for Saskatchewan to receive our fair share of the public transit infrastructure fund and to use a portion of that money to sustain and restore needed bus service between our communities.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his advocacy for the people of Saskatchewan.

The Government of Canada is delivering on our historic infrastructure plan. As the member well knows, it is the investing in Canada plan, which is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years. We have made public transit infrastructure a priority through our infrastructure plan.

The first phase of the plan focused on the repair and rehabilitation of public transit systems. It also funded the design and planning stages of new large-scale projects.

In the first phase of our infrastructure plan, we provided more than $29 million for public transit projects in Saskatchewan, such as fleet renewal and upgrades in Saskatoon, the replacement of 17 buses and 9 paratransit buses in Regina, and the replacement of conventional transit buses in Moose Jaw.

Since November 2015, under all of our programs, we have supported 154 projects worth more than $515 million in combined funding with our provincial and municipal partners in Saskatchewan.

We are working in close co-operation with the provinces to fund the priorities they identify. Our programs are intended to support the modernization and improvement of public transit systems in communities across the country. They are not intended to support the operation of public transit systems, or to support provincial public transit systems run by the private sector or by provincial agencies.

It is, in fact, the responsibility of the provinces to decide how to provide inter-municipal bus services in their jurisdictions.

In the case of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, the service was provincially run, and the decision to terminate was made by the province, as the member well knows. We are working closely with the province of Saskatchewan to finalize new partnership agreements for the next stage of our long-term plan, which will commit just over $307 million in capital investments for Saskatchewan's transit system and, more importantly, the population of Saskatchewan.

These agreements will clearly outline how we will support the province's priorities through our new funds, the transformative infrastructure projects that will improve mobility, increase economic opportunity, and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the provinces will have the option of applying to the infrastructure bank of Canada to finance their public transit projects. The bank will concentrate on projects that have revenue-generating potential and are in the public interest. This is an innovative new tool the Government of Canada has created to build more infrastructure in Canadian communities. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Government of Saskatchewan and to supporting its infrastructure priorities.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I asked my question about federal funding for bus service a month ago, the parliamentary secretary responded by speaking in very general terms about federal infrastructure funding in Saskatchewan. Given a month to further study the issue, I am somewhat disappointed I am getting the same level of response this evening.

What I would like to get a clear answer on is, if the Government of Saskatchewan were to request funding from the public transit infrastructure fund to provide bus service between communities, is that something that the Government of Canada would provide?

I certainly take the point that it was the provincial government that decided to get rid of STC, and it is the provincial government that would have to define its priorities, but if the province were to request money for the purpose of intercity transport, would the Government of Canada provide it?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the advocacy of the hon. member. It sounds like his advocacy would be well placed in the Saskatchewan legislative assembly.

I will reiterate that under phase one of the investing in Canada plan, the Government of Canada committed $29 million of public transit infrastructure to fund public transit in Saskatchewan. The program is designed to fund upgrades and improvements to transit systems in communities across the country, including Saskatchewan. However, it is not intended to fund the transit systems' operations, nor is it designed to support province-wide transit systems operated by the private sector or provincial agencies.

Thanks to the public transit infrastructure fund, cities like Moose Jaw and Saskatoon have now been able to renew their transit fleets and modernize their existing systems. This is something of which we should all be immensely proud. The Government of Canada has and will continue to work closely with Saskatchewan to support similar eligible public transit infrastructure projects that are identified as its community's priorities.

The Environment

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to bring an issue to public attention and to try to seek clarity and at least some direction from the Liberal government with regard to the environment and the storage of nuclear waste, and respect for municipalities, including aboriginal communities, and another nation, the United States. I am talking about an idea that was conceived more than a decade ago to store low-level and intermediate nuclear waste within limestone one kilometre from the Great Lakes, something that has never been done before and is certainly very controversial.

The fact that we need to understand is that the Great Lakes and the fresh water it supplies to the trillion dollars in industry in the region, including shipping, and the surrounding environment and the basin of civilization that developed out of the Great Lakes are at risk from this proposal. It is no surprise that 23 million people have participated in motions and hundreds of municipalities in official objections to this proposal.

Most recently, we were able to delay this process enough to have Ontario Power Generation complete an alternative site selection process for its original submissions. The type of work it came back with is indicative of the entire process. I say this because it had GPS locations for alternative sites that included a bridge in Burlington, Ontario, and second, a store that was actually in the United States off the Minnesota border in Grand Portage. The mere fact that those two locations were identified by GPS by the OPG should say something about its entire philosophy of storing nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years underground in what is basically a new type of venture next to the Great Lakes. This is certainly not with the competency one would expect for the legacy that we will, as a result, stuff into the backpacks of future generations, including the costs for our children.

I would also say that given the record of environmental stewardship that Canada likes to claim on the international front, we should make sure that we actually live up to some of those commitments. I know that the United States Congress, Senate, and other bodies have objected to this, as well as municipalities. Lo and behold, it was Joe Clark as Canadian foreign affairs minister at the time who asked the United States to back away from it and not to put nuclear waste and disposal facilities off the Great Lakes, which the United States agreed not to do.

Again, I rise with the objective of finally getting the government to live up to its stated philosophy of protecting the environment first. The mere fact that this idea continues to have some type of breath to it is unacceptable. I am hoping not to hear a canned response by the parliamentary secretary, but a good debate as to why the Liberals would even want to consider going down this path and not just end it once and for all now.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the question raised by the hon. member for Windsor West regarding the deep geologic repository project.

Our government is ensuring environmental risks that are linked to development are addressed by industry before projects proceed. We are committed to restoring confidence in the environmental assessment process, and ensuring decisions are based on the best available scientific evidence and traditional knowledge, and take into consideration the views of indigenous people, the public, and other stakeholders.

Ontario Power Generation is proposing to construct and operate a facility for the management of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at the existing Bruce nuclear generating site in Ontario. The project would be constructed in the bedrock beneath the Bruce nuclear site.

Low-level radioactive waste may be safely handled by workers using normal industrial practices and equipment without any special radiation protection.

Intermediate-level waste is radioactive to a level where more protection is required to protect workers during handling. It should be noted, and very clear, that disposal of high-level waste, including used fuel, is not part of this project.

The nuclear waste management office with the oversight of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is developing a proposal and working to identify a willing host community for the disposal and long-term care of high-level waste.

The environmental assessment of the DGR project was carried out by a joint review panel that included the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. In its findings, the joint review panel concluded that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account recommended mitigation measures.

After considering the joint review panel's report, the minister directed Ontario Power Generation to provide her with additional information concerning potential alternate locations for the project, cumulative effects, and Ontario Power Generation's commitments with respect to mitigation, in order to fully inform her decision.

Our government also believes indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights and that indigenous governments, laws, and jurisdictions must be respected. We are aware that Ontario Power Generation has committed to not proceed with the deep geologic repository project if it does not have the support of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation's communities.

In July, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation wrote to the minister asking for more time to complete its community consultation process. In light of Ontario Power Generation's stated commitment and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation's letter, the minister requested that Ontario Power Generation update its analysis of the potential cumulative effects of the project on physical and cultural heritage.

The update must include a description of the potential effects of the project on the Saugeen Ojibway Nation's spiritual and cultural connection to the land, and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation community process must inform the analysis and be incorporated into Ontario Power Generation's analysis.

Informed decision-making requires all available and relevant information to be gathered, considered, and taken into account. Following the submission of the updated cumulative effects assessment, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, assisted by other federal authorities, will prepare a draft report containing its analysis.

Indigenous groups and the public will be invited to review and comment on the agency's draft report, including the potential legally binding conditions with which Ontario Power Generation must comply, if the project is allowed to proceed.

In closing, I want to assure the House that, as with all projects, the final decision in this case will be made based on evidence, science, traditional knowledge, and public input.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, if it is based upon science, then maybe, perhaps, the parliamentary secretary will explain why Ryden's Border Store, located just across the border in Minnesota, was one of the coordinates that was actually looked at for the alternate location for this particular project.

I will leave my comments specifically to that, because the other location that was identified was a bridge in Burlington, Ontario. However, let us just find out why it is that this review process came back with Ryden's Border Store, just across the border in Minnesota as one of the coordinates in the area as identified by OPG.

Let us talk specifically about the science of how that meets the minister's test of mettle in this case.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, obviously any assessment process requires evidence and science on which to actually base decisions.

The joint review panel heard from a range of different interests and was informed by significant scientific evidence in coming to its decision. The minister made the decision that there were additional pieces of evidence and input that were required before she would be able to render a decision. We are in the process now of receiving that information. Some information is still to be received, and once that is there, the minister will take all of that into account in rendering an appropriate scientifically based decision.

[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 7:43 p.m.)