Debates of Feb. 7th, 2019

Employment Insurance

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 201, moved by our friend and colleague from Sydney—Victoria.

As members know, the motion seeks to direct the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to undertake a study with two specific goals in mind: one, to analyze the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sick benefits for those with long-term illnesses; and two, to present its report to the House no later than six months from the adoption of this motion.

Many Canadians have to deal with illness. For some, it lasts a week a or two, for others it can linger for weeks, months, even years.

Either way, it is very stressful for the sick and their families. Fighting an illness is hard enough without adding the extra stress of financial limitations.

In many cases, the person who is sick has to miss work to get treatment. In some cases, it goes even further and the person is simply unable to work. This leads to a significant drop in income and even a complete loss of income. It is important to improve the employment insurance sick leave benefits program so that the 35% of claimants who run out of benefits before they are able to return to work have the time to recover with greater peace of mind.

I battled cancer myself in 2012, and that fight lasted longer than 15 weeks, so I truly understand that, between the surgeries, chemotherapy or radiation treatments, recovery and doctors appointments, patients may not have the luxury of finding the strength to worry about their finances, let alone hold down a job.

I know what a difference increasing the maximum number of weeks of EI sick benefits can make to people dealing with a long-term illness and to their families. Not only would it help patients focus on getting better, but it would also help relieve some of the psychological stress they must face.

That is why I support the initiative of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, which calls on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of employment insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses.

We can help Canadians who have to grapple with the financial stress associated with a medical condition they did not ask for. We can also make a difference for their families.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan will have seven minutes to complete his comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

The Environment

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we just heard, about benefits for people with serious illnesses, reminds me that just yesterday, we lost, to cancer, Paul Dewar, the former MP for Ottawa Centre. There have already been some wonderful tributes in this House. I would just add that I had the honour of volunteering on his first election campaign and saw first-hand what a great person he was. He was also a great parliamentarian. If he were here, he would probably encourage me to get on with the adjournment debate.

On that note, I would remind the House that the question that prompted these adjournment proceedings was about the carbon emissions from cannabis production. Growing cannabis indoors, under bright lights, is extremely energy intensive. Academic research has concluded that cannabis production in the United States emits about as much carbon as three million cars.

The first part of my question was to ask the government whether it could provide those kinds of statistics for our country. Of course, we might speculate that indoor heating and lighting might require even more energy in Canada than they do south of the border. On the other hand, electricity in Canada is a bit less carbon intensive, on average. Rather than speculate, it would be nice to see some actual data. I know the government prides itself on evidence-based policy. I am hoping this evening that we will hear some actual numbers on how much carbon is emitted through cannabis production in our country.

Today I noticed that Statistics Canada released its national cannabis survey, which contained a great deal of data about the sector. There was some good information, but there was nothing about the associated carbon emissions. I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will be able to help us out on that.

Beyond quantifying the level of carbon emissions from cannabis production, what we really want is that the government take action to limit and minimize those emissions. One of the strongest arguments in favour of legalizing cannabis is that it gives the opportunity to regulate the sector. I would like to know what actions the government has taken to try to minimize the carbon emissions from cannabis production through regulation.

I would note that businesses are clamouring to get licences to be allowed to produce cannabis. It strikes me that it should be possible to make those licences conditional upon their committing to produce the cannabis in an environmentally friendly way. Licensing requirements might be one tool. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will speak to other tools that could be used.

I would just note that through legalization, the government is effectively setting up an entirely new industry of cannabis production, and setting up a new industry is really a golden opportunity to make sure that the industry is structured in a sustainable way. I think it is important for the government to get this right. It is rare that the government has this opportunity to launch a new industry and have so much influence over how it is going to be set up.

I am really keen to hear from the parliamentary secretary what the government has done and is doing to minimize the amount cannabis production adds to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his tribute to Paul Dewar, whose loss I also mourn today.

Our government has taken a responsible approach to cannabis that includes legalizing, strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis in order to get profits out of the hands of criminals and cannabis out of the hands of youth.

As it relates to our climate action, our government is taking leadership at home and abroad. We are taking concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support clean growth and build climate-resilient infrastructure. In addition to being among the first countries to sign and ratify the Paris Agreement, Canada is following through on its Paris commitments by implementing a national plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

We have a climate change plan. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include collective and individual commitments by federal, provincial and territorial governments. Our plan has more than 50 concrete measures, including a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and new policies, programs and regulations to reduce emissions in every sector of the economy, build resilience to the impacts of climate change, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a strong economy.

A key pillar of the framework is putting a price on carbon pollution. When pollution is not free, people and businesses are motivated to pollute less. Our analysis found that carbon pollution pricing in Canada will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 50 million to 60 million tonnes by 2022. That is equivalent to closing more than 30 coal-fired electricity plants.

In the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, the federal backstop carbon pricing system will be in place to protect the environment and spur innovation. Any direct proceeds collected will go directly back to people in these provinces. Households will receive a climate action incentive, which will give most families more than they pay under the new system. Funds will also be given to the provinces' schools, hospitals, businesses and indigenous communities to, for example, help them become more energy efficient and reduce emissions, helping Canadians save even more money and improve our local economies.

The framework also contains important additional actions to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy, including phasing out coal-fired power plants, developing new building codes and regulating methane emissions. We are also protecting and enhancing carbon sequestration in our forests and in our agricultural sectors as well as supporting clean technology and innovation.

We have covered a lot of ground since launching the pan-Canadian framework, and we are just starting to see its results.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for providing what I think was a very good overview of the government's general policies for trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but what I was hoping to do in this evening's adjournment debate was really drill down into what the government is doing or could be doing to minimize the emissions from cannabis production specifically. I am sure it is a small part of total emissions for the country, but it is an area over which the government has quite a bit of influence during this period of legalization.

I appreciate that the government might have been caught off guard by this rather esoteric question when I first asked it back in October, but I would ask the parliamentary secretary, in her final minute, to provide a little more information, if possible, about what specifically the government is doing to address carbon emissions from cannabis production.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of effort continues to be devoted to implementing our climate plan and reducing emissions. We have also established robust reporting and oversight mechanisms to track and drive implementation of the pan-Canadian framework, including annual reports to first ministers and Canadians. The second annual synthesis report on the status of the pan-Canadian framework implementation was published in December 2018.

Our government is committed to transparency for Canadians as we continue to take steps toward meeting our Paris Agreement targets.

Justice

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening about a topic that came to light just recently again in my area.

There was a crime being committed in a rural area, and there were a number of local people who happened to find out about it. There were shots fired in the air, not at the perpetrator of the crime, but in the air, which stopped the criminal. Eventually the RCMP showed up and arrested him. Initially the RCMP thanked the local citizens for helping them capture this person. Of course, days later, the RCMP started saying that they did not want people to be vigilantes and that it was their business to take care of it.

This is an ongoing issue. The RCMP have attempted to establish some crime groups in the area to break up some of these criminal organizations, but they tend to be closer to the major centres of Edmonton or Calgary.

There was a constituent I met the last week I was home working with constituents. He discovered someone breaking in and stealing his vehicle, while using a stolen vehicle. His wife had gone to work, thankfully. He happened to own a plane. He contacted the RCMP and said that he was going to go up and fly around to see where the stolen vehicle had gone. The RCMP said, “Great, let us know.” The man followed it and was able to get a licence plate number, with technology. That is how he found out that the vehicle was stolen.

The criminals went to another place and broke into another home, where there was a single person home, a woman. He found out later that they stole her purse and keys, and off they went. She came out chasing them. They could see this from the plane. Again, the criminals almost ran over her. Then they proceeded to another area. By this time, the plane had followed them for two hours. The response from the RCMP was that it was dangerous to chase them. It was very frustrating.

People in rural areas are very angry. That is why there was that incident recently where local people shot guns in the air. That did stop a criminal in the act he was committing.

The RCMP is frustrated. The other part of it, as the RCMP will say, is that people are just going through a revolving door in the justice system. If they are caught, they are charged. The RCMP will tell people to keep their keys or check their vehicles, because on their way out the door, these criminals will just steal another car to get out of there.

The revolving door for these continuous crimes is really a problem in my area in rural Alberta. The public safety committee did a crime task force report on it. It is a real problem in the sense that people lack trust. When people do not have trust, they resort to other means. The last thing we want to see is vigilantism and people taking their own guns out.

This is a real problem. We need more of a response from the government in the sense of how people can deal with it through resources for the police or the justice system. We need this type of crime dealt with and dealt with soon, before we have a more serious incident involving a homeowner or vehicle owner in rural Alberta.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Bow River's intervention today, but I would like to remind him there are significant crimes happening across this country that really are more serious than property crimes. There are crimes against people happening every day, as well as crimes against women.

Originally, this question came out of the case of Tanya Campbell-Losier, which took place in Brooks, Alberta. These people continue to endure the pain of this woman's loss. While I think we are making some huge headway on this, it is very important not to forget the people who were involved in these kinds of crimes across the country.

I know people are there for the people of Brooks, Alberta, and I know they want to make sure they know they are comforted and supported, but there really is not any comfort to be found in jurisdictional issues and processes and procedures of criminal law. However, in the context of the discussion in Parliament, it is important to be clear. That is part of our role here.

The offender in that particular case is a provincial offender who was incarcerated in an Alberta provincial prison. When he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received his sentence last spring, it was pursuant to the exact same Criminal Code provisions that were in place under the Harper government. Nothing had changed. When he was granted day parole in the fall, it was pursuant to the exact same criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that were in place under the Harper government. There had been no changes.

Again, that is obviously cold comfort to Tanya's loved ones. They do not want us pointing partisan fingers. They want us to make the system better.

There is a legitimate question to come to this government: What is this government doing to protect women from intimate partner violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes? Here is the answer. We have introduced Bill C-75, which would strengthen the way the criminal justice system deals with intimate partner violence by allowing for longer sentences, reversing the onus at bail hearings for repeat offenders and broadening the definition to include not just spouses but dating partners and former partners.

We have invested over $200 million to prevent gender-based violence and to support survivors and to deal with the scourge of violence against women. We are providing safe options to women in abusive relationships by devoting a third of the $40-billion national housing strategy to projects for women, girls and their families fleeing violence. This also helps maintain 7,000 shelter spaces.

Of course none of that brings Tanya back, but it will help more women from suffering her fate. Once again, my deepest condolences to her family and friends, and the community of Brooks, Alberta, whom I am sure continue to miss her very much.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned Bill C-75, and I would agree with part of it. However, many of those offences have been downgraded, almost 60 of them, and when the suggestion is not to take property crimes seriously, that statement of hers will ring loudly for a long time in my riding and create anger. If someone has been a victim of property crime, that is a tragic piece.

When she speaks of Bill C-75, which is a slap on the wrist for many offences on property, people become very angry. This is a challenge. Rural crime is still a challenge and it needs to be resolved.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that crime against property is something that hurts people but so is crime against people. The original question had to do with crime against people and it should not be diverted to property crimes.

This is an important issue. We need to change the justice system to hold guilty parties accountable. There is no doubt about it, and that also includes making sure that victims and their families get the support they need.

We have a correctional system that is world class when it comes to safe and effective rehabilitation. It means giving the police the resources they need to protect our communities.

There are so many factors that need to be taken into account and these are the things that we have been working on very hard for the last three years. I hope that we can come together to advance these objectives so that we have fewer victims of crime, whether it is property crime or crime against a person.

Transport

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion I am initiating tonight arises from a question I asked the Prime Minister before Christmas, a question about government responses to a series of sulphuric acid spills on the roads in and around Trail, British Columbia.

Teck Resources operates a very large smelter in Trail, one of the largest lead-zinc smelters in the world. One of the by-products of that operation is sulphuric acid, which it sells to the U.S. It has to be transported from the smelter. It is trucked to a nearby rail siding about 16 kilometres away to be put on trains. Until recently, that trucking was done by Westcan Bulk Transport.

On April 10, 2018, about 220 litres of sulphuric acid leaked onto southbound Highway 3B from the intersection of Highways 22 and 3B to the Quirk Siding Reload Centre in Waneta, about 16 kilometres away. Emergency responders were on the scene at 9:30 and cleanup was completed by 2 p.m.

On May 23, about 70 litres of sulphuric acid leaked onto much the same area, but a shorter distance, only about six kilometres. Emergency responders were on the scene at 8 p.m. and had cleaned it up by 11:15.

Following this spill, Westcan Bulk Transport was suspended as the transporter and Trimac Transportation took over transporting the acid. According to Westcan Group of Companies, initial findings indicated the cause was a gasket failure on the trailer unit and was unrelated to the release that occurred on April 10.

There was a very minor spill on September 22, where only about one cup of acid leaked at the reload centre and that was not very significant. The other two spills were very significant.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia reported it had received about 4,200 claims from drivers whose cars were damaged in the April and May acid spills. Over 400 vehicles were written off, including the regional district's main fire truck, a brand new fire truck worth about $1 million, and a fire command vehicle. On October 10, ICBC filed a notice of civil claim to recover the amounts paid out and it listed, as part of the negligent parties, the trucking company and drivers, International Raw Materials, Teck Resources and the regional district, the City of Trail and the Province of B.C.

The regional district and the fire department have a number of concerns. They are obviously concerned about being listed in this litigation, and they are obviously concerned about the loss of their trucks. They are concerned about how far away the nearest Transport Canada office is. They have the following questions for Transport Canada: Is Transport Canada investigating these acid spills in Trail? What enforcement actions have they taken in regard to the spills? Why was the first and largest spill not even reported to Transport Canada?

Finally, they have heard that provincial staff that do commercial inspections relating to dangerous goods have been cut back through attrition and that part of this cutback relates to reduced federal funding. They would like to know what the plan is to assist communities that need this level of expertise when transportation of dangerous goods incidents happen in their communities.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for raising this important issue and for strongly advocating continuing improvement to our dangerous goods operations.

We remain committed to taking all the appropriate safety actions to enhance public safety during the transport of dangerous goods. I would like to assure the member that Transport Canada has a rigorous and robust dangerous goods regulatory framework and oversight program in place, which includes monitoring the safety of dangerous goods operations.

The department operates the Canadian transport emergency centre. First responders and shippers can contact the centre at any time for expert emergency response advice and technical information to help with handling dangerous goods incidents.

The safe transport of dangerous goods is a shared responsibility among industry, provincial and territorial governments, and the Government of Canada. The provinces and territories work in concert with Transport Canada to enforce the transportation of dangerous goods requirements on the highway. Transport Canada also conducts regulatory compliance inspections in other modes of transport, including marine and air, and leads in the development of dangerous goods regulations in the transportation sector. Where non-compliance is identified, various enforcement actions can be taken, up to and including prosecution.

Incidents by road involving dangerous goods often fall under provincial jurisdiction. In the case of the events in Trail, the Ministry of Transportation conducted an evaluation of all aspects that fall under its jurisdiction and will share its findings with Transport Canada once that investigation is complete.

In addition, Transport Canada conducted extensive follow-up actions to see if there were any issues with the transport operations of dangerous goods, in particular, sulphuric acid in Trail. The results of that follow-up will be shared with safety partners.

The department met with Westcan Bulk Transport, International Raw Materials, Teck's Trail Operations, the fire department, as well as the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to discuss the incidents. Further, Westcan Bulk Transport, who was contracted by International Raw Materials to transport the liquid, has since been suspended as a carrier. International Raw Materials has since contracted the company Trimac to carry out delivery of this product.

Transport Canada inspectors conducted a follow-up meeting with the company involved to ensure that all regulations were being followed. This includes verifying driver training, reviewing the required shipping documents and inspecting the damaged tanks.

We will never hesitate to take the necessary actions to ensure the safety of transportation of dangerous goods on our roads.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her detailed reply. She mentioned the Canadian transport emergency centre, which companies are required to report these incidents to. I have looked into the reasons for when they have to report. It would seem that both these incidents would have qualified, yet it was only notified in the second instance and not in the much larger first instance. I am hoping that gaps like that will be fixed because of these unfortunate and serious events.

I want to reiterate how concerned the people of Trail and the surrounding area are about this. A lot of them have lost their vehicles. Even if they get some money back from the insurance company, many people cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. Some people are driving vehicles that may be unsafe because they do not want to bring them in for inspection in case they are seized for being unsafe and they have to buy a new vehicle. Therefore, it is a serious issue.

As I said, the regional governments want answers to these questions so that they can feel comfortable about the services they are providing. When serious issues like this happen, they want to make sure they are doing the right thing. They are relying on Transport Canada for that.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to continuing to improve the transportation of dangerous goods for Canadians, and those improvements to an already rigorous and robust transportation of dangerous goods regulatory framework and oversight program are important.

At Transport Canada, the oversight activities include monitoring dangerous goods operations; enforcing compliance with rules, regulations and standards through audits and inspections; taking appropriate enforcement actions as required; and working with our provincial and territorial counterparts.

We take incidents involving dangerous goods seriously, and follow-up actions have been conducted to determine if there were any further issues with the transportation of dangerous goods, in particular sulphuric acid, in Trail, British Columbia.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 7:01 p.m.)