Brian Jean

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the member that I am not sure where to catch terrorists. I have never dealt with them. However, I do understand that they are in every walk of life. I understand they are in many countries throughout the world, including Canada, the United States and others.

I also understand that just because they have a criminal record does not mean they are not able to work in this field. It is a criminal record dealing with some form of violence or something that may suggest they have terrorist aspirations or activities behind them. As such, I think most Canadians would be shocked to find out that someone with that kind of criminal record or background, dealing with terrorist individuals or violence of any kind against society, would be able to handle any kind of dangerous good.

That can actually happen today. I do not think that Canadians want that. Canadians want to feel safe. They want to feel safe in their ports, on their roads and in their homes. That is what we are doing as a government. I would ask that member and his colleagues to stand up today and support this Conservative government in keeping Canadians safe.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend by saying that I think his concern is a legitimate one, but what outweighs that legitimate concern is the need to keep Canadians safe and the need to keep trade with the United States and other partners.

The people who deal with large quantities of chlorine or other substances that can cause serious damage and sickness to Canadians should undergo some form of security check. I would suggest that the legislation is outdated and these amendments have been needed for some period of time. To not take this seriously as the member just did is not constructive and will not help Canadians feel safe or keep them safe. This is what we are doing and that is why this is so important for Canadians.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with absolute pleasure that I rise today to address the House at third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

An amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act will give us the proper mechanism to prevent and appropriately respond to security incidents during the import, handling, offering for transport and transport of dangerous goods, just as is currently done for safety incidents.

The bill before us today is the result of extensive consultations with the public, industry, unions, first responders, and provincial and territorial governments. I am very happy to say that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also conducted a thorough study of Bill C-9. We heard from a variety of stakeholders, including representatives from industry and unions, such as the Teamsters and the Canadian Trucking Association. I can say with certainty that all of the witnesses who appeared before the House committee strongly supported this bill and indicated that it was very necessary at this particular time.

Some witnesses talked about potential technological research and innovation that may actually provide long-term security solutions to help, for example, track the movements of dangerous goods. Others spoke strongly on the need for Bill C-9 and their belief that it is essential to have an effective security program in Canada. We in this government also believe it is very important to have the security of Canadians as our first priority.

The industry stakeholders supported the bill's security prevention and response program, including a security clearance program, especially one in which one single background check is accepted by our trading partners, such as the United States and others, for all transport workers. This bill, along with the work currently done in Transport Canada with our North American partners, that is, Mexico and the United States, will enable us to do just that.

Other witnesses spoke about the important role a safe, secure and efficient transportation of dangerous goods program plays in the Canadian economy and the good-paying industry jobs it provides. Many people in Canada work in this industry. In fact, in 2007 total dangerous goods sales in Canada were estimated to be about $50 billion. That is right, $50 billion, a great sum. Canadian chemical sales accounted for $36 billion of the aforementioned total. Of the Canadian chemicals sales in 2007, 75% of the sales were to international markets. Exports to the United States rose by 17% while offshore exports rose about 29%. This is a growth industry which is very important to the Canadian economy.

Today there are over 26 million commercially available chemicals being sold around the world and over 46 million organic and inorganic substances registered with the Chemical Abstracts Service of the American Chemical Society. Growth in the registration of new chemicals continues exponentially. Add to that, in Canada there are over 30 million dangerous goods shipments made every year. These shipments are absolutely critical and vital to communities nationwide.

Some of the chemicals enable, for instance, municipalities to provide safe drinking water to their citizens, doctors to provide their patients with access to vital and important nuclear medicines, manufacturers to produce plastics that are used in our clothes, homes, cars, boats and cottages, and everyday Canadians, on those beautiful summer days, to cook their favourite meals on their backyard propane or gas barbecues. That is one of my personal favourites.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is criminal law and has serious consequences as a result. It applies to all matters relating to the importation, handling, offering for transport, and the actual transportation of dangerous goods. Provincial legislation addresses mostly local transportation on highways. The federal regulations, which are multi-modal, are adopted in one manner or another by each province and territory. It is a cooperative effort, and this government works in cooperation with our other partners in the provinces and territories. The current act and regulations are enforced by federal and provincial inspectors.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act provides the federal government with the authority to develop policy, to verify compliance, to conduct research to enhance safety, to guide emergency response, and to develop regulations and standards to manage risk and promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and we are working at the start instead of just the end. Before a shipment can be made, the person who offers for transport or imports the dangerous goods must, and I repeat must, submit an emergency response assistance plan to the transportation of dangerous goods directorate. These plans are reviewed by experts and if they are satisfied that the plans would be able to appropriately respond to an emergency, they are approved.

There are currently about 1,000 approved emergency response assistance plans that industry uses to respond to accidental release of dangerous goods. These important emergency response assistance plans assist local emergency responders by providing them access to 24-hour technical experts and specialized equipment in the event of an incident involving dangerous goods.

The plans are required to explain how specialists and other personnel with knowledge, equipment and skills will be available to respond following an incident involving their dangerous goods.

Prior to the changes put forward in Bill C-9, these plans would not be available to governments or first responders should there be a security incident involving dangerous goods. That is right; prior to these changes these plans would not be available.

These new changes will enhance public safety, and most Canadians would agree, by enabling a response to a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods just like that of an incident following an accident. In addition, the bill will enable the government to authorize a person with an approved emergency response assistance plan to implement the plan in order to respond to an orphaned release of dangerous goods when the identity of the responsible person is not known. This is important.

In committee we heard from industry that it supports the use of its emergency response assistance plan to respond following a government request to security incidents involving dangerous goods.

Industry testified that it sought recovery of its costs associated with response and that the government provide indemnity protection during the requested response time. This is important for the industry because those costs can be prohibitive in some cases. This is what Bill C-9 does and this is why industry supports it so strongly.

There was a lot of discussion in committee about the important and new security prevention program proposed in Bill C-9. The prevention program includes: requiring security plans and security training; providing the authority for transportation and security clearances for the dangerous goods, as well as an appeals process; providing for interim orders and security measures; authorizing regulations to be made to require that dangerous goods are tracked during transport; and authorizing regulations to be made to require that dangerous goods be reported if they are lost or stolen during their importation, their handling, their offering for transport, or their transport. These are five very important provisions to keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-9 would provide the authority to establish performance regulations for security plans and training based on international and United Nations recommendations and aligned with existing U.S. regulations. It would also enable regulations to be made to establish security requirements for tracking dangerous goods as well as regulations to be made to require companies to report lost or stolen dangerous goods.

In August 2005 the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or better known as SAFETEA-LU, came into force in the United States. This act requires commercial motor vehicle drivers licensed in Canada or licensed in Mexico transporting dangerous goods into and within the United States in truckload quantities to undergo a background check, much like the security clearance we proposed. These are similar to those required for United States truck drivers transporting truckload quantities of dangerous goods in the United States. Quite frankly, it makes sense.

Canadian drivers are currently satisfying these provisions if they have been accepted into the free and secure trade, FAST, programs of the Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. However, the United States still expects Canada to implement a long-term solution. This government has a long-term vision and long-term solutions for the best interests of Canadians. The bill before us today will provide the authority to establish the long-term solution by establishing a transportation security clearance program.

There was much discussion in committee on this component of the prevention program. Industry and union representatives all indicated a preference for a Canadian program, one where an appeal application and appeal are done in Canada as the preferred clearance program. This is what Bill C-9 provides. This is what industry wants and it is what we are delivering for Canada, a Canadian program.

We also heard from witnesses that with the upcoming Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics there is a strong need for Bill C-9. An amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act will provide the right tools to support a safe and secure Olympic games. This is important for Canada on the world stage.

Witnesses spoke to the committee specifically on the importance of passing this legislation as quickly as possible so that Canadians can be protected should Canada be a target before, during, or after the Olympics of a security incident using dangerous goods. With the passage of Bill C-9, government, acting on intelligence provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, would be able to use immediately the emergency regulatory instruments in Bill C-9, the use of interim orders and security measures, to prevent an incident during the transportation of dangerous goods.

They would also be able to provide help to first responders during the response to a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods using industry's Transport Canada approved emergency response assistance program, again a Canadian-made program for Canadian interests. Canada has a strict and vigorous dangerous goods program, one that was built primarily on preventing safety incidents during the transportation of dangerous goods, but also covering responses to actual or anticipated releases of dangerous goods.

With the passage of an amended Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, public safety will be enhanced through the inclusion of a world-class security prevention and response program to the existing safety program. This is important. These enhancements are important to keep Canadians safe.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 is extremely important for the promotion and enhancement of public safety. In fact, our international and domestic partners have been waiting for these changes for some time.

I commend the committee on bringing this bill forward as quickly as possible. I encourage all members to vote to pass this bill so that our colleagues in the other place can start the process of reviewing this bill without delay and we can get one step closer to this very important bill becoming law. Together we can take one step further to protect Canadians and Canadian interests.

[Liberal party of canada, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal member of Parliament attended and spoke at a Tamil Tiger rally here in Ottawa. Over 100 Tamil flags flapped in front of him. Attendees shouted out “Tamil Tigers” as he spoke. He even said, “I am helping you guys”.

What was the Liberal leader's reaction to this? He asked the Liberal MP to send out a press release saying he did not know where he was.

A Liberal senator said that we are going to see the biggest separatist party, and a successful separatist party, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What does the Liberal leader do when he faces a member of caucus who threatens national unity? He asks the senator to keep a low profile. How is that for leadership?

It is becoming clear to us that these acts should not be tolerated by the Liberal leader, and we are calling on him today to ask the Liberal senator and the Liberal member of Parliament to step down.

[March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is rich coming from the member, because the reality is this is the government that funded the Evergreen Line. Yes, good news should be repeated. Canadians want to know what is going on with the economy, and we are getting it done.

It comes back to the same issue. Those members keep saying, “We are not going to let you have the $3 billion in order to stimulate the economy”. That is Canadians' money. It is under the rules of this place and they are tight rules. This is not a blank cheque. We do not authorize blank cheques, and we could not even if we wanted to.

It is time to support this government and our initiatives to fix the economy in Canada, to cut red tape and to get it going. That member and the Liberal Party need to support us in that, because without that, our economy will be in shambles. We on this side of the House are not going to let that happen.

[March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that neither I nor any member Conservative government will take any lessons from a Liberal member on how to spend taxpayers' money. We know what taxpayers' money is and what it is for. It is for the benefit of Canadians, and we are going to make sure that Canadians get that benefit.

In fact, our government has demonstrated that we are committed to repairing and improving infrastructure from coast to coast to coast for all Canadians in all ridings. Budget 2009 invested an additional $12 billion above and beyond our $33 billion building Canada fund, the most for infrastructure revitalization this country has ever seen.

This infrastructure plan is helping provinces, territories and communities of all sizes stimulate their local economies, create jobs and support Canadians. That is our purpose in this House. We are entrusted with that, and we are taking care of that for Canadians.

This extra investment will actually provide $4 billion for an infrastructure stimulus fund to help provinces and territories start projects as soon as possible; $2 billion to accelerate construction at colleges and universities nationwide in all ridings; $1 billion to create a green infrastructure fund, because we have listened to Canadians and green is important; $500 million to support construction of new community recreational facilities under the program RInC for hockey arenas and things like that, which Canadians want; accelerating existing provincial and territorial based funding to all provinces so that they get the money today at their choice.

Recently Canada's Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, together with Ontario Minister George Smitherman announced over $1 billion--that is right, $3 billion--for almost 300 projects all across Ontario. These projects across the province will create jobs, will stimulate the economy and will improve the lives of all Canadians, especially Ontarians. It is great news for Canada.

Even more recently, Canada's Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway announced $175 million for 41 projects across the member's own province, British Columbia. That is great news for the province of British Columbia. In fact, British Columbia's transportation and infrastructure minister, Kevin Falcon, had this to say about the announcement:

The B.C. Government has been working with the Government of Canada to get these dollars flowing quickly into communities across the province. Not only are these great projects important improvements to local infrastructure, they're an important stimulus to local economies, and it's estimated that this investment will create 1,750 direct and indirect jobs.

We understand that in these challenging times we need to act quickly, and we are acting quickly. We hope those members will support our stimulus plan and get the $3 billion in emergency funding out quickly so that we can create jobs across this country, so we can support Canadians in their initiatives.

We all agree that we need to work co-operatively in order to get shovels in the ground, in order to cut red tape, in order to get money flowing to Canadians. That is what this Conservative government and the Prime Minister are doing.

It is time for that party over there to get on board and help this government create jobs, create stimulus and get a better quality of life for Canadians. This government is acting quickly, and now it is time for those members to show that they too can act quickly for Canadians.

[Air Passengers' Bill of Rights., March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310 brought forward by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Over the past Christmas season, severe weather wreaked tremendous havoc at airports across the country. I know that because I travel quite frequently. Being a member of Parliament from northern Alberta, I have the opportunity to travel on planes. I can assure the member and others in the House that if anyone knows what it is like to travel in Canada and enjoy the diverse weather across this country, it is members from the west because they have to do more travelling. I remember that bad weather forced many cancellations and delays, which obviously were beyond the control of the airlines. Unfortunately, too many people spent hours in airports lying across plastic chairs and getting snacks from vending machines. Some members in the House probably had that unfortunate experience.

Let me be clear. Protecting Canadian travellers is a priority for this Conservative government and will remain a priority for this government. We are committed to consumer protection and have taken measures to strengthen that protection.

In 2007, for instance, we brought forward Bill C-11, which improved transparency by requiring air carriers to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites, a good step to put forward for consumers to understand what their rights are. The Canadian Transportation Agency was also mandated to continue its complaints process as a permanent program.

In 2008 our government introduced the flight rights program as a result of, in part, Parliament's wish to protect consumers more thoroughly. This is a campaign to inform air travellers of the rights and options available to them should they encounter difficulties when travelling.

In budget 2009, again we introduced measures to modernize the Competition Act and to better protect Canadians from price fixing and misleading advertising, things which are simply not acceptable. The changes that this government made will instill greater confidence in advertising and more meaningful penalties to deter misleading advertising and mass marketing fraud, again things which are unacceptable.

I would like to highlight a few key components of the consumer protection measures we as a government have put in place for air travellers.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, all carriers operating within Canada are required to have written terms and conditions of carriage readily accessible to passengers. These are often printed on the back of the ticket or agreed to when reservations are made online so that consumers will know their rights at the time they purchase their tickets.

These terms and conditions must reflect the carrier's policy regarding persons with disabilities, the acceptance of children, cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged baggage, denied boarding due to overbooking, and ticket reservations. These currently exist. They reflect the passenger's rights as a consumer and the carrier's obligation.

Carriers are actually obliged to live up to these terms and conditions and if they fail to do so, consumers can turn to the Canadian Transportation Agency for recourse. The agency can impose different measures, including corrective measures, such as a refund of expenses incurred by the passenger, and can also direct a carrier to change or suspend its terms and conditions of carriage.

It should be noted that in the United States consumers must actually turn to the courts instead of an agency like the Canadian Transportation Agency when carriers fail to live up to their commitments. We all know that turning to the courts is very expensive and time consuming and, quite frankly, not acceptable to Canadians.

Countries in the European Union are required to have a complaints process, but the complaints processes in the European Union actually vary in their effectiveness and are more limited in scope to what we currently have in Canada. In Canada we have a consumer protection regime that ensures that the terms and conditions offered by carriers in Canada are not only reasonable but that carriers actually stand by them and stand up for consumers.

These terms and conditions are determined by international norms of practice, normal travel practice and healthy competition, which is so very important in today's global economic crisis. They are the carrier's commitments to its clients.

It is easy to understand the frustrations of passengers because, let us face it, many in the House are very frustrated by travel from time to time. The people who experienced the frustration of flights being delayed or cancelled over the Christmas season were, quite frankly, unhappy. Everyone travels hoping to arrive at their destinations on time. However, we live in a winter country. We live in a huge country, approximately 1.2 people per square mile, the lowest population density in the world. Given our climate, inevitably there will be unfortunate delays and inconveniences in travel, particularly in our harsh winters, our large snowfall and our dispersal of population.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard from many industry representatives. I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives from WestJet, Air Canada and from other airline carriers that service our country. Let us talk about what they think. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated that it shares the concerns raised by the NACC, the National Airlines Council of Canada, regarding many aspects of the proposed legislation and does not believe that the highly prescriptive and punitive measures such as Bill C-310.

This sentiment was echoed by the Canadian Airports Council and the International Air Transportation Association. It represents 230 international carriers around the world, including all major airlines in Canada. The National Airlines Council of Canada said that while Bill C-310 claims to safeguard consumer interest, the proposed measures would in fact exacerbate delays and add a new layer of traveller inconveniences and costs.

It is also important for us to try to understand the operational realities of running an airline in today's competitive environment. For instance, bad weather in Vancouver will cause delays in Toronto. It will cause ripple effects across the country, especially during the busiest time of travel and especially during the harshest part of winter. We must also be mindful that safety must be the primary concern for our transportation system.

The Air Transportation Association of Canada in a letter dated March 4, 2009, states that it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking.

Yes, it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking. There is nothing more important to this Conservative government than the safety of Canadians and we are going to make sure that they remain safe while they travel. Safety must come first.

We can and must learn from other countries. We must review the United States' legislation, the European legislation and look at other options. We must also be mindful that Canada's weather and geography are truly unique and these realities must be taken into consideration when we think about what must be done to enhance consumer protection legislation and ultimately serve those whom we all serve in this place, Canadians.

I look forward to working with the member who introduced this bill and all members of the House and the committee cooperatively to find solutions that will protect Canadian consumers without punishing Canadian carriers for factors beyond their control.

We must ensure during this time of economic global downturn that we protect Canadians' interests and at the same time make sure that airlines remain competitive. It is a balancing act and we as a government will do the best job for Canadians.

[Air Passengers' Bill of Rights., March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the member suggest to other members that before they vote on this piece of legislation that they read it first. I think that is a great concept.

My first question is, does that mean the policy of the NDP members will change for the next budget and that they will actually read it before they decide to vote against it?

My second question is, why did the member refuse to meet with the two major Canadian airlines when they asked to meet with him to go over the bill some two weeks ago?

[March 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the reality at this stage is that the obligations of the Air Canada Public Participation Act have been met.

I am not certain as to any other legislation that is coming forward relating particularly to what the member has asked for, but I want to remind him, my hon. colleagues and all Canadians that this member and his party voted against our budget, a budget that is bringing economic stimulus to the country, that is bringing competitiveness to the airline industry and that is going to ensure thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians and make sure that we have a strong and robust airline industry in this country.

This is the budget that will do it. That member and his colleagues should have stood up for Canadians and voted for the budget.

[March 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments from last month on this particular issue.

This is about protecting Canadians' jobs. Indeed, I would suggest that the member is reading selectively. I know he is an extremely hard-working member. He works very hard for his constituents and he knows the file, but I would suggest that this is about protecting Canadians' jobs.

In budget 2009, Canada's finance minister delivered an economic action plan that will support Canadians, stimulate the economy and create jobs.

I direct my colleague specifically to page 142 of the budget, where in no uncertain terms it is stated that our government will be delivering an additional $12 billion in urgent infrastructure stimulus in communities from coast to coast all around this country, including Quebec and his own riding.

Our investments will create jobs, hope and opportunity at a time when Canada needs it most because of the economic downturn that the world is facing at this stage.

Over the next two years, the government will provide a $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund, $2 billion to accelerate construction at Canadian colleges and universities, $1 billion to create a new green infrastructure fund and $500 million to support the construction of new community recreation facilities and make upgrades to existing facilities. These are things Canadians have been asking for, things that will improve Canadians' quality of life. That is what the government will do.

We will also be accelerating existing provincial and territorial based funding. We will be sending more money to them more quickly, providing millions of dollars to every province and territory quickly.

I direct the member opposite to page 143 of the same budget, which lists priority projects that have been identified by the federal government in consultation with our provincial partners, such as Quebec and other provinces, including Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, right across this great country, including the territories and municipalities. This includes upgrades to water and sewer systems across the province of Quebec, my hon. colleague's home province.

These are among the great measures of budget 2009, and they will help Canada emerge from this economic slowdown faster than any other country and stronger than ever before.

The member has voiced his concern in relation to the change from 25% to 49% and the increase in the limit on foreign ownership in Canadian airlines. This increase is necessary because it is all about the economic viability of the airlines and providing them with access to more capital from other countries while ensuring that these jobs remain in Canadian hands and the companies themselves remain in Canadian hands and Canadian control. The Canada Transportation Act, with which the member is familiar, will continue to ensure this as it is laid out.

This increase would also help Canadian carriers to attract more investment and capital and potentially allow them to lower their financing and operational costs. That is what it is all about: remaining competitive in a competitive environment, especially during these hard economic times. This will help Canadian airlines prosper and become very competitive economically across the world.

Raising foreign ownership limits to 49% would place the Canadian airline industry on a par with some of its international trading partners, such as the European Union and Australia. This approach is consistent with Canada's international trade obligations, and it is certainly in the best interest of Canadians.