Jim Karygiannis

[Border Crossings, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only short-sightedness here is not on our part but on the part of the opposition. The government strongly believes that it is important to take a strategic approach to transportation infrastructure investment. Over the last decade, the federal government has committed over $12 billion to infrastructure in Canada.

I am very pleased to say that budget 2005 confirmed the renewal and extension of our strategic municipal, rural and border infrastructure programs to continue our strong support for Canada's cities and communities.

[Border Crossings, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a just in time economy. Jobs and growth depend on the efficiency of transportation corridors.

Last February, the Minister of Transport met with U.S. transportation secretary Norm Mineta. They discussed ways to improve security and efficiency of gateways, including the need for additional infrastructure to improve traffic flows, new border capacity for the long term and expansion of border processing initiatives to help expedite cross-border traffic. We are looking into it. We are doing due diligence.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is the rhetoric we get from the NDP. It is unfortunate that members of the NDP never listen carefully. Let me again wrap up what we are doing.

We have a strategy in place called Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving. It was announced last March. Over $600 million have been committed to the border infrastructure fund. We are committed to be there for the people of Windsor and Canada to ensure that 25% of transportation and trucks will go along the Windsor-Detroit corridor. It is just in time to provide jobs and make sure that the Canadian people, especially in the area my hon. colleague represents, have work for the long run.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the very important initiatives for the Windsor-Detroit gateway. On April 21, 2005, the Government of Canada announced $129 million in projects as part of phase 2 of the strategy called Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving. This is a further step toward improving the flow of traffic in the city of Windsor and in Essex county.

A total of $300 million has been allocated to this strategy by the governments of Canada and Ontario. The government has already invested more than $82 million in phase 1 projects that will be completed over the next three years. All Canadians have a stake in the efficiency of this gateway, which handles goods worth $140 billion every year.

We live and work in a just in time economy. Jobs and growth depend on the efficiency of transportation corridors. Companies make their investment decisions and choose their suppliers based on factors such as the reliability of delivery times.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Windsor. In fact, Windsor is the single most important gateway in Canada. It accounts for over 25% of Canada-U.S. trade by truck. This corridor is vital to the jobs of millions of people throughout Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

The Windsor-Detroit gateway is a key priority for the Government of Canada, of which the Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving strategy is a major component. Our American partners also understand the importance of this gateway.

Last February, the Minister of Transport met with the U.S. transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, to discuss ways to improve the security and the efficiency of gateways, including the need for additional infrastructure to improve traffic flows, new border capacity for the long term and expansion of border processing initiatives to help expedite cross-border traffic. I can assure the House that the U.S. administration also sees Windsor-Detroit as a major priority.

I am very proud of the efforts that the governments of Canada and the United States, as well as Michigan and Ontario, are making on the binational partnership. We are working together on long term solutions that will serve the Windsor-Detroit gateway for the next 30 years.

The binational partnership recently initiated an environmental assessment process that will determine the location for new crossing capacity across the Detroit River. This is a critical part of our planning to deliver additional capacity by 2013.

The binational partnership is working systematically and thoroughly. The partnership is taking every step to make the right decisions and the right choices for the long term.

We also recognize that we need to do more to improve the situation in the short term and the medium term. That is why the government announced on April 21 projects worth $129 million to implement phase 2 of the Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving strategy.

The projects include environmental assessments and detailed design and feasibility studies for a wide range of initiatives, as well as construction of several road projects and the implementation of intelligent transportation systems. This involves several modes of transportation: trucking, rail and ferry transportation.

These projects build on the recommendations made in the Schwartz report, which provided the government with an excellent foundation for moving ahead. These short term and medium term projects fit well with the long term solutions that will be provided by the partnership. The government will bring the information provided by the Schwartz report into the work of the binational partnership.

The government is looking forward to working with all our partners to move these projects forward. I am sure that the city of Windsor and Essex county will continue to hear from the government over the coming months as the long term planning efforts are advanced through the binational partnership.

[Grain Transportation, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled “Monitoring the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System Annual Report” for the 2003-04 crop year.

[Question No. 142, May 30th, 2005]

In response to (a), five RFPs have been issued since 2001. Prior to 2001, all health and safety training delivered by Marine Atlantic Inc. was delivered in house.

In response to (b):

2001 – RFP = 1 – Number of Responses = An undetermined number of replies were received (the file had been removed to off-site storage);

2002 – RFP = 1 – Number of Responses = 6;

2003 – RFP = Nil – Number of Responses = Nil;

2004 – RFP = 2 – Number of Responses = NFP No. 1-16, RPF No. 2-7;

2005 – RFP = 1 – Number of Responses = 14.

In response to (c), four companies received contracts.

In response to (d), one company received two contracts.

In response to (e), the client department and/or the training department reviews the requirements for training. This may involve marine regulatory requirements, government regulations arising from legislation, requirements arising from the collective agreements, for the purposes of due diligence relative to employee awareness of various elements of their positions, or for the purpose of enabling employees to carry out their assigned functions in a safe and orderly manner so as to ensure the safety of both the employees and customers of Marine Atlantic Inc.

In response to (f), the individual or group reviewing the responses checks the response against the requirements as set out in the RFP. The responses are rated against the RFP requirements and each other to determine: which satisfy the basic criteria as set out in the RFP; which company has the better experience with similar projects, number of personnel with necessary qualifications to carry out the requirements of the project, good references, financial stability, reasonable cost, and so on. Other factors may be included in the review depending on the nature of the particular project under consideration.

In response to (g), the normal technical review panel consists of a minimum of two individuals. Specific projects may employ a larger number of individuals, depending on the nature and scope of the technical review. A department head or director then vets recommendations prior to final award.

In response to (h), of the five contracts awarded, none of the companies receiving the contracts are known to be owned outside Canada.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not have a chance to finish my whole speech, but allow me to do that and I think my hon. colleague will understand where I am coming from.

The two standards are not different. The misunderstanding exists as many are not aware that the international standard has been amended recently with the most stringent requirements. In addition to introducing the latest more stringent version, the department has added other requirements, thus aligning the effectiveness of the Canadian and international standards.

We are moving to have safer vehicles. I am sure that my colleague across the way will want to join us in making sure that Canadians are safe.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in October 2000 the council of ministers approved an extension of the road safety vision and priorities to 2010.

The renewed program features a quantitative national target, a 30% decrease in the number of motorists killed or seriously injured. The renewed program targets several program areas, such as wearing seat belts, reducing impaired driving, increased commercial vehicle safety, and improving the driving skills of young Canadians.

Jurisdictionally all levels of government are involved. At the federal level new vehicle safety standards pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act play an important role. Some of these standards relate to vehicle theft.

Vehicle theft is a serious concern for Canadians. Vehicle theft affects all of us. As insurance rates rise, everyone loses. Over 170,000 vehicles are stolen each year in Canada, more than 460 vehicles each day. According to Statistics Canada, since 1988 the rate of motor vehicle theft has grown a dramatic 71%, including over 9% in 1996 alone.

Generally, motor vehicles are stolen either for profit or for convenience. There are many innocent victims when a vehicle is stolen. The owner, the insurance company and subsequent owners who unknowingly purchase stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts all experience a loss. More important, theft by young offenders frequently leads to collisions resulting in serious injuries or death.

Studies funded by Transport Canada indicate that vehicle theft is a serious road safety issue resulting in approximately 20 fatalities per year.

The department has been working on several fronts to help combat vehicle theft. In addition to the introduction of immobilization systems, the department has been instrumental in setting up procedures to assist in controlling the exchange of vehicle registrations for vehicles that are imported into Canada. This precludes the registration number of a vehicle that was destroyed in a collision from being applied to a stolen vehicle.

With these procedures, it is now possible for the provinces and territories to verify whether the registration number of an imported vehicle has been taken from a destroyed vehicle.

Transport Canada has also recently introduced requirements for the vehicle identification number plate to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This action was a result of concerns expressed by the insurance industry regarding the ease with which vehicle identification number plates can be moved from one vehicle to another. It is expected that both the procedural changes noted and the permanent plate application will assist in reducing vehicle theft for profit.

Youth vehicle theft is a significant road safety concern. Youth theft poses a significant safety risk, as young people are more likely to engage in risky behaviour.

The department's research indicates that the installation of immobilization systems, which make it difficult for the car engine to be started without the proper disabling device, will reduce vehicle theft. Thus Transport Canada has introduced, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the requirements that new vehicles be equipped with immobilization systems by September 1, 2007.

The anti-theft requirements include the option for the manufacturers to install immobilization systems meeting either the Underwriters Laboratory of Canada or the international United Nations standard. While the Canadian standard is perceived by some to be superior, the department is of the opinion that the international standard offers equivalent vehicle theft protection.

There is a wide misunderstanding among stakeholders that there are significant differences between the two standards. There are not. This misunderstanding exists from conversations.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up. I look forward to discussing this issue further.

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only flabbergasting thing that I hear is one individual, a member only caring about one sector of the country and ignoring the west, ignoring the east, and ignoring the Great Lakes.

We on this side of the House are responsible. We are going to ensure safety from coast to coast to coast. We are working with the hon. member's constituency. If he needs training, and if there are more than 10 people who need to be trained, people will go out there to train them.

The hon. member is grandstanding in order to say, “I will get re-elected”. Well, I have news for him. On this side of the House, we care about safety and uniformity from coast to coast. If the hon. member thinks that his little part of the world is an exception, I have news for him. It is still part of Canada. It is still part of what we consider to be regulations from coast to coast to coast.

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking these questions and raising the issue of safety. Safety is a serious topic that deserves serious attention.

The safety of small vessel operations, including the safety of guides and outfitters, is as important to us as the safety of a coastal fishing vessel or a deep-sea freighter.

We recognize that guides and outfitters are by nature, resourceful, capable and independent. Their roots are founded in members of the first nations and the explorers, trappers and settlers who first navigated the waterways of Canada. Inappropriate rules for this industry sector would not be accepted nor would they have the desired effect on safety.

Every year in Canada too many lives are lost as a result of small vessel accidents. We know that on average there are 150 pleasure craft related fatalities and 30 to 40 lives are lost on commercial vessels every year. The number of incidents with injuries, property loss or environmental damage is many times higher.

Marine accidents can be prevented or mitigated by appropriate safety measures that reduce risk and eliminate unsafe operations. These incidents and fatalities occur for a wide variety of reasons but usually there is a human error involvement. Often the vessel is deficient in some respect, the weather is bad and, coupled with errors in judgment or lack of knowledge, things go terribly wrong. If effective safety equipment is available and timely rescue efforts are launched, lives and property may still be saved.

Every size and type of vessel can get into trouble. Accordingly, there is a multi-faceted strategy to address safety. Some of the items in the strategy are well-known and others are not. What may come as a surprise is that the rules referenced by the question from the hon. member have been in place for many years.

All vessels, except for very small, low-powered pleasure craft, must be registered or licensed. Licensing helps us to understand what kind of vessels are out there and where they are. Licence numbers make the work of rescue and enforcement agencies easier.

The licence for a small commercial vessel costs $50 every five years. As regulations evolve, Transport Canada is looking at changes that would make the licensing fee requirement less difficult for outfitters registering multiple vessels. The department is also introducing new standards to make the use of life jackets more widespread.

Due to numerous accidents, the crewing regulations were changed in 1997 to introduce a requirement for basic safety training for operators of small commercial vessels. The original due date for this training was July 2002. In order to give sufficient time for operators to meet this requirement, a policy was developed to allow operators until 2007 to receive this basic safety training, provided they have signed up for a course.

Non-powered vessels, such as canoes, do not require a licensed captain. Consultations are now underway with small commercial vessel operators about the proposed training requirements for persons in charge of these vessels.

Regulation and common sense require all vessels to be properly constructed. Vessels are also required to carry lifesaving safety equipment such as life jackets or personal flotation devices. Many of those who debate the need for these requirements may not understand the risks or do not place a priority on safety.

That being said, regulations, standards and safety programs are constantly evolving in order to improve safety. Our regulatory processes and our commitment to consultation will help to develop safety requirements for guides and outfitters vessels that are reasoned and reasonable.

At this point, the challenge is to engage these stakeholders in a meaningful way in order that that we fully understand the safety--