Mark Adler

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, regulation and legislation are living, evolving creatures and are subject to debate and exchange within parliaments and committees.

We have here a great piece of legislation that really deserves the support of every member in the House so it passes swiftly and expeditiously. The safety of Canadians is at stake right now, and we have put forward a bill that would address all the safety concerns and would put the safety of Canadians first. I would urge all members in the House, rather than nitpick, to pass the bill expeditiously and swiftly.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, none of us in the House is privy to what is in the budget other than the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and none of us quite frankly should be. It would be presumptuous of anybody here to assume what is in the budget, what cuts are planned in the budget and what is not planned in the budget. The member has really raised a red herring.

With respect to the Superior Propane explosion a number of years ago, the member knows quite well that propane is under provincial jurisdiction and provincial regulation. Given the situation of a minority Parliament in the Ontario legislature, I would suggest that the member ask his NDP friends in Ontario to help push for better provincial regulation over propane installations.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. This bill has been debated ad nauseam. It is now time to act. This government has put the legislation forward, and I would expect every member of this House who has the safety of Canadians at heart as a major concern to make sure this bill passes swiftly.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would add that many of these rail yards that are now within residential neighbourhoods are a result of urban growth. The rail yards were built far before any of the urban sprawl occurred.

Having said that, I would add that we should be proud of our rail industry and those who oversee its safety, including the rail workers. They have taken great care in ensuring that these rail yards are good neighbours to the communities in which they find themselves at the current time and that all safety precautions are taken to ensure safety is paramount for our families and within our communities.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government has many priorities. The number one priority, of course, is jobs and economic growth. However, we are passing this piece of legislation swiftly and with the support of all parties.

Now the opposition claims to support this bill, yet its members rise in this House and claim that it has certain deficiencies. Throughout committee they supported it, and all key stakeholders have supported it.

This bill protects the safety of Canadians and Canadian communities. This bill is the right piece of legislation at the right time and it deserves swift passage by all members of this House.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to address the House, particularly so when important issues such as the safety of Canadians, the protection of our environment and the efficiency of our economic infrastructure are on the table, as they are today.

As my hon. colleagues have recently emphasized, the government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians and Canadian communities and to a safe, dependable and modern transportation system to support the continuing well-being and prosperity of this country.

We cannot claim to have instant solutions for every new challenge that arises. Nobody can. However, as we have demonstrated time and time again, we are always willing to work openly and transparently in consultation with stakeholders and Canadians to ensure that the solutions and initiatives we develop are those this country needs to safely flourish and grow.

I believe the Safer Railways Act, brought forward today, is a fitting testimony to the success of our approach.

When the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities launched the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, Canada had recently suffered a series of devastating trail derailments that had caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses, and a serious pollution of track-side lakes, rivers and communities.

During the course of extensive inspections and audits undertaken by Transport Canada following these accidents, the regulator identified numerous deficiencies that contributed to decreased safety levels, including non-compliance by the railway companies with various safety requirements.

There was a general concern with the level of the railways' compliance with regulations. Accordingly, the terms of reference for this Railway Safety Act review specifically directed the independent panel to examine the adequacy of Transport Canada's enforcement powers and to consider whether administrative monetary penalties should be added to the range of enforcement powers available to the department.

The minister appointed an independent advisory panel in January of 2007 to lead the review of the Railway Safety Act. This panel was given the clear mandate to uncover gaps in the Railway Safety Act and make recommendations that would make the regulatory regime more robust and adaptable to the railway industry and its operations.

The panel conducted extensive consultations across the country with railway companies, all levels of government, labour, shippers and suppliers. This approach ensured that subsequent recommendations would take into account the appropriate range of perspectives on rail safety issues. Consultations and careful consideration of these issues were carried out during the year-long course of the review and resulted in the advisory panel making a series of recommendations.

It is important to note that our government took immediate action to implement many of these recommendations. At present, Transport Canada has implemented eight internal recommendations, industry has implemented three, and the final 21 recommendations involve the legislative changes that we are discussing today.

Furthermore, an advisory council on railway safety was created, as well as a Transport Canada-industry-union steering committee and six technical working groups. These groups successfully bring together relevant stakeholders to address rail safety issues in a collaborative manner.

I specifically wish to discuss a key recommendation by the advisory panel upon its examination of the Railway Safety Act. The panel uncovered that Transport Canada's enforcement powers under the Railway Safety Act need to be strengthened to encourage better regulatory compliance, increase safety, and help prevent further incidents like those that originally triggered this review.

The independent panel's final recommendation on the issue, as detailed in its report of March 2008, plainly stated that “an administrative monetary penalty scheme should be included in the Railway Safety Act as an additional compliance tool” to enhance safety in the rail industry.

The government fully agrees with the panel's assessment, and the introduction of a scheme for administrative monetary penalties has been included as an important and integral part of this comprehensive package of safety amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

Administrative monetary penalties are certainly not new in the transportation sector. They were successfully introduced in the air industry in 1986 and were subsequently introduced in the marine industry in 1991.

Penalties of this nature have been introduced in the transportation industry because they work. In simplest terms, administrative monetary penalties are similar to traffic tickets for car drivers. When a company or individual breaks a rule or does not comply with a regulation, the department can impose a pre-established administrative monetary penalty or fine to help encourage compliance in the future.

Administrative monetary penalties have other safety benefits as well. With an administrative monetary penalty scheme in place, there is the perception of fairness because the operator knows in advance the cost of non-compliance and it is applied uniformly. Penalties can also be applied more uniformly as there is less discretion for giving warnings and therefore less opportunity for inconsistency.

Under the current Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada's options for enforcing non-compliance are limited. When a violation is found during the course of an inspection or audit, an inspector will normally issue a letter of non-compliance and follow up in a given time frame to verify that corrective action has been taken. If the situation has not been corrected, the regulator has only one option, prosecution, which is both costly and time consuming and therefore ineffective for a large number of violations. This is a significant weakness in the current enforcement scheme of the act.

We believe that administrative monetary penalties should be implemented as an additional enforcement tool under the act to provide an efficient, effective and less costly alternative to prosecution, particularly in the case of persistent non-compliance with safety requirements established under the act. This is consistent with the principles of minimizing the regulatory burden for Canadians while, at the same time, promoting regulatory compliance.

Of course, in interests of fairness for all parties, the proposed administrative penalty scheme would allow for a review of the regulator's penalty decisions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. The scheme would also include provisions related to the minister's decision to impose a penalty, the due process to be followed, the review of decisions by the appeal tribunal and the level of fines to be paid for non-compliance infractions. Maximum levels for administrative monetary penalties would be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation, which is consistent with similar schemes in other modes of transport.

In addition to the implementation of an administrative monetary penalty scheme to improve railway compliance, we propose, through these amendments, to raise existing judicial penalty levels, which were established 20 years ago and are no longer consistent with those in other modes of transport. Maximum judicial fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would increase from $200,000 to $1 million for corporations and from $10,000 to $50,000 for individuals. Maximum fines on summary conviction for contravention of the act would increase from $100,000 to $500,000 for corporations and from $5,000 to $25,000 for an individual. These levels are consistent with other modes of transport, including air and marine, and the transport of dangerous goods in all modes under federal jurisdiction and reflect our view of what constitutes an effective deterrent to safety violations.

Implementing administrative monetary penalties as proposed in the safer railways act is clearly an important step in the development of an effective railway safety regime with sufficient scope and strength to ensure that our railways are safe and that they remain safe for the long term, as the railway industry continues to evolve and grow.

Administrative monetary penalties are not a stopgap measure. They were recommended by the Railway Safety Act review panel because they are a proven solution for improved compliance and safety requirements in the transport industry. Improved compliance means better safety for all Canadians and Canadian communities and a stronger foundation for our national transport system and economy for years to come.

The time is now to adopt this bill and move forward with further strengthening of the safety of our railway system. This bill has been consulted on and analyzed for several years and has received widespread approval and applause by all key industry stakeholders as well as members of both this House and the other place. I urge my colleagues to recognize that the time for debate has passed and, in the name of the safety and security of Canadians, the timely passage of this legislation is vital.

[Iran, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the beginning of the festival of Purim, a truly joyous holiday in the Jewish tradition. Purim commemorates a time in ancient Persia when the Jewish people were saved from annihilation. Ancient Persia, as we all know, is now present-day Iran. It has been 2,400 years and still we see an ever-growing threat against the Jewish people, their homeland and the entire region. This is something we simply cannot accept.

It is fitting that Purim falls during a week when President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have discussed the spectre of violence that is descending on Israel. I sincerely hope that their talks were fruitful and that we will see a peaceful solution to the growing tension in the Middle East.

I urge all members to stand with me in support of international pressure on the Iranian government to halt its nuclear program and to enter into peaceful talks with the government of Israel.

[Port of Québec, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to continue discussion on private member's Motion No. 271.

This motion, in brief, proposes that the federal government recognize the importance of the Quebec Port Authority and provide support for the various projects that are being proposed.

The member for Beauport—Limoilou tabled a motion that, in summary, calls on the federal government to recognize that the port of Quebec is important for international trade, creating jobs and generating economic benefits, particularly in the area of tourism. The motion also calls upon the federal government to support key projects at the port for the upgrading of port assets and the development of equipment.

Before I proceed into the heart of this important debate, let me first provide a brief history of the port of Quebec and say a few words on its importance.

The Quebec Port Authority, as it is officially referred to, is one of Canada's oldest ports, dating back several centuries. Even before the arrival of the French, the aboriginal peoples used this site for trading. When the city of Quebec was founded in 1608, the commercial role of the port was predominant as a result of the furs that accounted for 60% of the value of exports to France.

Since then, the port has gone through many changes over the years, but one thing never changed. The reason for the port's existence has always been to serve Canada's foreign trade. Today the port is part of a national network of Canada port authorities.

The Quebec Port Authority was established in 1999 under the new Canada Marine Act, which set up a new framework for Canada's national ports to operate under. Essentially this new framework provided the ports with more local authority for decision-making, and established a sound commercial footing for their operations, all with the objective of ensuring that port authorities remained efficient and responsive to their users. One of the aspects of this principle was that the costs were shifted from the taxpayer to the users, who would in turn decide on the services they were willing to pay for. This ensures that investment decisions are targeted and based on business principles.

Canada port authorities have prospered under this regime, and I have concrete evidence of this. Canada port authorities' operating revenues increased from $264 million in the year 2000 to $390 million in 2009. As another example, the aggregate net income of Canada port authorities increased from $30 million in 2000 to $64 million in 2009, an annual increase of 8.7%. Indeed, the Quebec Port Authority was part of that success: it grew from handling just over 17 million metric tonnes of cargo in 1990 to handling almost 25 million in 2010, with revenues of $25 million. In addition to cargo, the Port of Quebec is one of the top cruise ports. In fact, 2010 was its best year ever. The port welcomed more than 100,000 passengers and nearly 35,000 crew members.

What makes this port so attractive and successful? For one, the Port of Quebec has a natural deep water harbour. This competitive advantage allows the various areas of the port to welcome Panamax-sized vessels. A single cargo of up to 150,000 tonnes can thus be loaded or unloaded from the vessel. This means that shippers wishing to move goods through the port can enjoy the economies of scale available when goods are transported in large volumes. Indeed, the average size of cargo vessels throughout the world is constantly increasing. For this reason, deep water is one of the greatest advantages that a port like Quebec can offer its clients.

As a transshipment port, Quebec complements the diverse activities of other ports or industries located around the Great Lakes. Thus the Quebec Port Authority receives bulk cargo on lakers, which is then transshipped to deep draft ocean-going vessels and vice versa.

Another reason for the Port of Quebec's success is that it is fully intermodal. It provides direct access to the major rail systems and to a highway network leading directly to the major urban centres in the eastern United States and the Midwest.

Quebec Port Authority also enjoys a strategic advantage just by its location. Quebec is a gateway to the Great Lakes, being located approximately 1,400 kilometres from the Atlantic and only 250 kilometres from the Great Lakes. The port therefore provides a link between the industrial and agricultural centre of North America and the rest of the world. In fact, it provides the shortest route by sea between Europe and the Great Lakes market. This strategic location allows the port and the region to benefit in economic and commercial terms from the presence of these industries. Through its infrastructure and port services, the marine community enables the region to connect with some 60 or more countries that import or export goods originating in or destined for the Great Lakes basin.

The reason I am going on at length about the port is that it is relevant to the discussion. I am making the point that we do not need to have a motion to recognize the importance of the Quebec Port Authority, because all of tourists who visit there on a cruise, all of the people who benefit through economic spin-offs or through a job there, and all the importers and exporters who use the port to get their goods to market already know this.

In addition, the Government of Canada recognized the importance of the Quebec Port Authority in legislation when the port became a Canada port authority under the new Canada Marine Act in 1999. Under this legislation there are specific criteria spelled out that a port has to meet to be eligible to become a Canada port authority. One of those criteria is that the port must be of strategic significance to Canada's trade.

The Quebec Port Authority certainly meets those criteria. Members can see that just by its qualifying to be a Canada port authority and becoming one, the port is formally recognized as being of strategic importance to Canada's trade. As the member for Beauport—Limoilou said, it is of vital importance as a hub of international trade in opening new markets for Canadian business, creating jobs and generating significant economic benefits.

By supporting this motion the government could be seen as favouring one Canada port authority over all the other 16 port authorities located across the country. This was not and is not the intent of the Canada Marine Act, which established a system of national ports based on commercial principles of financial self-sufficiency, transparency and responsiveness to customers, those being the shippers, exporters, importers, terminal operators and the ocean carriers.

In addition, the ports can access national federal government programs in three key areas, including environmental sustainability, security and the capital cost infrastructure.

The ports have participated in these programs. Between 2005 and 2011, they secured approximately $300 million from the federal government through various funds: the Asia-Pacific gateway and the border crossings fund, the infrastructure stimulus fund, the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiatives transportation infrastructure fund, the freight technology demonstration fund, the marine shore power program and the marine security contribution program. All ports were eligible to secure funding under these national programs as long as they met the same criteria that all others who applied had to meet. Quebec ports received over $70 million under these various programs. The Port of Quebec received $5.6 million.

In summary, the Port of Quebec is already recognized by its customers and by the federal government as being of strategic importance to trade and the economy. The Port of Quebec has received support for its projects through established national programs.

[Foreign Affairs, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, I stood in the House to bring attention to the anti-democratic practices currently ongoing in Russia. Twice in the last three months, election fraud has been strongly alleged in the Russian federation, once in the Duma elections on December 4 and, most recently, this past Sunday in the Russian presidential elections.

Our Minister of Foreign Affairs recently noted with concern the identification of procedural irregularities that tainted the vote in nearly one-third of the polling stations. An observer for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe stated:

There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt

As the Prime Minister of Canada has said:

...one of the human rights we treasure most is the right to freedom of expression. Without it, there can be no democracy, no free press, no freedom of enterprise...and no free exchange of ideas, the universal catalyst for human progress.

I hope all members of the House will stand with me today and urge the Russian authorities to respect the rights of their citizens to demonstrate peacefully and for both sides to refrain from the use of violence.

[Israeli Apartheid Week, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the beginning of York University's participation in a nationwide smear campaign against Israel, known as Israeli Apartheid Week.

Today, as we welcome the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to our nation's capital, we know that the idea that Israel is an apartheid state is patently false. All Israeli citizens, be they Arab, Jewish or Christian, share the same rights and freedoms. Arab and Islamic people are freer in Israel than in any other state in the Middle East; there is equality for Muslim women; and voting is allowed and encouraged. As a result of these freedoms, 82% of Israeli Arabs say they would rather be a citizen of Israel than of any other state in the region.

While the activists are entitled to express their views, those views are grossly inaccurate. They are a disgrace and their hate-filled words and tactics must be condemned by all who believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I urge all members to join me in condemning this ugly smear campaign.