12495 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 192 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, March 30, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 30, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 192 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 192 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 192 (Version officielle) 147 192 30 03 2015 2015/03/30 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Canada Shipping Act The House resumed from December 2, 2014 consideration of the motion that Bill C-628,

An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-628. Second reading The Speaker : The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has seven minutes left to conclude his remarks. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, ten thousand individuals and organizations, including the provincial government of British Columbia and several first nations, wrote to or appeared before the joint review panel assessing the northern gateway project.

Their opposition to the project was nearly unanimous. I would like to mention my work as an MP to protect coastal communities, encourage sustainability, and protect the marine inland ecosystems. Early in my term, I introduced a bill to ban oil tankers off B.C.'s north coast. I also introduced a bill to protect wild salmon by transitioning west coast fish farms to closed containment. I also helped form an all-party oceans caucus to inform parliamentarians about issues threatening the health of Canada's oceans and of the opportunities to become a global leader in areas like ocean research.

I also introduced a bill to ban the importation of shark fins to Canada, which was based on a UN report on the state of the world's oceans. It concluded that our oceans are under threat, with major stress from climate change in the form of ocean acidification, and that large predators like sharks are in serious decline. I mention these initiatives because they relate directly to the work of my good friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , and specifically to the intent of the bill to protect our way of life on the west coast, not just for current generations, but for future generations as well.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley came to my riding late last year. He spoke to a large gathering of my constituents about the impact that the Enbridge northern gateway project would have on the north coast if it were to go ahead. He was captivating from the start. He was informative and his stories were engaging. He presented alternatives to what the Conservatives are proposing. He spoke of the bill we are debating today and what could be expected with a New Democratic government. The people really appreciated his presentation, his thoughtful analysis, and his well-researched proposal. They liked it.

Energy pipelines and the environment are very much a concern to the people of British Columbia. Not only is there massive opposition to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline, but there is also opposition to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, and his council, have worked hard to expose the shortcomings of the project and the flawed NEB process. We know that over 100 people were arrested on Burnaby Mountain, clearly demonstrating their opposition to the pipeline proposal.

I attended a rally in September at the Colony Farm Regional Park, in my riding, where people were very concerned about Kinder Morgan's proposal to use Colony Farm as a staging area for assembling of the pipes for the

section of the proposed new pipeline. People were very opposed to this use of a public park. I have provided background information to Bill C-628 . I spoke of my own work relating to protecting B.C.'s west coast way of life. I should add that even before I was an MP, I was concerned about these issues. In 1995, and again in 2000, I swam the 1,400 km length of the Fraser River, one of the world's greatest salmon rivers, to raise awareness about the threats facing this great river system and to our way of life in British Columbia. Over 1.4 million people live within the Fraser River basin.

A huge amount of the economy is generated within the basin. The health of the river, like the ocean on B.C.'s north coast, is critical to the health of our way of life on the west coast of Canada. I am saying that the intent of Bill C-628 is to protect a way of life and to promote a sustainable way of life. It is certainly what motives me to do the work that I do as a parliamentarian. It is why I became an MP, and it is why I am happy to support Bill C-628. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing it forward.

Before I conclude, I would like to provide a quote from Art Sterritt, the executive director of Coastal First Nations, who said, “for too long the concerns of our people and the majority of British Columbians have been ignored. The bill addresses some of our major concerns with Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline”. What the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is doing with this bill is not only listening to his constituents, but proposing solutions that make sense for west coast communities and a west coast way of life.

In conclusion, the Conservatives have brazenly tried to force the northern gateway pipeline and supertanker projects on to British Columbians and first nations. The New Democrats will continue to stand with B.C. and first nations to fight for a fairer process for all Canadians. This bill is a common sense initiative to put respect for communities, first nations, and the environment back into Canada's energy conversation, and to make sure that Canadians are getting the full benefit of our energy development.

Canada's Parliament has been mulling over protection for British Columbia's north against oil tanker traffic for over a generation. It is time for MPs, especially those from British Columbia, to rise to the occasion and extend permanent protection for B.C.'s north coast. Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate very closely, just as our government has been listening very carefully to what British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, have been saying about economic development and environmental responsibility in this country.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the bill before us and to reiterate some of the points made so persuasively by some of my colleagues. I will also add that I find it ironic that this member is proposing such a bill after he and his party voted against our increased measures for pipeline safety. New Democrats voted against doubling the number of audits and increasing the number of inspections on pipelines. They voted against fining companies that break environmental regulations. Our government is listening to Canadians, and the message we are hearing is very clear: Canadians want balance.

They understand the importance of resource development, but not at any price. They understand that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand, and so does our government. Environmental protection is and always will be a priority for us. We have been clear that projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. That is precisely what our plan is, and that is what responsible resource development is all about.

Grounded in sound science and world-class standards, that plan ensures that we can develop the energy of the structure we need in a way that protects the environment we all share. As part of this effort, our government is strengthening marine, pipeline, and rail safety, resulting in stronger prevention, enhanced preparedness and response, as well as improved liability and compensation in the highly unlikely event of an incident.

The members opposite may not be aware, but oil has been safely transported along Canada's west coast since the 1930s, thanks to responsible players in the industry and effective preventive measures. In addition, 99.999% of oil transported on federally regulated pipelines between 2008 and 2013 was moved safely. This outstanding track record should reassure Canadians, and especially British Columbians, that our energy resources can safety be exported overseas to create jobs and economic growth here at home. That said, even one incident is one too many.

Our goal must always be zero major spills or accidents, and to achieve this our government has introduced stringent new safety standards for tankers, together with new navigational supports to better protect our coastal waters. Put simply, Canada's approach to marine regulations seeks to balance the safety of shipping and the protection of the marine environment with the need to encourage maritime commerce. In fact, we have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety.

These laws complement international regulations established by the International Maritime Organization, and that is before we factor in the tough new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3 , Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act. There is compulsory pilotage in British Columbia's coastal waters. This means that a vessel must have an on-board pilot who is a navigator, certified to a specialized knowledge of local waters.

In addition, Transport Canada has more than 300 inspectors who work every day to verify that ships meet Canada's regulations and the international standards that Canada has adopted. Within the international maritime community, Canada is highly respected as a country that provides a clear and consistent set of rules that promote safety and protect the environment.

I would like to quote the British Columbia environment minister who spoke about our government's plan and said the following: I have a high degree of confidence that [the government is] serious about achieving the goals that we have in front of us and serious about the safety of our coast and the transportation of tankers up and down our coastline. Canadians want a balanced approach to economic development. They support growth and want good jobs and long-term prosperity for themselves, their families, and their country.

What Canadians might be surprised to learn is how important natural resource development is to our quality of life. Over the last five years, the oil and gas sector has contributed an average of $25.1 billion in taxes, royalties, and fees to government. This money helps to support public pensions, provide health care, and build schools, hospitals, housing, and highways. If we want to maintain our high standard of living and ensure governments have the funds to pay for a wide array of social programs, we need to seize the potential of new markets for our energy. That is something our government understands.

It is something business understands, and it is something Canadians understand from coast to coast to coast.

(1110) Our focus then is on preventing incidents from happening, cleaning them up quickly in the unlikely event of their occurring, and protecting taxpayers from any cleanup or remediation costs. Under this government, it is polluters who will pay, not taxpayers. We recently introduced the pipeline safety act , which would enshrine in law the principle of polluter pays. To ensure that pipeline companies can respond in the unlikely event of a major incident, they would be required to maintain the highest minimum financial resources in the world.

For companies operating major oil pipelines, that amounts to $1 billion, as well as holding sufficient cash on hand to respond quickly to incidents. The pipeline safety act would also give the National Energy Board even greater authority so that it could strengthen incident prevention, preparedness, and response as well as liability and compensation. With all of these efforts, we are seeking to foster greater public confidence in our country's ability to develop its resources and to do so responsibly. We know that building public confidence in major resource projects requires a whole-of-government approach.

Our approach to promoting responsible resource development is a balanced approach, and it is the right way to go. Bill C-628 is not a balanced approach. A ban on oil tankers would have a lasting negative impact on Canada. The NDP's anti-trade, anti-development agenda is clear. This bill would limit further diversifying our energy exports to countries other than the United States, which would severely impact our economy, jobs, and everything.

Moreover, such a ban would be looked upon negatively by other countries, which view these waters as open for navigation, and banning a legitimate class of vessel would be contrary to the system that has served Canadians so well for decades. Canadians want a balanced approach, and that is the path that this government is going to follow.

(1115) Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and participate in this debate on Bill C-628 and to bring a perspective from the east coast, one of Canada's other two coasts, as the member for Halifax West in Nova Scotia. The bill calls for a ban on oil tanker traffic from the inland waters of Canada's Pacific north coast, which is a magnificent area that includes the Great Bear Rainforest, many species of wildlife, and runs of salmon. It is a magnificent area that is important to preserve and protect.

Coming from Halifax West as I do, I appreciate the strong desire that people have in British Columbia to protect coasts and coastal communities. I understand the concerns that many have with respect to the potential of supertankers, which are the very large crude carriers, or what are now called “VLCCs”. They carry far more oil than the Exxon Valdez carried when it went aground and leaked so much oil back in 1989. I think it is about eight times as much. People have very great concerns about tankers that huge travelling through such sensitive areas.

As I have said, I come from a coastal community, and we see the snow starting to melt in Nova Scotia. We have had an awful lot of snow this year. As my colleague says, I can dare to dream, but I am looking forward to the summer and kayaking along the coast of Newfoundland if I can get a little time away from the long campaign that we expect to start once the House rises. I guess there is no surprise when we look at the situation and the position of the current government.

First of all, it is difficult to understand why the Conservatives would not support the bill before us, but on the other hand, it should not be a surprise to anyone who has seen how the Conservative government has systematically dismantled so many critical environmental protections during what can only be described as a decade of devastation. The proposed legislation closely resembles previous bills that have been brought forward to the House a number of times, the contents of which will be familiar to members. Of course, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act are the main focus of the bill before us.

While much of this was in earlier legislation, there is one notable difference in Bill C-628 , which is the addition of provisions to amend the National Energy Board Act to require the NEB to take into account certain factors before making a recommendation to the minister with regard to the issuance of a pipeline certificate. For example, one element of the bill asks the NEB to ensure that consultations on pipeline projects occur and to report on those consultations in its consideration of a project. These consultations are more important than ever these days.

I think we see today that even when the National Energy Board approves a project, it does not necessarily mean it is going ahead, because there is that question of social licence. One has to have a considerable amount of community support before moving forward with a natural resource project of any size. I think that is why it is so important that we develop greater confidence in the public in terms of the regulatory processes we have in this country as they relate to the approval of those projects and to environmental assessment.

Therefore, when the government has gutted the programs and the assessments in the way it has, it is a great concern. I look forward to discussing this aspect of Bill C-628 . Hopefully when it goes to committee, as I hope it will, this aspect will get great discussion there as well. However, the fact is that the government has undermined public trust around pipeline projects. In fact, I hope we hear more today from Conservative British Columbians, who will really share their views on this topic.

I wonder if they will reflect on the fact that eight out of ten British Columbians are in favour of the kind of measures that are being proposed here and are opposed to ships carrying crude oil travelling through the waters we are talking about. That will be interesting.

(1120) Maybe they will explain why the government felt the need to change the National Energy Board process to further limit consultation about pipelines or to shorten the National Energy Board regulatory reviews to a maximum time limit of 15 months. The question is how this makes sense—that is, to limit the consultation of Canadians—when they are more engaged than ever before on these issues. Is it not a time to give them more opportunity to have a say? We are not talking about foreign radicals, as was said by the Minister of Finance, who was or the Minister of Natural Resources at the time.

That it is what members opposite want people to believe. In fact, National Energy Board officials testified recently before the natural resources committee, of which I am member, and said that the Canadian energy industry is in the midst of a “perfect storm”. The NEB noted, in fact, that in March 2010, when the board released its Keystone XL decision, it was to relatively little fanfare, and there were only 29 intervenors in the process. We can contrast that with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, which has 400 interveners and more than 1,300 commentators.

Then there is the energy east application and the hearings related to that, where there are close to 2,300 application participants. We can see a great deal of public engagement these days, yet the government wants to cut that short. When more and more Canadians are engaging in the debate about pipelines and pipeline safety, the Conservatives think they should have fewer and fewer opportunities to express their opinions. They are out of sync with Canadians on this, and certainly with British Columbians, as we can see from all the surveys that tell us about concerns British Columbians have on these topics.

I think they are out of line. In my province right now, the roads are in rough shape after the winter we have had. There are lots of potholes, and I am sure that more than one person over the course of this spring is going to have to pay for a wheel alignment to keep his or her vehicle going straight. Canadians are going to want a realignment of the Government of Canada as well, so that it is aligned with their priorities, views, and values, which the government clearly is not. It makes no sense to cut this process short.

That is a big part of the reason that there is so much mistrust of the government these days, and why there is so much mistrust of the processes that I have been talking about. Of course, the Conservatives have fed that mistrust by gutting elements of the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act in their several omnibus bills, particularly Bill C-38 . As my party's critic for natural resources, I am keenly aware of how important, and at times how highly controversial, the issue of pipelines has become for Canadians.

Given the sustained interest on the subject of Bill C-628 , the fact that we have had this issue come to us in various forms over the years, including in bills introduced by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra , and coupled with the Conservative government's rollbacks on environment protection in recent years, it is clear that additional study of the concepts raised in Bill C-628 is very much needed and warranted.

Many of my B.C. colleagues, including the sponsor of this legislation, have already spoken about how the bill would impact the west coast and how important it is to residents of northwestern British Columbia. Coming from Atlantic Canada, representing Halifax West, I can assure my friends on all sides that the folks on the east coast share the pride in maritime traditions and have a connection with the ocean similar to that of people in British Columbia.

Nova Scotia, for example, has 20 companies involved in our ocean research in areas like fisheries, aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, maritime security, and shipbuilding. There are many areas in which Atlantic Canadians are connected to our oceans, as British Columbians are. It is important to support this bill and send it to committee for further study.

(1125) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak in support of a very important bill, important not only for British British Columbians but for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. At this stage, I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , not only for the B.C. coastline but for the communities that reside in the north. He is an example to us of how to do effective advocacy outreach, and then to try to push for those improvements in the House.

This should not be a partisan issue because this is all about protecting our coastline. Today, I am making a heart-felt appeal to my B.C. colleagues across the way to search deep in their hearts, do the right thing and support the bill. British Columbians, whether they live in Kelowna, in the Kootenays, in Kitimat or Surrey, all care very deeply about our beautiful coastline. However, we also care about the future of our industries in British Columbia. We care about the kind of country and environment we want to leave for our children.

If my colleagues across the way feel they cannot support this, I hope they will rise to their feet and use all their persuasive powers to have some of us change our mind because they feel they are right. Let them defend the position they have taken in not supporting the bill. I will wait for that. This is a common sense bill. It is a bill that came from the people and has been brought here by the member of Parliament. It shows respect for communities, first nations and environment. It talks about having a truly different type of conversation.

Instead of us and them, instead of saying that they can get the heck out of our country, instead of saying “it's our way or the highway”, the bill proposes a pathway to meaningful dialogue that is respectful of all points of view, one that actually listens to the experts and the communities. It is a way to ensure that when we look at our energy development, we do it right, we do it in a way that will benefit our children for generations to come. It is no surprise to many members who have been in the House for a long time that the issue of protection for the coastline has been around for over a decade.

The bill would do bring closure to this. The law would provide permanent protection to B.C.'s north coast, permanent protection against oil tankers. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever had the privilege of visiting the beautiful coastline of British Columbia. In my previous job, I had the privilege to visit every community, even the ones where they had a one-room school. Travelling through British Columbia, visiting our coastline and our northern communities, we begin to see the close ties between are our land and the environment. However, we also see something else.

I am not what I call a “gorilla kayaker”; I am a gentle kayaker but I am married to a gorilla kayaker. The Douglas Channel is narrow and inviting. Those waters are not suitable for supertankers. When we look at our beautiful coastline in British Columbia, and I am sure people on the east coast feel exactly the same, we want to ensure it is protected. We are carrying on the proud tradition the NDP has had for the past number of years, dating back to 1972 when a previous member of Parliament for Skeena, Frank Howard, brought forward such a motion to ban tanker traffic. It is time to turn it in to law.

We have talked long enough.

(1130) Some people will say that we oppose the Northern gateway pipeline because we do not want to see damage done to our rivers, lakes and coastline. People say that the NDP does not believe in resource development or growing jobs, but we are 100% committed to growing decent-paying jobs in Canada. This is a novelty for some, but we support responsible management of our non-renewable resources, a transition to renewable resources of energy and increasing energy efficiency, and a process that respects communities and the environment.

That is the kind of resource development the New Democratic members can support, do support and will continue to fight for. We are not the only ones who have said that. The bill has also been endorsed by the Council of the Haida Nation, the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, and the city of Terrace. I want to take us back to Kitimat.

We are going to see so many tankers filled with diluted bitumen going through the Douglas Channel along B.C.'s northern coastline to Asia or California, through some of our most biologically diverse environment, 120 species of sea birds and 27 species of marine mammals, such as orca, grey and humpback whales, as well as commercially important wild salmon, halibut and other fisheries. The economic costs of a spill would be absolutely ginormous. The seafood sector in B.C. generates close to $1.7 billion each year, while the wilderness tourism in B.C. generates more than $1.55 billion in annual revenues.

We are not talking over a lifetime; we are talking about one year. We are talking over $3.2 billion of revenue from the fishing and tourism industries. These sectors do not work in isolation. They provide decent-paying jobs, permanent sources of income for around 45,000 Canadians. If there is a spill, we put guaranteed revenue into jeopardy. Not only that, but we know the cost of an oil spill and of a cleanup. We also see the long-term impact on other industries. We often hear people saying that spills are not really going to happen. Enbridge is doing its own research, and this is from its own data. Dr.

Gerald Graham determined that the likelihood of a major oil spill was 14%. That is not negligible; that is a huge probability. That is 1.5 out of 100 tankers. Do we want to take that kind of a chance? Think about the number of tankers that will go through the channel each and every year. The Alberta Federation of Labour has estimated 26,000 decent-paying jobs would be created and would help to boost the middle class if the amount Enbridge intended to export raw was upgraded and refined in Canada. Over the next 50-year span, we are looking at 11,000 tankers going down the Douglas Channel.

I appeal to my B.C. colleagues to please persuade their other colleagues to vote for the bill.

(1135) Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country in beautiful British Columbia, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-628 and share how and why our government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. It is not either/or, but a balanced approach. We have taken significant action to strengthen the safety and security of Canada's energy transportation system, whether it be rail, pipeline or tanker safety. Bill C-628 proposes to ban oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia.

It is founded on perceived shortcomings of Canada's energy system that are simply not accurate. Over the next few minutes, I would like to share with Canadians the broad range of concrete measures already in place and the new actions we are taking to build on Canada's strong world-class safety system. That is because members on this side of the House understand they are essential to achieving our goal of energy market diversification, which is itself crucial to ensuring ongoing job creation, economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.

I would like to explain why I believe it is so important that we diversify our energy markets. In 2012, Canada produced over 3.38 million barrels of crude oil and almost 3.9 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. All of that activity supported roughly 190,000 direct jobs and an additional 70,000 indirect jobs. Then there are revenues to federal, provincial and territorial governments from the oil and gas industry, which averaged approximately $25 billion annually over the past five years. That money paid for everything from roads and bridges to schools, hospitals in communities from coast to coast to coast.

These multi-billion numbers are not surprising given the oil and gas sector accounted for 7.5% of GDP in 2013, and $83 billion of capital expenditures. Industry also represented $117 billion in exports in 2013. To say the energy sector plays a major role in our high standard of living is an understatement. I believe it fuels the high quality of life of Canadians. However, it is not something we can take for granted. The reality is that the global energy landscape is undergoing a seismic shift, creating both new opportunities and new challenges for Canada.

On the plus side, there is an enormous and growing appetite for our energy supply. Demand for Canadian oil is strongest in the rapidly growing markets of the Asia-Pacific region. The International Energy Agency predicts that, by 2035, the world will need a third more energy than is being consumed today. Most of this increase is due to the need for energy in emerging economies. Canada can capably meet that need as Canadian oil and gas production through innovation and new technology is expected to grow dramatically over the same period.

If we want to maintain our high standard of living and ensure governments have the resource sector royalties to fund a wide array of social programs, we must diversify our energy markets to have the funds to proceed in this manner. While it appears the NDP by bringing forward this bill does not appreciate how crucial this issue is to the lives and livelihoods of Canadians, I can assure members that other government leaders across Canada do.

At the 2014 Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference, federal, provincial and territorial ministers recognized that the continued advancement of energy infrastructure was fundamental to gaining access to new markets and generating economic growth. Ministers also reaffirmed the need to coordinate our efforts to reinforce the diversification of Canada's natural resources by ensuring the safe transport of resources by pipeline, marine and rail. We understand and fully agree that public safety and environmental protection are necessary conditions for energy development to proceed.

As I said earlier, it is a balanced approach; it is not either/or. That is precisely what responsible resource development is all about. It sends a clear signal that our government is determined to protect public safety and the health of the environment, based on sound science and world-class standards. Between 2000 and 2011, federally regulated pipelines boasted a safety record of over 99.999% We are proud of the action we have taken to ensure Canada has a world-class regulatory framework and a means for the safest form of transportation of our energy products.

Our Government has introduced stringent new safety standards to prevent oil spills from happening and new navigational supports for tanker ships to better protect our coastal waters. We have nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety, and that is before we factor in the tough new regulatory oversight and enforcement capabilities provided under Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act . Thanks to tough legislation and technological innovations, there have been no spills from double-hulled tankers in Canadian waters.

Nor have there ever been spills from tankers escorted by tugs with a local pilot aboard. Especially important, we are ensuring that polluters, not taxpayers, will be responsible for costs in the unlikely event of a spill. We have brought in polluter pays legislation for both offshore and onshore, with billion dollar conditions for spill response and cleanup.

(1140) These measures underline that when it comes to transporting our natural resources, whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker, our government will never compromise on safety. Our government has also given the independent National Energy Board the necessary resources to increase annual inspections of pipelines by 50%. The board has doubled the number of annual comprehensive safety audits to identify pipeline issues before incidents occur.

Equally important, the National Energy Board now has the authority to impose substantial financial penalties on companies that do not comply with safety and environmental regulations. It can levy fines of up to $100,000 a day for as long as the infractions are not addressed. It is disappointing that the member who put forward the bill we are debating today and who purports to be in favour of improving safety voted against each and every one of the measures I just mentioned.

Canada's outstanding safety record should assure Canadians that our energy resources can be developed safely and can in turn create good jobs and economic growth here at home. Our government's approach to promoting responsible resource development is the right one. I believe that Canadians simply cannot trust the New Democrats to protect our economy or our environment. They oppose every form of resource development. They vote against our legislation to increase pipeline safety measures. Then they propose this bill that would hurt the Canadian economy.

Bill C-628 risks undoing all the good being achieved under our plan for responsible resource development and would come at a great cost to Canadians. For that reason, we cannot support this bill. In closing, having spent the first 27 years of my life in Alberta, I understand the oil and gas economy and how important it is not only to Alberta but to all of Canada. Given my last 25-plus years calling beautiful British Columbia home, I understand the value of the energy industry and also tourism, the environment, safety, and the economy. They are all brought together.

It is not either/or, as I have alluded to before. As a father of three daughters and three grandsons, I want a future for our Canadian economy, for our community of Kelowna Lake Country, for British Columbia, and for all Canadians. I believe that if this bill is passed, it would take us backward and would not help create those jobs we want in the future. This is Easter week, a week of hurt and a week of hope. My hope is that we will work together to manage our resources responsibly. We are called to be good stewards. We have abundant resources across Canada.

However, this type of legislation would not help our industry and would not help to create jobs. We want to have a balanced approach. I believe that by working together, we can create jobs and grow the economy to achieve long-term prosperity and a good quality of life for all North Americans

(1145) Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Bill C-628 ,

an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act. My party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, has stood with first nations and communities across British Columbia in their opposition to the Enbridge northern gateway since day one. This bill would enshrine a crude oil tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast in law. It would set it in stone. I have never been to B.C.'s north coast. In fact, I have only been to British Columbia once, to the city of Vancouver, two or three years ago. As members know, I represent St. John's South—Mount Pearl in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a representative of Canada's most easterly province, I am on my feet here today speaking about a bill impacting Canada's most westerly province, because we have a lot in common. I hear about how beautiful, unique, and pristine British Columbia is, but I certainly could not conceive of B.C. being any more beautiful, unique, or pristine than Newfoundland and Labrador. There are similarities, but there are differences as well. I know those differences well. British Columbia has had a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off its coast since 1959. That is 56 years.

Oil and gas companies have been drilling off Newfoundland and Labrador for a dog's age. It has been for decades. There is a moratorium off B.C. and just the opposite off Newfoundland and Labrador, where oil companies have been filling their boots for years. While there is no offshore oil and gas industry off B.C., we have had one on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland since the 1990s. In fact, the first offshore oil project, Hibernia, and the construction of the project's gravity-based structure in the 1990s, saved Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

At the same time as the Hibernia project was getting off the ground, our northern cod stocks were in complete collapse. The northern cod moratorium in 1992 was the biggest layoff in Canadian history to that point. It may well still be the biggest layoff in our history. More than 30,000 people were thrown out of work immediately, and those were direct jobs. Newfoundland and Labrador has done well through its oil industry. It has done very well. It has been a “have” province since November 2008, contributing more to the country than it gets back.

Between 1949, when Canada joined our province, and 2008 it was a “have not” province. That hurt not just our economy but our psyche, too. There are people who say that the oil industry has hurt Newfoundland and Labrador in certain ways and that there is too much emphasis on the non-renewable oil and gas industry and not enough attention to our greatest renewable industry, the fishery. Economic diversification also has not happened. The Newfoundland and Labrador government is facing a $916-million deficit this year alone, because oil revenues are down so severely and there is nothing to pick up the slack.

The Government of Canada has also turned away from the fishery, with constant cuts to fisheries science and research budgets, in general, and a broken management system. There are some lessons B.C. can learn from Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill would stop the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline in its tracks. Enbridge proposes that supertankers the length of the Empire State Building thread their way through the needle that is the sensitive and difficult waters of the Douglas Channel and B.C.'s north coast. Over the project's 50-year lifespan, we are talking about 11,000 tanker trips.

What are the odds of a devastating accident or catastrophe? Most British Columbians and first nations do not want to take that chance. That message has been heard loud and clear across Canada. Back to Newfoundland, there is constant oil tanker traffic in and out of Placentia Bay. Placentia Bay is seen as the area in Canada with possibly the highest risk of having an oil spill.

(1150) It was only recently that the Atlantic Pilotage Authority wanted to move the pilot station, where pilots board tankers to help guide them through the tricky waters. The pilotage authority wanted to move the boarding station deeper into Placentia Bay, but it backed off when opposition rang out, including opposition right here in the House. It backed off because it made no sense, because it increased the risk. As it stands, Transport Canada's oil spill response equipment for Placentia Bay is located hundreds of kilometres away in a warehouse in the city of Mount Pearl, next to the city of St. John's.

How does that make any sense? One of the first papers I read in preparing to speak on the bill was a report carried out for B.C.'s first nations. The report was entitled, “Assessing offshore oil and gas development on British Columbia's coast”. The report said, “The risk of oil spills is declining with new management practices and technology”. That is fair enough. I suppose it is. However, here is the interesting part: “However, oil spills are a relatively common occurrence in oil and gas development. Newfoundland has recorded 138 small oil spills from 1997 to 2002”.

In the 13 years since that report, since those numbers were gathered, we can bet that there have been dozens, hundreds even, more spills, mostly small spills, but still spills. Returning to British Columbia, there are two concerns with the Enbridge northern gateway project: the impact on the environment and the impact on the economy. The project would move 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day from Alberta to B.C. The 1,177 kilometre pipeline would cross the Rocky Mountains, which I hear are almost as beautiful and as rugged as Newfoundland and Labrador's mountain ranges.

The pipeline would cross the Rocky Mountains and hundreds of rivers and streams. From Kitimat, the bitumen would be loaded onto supertankers and shipped down the Douglas Channel and along B.C.'s north coast to Asia or California, wherever the markets are. B.C.'s north coast is known for great biological diversity and extreme weather. It sounds like home. The north coast is home to 120 species of birds and 27 species of marine mammals, including orcas and gray and humpback whales, not to mention salmon, halibut, and other fish species. Again, it sounds like home and almost as nice.

An oil spill would be devastating. Supertankers do not stop on a dime. Supertankers have a minimum stopping distance of three kilometres. The economic cost of a spill would be equally as devastating. B.C.'s seafood sector generates close to $1.7 billion a year. Wilderness tourism is worth another $1.55 billion. Combined, that is well over $3 billion a year. We could imagine the dent an oil spill would put in those numbers. However, there is another economic impact, not just for British Columbia but for all of Canada.

The Alberta Federation of Labour estimates that 26,000 jobs could be created in Alberta if those 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen were upgraded and refined right here in Canada. Why would we ship out unrefined bitumen? Why would we throw away 26,000 jobs? How does that make sense? How is that smart? Newfoundland and Labrador has not benefited just from our own oil and gas industry. Alberta's oil sands have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars, dare I say billions, into our economy through hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who migrate west every day, every week, every year.

I speak with them on the planes. I see them in the airports. They go to places like Fort McMurray, Newfoundland and Labrador's second biggest city, as the joke goes. Why would Canada support a pipeline that threatens so much of our environment and exports jobs to other countries? There are three coasts in Canada. Each is equally important, although it does not always feel that way. In B.C., as in Newfoundland and Labrador, we live and die by the sea. If we jeopardize our oceans, our coasts, our culture, and our heritage, our economy will be lost.

(1155) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a right of reply to first express my thanks to my colleagues from across the country and in the House. From the east coast and to the north, I thank my colleagues from British Columbia, New Democrats, Liberals and Green Party alike, as well as the independents who have shown their support. I represent northwestern British Columbia in the House of Commons. We are a culture and an economy based on our environment. As we say up north, the people do not make the land, the land makes the people, which is increasingly true.

This bill that I have presented in Parliament was in fact borne out of a crisis, out of a threat from an oil company seeking to build an 1,100-kilometre twin pipeline carrying unrefined raw bitumen from northern Alberta to the Port of Kitimat and then on to China through supertankers three football fields long. In my duty as the member of Parliament representing this place, I realized that I had to oppose this project, because the risks so far outweighed the benefits for the people I represent, and I would argue for the people of British Columbia and Canada.

However, from this crisis is an opportunity, and we have taken this opportunity to find common cause, not just in northwestern British Columbia, but across beautiful B.C. and in fact across this country. First nations and non-native people, community to community, have stood shoulder to shoulder in expressing our commonly held values to protect our homes. They have expressed that most Canadian sense of determination, that when a government tries to force something upon us, we stand resolute with one another in opposition to that government.

Also through this bill, I sought to propose solutions to the crisis that is upon us, to make consultation with Canadians meaningful and respectful, so that if the opinion of Canadians in their communities and their homes is asked, then the Government of Canada should listen. This bill, perhaps for the first time in Canadian law, also seeks to actually have an opinion about natural resources in this country as to whether we export them raw, as is planned by Enbridge's northern gateway and Kinder Morgan, Keystone, or if we add value to the endowment that we have inherited.

However, if we ask these questions of proponents, the Conservatives say we are antagonistic, but I say that is not right. I have held dozens of town halls across British Columbia, from the east to the west, from Vancouver Island to the interior, to the north, to the cities. Tens of thousands of British Columbians have been engaged, signing petitions, writing postcards and coming to town halls. I was in the interior of B.C. this weekend and took the red eye back this morning.

A woman came up to me at one of our town halls and thanked me for providing a little bit of hope, because she felt quite desperate with the current Conservative government and its approach to her province and home and native land. However, I realized that through the course of this, it has been myself that has taken the most inspiration from the British Columbians I have engaged with.

Despite a cynical and oppositional government that seeks to strip our environmental laws, ignore first nations' rights and title, ignore the reality of climate change, ignore the idea that we should be adding value to our natural wealth, despite all that, British Columbians, Canadians, have continued to show up.

Even with the increasing threat from a government that says if one dares have an opinion that is contrary to its own, one will be called a foreign-funded radical by one's own government, one will be called an enemy of the state by one's own government, people have chosen hope over that fear time and time again. It does not make one an enemy of Canada to express an opinion; that makes one truly Canadian.

Coastal first nations; B.C. municipalities; the B.C. government; the Fraser community's labour, tourism and businesses have all stood together in opposing this project; two-thirds of British Columbians consistently. Therefore, I say to my Conservative colleagues from British Columbia that they clearly have a choice in a vote in 48 hours to decide who it is that they work for. Do they work for the current Prime Minister and his oil lobby friends, or do they work for the people who sent them to this place from British Columbia?

Those members must decide that within the next two days, because this bill is an opportunity to stand with British Columbia and defend our coast, or stand with the Prime Minister , who has truly lost his way and believes that it is a radical thing to stand up for one's community, that it makes one an enemy of Canada rather than a Canadian citizen.

(1200) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 1, immediately before the time providing for private members' business.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Safe and Accountable Rail Act Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) moved that Bill C-52 ,

an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-52. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to begin the second reading of Bill C-52 , the safe and accountable rail act. [ Translation ] Since arriving at Transport Canada, I have made safety my absolute top priority. [ English ] As minister, I have borne witness to events that have led us to examine the safety regime and the manner in which railways and shippers are held accountable when things go wrong. Things can and do go wrong.

The most notable event without question was the explosion of railway cars in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, on July 6, 2013, and the 47 people who died that day, a day that will be inscribed in the memory of all members of this House. It has galvanized our determination to find better ways to protect Canadians and our communities, and better ways to safely move the goods on which the Canadian economy depends. [ Translation ] We are committed to achieving that, and we have taken decisive measures to do so. [ English ] Very soon after the tragedy, we introduced measures to address safety issues.

We established two-person minimum crews for locomotives pulling dangerous goods, and we slowed the speed of all of those trains. We adjusted the specifications of tank cars, and immediately took the least crash-resistant cars off the rails. We strengthened regulations and we increased inspections. We also took steps to address longer-term issues. We have been working with municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers to strengthen emergency response across this country. In August, the Transportation Safety Board issued its final investigation report on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, and again we responded.

Last October, I introduced further measures, including an emergency directive on how trains are to be braked, the accurate classification of dangerous goods and steps to improve training of all rail employees. We also introduced measures to make safety management systems more effective in ways that I will discuss in more detail, but I want to emphasize this: this government has implemented every single one of the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic. We have learned the lessons inherent in past tragedies, and our commitment to safety is absolute.

The bill before us introduces further steps to strengthen the safety regime of Canada's railways and ensure the accountability of railways in the case of accidents. It moves on three different fronts. The first is prevention. Amendments would strengthen the regulatory regime to reduce the likelihood of rail accidents. The second is communication for effective response. The bill would allow for requirements related to information sharing between railways and municipalities to improve the response in case of emergencies. The third is accountability.

The bill would take steps to ensure railways have enough insurance to pay for damages. It would also make crude oil shippers accountable for what they put on the rails by ensuring they pay into a supplementary fund that would be available when an accident involves crude. The bill before us would amend two pieces of legislation: the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Taken together, these amendments represent a significant step in improving the overall safety in Canada's railways, especially in the transportation of dangerous goods.

These amendments respond to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic, and the 2013 fall report of the Auditor General. We welcomed all their input. Let me begin with prevention and the features of the bill that would help prevent rail accidents. The Railway Safety Act sets out a regulatory framework to address the safety, the security and the environmental impact of rail. Under the act, federally regulated railways are responsible for the safety of their rail line infrastructure, of their railway equipment and of their operations.

Transport Canada monitors the railway's compliance with the act and with the department's rules, regulations and engineering standards.

(1205) Transport Canada also conducts audits and inspections to ensure that the overall safety of railway operations is maintained. Canadians can be assured that Transport Canada does not and will not hesitate to take appropriate action to address safety concerns. The bill before us today would provide new authorities to the safety inspectors and to the Minister of Transport to do just that. Under this bill, a new provision would give the Minister of Transport the authority to order a railway to take a corrective action, to stop any action, to follow any procedure or to suspend operation.

In other words, the minister would be able to intervene directly should there be a concern for safety. A Transport Canada railway safety inspector would be given broader authority to issue notices and orders to any person or entity, including railway companies, road authorities and municipalities, relating to safe railway operations. By increasing the authorities for the minister and railway safety inspectors, we would increase Transport Canada's ability to administer the Railway Safety Act and the regulations, the rules and the engineering standards made under the act.

These are all powerful tools and they would increase the regulation of oversight of railway companies that Transport Canada regulates and would ensure that railways operate according to the standards established in the act. However, I would like to emphasize that some of the most important steps that railways make to improve safety and safety culture are not the results of the provisions of the Railway Safety Act but are contained within their own safety management systems or SMS. I want to be clear on this point.

A safety management system is not deregulation and it is not self-regulation; it is an internationally recognized, science-based process that has been used in rail transportation since 2001. SMS do not replace rules or regulations or inspections. They provide a systemic approach to safety that incorporates specific regulations and proactive measures to identify hazards and to mitigate risks. Transport Canada has created regulatory requirements around safety management systems and the bill before us would strengthen the department's oversight.

Under the amendments, I believe that if a railway company were implementing its safety management system in a way that could compromise railway safety, I could take that company to corrective action by placing an order. With this additional oversight, railways would have further incentive to ensure that they manage the risks associated with operating a railway. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the elements of this bill that would help quicken emergency response through closer communication and co-operation between railways and municipalities through which they pass.

Under this bill, Transport Canada would have new authority to regulate the sharing of information, of documents and of records from one party to another other than the department, for example, from a railway company to a municipality. Canada's history is one of towns and cities that sprang up along the rail lines in this country. We have to ensure that the people who live in these areas are safe. The collaboration between railways and communities on such matters would no longer be at the discretion of the railways. It would form part of a mandatory regulatory framework.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been an outspoken champion for better communication and more transparency between railways and municipalities on safety-related issues, and we thank its members for their input and advice. In addition to prevention and effective communication for improved response, the third pillar of the bill involves accountability. By this, I mean the need to ensure those responsible for operating the railway system and those who put high-risk goods into the system would have the financial resources they need to compensate victims and to clean up communities if things go wrong.

This is not just an issue that results from major tragedies such as what happened in Lac-Mégantic, although I will return to that in a moment.

(1210) More frequently, municipalities are called to respond to incidents of lesser impact, such as putting out fires that may have been caused as a result of a railway operation. Under the current regime, these costs are often borne by the provinces and municipalities and ultimately their taxpayers. However, under the bill before us, if a province or municipality believes that a fire was started as a result of railway operations, it can apply to the Canadian Transportation Agency for reimbursement.

The amendment would give the agency authority to determine if indeed the fire was caused by railway operations, and would be able to determine the costs incurred in putting out the fire and require the railway to reimburse the province or municipality for those costs. This amendment and the others I have spoken to today are changes to the Railway Safety Act that promote a safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada.

The amendments would give Transport Canada more authority and oversight in rail operations, bring in a new era of communication between railways and municipalities in an effort to improve emergency preparedness, and help make the railways accountable for the costs incurred from fighting fires that result from their operations. However, another important issue of accountability became all too apparent in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The cost of the disaster in terms of the lives lost was incalculable. They are beyond words.

However, there were calculable loss costs as well, and the costs of putting out the fire and clearing the debris, cleaning up the effects on the environment, and, of course, the costs of rebuilding a community and compensating, truly shattered lives. No one wants to anticipate such a disaster, but any responsible company must prepare for such eventualities by carrying sufficient insurance to cover the costs. Under the Canada Transportation Act, federally regulated railways must carry insurance, but the Lac-Mégantic tragedy has proven that the measures now in place are simply not sufficient.

Therefore, the bill before us identifies specific levels of insurance that must be carried, depending upon the type and volume of dangerous goods that the railway transports. These insurance requirements would come into force 12 months after the bill's royal assent, giving the insurance market the necessary time to adjust, and railways enough time to obtain the necessary insurance, which is usually purchased on an annual policy. Class 1 railways carry significant quantities of dangerous goods, and they will be required to hold $1 billion in insurance.

The House will be reassured to know that both CN and CP customarily carry more insurance than that. At the other end of the spectrum, railways carrying little or no dangerous goods would be required to hold $25 million in insurance. For short-line railways carrying higher amounts of dangerous goods, there would be an initial requirement to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance. One year later, those levels would increase to $100 million and $250 million respectively. This phase-in period would allow short-line railways time to adjust to the new requirements.

The agency would be able to make inquiries to determine whether railways are maintaining the correct amount of insurance, and must revoke or suspend the certificate of fitness of any railway that fails to comply. The agency can also enforce insurance requirements through administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000, and there is more. Unfortunately, there is always the possibility and potential for a tragedy to exceed the ability of a railway's third-party insurance to cover the damages, so crude oil shippers must also share in the responsibility that comes with the transport of their dangerous goods.

For those reasons, the bill would also create a supplemental fund that would be financed by levies on crude oil shippers, in the amount of $1.65 for every tonne of crude that is shipped. If the damages caused by a catastrophic crude oil accident were more than a railway company's insurance could cover, the fund would be there to cover the cost, not the taxpayers.

(1215) This is consistent with the polluter pays principle and is similar to the approach taken in marine transportation; the costs associated with an incident are shared by industry. Crude oil shippers are included in the amendments before us today, but Transport Canada is looking at the possibility of expanding the regime to cover industries that ship other dangerous goods. In this way, we promote a shared accountability between rail carriers and the shippers of dangerous goods to ensure that victims and taxpayers are fully protected from bearing the costs of rail accidents.

Our goal is to ensure that communities, citizens, and taxpayers are protected in the event of an incident. The polluter will pay to clean up and provide compensation. We support a competitive rail sector and the resource economy that brings jobs to Canadians, but when it comes to safety in the transportation system, communities and citizens will always come first. The measures in this bill come in addition to the steps the government has already taken to improve the rail safety regime.

I would point out that there is a private member's bill that has been tabled to amend the Railway Safety Act, and I would like to commend the work of our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre . Her private member's bill, Bill C-627 , is also designed to provide greater protection to persons and property from railway operations. The government supports this bill, and I wish to assure the House that we have coordinated the amendments in the bill before us to ensure that both bills will be harmonized when they reach royal assent.

This is the customary way to give effect to two bills and will result in both bills having equal and consistent impact on the Railway Safety Act. Railway operators and Transport Canada have taken many measures to improve rail safety, and this has reduced accident rates over the past several years. However, the amount of dangerous goods and other commodities moving by rail is increasing, and it will continue to grow. We need proper oversight to reduce accidents.

We need better communication between railways and municipalities to provide more effective response, and we need a stronger liability and compensation regime in the event of an accident. The bill addresses each of these areas. It introduces substantial changes to the regimes for both rail safety, and liability and compensation.

In the last Speech from the Throne, this government committed to drawing upon the lessons of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic to make shippers and rail companies accountable for rail safety. [ Translation ] With this bill, we are fulfilling that commitment. [ English ] Our system of transportation safety is strong, but it can be improved. By strengthening the safety, liability, and compensation regimes, we will improve public confidence in the rail industry. Above all, we will underscore that the safety and the security of Canadians remain the top priority of Transport Canada.

We have put in place many rail safety initiatives, through directives, orders, and regulations within the existing legislation framework. (1220) [ Translation ] This bill will enable us to take further measures. [ English ] I hope hon. members share my sense of urgency that we get this done, and that they join me in supporting this extremely important bill. Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the bill is a step in the right direction. After Lac-Mégantic, we saw the impact of a company not having sufficient liability insurance.

We have also seen the impact of not having a fund to help families and municipalities when they have to deal with the cleanup. I would like to hear from the minister. When the minister tabled the bill, we heard talk about $250 million regarding the disaster relief fund. I would like to know whether or not that is a cap. Has the government decided to put a cap on that fund? If it is a cap, why is it capped at $250 million? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support in our bringing forward this legislation.

There has been a notional amount to which the fund has been pegged in order to share capitalization. Much like in the ship-source oil pollution fund, we have set a limit in terms of the levies coming in to make sure there is a certain amount of money available.

That being said, if there ever is a case where that fund is exhausted, on top of the insurance, there is power within this act for the government to assess another levy in order to bring that fund back up to the amount it needs to be in order to ensure that taxpayers are not ultimately on the hook for the costs and that it truly is the polluter pays principle. There is a limit on the capitalization of the fund, but beyond that there is the ability for us to go back and extract that.

It would be the consolidated revenue fund that would take over if need be, but we have the ability to get that money back from the railway and from the shippers. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that concerns a number of the residents in the riding that I represent, and in fact all of the downtown residents, is the level crossings. In a dense urban area where many of these trains travel, including the train from Lac-Mégantic which came through the downtown, level crossings are still the defining characteristic of rail crossings in Toronto and across the country.

There are thousands of them. My understanding is that there is a budget of only $10 million a year to transition the level crossings into rail underpasses or overpasses. Is the government considering increasing the funds available to cities and municipalities to make the rail lines safer as it brings in stronger safety regulations? Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, I would implore the members of the House to make their municipalities aware of the grade crossing separation fund that is available. Unfortunately, it was not fully subscribed to last year.

Ironically, one would think that it should be available and people would take it up. The money is there in order to make sure we have participation by both rail and the municipality, and the federal government has its piece through this fund. I encourage people to make the application. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. minister has put great effort into improving rail safety, and I commend the steps that have been taken. I am not convinced that we have done enough yet. However, we know we are moving a lot of goods by rail, and it is focusing on the dangers of those goods.

I want to ask the minister about the definition of crude oil in the bill. It lumps together different kinds of products that have widely different risks. We know that the Lac-Mégantic disaster involved Bakken shale from North Dakota, which was highly volatile. At the other end of the spectrum, we have conventional crude oil which is not nearly as volatile. I am wondering how we could better differentiate and if operationally there are ways to do that.

Certainly when shipping diluent to northern Alberta, to stir it into bitumen, diluent itself is a hazardous material, even though shipping bitumen as a solid would not be. These are the kinds of distinctions that are ignored in the current definition. Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to proposed

section 87 of the Canada Transportation Act, under clause 4 of Bill C-52 , where we give the definition of crude oil. I can assure the member that there was a lot of discussion with respect to that with Transport Canada officials. Where we landed is where we list it here, which is in compliance with the United Nations designation and classifications. We will always make sure we are getting the appropriate capture with respect to crude oil to ensure it is part of the shippers' fund.

We cast the net quite widely in this case, but if there are any specific concerns that the member may have with respect to that, I will ask her to bring it up for Transport Canada officials, through me, and we will be able to get you the appropriate answer. My understanding is that we threw the net widely in order to capture the entire definition in accordance with the United Nations regulations.

(1225) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech very carefully. As the minister well knows, in my region we have had three derailments recently: one in Hornepayne and two in Gogama. The last one in Gogama was particularly concerning because of the tankers that spilled into the Mattagami River near the fish spawning grounds.

A lot of work has gone into making sure that we have a healthy fish population, not just for first nation people but for all tourists and outfitters who live along the Mattagami River. Given the ecological damage that has been done to the Mattagami River, I would like to ask the minister if she can update the House on the remediation plans in place and what she thinks it is going to take in the long term to restore the fishery habitats that have been damaged on the Mattagami River. Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, CN has made a commitment to the member's colleague with respect to the cleaning up of that river to 99.9%. That is the statistic that I have been told. I do not have direct communications with CN on this topic. I am happy to gather further information on mitigation and provide it to the hon. member and his colleagues on that. I would say one last thing, though. One change that this government did make is on risk assessments to be conducted by rail.

Companies have to take into consideration environmentally sensitive areas through which they travel as part of their risk analysis to ensure their operations are in line with our best practices. That is something that will be taken into consideration, and if CN is not co-operating, let us know. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, this bill would give inspectors more powers and rights. One of the problems, as I have indicated to the minister, is that since 2013, when the Lac-Mégantic accident happened, only one rail safety inspector has been hired.

How can the minister expect inspectors to do their work if there are not enough of them to do a good job of inspecting the rails? What we saw in the Gogama accident is that there were problems with the rails. Can the minister explain why she has not increased the number of rail safety inspectors? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have been over these numbers before.

One thing I can tell the House is that the number of individuals who are involved in railway oversight has increased, both in the transportation of dangerous goods aspect and in the railway safety aspect of the department. We will continue to make sure that we are fully resourced in accordance with what Transport Canada officials indicate they need. However, it is important to note that the amendments being sought here would not actually increase the workload.

What they would do is give the inspectors more power so that they would not be caught up in a paper war with the railway but would have absolute, concrete powers to make orders and get justice and action from the railway as they need to and as issues unfold with respect to railway safety matters. Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for this legislation and for the actions that she has taken with respect to railway safety. I have railways that go through my riding on a very regular basis, which she knows very well.

This is a very good debate and discussion, with questions and comments from both sides of the House. With regard to the member who asked about CN cleaning up, one example that I remember is the situation that happened in Lake Wabamun. It is not in my riding, but it is near my riding. There was a spill there. I thought that CN did an outstanding job in the remediation at the lake. I want to ask the minister to just expand on something. She mentioned in her speech that this is not self-regulation.

This is a question that I sometimes get from companies in my area and the Nisku area, as well as from my constituents, especially in the southern part of the riding of Leduc. They ask if this is just allowing the companies to regulate themselves. She pointed out in her speech how that is not the case and that it adheres to international standards. I wonder if she could just expand on that a little.

(1230) Hon. Lisa Raitt : Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we have enough time to explain safety management systems, but what I can tell the House is that it was determined many years ago—about 25, in fact—here in Canada that with 46,000 kilometres of rail in our country, it would be virtually impossible to have an inspector every single day, at every single moment, on every single inch of rail doing the regulatory inspections that they were currently doing.

It was determined at that time—and it was a good determination, by another government—that we would move to safety management systems to mimic what was happening internationally. It starts with having regulations in place that will always stay in place and inspections in place that will always stay in place. However, it puts the burden of having a safety culture on the rail companies as well.

They must embed safety practices into every aspect of their operations, from the very top—where we say there has to be a safety executive designated with the responsibility for safety in the company—all the way down to ensuring that training for unionized employees includes safety management systems. Having whistle-blowing involved as well in the safety management system is incredibly important. Together, they work to make sure that we are plugging any holes that may be in the rail safety regime. It works. The Transportation Safety Board agrees with us that it works.

It is a great system for Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-52 . This is a government bill that amends the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. It is a reaction to what happened in Lac-Mégantic. I would like to begin by saying that I support the government's amendments because they are a step in the right direction. However, we would like to know why the government waited so long to do this. Why did it take a tragedy like Lac-Mégantic for the government to fix some of these problems?

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to go over the background. In 2013, a tragedy occurred that shocked the entire nation and had a terrible impact on the people of Lac-Mégantic. Everyone knows that 47 people were killed. Unfortunately, we cannot change that. However, the NDP has said since the beginning that we must learn from our mistakes. What happened? Why was the self-regulation and self-inspection system, which was implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives, in place for so long?

As we all know, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities studied the transportation of dangerous goods. The NDP presented a supplementary opinion. We found that, once again, the recommendations were a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. Meanwhile, we did not hear any recommendations from the Liberal Party. We need to know why the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened. Despite a study that took from November 2013 until now to complete, since the report was tabled in the House relatively recently, many questions remain unanswered.

That is why one of the NDP's recommendations called for a public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened. Our proposal has the support of the people of Lac-Mégantic and, more recently, the support of the Lac-Mégantic city council. A lot of questions remain unanswered. For instance, why is it that the government authorized MMA to operate with a single conductor, especially considering that company's poor safety record? Why was MMA given an exemption? I would remind the House that in the entire country, only two companies were exempt from the rule that required two conductors.

Why did the government authorize just one conductor, especially in the case of MMA, a company with a troubling history, as we know? Other questions were also raised. How is it that the government still has not assumed its share of the responsibility, despite the investigation done by the Transportation Safety Board, which found the government at least partially to blame? It is rather uncommon for the Transportation Safety Board to come down so hard on a government. I spoke with some residents of Lac-Mégantic, and I can assure you that they remain frustrated about the lack of information.

They do not feel as though justice has been served. No one can understand why the government refuses to launch an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened. To come back to the bill, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy made us realize something else. Afterward, we realized that MMA had $25 million in liability insurance. That amount does not even begin to cover the $400 million that has been spent to date on cleaning up and rebuilding, and that cost may still go up. How can a company have only $25 million in insurance?

One of the ways that the government responded and the reason why we are supporting this bill is that it will require rail companies to increase their liability insurance, or at the very least, it will impose a minimum amount on them. As I said, this is a step in the right direction. However, if we take a closer look at the table, we see that a minimum of $25 million is being imposed on the smallest rail companies that transport smaller amounts of dangerous goods.

(1235) That is the same amount that was set for MMA. On the other hand, the government wants to set the minimum level of liability coverage for larger companies at $1 billion. That includes CN and CP, which are class 1 railways that carry substantial amounts of dangerous goods. Without getting into too much detail, the bill sets out minimum levels of liability insurance up to a maximum of $1 billion based on the type of dangerous goods that the company transports. Why are these levels based on the quantity of dangerous goods that are transported all year?

The Lac-Mégantic incident involved a small rail company that happened to be transporting a fairly large quantity of dangerous goods at the time. However, the costs associated with the disaster are far greater than the limits set out in this bill, particularly for small companies. Once again, we will not give the government a blank cheque. We know that this bill is a step in the right direction, but we want answers to these questions.

What is more, this bill provides for a disaster relief fund financed by shippers to cover any damages resulting from accidents involving crude oil. [ English ] I asked the question of the minister today regarding what I will call the disaster relief fund. The minister said today that it would be pegged at $250 million. I am asking why we are pegging the disaster relief fund at $250 million. I mentioned before that the Lac-Mégantic disaster will cost more than $400 million. Also, if we really believe in the principle of polluter pays, why put a cap?

Does that not mean that in the case that the railroad company does not have enough insurance, then the disaster relief fund would apply? If it is capped at $250 million, who else would have to pay for the cleanup and reconstruction? At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who would have to pay, through the government. That is actually what is happening right now. We saw it happening in Lac-Mégantic. Unfortunately, we do not understand why there will be a cap here, especially of $250 million. That is another question we will have to ask the minister and probably a Transport Canada official.

I asked the minister another question, and we will probably agree to disagree. The minister said they have increased the number of rail safety inspectors to a sufficient number. I mentioned before in the House and in committee that the government has only hired one additional inspector for rail safety. I am not the person who is saying that; it is Transport Canada actually answering one of my questions. We know the impact on the environment after what we saw in Lac-Mégantic and with the derailments in the northern part of Ontario.

My colleague from Timmins mentioned the Gogama derailment and the implications it has with respect to the environment. If the only answer from the government is to hire one more rail safety inspector, that is a problem, especially after we read in the TSB's preliminary report that there were issues with rail infrastructure. The government says it is not allowing self-inspection or that SMS is sufficient.

What the NDP is saying on this side of the House is that although the safety management system put in place by the Liberals is a system that goes in the right direction, how it is applied and enforced is key, and what we have seen is the government just transferring all the responsibilities to the railway companies.

(1240) That is clear because when we ask questions to railway companies as to who is responsible for inspections, they will tell us they are. On the other side, all Transport Canada is looking at is mainly whether the safety management system is existent. Again, the Auditor General and the TSB said that the way it was applied and enforced was not sufficient. Questions were raised with regard to whether Transport Canada had enough resources.

We know the rail safety directorate, the body that is in charge of overseeing and ensuring that rail safety is enforced and applied, has had its budget cut by 20%, if we look at the 2010 numbers. The government's actions speak louder than words. It is cutting the rail safety directorate, the body that looks at ensuring rail safety is enforced. When we talk about rail safety, again, there is the issue of the lack of oversight. That was raised a long time ago by the TSB, and it has been raised by the official opposition.

However, when we look at the action, which is cutting budgets to the rail safety directorate, we do not understand where the government intends to take leadership in ensuring that oversight is there. I have also asked the minister questions about the number of railways that have received penalties in the past few years. [ Translation ] The response from the Minister of Transport is zero. The railway companies have been fined zero dollars, when we know that some companies have not been obeying the laws or the regulations and are cutting corners.

The government is currently cutting the budget of those responsible for inspecting the railway companies and enforcing the law, but what is more, it is fining the railway companies zero dollars. The law is not actually being enforced. Further on in Bill C-52 , some measures are introduced to give the minister and the inspectors more authority. On that issue, we support the proposed amendments. Indeed, when we know that a railway company is breaking the rules or has some safety problems, then it is important for the government to take action. Again, we take issue with the lack of transparency in all this.

There is a reason we asked for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the transportation of dangerous goods. Again, we are not getting all the answers that we and the public are looking for. When it comes to lack of transparency, we need not look very far; we just have to look at the government. The former minister said that if municipalities wanted information about dangerous goods passing through their area, they would have to complete an access to information request. I have to acknowledge that the current minister has made progress.

However, that does show this government's reluctance to share information and work with the municipalities. There is not yet full co-operation with the municipalities. I wonder how the municipalities are going to pay for their first responders' training and ensure that they have all the training information and the resources needed to respond to an emergency. Unfortunately, what I heard from the many municipal councillors and mayors I met with is not reassuring. I travelled around Quebec to hear from Quebeckers and, unfortunately, they still feel that there is a lack of co-operation and information-sharing.

For example, since Lac-Mégantic, the Transportation Safety Board has asked railway companies to provide their risk assessments.

(1245) Companies must assess the risks, for example when they pass through a densely populated area or when they are transporting a certain quantity of a particular type of product. In the United States, the assessments are public and can be viewed. The Canadian government has not taken steps to enable the public—and especially the groups affected, like municipalities—to access these assessments. In committee we asked why a particular risk was taken, what risk assessments were done and whether Transport Canada had received them. The response was that risk assessments had been done.

Transport Canada responded that all of that information is not made public. We cannot get an answer to our question. The NDP thinks that the government should be much more transparent. Unfortunately it takes disasters like the one in Lac-Mégantic and the ones in northern Ontario for people to truly see what is going on. It is shocking to see what happens, for example, with train derailments and the impact they have on the environment. The government continues to lack transparency. I have to say that this and other bills have been steps in the right direction. However, there are still some unresolved issues.

One of those issues is the rail cars that were introduced after the Lac-Mégantic accident even though the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has been asking the government to make rail cars safer for the past 20 years. At the time they were called DOT-111 tank cars, or class 111 tank cars. “DOT-111” is the term used in the United States. Last year, the government introduced new standards in response to Canadians' concerns. The government said it would take three years for all of the rail cars in use in Canada to comply with the new standards.

Unfortunately, the Gogama incident and the subsequent Transportation Safety Board report showed that CPC-1232 tank cars were not adequate either. The new DOT-111 tank cars, which the minister said are the new standard, are not appropriate. They respond just like the old DOT-111 tank cars. That is not according to me; that is according to the Transportation Safety Board itself. We still have the same concerns. The minister said that new standards would be brought in.

I asked why it took so long for that to happen. (1250) [ English ] The minister's response was that it was negotiating and dealing with the U.S., which takes time. However, when we talk about the safety of Canadians, we know these standards are not sufficient. It will take another 10 years to put the promised standards in place. That is 10 more years for us to have these unsafe rail tankers going through our cities and near our schools. I have heard a lot about that from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are worried.

Although these are steps in the right direction, there is still a requirement for stronger regulations and enforcement. The main concern is with respect to the lack of oversight. The government has said that it is moving forward on that front, but we know the budget for the rail safety directorate has been cut by 20% since 2010 and when we only have one additional inspector, those actions speak louder than words. The government needs to do more to ensure that safety of Canadians is the number one priority. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with great interest.

However, I am also aware that the policy of the member's party is to put a priority on passenger rail over that of freight, particularly in southern Ontario. In other words, freight trains would be pushed to the side as VIA Rail passenger trains pass through and then the cargo trains would be allowed to continue.

With the high volatility of the cargo and the switching of tracks being one of the prime drivers behind derailments, is the NDP considering re-evaluating its policy of putting VIA Rail on a priority basis and cargo trains having to shunt back and forth between side rails as they move through dense urban areas? Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, yes, the NDP believes in passenger rail. We have to be proud of VIA Rail, although a lot of things need to be improved. I am not sure if the member understands when we talk about switching because there already is switching.

One of the problems is that passenger trains use the same lines as other railway companies. When we talk about giving priority, it does not change the fact that there is still switching. There are still issues with respect to how cargo goes through our cities. The New Democrats believe in passenger rail, and that it is important. However, we need to find other options of not having cargo, especially dangerous goods, going through our cities, and this is the case right now. Giving priority does not change the fact that dangerous goods will continue to travel through densely populated areas. Mr.

Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected here 11 years ago, the then Liberal government had a big plan for rail safety with self-regulation. Certainly the New Democratic Party warned against the danger of allowing very large corporate interests to self-regulate, but that seemed to be the Liberal mantra at the time in all manner of public safety issues, that we should allow companies to do it, that they would do it more efficiently, and it would save money.

Yet, in all manner of areas, whether it was food safety in the listeriosis crisis, the beef industry or Lac-Mégantic, there is a fundamental need for the public good to have clear regulations and inspections from outside by public servants to ensure the public interest is protected. I would like to ask my hon. colleague, from his time in his transport critic portfolio, what he thinks of this long-standing policy that the Liberals and the Conservatives have had of allowing corporations like CN and CP self-regulate.

(1255) Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, it is a concern. My colleague is right when he says that is the Liberal and Conservative philosophy of allowing self-regulation, but also, let us not forget, self-inspection. A big study was done on the transportation of dangerous goods and the NDP came out with recommendations,

whereas the Liberals had no recommendations. Basically, the Liberals were saying that everything that was in place was fine. When we talk about self-regulation and self-inspection, if companies are asked if their regulations are safer or stronger than the government has put forward, most of the companies that are respectable and have a culture of safety will say yes, their regulations are stronger and they have to do inspections. After that, the government does not look into it. We have heard from the minister and the Liberals. They believe companies have to self-inspect and self-regulate.

SMS is one step, but the way it is being enforced or applied is not sufficient or satisfactory to us. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, could the member provide some clarification on the question from my colleague from Toronto? One could comment on the NDP position on pipelines, which is almost for no pipeline expansion and, as a direct result, we would no doubt see thousands more tankers on our railway system. However, I will put that one to the side for now. The question I have for him, following on the question by the member for Toronto Centre , is this.

When we talk about VIA Rail going down the tracks versus a freight train going down the tracks, what happens currently is that VIA Rail pulls over to the side and the freight train continues on. The NDP is saying that it should be reversed. If it is reversed, there is an element of danger whenever a train pulls over. Would the NDP consider looking at changing its position so we would not put communities in danger by VIA Rail being given the first priority over some of the long freight trains that are carrying a considerable amount of dangerous goods, as he has pointed out? [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr.

Speaker, this is the second time I have been asked that question. The problem is that rail cars transporting dangerous goods continue to run on the same tracks. The issue of priority will not necessarily make the problem any worse, because right now, there is already switching to allow passenger cars to go through. The real question we need to ask, however, is this: why do the Liberal members continue to believe that the companies themselves will be the ones to come up with the best solutions, to self-regulate and self-inspect?

Why is it that, despite what happened in Lac-Mégantic and in Gogama, the Liberals are being so supportive of the Conservative government's approach, even though it has not added any recommendations to any of the studies done on transporting dangerous goods? They are content with the status quo, with what happened in Lac-Mégantic and in Gogama, and have no additional recommendations to make. I repeat, I am proud to be a member of a party that supports passenger rail. That is very important to us, considering our view of the environment and the future of transportation. We need to find the safest options.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party does not want to even look at that aspect. Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech and I commend him on all his hard work on this file. Obviously, he raised all our constituents' concerns over rail safety. We can see that the government is being very inconsistent. It is great that Bill C-52 would increase the companies' insurance premiums, but that measure is not enough. Another thing we have to be proactive about is assessing safety in the first place.

There was talk of deregulation, but the number of inspectors is quite small, since only one inspector is being added. Could my colleague elaborate on that?

(1300) Mr. Hoang Mai : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for her question. I worked with her on rail safety in the south shore and I know that this is an issue she follows very closely and is very important to her constituents. Her question is very important in the context of today's debate. The government is putting rules in place, but they address certain financial issues that come up after the fact, once tragedy strikes. However, what the NDP wants is preventive measures to ensure that tragedy like the one in Lac-Mégantic never strikes again. For that we need prevention.

We need to make sure that the rules are not only tougher, but also enforced. For that we need people. Unfortunately, the government is taking a wrong turn when it cuts the budget of those who are there to enforce the rules. What is more, since 2013, it has added only one more rail inspector, which does not bode well. [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the issue of rail safety is paramount to the riding I represent. Both the southern boundary and northern boundary of the riding are defined by some of the busiest track in Canada.

The south end, which used to be an industrial zone, is now lived in by thousands of people, and thousands more within the next few years. It has a largely commuter rail system. VIA Rail and the regional GO Transit move through the corridor of downtown Toronto. In the north, a single pairing of rail lines moves along Dupont Street through central downtown Toronto. This is the same line that the Lac-Mégantic trains travelled through Toronto on.

They are also the same lines on which, 30 or 40 years ago, the Mississauga trains that derailed and caused one of the largest civilian evacuations in the history of this country passed through this

section of downtown Toronto. As a former city councillor, we were always dealing with the challenges of these rail lines in terms of the zoning that they created, but also in terms of trying to moderate speeds and get a handle on the dangerous goods that are travelling on these rail lines. The half dozen derailments in Ontario, two in Gogama and others, would also have travelled through some of the most densely populated parts of Canada. We know from one of the derailments that it was just a matter of time before the fractured wheel would crack, splinter and cause a derailment.

As I said, that could have happened in the heart of downtown Toronto. That is not to say that wherever it happened would not have been a tragedy, but the cost, population and scope of the damage could have been phenomenal. We have been tracking this issue very closely in the local neighbourhoods and there are a few things that come to mind. One of them is this notion of the zoning. We heard at committee last week a Conservative member talk about trying to sterilize 300 metres on either side of the tracks right across the country as a way of protecting populations.

This is absurd, as 300 metres would have meant the SkyDome could not have been built, the CN Tower would not have been built and even the Royal York would have been barred from redevelopment. Also, the cost of sterilizing that land would be in the trillions of dollars. However, this is what happens when one thinks off the back of an envelope in a committee. It scares one to think what might be happening in cabinet right now as we speak. The zoning that has been put in place is about crash barriers.

However, the zoning was put in place years ago when there were smaller trains with far less volatile chemicals travelling through this part of the country. It is one thing, with those speed limits and size of trains, to build a 30-metre crash wall, reinforce it with engineering, push residential zoning away from the area and zone it as industrial.

However, when we triple and quadruple the size of the trains, increase the speed of those trains and reclassify volatile goods so that we can increase those speeds, a crash barrier will simply become a containment for a blast, and that blast would be extraordinary, especially in a dense urban area, especially with 30-metre blast walls containing the explosion. We know about volatile chemicals when they explode in that circumstance: the containment actually increases the volatility and the damage would be extraordinary. Therefore, getting it right is fundamentally important.

My question to the Minister of Transport is germane to this, because that same line travels through downtown Toronto with level crossings. In one particular spot near the Dupont junction area, there is a public school right next to the level crossing. If a school bus, God forbid, stalled on the track or a traffic jam backed traffic up, and it happens, a freight train and a school bus could come into contact. My question to the Minister of Transport is: What kind of money is there from the federal government to start changing these level crossings? The answer to that is $10 million a year.

However, $10 million a year does not pay one-eighth of the cost of changing those level crossings to underground bypasses, which is the norm across downtown Toronto. This means that there is not any money there, because there are about 5,000 of these level crossings identified as being dangerous across the country. Yet, we put $10 million a year on the table, as a country, to try and modify and modernize our rail capacity as we load more and more and longer and longer trains into these areas. Something has to happen. At the same time, the rail companies are not securing the corridor.

We heard from one of the presidents in Montreal at the board of trade a few weeks past saying that terrorism is now a concern. If those volatile chemicals that are travelling through Lac-Mégantic and Mississauga are travelling through Toronto, one would think the rail corridor would be secure.

(1305) I can show, next to a liquor store in downtown Toronto, where the fence has been pulled apart so many times they do not even bother putting it back up. We can see the path that has been beaten in the snow and in the soil, across the train tracks. It is extraordinarily dangerous. When we try to get information as a city on what the actual speeds of these trains are, what the speed limits should be in a dense urban area, when we try to re-calibrate that for the volatility, size and weight of the trains passing through, when we try to get that information, we are told we cannot have it.

We can get the information after the fact now. We can get disclosure after the fact. However, when an emergency is under way, they have to call while the trucks are on the way. Trying to build a rail corridor in advance for the volatility, that information is seen as proprietary and as a result cities do not have it. The transport minister is mistaken when she says the FCM is satisfied with this bill and these steps, because the FCM is looking for more information.

One of the reasons is not because of fire departments like the one we have in Toronto, it is that all along the rail corridors across this country most of the fire departments are made up of volunteer firefighters. They have neither the training nor the equipment, nor the advance knowledge nor the capacity to get the advance knowledge as they race to some of these areas. Advance notification and co-operation with FCM is missing from this bill and it needs to be in it. We also know that there is virtually no monitoring.

When we try to find out what the speeds of the trains are, and we ask, we are met with a blank stare. It has gotten to the point where we are almost putting police officers with radar guns by the tracks to try to figure out if they are in compliance with their own rules and regulations. That has to change. Posted speed limits and community knowledge about this have to become the norm. Instead, it is still hidden behind this veil of railway secrecy which predates the arrival of many of the municipal codes that govern the exact issue we are talking about here.

We also know that the real safety solution for this is one that pushes the issue into another realm of debate. Solutions include shorter trains, more highly regulated chemicals on those trains, perhaps transporting the diesel and the highly volatile chemicals only in the new and improved rail cars, and until that happens much lower speed limits being imposed. There are all sorts of solutions waiting to be put into place. Every time a solution is layered on the rail companies, what is built is pressure for a new pipeline.

During the by-election that I was elected in, the NDP was claiming it did not support any pipelines in Canada, including Canada east. It said it wanted everything moved by rail. It became very apparent to the voters in the riding that I represent that if everything is not put on rail, it ends up in pipelines; if it is not in pipelines, it is on rail. There has to be a decision one way or the other, but to be against both is not a solution. The chemicals and oil are going to get to market, and we have to manage them better.

There has to be a decision based on evidence and safety, with proper enforcement and standards that make a solution possible. Pumping it all through Toronto on rail cars, then not enforcing rail safety, then not maintaining the lines, then not monitoring the speeds, and then not doing proper safety inspections, and then not giving municipalities the money they need to build the infrastructure to make this happen is a recipe for disaster. We have seen tragic disasters in smaller communities. It is a matter of time, unfortunately, and if we do not take action that we are going to see it in a larger community.

That has to change. We have to get on that issue right away. While this bill takes some small steps forward, and we will be supporting those small steps forward, there is much more that needs to be done. That is the campaign that residents in the riding I represent are starting to lead. The other issue is this: the notion of shunting cargo and freight trains to the side tracks while passenger trains whip through at high speed appears to be good transportation policy vis-à-vis getting commuters from one city to the next or from one part of the region to the next.

The trouble with that is that these large trains do not move very quickly when they do move and have to take the side tracks. The act of zipping across lines and moving to side tracks creates the volatility and the risk. If there is constant moving of volatile freight from line to line to line to allow passenger trains to go through straight and fast, that actually accelerates and amplifies the possibility of a risk. I think that is the question we are trying to get at when we are talking to our NDP colleagues about their priority of passenger rail over freight rail. We have to do what is right for freight.

The real solution is not prioritizing one over the other. The real solution is building more track. That is what Unifor has been asking for. That is what this Liberal Party has been asking for. That is the actual solution, to invest in the infrastructure, not trying to make do with the existing circumstance and just hoping that the decision made does not end up in a disaster.

(1310) It is about taking the tough steps to understand that these chemicals and materials that are cargo have to get through some dense urban areas. The choice is pipeline versus rail, in some cases. The other choice is freight over passenger to maintain safety. If we do all of that correctly, engage communities and municipalities, and fund municipalities properly, we can end up with a transportation system that works, that is safe, that is modern, and that does not require monitoring the fear as much as monitoring the freight. [ Translation ] Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. There are certainly aspects that we should examine. I think my colleague is dreaming about the era of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said that he wanted to double the number of railway tracks in western Canada in order to improve the transportation network. Has my colleague calculated how much it would cost to double the tracks in Canada? How much time would that take? I think he is living in a dream world, especially since the Liberal Party has not introduced any plans in that regard.

I hope that they will introduce a plan and not just criticize the other parties' plans, which have been tabled and costed. If he does not support increased oversight by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, then what exactly is the member proposing to do? If the Liberals are instead proposing to spend billions on other railway lines, have they found the means to pay for that dream? [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are many people dreaming of Trudeau these days, and that is clearly reflected in the polls. Some people's dream is another party's nightmare, quite clearly.

The area I am talking about where there has been investment in rail and a multiplying of the number of tracks—doubling was the phrase the member used—is the Quebec-Toronto-Windsor corridor. In that area, Unifor has identified and clearly shown that adding additional rail capacity would create safety and better commute times for both regional and national companies. That is one of the areas I think we need to explore. You are asking for particular policies. You will get those. In terms of oversight, we want more oversight and more effective oversight.

We certainly want the money that is currently budgeted to be spent. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before we go to questions and comments, I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. member for Winnipeg North . Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to know if my colleague could expand on the area of infrastructure spending.

If we are prepared to spend infrastructure dollars, not only will it create valuable jobs, which Canadians are in great need of, but it will expand economic horizons and provide wonderful social benefits. Can the member expand on the feasibility of having new tracks put in place and on how all sides could benefit if only we had a government that understood basic economics and how the country would benefit from investing more in infrastructure.

(1315) Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr. Speaker, the current fund for rail underpasses is $10 million a year, which is an eighth of the cost of a typical underpass. The reason municipalities are not subscribing is that they do not have the other $70 million to build. Under questioning, the minister answered that the municipalities could use the new build Canada infrastructure fund, which, as we know, has been cut down to $200 million this year. It is back-end loaded to ten years from now, which means that we have to wait ten years for rail safety. That is not appropriate.

The provinces quite often see this as a federal responsibility, and they do not see a role for partnering. If the government was serious about rail safety, municipal infrastructure, and building an economy right across the country, those dollars would not be so small, the payout times would not be so staggered, and the commitment to municipalities would not be just a moral commitment; it would be a real commitment that delivered real dollars for infrastructure. One of the reasons it is so critical that we change the government is that we need to change those policies. Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today in support of Bill C-52 , the safe and accountable rail act, which would further strengthen our rail safety regime and ensure that adequate compensation is available. Our government takes the safety and security of Canadians very seriously. In my constituency of Brandon—Souris, rail safety is an important issue, as most communities have a rail line going directly through town. In addition to rail lines going through communities, many farmers and landowners have a rail line on their property. Only a couple of weeks ago, there was a train derailment northeast of Brandon.

We were fortunate that the damage was minimal and no one was hurt, but this incident is just another reminder of why we need to implement the measures contained in Bill C-52 . Let me first highlight how the government works with communities to ensure proper emergency response regimes and then how the measures in Bill C-52 would ensure liability and compensation for any community. I would like to take the opportunity to salute our first responders, who play a critical role in the event of an accident.

We all value the work of Canada's first responders, and our government works with them on matters pertaining to the transport of dangerous goods and emergency response. Transport Canada works to ensure that measures are in place to quickly respond in the event of an accident involving dangerous goods. This work includes ensuring that municipalities and first responders have the tools and information they need in a timely manner. The department provides emergency planners and first responders with information to assess risks in their communities and to plan and train for emergencies.

On November 20, 2013, the Minister of Transport issued protective direction no. 32, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The intent of the protective direction was to help ensure that municipalities would have access to better information for emergency response and planning purposes. According to the protective direction, railway operators must share yearly aggregate information on the nature and volume of dangerous goods transported by railway through a municipality to the municipality's designated emergency planning officer.

As well, all operators must report any significant change in the information provided to municipalities, meaning a change in the types and volumes of goods transiting through a municipality, as soon as is practical after the change occurs. This information provides emergency planners and first responders with the information they need to improve risk assessment, emergency planning, and training. Municipal leaders and emergency planners are already using this information to prepare for incidents involving dangerous goods.

Emergency response has been an important issue that has been raised by municipalities and the public. It is important to note that the vast majority of dangerous goods shipments arrive at their final destination without incident. However, unfortunately, accidents can still happen. To help avoid the potentially serious consequences of such events, as well as to speed up recovery efforts, our government is actively involved in supporting municipalities and first responders in emergency situations.

On April 23, 2014, our government announced the creation of an emergency response task force to bring together stakeholders, including municipalities, first responders, railways, shippers, and response organizations, to strengthen emergency response capacity. The emergency response task force will conduct further research and will assess, evaluate, and make recommendations to advise on improvements we can make to the emergency response assistance plan program. In fact, such recommendations from the task force have already been implemented.

The task force members include railway representatives, chemical producers, and the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada, just to name a few. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs is also an active member of this task force.

(1320) These members have been meeting monthly since July 2014, and sub-group meetings have been held for targeted discussions on specific topics, one of them being first responder training. Our government is facilitating these discussions, where railways and shippers can join forces with the first responders community to identify readily available training materials, to identify gaps, and to find solutions that will increase support to first responders during large-scale rail incidents involving flammable liquids.

The emergency response task force continues its work of reviewing and making recommendations on the transportation of flammable liquids by rail in Canada, and our government looks forward to receiving its final report and recommendations this summer. Emergency response assistance plans are required for certain dangerous goods that call for special expertise and response equipment. These plans stipulate what industry must do to support first responders during an accident involving dangerous goods. Our government has worked to strengthen the emergency response assistance plan regime.

We are now requiring rail shippers to develop such plans for higher-risk flammable liquids, such as crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and ethanol, when a single-tank car contains one of these designated liquids. These plans are now in place to help provide expert assistance to first responders. Before a shipment can be made, any person who imports or offers for transport dangerous goods must submit a plan to Transport Canada. The department then reviews the plan and approves it if it is satisfied that there is a capability to respond to emergency situations for those dangerous goods listed in the plan.

The emergency response assistance plan assists municipalities and local emergency responders by providing them with around-the-clock technical experts and specially trained and equipped emergency response personnel at the scene of an accident. Members of the House may be aware that Transport Canada operates the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre, a national advisory service that assists emergency response personnel in handling dangerous goods emergencies on a 24-7 basis. This centre is staffed by bilingual professional scientists who specialize in emergency response.

They are experienced in interpreting technical information and in providing assistance to first responders. The centre handles over 25,000 phone calls per year related to safety, and scientists are available to take emergency calls immediately. Transport Canada, through CANUTEC, also publishes an emergency response guidebook to help firefighters that is available at