OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 218 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 27, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 27, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 218 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 218 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 218 (Version officielle) 147 218 27 05 2015 2015/05/27 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Bourassa . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Parliamentary Privilege Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, omnibus budget bills are undemocratic and unfair, contain wedge issues and make a member of Parliament's job impossible to complete. On Monday night, the House was forced to cast a single yea or nay vote on Bill C-59 , the government's latest omnibus budget bill. The bill is 157 pages long, divided into three parts, and

part 3 is further divided into 20 divisions. This allows for a wide range of disparate topics to be covered, some supportable, many not. I support most of the tax credits and actual budgetary items. However, I strongly oppose retroactively amending the access act to allow for the premature destruction of records. I supported ending the long gun registry, but to retroactively change the law dealing with the records while the abolition bill was being debated is a dangerous, undemocratic precedent.

In any functioning parliamentary system, this omnibus bill would be divided and there were would be separate votes on each part and on every division within each part. It is simply impossible to cast a single yea or nay on an entire disparate package. If the government will not respect Parliament enough to allow us to do our jobs, then the Speaker must intervene to defend parliamentary privilege. That is how a functioning parliamentary democracy would proceed. Telus Days of Giving Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are incredibly generous.

I would like to thank all Canadians today for their volunteer efforts and give a special shout-out to one company that takes a leadership role in promoting volunteerism in its workforce. Each year through Telus' Annual Days of Giving, employees give of their hearts and hands to make a meaningful and lasting difference in the communities where they live, work and serve. Since Telus began its Days of Giving in 2006, it has mobilized more than 94,000 Canadian team members, retirees, family and friends to volunteer at over 3,000 activities. They have volunteered more than six million hours in total.

Telus' team is making a meaningful social impact in communities across Canada. To celebrate its 10th anniversary of giving back, Telus has created opportunities for us all to give back in a meaningful way. To all my colleagues who participated today, they should take pride in knowing that the school backpacks they filled will find a home with so many youth who would otherwise start the year at a disadvantage. Please inspire others to join in and help Telus as it tries to complete one million acts of good through its Telus Days of Giving.

[ Translation ] Laval—Les Îles Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow citizens and organizations in my riding, Laval—Les Îles, for their support and for placing their trust in me to represent them here over the past four years. I would like to say to community organizations, their employees and their volunteers that their determination, compassion and involvement have truly inspired me and pushed me to work even harder to help my fellow citizens achieve a better life day after day.

I would like to thank my fellow citizens for their support. No matter who they are, I want them to know that I intend to keep fighting every day to build a better Canada for all of them. That is the promise I made four years ago, and I plan to keep it for the next four years. However, this time, I will be keeping that promise as part of a New Democratic government that will work for Canadians and their interests. I will be part of a government that truly represents them, a government that will give them a voice. We will be back here on October 20, together and ready to change the world.

[ English ] Mennonite Relief Sale Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite colleagues and all Canadians to visit New Hamburg in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga this weekend for the annual Mennonite relief sale and quilt auction. The relief sale was started in 1967 to raise funds to provide relief from hunger, poverty and natural disaster. All merchandise and services are donated, which means all funds raised on sale days are donated directly to Mennonite Central Committee, a service and development agency of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church in North America.

Started in 1920 in response to hunger in Ukraine, the Mennonite Central Committee strives for peace, justice and dignity for all. Many people contribute to the success of the sale: donors of goods and services, supporting church congregations, auctioneers, venue coordinators and thousands of dedicated volunteers, as well as visitors from a wide geographic area. Since 1967, over $14 million has been raised. I thank all hard-working volunteers and coordinators for the great work that they do.

Max Yalden Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to a champion of Canada's linguistic duality and a tireless advocate for human rights, Max Yalden. As a career diplomat, he served in Moscow, Paris and as ambassador in Brussels. From 1977 to 1984, he was Canada's commissioner of official languages and made every effort to help the French language flourish within the federal government and across Canada. He also urged Quebec to do more to protect its anglophone communities.

Max Yalden then led the Canadian Human Rights Commission from 1987 to 1996, holding governments and departments to account for discriminatory attitudes. He tackled gender wage gaps, discrimination in hiring, biases against sexual orientation, online hate speech and Canada's treatment of aboriginal people. He followed that domestic role with eight years as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. He was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1988 and a Companion of the Order in 1999. Max Yalden passed away earlier this year at the age of 84.

He will be forever remembered as a great Canadian for his numerous achievements, and his spirited defence of human rights.

[ Translation ] Tobique--Mactaquac Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this Parliament will adjourn in a few weeks' time. I would like to thank all the residents of Tobique—Mactaquac for their trust and support over the past nine years. [ English ] Being an MP is not possible without the support of families, staff and great volunteers. I thank my wife, Jennifer, brothers Dale and Paul and their spouses, Lorraine and Gail for their support and their willingness to always keep me grounded.

I cannot thank my favourite mother- and father-in-law, Carlene and John enough for all the meals they have prepared and the number of times they have mowed the lawn in order for me to attend events. I appreciate the tremendous work of my volunteers and campaign team to get me across the finish line in three elections, and to my riding and Hill staff for their efforts to do the good constituent work that is such a large factor of our success.

While my federal political career may be winding down, I appreciate the tremendous honour I have been given as 1 of just 4,200 people who have been elected to this place since Confederation. While I may be exiting the House of Commons, there are many friendships and good memories that I will take with me. No matter what, that is something I will carry with me forever.

(1410) [ Translation ] Housing Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for over four years now, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé and I have been leading the fight to get the federal government to provide financial help to pyrrhotite victims. I have to say, however, that every time we speak, we run up against a government that refuses to listen, claiming that these are just half-truths. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties, which are well known for their insensitivity toward victims, remain silent.

Next Saturday, the entire population will take to the streets for a big solidarity march to demonstrate, loudly and clearly, their frustration with a government that refuses to act and that remains completely insensitive to their misfortune. On behalf of the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite, I invite everyone to take to the streets and come and join us in this demonstration of solidarity.

To offer a glimmer of hope, I would remind my fellow Canadians that since the beginning of this fight, only one leader, the member for Outremont , has acknowledged that the federal government should be part of the solution. The day is not far off when the federal government will answer the call, because come October, we will form a responsive government that listens to its people, an NDP government.

[ English ] Telus Days of Giving Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 10th anniversary of an event that bring me back to my first days as a member of Parliament, the Telus Days of Giving. We who sit in this House are privileged to be included in an incredible variety of charitable events in our ridings and here in Ottawa. Today, I want to applaud Telus for 10 years of focusing on community-based volunteerism that continues to make a difference for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Since 2006 over 94,000 Canadians have donated more than six million hours of their time to make a difference in their communities through the Days of Giving campaign. Today on Parliament Hill, my colleagues and I demonstrated yet again how a small group of people in the matter of a couple of hours, can make a substantial difference in the lives of young Canadians. By packing school kits for children across Canada, we took

part in ensuring that kids who start their school year without the necessary school supplies will now have what they need to learn and succeed. Today I proudly congratulate Telus and call on others to use the hashtag #actsofgood to challenge their colleagues and constituents to do the same.

Turks and Caicos Friendship Mission Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to welcome the delegation from the Turks and Caicos Islands, engaged here in Ottawa on a mission of friendship. When Canada and the Turks and Caicos first engaged, nearly 150 years ago, wooden windmills pumped sea water to expansive evaporation pans for harvesting the ocean's salt. Canadian fishermen purchased large quantities of this salt for their offshore fleet of fishing boats, which needed this salt for fish preservation. Today the economic interests are far different.

Canada, by establishing economic and transshipping regional offices in the Turks and Caicos to better serve the Caribbean Rim of countries, would also greatly benefit the Islands by diversifying their tourist economy. This friendship mission by the Premier's office of the Turks and Caicos Islands visiting here today bodes well for greater social and economic engagement, mutually beneficial to both of our countries. We all become hopeful that our two countries will become much more meaningfully engaged as a result. I wish them Godspeed in their deliberations.

[ Translation ] Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for my last member's statement. Having chosen not to seek re-election, I want to personally thank each and every person that I served with during my mandate. I want to thank my extraordinary team who is always there for me through thick and thin, and my House colleagues, whose work is not without its challenges. I also want to thank the House of Commons staff because, after all, what would we do without them? Obviously I am thankful to the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

For the past four years, I have worked for them and especially with them. They allowed me to work on a host of issues, each more interesting than the next. It was an honour to represent them. Thank you for believing in me. Finally, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary support of my husband, my family, my parents and my friends. They stayed by my side throughout this incredible journey and I will be forever grateful for that. Thank you for contributing to my role as the member of Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot during these four wonderful years.

(1415) [ English ] Canadian Armed Forces Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know all too well the dangers posed by terrorism in an uncertain world. Two hundred and twenty members of the Canadian Armed Forces are working with law enforcement agencies and ten partner nations on an international explosive ordnance disposal exercise at CFB Esquimalt and in the greater Victoria. B.C. region. Exercise ARDENT DEFENDER is held annually and brings together the Canadian Armed Forces alongside allies and partners to share best practices on this ever-evolving threat.

Having served in our Canadian Armed Forces myself, and on behalf of the people of my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell , I want to thank our brave men and women in uniform for their constant vigilance at home and abroad.

Violence Against Women Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, violence against women is a fundamental barrier to reaching equality. We all know the statistics. We know that one in three women will experience sexual assault in her lifetime, and we know that few will report it. We know that 70% of women's shelters say that a lack of government support is their greatest challenge. We know that indigenous women and girls are four and a half times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women and girls. We know that these numbers only tell part of the story.

All of us here in this House know women who have experienced violence, who are survivors, and we know women who are looking for change. That is why we need Motion No. 444, a national action plan to end violence against women. I hope that every parliamentarian recognizes that it is within his or her power right now, today in fact, to make a difference and to give women hope for a safer future. Let us not turn our backs on Canadian women. Today, let us make history, or “her story”, and make a difference. It is time.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, benefiting all families is not what is fair. Do members know who said that? It was the leader of the Liberal Party over there. He has said that he would take away the family tax cut and the universal child care benefit and scrap income splitting for families. This is all just so he can bring in his high-tax schemes and take money out of the pockets of hard-working middle-class families. On this side of the House, we stand for the Canadian middle class and not against it.

Rail Safety Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Toronto Centre , rail safety is an issue of immense community concern. The government has proposed changes to the current rail safety system, but they do not go nearly far enough. A new proposed speed limit remains higher than self-imposed limits set by CN and CP in urban areas. The timeline to replace and upgrade aging DOT-111 tank cars would leave unsafe cars on the tracks for far too long. [ Translation ] The Conservatives' piecemeal approach to rail safety is frustrating our communities and putting them at risk.

In my riding, two rail lines used for transporting crude oil run through residential areas. Residents and community organizations are worried and want better safety rules, but Transport Canada's Rail Safety Directorate lacks staff, funding and training. [ English ] We must do much more to improve rail safety in our communities.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister and this government have put forward a plan to help middle-class families by continuing to put more money back in their pockets. We are enhancing the universal child care benefit and are creating the child tax cut to help all families with children. I think it is also important to point out that we have gone even further to help all Canadians make ends meet. In fact, federal taxes are at their lowest level in 50 years It is disappointing to hear the Liberal leader take the opposite approach.

His plan is to reverse these savings and to instead bring in a family tax hike. That is what he said. He made his point of view perfectly clear when he said that benefiting all families “is not what is fair”. That is what he said. Our government believes it is fair to help all families, and indeed, all Canadians, and we will continue to do just that.

(1420) [ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is mind-boggling how the Conservative government insists on surrounding itself with people who bypass and abuse the system. Mike Duffy is on trial for fraud, corruption and breach of trust. Brazeau is accused of inappropriate spending in the Senate. Dean Del Mastro, former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister , has been found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.

Peter Penashue, another former Conservative minister, also violated the Canada Elections Act, and let us not forget the robocalls scandal and the in-and-out scandal, which prompted a visit from the RCMP. Now, a former candidate and employee has also pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust. Is he also going to be appointed to the Senate? This government, which promised to be accountable and transparent and to bring change to Ottawa, has been a total failure. It scores a big fat zero. However, there is hope.

In less than six months, voters will have the opportunity to elect a government that will bring real change, a government that will be open and transparent, an NDP government.

[ English ] Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the prime minister is not an entry level job, and time and time again the leader of the Liberal Party has proven that he just is not up to the task. He wants to take away all of our middle-class benefits and replace them with a high-tax, high-debt plan that will kill jobs and hurt families. Budgets do not balance themselves, and benefiting all families is what is fair. The Canadian middle class knows that they can trust this government to deliver for them.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House that Mike Duffy was a resident of Prince Edward Island because Mr. Duffy himself signed a declaration to that effect before he was appointed to the Senate. Does Mike Duffy's written declaration still exist? Did it ever exist? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the courts are looking into Mike Duffy's actions. The government is assisting the RCMP and the Crown in this trial.

I cannot comment on this matter in the House of Commons. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's actions are indeed before the courts, where he has to answer for them. Here in the House, the Prime Minister is normally the one who has to answer. He can answer us now or during debate. [ English ] The audit report on the Duffy affair was modified seven times by the Prime Minister 's staff. Five separate drafts were concocted. Now they are trying to block the full details from becoming public. They are doctoring the report. Now they are trying to cover up their cover-up.

When will the Prime Minister order the full Duffy audit released? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the government has provided all information at its disposal to the RCMP and to the crown. We continue to assist them in their case. This case involves just the actions of Mr. Duffy, and we will let the courts make its decisions. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, of course the courts are looking at the actions of Mr. Duffy, but Canadians are looking at this House to find out about the actions of their Prime Minister .

Again, it is up to the Prime Minister . He can answer now, or he can answer during the debates. Before it was tampered with, the Senate report on Duffy's expenses said clearly that claiming P.E.I was contrary to the plain meaning of the word “primary”. No wonder they changed it. It was actually the Prime Minister's Office that provided Mike Duffy with the primary residence loophole that he is now trying to use as cover. Was that the essence of the PMO's backroom deal with Mike Duffy to begin with? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians are obviously watching the case that involves the actions of Mr. Duffy that are before the court. In terms of this House, Canadians are watching how we look after public funds ourselves. Canadians are wondering why the leader of the NDP continues to justify taking nearly $3 million in parliamentary funds and using it completely inappropriately for partisan purposes and not being willing to pay it back and not being willing to apologize or reverse course. Those are the answers Canadians want.

(1425) Pensions Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Peter Pena, Saulie Zajdel, Michael Sona, Dean Del Mastro, all Conservatives, all convicted, Mr. Speaker. That is what happens when they go to a real court. The Prime Minister 's record on pensions is clear. He has blocked every effort by the provinces to increase CPP. He even rejected our calls for real action. If he is re-elected, the Prime Minister says he is going to raise the OAS age from 65 to 67, taking $14,000 out of the pockets of every senior.

Instead of a deathbed conversion, how about simply bringing the retirement age back to 65 right now? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is the government that brought in the largest increase in the guaranteed income supplement in a quarter century. This is the government that brought in and expanded tax-free savings accounts for Canadian seniors. This is the government that introduced income-splitting for pensions in this country. We have taken action to benefit all Canadian seniors. All Canadian seniors are better off. Yes, we will provide them with more options.

What we will not do is what the NDP and the Liberals want to do, which is tax Canadian seniors and tax Canadian workers. That is not what they are looking for. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us see what has been said before about the Prime Minister 's idea of a voluntary new CPP. I quote: ...some sort of voluntary new CPP method...would not work and...the CPP would be unable to administer it. Who said that?

It was Jim Flaherty, the then finance minister. [ Translation ] Given that 60% of our youth are going to be poorer than we are today, rather than study half measures on the eve of an election, why does the government not change the budget today so that people can retire with dignity at 65 instead of 67? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. It is the largest increase in a quarter century. We created the tax-free savings account and introduced income splitting for pensions. These measures benefit all seniors.

We completely reject the Liberals' and NDP's proposals to increase taxes for seniors and workers. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Prime Minister has blocked the pension file and refused to co-operate with his provincial partners. Yesterday, after a decade of inaction and without consulting his provincial counterparts, the Prime Minister suddenly announced that he wants to open this file. With the election only a few months away, does the Prime Minister really think that Canadians are going to believe him? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have been very clear about this government's approach to pension plans for a long time: we are in favour of voluntary options for Canadians. The Liberal Party's position is to increase Canadians' taxes. Canadians do not accept that option and will not accept that option. [ English ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the Prime Minister 's record on the Canada pension plan. In the nineties he said to scrap the CPP and just leave Canadians on their own.

A few years later, he called for the Canada pension plan breakup, so why should Canadians believe him now when he suddenly says he wants to expand the CPP? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are numerous falsehoods in that question, but what is correct is that our government favours allowing a range of options for people so they can save. In fact, not only can they save, but they can actually reduce their taxes by saving. What the Liberal Party wants to do is to force Canadians to save by taxing them, by taking their money away.

Canadians do not accept that option and will not accept that option. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Liberals, experts, and the provinces have all called for strengthening Canadians' retirement security and the CPP, but for 10 years the Prime Minister has stood in the way. He repeatedly said that he saw no desire for CPP expansion. He repeatedly said it did not need to be improved. He even said that it would hurt the economy, so why should Canadians believe him now when he says he pretends to care about our seniors?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is always like the Liberal Party to be quoting so-called imaginary experts instead of asking real Canadians what they want and what they do not want. I note today that the Liberal leader says that unlike us he will show leadership on this. Yes, he will show leadership on raising taxes. We will show leadership on cutting taxes. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us talk about real Canadians. The Conservatives have spent 10 years eroding the retirement security of Canadians.

Seven in ten workers have no workplace pensions, and less than a quarter of them can afford to contribute to RRSPs each year. To make matters worse, the Conservatives plan to raise the age of retirement will cost Canadian seniors up to $30,000 each. With such a record of failing seniors, does the minister really expect anyone to believe them now on CPP? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party do not want to give Canadians a choice. They want to force Canadians to pay higher taxes, higher job-killing payroll taxes.

By contrast, our government believes that Canadians want to pay lower taxes, and they want the freedom to make their own financial decisions. That is why we are open to giving Canadians the option to voluntarily contribute to the Canada pension plan. What we will not do is reach into the pockets of Canadians with a mandatory payroll tax and take money out of their pockets. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, rather than rhetoric, Canadians need real action on retirement security.

The Conservatives are blatantly pretending that they will do something about the looming retirement security crisis, but the fact is, after promising to work with the provinces to boost CPP for all Canadians, the Conservatives have spent years blocking any progress in spite of overwhelming demand for change. After a decade of Conservative rule, Canadians are less secure than ever. Why will the minister not support a real boost to CPP benefits so that all Canadians can retire in dignity? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians want real action in lowering taxes.

What we have brought, and what is consistent with our Conservative government's efforts is to encourage Canadians to voluntarily save more of their money. We will consult on allowing a voluntary contribution to the Canada savings plan. Again, our government understands that Canadians want low taxes, and they want the freedom to make the financial decisions that would help them with a secure, dignified retirement. We will not reach into and take money out of their pockets. We are the government that will keep money in their pockets. [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians are no strangers to the Conservatives' poor track record: they are blocking the expansion of the Canada and Quebec pension plans and forcing Canadians to work an additional two years before they can retire. Furthermore, every senior will lose out on more than $13,000 because of the Conservatives. The Conservatives have had 10 years to help Canadians better prepare for retirement. Is a study really their last-minute magic solution? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me quote Susanna Cluff-Clyburne from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Yesterday's announcement by the federal government that it intends to allow Canadians to voluntarily make additional contributions to the Canada Pension Plan...promises good news for Canadians and their employers. By contrast, the NDP and the Liberals would impose a job-killing, mandatory increase to the payroll tax. They would take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Actually, Mr. Speaker, what Canadians deserve is better retirement security, and they will get that, plus a better government, in October. We have had a proud tradition of newcomers coming to Canada and building stable, prosperous communities here, but Conservatives have attacked that legacy: huge family reunification backlogs, new barriers for immigrants to become citizens, cuts to settlement services. It is no wonder that Canada has fallen from the top five countries in settling new immigrants.

When will Conservatives stop using new Canadians as a backdrop for their photo ops and start actually helping immigrant families achieve success in Canada?

(1435) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to see that member and that party dumping on the changes we have made to the immigration system because they voted against them all. They voted against the reform of our asylum system. They voted against measures to reduce backlogs. They voted against measures to protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

We on this side are proud to have made the largest number of newcomers Canadian citizens last year, in Canadian history, and to be accepting the largest number of new immigrants to this country in decades. That is action. We are taking it. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, of course we voted against the Conservatives' measures. Today, for the first time in seven years, Canada's score dropped in an international ranking on the integration of immigrants. This is a direct consequence of the Conservatives' bad policies.

Just 26% of immigrants who arrived in 2008 became citizens, and the figures for family reunification were just as discouraging. Canada is no longer the model it used to be. When will the Conservatives restore Canada's former status when it comes to integrating immigrants? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is pathetic to hear a New Democrat claim the Liberals' immigration policy was a model. They left a legacy of backlogs, abuses and dashed hopes for immigrants who wanted to come to this country.

Despite all of that, this year we are proud to be welcoming 280,000 new immigrants, and we are proud to have welcomed 260 new citizens last year. Those are the biggest numbers in Canadian history.

Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is so flawed that even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe found it necessary to publish a legal study demonstrating that this bill violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, we learned yesterday that Canadian telecommunications service providers have already been sharing vast quantities of personal information with the authorities with no oversight. That is simply unacceptable. Will the Conservatives finally listen to reason and scrap their dangerous bill? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us remember that on October 20 and 22, right here in this country, we were victims of terrorist acts. That is a reality that the New Democrats are refusing to see or accept. That is why we are implementing responsible measures and working with our partners in France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia to combat the terrorist threat. When will the New Democrats join us and find ways to fight terrorism? [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.

The same government that is forcing successful law enforcement programs like Project Condor to shut down, and the same government that is taking resources away from financial and organized crime investigations, is refusing to protect Canadians' personal information from unprecedented online surveillance. Instead, it is pushing Bill C-51 , a bill so flawed that our allies in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe think that it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When will the minister stop pushing this bad bill and focus on real measures to keep Canadians safe? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the real question is when will the NDP get serious about the terrorist threat that Canada is facing, along with our allies, such as Great Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia, and our fellow Americans? That is why we put measures in place, welcomed as of Monday by Commissioner Paulson, that will make it easier for the police to track terrorists and keep Canadians safe.

Northern Development Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has shown that the nutrition north criteria are not fair or accessible. They are not even based on current needs. Forty-six isolated fly-in northern communities are out in the cold, without access to nutritious and affordable food. Will the government commit today to working with all northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity? The minister can start by including these 46 communities in the nutrition north program.

(1440) Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but add that if they were able to impose this carbon tax, it would be even colder. The cost of food would go up, and the cost of hunting everything in the north would go up. We have accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General, and we are currently examining eligibility criteria. We are collecting data from the communities in the north, and we will review the eligibility criteria.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is so sad when someone starts to become more and more incompetent in a particular job. There is yet another failed Conservative program. The first nations market housing fund was created eight years ago but has produced less than 1% of the 25,000 homes it was supposed to produce by 2018. Is that the Conservatives' response to the housing crisis in aboriginal communities—an ineffective program that has done little more than finance one more bureaucracy? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that program is to increase private home ownership for first nations people on reserve. We want to see first nations individuals being able to have the pride, the security, and the financial stability that come with owning their own home. We always review programs to ensure that they meet the goals required, but we think it is important that first nations individuals can own their own home on reserve. That is why we created this fund. Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister should know that the government cynically promised to build 25,000 homes in this $300 million market fund. Now, seven years later, they have built 99. The government's own estimates confirm a housing crisis on reserve, with severe shortages of 20,000 to 35,000 new units and 5,200 replacement units. Building sufficient and safe housing on reserve builds local economies and creates jobs. The government has failed miserably. Where are the 25,000 homes that the government promised? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member does not understand what the program is designed to do. It is to encourage and to enable individuals to choose to build their own home and own it on reserve. It is no surprise coming from the opposition, which voted against and does not believe that women should have their own property rights on reserve. It seems that it does not agree that aboriginal individuals should have their own homes on reserve. We believe that they should. That is why we created this program. We always review our programs to ensure that they are meeting the goals that we set out.

[ Translation ] Pensions Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance had a deathbed conversion, suggesting the possibility of increasing voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan. He did not even mention the provinces, although two-thirds of them would have to support it. Instead of playing the politics of cynicism, why does this government not commit to working with the provinces to improve the Canada pension plan? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, we know the Liberals do not want to give Canadians choices. They want to force Canadians to pay higher job-killing payroll taxes. By contrast, our government believes that Canadians want to pay lower taxes. They also want the freedom to make their own financial decisions. That is why we are open to giving Canadians the opportunity to invest into a voluntary Canada pension plan. That is what we do. We give Canadians the opportunity to save for a secure, dignified retirement. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister has spent nine long years in office and many years before that opposing every conceivable reform to the CPP. Simply put, the Prime Minister hates the Canada pension plan. Now he comes up with a last-minute plan that was not even in the budget. Why should Canadians believe for one second that the Prime Minister is serious about doing anything at all with the Canada pension plan, except to blow it all up?

(1445) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are proud that this government has spent nine years cutting taxes for Canadians, bringing forward options so they could save for retirement. We intend to consult with experts and stakeholders during the summer on options for allowing for additional voluntary contributions to the Canada pension plan. Our government understands that Canadians want low taxes and the freedom to make their own choices. However, the Liberals would impose a job-killing payroll tax. We know the Liberals would shut down the tax-free savings account.

We know they would take away income splitting, and income splitting for pensioners. We will not let that happen.

Canada Post Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, stories of constituents upset with Canada Post's decision to end door-to-door delivery are pouring in across Canada, not only because of the decision itself but the treatment that people receive from Canada Post. When one of my constituents phoned to express legitimate concern about the location of a community mailbox in her neighbourhood, she felt that her concerns were unfairly dismissed. She told us that she was upset beyond belief. When will the minister start listening to Canadians and stop making excuses for Canada Post? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member knows that in 2014 Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters than it did in 2006, and that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not have door-to-door delivery. Canada Post must balance its finances without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers. The NDP's so-called plan for Canada Post would cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year, which means it would have to raise taxes on Canadians. We will not let it. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to remind everyone that Canada Post made nearly $200 million in profits last year alone. Over 3,000 people in my riding have signed a petition opposing the elimination of home mail delivery. The towns of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Huntingdon and Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague have passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on the installation of community mailboxes. Nearly 600 cities and towns have denounced what is happening at Canada Post. Will the government listen to our constituents or will it keep forcing people to use community mailboxes? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should actually read Canada Post's 2014 annual report. On page 68, it states: Without pension relief, the Corporation would have been required to make special payments of approximately $1.3 billion in 2014. The special payments without pension relief would amount to $1.4 billion in 2015... They should not be spiking the ball. Canadians expect that Canada Post will not be a financial burden to them, and so do do we. That is why we expect it to carry through with its five-point plan.

[ Translation ] Public Service of Canada Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is getting harder all the time to separate fact from fiction in the Conservative budget. The Conservatives claim that they will save $900 million by scrapping public service sick leave and creating a private short-term disability plan, as Canada Post did for its employees. However, Canada Post did not report any savings. Why are the Conservatives trampling on collective agreements in order to achieve fictitious savings? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the 40-year-old sick leave accumulation system is antiquated and does not meet the needs of the majority of our employees. We need a system that is fair and reasonable for employees, of course, but also for taxpayers. That is our plan. We will be fair and reasonable during bargaining. We have to reach an agreement, if that is possible. [ English ] The budget numbers are hard numbers, and they have been better. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Minister of Finance must have taken a page out of the old Liberal playbook, pretending to balance the books.

It now turns out that the $900 million so-called savings the minister is banking on by scraping public sector sick leave just does not add up. The management geniuses at Canada Post tried this a couple of years ago. How much did they save? Nothing. These guys are booking on $900 million, a complete fiction. Why are Conservatives tearing up collective bargaining rights for a terrible plan just to trick Canadians?

(1450) Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post plan is not the plan we are suggesting and are bargaining in good faith with the unions on this. If the NDP wants to be the advocate for the union bosses, it has the right to do that in the House. We will stand up for the taxpayers.

Public Safety Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP recently arrested 10 people who were radicalized in Montreal and who were planning to travel abroad to join the international jihadist movement. Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please tell Canadians what our government is doing to counter this threat? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, here is what Louise Vincent, the sister of slain Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, said, “If C-51 had been in place on October 19...Martin Couture-Rouleau would...have been in prison and my brother would not be dead today”. That is why we put this bill together, despite the opposition, comments and attitude of the NDP. The RCMP said “we welcome” the lowering of thresholds in Bill C-51. Why? Because police will be able to put terrorists behind bars and keep Canadians safe.

[ Translation ] Natural Resources Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives lack vision and are not fit to build the economy of tomorrow. According to Analytica Advisors, the Canadian clean technology industry is losing market share, dropping from 14th to 19th place in the world. That is because of the government's lack of political will and lack of investment in innovative technologies. Why is the government asleep at the switch when it comes to supporting the green technology sector? [ English ] Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are investing in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, renewable and clean energy technologies that produce less emitting energy and fuels. We are proud that Canada has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 79% coming from non-emitting sources. While that member voted against increasing investments in clean technology, we remain committed to supporting its development. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we want clean energy, not hot air.

Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment 's department admitted that it could not do the math on climate change. It looks like the government cannot do the math either when it comes to clean-tech exports and jobs. Global investment in clean tech last year topped $300 billion, but according to a new report, Canada's share of that global clean-tech market dropped by 41%. Why? Because the Conservatives are doing nothing for our clean-tech sector and exports. Where is the plan to support Canada's clean tech and boost our exports? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike that member who wants to impose a carbon tax, our government's sector-by-sector approach is demonstrating results, while keeping taxes low. Our government has made significant investments to promote clean energy projects that protect the environment, create jobs and grow the economy. We are proud that Canada relies on non-emitting sources for 79% of our electricity mix, one of the cleanest in the world.

International Trade Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the results speak for themselves, and they reveal an abysmal Conservative record on trade, a growing clean-tech sector that is being muscled out of the global market— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Don Davies : They laugh, Mr. Speaker. Trade talks with Japan are completely stalled and the Conservatives are unable to even set a date for negotiations. Canada has fallen from 15th to 23rd in exports to key Asian markets and has record trade deficits in 2015.

The New Democrats understand that strong trade performance is critical to Canada's economic future. How does the minister defend his record of failure that is leaving Canada behind? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP has consistently opposed our efforts to open new markets for Canadian businesses. In fact, it has an abysmal record on the trade file. The fact is that the NDP is ideologically opposed to any and all trade. It does not understand trade and it does not like trade.

Only the Conservative government is focused on the priorities of Canadians when it comes to creating jobs and opportunities.

(1455) Intergouvernmental Affairs Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, actually, it is the government, with its complete intransigence, disrespect and refusal to match its words with actions, that is putting Canada's trade deals at risk. The Conservatives promised my province of Newfoundland and Labrador a fund for fisheries marketing and research in exchange for giving up local fish processing requirements. Then they changed the rules mid-game and reneged on that promise.

Will the Conservatives finally live up to their word and give Newfoundland and Labrador the transition fund we were promised? Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member's problem is that he opposes a trade agreement that his province and the industries in his province and the people of his province support. Our government remains open to working with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on its specific proposals for a minimum processing requirement fund.

We have indicated all along to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we are open to a fund that includes support for displaced workers, research and development, and innovation. However, this fund was always designed to compensate Newfoundlanders for any losses for having given up minimum processing requirements. It was never intended as a slush fund that would be to the detriment of other provinces.

The Environment Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of the Environment a very simple question at committee: Could she state the new 2030 targets in megatonnes? Incredibly, the deputy minister jumped in and said that it was very complicated. However, 30% of 731 megatonnes is not complicated, and it is the responsibility of the minister to know her facts and to have a plan as to how we will make those targets. The minister has had 24 hours to crunch the numbers. Could she state the 2030 target in megatonnes? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government announced a very fair and ambitious target for Canada that would be in line with other major industrialized countries. Canada is taking a leadership role on the climate change file. We plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That translates to 225 megatonnes. We will continue to take a responsible approach, a balanced approach.

Building on this, we will reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, regulate the production of chemicals and nitrogen fertilizers, and regulate emissions from natural gas-fired electricity generation. [ Translation ] Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in committee, the Minister of the Environment again demonstrated a disengaged attitude with regard to the federal strategy for combatting climate change. Did the minister consult the provinces before announcing a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030? Did she consult the oil and gas sectors?

Why are the minister and this government taking such a patently ad hoc and embarrassing approach? [ English ] Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work co-operatively with the provinces and the territories. I have met on numerous occasions with the provincial and territorial ministers. As well, I had a meeting in Ottawa with all provincial and territorial ministers in December.

The provinces have set their own emission targets and have the authority within their provincial jurisdictions to take actions within their own respective jurisdictions. We respect the provincial jurisdictions, unlike Justin Trudeau, who has promised to— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : I think the minister meant to say the member for Papineau . She will want to remember to use ridings and titles, not proper names. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

Transport Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Dany Dubuc-Marquis was involved in a fatal accident due to a faulty ignition switch in his car, yet for eight months the government did nothing. Only after GM had issued a recall did the problem even begin to be addressed. Now we have seen the same lack of oversight with the recent Takata airbag recall. When will the minister finally give powers to Transport Canada to issue recalls?

(1500) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously the safety and security of Canadians is our top priority. In 2014, we passed measures to strengthen our recall system, which the member opposed, and in budget 2015, our government committed to further improvements, giving us the power to order recalls and levy monetary penalties. Transport Canada, in the situation of the airbags, has received no complaints related to this issue from Canadians and is not aware of any incidents having taken place in Canada.

Obviously, Canadians can determine if their vehicles are affected by recalls by visiting Transport Canada's website or by contacting their vehicle manufacturers or dealers. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is incredible. It sounds like they are waiting for deaths to occur before taking action. Unfortunately, the death toll resulting from the delayed recall of GM vehicles is rising. To date, GM has acknowledged its responsibility in 107 deaths and 199 cases of injury linked to defective ignition switches.

It is time for the government to step up to the plate before other tragedies occur. I will repeat my question: when will Transport Canada finally have the authority to issue recalls? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I reject the absurdity of that

preamble and the statement he made about the government's care and concern about people. I reject that entirely. Of course the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority for this government. That is why we took measures in 2014 to strengthen the recall system. He opposed that, by the way. If he really cares about it, he should support what the government is doing.

Taxation Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government's universal child care benefits and family tax cut benefits 100% of Canadian families with children. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please inform the House on how much money families are saving? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, they are not only saving through the family tax cut and benefits but also through the tax-free savings account. We have a low-tax plan for retirement savings.

Today the Liberal leader announced that he would bring in a high-tax plan. He would hit workers and small businesses with a massive premium hike that would force small businesses to lay off thousands of Canadians. This policy would send shockwaves through our economy. It is a major risk. It demonstrates once again that this Liberal leader is just not ready for the job.

Fisheries and Oceans Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows better than anyone the struggles of the fishermen on Prince Edward Island. The lobster season in both fishing areas was delayed— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. I think the hon. member for Cardigan had more to say and I would ask members of the government to wait until he is finished before they applaud. They might find that they do not feel like applauding him when he has finished his question. The hon. member for Cardigan . Hon. Lawrence MacAulay : Mr.

Speaker, it is a pity she would not help them with their struggles. The lobster season in both fishing areas was delayed substantially due to ice conditions, and both fishing areas have requested an extension in the season. Will the minister listen to the fishermen who are dealing with lost wages? Will she deal with the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association and give Prince Edward Island fishermen the appropriate extension that they need? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I meet with the P.E.I.

Fishermen's Association on a regular basis, and with a number of other fishermen's associations as well. For the hon. member's information, he says that we do not help the fishermen, but let me give these statistics: in 2009, the value of lobster sold was $507 million. In 2013, that value is $680 million. When it comes to an extension of the season, that decision will be made based on science.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Bridge has been added to the list of the top 10 endangered places in Canada. How appalling. The Conservatives have been in power for 10 years and are leaving Quebec City with a heritage bridge that is in critical condition. The NDP came up with a real solution to get CN moving. Will the government finally listen to reason and support my bill?

(1505) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, only our Conservative government has taken real action on repainting the Quebec Bridge. The NDP's proposal is a political mirage. The NDP knows very well that it is too late to pass the bill. CN must immediately make good on its commitment to the people of Quebec City and restore the Quebec Bridge to its former glory.

[ English ] Justice Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Toronto police have laid the first charge under the government's cyberbullying legislation. Could the Minister of Justice update the House on the action our government is taking in this area? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for her interest and her hard work on behalf of her constituents and also commend the Toronto police for their outstanding efforts.

We know that bullying and cyberbullying have a very far-reaching and corrosive impact on Canadians, particularly our youth. Our government took concrete action by passing the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act to further protect our most vulnerable. It prohibits the non-consensual distribution of intimate images in Canada in our Criminal Code. Our government will continue to protect law-abiding Canadians and ensure that those who commit these horrendous crimes will be held accountable.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if the government did not get the hint already, today Ottawa city council formally voted to ask the Conservatives to move the memorial for victims of Communism back to its original site. A fundamental cornerstone of our democracy is consultation, and consultation requires listening. Will the minister do our democracy the honour of actually listening and respecting elected representatives? In other words, will Conservatives change the location of the memorial back to its original site? Hon.

Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our federal government provided federal land for a national monument that will in fact commemorate over 100 million innocent lives lost under Communist regimes. We will be very proud to put that monument in a prominent location to do just what we promised to do. Allow me to correct some of the misinformation spread by some of the members of the opposition. It will not be built in front of the Supreme Court. It will be down the street on a completely separate plot of land.

International Trade Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the fate of the CETA hangs in the balance of the government's callous short-shifting of the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries investment fund. It is to everyone's advantage to move forward. My question is for the Minister of International Trade. Have his officials estimated what a challenge to this trade agreement would cost taxpayers if the province does not remove minimum processing requirements? If so, what is that estimated cost, and what would be the other trade ramifications on an MPR challenge under a future agreement? Hon.

Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this agreement represents an unprecedented opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to quote from Derek Butler, executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers. He said, “As we said in December, we've been fighting EU tariffs for years now, and we should not put their removal in peril. Jeopardizing CETA—or freer trade generally—is not a solution.” We remain open to working with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to come to an agreement on this one.

Points of Order [ English ] Points of Order Oral Questions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware, as all members should be, of the proper procedures for taking pictures inside the chamber. Through your office, you have provided the opportunity for members of Parliament to acquire a picture through designated individuals. Today, during question period, while the member for St. Paul's was putting forward her question, the member for York Centre appeared to take a picture using a telephone. I do not know how many pictures were taken. We ask that you look into the matter.

However, given that the member is sitting in his place, he might want to provide some comment as to why he was taking pictures and how many pictures he took.

(1510) Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the member is talking about. I did not take any photos during question period or at any other time when I was sitting in my place here in the House. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I am not the only member of the Liberal caucus who saw the member with a camera in hand, and the flash went off. When the flash goes off, it usually indicates a picture has been taken. I ask that your office look into the matter. I would also ask the member to perhaps reflect on his comments and whether or not he possibly has a faulty flash in his telephone.

The Speaker : The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North can serve as a reminder for colleagues to be very careful with the equipment they bring into the chamber, especially during debates. Of course, we should all be listening attentively to the questions and the answers and not be distracted by gadgets. In today's modern technology, cameras are a part of many different devices, and I hope members are very sensitive to that when they have them out. We would not want to upset our colleagues I will take the hon. member for York Centre at his word. He indicates he has not taken a photograph.

I will consider the matter closed. Perhaps he could assuage the fears of the hon. member for Winnipeg North and have a brief conversation with him to help him understand the situation. However, at this point we will move on, given the facts that have been presented to me.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report on the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the co-chairs' annual visit to Japan, in Tokyo, Japan, on April 23 to April 26 of 2014. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the pleasure to rise and present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the 132nd Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly and related meetings, held in Hanoi, Vietnam, on March 28 to April 1, 2015. Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. The first concerns the 54th annual meeting, held here in Ottawa from June 6 to June 9, 2014. The second concerns the annual meeting of the Southern Governors' Association, which was held in Little Rock, Arkansas, United States of America, August 14 to August 17, 2014.

Committees of the House Health Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, from the Standing Committee on Health, a study on the federal role in the scope of practice of Canadian health care professionals.

Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees of this House, and if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 37th report later today.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to its study of the main estimates 2015-16.

(1515) Environment and Sustainable Development Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to the main estimates 2015-16.

Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study of the main estimates 2015-16.

Members Not Seeking Re-election Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this Parliament, we are aware that there are a number of our colleagues who have already indicated their intention not to seek re-election. As such, there have been discussions among the parties about how we can appropriately accommodate an opportunity for these members to provide a valedictory or departure speech summarizing their significant contributions to our country. As a result, I expect you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move: That a take note debate on the subject of Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, June 9, 2015; and That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House begins the said proceedings, and for the duration of the debate, (

a) no Member may speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that any Member rising to speak may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member; (

b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair; (

c) after four hours, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the debate shall be interrupted, rather than terminated; and (

d) the debate shall be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, and concluded at 12 midnight or when no Member rises to speak. The Speaker : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move: That the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today this day, be concurred in. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Impaired Driving Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition and sadly inform this House that 19-year-old Kendra Cole was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. Obviously, it is devastating for Kendra's family, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. This petition is tabled through an organization called Families for Justice. It is a group of Canadians who have had loved ones killed by impaired drivers.

The petitioners believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient, and they would like the crime to be called what it is: vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for Parliament to support Bill C-652 , Kassandra's law.

Health Care Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour for me to rise in the House to present this petition from northerners who support our universal health care system. They want to ensure that every citizen of northern Ontario has access to the same high-quality service, wherever they live and regardless of their financial circumstances.

Canada Post Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a few petitions. The first petition is with respect to the cuts to Canada Post, and it is signed by constituents from Elliot Lake. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal services. As members know, we have just heard that it made $200 million last year.

(1520) [ Translation ] Agriculture Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I want to present is signed by my constituents in Hearst. The petition calls on the government to respect the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed. It also asks that small family farms be consulted and that policies and programs benefit women as well.

[ English ] Taxation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition is asking the Government of Canada to cease taxation on menstrual hygiene products and to extend the 0% GST rate to menstrual hygiene products.

Canada Post Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from thousands of Canadians who are concerned about cuts to Canada Post. They call on the Government of Canada to reverse these cuts to services announced by Canada Post and instead look to innovate in such areas as postal banking.

National Sustainable Seafood Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from thousands of Canadians who are concerned about overfishing and destructive fishing practices that are threatening marine life and the health of our oceans. They say that over 120 million people around the world have fish as part of their income, and they want to see sustainable seafood choices. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to designate March 18 national sustainable seafood day.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling on the government to reject Canada Post's plan to cut services. Between 6,000 and 8,000 Canada Post workers will lose their jobs, and seniors, people with reduced mobility, self-employed workers and small businesses will suffer the most as a result of these cuts.

Taxation Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians across the country who are calling for the elimination of the federal tax on feminine hygiene products.

[ English ] The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition is from residents from throughout the Victoria region, including, within my riding, Salt Spring Island and other areas of Saanich—Gulf Islands , calling on Parliament and this House to put forward a real plan for reducing greenhouse gases along the lines of the bill that was passed in the previous session and killed by the Senate.

Pesticides Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Calgary. Over 225 petitioners call on the government to take action, following Europe's lead, to protect pollinators in Canada by acting against neonicotinoid pesticides.

Violence Against Women Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today to end violence against women.

The signatories to the petition wish to draw the government's attention to the following facts: that women are 11 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual violence and three times more likely to be victims of criminal harassment; that indigenous women in Canada are seven times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women; that nearly 1,200 indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered in Canada; and that Canada has clear domestic and international obligations to address violence against women, including the United Nations' call for all countries to have a national action plan to end violence against women.

Therefore, the signatories call upon the Government of Canada to create a coordinated, comprehensive national action plan to address violence against women and to launch an independent national inquiry into the deaths and disappearances of first nations, Métis, and Inuit women.

Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions I would like to present. The first set of petitions calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Syria Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second series of petitions I would like to table is calling upon the House of Commons to take note that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has asked for further help to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. The petitioners ask the Canadian government to open more spaces in Canada to Syrian refugees of any religion and to quicken the processing time for more Syrian refugees to take sanctuary in Canada.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred people in Laurentides—Labelle. The petitioners are calling on the House to ensure that Canada's policies and programs protect the right of small family farms in the south to use and trade their seed.

(1525) [ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Digital Privacy Act Bill S-4—Notice of time allocation motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and second reading stages and the third reading stage of Bill S-4,

an act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act . Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at a future sitting, motions to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stages of the said bill.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act Bill S-6—Notice of time allocation motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report and third reading stages of Bill S-6,

an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act . Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at a future sitting, motions to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stages of the said bill.

Safe and Accountable Rail Act The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52,

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-52. Third reading Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill before us, the safe and accountable rail act . The bill would fulfill this title by strengthening safety in our efforts to further improve safety management systems in the rail transportation industry. This is especially vital for addressing safety risks before they become bigger problems and before accidents occur.

Railways are a vital part of Canada's transportation system and keeping them safe is everyone's concern. The railway industry and the government need to work together to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to secure the conditions for a prosperous economy. In the past, railways and many other safety-critical industries pursued safety through compliance with prescriptive rules and regulations. As safety research progressed during the 1990s, however, it became clear that compliance with rules and regulations alone was insufficient to ensure the highest possible levels of safety.

What companies needed for a truly effective safety regime was a proactive system approach to safety that allowed them to identify hazards and to mitigate risks in order to prevent accidents. This approach also allowed lessons learned from minor incidents and day-to-day operations to be included in the system, thereby creating a sea of continuous safety improvement with more likelihood of avoiding accidents. When the railway safety management system regulations first came into force in March 2001, they were the first of their kind in the federal transportation sector.

They were created with significant industry input and emphasized the railways' responsibilities for safe operations. The regulations were established to encourage the development of a safety culture throughout all levels of an organization and to ensure that safety is considered as a factor in all decisions. The safety management system helps organizations better comply with regulatory requirements and demonstrate their commitment to the safety of their employees.

Key elements of safety management systems include, for instance, the development of safety goals and performance targets, risk assessments, responsibilities and authorities, processes and procedures, and monitoring and evaluating. Achieving an effective safety culture is the ultimate goal of safety management systems. An effective safety culture in a company can contribute to reducing public and employee fatalities and injuries, property damage resulting from railway accidents, and the impact of accidents on the environment.

Since the introduction of the railway safety management system regulations in 2001, a lot has been done and much has changed. Our railway network is characterized and challenged by a growing user base, vast distances, new and aging infrastructure, and a significant rise in oil on rail. Regulated safety management systems have come a long way since their beginnings. They have now been implemented in rail, marine and aviation transportation modes in Canada, and have become an international standard for managing safety.

The importance of safety management systems and their implementation in Canadian railway systems was one of the most significant issues researched during the last Railway Safety Act review and a simultaneous study of rail safety in Canada undertaken by the Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. While safety management systems were generally supported, both reviews concluded that implementation among the companies was uneven and that more needed to be done by the companies and the regulator to ensure full implementation throughout the industry.

As a result, Transport Canada made several amendments to the Railway Safety Act in May 2013, to increase rail safety by strengthening its oversight and enforcement capacity, and expanding safety management systems for railways. Following these amendments, Transport Canada accelerated the development of the new railway safety management system regulations, 2015, which came into force on April 1. The new regulations improve the implementation of safety management systems by incorporating more detailed requirements to clarify expectations from both industry and the department.

The new regulations also improve the overall consistency and quality of railway safety management systems by adding consistent terminology, provisions requiring evidence of implementation, requirements for the identification of an accountable executive and the creation of a policy protecting employees from reprisal for reporting contraventions, and by expanding application to local railway companies. However, our government is not stopping there. This bill introduces an amendment that would not only make sure that railway safety measurement systems exist, but that they are also working and are effective.

Under the current Railway Safety Act, the Minister of Transport can take enforcement actions, including prosecution, for any non-compliance with the railway safety management system regulations.

(1530) The minister can even order a railway company to take corrective measures, should the minister be of the opinion that the company's safety management system presents deficiencies that risk compromising safe railway operations. However, the current Railway Safety Act lacks the authority to address issues with the way the rail companies implement their safety management systems. This bill would fill that gap by introducing a new power for the minister to order a company to take corrective measures should a company's implementation of its safety management system risk compromising safety.

This new power would also allow the minister to order corrective action if a company is not following its safety management system procedures and policies to the extent of risking safe railway operations. Fairness is also paramount to this proposed amendment, to further strengthen railway safety management systems. Similar to the current safety management systems power related to deficiencies in a company's system, an order made under this new power would be subject to review by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada; this at the request of the company.

Together, the rail industry and government have accomplished tremendous work toward enhancing the safety of our railway network in the last decade and continuously improving company safety culture, but we still have more to do to make our railway system safer. Transportation safety is crucial, not only for the welfare of families and communities in Canada but to support Canada's long-term economic growth.

We need to continue to work together to achieve our goal of giving all Canadians a safer and more responsible railway system and to assure global markets that our transportation systems are not only efficient but also safe and secure. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague opposite. One of the things he suggests is that the system would become safer because the minister would have the power to order a railway company to comply if she or he finds that the safety management system is not being properly implemented.

However, as we have discovered from the Auditor General's report, Transport Canada has failed miserably at examining the safety management systems of the rail companies, and as a result was given a failing grade by the Auditor General in terms of the audits of those safety management systems. How can the minister actually make an order if the Transport Canada folks are not even able to look at safety management systems to see if they are actually compliant? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr.

Speaker, obviously any direction or order taken by the minister would be contingent upon the minister's departmental staff doing the proper inspections. We all know that we have increased our capacity to make such inspections. We have doubled down on the safety as a result of tragedies that have occurred. Obviously, we are going to put our utmost attention to ensuring that tragedies and accidents in the future are minimized through careful scrutiny of all safety regulations. The minister would be able to make directions when shortcomings are noticed.

Certainly, that is the full intent of this act: to make the railway safer for all Canadians while enhancing Canada's economy. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's comments. I would like to hear what the position of the government is in terms of its reasoning for deciding to impose the responsibility on the railways only, in terms of liability insurance, and not on shippers as well or some mixture of the two. I am interested in the member's response to this. The railway companies argue that they do not always have control over what is in the cars that they move.

(1535) Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, obviously no system is perfect, but certainly the user-pay principle is one that is tried and true. There have been increased issues with regard to compensation and liability, which this government has put in place to protect the public. We will continue to go in that direction. Obviously, we will continue to strengthen the system as we see fit. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I note that the title of the bill is “

an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act ”. I heard the member say in his speech that there is much more to do on the issue of rail safety in Canada. This is a bill, even though we will be supporting it on this side, that is very light in the way of changes to increase rail safety in Canada. The member has acknowledged that there is much more to do. On this pressing issue of public safety for Canadians, why did the Conservatives not take advantage of this opportunity to do more now? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr.

Speaker, perfection should never be the enemy of the good, and yes, there is more to do, but these are complex issues. We know that Canada has a vast railway system, and we know the issues will vary from region to region. Obviously, more study and attention to detail and getting it right the first time is what would be paramount in the mind of this government, of course, while ensuring safety of the public in Canada. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York .

I note that the bill would adopt one of the things that the NDP has been calling for, which is the polluter pay principle, so that at any time there is damage to our environment caused by industry, or in this case by railroads and industry, there would be recognition on the part of governments everywhere that the polluter should be responsible for the cleanup and pay for the cost of the cleanup. The bill before us goes a small way toward ensuring that would take place. Of course, we know the history of where the bill originated, and we have been talking about rail safety since the disaster at Lac-Mégantic.

This was a tragedy that killed 47 people, wrecked the town and cost half a billion in cleanup. However, the rail system, as we have it now in Canada, has not been sufficient to protect towns, villages and cities along the way, and the people who reside in them, from the consequences of the enormous increase in the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. Up until 2009, there were maybe 500 railcars transporting dangerous oil by rail. Since that time, the level of this material has gone up by something like 400-fold, so that we are now seeing 200,000 barrels a day travelling through our communities.

Originally, people thought those barrels of oil were fairly benign. Crude oil is a heavy, massive weight substance that does not catch fire very easily. However, little did we know, with the advent of fracking and diluted bitumen, we now have transportation of goods that are explosive, not just flammable. As a result, we are now transporting what people have referred to as “bomb trains” through our cities and countryside, and throughout the entire country. The notion of bomb trains is not lost on the people of Canada, and when it happens, we need to have a regimen that actually keeps them safe.

It is one thing to suggest, as some on the opposite side have suggested, that if we do not put it in trains, we could put it in pipelines and that we cannot have it both ways: we cannot be opposed to transporting it via pipelines and trains. However, in fact, this material is so dangerous, it is not allowed to be in pipelines. It has too much gas in it, which provides too much pressure. Therefore, the only way it can be transported is by truck and by train.

It is up to the Government of Canada to ensure that, if this is how we are going to transport our natural resources, the transportation is done in a way that is safe and in a way that protects the citizens of the country. In my riding of York South—Weston, there are three separate rail corridors. Two are on the edges of the riding and one goes right through the centre of the riding. The one that goes through the centre and the one at the bottom edge are both CP main lines.

Those corridors carry tremendous quantities of this crude oil in these big black tanker cars, which everybody learned the name of after Lac-Mégantic: DOT-111s. The minister, shortly after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, announced new emergency directives where the rail companies were not allowed to have single-person crews, have these trains unattended or transport dangerous goods without having two people on the crew. She also announced that they would be eliminating the use of the DOT-111s within three years. In what universe does that make us safer?

For three years then we have to live with the reality that these bomb trains are going past communities, including my community of York South—Weston. Therefore, these bomb trains are still a feature of the urban landscape and something we have to be extremely vigilant about, and I do not believe that the current Conservative government has been vigilant enough. The bill would do two things. It would create a regimen whereby the rail company shares the liability with the shippers in terms of dangerous goods.

Ultimately, the rail companies would theoretically be responsible for the entire cost in conjunction with the shippers. However, in regards to the cost at Lac-Mégantic, the government has made it very clear that the Province of Quebec will continue to be on the hook for that cleanup, because there was not enough insurance in the system before Lac-Mégantic took place. MMA, the railroad that was involved in the Lac-Mégantic disaster, had $25 million of insurance which was quickly exhausted, and the governments then took up the rest of it, not shippers and not the rest of the railroads.

(1540) In terms of the dangers of these rail cars going past our communities, there have been some good moves by the government, but there clearly is not enough. Since Lac-Mégantic, there have been at least seven other massive explosions and collisions of these bomb trains in Canada and the United States. There has been Aliceville, Alabama; Casselton, North Dakota; New Brunswick; West Virginia; Saskatchewan; Gogama; and, more recently, Heimdal, North Dakota. In some of those occurrences, the cars were not DOT-111s. They were the newer cars, the CPC-1232s.

Apparently those newer cars, when they break in a collision, blow up just like the DOT-111s. That is what has been happening all across North America. What is the solution? The minister has said we are going to replace these with the DOT-117 cars, in 10 years. We have now gone from a 3-year window, which is quickly running down, to a 10-year window before our communities will start to feel safe. We do not even know what is safe about these new DOT-117 cars. The minister has also lowered the speeds through urban centres to 40 miles an hour, or about 62 kilometres an hour.

All of the collisions in recent memory, including one of the two at Gogama, have been at speeds that were less than the speed the minister says is safe in urban areas. How is that to make us feel safe? It does not. The residents of York South—Weston do not feel safe and are demanding that the government do something more. The government did ask the railroads last year to provide them with route analyses and risk assessments. The route analyses are because we are aware that in the United States, governments there have directed railroads to steer clear of major urban centres like Washington, D.C.

They are not allowed to travel through that community. However, here in Canada, the railroads were given the option to come up with a route analysis and decide for themselves whether it is too risky to go through towns. We asked to see those risk assessments that were done by the railroads for the ministry. Transport Canada said that they were the private property of the railroads. We asked the railroads to give us a copy of the risk assessment, and the railroad said that Transport Canada was free to give us a copy. Then the minister came to the committee and said that they are not. We are still no clearer.

I was at a meeting last week of emergency services on rail safety in the city of Toronto, called because the city has determined it would like to know what Toronto emergency services need. Toronto emergency services confirmed that they do not know what the railroads' risk assessments are. They do not know how risky it is, and where the hot spots are likely to be if there is a problem in a rail corridor running through the city of Toronto. They still do not know, except on an annual basis, at the end of a year, what dangerous goods are going through the city.

It seems ludicrous to consider that information to be private and confidential to the railroads when it is the life and limb of the residents of the city of Toronto, and other cities across this fair land of ours, that is at risk should something happen. If the railroads have produced a risk assessment that says they should be going slower, then let us make them go slower. If the risk assessment says there are particular spots where they should not travel at all, that they should go around, then let us make them do that.

As far as we know, there has been zero action by the minister, by Transport Canada, by the Transportation Safety Board, or any of the agencies dealing with transportation in this country, to deal with the fact that when one of these tank cars breaks in a collision, and they break at speeds as low as 30 miles an hour, maybe even 25 miles an hour, they explode. We have yet to hear the minister say that she will find a speed that they are safe to travel at. Until she does, the speed that these trains are travelling at through my community, through the rest of the city of Toronto, is too fast.

(1545) We are not going to create a system that is 100% safe. CN admitted that at the transport committee, after Gogama, when it said it could not make it 100% safe and can only do the best it can. We need it to be certain that these things are not going to explode in my community. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as I noted in my previous question for the member across the aisle, this is

an act that is intended to amend the Railway Safety Act. However, it focuses almost entirely on the issue of compensation, liability, and insurance, which is a very retrospective view on accidents. Part of the issue is that not only is rail safety in Canada a very pressing issue, one of great concern for the public about safety, but it is so in the context of rapidly increasing risk. In fact, when the minister appeared in committee, she provided information about the transportation of oil by rail. The numbers are increasing at a phenomenal rate as we go through the years.

The numbers she provided start at 78 million barrels of crude oil in 2013, and there is projected to be a quarter of a billion barrels of crude oil transported by rail by 2017 and going forward. I am wondering if my colleague can tell us why he thinks the government has been so light on dealing with rail safety issues as part of this bill. Mr. Mike Sullivan : Mr. Speaker, he is completely right. The bill is quite light on the whole issue of safety. It gives the minister a few more powers, but those powers require knowledge in the minister's hands.

Clearly, Transport Canada is not doing the inspections necessary to determine whether the railroads are keeping the lines safe. This bill is in fact a gift to the major railroads, CN and CP, which were carrying over $1 billion worth of insurance. They now only have to carry $1 billion, so they have had their insurance costs reduced, and above $1 billion they are not liable. They cannot be liable unless they acted in a way that was deliberately in contravention of safety regulations. It is only if they were deliberate about it. Therefore, it is essentially a gift to the big railroads.

It would fill in a gap for the smaller railroads that now have to carry more than $25 million of insurance, and it would provide for a fund. However, the fund will take 15 years to fill up, and even then we do not know if it will be enough. The bill does not contain a whole lot to make us feel safer in this town of ours.

(1550) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, where I agree with the member is on the ever-growing demand and expansion of the transportation of crude oil. His colleague made reference to how profound it is going to be on our rail lines in terms of more than doubling over the next number of years. We in the Liberal Party feel it is absolutely critical that we have a safe rail line system to protect the interests of all Canadians, no matter what region they live in and wherever the line goes through with the crude.

However, there is another side to this, which the member made reference to, and that is the issue of pipelines. In listening to what they were saying, it seems that New Democrats have excluded the potential benefits of expanding pipelines in order to alleviate some of the pressure of transporting crude oil on the rail lines. I am wondering if he could comment on whether he believes there should be more pipelines in order to alleviate some of the pressures of transporting oil in communities in Canada. Mr. Mike Sullivan : Of course, Mr.

Speaker, it was the Liberal government that brought in the Railway Safety Act, which in fact took away the responsibility of direct oversight from the federal government and turned it over to the railroads themselves. However, in terms of pipelines, it is my clear understanding that crude oil has too much gas in it to be transported in any pipeline. It cannot be transported in a pipeline and has to be transported by rail. The maximum pressure that is allowed inside a pipeline to prevent a pipeline from bursting is 19.7 kilopascals, and this stuff generates greater pressure than that.

As a result, the only option, without pre-treating all of the oil at great expense to the oil companies, is to transport it by rail. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-52,

an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act . The bill is returning to us from committee where we heard testimony from witnesses, representatives like Safe Rail Communities in the Toronto area, who share the NDP's view that “Although it has some promising elements...Bill C-52 could go further to ensure safety and accountability”. Opportunities were missed here, but nevertheless I stand in support of the bill in light of the need for an immediate response to rail safety issues in Canada.

As I have mentioned in the House before, the growing frequency of train derailments since the disaster in Lac-Mégantic has led to many Conservative promises to rectify shortcomings with safety inspections and rail safety compliance measures. The Conservatives have yet to honour that commitment, and the bill goes nowhere near what they need to do to honour those commitments. With three train derailments occurring in the span of a month last year, this is a pressing issue. It is one that the government has been scrambling to catch up with and has still not caught up.

So far, these accidents have occurred in rural areas. As the critic for urban affairs, I would note that the bill would do little to alleviate the costs and the human tragedy inevitably associated with a derailment in one of our big cities, one of our dense urban communities in this country. Starting with the Liberal government, in 1999, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let companies self-regulate and self-inspect their equipment and railway lines. This approach is clearly not working.

The bill put forward by the minister is an effort to address some of the liability and accountability issues associated with rail safety. It proposes several necessary fixes, but it is just a start. It appears to me that the government is in no hurry to catch up on rail safety issues. We heard the member across the aisle today talking about the need for more study, while communities across this country are anxious about dangerous goods being transported by rail quite literally through their backyards. The bill sets out to provide some compensation for victims of derailments after the fact.

It is as if the government has accepted the inevitability of train derailments in this country. We not only need stronger laws, but we need stronger enforcement of laws and regulations, and we need penalties on those who break them. It is clear to us and to experts such as the Transportation Safety Board that the government has very serious problems in terms of oversight inspections and audits. Nevertheless, the proposed changes in the bill remain necessary, and while not fully or nearly adequate, they have the support of this side of the House. Bill C-52 sets out to do three main things.

It requires minimum insurance levels for railways transporting dangerous goods. It establishes a disaster relief fund paid for by crude oil shippers to compensate victims of derailments, provinces, and municipalities, and it gives more authority to the minister, cabinet, and railway safety inspectors. With respect to minimum insurance levels, the bill provides for a legislated minimum insurance coverage of $25 million for railway companies transporting minimal quantities of dangerous goods, and up to a maximum of $1 billion for railways that are transporting substantial quantities of dangerous goods.

Railway companies will be liable for losses, damages, costs, and expenses resulting from a railway accident involving crude oil or other designated goods, up to the level of the company's minimum liability insurance coverage. Based on the costs of train derailments like that in Lac-Mégantic, these measures appear to be justified. After that disaster, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway exhausted its insurance coverage of only $25 million and went bankrupt. Yet damages paid by taxpayers with respect to that derailment have been to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Quebec government has estimated that the total cost will be well over $400 million.

(1555) The second thing the bill sets out to do is establish a pooled disaster relief fund to be made available if the minimum insurance levels are insufficient or exceeded. While this is a step forward, there are outstanding concerns that this also may not be sufficient in the event that another major disaster, particularly in an urban area. When it comes to disaster relief, the first responders on the scene will inevitably be firefighters and sometimes the police.

For that reason, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs asked that the committee consider a mechanism to fund training, such as through a small allocation of the disaster relief fund, since the bill did not address the serious firefighter training gap that currently existed in Canada. Indeed, equipping and supporting municipal first responders to rail emergencies is of the utmost importance, yet this important aspect is not addressed by the bill and there is no ability to fund training out of this pooled fund.

When my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie followed up at committee on the recommendation from the fire chiefs to use this relief fund to pay for this training, representatives from Transport Canada admitted that the resources had not been a key focus at this point of this bill, but that those questions would come up as they “work through the ways in which we can improve the system as a set of jurisdictions and responsible authorities”. This is evidence of the government being excessively casual on this pressing issue of public safety. It reveals a lack of urgency from the government.

It is a case of the Conservatives making promises but not following up with the necessary resources to back those promises up. It was the same lack of urgency exhibited by the minister in her recent announcement that Canadians would have to wait a full 10 years for the phase out of the dangerous railcars. That is far too long. On the issue of authority to the minister, cabinet and railway safety inspectors, the bill implements a number of changes to the Railway Safety Act that would give more authority to the minister. As my colleague from York South—Weston has pointed out in practical terms, these are not real.

However, railway safety inspectors would be authorized to order a person or company to take any measure they deemed necessary to mitigate a threat to the safety or security of railway operations. Therefore, providing extra authority to railway safety inspectors is a positive and gets us back to where authority ought to lie for safety, with the government and the inspectors it hires rather than safety management systems.

The amendments would also authorize the minister to order a company that was implementing its safety management system in a manner that risked compromising railway safety to take the necessary corrective measures. However, as my colleague has pointed out, it is not clear how the minister will understand or come to know what is in those safety management systems to act on those. Clearly, the missed opportunity here is that of increasing the number of inspectors.

Since 2013, Transport Canada has hired just one additional rail safety inspector even though the amount of oil by rail has more than doubled in the last two years. While the government has a responsibility to ensure that tragedies like Lac-Mégantic never happen again, we do want to ensure that railways have enough insurance to cover all costs in the event of a disaster, and the bill would do that. Clearly, there is more to do. One of the things that is missing from the bill is defining “fatigue science” in the Railway Safety Act.

It is our worry that its absence will not ensure that fatigue management is based on science. Fatigue has been said to be one of the contributing factors for train derailments. Therefore, the fact that the Conservatives refuse to do something about this issue is quite puzzling and disturbing.

(1600) On the environmental side, we want to see the polluter pays principle applied to ensure that the total environmental and cleanup costs of rail accidents are borne by the industry and not downloaded onto the taxpayers. The most important thing, however, is that we pass this bill before the next election to ensure we take at least a small step forward, even though that step is inadequate. Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member indicated that a good portion of this bill related to basic insurance requirements and a pooled fund to take care of a disaster that might happen. First, would he agree that the pooled fund, although it is at $250,000, can pay out a larger claim, which is backstopped by the consolidated revenue fund, and then, if it is paid out, further and subsequent assessments can be made to ensure the polluter pays? Second, what is his opinion with respect to having pipelines transport some of this crude oil as opposed to rail?

Is he aware that there are plans to potentially take some of that oil through a pipeline to join it to the energy east pipeline as opposed to rail? Could he comment on that as well? Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, I am aware that costs in excess of the pooled disaster relief fund would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. It is worth noting the costs that flowed from Lac-Mégantic. The Quebec government has put them at well over $400 million. Other estimates are much higher. I guess it depends on how one accounts for these matters.

It should also be noted that those costs were mitigated by the particular geology of that area, a layer of clay not allowing the oil to seep down causing greater environmental damage than it did. It is in light of those costs that one can anticipate a train derailment in the context of a dense urban area. It is not to be missed that hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil are being transported by rail through dense urban areas. A derailment there would have costs well in excess of those in Lac-Mégantic, and those costs would be environmental and, most tragically, human costs.

There are communities of thousands of people in my city of Toronto within a stone's throw of railway tracks that are transporting thousands of barrels of oil a day in very dangerous railcars.

(1605) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, rail line safety is important to Canadians and it is important to the Liberal Party. There is absolutely no doubt about that. My question is related to the member's colleague who attempted to answer a question of mine. I would like to get clarification because I believe his colleague was wrong in his assessment. The member made reference to the fact that we doubled transportation of crude oil via rail in the last couple of years. Given the future demand, we will see it more than double in the few short years ahead of us.

One of the viable options is to look at pipelines, yet the NDP seems to take the position that we should transport oil via rail. If we listened to the previous NDP speaker, he implied we could not transport it through pipelines because of its explosive nature. Does the member believe his colleague is right, that crude oil cannot be transported through pipelines for that increased production? Is that why the NDP has taken the position of transporting it along our rail lines? Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr.

Speaker, I do not know what my colleague's background is or what his credentials are to pass judgment on the chemical make-up of some of the oil being transported either by rail or through pipelines, but I do know that 72 million of the barrels of oil being transported this year by rail come from Canadian sources. That is 72 million out of 162 million barrels of oil, so 90 million barrels of oil that are not of Canadian origin are being transported by rail in our country. Some of that oil comes from the Bakken oil fields, which is a highly volatile form of oil.

However, I am not in a position to pass judgment on the actual chemical make-up or the challenges of transporting Bakken crude by way of our pipelines. However, I do know that one viable alternative for dealing with this issue is dealing with our dependence on fossil fuels and limiting the amount of fossil fuels on which Canadians depend and rely. Our party has an answer to the global warming and climate change issue of which I am very proud. It comes in the form of my Bill C-619 , the climate change accountability act.

It would reduce the demand of Canadians for fossil fuels and reduce the need to be shipping fuel by either rail or pipeline in any direction across the country. Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville . I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-52,

an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act . Many members of the House have already expressed their sound support for the safe and accountable railway act. Members opposite who have just spoken have said they are in support of the bill, so I will not repeat many of the areas that they have addressed. Principally, the bill deals with base insurance amounts and a pooled fund to deal with disasters and ensures a structure to deal with that. I will turn my attention today to another point of significant importance to all Canadians. That is safe grade crossings.

The safety of grade crossings is a cause championed by the member for Winnipeg South Centre , who herself proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act through her bill, Bill C-627 . She appeared before the committee to emphasize the importance of protecting people and property from unsafe railway operations. Bill C-627 and Bill C-52 have become a coordinated effort to ensure that the Minister of Transport and her officials have the mandate and powers to stop the threat to the safety of persons or property from all rail operations.

It is a fairly significant addition and piece of legislative work that both the member and this particular bill address. As recognized in both these pieces of legislation, the minister must have the legislative authority to develop, administer, and enforce safety regulations of federally regulated railways. However, our government's work goes beyond just the legislation before the House. The week of April 27 was Rail Safety Week, and we saw two important announcements that bracketed the range of rail safety challenges from local to international.

At the beginning of the week, the minister announced $9.7 million in new funding to improve safety at more than 600 grade crossings. At the end of the week, the minister and her United States counterpart announced new tank car standards in a joint United States-Canada plan to phase out rail cars that do not meet the new standards. Of course, they will be phased in, because it takes time to replace these cars. These two announcements target both local concerns—the specific places where people and trains intersect daily—and the overall safety of rail operations in Canada and the United States.

It is easy to see why Canadians are concerned about grade crossings. Canadian cities and towns grew up alongside rail lines and continued to spread around them. As subdivision plans are made and the cities continue to grow, obviously those subdivisions and those buildings will be near rail lines. As a result, we have some 37,000 public, private, and pedestrian railway crossings. Although the number of crossing accidents has fallen dramatically since 1980, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada says the risk of trains and