Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, the speech was for him a while ago because he began it before question period began. I want to pause to say how very nice it is to see all of us friends gathered together even if only by Zoom.

I was taken by the hon. member’s comments on the impacts of the Spanish flu and how long those impacts stayed with society. On a personal point, my namesake, Elizabeth Evans Stephens, was a victim of the Spanish flu and I can say that the intergenerational impacts of losing a young mother not only affected by grandmother, but my mother. This is a pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen for generations, and its effects will be intergenerational.

My very strong support for the hon. member’s speech is to his points on the banking industry, with its extraordinary levels of profits, over $30 billion in profits through the pandemic, and yet this very industry is leaning on small business. In my area, Wilson’s bus lines is at risk of going under because the government programs that are on offer do not really meet their needs. Bus companies and other companies across Canada are at risk because these banks that have been raking in profits and have had government help seem to think they are not Canadian. They do not think they are part of our national effort to save businesses and jobs.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on what the government should be doing to ensure that the banks do not push good, essential companies like Wilson’s bus lines into bankruptcy.

Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby)
2021-01-25 15:53 [p.3430]

Mr. Speaker, this is what is inconceivable to me. There was $750 billion given in liquidity support to the Canadian banking industry without any conditions whatsoever. We saw credit unions stepping up and lowering their interest rates to zero. We saw credit unions stepping up and providing in some cases what was required around suspending the payment of mortgages and not imposing penalties. The banking industry did not have any conditions at all imposed, and the result has been windfall profits of $30 billion and real pressure on businesses like Wilson’s and others across the country.
We need to take the best practices of other countries. Other countries said that if they were providing supports, there were going to be conditions. The Canadian government stepped up within days of the pandemic hitting, and its first thought was to help the banking industry. Three-quarters of $1 trillion later, the banking industry is reaping massive profits and so many Canadians and small businesses are struggling.

Of course, with COVID, we know that the implications and the consequences will last for more than a decade. For lower-income families, the reality is the fall economic statement talks about cutbacks starting in the next fiscal year. There will be dramatic cutbacks over the next 13 months. We need the government to rethink its approach and we are willing to work with it—

The post The government must save essential ground transportation companies from bankruptcy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[k6zzehvNd7U]

“VIA Rail’s latest filings reveal that it is in big trouble,” said Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North). “VIA Rail announced service cuts a year ago and tooted about how ridership and revenues would be boosted, but VIA’s plan has gone off the rails. Its annual report shows operating expenses up and ridership down. There are fewer trains…and they are emptier and later. Clearly, VIA intends to abandon Canada, except for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.”

The report noted the main problems for passenger rail in Canada include:

• Lack of a federal vision, national strategy, legislation, and funding (contrasted with Australia and the US)
• Resistance by CN and CP to prioritizing passenger rail on existing lines
• VIA Board of Directors reticence to a truly national passenger rail network

“I raised my concerns with the deteriorating state of VIA rail in January,” said May. “I am grateful that Bruce Hyer has commissioned this in-depth report. Canada’s passenger rail system is in crisis and those of us who care about it need to speak out.”

“One or two MPs alone cannot win the battle to restore passenger rail in Canada,” said Transport Action’s Greg Gormick, co-author of the report. “Hyer’s initiative must be accompanied by a public campaign to reinvigorate VIA rail and passenger train travel in Canada. This report provides a clear analysis of the failures of successive governments to support passenger rail, and lays out a clear plan to reinvigorate train transportation in this country. Equally important, it requires political will and renewed national commitment in the form of a federal strategy for passenger rail.”

The post Independent Report: Canadian Passenger Rail Coming Off Track appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[nS4PQoBNcbg]

It is unfair and it is not just the member for York Centre. There is a continual effort to beat up on one member of the House who was very active in the ACTRA community before being elected. I just feel it is egregious.

John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question per se, but within any tax system, there are provisions that allow and provide a road map for taxpayers to pay their taxes, in specific instances, within economic action plan 2013. The member mentioned McCarthy Tétrault as one example of a company that provides advice to its clients. Every auditing firm and legal firm across the county does, similarly, in helping their clients to meet their tax obligations in a fair and legal way.

The post Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013 (Bill S-17) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[4tKhmXmIaw4]

I am well aware that we are here tonight to debate Bill S-17 and that it deals with tax treaties. I have not heard a single member of this place suggest that they do not want to vote for it. I find it strange that on a treaty and a bill of no consequence, which everyone supports, we have time for debate and we have committee hearings, but on something that threatens the sovereignty of Canada, such as the Canada-China investment treaty, we have neither had hearings nor adequate time for debate.

Would my hon. friend from Souris—Moose Mountain like to join me in urging that we still have time for debate before that treaty is ratified?

Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the member that soon we will be off on summer break so time will be short.

To say that this treaty is of no consequence surely must mean the member has not read the legislation or has not listened to business, because business is quite clear. It wants this agreement. It wants to know what the rules of investment are. Billions of dollars are transferred that create jobs and long-term prosperity in both countries. Therefore, it is important that we deal with the legislation here today and that members are given the opportunity to debate this.

If we had said that members do not have the opportunity to debate this particular tax treaty, I cannot imagine what the member might have said. Perhaps, “We must have the time to debate it.” We have provided the time to debate it and the member talks about something else.

I know there are a lot of other issues and a lot of other pieces of legislation. However, today we are dealing with this legislation. If the member wants to debate she should debate this legislation, not something else.

So far what I have heard from the opposition is a debate on all kinds of other issues that may be of some significance but nothing to do with the tax treaties. If you want time to debate, when time to debate is given, debate the issues before you and not something else.

The post Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013 (Bill S-17) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Recently the railway industry in our country picked four pillars as its priorities going forward. One of those is sustainability, particularly with respect to reduced greenhouse gases and the fact that shipping goods by rail is much better for climate action than shipping by transport trailer and truck. I wonder if the hon. member has any thoughts on what opportunities we have missed in this piece of legislation to also recognize the greenhouse gas benefits of shipping goods by rail.

Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, one of the government’s reactions to comments about the pricing portion of the bill was to suggest that shippers have another alternative. Many of them, but not all of them, have trucks as an alternative. Well, trucks consume considerably more fossil fuel and have a larger environmental footprint. As a result, we should be encouraging the use of rail rather than discouraging it through inaction on the part of the government.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

With all respect to the hon. parliamentary secretary, I suggest to him that his three tiers are not enough. We have to have airport security as a priority and border security as a priority.

When the unions that represent border service agents say they think smugglers will get the upper hand, Canadians should be worried.

When the RCMP officers are pulled from our airports for austerity reasons, I think we should all be concerned. It is a small amount of prudence for a large amount of benefit.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP as the police of jurisdiction will continue a police presence at the Kelowna and Victoria airports with routine patrols and in response to 911 emergency calls for service. I assure the member that the RCMP is well equipped, well trained and well positioned to continue to carry out this essential function. We will support our national police force in so doing.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As well, the RCMP presence was withdrawn from Kelowna. Although Kelowna is in quite a spectacularly beautiful part of Canada, in the Okanagan, it happens to be, according to security experts with whom I have consulted, something of a thoroughfare for the smuggling of drugs and weapons. It is in an area where there are significant markets in northern Alberta and, without the RCMP detachment at the Kelowna airport, there is a concern that there will be an increase in drug dealing and other offences.

This comes at the same time as significant cutbacks in border security agents. According to the union representing the border guards, the Canada Border Services Agency has had cuts of up to 1,000 people. A lot of us saw the news coverage of the loss of the canine division, which was very efficient, effective and accurate at detecting the presence of illicit drugs and narcotics and so forth at borders. We have lost the canine division, we have lost the workforce of Canada Border Services agents who worked with that canine force, and we are losing security along the Canada–U.S. border at the same time that these cutbacks at the RCMP have lost us protection in our airports.

I have to say that I find this rather baffling, coming from an administration that has fashioned itself as being tough on crime and as being one that wants to protect Canada and Canadians from the threats of violent crime and the threats of illegal and illicit activity. This is in fact not just affecting particularly the Canada Border Services agents, not just affecting so-called backroom arrangements, agents and operations, but actually will affect the front-line operations of border security agents in such a way that the president of the union feels that smugglers will get the upper hand.

It really would be appropriate for the federal government to revisit these ill-advised cuts and to restore and replace the presence of RCMP officers in the class 2 airports, such as in Victoria and in Kelowna, and at the same time to revisit the cutting of border security agents. These are ill-conceived cuts that will cause far more damage through the loss of security than they can possibly gain in austerity.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for providing me with the opportunity to respond to some of her concerns. Like other police services across Canada, the RCMP in British Columbia provides on-site policing at airports. Airport security in Canada is designated into three tiers across the country.

Tier 1 includes larger airports with policing detachments such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and similar other larger centres. The policing detachment in each tier 1 airport is provided by the police of the jurisdiction in that municipality where the airport is located.

Tier 2 airports are located in medium-sized municipalities that include cities like Kelowna or Victoria.

Tier 3 airports are located in small communities across Canada and do not have dedicated police presence as part of their security measures.

Security assessment of all airports is a continuous effort of Transport Canada.

The funding for airport security measures is paid directly by Transport Canada to the airport authorities and the municipality.

The RCMP provision of policing services under contract is conducted through co-operation with the municipality and the chief operating officer in each airport.

Total security operations for each airport include various measures, for example, perimeter fencing, employee security passes and controlled access zones. Budget allocations by Transport Canada are based on the assessment to determine the risks and need for security at each airport.

In 2012, Transport Canada estimated that existing security measures as a whole at tier 2 airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, other than dedicated police officers and detachments, were sufficient to ensure public safety at these airports.

We have confidence in Transport Canada’s assessment that the overall security package at Canadian airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, provide maximum security and safety measures for all Canadians. Let me assure the House that the policing presence at Kelowna and Victoria airports is ongoing through routine patrols and by responding to all emergency 911 calls for service.

With that being said, I thank the member for her query and I now anticipate her follow-up.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The really stunning aspect of the announcement was that the media largely fell for it – as though something serious was being announced.  The event that went unreported at the time, that one of the emergency response vessels for tanker spills, scheduled to be part of the press conference backdrop, ran aground on its way.  It is the perfect metaphor for a large non-event.

The March 2012 budget had actually included almost everything re-announced a year later in March 2013.  It included pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations.  Not only was the announcement duplicated in the 2012 budget the new measures were repeatedly cited as though they were part of the budget omnibus bill C-38.  Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38.  It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013.  I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only new aspect of the announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents.  As the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship  — crude oil – it is certainly worthwhile finding out how bitumen and diluents will behave.

At the Vancouver press conference, Oliver and Lebel trumpeted that they had tabled for First Reading  the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act.  I sought it out to read it.  Its introduction for First Reading had been splashless. Once again, I was underwhelmed.  The bill is merely a series of housekeeping measures. The “safeguarding skies” piece deals with aviation and aeronautics, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities.  There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component.  Then there are the amendments related to “seas.”  The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act.  The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea.   So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year.  None were allowed in North American waters.

Do double hulls eliminate the risk of oil spills?  Not actually.  Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers.  Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.  Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world.  Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

In fact, the 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast.  That was a federal-provincial moratorium.  Most readers will not notice the subtlety of the website reference to the “federal moratorium.”   Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway. Underway is defined as a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.”  And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers.   In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82.  None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Reality check on Transport Canada’s claims for tanker safety appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On February 26th, 2013, the committee heard testimony from Ted McDormand, an international law professor from the University of Victoria about his expertise on international law of the sea. The committee also heard evidence from representatives the Governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.  The delegates from the territories discussed the importance to northerners of Canada becoming chairperson of the Arctic Council in May 2013 as well as the impact of development on Arctic Canada.  The impact of climate change, increasing shipping traffic and the overall development of infrastructure and resource development were issues discussed by all representatives from the territories.

On February 28th, 2013, the committee heard testimony from witnesses from the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on icebreaking, search and rescue capabilities environmental disaster response capabilities and climate change adaptability of the Coast Guard and in the North.  A witness from Prolog Canada Inc. provided testimony on transportation in the north and demonstrated to the committee that while there is development in the north, a lack of infrastructure and transportation is hindering development.

The post Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would like to ask my friend from Newton—North Delta if she does not agree. The committee might not be able to get at it because it exceeds the scope of the bill. However, this legislation could be used to leverage and push for more of a national transportation strategy that would take into account the need to move goods and people efficiently by rail.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.