Debates of Oct. 29th, 2013

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a very discerning question. I would say back to him, just as we have in our democratic process to elect members to this House, there is nothing wrong with an environment whereby the employer and the union are vying for support of the worker during a union certification drive.

If that is the case, then the workers themselves ultimately will have their choice through a secret ballot vote. They will either decide that forming a collective bargaining unit is in their best interests or not, which means the employer is going to have to do everything it needs to do to maintain its workforce and the union is going to do everything it needs to do to convince employees to vote in favour of union certification.

Competition between those two events will only result in the best offer being made to those employees.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to worry. Unions are not afraid of competition when it is done fairly and equitably and when there is truly a balance of power.

The NDP and I agree that this private member's bill, Bill C-525, is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The translation is not working. It is now.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie can start his speech over.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, unions are not afraid of competition when it is done fairly and equitably and when there is truly a balance of power. Unfortunately the government is targeting that balance.

The NDP and I agree that this private member's bill, Bill C-525, is sadly a new way for the Conservatives to trample workers' right to unionize.

I want to point out that this initiative is not an isolated event. It is yet another vicious Conservative attack in their war against the union movement and, as a result, against the middle class.

This government is once again using dubious tactics to advance a completely ideological and backward agenda. As with its previous Bill C-377, which also aimed to weaken unions, the government is trying to make matters worse with Bill C-525.

However, the Conservatives need to remember that the right of association benefits our economy. It helps protect millions of good-quality jobs in Canada and is recognized by both international law and our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Through the decades, union struggles have built stronger communities and allowed domestic demand to flourish because of decent working conditions and better purchasing power. They have also helped to make a place for women in the workforce and to establish pension plans so that people can live in dignity in their golden years.

That brings us back to the latest Conservative affront to the workers of our country. We must not forget that this bill denies employees' legitimate, normal right to form a union after getting more than 50% of their signatures on membership cards. This principle remains important to the NDP and represents the surest and most civil way for people to organize in the workplace.

Bill C-525 not only goes so far as to demand a significant increase in the number of cards that need to be signed to set the process of union certification into motion, but it also flies in the face of all our traditions about the rules for a secret ballot.

In an unprecedented and troubling move, this government will automatically count employees who do not express support for the establishment of a union with those who oppose it. It will become much more difficult for workers to form a union than for a political party to win an election in Canada.

Here is a very specific example. Let us say that people in a workplace of 100 employees want to stand up for their rights and improve their working conditions. Naturally, they look to form an organization, a union, that will do so. The time comes for the vote imposed by our friends opposite. According to their rules, it takes a majority of all the workers, not just a majority of those who get out and vote. This is really pernicious, really perverse.

If 49 of our group of 100 go and vote and they all vote for a union, sorry, that will not be enough. The attempt fails because those who did not vote are deemed to have voted against the union. It is incredible and absurd.

If the employer gives some people the day off on voting day, he completely changes the picture. The icing on the cake is that, when the workers try to abolish the union, those who do not vote are considered to have voted in favour of decertification.

Do we all realize that the dice are loaded in this bill and that it is so flawed that, frankly, it has become offensive?

This new anti-union bill is the last attack of the Conservative government to weaken the labour movement and the capacity of workers to organize themselves in their workplace. To preserve the process where people sign membership cards is the best way to protect workers from the pressures and tactics of some employers. To impose a vote is to open the door to threats and intimidation. The studies are clear. When we take that road, the success to form a union drops. It is a 10% to 20% decrease. It is a huge difference for thousands of workers, men and women, who would not be able to benefit from a union.

What is especially vicious in this bill is when the vote comes, all of those who did not vote are considered to have voted against the union. This is incredible. The best is when they have a vote to kill the union, all those who did not vote are counted as if they have voted in favour of the end of the union. Can we not all see that this is unfair, that it is a biased process against employees?

We have to ask why the Conservatives want to bring in such a system for workers covered by the Canada Labour Code. Every province that has adopted this method has seen adverse effects.

In Ontario, when similar legislation was passed in 1995, the number of accreditation requests dropped by 40%, and the percentage of successful requests fell below 50%. The same thing happened in British Columbia between 1984 and 1992.

Although the Conservatives maintain that they are acting for the good of the economy, and I have my doubts about that, it cannot be said that they are giving much thought to middle-class workers. Once again, the Conservatives have chosen to further business interests at the expense of those of ordinary people.

The Conservatives would have us believe that there will be no impact on the ability of Canadians and Quebeckers to unionize. That is completely false. Either they know this and it suits them just fine, or they have no idea of how things happen in real life, on the ground, at McDonald's and Walmart and the Couche-Tard convenience stores in Quebec.

As proof, if you take even a glancing look at university research on the matter, you can clearly see the negative impact that seems to follow moving from the traditional union accreditation method using membership cards to a secret ballot. Successful unionization attempts fall by 9%, according to researcher Susan Johnson of Wilfrid Laurier University. In this way, we will run the risk of getting closer to an American model, where lower salaries are the norm and the middle class is being eroded.

The member for Wetaskiwin has certainly not read these studies. If he had done so, he would have understood that using the current membership card accreditation method reduces the use of unfair and dishonest practices by the employer. However, perhaps he is familiar with these studies and is quite pleased with them. It is either one or the other.

To put it plainly, with the traditional method involving cards, 50% fewer employers decide to wage an anti-union campaign. This translates into a better work atmosphere and more respectful relationships. Otherwise, we are opening the door to the use of threats, to barely veiled references to potential closures or job losses, the usual scarecrows employers brandish to frighten workers who simply want to stand up for themselves and improve their lot.

The period between the request for certification and the vote seems to be the key moment when chances of success drop significantly. The longer the wait, the more time employers have to intervene and use unfair practices to have a negative influence on employees.

Members in the House right now have to pay attention to that fact, which has been studied and reported on. It is clear that Bill C-525 goes much further than its sponsor would have us believe. We have to ask ourselves what kind of society we want. Do we want a more egalitarian society like the one we have had in Canada for decades, or do we want a less egalitarian society similar to the one in the United States?

It is clear to me that the government has made its choice. Bill C-525, like Bill C-377, clearly reveals the Conservatives' economic strategy centred on poorly paid jobs and workers at the mercy of their employers.

However, I want to say that the NDP has made its choice too. The NDP will keep working for workers, for their rights, for better distribution of wealth and for the dignity of all.

If the government really wants to improve the labour market and families' living conditions, it should strengthen our communities, not try to undo what little progress the middle class has made.

It is sad to see that, after failing to revive the economy, the Conservatives are giving up on creating and maintaining good jobs. Before trying to teach workers a thing or two about democracy, the Conservatives should take some time for a little introspection. People are asking serious questions about their ability to manage the country, about prorogation and about scandals.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am getting the translation now, but I was not getting it and I am most interested in what my colleague has to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

For the remaining minute of his speech, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie could perhaps continue with the last page, for example.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government really wants to improve the labour market and families' living conditions, it should instead protect the rights of workers.

It should strengthen our communities, not try to undo what little progress the middle class has made. However, it is sad to see that, after failing to revive the economy, the Conservatives are giving up on creating and maintaining good jobs.

Before trying to teach workers a thing or two about democracy, the Conservatives should do some soul-searching. Canadians and Quebeckers are asking serious questions about how the Conservatives are running the country, the prorogations of Parliament, the attempts to cover up scandals, robocalls, election expenses and the Senate.

Workers in this country know that they can count on one party, the NDP, to be their voice in Parliament and stand up for their interests.

In 2015, we will bring down this government of privileged and powerful people and install a government that, for the first time, will meet the needs of the people.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

My apologies to all hon. members for some of the audio difficulties we experienced with that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-525, the bill we are debating today, is yet another piece of Conservative anti-labour legislation that will be used to try to turn back the clock on labour relations in our country. My party and I oppose this legislation as it is written.

Today, I want to talk about why this bill is bad labour relations legislation, why it is undemocratic at its core and why it is not needed. It is simply a solution in search of a problem.

The decision by the House to either pass or defeat the bill will come down to whether we believe it upholds the principles inherent in making good labour laws through a legitimate process, a process that is driven by the groups directly affected, employers and unions, through a real consultative and consensus-building process that is based on the principles of balance, fairness and mutual respect.

I remember back to the last bill we had. Almost no Conservative members in the House stood up for those principles in what was another anti-labour Conservative bill, Bill C-377, which was passed in the House earlier this year. It took a small group of Conservative senators, led by Senator Hugh Segal, to stand with all of my Liberal Senate colleagues and oppose the bill in the Senate. In the coming weeks, as we debate Bill C-525, I ask my Conservative colleagues opposite to have the courage to uphold these principles. I ask that they base their decision on what is right, not what they are being told is right by the Prime Minister's Office.

Bill C-525 would impact thousands of employers and approximately 600,000 employers within the federal jurisdiction. That is 600,000 people who have the right to ensure we as politicians respect principles inherent to creating fair and balanced labour relations laws for them and their employers.

We are fortunate that the current federal labour system is well-respected and supported by both unions and employers. Why? Because it is a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Canada Labour Code. There are clear examples of thoughtful, balanced and independent reviews of the Canada Labour Code. The last major consultative review of the Canada Labour Code occurred in 1995 and the subsequent report “Seeking a balance: Canada Labour Code, Part 1, Review” was authored by Andrew Sims.

The Sims report was led by a three person panel of highly regarded neutrals. It involved seven months of research and consultation.

In that report, Mr. Sims outlined the guiding principles that served the review, including that the existing Canada Labour Code basically continued to serve its constituencies well, that stability was desirable and that pendulum-like changes to the Code did not serve the best interests of the parties or the public and that consensus between the parties was the best basis for advocating legislative change.

Basically, Mr. Sims said that if labour laws were to be changed, they should be changed because there was a demonstrated need because the legislation was no longer working or serving the public interest or it should be done on a consensual basis.

I ask the House whether it believes Bill C-525 meets these criteria or is based on those principles that employers and unions currently respect and agree upon.

The Sims report went on to talk about the dangers of politicizing labour laws. I think that is what we are seeing here. I quote from the Sims report:

Throughout our deliberations, we heard both labour and management comment on the need for stability in our labour legislation. Both sides were reacting to what they view as excessive experimentation in the labour law reforms of a number of provinces.... Some would push the pendulum one way, some the other. However, the concern identified by both sides is that the pendulum should not be pushed too far or too frequently. To do so destroys the predictability and underlying credibility upon which an effective...system depends.

The Sims report was a true consultative review of the Labour Code. Can anyone in this House say that the process we are following, which would make a significant change to the code, is either thoughtful or balanced and based on the wishes of the people affected?

For labour legislation to be effective, it must be driven and implemented by the stakeholders, including employers, unions, and the government, through a real consultative process, not by private member's bills that are based solely on political motives.

The question has to be asked: Who do we think is driving the bill? I have talked to labour groups, such as the CLC, and employer groups, such as FETCO, and I can tell the House that it is neither of those groups. They are both saying that the way to make changes to the Labour Code is through consultation and consensus.

Who is driving the bill if it is not the two direct parties involved in this, the two parties whose lives will be changed? Obviously it is those people who care little about what employers and unions in the federal sector want. If my Conservative friends will not listen to me, I hope they will listen to the people who are directly affected by this legislation.

Make no mistake, Bill C-525 makes a substantive change to federal labour laws. It fundamentally changes the rights of workers in how they can unionize, replacing a card check system with a mandatory vote system. However, it is not the standard vote system used by a number of provinces, where a union needs only 50% plus one. Instead, it is a grossly undemocratic process that would count anyone who did not vote as voting no. What democratic principle is that based on?

Their true intentions could not be further from the hollow words they have expressed. Let us be frank. The bill is about one thing and one thing only: discouraging unionization in this country, plain and simple.

Bill C-525 would change the rules for forming and dissolving a union from a majority process to a minority-driven process, making certifying a union more difficult while making decertifying a union easier.

The past decades have witnessed much progress in striking a balance between unions and employers. One of the main reasons is that improvements to labour law, in particular, the Canada Labour Code, have been done within the framework of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-525 looks to bypass that established process that requires adequate consultation and support of the parties.

Bill C-525 is not wanted by unions or employers in the federal sector. The only ones who want this are my counterparts across the way.

The carefully struck balance in the Labour Code ought not to be taken for granted. There is simply no need to alter what is working well. I challenge the government, I challenge my colleagues across the way, to have the courage to stand up for consensus, balance, and fairness and to vote against the bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today about the member for Wetaskiwin's private member's bill, the employees' voting rights act. This bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally-regulated workplaces, to ensure that all individuals have access to secret ballot voting. I commend my hon. colleague for raising and pursuing this issue.

Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society and all employees should have the right to vote on whether they wish to form a union or not. Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, while ensuring a fair and productive workplace environment for businesses to maximize Canada's economic potential. One of these rights is, again, to join or not join a union and participate, or not, in the collective bargaining process.

In Canada, including provincial and federal jurisdictions, about 30% of the workforce is unionized. This includes occupations like transportation workers, manufacturers, miners, electricians and workers in other construction trades. It also includes professionals, such as engineers, nurses and employees in federal, provincial and municipal public administrations, schools and hospitals. All in all, there are about 4 million unionized workers in over 100 different unions.

Some workers are of the view that unions help them to negotiate collective agreements with their employers, protecting them against what they feel are arbitrary changes in work rules, discrimination, unfair treatment and unequal pay for similar work. Obviously, others are flat out opposed to unionization. What both of these groups of workers have in common is that they do have the right and the freedom to choose to be, or not be, part of a union. This bill is designed to extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about forming or decertifying a union.

Currently, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of employees sign membership cards, they can automatically be certified as a union. When the level of employee support is insufficient for automatic certification but meets a minimum threshold, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, the labour board conducts a vote to determine employee support for a union. If the majority of employees casting ballots supports a union in this vote, the union can be certified.

For example, under our current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign the union membership card, the remaining 9 individuals may not be asked to sign and may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they could automatically be unionized. This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the opportunity to express their wishes.

The bill proposes to eliminate automatic certification and use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify a union in all cases. This will make votes no longer the exception, but the rule for certifying or decertifying unions. The employees' voting rights act would ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express themselves by a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify.

We have heard a lot about employers and intimidation and the unions and intimidation, but what no one has talked about, and what was my own individual experience. It was a good workplace that had been in operation for many years. The situation was changing in terms of reorganization and there was a debate going on. There were people who felt very strongly. It was a small group of about 25 employees. It had nothing to do with the employer or any kind of intimidation. It had to do with the employee wanting the ability to have a secret ballot so that not all the members, colleagues and co-workers, who felt strongly on one side or the other of the issue, would know how he or she voted. What we have lost in this debate today is the simple ability for workers to exercise their votes in secrecy, like we do every day in every election in Canada.

Our Conservative government supports the right of every employee to a secret ballot.

It would provide every employee with the ability to voice his or her opinion and would allow time to fully consider his or her decision before voting for or against the union. That is why we support the intent behind Bill C-525 and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

That said, there are areas of the bill that we believe could be amended, and we would like to hear from and consult with our stakeholders, both employer and union, in committee. The House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill. It will consult with stakeholders and carefully consider their input and views.

We support the intent of Bill C-525. It must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers, and I am confident that the bill could do just that.

I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support this bill at second reading and defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee had access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. Again, I ask members to look back to the example of the small, tight-knit workplace. Workers had a difficult decision because of changing circumstances, and they wanted to exercise that right with privacy, even from their colleagues, in terms of what decision they made.

The legislation would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.

With any legislation, of course, it is important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take them into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of the House committee would carefully consider the principles behind the bill and would examine the unique perspectives of employees, unions, and employer groups that would provide needed perspective on the bill.

Again, I congratulate and thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I would like to encourage hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading. We can have a great discussion.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-525.

It makes me reflect on my own background. I started my working life in the retail sector, working for a very large employer in a non-unionized workplace. As a young person, I did not really know the difference. I was glad to get some money for the work that I did. However, then I applied for and I was successful in getting a job in another workplace. It was another Canadian employer but this one had a pre-existing union.

My salary increased substantially when I went to work for the second employer. I suddenly had all kinds of health benefits and extended benefits that I did not know were possible. I also had a grievance procedure, which meant that if there were problems in the workplace that could not be resolved, there was a mechanism to address these problems without having to go as a sole individual employee to the employer. Instead I would have some guidance and assistance through my workplace representative.

When I first began to work in this second job, the employer, as usually happens, told me about the workplace and the advantages of working in this workplace, and I was very happy to be there. It was only later that I found out that it was people who had come before me who had gotten together to form a union and who had negotiated in successive collective agreements to improve the wages, the working conditions and the benefits of that workplace through many hard-won gains over a great many years. I discovered that it was not just the generosity of the employer that made that a great place to work, it was in fact the work of other employees who were there and people who had come before us who had made that a great place to work. They had negotiated a standard of living that allowed people to earn decent wages and benefits right across the country for that employer. I was very proud to be a member of that union and to work to improve the standard of living and the benefits for those who would come after me.

With this private member's bill, the hon. member opposite would bring the weight of the law down on the side of the employer. The bill would take that collective bargaining scale and further tip it toward the advantage of the employer, making any improvements in the workplace so much more difficult for the working people and making it that much more difficult for them even to get a union.

The member, in presenting his bill, talked about democracy. Yet, he sees no contradiction that this would in fact disenfranchise so many working people in the federal jurisdiction across this country. I find it absolutely shocking that he would stand there and talk about democracy when he would erode and undermine the democratic rights of so many working people in the federal jurisdiction.

Let me explain. What the bill ultimately would do is change fundamentally the voting process, so that when working people are deciding whether to join a union or to cease to belong to a union, the votes that are counted would be all of those in this group of workers, even those who choose not to participate in the vote. In other words, if they do not vote, their vote would always be counted against the union. In other words, it would be a process of heads the employer wins, and tails the workers lose.

It would be weighted disproportionately in favour of employers, and that would make it almost impossible for working people to form a union or to keep a union where there is a decertification vote.

As my colleague has just said, Bill C-525 sets the bar so high for workers to join a union that the sponsor of the bill, who won in his own riding by over 80% of the vote in the last election, could not get elected under these rules for union certification. In fact, not a single member of the governing party would be elected under these same rules.

It is clearly hypocritical. It is clearly unfair. It is clearly designed to undermine the ability of working people to decide to have a collective voice to negotiate on their behalf and to represent them in the workplace.

The member opposite has been asked who he consulted with in presenting the bill, which would fundamentally and radically change the system of labour relations in this country. Who did he consult with? He could name no one. Yet, clearly this is a bill that the government seems to have thrown its full weight behind.

It is not surprising that there has been a lack of consultation. That has been the hallmark of the government. It has also been its hallmark to try to impose its radical changes on Canadians, whether it is omnibus budget implementation bills or it is bringing in closure in the House. The government has just introduced the fourth of its mega-bills into the House, which throws everything in but the kitchen sink and changes a massive number of laws all in one fell swoop without adequate consultation, and it has also stifled democratic debate on a record number of occasions.

The government's desire with this private member's bill is in fact to stifle democratic debate and democratic participation in our federal jurisdiction workplaces. It does seem to go hand in hand with its standard procedure.

Ultimately what the government would like to do is see a decline in union representation, federally, in this country. I think what Canadians will very quickly see is that, as we have seen in the United States, this will be an attack on middle-class living standards in this country. Working people will earn less, have fewer rights in the workplace and have less democratic input into the place where they spend most of their lives, which is the workplace. It will undermine the middle-class standard of living and it will increase inequality.

It does not have to be that way. We can look at some of the most productive, most competitive countries in the world. Look at some of the Scandinavian countries, countries like the Netherlands or Germany, the powerhouse of Europe. They have incredibly high levels of union representation. What that means is that employers and employees sit down together and negotiate. Everyone wants the workplace to do well, wants the company to succeed, and wants working people to have their fair share. That is what union representation is about.

I see my time is up. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity. I say shame on the government if it pursues this anti-union, anti-worker, anti-middle class agenda. We will not stand for it on this side of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Rail Transportation

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Transport some days back. The issue was with the growing concern with rail disasters and the failure of the government to assert its powers to intervene and prevent these incidents. There is great concern that there has been, reportedly, a 3000% increase in dangerous rail traffic. The minister responded by saying the health and safety of Canadians was a top priority and then cited a statement by the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsing the actions taken by the government.

It is important to clarify that, as I understand it, the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities did thank the minister for suggesting that it would require increased insurance in the case of disasters. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has called for preventive action, to prevent further incidents, not simply action after the fact. It has called for three specific measures: equipping and supporting municipal first responders to rail emergencies; ensuring federal and industry policy and regulations address rail safety; and preventing the downloading of rail safety and emergency response costs to local taxpayers. In fairness, the federation did say it looked forward to working with the Minister of Transport to deliver concrete reforms, which it is still awaiting.

What deeply troubles Canadians is, sadly, that the response by the government to tragedies such as in Lac-Mégantic and additional rail disasters is seriously inadequate. The situation in Canada is that the federal government has unilateral jurisdiction over rail and, therefore, Canadians wait for it to take action. They cannot turn to their provincial jurisdictions. The focus has been only after the effect instead of on prevention, such as measures to deal with insurance after the fact if there is a serious incident.

What communities are calling for is preventive action. The rail workers are calling for an end to railway self-regulation. They want the government to assert its power to regulate dangerous shipping, prevent loss of life and prevent damage to the environment.

I would like to raise several recent major incidents. At Wabamun Lake in Alberta in 2005, a CN derailment spilled 700,000 cubic meters of bunker C oil and a large portion of pole treating oil into Wabamun Lake. The important recreational lake was closed to swimming, boating and fishing for an entire year. It was the largest spill into fresh water in North American history. There was an absolutely abject response by the federal government to that. It did not show up until a week later to assist the first nations whose lands were badly damaged.

The Cheakamus River disaster, a few days later in British Columbia, spilled 40,000 litres of sodium hydroxide, killing the fishery that had just recovered. In my own riding, tanker cars of hazardous chemicals come through into the heart of the community daily. Now I have heard recently about dangers of a CN burned-out bridge in Slave Lake.

When can we expect the government to take preventive action, assert its regulatory powers and actually protect Canadian communities and our environment?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken concrete actions to enhance the safety of the Canadian rail system, making it one of the safest in the world. Transport Canada must constantly review incidents with the view of enhancing safety.

That is why the work of the Transportation Safety Board is so important. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the Gainford incident, for example, and the department will not hesitate to take appropriate safety actions regarding any identified safety deficiency brought forward to the department.

In 2007 our government conducted a full review of the Railway Safety Act. The independent review panel made recommendations to improve rail safety after national consultations with key stakeholders. Transport Canada agreed with all of those recommendations and has been taking action to address them.

Our government amended the Railway Safety Act to further improve safety by providing new authorities for improved oversight and enforcement.

One of the amendments requires railways to get a safety-based railway operating certificate before they begin operations. Another amendment allows us to implement administrative monetary penalties as a new tool for dealing with companies that do not meet safety requirements.

The tragedy at Lac-Mégantic and the derailment in Gainford highlighted the importance of continuing to work together to keep such incidents from happening. This government has made further concrete efforts to enhance the safety of rail and the movement of dangerous goods.

On July 23, Transport Canada issued an emergency directive to railways companies, requiring, first, that two operators be present at all times for trains carrying dangerous goods; second, that no trains transporting dangerous goods be left unattended; third, that all cabins be locked; fourth, that all reversers be removed from locomotives; and fifth, that all brakes be properly applied on all locomotives.

The department also issued a ministerial order obligating railway companies to develop rules to comply with these requirements permanently.

In the aftermath of these events, the minister has also spoken with many groups to determine how they could strengthen railway safety standards. Transport Canada will continue to co-operate and work with industry and communities to identify further measures to improve safety for all Canadians. The approach has been warmly accepted and has been lauded by such groups as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

To emphasize the importance of transportation safety, the Speech from the Throne noted two important actions: first, that shippers and railway companies would be required to carry additional insurance, so they are held accountable; second, that Transport Canada would take targeted action to make the transportation of dangerous goods safer.

On this second point, the department issued a protective direction in October requiring parties who import or offer for transport crude oil must retest the classification of crude oil if that classification test has not been conducted since July 7, 2013. They must also make those test results available to Transport Canada as well as update their safety data sheets and provide them to Transport Canada's Canadian Transport Emergency Centre. Finally, until such testing is completed, they must also ship all crude oil as class 3 flammable liquid packing group 1 when shipping by rail.

In short, we are continuing to take action to improve Canada's rail safety system. Since the 2007 review of the Railway Safety Act, train accidents have actually decreased.

The department's continued actions will continue to reduce the risk of accidents, enhance competitiveness of our nation's railways, and increase the public safety of Canadians.

Transport Canada remains dedicated to keeping Canada's transportation system safe and secure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to reiterate again: we appreciate that the government has taken some actions, but regrettably, it is by and large after the fact.

More than half a dozen measures that the Transportation Safety Board directed should occur two decades back have still not occurred. I do not have time to list all of them, but I encourage the government to go back and look at the many reports of the Transportation Safety Board done after the fact.

Canadian communities are calling for the government to use its regulatory powers. Why regulatory powers and not emergency orders? That is because regulations require that there actually be consultation with the communities that are impacted.

What Canadians, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, are calling for is that the government actually assert its regulatory powers, consult with the municipalities, and come forward with a concerted regulatory agenda to avoid these serious accidents in the future.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that a strong preventative safety program is one built around compliance with appropriate regulations. That is why our government has taken concrete measures to enhance the safety of rail and the transportation of dangerous goods: so that accidents such as the one in Gainford and the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic are not repeated.

After Lac-Mégantic, our government issued an emergency directive to immediately enhance the safety of rail transportation, followed by a ministerial order requiring industry to develop rules to make those measures permanent. The department issued a protective direction requiring a person who imports crude oil or offers it for transport to retest the classification of their crude oil prior to transport.

We are working closely with industry, first responders, and communities to identify additional measures to enhance the safety of rail transportation and the transportation of dangerous goods.

It should also be noted that since the comprehensive Railway Safety Act review in 2007, we have taken decisive action to reduce the possibility of accidents and derailments in the rail industry. In fact, since that review there has been a marked decline in rail accidents, which is a result of our commitment to improving rail safety.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:18 p.m.)