Debates of Feb. 24th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the exercise of our democracy is one of my concerns.

Clearly, I am very concerned about the percentages, the voter turnout for our elections. The fact that the Conservatives decided to blame Elections Canada for these low turnouts suggests to me that they already have all the answers to the questions they are asking, or else they refuse to see other possible answers. In fact, perhaps it is the way things get done in the House and the way the government acts sometimes that turn people away from politics.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

We are talking about the single most important right in our charter and are dealing with a government that wants suppress everything dealing with that right. The Conservatives were accused of suppressing votes in the last election. They have suppressed debate on the bill by moving closure, and now they want to suppress citizen participation.

We have suggested, and I think most Canadians would agree with us, that wide consultation on the bill, which does dramatic things to our laws that affect our vote, would be the best thing, wide consultation with a number of Canadians across Canada. That will not happen no matter how many days of hearings we have. At hearings in Ottawa, we will not even get to 1% of the 120,000 people who had to be vouched for in the last election. We will not even get one-tenth of 1%, or one-one-hundredth of 1%, of those people to show up, whereas if we went around from community to community, we could actually talk to those people in the course of discussing the bill.

In this country we have made it easier to vote and have enfranchised more and more people at every step of our history. We have gone from people having to own property to now having to own no property to vote. There was a time when voting was by a show of hands. Now it is a secret ballot. Voting was on different days in different ridings. Women did not have the right to vote. There were no advance polls. People who were too poor to have a fixed address could not vote. We fixed that. Certain races, such as Japanese Canadians, could not vote. We fixed that. Aboriginal Canadians could not vote. We fixed that. At every step of the way, we have made it easier to vote. Now we will make it more difficult for at least 120,000 Canadians.

I know, because I have dealt with some of the individuals who have no way of proving their address, absolutely none, despite several of the members opposite suggesting that changes to subsection 143(4) would fix that. There is no change to subsection 143(4). It will have exactly the same words as the Canada Elections Act has today. All that has been removed is the reference to vouching; that is the only thing that has been changed.

The Conservatives suggest that somehow it is some kind of gift to allow a deputy returning officer to amend the regulations to allow someone to vote. It is an absolute and outright falsehood to suggest that. That is not what is happening here. At least 120,000 will not be able to vote in the next election if the bill goes through unamended. I do not believe the Conservatives would allow any such amendment. They are not very gracious with amendments to any of the bills they have brought forward, and I doubt we could find 10 amendments to all of the bills that have come forward and been amended by the opposition.

This is about vote suppression, plain and simple. It is about changing the rules so that certain individuals may find it easier to cheat. We are not suggesting that raising the penalty is not a good thing, but if we cannot catch anyone because they can escape prosecution or being investigated, and do not have to testify, and do not have to give evidence under oath, all of the penalties in the world will not fix the system.

I would urge those opposite to vote in favour of the motion so that Canadians across the country can have their voices heard.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until tomorrow, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, at the expiry of time provided for government orders.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would request that we see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, February 12, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment to Motion No. 6 under ways and means proceedings.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #63

The Budget

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the subamendment defeated.

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

The Environment

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Minister of the Environment and his colleagues.

On page 323 of the latest budget, we find:

...new mining and related processing activity...can be associated with a variety of environmental impacts... and...could have an impact on the goals of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.

I would like to know what impact these activities will have on the goals of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and what the government plans to do to ensure that the goals of the federal strategy are achieved.

My second question concerns the need to create sustainable development policies, which has become a political imperative. Even our colleagues opposite are starting to admit that we have to do something about this.

I would like to quote the Conservative member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who, on January 6, said the following on CBC radio:

We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change. With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we're now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto...

Does the parliamentary secretary agree? Does he believe that climate change causes extreme weather that affects Canadians?

When I questioned the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, he said that nothing similar to Bill C-481 exists. He said that there is no clear requirement that any proposed legislation must undergo a strategic environmental assessment. As for regulatory impact analysis, it applies only to regulations, not bills.

In light of that, can the members opposite tell me if they will support my bill, Bill C-481, which puts environmental sustainability at the heart of the House of Commons' decision-making process?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his questions about Bill C-481.

Our government is committed to enhancing the transparency and accountability of environmental decision-making. The fact is that it is our government that created the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which serves as evidence to this commitment.

That being said, we do not see any reason to support the bill from the member opposite, which is calling for a massive new bureaucracy that would provide no new benefit to taxpayers. Rather than a meaningful enhancement of transparency and accountability, the bill would add a layer of red tape that is redundant and unnecessary in light of the actions that our government is already taking and the effective tools that are already in place.

The entire bill perfectly demonstrates the wasteful policies of the NDP. Rather than finding problems that need solutions, it instead wants to increase the burden on Canadian families through higher taxes by coming up with a solution when there are no problems. In fact, I think everyone should be a little concerned at the growing slate of evidence that the NDP does not have a plan for Canada, other than to increase taxes on hard-working Canadians.

That being said, I would like to take the opportunity now to provide an update on the significant progress being made in implementing the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

In 2010, our government tabled Canada's first federal sustainability development strategy, or FSDS. For the first time, Canadians had a comprehensive picture of actions across government that contribute to environmental sustainability. Since that time, much has happened.

Since 2011, departments and agencies have produced annual departmental sustainable development strategies that are integrated into their core planning and reporting processes and that contribute to the overarching federal strategy.

Our government has also demonstrated its commitment to measurement, monitoring and reporting, by issuing two progress reports with an expanded suite of environmental sustainability indicators.

The 2012 progress report was tabled in Parliament in February 2013. Fulfilling the requirement to update the FSDS every three years, the 2013-16 FSDS was tabled in Parliament in November 2013.

For that reason, we will not support the NDP in its never-ending crusade to find new ways to waste taxpayers' money. Instead, we will continue to enhance the transparency and accountability of environmental decision-making through our current legislation.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has not answered the questions. He did not answer the first one, which was addressed to him or the minister, or the second, and definitely not the third. I will repeat the last one.

When I questioned the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, he said that nothing similar to Bill C-481 exists. He said that there is no clear requirement that any proposed legislation must undergo a strategic environmental assessment. There is therefore no cost, no red tape, no burden for Canadians and no additional taxes.

In light of that, can the members opposite tell me if they will support my bill, Bill C-481, which puts environmental sustainability at the heart of the House of Commons' decision-making process? After all, what good is money if we have no planet?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We will not be supporting that bill. The government already has tools in place to inform decision making in support of sustainable development. These include strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, and regulatory impact analysis.

SEA is used to identify and assess the environmental effects of federal policy, plans, and program proposals, and must explicitly address their effects on the goals and targets of the federal sustainability development strategy. Most regulations of significance require the publication of regulatory impact analysis statements, or RIAS. The RIAS summarizes the results of cost-benefit analysis, outlining the potential positive and negative economic environmental and social impacts on Canadians, businesses, and governments.

All that is to say that our government has the tools in place to ensure transparency and openness when it comes to environmental decision making, and we have implemented it all without creating a massive, new, and redundant bureaucracy, which the NDP would like to do.

Rail Transportation

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 2013, I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report condemning the shortage of inspectors in the transportation of dangerous goods division. In 2009, there was one inspector per 14 tank cars. Now there is one per 4,000 tank cars. The report also pointed out that some trains are over three kilometres long and weigh over 18,000 tonnes. This issue is of vital importance to the riding of Saint-Jean and especially to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, because the MMA line goes right through the downtown.

MMA, for those who do not know, is a repeat offender that logged 272 accidents, including 111 derailments, between 2003 and 2013.

Interestingly, the parliamentary secretary said two things in his answer. He said, first, that the minister had been taking action and, second, that we should let the authorities continue their investigation and that Transport Canada would not hesitate to act on recommendations. Three months later, Canadians want to know exactly what action the minister took.

I would remind the House that, since 2001, it has been a Transport Canada requirement that all railway companies have a safety management system. Unfortunately, the changes that were made to the Railway Safety Act in 2012 and came into effect in May 2013, two months before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, did not prevent the deaths of 47 innocent people. Why? Because all the new requirements in those regulations were voluntary. That is as absurd as asking students to grade themselves.

Thus, it is the culture itself that needs to change, because current thinking—that private companies will put human safety ahead of profitability—simply does not work. At least the Lac-Mégantic tragedy has served to demonstrate that the Conservative philosophy does not work in the real world. The first mission of any government is to physically protect the population, but this Conservative government failed to protect the lives of its citizens.

I would like to come back for a moment to the shortage of inspectors, which is addressed in a report that calls MMA “a ‘bad apple’ that ignored its own directives”. Transport Canada currently has only 35 inspectors in its transportation of dangerous goods division to cover all transportation modes. While the volume of oil transportation by rail has skyrocketed, the Conservative budgets of 2010-11 to 2013-14 have cut the budget for rail safety by 19%. Over the same four years, Transport Canada also shaved its transportation of dangerous goods budget from $14 million to $13 million.

In its throne speech, the government stated that it will require railways to carry additional insurance. That shows the difference between the Conservatives and the NDP. While the Conservatives propose increased compensation for the victims of disasters, we in the NDP want to ensure that such disasters never happen, by introducing controls by independent inspectors, increasing the number of inspectors and making it mandatory to ensure that train cars are safe.

I ask the question again here this evening: exactly what did the minister do to improve the safety of rail transportation of dangerous goods? The truth is, we all know the answer: nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority remains the health and safety of Canadians. That is why we have increased funding for rail safety.

In budget 2009, our government affirmed our commitment to a safe, reliable transportation system by earmarking $72 million, over five years, for rail safety measures. This included dedicated increased funding to ensure a permanent rail inspectorate of over 100 positions nationally.

In fact, Transport Canada spent 65% more on rail safety in 2012-13 than it did in 2006-07, going up from $20.7 million to $34.2 million.

Strong federal railway safety regulations are currently in place to ensure the safety and protection of the public, but we agree that more can be done. That is precisely why our government has already taken many steps to increase rail safety in Canada and will continue to do more.

Recent amendments to the Railway Safety Act came into force on May 1, 2013, and the minister instructed officials in the department to accelerate the development and implementation of regulations stemming from these amendments.

The introduction of these regulations will strengthen the regulatory framework by requiring all companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate, introducing the rapid administration of tougher monetary penalties, reflecting the central importance of safety management systems, and clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport. If regulations are not followed, companies will face the full force of the law.

Following the tragic events in Lac-Mégantic, our government has taken further concrete steps to enhance the safety of rail and the movement of dangerous goods by issuing an emergency directive to all federally regulated railway companies, which impose measures pertaining to the securement of unattended locomotives and the number of crew required for operating a locomotive carrying dangerous goods.

These rules have now been made permanent and have the force of regulation.

The Speech from the Throne also noted two significant regulatory actions we would pursue: first, that shippers and railway companies would be required to carry additional insurance, so they are held accountable; and second, that we would take targeted action to make the transportation of goods safer.

We are taking a similar approach to that of the world-class tanker safety initiative that we developed for marine transportation, focusing on prevention, response, and liability.

Following on this second point, the minister issued a protective direction, on October 17, 2013, requiring all parties who import or transport crude oil to conduct classification testing. They must make those test results available to Transport Canada upon request, update their safety data sheets, and immediately 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 I when shipping by rail.

The minister asked a special working group inside Transport Canada to develop an emergency response assistance plan for these flammable liquids. This group has come back with recommendations that the minister and Transport Canada are reviewing on an expedited basis.

It is vitally important to engage all interested parties, from community representatives to technical experts to industry officials, in order to identify practical ways to further improve rail safety and the safe transportation of dangerous goods.

Our government has continually demonstrated our commitment to the safety of Canadians by, in addition to some of the measures I outlined, implementing every one of the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations arising so far from the investigation at Lac-Mégantic.

Our government's commitment to safe transportation in this country is clear, not just in our words but in our actions.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was not able to explain how the Minister of Transport has been taking so-called targeted action because, obviously, she has not.

The reason why all the amendments to the Railway Safety Act that came into force in May 2013 could not save the lives of 47 innocent Canadians is that they were all based upon self-regulation, and the number of inspectors has not increased in spite of the exponential increase in the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.

So, I ask the question again. What did the minister do to protect the public against the deadly consequences of self-regulation in the private railway industry?