Debates of April 4th, 2014

Infrastructure

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the building Canada plan. That is the building Canada plan.

Once again, the opposition is misleading the House. Canadian municipalities will have access to over 71% of the new fund in the building Canada plan, and that is $53 billion over 10 years. The largest component of the new plan is the gas tax fund. He is not speaking about that. It is 100% dedicated to municipalities.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after denying reality for two months, the minister responsible for infrastructure is finally acknowledging the facts. In the answer he just gave about the building Canada fund, he finally admitted that the fund has been cut by 87%. He is allocating only $210 million for the entire country. What proportion of that $210 million is available for infrastructure needs in Montreal and Quebec? Exactly how much?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the member can make up all the stories he likes, but he is completely mistaken. The infrastructure plan that we just tabled is the longest and biggest in Canadian history.

The gas tax, the GST rebate, the national infrastructure fund, the infrastructure fund projects with the provinces and territories and the part involving public-private partnerships will all help municipalities build infrastructure. The government is investing over $2 billion a year. We did not make cuts to the fund as the member is claiming.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, when rail companies started to run trains with only a single operator, they did so without approval from Transport Canada, because they did not need any approval. Companies make their own rules and simply give Transport Canada a heads-up afterwards.

In the aftermath of Lac-Mégantic, when a train run by a single operator derailed and exploded, killing 47 people, it is obvious to everyone that our rail safety system is broken.

Why will the minister not admit it and fix it?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the member will know that the minister issued a protective direction after the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, which is doing exactly that, ensuring that there are two-person crews for trains carrying transportation of dangerous goods.

Those rules are now permanent. The member should support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is proving that the system did not work.

It is not just New Democrats asking the government to act on rail safety. Rail companies themselves are now saying that if the government does not act now and eliminate the use of the unsafe DOT-111 rail cars, there is no telling when they will be replaced.

The minister appears to be more concerned about the strain it will place on the manufacturers. This is about the safety of families who live near the tracks. Where is the minister's concern for them? When will she act?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we commend CN and CP for taking action on, I think, about 300 of the DOT-111 cars. As for the remaining 90,000 or so that are out there, newer DOT-111s, the member will know, are already being built to higher standards. On the phase-out of the older DOT-111s, we are working not only with stakeholders here in Canada but with our U.S. counterparts to ensure that we have a comprehensive solution.

As the minister has said, some of the long-range timelines that have been floated out there are simply not acceptable. We will find the right solution.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a year before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, Transport Canada gave MMA permission to have a single conductor on board, despite the known dangers. MMA provided documentation regarding how it would manage the risks involved in its plan to cut staff, but the department refuses to make those documents public. Even worse, the department is saying that it never really gave its consent and that MMA simply informed the department of its plans to go with a single conductor.

Will the Minister of Transport accept her share of responsibility for this fiasco?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would seem apparent that the rules were not followed. Rail safety regulations exist to ensure the safety and protection of the public. If these regulations are not followed, we will not hesitate to take whatever course of action is available to us.

We will await the results of the investigation into this tragedy.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, the rail companies said that there are limits to safety. This kind of talk is troubling and unacceptable. The people of Lac-Mégantic deserve better. Conservative and Liberal governments have left the industry to decide everything for itself. They have allowed rail companies to operate with a single conductor and to use DOT-111 cars despite the known risks.

When will the government finally take responsibility and reject the fatalistic rhetoric being used by rail companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member actually was not at the committee yesterday, but let me say what is happening here.

We have not only made these rules permanent with respect to two-man crews for trains carrying dangerous goods. The Conservative government has taken a number of very important actions. We have strengthened information-sharing with respect to municipalities with dangerous goods going through their communities. We continue to hire inspectors on the ground to ensure that the trains and the track and everything that goes on are safe in this country. Currently, the standing committee on transport, at the minister's request, is looking further into whether there are even more actions we can take.

The member and her party should get on board with that.

Democratic Reform

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of State for Democratic Reform know Sheila Fraser? If so, has he read her position on Bill C-23? If so, what does he think about the former auditor general's criticism of the electoral reform?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we are very familiar with Elections Canada's position. There is nothing new there. Elections Canada does not agree with our position. We believe that Canadians should show some ID when they vote. That is reasonable, but Elections Canada disagrees.

We believe that the commissioner who conducts investigations under the elections act should be independent. He disagrees. The reality in a democracy is that from time to time there are going to be officers of Parliament who disagree with parliamentarians.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has used the former auditor general's name in the House 65 times. Now, he pretends not to know her and that he knows nothing about her criticisms.

It is much easier for him to attack elections experts than someone he has blithely used for political purposes.

Sheila Fraser is saying exactly the same thing as Neufeld, Côté, Mayrand, Corbett, and the list goes on. What does the Minister for Democratic Reform think of Ms. Fraser's criticisms?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. Elections Canada just happens to disagree with us on this point. We believe that people should present some form of ID.

Now, it does not have to be photo ID. They can choose from a list of 39 different forms of ID that include everything from a utility bill to an Indian status card to a student card to a letter from a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a student residence. These are all forms of identification that people can use to identify themselves.

Most Canadians think that is very reasonable, and on this point we are just going to disagree with Elections Canada.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, across the country, first nations communities run into serious problems when it comes time to vote. As we heard in committee, it is hard for many members of these communities to obtain the type of ID card that will be required under Bill C-23.

Why is the minister refusing to amend his bill to prevent thousands of Canadians from losing their right to vote?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact that all Canadians can use government-issued ID and photo ID when they vote, there are 39 different alternatives that people can choose from. For example, an Indian status card is acceptable. An attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve is also acceptable.

I think Elections Canada has done a terrible job of informing people of what acceptable forms of ID are, and that is why the fair elections act would require the agency to start to inform people of what they are.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser has said that the unfair elections act will exacerbate problems with money in politics, despite the minister's absurd and contradictory rhetoric about this bill somehow taking big money out. Sheila Fraser said that new fundraising exemptions give advantages to some parties, and Conservatives, of course, get the biggest advantage of all.

Ms. Fraser warned about the potential for abuse of these rules. Why will the minister not listen to her? This is not about vouching. Why is he making election fundraising less accountable and less transparent?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member does not want me to talk about vouching anymore. I think that as time has gone on, the NDP is starting to hear from Canadians who do not agree with their position that voters should show up and cast a ballot without any ID whatsoever. That position is not supported by the Canadian public. The NDP has lost that debate.

On the issue of fundraising, the reality is that in its leadership race the NDP allowed its candidates to exclude all fundraising costs from spending limits. We have a much more narrow exemption in the fair elections act. It is fair, it is reasonable, and we are moving forward.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister truly is delusional. Back in 2004, the Prime Minister said Sheila Fraser's “competence and her courage have shone a bright light on the mismanagement, incompetence and corruption that this Liberal government has been trying to hide for more than a decade”. Almost 10 years later, once again she is shining a bright light on a government gone seriously wrong.

Will the minister acknowledge and accept her critiques of the unfair changes to the act? Will he present a bill that actually promotes democracy, rather than attacking it on multiple fronts?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we have indeed proposed a fair elections act. It does promote democracy. It keeps everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interest groups on the sidelines and putting rule-breakers out of business altogether. It closes loopholes to big money. It prevents fraudulent voting. It creates a new registry to track calls so that we can prevent rogue callers from impersonating political parties' candidates and Elections Canada.

It is a fair, reasonable, common sense bill, and that is why we are moving forward with it.

Rail Transportation

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, except for our railways, every witness—and I repeat, every witness—that appeared before the agricultural committee on the grain transport bill said that amendments are necessary to make service contracts mandatory, to better define what service means, to provide an objective way to measure performance, and to make penalties reciprocal.

Is the government prepared to accept amendments along these lines, or will the power continue to be concentrated in the hands of the railway duopoly?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, the fair rail for grain farmers act is good legislation, and it is decisive legislation to help with the challenges facing the supply management sector.

I would ask the member to support this legislation. He asked about amendments, so let us allow the committee to do its work.

Members of the committee heard from witnesses this week. They have not seen any amendments yet, so let us allow the committee members to review the amendments that are proposed and to do their work.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, it is time that we highlight the problem of the victims forgotten by the Conservatives' agenda and shine a light on this issue.

Will the minister meet next week with the members of aboriginal families who have lost their mothers, wives or daughters to violence in order to hear their poignant stories and calls for justice?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the time for talk is long past. As a government we have made significant investments, including recent investments in the budget to provide renewed funding for the aboriginal justice strategy. Millions of dollars are flowing directly to programs that assist women and girls on reserve. We made it a priority as a government to ensure that matrimonial property rights applied to women on reserve, a measure that was opposed by members of the opposition.

We will continue with community programs and with tougher justice initiatives that hold offenders accountable. This is real action, as opposed to the talk offered by the member opposite.