Debates of May 1st, 2014

Democratic Reform

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that I posed a question to the government regarding the manner in which it had verbally assaulted Canada's Chief Electoral Officer.

I find it most interesting. It was not that long ago, maybe an hour or so, that I was in the procedure and house affairs committee, where I was being forced to vote. I was being forced to vote because the government had put in time allocation at 5 o'clock. All debates and discussions related to Canada's election law had come to an end because the government did not want to hear any more. Clause by clause, every clause came to a vote.

I say that because we have gone through a terrible process in changing our election laws. The Conservative government has made the decision to change the way in which our elections will operate, and it took it upon itself to make those changes without any consultation. It did not work with opposition parties. It is the only political party that supported Bill C-23 coming into second reading, and it used its majority to change the election laws.

When I sat on the committee and listened to the many different presenters who came before the committee, one of the most compelling presenters we heard from was the Chief Electoral Officer. He is the individual who is responsible for conducting Canada's elections. Elections Canada is held in high esteem around the world because Canada, generally speaking, is perceived as a country that has assigned a great deal of value to democracy. That independent organization, which is responsible for the administration of our elections, made a presentation. The Chief Electoral Officer came to the committee and expressed the concerns he had regarding what the government wanted to do with our election laws.

He was very clear that the government had missed the boat in many different ways. The most significant way, which I would like to highlight, is that the government did not recognize the need to compel a witness. It was not prepared to allow Elections Canada or the Commissioner of Elections to be able to compel a witness when they believe an election law has been broken, in order to investigate a matter. This is something that other elections agencies at the provincial level in Canada already have. Many of them have it. Elections Canada wanted to be able to do likewise. Why? I believe it is because of the last federal election.

In the last federal election, there were tens of thousands of Canadians who made contact, directly or indirectly, with Elections Canada, talking about problems. They ranged from cheating, to overspending, to robocalls, to the in-and-out scandal. There was a lot. The government's official response, which came from the minister responsible, was a verbal assault on Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer.

My follow-up question for the minister is this. Can he explain the reasons for the verbal assault on the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand in this House to speak to the fair elections act, which I did at the procedure committee for several weeks, and in the media, to make sure that Canadians understand the modernization and reform we are bringing to our elections law. The polls last week seemed to show that Canadians agree with our modernization of elections administration.

I will address the questions and commentary from my colleague from Winnipeg North. First, he said about his own experience at the procedure and House affairs committee that the government did not want to hear and that he did not feel that the government was listening to him. I would remind him that there were almost 30 hours of witnesses. Almost 60 or 70 witnesses appeared at the procedure and House affairs committee to give their perspectives on the fair elections act.

Members in this place spoke in questions and in debate, as well as in discussions in the media, which means that there was a lot of discussion. Our government made 14 substantive amendments to a bill that was already focused on modernizing our antiquated elections law. That word “antiquated” comes from Harry Neufeld himself.

The hon. member suggested that the government acted alone or took charge of an issue that seemingly did not need to be addressed. He certainly has not been following elections law in Canada. In 2011, the results in Etobicoke Centre led to a result being overturned and ultimately to a challenge at the Supreme Court of Canada, where issues related to election administration, the training of officials, and vouching showed that our system needed profound modernization.

Elections Canada asked Harry Neufeld, the former B.C. chief electoral officer, to do a report. He had both an interim report and a final report. The bill is also built on a 2007 Elections Canada report on voter participation and issues related to groups that are under-represented on election day.

I would suggest to the hon. member that this bill did not come out of thin air. In fact, it came out of a profound need to modernize and make our system far more effective and less prone to irregularities, because each election, we have between five and 15 results in the 200 to 500 vote range. Mr. Neufeld's report showed that our old way of doing things had as many as 500 errors per riding.

In a G7 country, it is unacceptable to have an antiquated system, so we have updated it. It is our position, and it has been clear throughout, and Canadians agree, that one must show some form of identification before one votes at the poll. Canadians understand it. It is reasonable, and our amendment has addressed the concerns about some of the 39 forms not having addresses.

It is a great bill. The amendments have made it even stronger, and our government is proud to move our elections forward with it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the bill did not come out of thin air. The bill came out of the Prime Minister's Office. No matter what the member has to say, at the end of the day, the only individuals who were supporting the original bill were the Conservative members of that caucus, possibly, and definitely the members of the Prime Minister's Office.

There was no support going into committee for this bill from any credible source outside of the Conservative caucus. That is the reality. Yes, some amendments have been brought forward. However, one of the fundamental flaws of the legislation is with respect to compelling witnesses and the Prime Minister's Office not recognizing the importance of Elections Canada being able to compel witnesses. That is a fundamental flaw, and that amendment did not happen.

It was not appropriate for the government to launch a verbal attack against Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. Does he not recognize that an apology is needed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few moments. I am not sure how to respond, because most of those were general statements.

It is clear that members of the opposition, both in the Liberal Party and the NDP, have not even done the basic level of research on the bill or on the Neufeld report. I saw, and Canadians saw, this at the procedure and House affairs committee.

I would suggest they read pages 23 to 27, where Neufeld said that this antiquated system needed modernization. He warned the government that we lived in a great parliamentary democracy, so there was a complacency with respect to the system. A lot of people will feel that we do not need to fix it, even when court decisions show it is profoundly broken. He warned us that there would be resistance.

What I find deeply troubling is that the NDP and the Liberals allowed this process to be part of their partisan efforts to work with activist groups against really fixing a system.

We now have a bill that is quite strong and will give us the modern system we need.

Employment Insurance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, I raised a question to the Minister of Employment and Social Development concerning the destructive impact the Conservative attack on rural and regional unemployed was having on Prince Edward Island.

The question I asked was direct and it was specific:

—government policy should enhance job growth and improve income. However, in the P.E.I. seasonal economy EI is having the opposite impact. Take a farmer's seasonal employee for example, who is needed only a day and a half a week at this time of year and paid $16 an hour. After deductions and the EI clawback of 50¢ on every dollar, the employee is left with less than $6 an hour. The employee is poorer and the farmer has trouble attracting employees. It is starting an underground economy. Will the minister stop inflicting this economic hardship and reconsider the policy?

Rather than respond to the concerns that were raised, concerns which come from my constituents and Islanders generally, the minister actually told the House that employment insurance contributed to neither economic growth or to higher standards of living.

That kind of arrogance would be unbelievable, but indeed that was the response I received from a minister of the Conservative government. EI does contribute to the economic growth in many of the rural communities on Prince Edward Island, throughout Atlantic Canada and indeed across the whole of Canada.

Those receiving EI benefits do not transfer that money to offshore accounts. They spend that money on food, utility bills, and children's clothing, and retailers benefit from their business.

The question remains, how does the minister respond to the reality that the clawback provisions that he and his government have instituted actually take money directly out of the pockets of those finding work while on employment insurance claims. That is what is happening. It is taking money directly out of the pockets of the seasonally employed.

The example I have stated is not an academic exercise. Workers throughout the region are having their monies clawed back, leaving them in serious financial difficulty. They are skilled seasonal workers who are important to our seasonal businesses and our seasonal economy.

The government's response to set up two EI regions within Prince Edward Island has hurt those seasonal workers even more seriously.

In total, the government's decision on just the clawback alone takes $2.4 million out of the pockets of seasonal workers this year, and about a little over $3 million next year. That is the estimate. That is the impact on the total economy, and the impact on workers is very serious.

Therefore, my question remains, is the government prepared to eliminate the clawback provisions in order to ensure that not only are those seeking work but those seeking available local workers can achieve their goals?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the claim made recently in the House by the hon. member for Malpeque. He stated that the changes made last year to the employment insurance program were making people poorer in Prince Edward Island. Nothing could be further from truth. I would ask that he stop making false accusations that are misleading and scaring the people of Prince Edward Island. In fact, the recent changes to employment insurance announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are actually increasing the amount of EI for rural islanders. I would call on the member opposite to join our party in support of these EI measures that support the rural parts of his province.

The broader changes we have made have made the program more flexible, more fair, and more responsive to the employment needs of people collecting EI. We did not change the eligibility requirements for EI. The rules for applying for and qualifying for employment insurance remain the same.

The changes simply ensure that claimants are given clear guidelines on the kind of work they need to consider when receiving EI benefits. In fact, we are supporting unemployed workers with information, jobs, and various measures to help them get back to work more quickly in their local area.

Our ultimate goal is to make it easier for job seekers and employers to find each other and connect, to make sure people have an opportunity to take jobs that are available in their region. This is why we introduced the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative a year ago. Through this initiative, we introduced several new measures to provide employment insurance claimants with additional support. For example, the enhancement of the job alert system includes more timely and more relevant job postings and information about the job market in the claimant's local area.

The changes we made to EI also clarified the responsibility of claimants to look for work while receiving benefits. As long as workers meet all the regular requirements, including the requirement to seek employment, they will receive their benefits. It is that simple.

None of these changes is making people poorer. It is absolutely false to make those comments. Instead of trying to mislead the people of Prince Edward Island with baseless claims, I ask the hon. colleague to please stick to the facts.

For example, fewer than 1% of the people who were disqualified from EI since the changes were made over a year ago became ineligible because they failed to look for a job or refused to accept suitable work.

What is important to remember is that EI benefits will continue to be there for all Canadians, including people living in areas where jobs simply do not exist outside of seasonal and specialized industries.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that a member from Atlantic Canada would stand in this place and give that kind of a response. It is unbelievable. He failed to answer the question on clawback. The clawback is where one works while on claim and the government claws back 50¢ on the dollar. It creates a disincentive to work. It leaves businesses short of workers. It jeopardizes workers coming back into the workforce for next year's seasonal economy.

The member talked about numbers. The pilot project destruction by the Government of Canada cost the economy $11 million. This clawback is costing the economy $3 million next year and the changes made will only add $1 million. It is a net loss to islanders. It is a net loss to seasonal workers.

Why is the government attacking seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

There you have it, Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between our party and the Liberal Party. Atlantic Canadian Conservative members of Parliament want to build an Atlantic Canadian economy around jobs and growth. The Liberal Party wants to build an Atlantic Canadian economy that revolves around employment insurance.

We want to make sure that we fund jobs, opportunity, and growth. That is why we are funding things like the Irving Shipyard deal in Halifax. That is why we are supporting the Muskrat Falls development. That is why we support the west-east pipeline. That creates jobs. We are focused on making sure we have employment in Atlantic Canada or the jobs of the future for Atlantic Canadians to participate in.

The Liberals are focused on trying to build up a system that people will rely on in the future based on and revolving around EI. We believe in jobs and growth. They believe in dependency.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, in my question of Friday, April 4, 2014, I noted that the decision to run trains with only one operator was made not by the minister but by the rail companies themselves, and their decision was merely rubber-stamped by the minister. Of course, we know the result: 47 dead in Lac-Mégantic and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

My suggestion to the minister was that the system was broken and needed fixing. The answer I got was that a protective direction was issued. The system remains the same, but a new regulation is in place prohibiting railroads from doing what they did before Lac-Mégantic.

A closer examination of the system reveals other flaws, which leads us to believe that the railway safety system itself is in need of a fix. The system now is to avoid regulation and day-to-day inspections and instead allow each railroad to develop its own safety management system, which is then audited for compliance by Transport Canada.

The Auditor General, in a scathing report this year, noted that Transport Canada failed to conduct 74% of the planned audits of safety management systems. Whether that was due to budget cuts or staffing issues is unclear. What is clear is that the system is not working.

The CBC uncovered evidence that railroads are failing to report hundreds of derailments. They uncovered 1,800 over the last few years and another hundred this past year. No charges have been laid for this deception. A system that brags about how few derailments there are while hiding the truth from the public and the legislators is broken and needs fixing.

The Lac-Mégantic derailment involved railcars that were mislabelled as having contents less volatile than what was actually being transported. In fact, the labels were changed when the load crossed the border. No charges have been laid for this deception. The fact that a railroad can get away with that with impunity means the system is broken and needs fixing.

In 1989, DOT-111 railcars were involved in a collision and fire in Cherry Valley, Illinois. One of the conclusions of the investigation of that accident was that the DOT-111 cars were not safe for the transportation of dangerous goods. Twenty-five years later, the federal government has acted, in part. It removed 5,000 cars at the end of May, but the remainder, some 65,000 or so, will continue to be used for three years. A system that identifies a problem but takes 28 years to take action is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.

The Transportation Safety Board testified that DOT-111 cars are subject to rupture, leading to environmental spills and possible fires, at speeds as low as 20 miles an hour. However, the government will continue to allow these cars to be run at 50 miles an hour or 40 miles an hour in built-up areas for the next three years. How is it that cars that are subject to rupture and fire can still run at such high speed? Again, the system permits it. It is broken and needs to be fixed.

The Transportation Safety Board has reported on many derailments over the past few years. In cases stretching back at least 10 years, the TSB has recommended that Canada implement a form of electronic fail-safe, commonly called positive train control. The U.S. is moving forward with such a system. This government has ignored this recommendation each and every time. If there were recommendations involving aircraft safety, they would be implemented, but not for railways. A system in which the government can ignore safety recommendations of the duly appointed investigators is broken and needs to be fixed.

In conclusion, Canadians need to trust that federally regulated railroads are being run past their homes, schools, and day cares in a safe manner. Recent events and disclosures suggest that the public question their ability to trust the safety of the system.

The government is responsible. The government needs to act to fix the system and restore public trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to safety and security for Canadians.

In fact, just last week the Minister of Transport directed her department to take immediate action to improve rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. These actions were to specifically address the Transportation Safety Board recommendations related to the tragic incident at Lac-Mégantic.

The minister directed Transport Canada to remove the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from service; second, to require DOT-111 tank cars that do not meet the standard published in January 2014 in the Canada Gazette, part 1, or any other future standard, to be phased out within three years; third, to require emergency response assistance plans for even a single tank car carrying crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and ethanol; fourth, to create a task force that brings municipalities, first responders, railways, and shippers together to strengthen emergency response capacity across the country; and fifth, to require railway companies to reduce the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods and implement other key operating practices.

These are strong measures that will enhance rail safety in Canada. In fact, Wendy Tadros, chair of the Transportation Safety Board, said, “I am encouraged by the Minister of Transport's strong response to the Board's recommendations”.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was also supportive of these announcements. Its president, Claude Dauphin, stated, “The new safety measures announced today respond directly to our call for concrete action and are another major step forward in improving the safety of Canada's railways and the communities around them”.

Even the NDP's transport critic on the issue of phase-out of DOT-111 said that the three-year period is the best thing that can be done.

Furthermore, following the tragic events in Lac-Mégantic, our government quickly took action by implementing several initiatives, including introducing more prescriptive rules to increase railway safety.

The rules require a minimum of two crew members when operating a freight train carrying dangerous goods, and also require that unattended locomotives be secured, that reversers be removed, and that an employee confirm how the equipment has been secured before leaving it at any location. The rules also require railway companies to include their process for testing the effectiveness of handbrakes, in their special instructions.

These actions not only demonstrate our government's commitment to improve railway safety and the transportation of dangerous goods by rail, but they will also considerably further strengthen Canada's regulation and oversight of rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.

While we have made important improvements to the safety of our railway system in recent months, our government will continue taking concrete steps to further strengthen co-operation with stakeholders and redouble our efforts to enhance the safety and efficiency of the railway transportation system for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I do recognize that the minister has in fact acted, my question was not about whether or not the minister has acted in reaction to events, but whether or not the system as it exists is not broken. I still maintain my conclusion that the system as it exists, where in fact we have to wait until 47 people die before we take action, is a system that Canadians cannot trust.

As we discovered again yesterday, another incident involving the DOT-111s took place in Lynchburg, Virginia, where a river was on fire with oil from the DOT-111 cars that crashed in a city in the U.S. It is only a matter of time before it happens again in Canada.

Three years is too long. If these cars must be used, they must be slowed down to a speed that is appropriate for the safety of those vehicles, and 40 miles an hour is way too fast. We learned today that in parts of Manitoba, trains go at five miles an hour in reaction to the safety concerns of the communities they go through.

The system is not working. It needs to be fixed.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, never mind the illogic for all the brokenness, I have just spent four minutes talking about fixes.

I want to take this moment to raise something with the House about the fact that the Minister of Transport recently worked with the member opposite to hold an information event with Transport Canada officials.

I am sorry to report to the House that instead of taking rail safety seriously, the NDP member for York South—Weston, and an audience stacked with NDP activists, turned that information session with non-partisan public officials into a disappointing partisan political charade precipitated by a partisan tirade by the member opposite.

I will tell members that our public servants, who are non-partisan and independent, deserve far better treatment than what they were subjected to by the member of Parliament opposite.

As a result of his shenanigans, the Minister of Transport will no longer subject public servants to that kind of abuse and embarrassment from the NDP on any issues, especially those as sensitive as rail safety.

We are going to continue to take that issue seriously. I wish the member would—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:43 p.m.)