Bev Shipley

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the great member to the north of me in the riding of Huron—Bruce.

It is always a joy to speak in this House on important issues, particularly at this point in time when this Conservative government has just presented economic action plan 2015.

What are budgets? Budgets, whether they are business, government, or personal ones, need to look back a little bit to assess what has worked, what has not worked, what the business plan is. Then it moves forward with an analysis of what one has, what the requirements are for the business, or in this case, the government, and then what is needed for the present.

Since 2006, we have had the incredible leadership of the Prime Minister, as well as the finance ministers. The new Minister of Finance just presented his first budget. They not only have the intuition of what is coming and what is needed, but more importantly, how we should move forward so that as a country and a government we can continue on the path we have been on.

In 2006, after we were elected to government, we presented a budget. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, this Conservative government focused on how to continue to pay down the debt, which we did by almost $40 billion over those first three budgets. We did that with the initiative of lowering taxes.

Then in 2008, we saw as a government something coming that did not look good. It was not just happening in Canada. It was an international recession. It struck in 2008 and stayed for 2009. In 2010 this country was coming out of it. I might add that Canada was the only country in the industrialized world that was basically coming out of it.

We made an agreement in 2008, because what was happening was a worldwide recession. I do not want to overestimate or underestimate the significance of that event. I know in the 1990s when the Liberals were in power, there was a blip in the economy. I believe they manufactured this huge issue about how bad it was for Canada. However, this one was not; this recession was actually global. It reached deep into the pockets of everyone, every industry, every family, every business, and every government. It was the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Quite honestly, there was a lot of good discussion here in this House. It was agreed by the parties that we needed to do something to help stimulate the economy, and we did.

We put forward one of the largest stimulus packages in Canadian history. There were guidelines that our government put in place that it would be temporary, for two years. We actually wanted to see what was going to happen at the end of that time. We had implemented a lower tax, giving people and businesses back the money that they needed to help stimulate the economy. We came out of that better than just about any country in the world.

We now have budget 2015, and it is called Canada's economic action plan, as the budget was called in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010. Why? Our government has the true belief that we should build a plan around economic growth. Canada's economic action plan is the reason we now have the lowest tax rate for individuals in this country in 50 years. It is why the tax rate is the lowest that it has been for our industry, businesses and small businesses.

We are here to rebuild our country and we have done it, but we are not done. That is why we look to the future when we are building a budget. This plan looks not just at the present, but it has a vision for the future of how we are going to build and help continue to create jobs, on top of the 1.2 million net new jobs that have been created by businesses in this country. We have created the environment for that. Governments do not create jobs that create much economic growth; it is businesses and individuals that do that.

I come from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. All members will say their riding is the greatest, which is a proud statement we should all make. My riding is very much comprised of small businesses and agriculture. When we looked at the significance of leaving money in taxpayers' pockets, we did what our people and small businesses wanted, and that was to give them an opportunity to grow and hire people. Let us look at what we have done.

Let me start with families, because they are the foundation of every country. Families are the foundation of my riding, but it would not matter if I lived in a rural riding as I do or in one of the urban ridings. The foundation of this country is families, and those families run small businesses or people work for small businesses.

I am a father of three children. I am a grandfather, and I am proud to say that by July I should have 10 grandchildren. I am a little behind my colleague, who announced yesterday that he has 32 grandchildren.

However, with a focus on the significance of what families do for this country, we should leave money in their pockets and as a government only take from people what we need to provide the services. We should run this country like a business. Although governments are not businesses, we should run them like a business with the same principles. When we do that, we look to families and think of what we can do to help keep them remain solid and leave money in their pockets.

We have done a number of things, particularly with our tax cuts over the years, which have lowered taxes for families by $3,400 since we were elected in 2006. On top of that, we have just added universal child care benefits and programs for children six and under, up to $160 a month, with benefits for children six to 17. We also thought about what we can do on income splitting for parents. Also, one of the greatest assets for many families is the tax-free savings account, and I am sure I will get some questions about that.

In conclusion, we made a promise to balance the budget, which we did. We made a promise to maintain a strong and stable economy. We promised to create jobs. We promised to cut taxes. I am proud to stand here today, because not only did we say it, but we also did it. Budget 2015 is a budget for hard-working, responsible Canadians, and we will make sure they receive what they deserve.

[Petitions, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one that has come forward a number of times also. It goes back to when the CBC revealed that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so that expecting parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy of the unborn child if it is a girl. It is condemned here by all national political parties. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians disagree with it. Millions of girls have been lost through this pregnancy termination, and many who were not have gone into prostitution.

Therefore, the petitioners ask that Parliament condemn the practice of sex-selective pregnancy termination.

[Petitions, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The petitioners deem the impaired driving laws to be too lenient. They want to see tougher laws and the implementation of a new mandatory minimum sentence for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. My colleague has just talked about his experience with people he knew. This is similar in that the petitioners ask that the Criminal Code of Canada be changed to redefine the offence of “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular manslaughter”.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North who is here every day challenging, which is great because he has brought up a very good point.

In terms of the investment in infrastructure, as members know, we have made a significant investment to the primary line 1 rail systems. The other part, as in my area, is in the short lines.

We have introduced the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. Part of that will help in some parts of my area, because it is a smaller community. My largest populated urban area is 14,000. Therefore, when I talk about small communities, we now have dollars that are available for municipalities that would actually take over some of the short lines if they come. Now they have those funds to help upgrade and maybe procure those short lines.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is the case regardless of where we live. In my riding, which is quite a rural riding with small towns, the lights will go on, the warning signals go down and a constant line of oil cars will go by. A number of years ago, that was not the case, but we are in a new time.

The proposed safe and accountable rail act addresses just the things the member has brought forward in a couple of ways. Issues were raised back in 2007 about the Railway Safety Act. The bill would make improvements based on those suggestions. As well, there were the comments of the Auditor General in his report of 2013 and also the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation that came from the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

We have taken very enthusiastic steps forward to help with the prevention of rail accidents and protection of our communities, as well as some unforseen costs because of an accident with which they may be caught.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and speak in this great place. Today it is regarding Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act.

The bill would fulfill its title, in part, by strengthening the authorities of the Minister of Transport and the rail inspectors of Transport Canada in their efforts to maintain and improve the rail safety regime of Canada's rail transportation system. This is especially vital in the transportation of dangerous goods, including crude oil.

Canada has a good rail system. Some would argue that it is among the best in the world, both in terms of safety and in its ability to deliver transportation services that enable shippers to compete in a global economy. Under the current safety regime, 99.997% of dangerous goods transported by rail arrive safely. That is quite an impressive statistic, but we also know that we can never rest while there are still means available to increase that number even further.

Hon. members may recall that in May 2013, the Safer Railways Act introduced new safety provisions. It strengthened Transport Canada's oversight and enforcement capacity by giving it the authority to make regulations and by requiring all railways to meet regulatory requirements to obtain a safety-based Railway Operating Certificate. Transport Canada's enforcement powers were also strengthened at that time with the implementation of administrative monetary penalties. Existing judicial penalties were also increased.

Now, with the safe and accountable rail act before us, we go further. We would respond to issues raised by the 2007 review of the Railway Safety Act, the 2013 report of the Auditor General, and the recent report of the Transportation Safety Board on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Each has called attention to the need for Transport Canada to strengthen its oversight regime for rail.

The bill before us would provide the Minister of Transport and the railway inspectors with more oversight of railway safety and the ability to act when they believe that action is required to address threats to safety.

Bill C-52 would amend subsection 47.1(1) to enable information-sharing regulations that would require railways, for example, to prepare a summary of any risk assessment they have conducted. The summary would also include the mitigation measures identified and the plan to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation plan itself.

Under future regulations, this summary would be shared with parties affected by any significant change to railway operations. In other words, local municipalities would be informed of changes to operations that would have an effect on safety in their communities. That was just addressed a few minutes ago.

Section 37 of the Railway Safety Act would be amended to permit the sharing of information related to safety. Detailed information on a risk assessment, for example, would be required to be provided to the minister under the terms of the Canada Transportation Act.

The bill would also require railway companies to comply with engineering standards, and failure to comply with these standards would then mean that they broke the law.

Under section 31, railway inspectors would be given broadened authority to issue notices and orders where there was a threat or an immediate threat to safety. Under the current regulatory regime, Transport Canada inspectors are limited in how they require railways to address safety concerns. The bill would broaden that authority so that in the case of an immediate threat, the inspector would have the power to order any appropriate corrective measures to be taken.

The Minister of Transport would be given new powers and authorities under this bill. When she believed that there was a particular threat to safety, she could order a company, road authority, or municipality to take corrective action, stop any action, follow any procedure, or suspend operation. This would give the Minister of Transport a powerful tool to oversee the safety of Canada's rail transportation system. Bill C-52 would also extend this new oversight authority to the safety management systems created by the railways.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the safety management systems, or the SMS. They do not represent an abdication of the government's responsibility to regulate and monitor railway safety by passing it off to the railways themselves. Rather, the SMS create an additional level of safety management to how the railways actually operate. An SMS includes, for example, safety goals and performance targets along with risk assessments.

In addition to following existing rules and regulations, the railways needs to identify hazards and mitigate risks to prevent accidents, often learning from minor incidents and trend analysis on day-to-day operations.

Transport Canada has created regulatory requirements around safety management systems, and oversees a railway's compliance to the SMS regulations. The department assesses the SMS documents developed by the railways and conducts periodic inspections and audits.

The role of safety management systems in all modes of transportation was studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but in the meantime, our government has taken steps to increase the regulatory enforcement of an SMS in rail and has given the minister authority to apply it in an effort to promote a safer railway systems.

Under the bill before us, if the minister believes the manner in which the railway is implementing its safety management system in fact compromises safety, the Minister of Transport can use a ministerial order to direct a company to take specific necessary actions. In this way, the SMS truly becomes another level of safety prevention, adding to the measures already in place to ensure safe and secure transportation.

Another component of the changes to the Railway Safety Act gives new authorities to the Canada Transportation Agency. A new section 23 of the act would permit a province or municipality to apply to the Canada Transportation Agency to recoup costs it must pay as a result of putting out fires believed to be caused by railway operations. Previously, these costs were paid for by the province, the municipality and taxpayers.

The Canada Transportation Agency would then determine whether, in its view, the fire was indeed caused by a company's railway operations. Sometimes those are very difficult to determine on rolling stock. It would determine whether the fire was indeed caused by a company's railway operations, what the costs were and would require the railway to reimburse the provinces or municipality for those costs.

There are many ways in which the safe and accountable rail act would give new force to the regulatory authorities and promote the safety and security of our rail system. We are taking the transportation system and making it better.

Clearly, this is a significant endeavour that will improve rail safety and its protection. Therefore, supporting Bill C-52 is a reasonable and sensible thing to do.

[International Trade, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation, and our Conservative government's ambitious trade agenda is helping small businesses and the economy prosper in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and across Canada.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to host the Minister of International Trade at two round tables, which focused on small businesses and the opportunity to host a global workshop to further promote local growth on an international level. For example, I am pleased to say that Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden of Strathroy—Caradoc and her team have one of the first designated, investment-ready, certified sites, the largest so far in Ontario. It is ready to attract new business, taking advantage of Canada's stable bank system and low taxes.

Trade agreements such as CETA encourage prosperity and growth in agriculture, manufacturing, and all industries. Our government's unprecedented support for small businesses is recognized as the opportunity for them to reach their full potential.

[Taxation, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is tax season, and I would like to take a moment to read just one of the many emails I have been receiving from middle-income constituents about our family tax cut plan. It reads:

I would like to write and express my appreciation and support to the income splitting reforms. I am a father of 3 young children and my wife is able to stay at home and raise our children, partially due to [your] government friendly family support such as income splitting.

You and the conservative party of Canada can be assured [like many others] that you have me and my wife's votes this coming election.

I have to like that part.

The opposition is committed to taking those important tax savings out of the pockets of my constituents. That is outrageous, but I am committed to not letting that happen. When it comes to protecting hard-working ordinary middle-income families, my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex get it. They know only the Conservative Party will stand up for them.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition acknowledges that current impaired driving laws are too lenient. Petitioners are looking for the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentences and want the Criminal Code to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions. The first petition calls on the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination and to support Motion No. 408, which condemns sex selection.