Dan Albas

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Duopoly.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and his work on the transport committee. It is a lot of responsibility to be a chair and I certainly would not be the person to do it.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding with opposition members. They keep asking process questions and then argue that there should be results. We hear from some members that this is going too fast and then we hear from other members that this is not happening fast enough. This is a complex problem. We have a case where there is a de facto duopoly, hundreds of small industries, agricultural-based and mining-based workers, and the government has fundamentally addressed it with this legislation.

I would like him to again reinforce the fact that the whole reason for this bill being here is to build certainty and allow Canadian goods to be shipped across this country, to use the ports we have put billions of dollars into, and to see good things happen here in Canada.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Minister of Transport's efforts on this. Obviously this has been an encompassing process from 2006 to today.

I am a little lost for words. We hear some NDP members saying that this is going too fast and we need to slow down, while other members of the NDP are asking what is taking us so long. From my perspective, as a government we have supported infrastructure. My own province of British Columbia has the Asia-Pacific gateway. Obviously, some needs have been expressed by the industry over the years to have access.

Would the minister repeat the economic reasons for seeing this bill go forward so industry can have that sense of certainty and see our economy grow?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech in regard to this much-needed legislation. In fact, this is something that is of concern in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, and was particularly so during the last election, when I was door-knocking. There was a tragic case of three children being murdered by their father in the city of Merritt, and this is still a very difficult issue for my riding.

The parliamentary secretary has certainly done a lot of work in supporting victims' rights, particularly with the victim surcharge. We have doubled that. Many opposition members chose to vote against that important legislation, but what I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary is not so much about victims' rights at this time.

We want to empower victims so they have more information, but we also want to empower the judiciary to be able to put forward high-risk designations. That allows for a check in an area that many victims have raised as a gap in the system.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's comments on empowering the courts and also on helping victims to be protected through this legislation.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada is a trading nation. In Canada, we have shipping companies and exporters.

One of the things that has been brought up is the question of whether international rules or standards can be used through incorporation through reference. Obviously, the answer from the speech we heard is that yes, it can. In this case, it will actually help to open up new markets for Canada's exporters.

I would like to hear, again with the highest of standards, the member's thoughts on how important it is to have a set of rules that everyone can compete by and work by safely.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a few members who have spoken tonight obviously believe in the independence of the Bank of Canada, and that is a great thing. The member for Timmins—James Bay has actually said publicly that part of the NDP policy would be to interrupt that independence. I am glad to hear we have NDP members who disagree with that. Many economists believe that neutrality is very important and fundamental to the Bank of Canada.

Specific to what the member has said, sovereignty is always Canada's. We debate here in the House and we pass laws. Those laws then go to the delegated authority, whether it be a minister's office or whatnot. Regulations are created and those regulations are then put in the Gazette. The Gazette calls for open consultation. The whole process is there. Everything is lawful and has the scrutiny of Parliament. In fact, a committee is in charge of that. I would suggest the member become familiar with that.

We hear time and time again that NDP members will support the legislation but they might want to have amendments. Every member I have asked tonight has declined to point to one area where they would put forward an amendment. We know the official languages component is there. We know there is due process and we are not giving up sovereignty.

I would ask the member to bring up one amendment that he thinks needs to be brought into this bill at justice committee.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, getting order is always an important part of House business.

The hon. member for Welland brought up the topic of rolling up the rim and rolling up red carpets and whatnot. I would just like to remind the NDP members that they should really be rolling up their sleeves and working in the House for Canadians.

I have a part comment, part question, and I will try to put it as succinctly as I can. The member said, and other members have stressed this as well, that 170 different statutes have gone through the House that somehow are not lawful. He says that there are cases where incorporation by reference has not been used properly. That is not true.

Each one of these bills has gone through our process here. As parliamentarians, if there are any mistakes that have gone through, it has been under our supervision.

I would simply invite the member to take a look at what is being presented, a codified way, recommended by the scrutiny of regulations committee. I would like to hear if the member actually has an amendment he would like to carry forward. There is continual discussion about the need for amendments. I would like to hear what that amendment would be.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with all this discussion about rolling up the rims or carpets, it seems like the NDP—

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member across the aisle for his speech. I would like just to go through a few points in it.

He did mention some of the changes that happened to Bill C-38 to amalgamate 41 different agencies into 3. Obviously, there were some changes there, and so I think some answers need to be forthcoming.

For example, he said the minister would be able to delegate authority to certain processes that had not been yet named. That is simply because we work with our provincial partners that have equivalency or may want to substitute certain environmental processes to ensure it gets done on a timely basis. Whoever has the most expertise, I think, should be in charge of that process, whether it be the federal government or the province. That is to be worked out.

However, if we look at labour and environmental health and safety, we work with the provinces all the time, and so when we harmonize these things, it would be better for business, better for Canadians—one set of rules.

Again, I have heard multiple references to amendments. People have said that we say we welcome amendments. I say we do.

However, here is the problem. The member for Kings—Hants, in Bill C-45, put 300 amendments forward, each one like 101 bottles of beer on the wall, such as asking for one day to be changed as to when the bill would then take effect.

I would like to hear from the member one amendment that is—

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a fellow British Columbian talking about something that is very important to her nad supporting the bill. I am very happy to hear that the NDP is supportive of it in broad strokes and I am sure the committee will go through it.

I just want to reassure the member that the Government of Canada has very strict provisions for introducing all federal regulations in both English and French. That is backed up by case law. I can reassure her on that front.

The other part she talked about was delegated authority, and I think she misunderstands what that is. A delegated authority is created when Parliament says that the Governor in Council shall be able to make changes from time to time. That authority is delegated to that body in order to make timely changes. That again is why regulations are presented from time to time, and they go through a full gazetting process, which is again open to public consultation. There is also the scrutiny of regulations committee, which allows parliamentary oversight. There are many different mechanisms for the hon. member to make her views known if a particular regulation does not match up with a statute in law.

The hon. member spoke about how important it is for amendments to be open and for those to be presented. Can she name one specific amendment to the bill that she thinks would make it better?