Jeff Watson

[National Day of the Midwife Act, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for this motion.

I am a father of six children, five biological children. My wife was proud to deliver five children with midwives present. In fact, for our fourth child, because we were moving between Windsor to Victoria and then on to Ottawa, all in the span of a week, we had midwives in Windsor, on Salt Spring Island, and in Ottawa, where our son was ultimately born during that transition, all with expert care.

I want to commend the member for pointing out, first, that midwives are professionals. They are trained professionals. They have been delivering woman-centred care for centuries, for millenniums, long before there were ever health care systems, and it is about time that they had recognition.

I want to signal to the member that I will be supporting the bill, and I commend her for it.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I recall that when the sergeant-at-arms and other members of our security were put in front of this House, every single member stood on their feet and supported them. That includes members on this side of the House. We absolutely respect and honour what they achieved on October 22 in our defence.

If we remove the emotion from this and begin to look at the facts of that particular day, it was a single gunman with a single action rifle. It was not multiple gunmen with automatic weapons, not a coordinated effort with multiple gunmen inside and outside the precinct, and it was not some sort of organization with nefarious objectives that was running a sophisticated operation against what goes on here.

If it had been multiple gunmen who were better armed and showed sophisticated signs of planning and executing an operation, the result may have been different that day. It is imperative that there is an agency in place that would potentially have to liaise with the military or interface with intelligence agencies.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, I dare say it is not the Speaker of the House who does that. However, we do know that the RCMP is prepared to do something like that. Can the member address that particular point?

[Canada Post, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer letters than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive home delivery. Canada Post must balance its finances without imposing a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and we would expect nothing less.

[Rail Transportation, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to assessing the budgets of the government, I have often heard New Democrats say in this House that rail safety is a priority. Then they turn around and say, “Well, other things were more important, and that is why we are against your budgets.”

It is a question of priorities for this government. We have put significant resources into improving rail safety in this country. We are on a hiring blitz for more inspectors and more auditors to address the concerns that the Auditor General has raised.

If he says it is a priority, I wish the member opposite would synchronize his stated priority with the fact that the budgets of the government authorize the funds to increase rail safety. At the next go-round when the budget is tabled, if there are funds for that, I encourage him to support it.

[Rail Transportation, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I beg the great indulgence of my colleague. We had an adjournment proceeding a couple of nights ago in which I gave prepared remarks because I thought the risk assessment question was to be asked at that particular proceeding. I gave a detailed response, so I point the member back to that response. However, he asked a separate question, the one I thought he was asking today, so I would like do two things.

First of all, I want to respond to one aspect of what he said today, and that is about what the TSB said in its report. In fact, it reported that the cause of the accident in Lac-Mégantic was that an employee did not follow the established rules—which have the force of regulations, once approved by the minister—with respect to the application of hand brakes, and more importantly, with respect to testing their effectiveness. Those rules were not followed, and that is why the Sûreté du Québec proceeded with an investigation and laid charges as a result. A criminal court proceeding is now under way. That should be clear for the record.

I do owe the member some pertinent information or response with respect to the question he asked Tuesday. He did have some discussion with respect to the Transport Canada budget.

With respect to the budgets that the government has passed in this House without the support of the opposition, I would remind the member that over $100 million was for investments in the rail safety framework. That all came as a consequence of the rail safety review that had been initiated by this government and the report that had been received by the government pointing out the need to put in place additional measures in the rail safety framework.

With respect to the estimates, which list the requests for and the timing of spending year over year, obviously there are fluctuations. What the member referred to as “cuts” fall into two categories.

One category is savings. There are grant-based or application-based programs for rail grade crossing improvements, for example. There are other measures such as the airport capital assistance program in the air sector. If people are not applying for the money, the money does not get spent, even though it may have been allocated or prepared to have been spent. That is not a cut in aviation or rail safety; it is simply money that was not spent in a particular year, which is an important distinction.

The other thing that was referred to mistakenly as cuts are shifts.

First of all, there are certain responsibilities that were moved to other departments, and the funding followed those responsibilities. For example, in the case of environmental assessments, some of those responsibilities in the department were moved to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, along with the funding. That is not a cut. It may not have been spent by Transport Canada, but it may have spent elsewhere in the government.

Second, there were shifts of funds from back-office operations to the front line. There were legitimate cuts. Funding for professional services is significantly down. Waste is down. Senior bureaucrat travel is significantly down. It was in measures like those that we were able to find savings.

By contrast, just as one example, officials at the Transport Dangerous Goods directorate testified that their budget moved from $13 million to $20 million, which is what would be expected for dealing with any potential risk in the safety system.

We are getting the job done, and I hope the member will support us in that regard.

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member buzzing over there on the other side. I had the respect to listen to the member when he was talking. I would expect the same respect in the House, and I am sure his constituents back home would expect him to conduct himself in such a suitable manner.

All we have heard is the talking down of the energy board. It has been clear, and the Leader of the Opposition has signalled to this House on occasion, that were they, God forbid, given the opportunity to govern this country, the New Democrats would make decisions on these projects based on ideology rather than trusting the credible, independent science-based, fact-based review of the energy board.

That is not the position of this government. We trust the independence and the science-based expertise of the National Energy Board and the process, including the input of public and industry stakeholders, to produce a result and a recommendation to the government. As we have said before, the government will not approve projects unless they are safe for the public and safe for the environment.

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled to hear the member opposite talk down the independence of the National Energy Board, its competence, and how it conducts its affairs.

[Natural Resources, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying, as we have stressed in this chamber many times, that national energy infrastructure projects will only be approved if in fact they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

The independent National Energy Board undertakes a science- and fact-based review of projects. In every case, project proposals brought to the NEB are scrutinized through this transparent process, which involves high-quality science and the technical knowledge and expertise of numerous federal department and agency experts. Evidence brought to the board's attention is tested for its veracity and its comprehensiveness to ensure that final decisions are based on science and facts, not ideology. Unlike the member and his party, we support this independent science-based review of proposed pipeline projects.

Allow me to quote, though, the other side. The leader of the NDP said, “There are some things that some people would send to the NEB that we would say no to”.

While the opposition would rather make decisions on projects based on ideology, we will not take positions on projects until the NEB's review is complete.

On this side of the House, we have been very clear that no pipeline will proceed in Canada unless and until it will be safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. Canadians can be confident in this rigorous review process and in the National Energy Board's ability to conduct an independent, fair, and open review of proposed pipeline projects.

I would like to remind members opposite that the NEB's scientific review of proposed pipeline projects includes taking into account comments submitted by the public, by industry, by environmental groups, and by aboriginal peoples. In determining if a person or organization has relevant information and expertise, the NEB considers a number of factors.

Once the NEB determines that a project application is in fact complete, it will issue a hearing order for a rigorous science-based review of the project to determine whether it is in the Canadian public's interest. During this process, interveners have the opportunity to test the evidence submitted and to provide comments on proposed mitigation measures to ensure that the project can be built safely for the environment and for the public. The board will assess all the evidence and formulate a recommendation. Through this rigorous process, our government ensures that no major pipelines proceed unless safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

[Transport, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that discussions continue with our American partners on their investment in this border crossing.

But make no mistake about it. In response to every single budget we have put forward with investments to create 10,000 construction jobs, to move the auto industry forward, to ensure that the steel industry gets its steel used in this particular project, everything supporting support jobs and growth in Windsor, that member has voted against. He should be ashamed and voters will tell him so in the next election.

[Transport, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if the member actually wants to support the Detroit River International Crossing, he should try voting for it for once in the house. We have put forward appropriation after appropriation to make this project a reality, to create 10,000 construction jobs, to use Canadian steel in this project, and the member has stood every time to oppose it.

He should get on board and should be ashamed of his record.