Jeff Watson

[Rail Transportation, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention, but it is not about the opinion of the member of Parliament. There are legal experts who look at these matters to ensure that governments comply with laws that are on the books.

I point the member back to section 20 of the Access to Information Act, which imposes certain obligations on the government that must be respected, whether or not some in the government or some in Parliament may feel that they would love this information to be out there in full measure.

I think the member knows that were the government to release information that is not supposed to be released, it could potentially have the ability to alter markets. That is why budgets are kept under wraps, for example. It is because of the ability of the information contained within to move markets.

We have dealings with companies on an ongoing basis that cannot always be divulged. There are legitimate legal reasons why that is the case. I encourage the member to go back to the Access to Information Act, look at section 20, and understand the government's situation in this regard.

[Rail Transportation, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will deliver some remarks on the question asked during question period on the matter of the sharing of risk assessments between Transport Canada and municipalities.

The Minister of Transport, as we know, has asked railway companies to complete risk assessments that identify population density along their key routes used in the transportation of dangerous goods. On April 23, 2014, under the authority of the Railway Safety Act, the minister issued an emergency directive to all railway companies requiring the implementation of key operating practices, including speed restrictions for certain trains carrying dangerous goods, increased inspection requirements, and the completion of risk assessments.

Specific to risk assessments, the emergency directive requires companies to determine the level of risk associated with each route carrying 10,000 or more loaded tank cars of dangerous goods per year. Those risk assessments must do the following: first, identify safety and security risks associated with that route, including the volume of goods moved on that route, the class of track on that route, the maintenance schedule of the track on that route, the curvature and grade of the track on that route, environmentally sensitive or significant areas along that route, the population density along that route, the emergency response capability along that route, and the areas of high consequence along the route; second, identify and compare alternative routes for safety and security; and third, factor potential or future railway operational changes, such as new customers moving goods subject to an emergency response assistance plan under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, or municipal changes due to population growth, for routing restrictions. Transport Canada officials are reviewing risk assessments submitted by railway companies and will continue to review them on an ongoing basis.

On the question of transparency, Transport Canada cannot publicly release railway risk assessments without permission from the railway companies. The risk assessments were produced by the railway companies and may contain sensitive commercial, financial, or technical information. I point the member to section 20 of the Access to Information Act, under which the Government of Canada cannot disclose records that contain financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party.

Following the tragic derailment in Lac-Mégantic, however, Transport Canada committed to sharing with communities Transport Canada information related to potential railway risks. Specifically, the department committed to sharing all notices, and notice and orders pertaining to engineering matters, including blocked crossings, with the municipality or other organized district that may be affected by an identified threat or immediate threat to safe railway operations.

As of October 29, 2014, copies of notices, and notice and orders are being sent to the most senior official of the municipality or other organized district. I can assure the member that Transport Canada continues to work together with municipalities and railways to promote safety in all Canadian communities.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

If Canadians have been listening for the last half hour or so, or even longer, they will have heard the official opposition, the NDP, and the Liberal Party members become increasingly more concerned about the conduct of our security agencies than they are about the conduct of terrorists and terrorist threats to Canadians.

That is not the case with our government, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who work every day to ensure that Canadians are kept safe, that our security agencies have the tools they need to investigate threats, and that our police agencies working in concert with them have the tools they need to apprehend and ultimately successfully prosecute those who are threats to our country.

The clarification in the bill being brought forward is important, particularly in light of a recent court case, which if one can imagine—and I will put it in layman's terms for Canadians to understand very clearly—rendered our security agency effectively an island with respect to the rest of the world. That is, it was not able to share intelligence with other foreign intelligence agencies or receive it and, therefore, able to successfully investigate threats abroad or receive intelligence on threats against Canada here at home.

We are clarifying that, to ensure they can ultimately do the job they need to do and keep Canadians safe. The opposition should get on board, not worry and obsess about the wrong priorities. They should get with Canadians, give our agencies the tools they need, and support this bill.

[Air Transportation, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister sought from her officials to establish a mechanism. The member will know that, under the existing mechanism, it is the air transport security fee that currently funds the existing designated airports. There are some technical details to work out, obviously, as we are looking at this question. We thank the member for his input with respect to raising this matter and the process that we are under. The minister will report in due course.

[Air Transportation, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's aviation security system supports economic growth. If screening has to be carried out at non-designated airports or if it is not required for security purposes, another source of funding must be established.

The minister asked her officials to develop a mechanism whereby non-designated, low-risk airports are able to obtain security screening services on a cost-recovery basis.

[Canada Post, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that Canada Post is of course an independent, arm's-length agency. The decisions it makes, including that one, are its own.

[Government Appointments, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the long-standing feud between Mr. McQueen and that member continues, only now it is in the House. The ethical and political activity guidelines for public office holders do not state that political activity is against the guidelines. He should read them.

[Air Transportation, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that under the flight rights Canada initiative, we have introduced a code of conduct for Canada's airlines. We have taken a number of measures to make pricing transparent. These are decisions by individual airlines, which are private companies.

However, I will tell members what would raise the price of an airline ticket drastically. It would be a $21 billion NDP carbon tax.

[Canada Post, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is the second consecutive question sponsored by CUPW.

I will remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length crown corporation. It has taken action under its five-point plan to address three consecutive years of multimillion-dollar losses due to the significant decline in individually stamped letter mail, 1.2 billion fewer pieces in 2013 than in 2006. That is common to postal agencies around the world because of e-substitution. It has to operate on a financially self-sustaining basis. Taxpayers expect it to do that, and so do we.

[Canada Post, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door delivery at their homes.

Canada Post has taken action with respect to a five-point plan. It is precisely because it is delivering far fewer letters, 1.2 billion fewer in 2013 than in 2006. It posted three years of major multimillion-dollar losses as well. It has a legislative responsibility to be financially self-sustaining. Taxpayers expect it to do that, and we do as well.