Jeff Watson

[Rail Transportation, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the hyperbole of the member, if he is suggesting that somehow there is no rail service from Halifax to other parts of the country, for example.

I know his hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst tried to make the same assertion, that somehow we would not have rail from coast to coast. I think the Ocean line still runs from Halifax to points westward.

Having said that, as I said before, CN has taken a decision, a private business decision, as it is certainly entitled to do. It is following the regulations of a discontinuance process. It is responsible for track safety.

As I said earlier, the government has not made a decision on that.

[Rail Transportation, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the New Democrat member.

Let me start by saying that our government has a strong record of investing in VIA Rail. We have made investments of $1 billion since 2007.

I shared some of this with the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Since 2007, we have made strong capital investments for the refurbishment of some of the stock at VIA Rail. I reminded the member, of course, that he voted against all of that support. The support for the VIA Rail network last year, across the network, was $275 million.

I have to remind the member that VIA Rail is in fact a crown corporation. It is not a branch of government. It is not a department of the government. The minister does not sit down every day and figure out where the trains go and what routes are done with what.

There is a board and there is a CEO. They make decisions, commercial decisions about how to run the business in the best way that they can. Their primary objective, of course, is that they provide safe and efficient passenger rail service. They also try to do it in the most cost-efficient manner as possible.

CN, as a private company, has entered into a discontinuance process. That process is set out in regulations, and it is following that. It is following the regulations that are place. In the meantime, it is responsible for things like track safety.

However, I believe I heard the minister today, in question period, on this issue. She said that our government has taken no decision in this matter.

[Health, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member would like the minister to interfere, but I am not sure what part of “arms-length organization” he does not understand.

The Port of Quebec is an arms-length organization responsible for its own operational decisions and the consequences of that related to the environment. We know it is working not only with its lessees, those who are leasing and are tenants on its land, but also with the Quebec government.

We continue to monitor that file.

[Health, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his question.

First of all, I would like to remind the member of the efforts of Transport Canada in monitoring the file related to dust emissions in the Limoilou area. I believe it is important to mention that Transport Canada is working in close co-operation with the Quebec Port Authority, which is responsible for administering, managing and operating on a stand-alone basis the infrastructure under its responsibility.

Also, I would like to emphasize that the federal government is not involved in the day-to-day operations of Canadian port authorities and any consequences resulting from these operations are under the ports' jurisdiction and responsibility. However, regarding the dust emissions, the port authority implemented measures for monitoring the types and quantities of air emissions associated with port operations.

As the member knows, the Quebec Department of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks has determined in a report that the high source of contamination of nickel in the air is due to the transfer of mineral ore by Arrimage St-Laurent, an affiliate of Arrimage Québec. Since then, as a follow-up to the notice of non-compliance sent by the Quebec government, Arrimage du St-Laurent has worked on developing an environmental action plan, the latest version of which was sent to the Quebec government on October 15.

Note that Arrimage du St-Laurent already announced a full review of its operations, the installation of water and snow cannons and dust sensors, the implementations of washing stations, and the relocation of an access route. I would like to highlight that the cannons and the dust sensors are now fully operational.

The Quebec Port Authority, which works in collaboration with all of its lessees to limit the impact of the port activities on the community, follows-up and co-operates in implementing the measures put in place by Arrimage du St-Laurent. It is also worth noting that the port authority now dedicates a full-time resource whose role is to ensure the smooth operation of the transshipment of ore.

In light of the recent dust emission developments, I am confident and satisfied with the efforts made by the Quebec Port Authority to further the region's economic development while ensuring the quality of life of residents of beautiful Quebec City and the quality of the environment.

Furthermore, Arrimage du St-Laurent said that it will collaborate with the government of Quebec to address this incident.

[Windsor, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis said our region scored a trifecta in the recent budget: millions for retraining; $500 million more for the auto sector; and $631 million to kick-start the DRIC bridge between Windsor and Detroit, a project to deliver thousands of construction jobs and long-term investment to secure prosperity for Windsor families for generations.

Sadly, Windsor's two NDP MPs are turning their backs on Windsor, voting as their leader wishes and voting against these transformative investments. Sadly, too, this is not their first time. They voted “no” to our border crossings fund in 2006, and in 2007, they voted “no” to $400 million toward the Herb Gray Parkway. In 2012, both NDP MPs took a pass on stand-alone votes on our Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act.

There is time for the two Windsor MPs to reconsider: will they stand in their seats and vote with Windsor and its families, or will they betray them?

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-23, the fair elections act, introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Let me start by saying that the fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule-breakers out of business.

The bill would also make it harder to break election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would, among many things, protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties.

Second, it would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering him or her to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

The act would also crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of identification.

It would also make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow.

The act would also ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

It would further repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, thereby upholding free speech.

It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of advance polling.

Also, in the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow a member of Parliament to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks a member of Parliament's suspension.

This last provision, ensuring that democratic elections are respected, will be the focus of my remarks today.

Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. The removal of a democratically elected member of Parliament reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. No one should have the power to reverse a democratic election without first convincing a judge.

Subsection 463(2) of the act currently provides for the following:

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.

In other words, if an MP has not provided his or her election expense return within a prescribed deadline or has failed to make a correction to the return requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the act states that a member cannot vote or sit.

A provision requiring that members not be eligible to sit if they are late in filing a return has existed in the act since at least 1920. Provisions governing corrections to returns were first introduced in 2000, at which point the provision in subsection 463(2) was extended to cases where members have refused to make corrections requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

All members will agree that this is an extraordinary provision, as it can prevent an MP from exercising his or her parliamentary duties and from representing his or her constituents. This provision provides a powerful incentive for MPs to ensure their returns are filed in time and to ensure their returns are accurate. However, we have to keep in mind that the suspension of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters.

It is essential, therefore, that the law be clear on how such a suspension should be applied. Any ambiguity from the process ought to be removed. Unfortunately, as we saw in two cases this spring, it is not clear how this aspect of the law ought to be applied.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2013, you ruled that there was considerable ambiguity in both the act and in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Speaker ruled as follows:

The current situation—and the various interventions on the matter—points to a serious gap in our procedures here in the House in cases where an impasse is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada. The Canada Elections Act provides that the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker when key milestones have been reached in the course of a dispute. Thus, as I explained earlier, I received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer informing me that a member had not complied with his request for corrections and informing me of the suspension provision of the act applicable in the circumstances. Also, while elsewhere in the act there are provisions for a member in those circumstances to apply to the courts for relief, the act is silent on the effect of such an appeal on the suspension provision.

He continues:

I am not the only one left with questions about how to respond to this situation. Some argue that the provisions in subsection 463(2) demand immediate action—namely, the suspension of a member who has not complied with the Chief Electoral Officer in his application of subsection 457(2) of the Canada Elections Act—even as they acknowledge that there is no procedure for operationalizing such a suspension. Others hold that since the Canada Elections Act provides for an application for relief from the provision in subsection 457(2), any suspension is held in abeyance until the court makes its decision.

It is clear that there is considerable ambiguity as to how the provision of the act ought to be applied. The procedure and House affairs committee has been reviewing this issue and may come forward with proposals to change the Standing Orders to clarify how the House deals with such issues.

While the fair elections act cannot propose procedures for the House to apply this provision, it could seek to remove the ambiguity in the law. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it before the CEO seeks the suspension of the MP.

To avoid long delays in resolving disputes, the MP would have just two weeks to apply to a judge to resolve the matter. The courts can treat such cases through an expedited hearing, which would allow the case to be heard on a priority basis. The MP could still be removed if the judge determines that he or she has failed to make a necessary correction to the return.

Proposed subsection 477.72(3) would provide that where a correction to an election return was not made within the prescribed timeline, an elected candidate would not be not entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons as of the end of the two-week period after the deadline to make the correction. This is the amount of time the candidate would have to apply to a judge for an order to relieve the official agent from the obligation to comply with a request from the Chief Electoral Officer to make a correction to his or her return. If after this two-week period the candidate has not made an application to a judge, it could be presumed that he or she would not be challenging the Chief Electoral Officer's proposed corrections in court.

Alternatively, if the candidate or his or her official agent applies to a judge for an order to relieve him or her from the obligation to comply with the request from the CEO to make a correction to his or her return, the elected candidate would not be entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons, as of the day on which the application was finally disposed of so as to deny the member's application to the court. As a result, with the fair elections act, it would become clear that a member is not to be suspended solely on the basis of a dispute with the Chief Electoral Officer. If the member has brought the dispute to court for a resolution, he or she could only be suspended if the court upholds the Chief Electoral Officer's position.

The fair elections act would also provide that if an elected candidate has challenged the CEO's proposed correction in court, the judge would hear the matter without delay and in a summary manner. This is provided for in the new subsection 477.68(7) of the act.

Should there be any dispute that calls into question the ability of an MP to perform his or her parliamentary duties, it is only appropriate for the court to consider the matter in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, are we running out of time?

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that members opposite understand the current system right now. The commissioner of elections does not lay a charge; it is the Director of Public Prosecutions who lays charges under the Canada Elections Act currently. I would point to a case in 2013, where a Liberal candidate did not file an election return. All we are doing is formalizing that relationship.

In this act, the CEO of Elections Canada cannot direct an investigation, but he can still seek it from the elections commissioner. Is that not true?

[Rail Transportation, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the member opposite does not know that Halifax is on the coast and the Ocean line continues to run from Halifax to Montreal and to points well beyond that.

When it comes to VIA Rail and support for VIA Rail, we have invested $1 billion since 2007 in capital investments and $275 million across the network in 2013. What did that member say in the House last night? He said he was proud to vote against every dollar of it. Shame on him.

[Rail Transportation, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that this was a business decision made by a private company, CN. There is a regulatory process in place, which the company is currently following. While the discontinuance process is under way, CN is responsible for maintaining its track infrastructure.

[Rail Transportation, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the numbers on rail safety inspections. There are some 30,000—a historic level, I would add—on our rail safety system. There are major investments in our rail safety.

Since Lac-Mégantic, as the member referenced that particular tragedy, there have been ongoing actions by the minister, such as new sharing of information with municipality directives, proper classification and better classification of what is travelling by rail, new recommendations to the minister on emergency response action plans for flammable goods, and the list goes on and on. The member should support that.