House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 36% of the vote.
Rail Transportation February 7th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that Transport Canada, in 2012, did more than 30,000 inspections on rail safety. Our government has invested over $100 million in our rail safety system. We continue to hire more inspectors as we speak, increase fines for companies found to break our regulations, and create a whistleblower protection that requires each railway to have an executive legally responsible for safety. The list goes on.
The member should get on board with this rail safety regime.
Rail Transportation February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, there is so much misinformation and so little time to correct it. Suffice it to say, contrary to what the member said, the government does not cut any track. He should ask VIA who will assess it and make its independent decisions on this matter.
While we are at it, the government has invested heavily in passenger rail in recent years, including providing $275 million in 2012-13 for VIA Rail to operate its network, and nearly $1 billion in capital funding since 2007. The member voted against it each and every time, and now he is asking for what?
The government has no plans to buy track in New Brunswick from CN. That is clear. If CN does not complete the discontinuance process for this portion of track, VIA Rail, as an independent crown corporation, will also make its own operational decisions on the routing and schedule of the Ocean. As this process unfolds, CN will continue to be responsible for maintaining the rail line to ensure that service is not disrupted.
Rail Transportation February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, our government makes significant investments in VIA Rail from Atlantic Canada, right across to western Canada, and the member consistently votes against them. The Government of Canada provides VIA Rail, a crown corporation that operates independent of the government, with significant funding to provide passenger rail services to Canadians. In 2012-13, the funding provided to VIA Rail for operating and maintaining its network was $275 million. This significant subsidy from Canadian taxpayers enables VIA Rail to operate its network of services throughout the country.
In addition to providing annual funding, the government has provided nearly $1 billion in capital funding since 2007 for VIA Rail to upgrade track and signalling infrastructure, modernize stations, improve accessibility, and refurbish rail cars.
While the government has made significant investments in VIA Rail's infrastructure, it is not in the business of buying rail lines.
Instead, the federal government's role is to provide a legislative framework under the Canada Transportation Act that encourages stakeholders to seek commercial solutions to issues such as the discontinuance of rail service. As such, the line transfer and discontinuance provisions in the Canada Transportation Act are aimed at encouraging the retention of rail lines where it makes sense to do so, by giving railway operators and other interested parties the opportunity to acquire rail lines for continued operation before they are discontinued. Other interested parties include the provincial and municipal governments and urban transit authorities, in addition to other railway companies.
With regard to the section of CN track in northern New Brunswick, CN has followed the discontinuance process in indicating that it plans to advertise it for sale. This process requires a railway to notify governments and urban transit authorities when a rail line is identified for discontinuance in its three-year plan. The government does not own freight rail infrastructure and has no intention of buying this section of CN track.
In the meantime, CN will continue to be responsible for maintaining the rail line during the discontinuance process to ensure that service is not disrupted. VIA Rail service on its Ocean line between Montreal and Halifax continues as per its planned schedule.
VIA Rail's objectives are to provide safe and efficient passenger rail service. In this regard, VIA regularly assesses its operations to decide how best it can achieve these objectives. As a crown corporation, VIA Rail will ultimately be responsible for making decisions about its passenger rail services in New Brunswick and will assess alternatives to ensure there will be no service interruptions.
I would like to remind my colleague that this was a business decision made by a private company. There is a regulatory process in place, which the company is following, and while the discontinuance process is under way, CN is responsible for maintaining its track infrastructure.
Finally, our government supports a passenger rail network that meets the needs of today's travellers while supporting the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Employment Insurance February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the member, of course, neglected to say that in that same example, the person still gets his EI benefit as well.
Again, not one single person in Prince Edward Island has had to move out of the province to qualify for employment insurance. Claimants are only expected to look for work within their own communities.
Once again, the rules around applying for and qualifying for EI have not changed. Existing rules were only clarified, such as the responsibility of EI claimants to actively look for work while receiving benefits. Employment insurance continues to be there for Canadians who have paid into the system and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, including in areas where jobs simply do not exist outside seasonal or specialized industries.
Employment Insurance February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to correct the misinformation the member for Malpeque has been speaking about regarding the employment insurance program. In fact, I think if he checks the blues from just a few minutes ago, the member said that it was not about qualifying for EI then turned around and said that it was about qualifying for EI.
As the Minister of Employment and Social Development has pointed out, the accusation that the government is forcing islanders to move is clearly false. Not one individual, no matter what the age or situation, in P.E.I. or anywhere else in Canada, has had to leave the province to look for work in order to qualify for EI. In fact, the overall unemployment rate for workers of all ages in P.E.I. is improving as our economic recovery is continuing.
The reality is that across Canada, far fewer than 1% of people were disqualified because they failed to search for work or refused to accept suitable work. In fact, 80% of the increase in disentitlements in 2013 was because the claimants were out of the country.
Contrary to the claim of the member opposite, our recent changes do not require individuals to take any job that is available to them. Rather, available work is only considered suitable if the recipient would be better off accepting new employment than receiving EI benefits. Most importantly for P.E.I., while those who cannot find work during periods of seasonal unemployment are expected to look for work, they are not forced to move or forced to accept work that pays less than their EI benefits, nor are they forced to take jobs for which they are not suited or that are not suitable because of their own personal circumstances.
Issues such as child care and access to transportation are taken into account when determining the suitability of a particular job for a particular individual. The whole idea behind these changes is to make EI more responsive, fair, and flexible. It also helps address labour shortages, which are happening even in regions of high unemployment. I know that is the case in my constituency.
Further, net migration numbers in P.E.I. fluctuate annually. This has nothing to do with the EI program. For example, for those between 25 and 29 years of age, the ages when many islanders are beginning their careers, unlike the member opposite, there have been some years of in-migration mixed with equal numbers of out-migration. It is unfortunate that opposition politicians, the member for Malpeque, and activists continue to irresponsibly mislead Canadians about the facts and to instill fear where none need exist.
Canadians would benefit from a dialogue on this issue based on accurate facts and not on false examples so they can decide for themselves the merit of the changes.
Fair Elections Act February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for zeroing in particularly on the issue of political loans. I hope the current member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is not only listening but will also be supporting the bill precisely because it will address this particular issue.
To the question of enforcement that came up earlier, we do not let Parliament act as the enforcement mechanism for law. We do not let it do the investigation. We have the RCMP for that. We have courts for that. Therefore, is it not consistent that investigative functions and administrative functions with respect to Elections Canada are separated, first of all, and that the sensible place to put a truly independent election commissioner, one who investigates, is with the office of the department of public prosecutions?
Fair Elections Act February 6th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I think the time for debating the closure motion was earlier. He might want to actually debate the bill in front of us.
Canada Post February 3rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, in the first nine months of 2013, mail volumes declined by 184 million pieces compared to the same period in 2012. This trend has been ongoing since 2006 when Canada Post delivered one billion more letters than it did in 2012. This, I repeat, is placing a huge strain on the corporation's finances, which ultimately will become the financial burden for hard-working Canadian taxpayers unless action is taken. The NDP refuses to see this reality. Again last week when debating a motion in the House, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, “We definitely do not have a crisis at Canada Post”.
The Conference Board has projected a Canada Post loss approaching roughly one billion a year just six years from now. Our government is concerned that it is posting significant losses and understands that the status quo is simply not an option.
Canada Post February 3rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying that Canada Post Corporation operates at arm's length from the government. In fact, since 1981, Canada Post has had a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. It is also important to know that Canada Post is responsible for meeting that mandate in managing its own operations, including day-to-day business and financial decisions.
The NDP is refusing to see the reality of the Canadian postal system. Let us look at the facts. Canadians are choosing to communicate in ways other than sending letters. Due to the lack of demand, mail volumes have dropped almost 25% since 2008, and they continue to fall. In 2006, Canada Post delivered one billion more letters than it did in 2012. Put another way, that is one billion less in 2012 than in 2006. This is placing a huge strain on the corporation's finances. In 2013 alone, Canadian Post lost $129 million before tax in just the third quarter, despite solid growth in parcel mail. Transaction mail volumes fell by 7.3% in the third quarter compared to that same third quarter period last year. That represents 73 million fewer pieces in the quarter compared to the same period last year. The Conference Board of Canada projected that Canada Post could lose roughly $1 billion a year by 2020. It is clear that the traditional postal business model that worked so well in the pre-digital era is increasingly out of step with today's reality. Everyone may love getting mail, but who wants to keep funding antiquated business models that are only drifting further into irrelevance with the march of progress?
Canada Post recognizes that changes are needed to how it handles its business. Let me be clear: the Conference Board projected that Canada Post could lose roughly $1 billion a year just six years from now. This is a substantial amount of money, yet here is what the NDP member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had to say last week on this issue. He said, “We definitely do not have a crisis at Canada Post...”. Only the NDP would think that losing $1 billion a year is not a crisis.
Here is the reality. Not only do we send fewer, if any, cards and letters, but bills, statements, and payments are being sent and paid digitally more and more often. Most companies and governments are actively encouraging Canadians to switch to electronic alternatives to save money and time and to increase security. Polling confirms that Canadians' habits are changing. Almost half of households say they now send two pieces of mail or fewer per month. This is reflected in far less business for Canada Post.
The direction of change is clear and it is irreversible. It is clear that the status quo is simply not an option. Not only parliamentarians but all Canadians should be very concerned that the corporation is posting significant losses. Canadians expect us to be sound stewards of the government's finances. They do not want to be on the hook for the significant losses that have been forecast based on the current business model.
Canada Post's actions are in line with the global transformation of postal services; they are changing to meet modern-day demands. Strategies laid out in its five-point action plan will help to ensure the corporation is on solid financial footing and better reflect Canadians' choices and needs.
Canada Post January 31st, 2014
Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, Canada Post delivered one billion fewer individually addressed letters in 2012 than it did in 2006. The Conference Board of Canada, in its report, projected that Canada Post could lose roughly $1 billion a year by 2020.
The member will also know, though, that Canada Post, as an arm's-length crown corporation, is responsible for its operations, including business and financial decisions. It is their five-point plan.