Jeff Watson

[Intergovernmental Relations, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Port of Quebec is an arm's-length organization as the member knows and as such is responsible for its own operational decisions. However, as a good corporate citizen, the port officials can consult the population when it comes to their development projects.

[Adoption Expense Tax Credit, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes strong families are the backbone of a strong Canada. That is why since 2006 our tax cuts have left more than $3,200 in the pockets of the average Canadian family. However, we know families come in many different forms, including those who start, or like us, grow through adoption. That is why families who choose to adopt are eligible for the adoption expense tax credit.

However, parents have recently told us that while this credit was helpful, it was not always enough to cover all of their expenses. We heard their concerns. That is why economic action plan 2013 enhanced the adoption tax credit, to better recognize the unique costs associated with adopting a child.

The Adoption Council of Canada praised this move, calling it “an important step in supporting adoptive families”. Despite this, we recognize more can be done. That is why, as highlighted in the recent Speech from the Throne, our government will continue to look at ways to help families defray the costs of adopting a child.

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our government's position on Motion No. 441. As members know, this motion was moved by the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, who has suggested that the process for restricting the use of recreational boats should be changed.

The hon. member has proposed that the government review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations to streamline the process and make it easier for local administrations to request restrictions on the use of vessels in certain waters.

Our government believes the process that is currently in place under these regulations needs no review. It is the result of consultation with Canadians and was designed specifically to provide an effective response to the legitimate needs of local communities.

This process has worked successfully for many years. Since 2008, it has been required under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, which falls under the authority of Transport Canada. Before that, it was covered by the boating restriction regulations, for which the Canadian Coast Guard was responsible.

I would like to outline the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations process for the House to explain how it works and why it is effective. First I want to make clear that navigation is an exclusively federal responsibility under the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, only the federal government can regulate it.

This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2010 decision. In Quebec, the municipality of St-Adolphe-d'Howard enacted a bylaw prohibiting access by non-residents to local jetties, but the court overturned it on the grounds that the municipality did not have the legal authority to set its own rules.

However, under the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, any level of government, whether municipal, provincial or territorial, can ask Transport Canada to impose restrictions on the use of boats in a particular body of water. These restrictions may be requested to increase safety or to protect the marine environment. They may also be proposed in the public interest, for example, to reduce noise.

Restrictions may prohibit all boats from accessing a given waterway, or they may limit access only by certain kinds of vessels, such as those with a specified engine power or type of propulsion. The regulations make it possible to impose speed limits, restrict certain activities such as water skiing, or prohibit events like regattas.

These restrictions may apply at all times or be specific to certain times of the day, week, month or year. They may apply to an entire waterway or only part of it. That is flexibility. This flexibility allows local authorities to request restrictions that are fair and that accommodate boaters while also acknowledging the rights of other community members.

At the same time, imposing restrictions in this way should be a last resort. No one wants to be subject to regulatory requirements that can be made arbitrarily or without sufficient input from those who would be directly affected by them. The government would never consider making restrictions in that way.

For this reason, a requesting authority must demonstrate to Transport Canada that reasonable efforts have been made to work with communities to resolve any conflicts around use of the waterway in question. For example, alternative approaches must have been tried and documented. These include enforcing provisions of existing acts or regulations, as well as educating boaters and others through outreach about the effects of their activities.

This can be achieved, for example, by posting notices at waterway access points, organizing public meetings, contacting local associations to ask them to inform their members, conducting a flyer campaign, or appearing on local radio or television shows. These are inexpensive but effective means of reaching people in the community.

The authority should also show that all appropriate stakeholders have been consulted and have had the opportunity to make their views known. It is important to demonstrate that stakeholders have come to a consensus on what the best solution actually is and that this can be achieved only through a regulatory amendment.

Transport Canada offers assistance to local administrations that are considering how to address issues relating to recreational boating. Communities can also consult the local authorities' guide, which is available from the department.

What are some of the other legal considerations? If the requesting authorities are able to demonstrate a clear need for a restriction and can also show that all other possibilities have been exhausted, they can apply to Transport Canada for a regulatory amendment, something, by the way, that does not cost them anything.

As members of the House are already aware, there is a legal process in place for amending regulations. That process is guided by the Statutory Instruments Act and by the “Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management”. It applies to any proposed amendment to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, just as it applies to proposals to make any other regulations.

These instruments require a review of proposed regulations to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with the Canadian Bill of Rights. They must not exceed the legal authority under which they are proposed.

Additionally, the impact of any proposed regulation must be adequately assessed, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis of expected costs and benefits, before cabinet considers the matter. The cabinet directive also requires that, where appropriate, first nation, Metis, and Inuit peoples are to be consulted.

This review of the legal and social impacts of regulatory requirements is an essential part of the process. It forms an important system of checks and balances that helps protect all Canadians from measures that are unfair or that would infringe their rights.

Furthermore, any proposed regulatory amendment is normally also published in the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is then open to public comment for a specified period. This ensures that potentially affected members of the public have every opportunity to participate in the process. All comments received are recorded and duly considered.

In the event that a proposed regulation is significantly altered following such comments, it is then re-submitted to the Canada Gazette, part 1 and is opened up to public consideration a second time.

This careful but rigorous process for making regulations also applies to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations themselves, which came into effect only after the necessary review and public consultation.

Consultation with stakeholders does not end when regulations come into effect. Transport Canada regularly consults with Canadians in various ways. For instance, recreational boaters communicate with Transport Canada officials through the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council, which provides advice on all questions of interest to the boating community. These include safety, security, and enforcement issues and related regulatory initiatives.

The Canadian Marine Advisory Council and its regional counterparts also hold regular meetings with representatives of Transport Canada. At these gatherings as well, recreational boating is a topic of discussion, and there is a standing committee dedicated to it.

In these ways, Transport Canada maintains close ties with the marine community, including those with an interest in recreational boating.

This ongoing contact with stakeholders, including provinces and municipalities, keeps the department informed of their concerns. As a result, Transport Canada is well positioned to take their views on marine policy, legislation, and regulation into full account.

To conclude, if a complaint is made to Transport Canada officials about this process, we will continue to respond to and support the community by developing their boating restrictions and processing their requests, where needed, for Governor in Council approval.

The process includes appropriate checks and balances to make certain that the government does not intervene inappropriately. It encourages communities to find ways to solve their own problems, and it requires public input at several stages. It also contains safeguards to ensure that regulatory measures do not infringe upon Canadians' constitutional or other legal rights.

In short, the system already takes great care to prevent unnecessary or unjust regulation. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to vote against Motion No. 441.

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on the process, so that we are clear, the member has referred to two things. One is regulations, and of course the other is a guidebook explaining the pathway to regulations. At times, it seemed as though they were used interchangeably, but I think we have to keep them separate here.

The way the process essentially works is that co-operation is encouraged among the municipality and its stakeholders to try to come to some agreement on this before the municipality then triggers an ask of Transport Canada and a very formal rule-making process that is standard for regulations across government.

I do not think that the member is suggesting we change the rule-making process to actually make the regulation. Where is he suggesting that the process be simplified? Is it that we should not ask the municipalities to work in a co-operative way first to try to resolve this? I am looking for some clear guidance or some suggestions on where the member thinks that this should be streamlined.

[Rail Transportation, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that a strong preventative safety program is one built around compliance with appropriate regulations. That is why our government has taken concrete measures to enhance the safety of rail and the transportation of dangerous goods: so that accidents such as the one in Gainford and the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic are not repeated.

After Lac-Mégantic, our government issued an emergency directive to immediately enhance the safety of rail transportation, followed by a ministerial order requiring industry to develop rules to make those measures permanent. The department issued a protective direction requiring a person who imports crude oil or offers it for transport to retest the classification of their crude oil prior to transport.

We are working closely with industry, first responders, and communities to identify additional measures to enhance the safety of rail transportation and the transportation of dangerous goods.

It should also be noted that since the comprehensive Railway Safety Act review in 2007, we have taken decisive action to reduce the possibility of accidents and derailments in the rail industry. In fact, since that review there has been a marked decline in rail accidents, which is a result of our commitment to improving rail safety.

[Rail Transportation, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken concrete actions to enhance the safety of the Canadian rail system, making it one of the safest in the world. Transport Canada must constantly review incidents with the view of enhancing safety.

That is why the work of the Transportation Safety Board is so important. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the Gainford incident, for example, and the department will not hesitate to take appropriate safety actions regarding any identified safety deficiency brought forward to the department.

In 2007 our government conducted a full review of the Railway Safety Act. The independent review panel made recommendations to improve rail safety after national consultations with key stakeholders. Transport Canada agreed with all of those recommendations and has been taking action to address them.

Our government amended the Railway Safety Act to further improve safety by providing new authorities for improved oversight and enforcement.

One of the amendments requires railways to get a safety-based railway operating certificate before they begin operations. Another amendment allows us to implement administrative monetary penalties as a new tool for dealing with companies that do not meet safety requirements.

The tragedy at Lac-Mégantic and the derailment in Gainford highlighted the importance of continuing to work together to keep such incidents from happening. This government has made further concrete efforts to enhance the safety of rail and the movement of dangerous goods.

On July 23, Transport Canada issued an emergency directive to railways companies, requiring, first, that two operators be present at all times for trains carrying dangerous goods; second, that no trains transporting dangerous goods be left unattended; third, that all cabins be locked; fourth, that all reversers be removed from locomotives; and fifth, that all brakes be properly applied on all locomotives.

The department also issued a ministerial order obligating railway companies to develop rules to comply with these requirements permanently.

In the aftermath of these events, the minister has also spoken with many groups to determine how they could strengthen railway safety standards. Transport Canada will continue to co-operate and work with industry and communities to identify further measures to improve safety for all Canadians. The approach has been warmly accepted and has been lauded by such groups as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

To emphasize the importance of transportation safety, the Speech from the Throne noted two important actions: first, that shippers and railway companies would be required to carry additional insurance, so they are held accountable; second, that Transport Canada would take targeted action to make the transportation of dangerous goods safer.

On this second point, the department issued a protective direction in October requiring parties who import or offer for transport crude oil must retest the classification of crude oil if that classification test has not been conducted since July 7, 2013. They must also make those test results available to Transport Canada as well as update their safety data sheets and provide them to Transport Canada's Canadian Transport Emergency Centre. Finally, until such testing is completed, they must also ship all crude oil as class 3 flammable liquid packing group 1 when shipping by rail.

In short, we are continuing to take action to improve Canada's rail safety system. Since the 2007 review of the Railway Safety Act, train accidents have actually decreased.

The department's continued actions will continue to reduce the risk of accidents, enhance competitiveness of our nation's railways, and increase the public safety of Canadians.

Transport Canada remains dedicated to keeping Canada's transportation system safe and secure.

[Rail Transportation, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, the minister has been taking action.

With respect to Lac-Mégantic, obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the families and victims who were affected by this tragic accident. We do need to let the authorities continue their investigation. Transport Canada will not hesitate to act on recommendations.

[Regional Economic Development, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, 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 continue to fall. Since 1981, Canada Post has had a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. We are concerned that it is posting significant losses.

[International Trade, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Brant, who is a solid advocate for increased trade.

Projects such as the Canada-Europe trade agreement and the Detroit River international crossing will generate jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

A new bridge to connect Windsor and Detroit is needed for growing trade and traffic at the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing. This project will create thousands of jobs and opportunities. Over two million family-sustaining Canadian jobs depend on trade and investment between our two countries, and we cannot rely on the NDP's radical economic experiments to protect them.

[Rail Transportation, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is engaged in a very important dialogue with municipalities and railway companies, specifically on the topic of the transportation of dangerous goods. That is a productive discussion, as the municipalities themselves are saying. We are listening to municipalities. We will make sensible recommendations and take action.