Bill C-68 (Historical)

Pacific Gateway Act

An Act to support development of Canada's Pacific Gateway

This enactment provides for a declaration of the Government of Canada’s Pacific Gateway strategy and, in support of that strategy, creates Canada’s Pacific Gateway Council, a new advisory council that will be tasked with providing advice and analysis to maximize the effectiveness of the Pacific gateway and its contribution to Canada’s prosperity.

Pacific Gateway Act

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Minister of State (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House as we debate Bill C-68, an act to support the development of Canada's Pacific gateway.

As the member of Parliament for Richmond, I am particularly delighted to speak in favour of the bill. When we talk about a Pacific gateway initiative, there is no city better situated than Richmond. With both the Fraser Port and the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, we are at the forefront of any large trade initiatives with Asia-Pacific. Indeed, this announcement today means more investment in Richmond, more business for Richmond and more high paying jobs for our community over the long term.

The Governments of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are collaborating on Canada's Pacific gateway strategy and building on B.C.'s strategic advantages to strengthen western economic prosperity in ways that will benefit all of Canada.

Canada's western provinces represent about 30% of Canada's geographic area, roughly 30% of Canada's population, about 30% of our labour force and a little over 32% of Canada's GDP. The west is therefore a major contributor to this country's prosperity and its future.

A 21st century economy is an economy open to the world. Canada's goods, services, capital, knowledge and people must be able to reach international markets and Canada's west coast is our door to markets located in Asia.

A fundamental shift is taking place in the global economy. With Asia occupying an increasingly central role in global commerce, it is a region vital to Canada's future prosperity. Canada's west coast, because of its location, is the ideal North American gateway for trans-Pacific commerce, trade, transportation and cultural linkages.

For a trade dependent country like Canada, it is not good enough to be among the most competitive economies in the world. We have to be among the best.

In May 2005, western premiers identified several top priorities essential to maintaining and improving the competitive position of the west and Canada in international trade markets. These priorities include transportation infrastructure, trade training and post-secondary education. The western premiers agree that British Columbia will lead the development of a comprehensive strategy that will deal with road, rail, marine ports, air and strategically placed inland container ports.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring Canada's west coast becomes a major opportunity gateway for trans-Pacific trade, investment and tourism.

When the Prime Minister visited China in January 2005, he noted that for Chinese businesses, the closest North American city with a deep water port and a major international airport is Vancouver, British Columbia.

The federal and provincial governments will continue to work together to increase the competitiveness of B.C. ports. Considerable investment has already been made. For example, the Department of Western Economic Diversification Canada is assisting container expansion in B.C. by investing in the expansion of the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert.

Improved port competitiveness is a key long term initiative that will move the gateway concept forward, creating new jobs and economic spinoffs for all of Canada. Some $60 million in joint federal-provincial support have already been spent to establish a new container port on B.C.'s north coast at Prince Rupert, North America's closest port to Asia. Goods arriving at Prince Rupert will be able to reach the centre of the continent quicker than through ports at Seattle or Los Angeles.

Western provinces are putting together a multi-province strategy that will ensure gateway access and competitive benefits will reach much deeper into the Canadian heartland. There are already more than enough goods coming from Asia to use the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert to full capacity. The transportation linkages that flow from the Pacific gateway provide a significant advantage for other businesses, sectors and developments across the entire economy.

Western priorities include a growing emphasis on international trade, investment, business competitiveness and tourism. The dynamic growth of the economies of China, India, South Korea and other Asia-Pacific countries represent significant opportunities for western Canadian small businesses and large companies. The Government of Canada is collaborating with the western provinces on Canada's Pacific gateway strategy to strengthen the west's cultural and business ties with Asia and to establish the region as Canada's natural Pacific gateway.

Western Economic Diversification Canada works with a broad range of public and private sector partners in western Canada to strengthen the region's competitiveness in international commerce. It promotes new investment in western Canada and supports activities designed to increase the presence of western businesses in domestic and global markets. Western provinces must continue to strengthen trade with rising economic superpowers such as India and China, especially with lingering trade disputes in the U.S. over softwood lumber exports and mad cow.

Every region of the country stands to benefit. Strengthened trade, transportation, and investment links will preserve and strengthen the country's economic prosperity, protecting a continued high quality of life for all Canadians and improving opportunities for Canadian business.

The collaborative strategy of a dynamic Canada Pacific gateway will integrate the elements of international commerce, infrastructure, transportation and border management, innovation, immigration and skills development, and Canada's multicultural connections.

Canada is as much a Pacific nation as it is an Atlantic nation. As the west becomes Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific, Asia will look to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as its gateway to North America.

Economic growth in Asia means increased demand for our products and services. Asia sees Canada as a limitless source of natural resources. Its rapidly expanding economy will need Canadian metals, minerals, grains and wood products.

Western Canada's natural resource exports to Asia have grown even faster than its imports. China's escalating purchases of our raw materials were a large part of the reason our dollar rose in recent years from 63¢ to 85¢.

Oil hungry Asian economies will provide Canadian energy producers with an attractive market alternative to the United States. From a western Canada perspective, there are tremendous opportunities for energy firms to expand trade and investment with Asia-Pacific nations.

Through joint ventures, direct investment, technology transfers and other means, the west can help develop Asian economies to achieve their social, economic and environmental goals and at the same time, create jobs and prosperity in Canada.

Canada's gateway strategy will promote B.C. and the west as an attractive market for Asia-Pacific trade and investment, products, services, expertise and as a tourist destination. It will also promote Canada's credentials as an Asia-Pacific nation and give us a higher level of global leadership, innovation, immigration, skills recognition and learning.

Canada's west coast, with its strategic location on the Pacific, is the ideal North American gateway for trans-Pacific commerce, trade, transportation and cultural linkages. This is an enormous competitive advantage for the entire B.C. economy now and into the future, and provides a competitive advantage for the west that benefits all of Canada.

A truly competitive Pacific transportation gateway involves a strong transportation infrastructure and more will be done as we seek to nurture and enhance this trade connection between Canada and Asia. The public and private sectors in Canada are already investing about $2 billion in highway, rail, port and border infrastructures in B.C. to ensure that goods move more efficiently there and across western Canada.

There is more to our interest in Asia-Pacific than simple economics. Canada, and in particular the city of Vancouver, has deep cultural ties to the region. Vancouver offers enterprises and knowledge-driven organizations with culturally diverse employees, many of whom have strong cultural and business links to Asia.

There are close to three million Canadians of Asian origin, many of them going back several generations. In Vancouver alone, there are close to 690,000 people of Asian origin. Canadian diversity, one of our key assets, gives us unique cultural links to Asia-Pacific, as well as powerful entrepreneurial, trade, financial and industrial ties.

Today, western Canada, and British Columbia in particular, is a bridgehead to Asia-Pacific investment, trade and tourism. This major initiative of the Government of Canada combines the goal of global competitiveness with the achievement of a sustainable future for all Canadians. Building a Pacific gateway means a stronger B.C., a stronger west and a stronger Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has brought in legislation, at a very suspicious time in our electoral process, with little to no hope of it getting passed through. It raises a suspicion of electioneering at a time when the west coast of Canada needs sound investment and a sound strategy to actually achieve the status on international trade that we have talked about in this place for many years but have done little to support.

The Pacific gateway strategy, Bill C-68, which has been a long time coming and which was thrown together and presented on the west coast with little chance of making it through this House, leads one to all levels of suspicion. While the intent of the bill is perhaps good, the timing erodes any confidence that Canadians should have in the government's attempt to, as the Prime Minister put it, finally end western alienation as a mark of his prime ministership. I would suggest that once again he has failed the west coast, British Columbians and Canadians in general.

With respect to the vitality of these ports and shipping routes, few Canadians realize that shipping a product from central Canada or the United States via the northern route, in particular, through the Port of Prince Rupert, is three days shorter than any other known route on the continent right now. In terms of saving time, energy and money for Canadian businesses and for our American partners who want to join with us in manufacturing, this is the route to go and yet for almost three decades the Port of Prince Rupert has had to struggle to get the attention that we finally got by, I would suggest, potentially electing a New Democrat to the region, enabling the government to pay some attention, at long last, to invest in the container port in Prince Rupert. Now we have Bill C-68, which is too little too late.

I previously asked the minister what interest he had in participating in the region where much of this line through this so-called Pacific gateway will pass, a region that has been plagued by the boom and bust cycle of much of the resourced-based economies in Canada, the inability to attract the proper investment for secondary manufacturing, the inability to attract the political will to solve some of the problems that affect the region, the province and, as such, the entire country. I would point to the softwood lumber dispute, bugwood and a number of other issues that the government has found a way to ignore in its time in office.

Infrastructure in British Columbia has been neglected for a number of years. Report after report has shown us that. Whether it is the infrastructure in the lower mainland, whether it is some of the transportation around the province or the main corridors of transportation, such as the one we are talking about today through the northwest of British Columbia, we know that neglect has held Canadian productivity back and has held our ability back to truly access the Asian markets in a meaningful way.

The bill was introduced late, without a lot of specifics but with a lot of fanfare. The Auditor General recently handed down a report that the government has a penchant and excitement for announcements but is often gone before the confetti hits the floor. The actual rolling out of its decisions and strategies is a long time in coming, if we ever see them at all.

The actions this past year in the Port of Vancouver by the Trucking Associations and independent truckers show how susceptible the facilities are and how close we are with our transportation in this country to near and total shutdown. The government is unwilling to step in and start to make the investments and alleviate some of the problems that are happening in our transportation corridor. In a heartbeat we could lose that connection to the rest of the world. One of the key advantages we have in British Columbia and in this country is our incredible and close access to some of the greatest and strongest growing markets in the world.

As we explore these markets, what is also seemingly to be absent is that when our trade delegations are here in Canada, before leaving for places like China, they are strong on the human rights and environmental front and yet when they arrive in Asia Pacific, when they arrive in China, nought is to be seen. There is no improvement on the human rights issue within China. There is no official talk and calling into question the human rights abuses that go on.

A Chinese state-owned firm run by a Communist, a completely non-transparent government, recently made a proposition to buy the Noranda Company in Canada, one of our major resource companies, with nary a word of concern in the House from the government benches.

We have opened the doors to 11,500 foreign acquisitions and counting without one concept that one of those deals may actually have been bad for the people of Canada. What an incredible string of good luck. The government is suggesting that acquisition after acquisition by foreign companies, and in this case, a Communist foreign government, our government's wide open door policy is in listening to Bay Street rather than main street, reigns supreme again.

In terms of transportation, we are the only G-8 country that has no long term sustainable national highways program. We do not see the concept of actually investing strategically in our highway systems to improve on efficiency and lower some of the pollution and congestion that Canadians face every day. The government has had no real interest for 13 years and counting, unfortunately, in developing a strategy and engaging the provinces and the municipalities that are in such desperate need. Instead it makes announcements, such as the gas tax rebate, that are gone before the confetti hits the floor. We wait for the details but they never come.

The United States just committed $270 billion to improving its highway system. In Canada the silence is deafening as to how we are going to improve the efficiency and the capacity of our transportation system.

As many of the previous speakers have pointed out, the bill is very short on details . It contains broad sweeping terms about a strategy, as if somehow the idea of Asian markets and moving Canadian goods to Asian markets is new to the government, so it should set up committees to look at where the investments should be.

After so many years in office, after so many articles written and after so many delegations, team Canada trips, et cetera, now the Liberals introduce a bill to the Canadian people that is short on specifics with some notion of setting up a committee with a budget of something like $35 million to, I assume, take trips. We are meant to believe that appointments to the committee will be based on merit. I suggest that one of the key merits will be, among others, participation in the Liberal Party of Canada.The record of the government in terms of appointing people through the patronage system is deplorable at best.

The confidence we are meant to feel in the committee that will be in charge of the $35 million budget initially and then in an increased budget of $400 million in deciding where the funding spending is actually going, will be anything but transparent. It will be anything but an ethical progress through putting good decision makers in key roles to help this country. I will be very curious as to what the expenditures of the committee are going to be to rack up $7 million, particularly if there is any patronage involved whatsoever.

Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the region I represent, is the terminus point for this investment. The plans for the container port and many other port facilities within the region are the first spark of hope in a region that has experienced a loss of almost half of the population of the city. It experienced 20% and upwards unemployment rates which is absolutely devastating. It is devastating not just on the economic front, but on the social front, on the community's cohesion and on the ability to raise children in the confidence they will be able to progress through their entire education in one place. All of that has been put under threat over the last number of years. Now we have a spark of hope that this community can raise its head with confidence and pride and march forward.

The question is whether the government is willing to participate with all the other communities down the line in northwestern British Columbia who have experienced equally, if not worse, economic conditions. I was recently in Hazelton, British Columbia, a very small, beautiful, picturesque town that has consistently had upwards of 80% unemployment over the last seven years, numbers that are staggering, incomprehensible to most Canadians, and yet these people have been surviving in whatever way they could over the last number of years and now the opportunity arrives of a major corridor passing through.

My office has been working with community groups to help coordinate the conversation that has been long overdue. If this container port proceeds, which it will, and if this major transportation corridor receives the investment from the federal coffers that it should, how will communities like Hazelton benefit? How is it that they will finally start to diversify their economy? How is it that their children will start to feel that sense of hope that they can potentially live, thrive and survive in this community and potentially raise their own families and start to create that growth that is so desperately needed in a region that has just gone through boom after bust after boom after bust?

During the take note debate on the softwood lumber dispute last week the government rattled its sabre again and said how NAFTA should be respected. The Conservative Party's solution was to send a special envoy, its solution to a debate that has raged on while our American counterparts refuse to accept the deal that they signed.

The residents in my region are wondering at what point the government will get serious about the softwood lumber dispute. My constituents want the government to use the tools that we know will bring that issue home to the voters in the United States, which will then bring that issue home to the Congress and the Senate to actually get the Bush administration moving toward some sort of fairness. The U.S. government claims fairness but never moves toward it.

Instead we get the suggestion of a special envoy from the Conservatives, a vague notion of something that has little or no consequence in the circles of power in Washington. From the Liberal Party of Canada, the party that is supposed to be championing this, we get radio addresses rattling the swords but no actual concrete action to end this travesty in our trade relations.

The mountain pine beetle has been absolutely crushing to the economy of the interior of British Columbia and the northwest region of British Columbia. This infestation now has the potential to move over the Rocky Mountains into the boreal forests and perhaps it finally will get the attention in this place that it deserves. To truly diversify these economies that have been affected by bugwood they will need major investments.

These are proud and hard-working people who simply want the tools to facilitate their own growth and future prosperity. These people are not looking for handouts or government largesse. They want to do the work to put their communities back on their feet and get moving but they need the attention of the government which has focused other ways.

We saw a collapse in the sockeye fishery earlier this year, an industry that is increasingly important to the people on the west coast, but the government was not present on the issue. We made some small suggestions in order to keep the boats on the water for next season. Hope springs eternal in the mind of the fishing fleet in British Columbia despite the continued mismanagement of the fishery by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The government was completely absent from the issue. It paid no attention whatsoever in any meaningful kind of way. We are seeking local control of that fishery. We have proposed a number of options so the government can save some face. These options that would allow the people of the northwest to realize the prosperity that they need.

At some point we must decide as a nation, and I think my region is actually representative of this, to no longer simply be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. As a nation we need to make those key investments that our counterparts in the other developed nations of the world have continuously made over the last number of decades.

We can no longer rely on a low Canadian dollar and high commodity prices. We need to build together as a nation the investments that are required for those communities to rise up and to avoid the boom and bust cycles that are absolutely devastating to these small towns and communities right across the country. We need to make the investments that make sense.

Will there be an on and off ramp on this major highway going to the Asia Pacific and the mid-west and mid-eastern United States and Canada? Will there be access and opportunity? When I asked the minister this question I received a vague answer, which is similar to the bill. He said, “We encourage...it is interesting...of some note”. We need specifics.

The people of western Canada, of British Columbia, of central and eastern Canada, of Quebec and the Maritimes needed specifics. They needed to know that the government was moving and progressing toward a very specific and concrete strategy to get this off the ground. After 13 years in power it is as if the government just woke up to the idea that trade with Asia was important enough to invest in key and critical places, rather than setting up a potential patronage committee of five to seven members who will be making recommendations over some years. All of this is in a bill that was introduced a few weeks before the House rises for the Christmas break and potential prorogation, if one were to listen to the rumours flying about this place, but with no serious intent of the legislation being passed.

The government made no serious attempt to introduce the legislation at a time when this could have seen the light of day and could have come before this House for a vote. The committee could then have had enough time to hear the witnesses and experts to find out whether the bill was too vague or whether it was strong enough to actually support the investment.

I asked the minister some specific questions on security measures that are important to the port of Prince Rupert. It has been asking, for a number of months, that the investments made by the different investors in Canada and North America would be held secure, that security would be held on a level playing field with the other ports in Canada. Again, I received a vague answer back. It is very disconcerting and very difficult for those people in the northwest of British Columbia to feel confidence.

We are talking about the diversification of our economy and the inclusion of the communities in a meaningful way. I will be calling upon the government to support the efforts in the northwest for the communities to actually participate. They could help design this project and help design the container port and the routes that CN is building, so that they may actually access this and receive the investments from the massive EI surplus that the government sloughs every year into general revenue.

This remains a disgrace and a blight in this country. It remains an issue that absolutely cuts to the heart of where the interests actually lie, whether it is fairness for employees and employers or is some sort of piggybank that the government can keep going back to while regions like Hazelton, Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Terrace suffer without the proper investments that were collected on their behalf to ensure that the education and training would be there for them when it is needed.

We need to actually attract those manufacturing facilities, those secondary manufacturing places, so that the resources that we have--and we often forget that the resources are ours. There is a mantra in British Columbia politics right now that is not a right or a left; it is a debate about who these resources actually belong to, the water, the minerals, the wood of this country. Who do they belong to? Do they belong to a multinational firm making a bid on it or do they belong to the people of Canada? Do they belong to every resident within this country?

If the government actually acted that way when it was dealing with foreign acquisitions and dealing with foreign governments in attracting that type of investment, a pride would be present in those negotiations and a confidence that all Canadians would feel about this endowment, this blessing that we have, to be born in this country with the resources that are available to us. We do not want an open-door policy where a come one, come all, lowest bidder, lowest common denominator will have access to everything that we have been endowed with.

This has to fundamentally change. We need to address our trading partners. We need to look to foreign governments that have an interest in participating here with a certain sense of confidence that there is something here that they want. If there is something here that they want, they must negotiate with us on our terms. They must be willing to negotiate with us on human rights issues. They must be willing to negotiate with us on environmental standards.

Perhaps the government has a certain level of shame in this and does not want to bring an issue like human rights to the table because we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister condemning the new Iranian president's comments on Israel while at the same time deporting people to that very same government, participating with the United States and deporting people to places like Syria.

What record do we have to stand on when it comes to the environment, when report after report comes out locating Canada near the bottom of the pack when it comes to the performance of developed countries? Perhaps the government feels a certain amount of shame, then, bringing up those issues with our foreign competitors and our foreign partners. Maybe we finally hit upon the reason why they are often exempt from this discussion in any kind of a meaningful way.

The timing of this is suspect. I looked through the bill and the first nations consultation is near to absent. There is one small place for first nations and 30% of the people in my riding are first nations. The courts have spoken time and time again about the need to consult in a meaningful dialogue with first nations prior to any major development, any major action happening within their territory and yet, when I look through this bill, it is near to absent.

When I talk about first nations representatives within my region, they are considered at the very end of the process, as opposed to up front in a meaningful way. It seems the government has a hard time catching up with some of the fundamental decisions that have been made in this land, Sparrow, Delgamuukw and the rest.

There needs to be a true exchange. There needs to be a recognition that the resources that we are talking about, and are so often called upon to sacrifice to is ours. This is our place. This is our country. These are our resources. When we develop links like this, they must be done in a transparent way, where the people of Canada feel ownership over the development, where all peoples of Canada feel an empowerment to directing the government.

Introducing a bill at a very suspicious time prior to an election with little chance of the normal passage and with the government paying attention to a very key trade and western issue happens at a time that leads us to great suspicion at this end of the House.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's passion for this particular subject matter.

The following organizations have issued public statements endorsing the Pacific gateway strategy, Bill C-68; CN, CP, the Port of Vancouver, the Railway Association of Canada. Would the member agree with these stakeholders and also support the strategy regarding Bill C-68?

The member said that he is in favour of regulatory clarity for the transportation industry. Would he support the early passage of Bill C-44, which would provide regulatory certainty on issues such as railway running lights?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, talk about prejudging inquiries. We have a series of derailments with CN and none of them is high profile. What does the minister decide to do? Investigate CN, rather than doing what we have called for, which is to have a comprehensive system-wide review of the CTA and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The government already has decided that CN is the bad guy. It is a question of how bad it has been. Why does he not look at his own department to determine exactly what his department has done in failing Canadians when it comes to rail safety? That is what should be done.

I rise to speak to Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway act. It is past time that the federal government recognize the tremendous economic potential of the Pacific gateway concept, not just for British Columbians but for Canadians from coast to coast. Conservatives have been calling for action on behalf of B.C. ports for years, which makes this debate long overdue.

However, I want to ensure that Canadians, especially British Columbians, understand what the Pacific gateway contains and what it does not, what it is hopeful about and what is hype.

The Pacific gateway act was tabled by the transport minister on October 20, the day before he travelled to B.C. to announce up to $590 million to support Canada's Pacific gateway strategy.

However, Bill C-68 is not about financial support for making the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert key transit points for Asia and North American trade. It is not about a massive federal contribution to supporting the B.C. port strategy or the recommendations to the B.C. progress b oard. In fact, it is not even about a genuine partnership with the government of British Columbia in working toward harnessing the tremendous economic potential of B.C. ports.

Sadly, it is much less. The bill would create a Canada's Pacific gateway council, an advisory council that would recommend to the Minister of Transport how to spend up to $400 million of the up to $590 million that the federal Liberals announced in favour of the Pacific gateway initiative.

The Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting this Liberal half-step. We are doing so because while much more could be done for B.C., should be done for B.C., and will be done for B.C. under a new Conservative government, half a loaf of bread is better than nothing to a starving man. Conservatives do see this is a good first step, a small baby half-step, to gaining attention to B.C. that has been lacking in the Liberal government for over a decade.

Genuine support for the Pacific gateway initiative is vitally important and very time sensitive. World trade is expanding dramatically and established trade routes are changing.

Last December, newspapers reported that because of tremendous congestion at the port of Vancouver, global transport companies were shipping cargoes through the Panama Canal and on to Halifax rather than through Vancouver. Normally it takes two weeks to ship a container from Asia to Vancouver and under a week to truck the container to Montreal or Toronto from Vancouver. Last year, due to delays at the port of Vancouver, shipments were running up to two weeks behind, making a 37 day trip from Asia to Halifax through the Panama Canal seem competitive in comparison.

However, the structural challenge we face is not Vancouver versus Halifax. It is Canada versus the United States. If using the Panama Canal makes sense when shipping containers from Asia to Atlantic Canada, it makes even more sense when shipping containers from Asia to Texas, Florida or the U.S. eastern seaboard.

An often unnoticed result in dramatically increased global trade is significantly bigger ships. Whereas in the past large container ships might have had a capacity of 2,250 40-foot containers, new ships carry up to 6,000 containers, or 12,000 TEU. Shippers call such vessels “post-Panamax”, meaning that they are too big to get through the Panama Canal. Interestingly, the size of container ships that carry 6,000 containers is also referred to as “post-Suezmax”, meaning it cannot feasibly travel through the Suez Canal either.

If such large ships cannot go through either the Panama or Suez Canal on their way from Asia to North America, a very practical high traffic container route would pass through either Vancouver or Prince Rupert and then by rail or truck to the domestic destination.

The good news is that the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are ideally geographically positioned to facilitate this rapidly expanding trade and have become engines of economic growth for British Columbia and Canada. The bad news is that we are competing against Los Angeles and other U.S. ports as well as against Central America and a Liberal government that does not get it.

The fact that new ships are too big for the Panama Canal has not gone unnoticed by Panama or by its neighbours in Central America. On the one hand, the Panamanians are trying to estimate the feasibility of making the Panama Canal bigger. On the other hand, in August 1998, Carlos Florez, the president of Honduras, called on his neighbours in El Salvador and Nicaragua to consider jointly building a dry canal to link the Pacific container ports in El Salvador and Nicaragua with the Honduran Atlantic port of Port de Cortés.

At the present time neither the expansion of the Panama Canal nor the construction of Central America's dry canal has started, however, the clock is ticking and shippers are becoming impatient.

As a consequence of these growing international pressures, growing trade and commerce and the clear opportunity before us, it is time for Ottawa to enthusiastically embrace real substantive Pacific gateway initiatives.

Nearly five years ago, in January 2001, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council made a presentation to the panel reviewing the Transportation Act and stated:

--the movement of international trade and services requires an increasingly efficient, multi-modal transportation system in order to maintain and enhance Canada’s competitive position in world markets.

Five years ago, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council saw the potential and called for action. Today, the Liberals are reacting, but not nearly fast enough nor effectively enough.

One of the things the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council wanted was a “Transport Canada Regional Office Expediter” whose job would be to cut through red tap for transportation system investments deemed to enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the gateway transportation system.

In the nearly five years since that presentation, international trade has increase almost exponentially, but the Liberals have paid very little attention to the west coast or to the tremendous potential it offers.

Direct federal investment in the Pacific gateway initiative has been minimal. Even if the Liberals actually spend every dime of the promise up to $590 million, it still will only amount to 17% of the $3.5 billion that the B.C. government has identified as being necessary to really support the Pacific gateway initiative.

More important, even in those areas where the federal government was not asked to spend a dime, the Liberals complete lack of action is stunning. For example, the port of Vancouver has repeatedly asked to have its borrowing limit eliminated so it may fund its expansion with money borrowed from the market. On February 5 the Minister of Transport raised the port's borrowing limit to $510 million from the previous limit of $225 million. By raising rather than eliminating the cap, he shows how little he knows about Canada's transportation system.

Canada's major airports do not have borrowing limits, but then they are not Crown agents whose borrowing is backed by the federal government and the Canadian taxpayer. The obvious solution is to remove the port of Vancouver of its Crown agent status and completely eliminate the borrowing limit. That solution has been proposed by every expert, every stakeholder and business person who has seen the obvious and overwhelming growth potential of our west coast port and the handcuffs that the Liberals have imposed on it.

If this proposal is too aggressive for the minister, then there are other options. For example, it has been suggested that the port authorities be allowed to issue tax free municipal bonds or the government can offer one of the two options to different ports, based on their size and ability to solicit investment capital. Whichever option is chosen, the government needs to consider these ideas because the status quo is standing in the way of aggressive port expansion.

Another policy change that is needed is the ability to allow ports to voluntarily merge for competitive advantage. This would allow ports across B.C. or even just in the Lower Mainland, to voluntarily merge if they see it as being in their competitive interest to do so. This has been done in New York and New Jersey with the establishment in 1972 of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey with great success.

Another policy change that is needed is reform of security measures at our ports. Since 9/11, security has been a major policy preoccupation. However, implementation of new technologies and procedures has been ill-prepared and poorly implemented from coast to coast.

If Prince Rupert is to become the world class container facility that we Conservatives envision it becoming, if the port of Vancouver is to continue to grow, if the Fraser port, Delta and Nanaimo are to continue to expand, they need a much clearer regulatory framework of port security measures than has been the case so far since 9/11 at our ports.

Another issue that needs to be addressed by the government is the issue of dredging in B.C., particularly on the Fraser River. This has been an issue for B.C. for years and this transport minister has travelled to B.C. numerous times, meeting with key stakeholders, promising the moon, but thus far has delivered exactly nothing.

Allow me to put this issue into some perspective for the House. This issue has been of grave concern for British Columbians for years, not only due to missed economic opportunities, but also due to public safety concerns regarding flooding.

In an effort to call attention to the problem, the city of Richmond considered the issue and moved that the following resolution be adopted and circulated to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Transport, Richmond, members of Parliament, cities of New Westminster, Surrey, Delta, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, districts of Maple Ridge and Pit Meadows and the township of Langley. It states:

WHEREAS in the 1900s, the Federal Government developed and maintained commercial navigation channels in the Fraser River through the construction of training walls and regular dredging programs, and

WHEREAS until 1997 the Federal Government provided capital and operating funds for the said development and maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels, and

WHEREAS significant waterborne commerce developed in response to the development and maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels, and

WHEREAS significant flood control benefits resulted from the development and maintenance of the said Fraser River navigation channels, and

WHEREAS users of the Fraser River navigation channels pay a Marine Services Fee to the Canadian Coast Guard but the Canadian Coast Guard does not include development and maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels as services funded by the revenue generated by the Marine Services Fees, and

WHEREAS neither the Canadian Coast Guard nor the Federal Government now provide capital and operating funds for the development and ongoing maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels, and

WHEREAS the Fraser River Port Authority has chosen to seek to keep the Fraser River navigation channels operational to the extent of the Authority's limited financial resources and is now the sole funding source for the development and maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels, including but not restricted to the removal of the annual spring freshet infill in the Fraser River, and

WHEREAS the above mentioned significant waterborne commerce and the flood control benefits will be jeopardized if the maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels is not continued and infill removed annually, thereby threatening the socio-economic activities occurring on adjacent lands within the boundaries of our City, and

WHEREAS many of the secondary channels, including the Steveston Harbour, are silting up very quickly and may soon become unusable for navigation, and

WHEREAS many of the local dykes in the lower reaches of the Fraser River were constructed under a joint Federal/Provincial/Municipal funding program, and

WHEREAS the Federal Government does not have any current active funding programs which assist local agencies in maintaining or upgrading these dykes, and

WHEREAS when a flood breaches the dykes, Federal Government emergency funds required will be far in excess of prudent expenditures in both dredging and dyke upgrading,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the City of Richmond, in the strongest way possible, request the Federal Government, reinstate the funding for the continuing development and maintenance of the Fraser River navigation channels and dyking system and provide assurance that previous levels of development and maintenance on the Fraser River navigation channels and dykes will be maintained without jeopardy to waterborne commerce and flood control benefits.

This motion was carried unanimously at Richmond city council--wait for it--in December 2001. It has been almost four years and still the Liberal government, with a Liberal MP for the city of Richmond, has done nothing, absolutely nothing to address this issue. Once elected, a Conservative government would sit down with the province of British Columbia and finally address this issue and offer assistance with the dredging on the Fraser River.

Another area of policy that needs to be addressed but is not in this legislation is the issue of road and highway infrastructure spending. It will not matter how many gateway initiatives are established or how well the port of Vancouver markets itself to the world or how secure our ports are if roads to, from and around the port of Vancouver are congested with surface traffic.

On October 7, 2003 the House of Commons voted 202 to 31 in favour of a motion I put forward calling on the federal government to invest gas tax money into roads. Two years later, the Liberal government has done virtually nothing. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that highway funding is a priority but while surpluses grow and gas tax revenues climb, only pennies are trickling into our roads and highways.

In a classic Liberal move on September 22 the transport minister expanded the national highway system by 11,000 kilometres without promising a single dime of federal support for building, maintaining or improving it.

On June 2, 2003 the Leader of the Opposition was the first party leader to propose sharing gas tax money with the provinces and cities. The Prime Minister says he agrees with the idea, but 28 months later the massive gap between what he takes in from gas taxes and what he invests in roads continues to grow.

A Conservative government will walk its talk. We will put gas tax dollars into roads. We will not do what the Liberals have done, which is to announce big spending projects in an election year to gain votes. We will put steady, stable, predictable gas tax dollars into infrastructure so that our provinces and municipalities can build our infrastructure with the next generation in mind rather than the next election in mind, which is all the Liberals have ever done.

Conservatives are offering real solutions to helping Canada's Pacific gateway move from being a Liberal catchphrase to a Canadian reality. Western ports need these policy changes to encourage our expansion now. As evidence, just last Thursday the port of Vancouver made my office aware of the tremendous difference in time required by the government of B.C. and the Government of Canada to conduct an environmental assessment of port activities.

Whereas the B.C. government can conduct a review within 45 days, six months is the norm for Ottawa. Unless Ottawa can provide the port of Vancouver with a final decision on the results of the Deltaport third berth project environmental assessment by the end of March 2006, federal inaction will hurt the planned expansion of the port of Vancouver.

As I said earlier, we will be supporting Bill C-68 as we recognize and want to encourage the Liberals' small steps in supporting the west coast. At the same time, when Canadians choose to elect a Conservative government, we will put real meat, real substance to our expansion policies. We will use industry expertise and knowledge to aggressively cut through red tape and facilitate a transportation system investment to enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the gateway transportation system. We will take action, not merely establish more bureaucracy, as the transport minister has done today.

We will use industry expertise and knowledge to aggressively cut through red tape and facilitate a transportation system investment to enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the gateway transportation system. We will take action, not merely establish more bureaucracy, as the transport minister has done today.

Even though I believe the Minister of Transport is genuinely concerned about the development of a Pacific gateway initiative, I believe his solutions are rooted in a general lack of awareness of how things really work on the west coast.

The fact is that no matter how much study the transport minister's new advisory group does, there are very likely to be few new ideas. This is because the government of British Columbia has already tabled two very comprehensive reports on the Pacific gateway initiative very recently.

On December 16, 2004, less than a year ago, the BC Progress Board, Premier Campbell's blue ribbon panel of business and academic leaders, tabled “Transportation as an Economic Growth Engine”. In March of this year, less than six months ago, B.C.'s ministry of small business and economic development and the ministry of transport co-authored the British Columbia ports strategy.

I encourage the transport minister to read those reports. Inside both reports he will find words of wisdom. In neither report will he find the suggestion of creating more bureaucracy. Both reports deal with practical issues, such as how to facilitate dramatic port expansion without clogging up local streets with increased truck traffic and rapidly growing train lines.

Recommendation 1(e) of the BC Progress Board's rail policy suggests proposed tax incentives to encourage the railways to double-stack their containers and double-track their routes to overcome bottlenecks in B.C.

Fortunately for British Columbians, the railways did not wait for the Liberals to act. Within five months, Canadian Pacific Railway had begun a $160 million expansion of the track network in its western corridor to increase its capacity by 12%, or more than 400 freight cars a day, extending from the prairie region to the port of Vancouver. CPR said its project was in support of the Vancouver Port Authority's expansion plans and the British Columbia government's port strategy to make the province the preferred gateway to North America for growing volumes of finished goods from Asia.

At about the same time, Canadian National announced $30 million in support of a new container terminal in Prince Rupert. On August 18 it announced it was increasing train capacity for container traffic between the port of Vancouver and Montreal and Toronto by more than 20%.

The railways have acted because they are leaders in the private sector. As senior business leaders, they have learned never to allow Liberal government inaction to stand in the way of pursuing commercial opportunities while being good neighbours.

The BC Progress Board recommended and the railways responded with concrete specific action. It is time for the federal government to do the same.

Both the BC Progress Board and the B.C. ports strategy lay out a very clear plan of action and call on the federal Liberals to respond. The studies and reports have been done. Now is the time to act.

Other countries and governments, from the U.S. to Honduras to China, see the tremendous economic opportunities from increased shipping. We are aggressively and quickly implementing our Pacific gateway initiative. Our geography will give us a competitive advantage to create wealth for a generation of Canadians. The province of British Columbia and the private sector are fully engaged in this project. All that is required for success is for Ottawa to turn its rhetoric and studies and bureaucracy into real policies and true investments so that the expanded Pacific gateway the minister says he favours can actually become a reality and not just Liberal rhetoric.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-68, An Act to support development of Canada's Pacific Gateway, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House today to begin debate on Bill C-68, an act to support the development of Canada's Pacific gateway.

This legislation reflects the commitment of this government, working in partnership with its provincial counterparts and industry stakeholders, to best position Canada so it can prosper in a 21st century economy, an economy that is changing rapidly.

International in its outlook but domestic at its core, the Pacific gateway reaches beyond British Columbia. It is a pan-western initiative with benefits for all Canadians.

The legislation that this government has introduced articulates just how this vision will be put into action. It does this in two ways.

First, the bill sets out new policy frameworks for further development of Canada's Pacific gateway and commits the federal government to a clearly defined strategy.

Second, it establishes a new governance foundation through the creation of Canada's Pacific gateway council, to build consensus among a wide range of public and private stakeholders and to advise decision makers on priorities for developing the Pacific gateway.

I will speak to both aspects of the legislation, but I think it is equally important to provide the context for the introduction of this legislation.

As the most trade dependent nation among G-7 countries, Canada depends on international commerce for its prosperity. Today, the dynamics of global trade are driven by rapid, seamless and secure movements of goods and people around the world through global supply chains.

Much of the activity surrounding supply chains and changing trade patterns is concentrated in key geographic locations or gateways. These gateways are linked to each other and to major markets by corridors. The efficient functioning of trade related gateways and corridors is central to the prosperity of trading nations like Canada.

The rise of emerging markets such as India and China makes it a national priority to ensure that we maximize the effectiveness of our Pacific gateway and ensure that we are taking maximum advantage of it. That requires a new integrated approach to a wide range of interconnected issues, including, but going well beyond, transportation infrastructure.

This is the challenge and the national priority that the Government of Canada is addressing through Canada's Pacific gateway strategy.

The emergence of China as a global trading partner is realigning patterns of trade and investment internationally, shifting global supply chains and framing the pursuit of competitiveness and prosperity around the globe.

China is currently Canada's fourth largest export market. According to International Trade Canada, our exports to China grew by 90%, from $3.5 billion to $6.7 billion, between 1995 and 2004. During the same period, Canada's imports from China grew by more than 400%, from $4.6 billion to $24.1 billion. And China's recent dramatic growth is expected to continue. While it is currently the world's seventh largest economy, it is predicted to be the second largest by 2020, and the largest by 2041.

While Canada-China trade is likely to remain modest compared to the overall value of Canada's trade with the United States trade for some time to come, our strategic interests clearly require new efforts to position Canada strongly in the Asia-Pacific context.

The rapid rise of China as a trading power directs particular attention to both the challenges and opportunities associated with Canada's Pacific orientation. Indeed, Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of emerging opportunities in China and other Asia-Pacific countries, including India and Korea. The Pacific gateway also benefits considerably from a population base that enjoys strong cultural connections with the economies of the Asia-Pacific region, through its heritage, family ties, businesses and investments.

The proximity of Canada's west coast ports to Asian markets offers a one to two day sailing time advantage over all others in the western hemisphere. Canadian rail operators offer among the most affordable freight rates in North America, and our trucking sector is also highly competitive and efficient, both in Canada and in transborder markets.

In addition to the B.C. Lower Mainland ports, significant volumes of container traffic through the new terminal being developed by the Port of Prince Rupert will add considerably to the Pacific gateway picture. Clearly, a strong foundation exists on which to further develop Canada's Pacific gateway as the crossroads between North America and Asia.

I would like to turn now to the gateway itself. Canada's Pacific gateway is a multimodal network of transportation infrastructure focused on trade. It is comprised of interconnected public and privately owned assets including ports, railways and road systems.

Changing trade patterns associated with emerging markets are expected to result in significant growth in trade through this gateway. By 2020 container cargo coming through the ports in British Columbia is projected by the B.C. government to increase by up to 300%, from 1.8 million containers to between 5 and 7 million containers. The value of the trade is projected to reach $75 billion by 2020, up from the current $35 billion.

This will contribute $10.5 billion annually to the Canadian economy, including $3.5 billion in B.C. The trade increases are projected to result in a 178% growth in direct jobs by 2020, from 18,000 to more than 50,000. As we can see, we are talking about trade, more business and more jobs for Canadians.

If we are going to move ahead, we have to understand some of the challenges we face. Despite our potential, Canada's advantages are being jeopardized by freight congestion in the B.C. lower mainland and by points farther east, and concerns exist about capacity to handle projected trade growth. At the same time, Canada is facing an aggressive competition in attracting and retaining a portion of the growing Asian trade.

Other countries and regions are investing in infrastructure and related initiatives to position themselves to seize trade opportunities. For example, the U.S. government recently approved the $286.5 billion over five years safe, accountable, flexible and efficient transportation equity act: a legacy for users. It includes significant investment in the transportation system to improve trade flow.

Recent trade flow increases have strained existing transportation infrastructure capacity on the west coast. In addition, the rail network is also being challenged to meet rising demand. Port backlogs have resulted in some diversion to other ports. This is causing some shippers to be concerned about the future reliability of west coast ports, road and rail services and infrastructure.

In addition to infrastructure capacity, gateway performance is also affected directly by a range of factors, for example: labour market issues including skills shortages in critical fields such as long haul trucking; operating practices in the supply chain; increasing pressures in border management where continued efficiency and greater security must be delivered in the context of rising volumes; and regulatory and economic policies at all levels of government; and municipal land use policies and practices.

A still broader set of issues, reaching far beyond infrastructure, will determine how well Canada takes advantage of the Pacific gateway. These include: trade promotion, sectoral cooperation, and standards harmonization and innovation in the Asia-Pacific context. Concerted efforts in these and other fields are required to ensure that the Pacific gateway's contribution to Canada's prosperity is as great as possible.

It has become increasingly apparent that all of the issues affecting the gateway are interconnected. And that is what Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is all about. The strategy has been developed to address the interconnected issues in an integrated way, accelerating the development of the Pacific gateway and its benefits for British Columbia, the other western provinces and the entire country.

The strategy includes capacity investments to improve the performance of the gateway, including infrastructure and connected issues such as border security and labour market issues. The strategy also includes measures that will contribute to how well Canadian businesses take advantage of the Pacific gateway, through building deeper links with the countries in the Asia Pacific region. And federal commitments carry both near-term and long-term benefits.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy consists of three key components.

First, there is the Pacific Gateway Act, which includes a policy declaration and a new advisory body to address the interconnected issues related to gateway development

Second, there is a package of immediate investments, as announced on October 21, 2005, in Vancouver.

Finally, there are additional funds for further strategic investments over the longer term, including in response to the recommendations of Canada's Pacific Gateway Council.

I would like to talk now a little about the Pacific gateway act. First, the act's policy declaration commits the federal government to the Pacific gateway strategy and defines its essential elements. They are: support for the further development of a world-class multimodal network of strategic transportation links and transfer points of national significance that is competitive, efficient, safe, secure and environmentally sound; the advancement of an integrated and cohesive set of measures in areas that affect gateway performance and areas that allow Canada to take full advantage of the opportunities it provides; and, the promotion of strategic partnerships and collaboration among governments and stakeholders, including through the creation of Canada's Pacific gateway council.

The job of the council would be to advise decision makers on the full range of transportation and other issues that affect the effectiveness of Canada's Pacific gateway and how well the Canadian economy takes advantage of it. The council would be mandated to work with existing networks of stakeholders active in Canada's relations with Asia-Pacific countries, such as the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, and in gateway issues, such as the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council.

The second part of the strategy consists of specific measures that have been identified which would immediately advance the fuller development of the Pacific gateway.

These measures would be implemented with the participation, where appropriate, of provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders and, in the case of infrastructure initiatives, would include cost sharing requirements. The measures are a total of up to $125 million to address key capacity and congestion concerns in the B.C. lower mainland and points further east including: up to $90 million for the Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Interchange in the B.C. lower mainland; up to $30 million for road-rail grade separations in the rail corridor extending from Mission to Deltaport; up to $3 million for North Portal, Saskatchewan road-rail grade separation; and, up to $2 million for intelligent transportation system deployment.

The Government of Canada has also committed to contribute to the environmental assessment of the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road. While the federal government is not committing to fund the project at this time, it will support necessary environmental work and will continue working with the province of British Columbia.

Up to $20 million would be allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency to support expected increases in traveller and container volumes, courier shipments, air freight, commercial trucking and clearing of goods. Priority would also be placed on increasing border management capacity at marine ports, airports and land border crossings to ensure the flow of lawful people and goods while ensuring public safety and security is not compromised.

Finally, up to $10 million would go toward developing deeper links with the Asia-Pacific region through Canadian involvement in international and regional standards development and harmonization activities aimed at the Chinese and other emerging markets. This would facilitate market access for Canadian products and services in these markets and support two-way trade.

An additional $400 million has been identified for future strategic investments, including those in response to recommendations of Canada's Pacific gateway council addressing the range of interconnected issues that affect the full development of the gateway. The future initiatives could include: strategic transportation infrastructure investments; deeper links with Asia-Pacific; labour market initiatives; and investment aimed at ensuring secure and efficient borders at key entry points for the Pacific gateway by addressing the operational demands resulting from increases in trade, visits, immigration and the evolving security environment.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is an important part of the Government of Canada's efforts to enhance our long-term prosperity. It is consistent with other major policy directions including those that support sustainable development, the New Deal for Cities and Communities and well-established directions in transportation policy.

The gateway approach is about acting strategically to take advantage of the convergence of opportunities related to geography, transportation and international commerce. It is also about addressing the connections among a wide range of issues that impact the effectiveness of a gateway or corridor including, but going well beyond transportation.

The Pacific gateway is a first because the people of western Canada have done their job over the past 10 years or so. I have committed to develop a national policy framework on strategic gateways and trade corridors that will guide future measures to tailor the gateway approach to other regions. These measures will not be identical to the Pacific gateway strategy, rather they will be tailored to the circumstances and opportunities in the region concerned. The gateway approach also depends on partnership and collaboration not only across modes of transportation, but also across jurisdictions, and across public and private sectors.

We all have reason to be pleased today with this bill, which will finally allow us to develop the extraordinary potential our geography has to offer. Whether in southern Ontario, on the St. Lawrence River, or in the Halifax area, we could develop other corridors, other gateways to promote the development of international trade.

British Columbia has been a leader in this field. It has done its homework. We will now use its experience and support it. We will do the same for western Canada. Based on this experience it is clear that there will be more bills of this kind in order to maximize on the full potential of international trade.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, unfortunately, takes the opportunity every Thursday to ask the same question, knowing the answer will be exactly the same because it is factual.

The opposition days will begin the week of November 14, and I indicated that some weeks ago to the opposition House leaders. At that point, I thought the matter had been dealt with and that we would focus on the agenda, which is important to Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading of Bill C-67, which is the surpluses bill. Should this be completed, we would then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-66, the energy legislation. We do not sit on Friday. On Monday we will commence the second reading debate of Bill C-68, respecting the Pacific Gateway. We will give priority to these bills over the next week.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate on cross-border Internet drugs.

If debates on the major bills that I have referred to are completed by late next week, we will then turn to report stage of Bill S-38, respecting the spirits trade, second reading of Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill, Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals, second reading of Bill C-44, the transport legislation, second reading of Bill C-61, the marine bill, reference before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services bill, report stage of Bill C-54, the first nations resources bill and other bills that will perhaps come back from committee that we would like to get into the House for further debate.

In order to bring about that take note debate on Tuesday, I move:

That a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, November 1 on the subject of cross-border Internet drugs.

Criminal Code

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the bill and to follow my colleague from Palliser. I know his commitment to fixing the problems in our criminal justice system is probably second to none, certainly in this House. I congratulate him on his fine analysis of the problems with the bill.

I want to begin my discussions on the bill by framing the Liberal strategy with crime prevention in general. Whenever the Liberals put forward a bill where they pretend they are going to make our communities safe or that they are going to protect Canadians from criminal elements, we have to remember where their priorities are.

I have had many of my constituents tell me that they do not consider it a justice system any more. It is more like an injustice system. It is referred to more as a legal system because that is where the focus is. It is not on enacting justice on those who do wrong in our society.

Let us remember where the number one focus of the Liberal government is in terms of crime prevention strategy, and that is the $2 billion gun registry. Members heard a few of our speeches today refer to this. It is one of the most horrendous wastes of public money in Canadian history.

It is difficult to talk about the gun registry in under 10 minutes. There is really nothing right with it. Everything about it is wrong. The Liberals have pumped $2 billion into a big black hole that has not prevented a single crime or solved a single murder.

Let us take a look at who would actually register guns. Farmers, hunters and sports shooters, being honest Canadians, want to comply with the law. Therefore, they register their guns. They know the waste involved and they understand that it is a violation of their rights, but they are honest Canadians and they do not want to break the law.

However, people who are going to commit a crime, especially one with a firearm, are not concerned about violating registration requirements. Drug dealers who have smuggled drugs into the country, who sell them on the streets, who decide to get involved in some kind of gang warfare, kill their competitors and move in on their turf will not stop and think about registering their guns first so they can abide by Bill C-68. We know they do not do that. Registration is useless. The best way to keep criminals from using guns illegally is to keep criminals in jail longer. That is the simplest way to do it.

All the money wasted on the registry could have been put toward front line police services. That money could save lives. According to the gun registry, the money may have created some bureaucrat jobs. It may have funnelled money through to Liberal-friendly firms. However, it has not saved any lives. That $2 billion put into front line resources and into investigative resources is where we can save lives in a crime prevention strategy.

The bill deals with street racing. It is part of a package that the Liberals have introduced to deal with crimes related to cars. They also have one on the order paper dealing with tampering with vehicle identification numbers of stolen cars. These kinds of issues are very important to me. Car thefts are such a serious problem in Regina and, moreover, in the province of Saskatchewan.

The Conservative Party understands that to have one's car stolen is a serious breach of one's personal security and a violation of one's personal property. Someone's car is a vital part of someone's life. For many families, it is the only way that they can get to and from work. For students who cannot afford to live close to universities, it is the only way that they can get to school. It is a huge quality of life issue.

When someone's car is stolen, it throws one's life into turmoil. It affects insurance premiums. Car thefts cost the government and consumers over $1 billion annually. This is felt most harshly in the form of higher insurance premiums. When premiums go up, it is a severe hardship for most working Canadians, especially for people living on fixed incomes. It affects their quality of life. Therefore, politicians should treat the theft of an automobile as a very serious crime.

However, the Liberals and the NDP just do not get it. They voted against every attempt on the part of the Conservative Party to enact tough minimum sentences for car thieves. I do not understand that. How many times do people have to steal cars before they are considered a threat to the community?

I absolutely understand that perhaps it is not the best idea to send a first time offender, a young person who made a mistake, to jail to make them a better criminal, which is a lot of the terminology thrown out by opponents of minimum sentencing. They say that if we send young people to jail, they will come out better criminals. They say that it is not the right thing to do for first time offences. That is where some judge's discretion can come into play.

However, my patience quickly runs out when someone is stealing their third or fourth car. Then they are no longer just young kids making mistakes. They are now car thieves and they need to be in jail. They need to be away from people's cars for long periods of time. Each time they steal a car, that period of time needs to be longer and longer.

It is easy not to steal cars. Yet the government continues to have a revolving door policy for repeat offenders. We are putting our friends and families at risk by not imposing serious consequences on repeat offenders.

However, we should not be surprised that the Liberals do not take car theft seriously. The Liberals constantly downplay the risk of allowing habitual offenders early release. When it comes to crime and other serious problems facing Canadians, the Liberals completely have their heads in the sand.

My colleague from Palliser mentioned the case of Liberal Larry Campbell, mayor of Vancouver and one of the newest Liberal senators. He does not even believe that crystal meth is a serious problem in our country. This is what he said in the Globe and Mail on Monday, October 17. He said, “This idea that there's a huge crystal meth disaster happening in this country is garbage”. He said that at a forum on the city's plan to prevent drug use.

I want every Canadian who has suffered through an addiction to crystal meth or who has had a friend or family member's life destroyed by this horrible drug to consider that statement, that crystal meth being a threat is garbage. That is a slap in the face to every Canadian who deals with the horrible impacts of crystal meth.

Despite the fact that chiefs of police around the country, provincial premiers and provincial attorneys general have all agreed unanimously that crystal meth is one of the most dangerous drugs on the streets of our nation and that we need an aggressive strategy to fight the production, distribution and consumption of this drug, the Liberals say that such talk is garbage.

Car theft is a plague to society. The Liberals think that is garbage. Crystal meth destroys people's lives. The Liberals think that is garbage. We in the Conservative Party do not think it is garbage. We think it is a horrible problem that the government needs to address immediately.

Then we come to the bill at hand and the Liberals again are pretending that they are doing something serious about crime. They are pretending that they are enacting a part of Chuck Cadman's legacy, but there are no minimum sentences in the bill. It is a far cry from what Chuck originally intended.

I only got to know Chuck very briefly. His time in this Parliament was brief and he was often unable to attend sittings of the House. The few times I was able to meet him, it was always very quickly in passing and just a brief hello. I was not here when he first started his crusade against this, but a lot of colleagues in my caucus were here. They remember the conviction and the passion that he brought to this place to fight on these kinds of issues, to fight for quality of life issues, for safer streets and safer communities.

Again, the Liberals have twisted that and have omitted any reference in the bill to minimum sentences and escalating minimum sentences for repeat offenders. They are a bit twisted on this. We heard the parliamentary secretary earlier explain that there were some minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. He said that the Liberals were doing a great job on minimum sentences. They even have a bunch of them in the Criminal Code regarding people who use guns in crimes. However, on September 27 in the House, the Liberal Minister of Justice said, “Minimum sentences have no effect. They do not deter and they result in unnecessary incapacitation and unnecessary costs to the system without protecting security”.

This is another Liberal flip-flop. On the one hand, the Liberals say that have minimum sentences, that they are fighting crime and that these are good minimum sentences. On the other hand, they say that minimum sentences do not work and that is why they are against them. The Liberals are contradicting each other day by day.

I want to tell the House something important about deterrence when it comes to minimum sentences. When we enact a tough minimum sentence for a repeat or violent offender, we are deterring the most important person in regard to that, which is the offender himself because he cannot re-offend if he is in jail. That is one of the most important reasons why we do have minimum sentences. It is not just so we provide a warning for other Canadians who may be considering doing illegal acts, although that is important. It is to keep the person away from society, away from the people he might harm and to prevent him from re-offending.

I want to tell a quick story. When I was campaigning in the last election, I visited a house in the north central part of Regina. A woman answered the door. I was struck by the fact that on every window there were bars and security measures all around the house. She opened the door only a tiny way and peered out. She had a security bolt on the door. She was afraid, in the middle of the afternoon in Regina, to open her door because of the neighbourhood she lived in.

I do not believe that law abiding Canadians should have to live behind bars. I believe criminals should have to live behind bars. That lady should be able to open her door at any time of the day.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-382, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure).

Mr. Speaker, about 10 years ago the government passed Bill C-68, the much hated bill which put the gun registry in place. It also put in place extremely unusual search and seizure provisions which would allow police officers, without a warrant, even in cases where no offence had been committed or suspected of having been committed, to enter a home and seize the weapons and remove them.

This legislation would prevent that from happening and put in place the normal process. Unless police officers have evidence that a crime has been committed, they would first have to obtain a search warrant. My bill is proposing a much needed change to the legislation regarding firearms.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Civil Marriage Act

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at times with some of the Liberals across the way and they have asked me what exactly my problem was with this, why it would make a difference and what it would do to marriage.

One of my constituents recently published an article that very adequately summarizes the issue being discussed here today. I am grateful to Phil Johnson of the Osoyoos Baptist Church for his gracious agreement to allow me to read his submission which I now read in its entirety. The article is entitled, “Marriage is not a 'Living-together-thingy'”:

Recently, my wife and I were looking for some new furniture for the living room. Fortunately, the English language is rich enough to have more than one word to describe the different pieces we can sit on. They are not collectively referred to as 'The sitting-on-thingies'.

If our language was not so rich, to become more specific in our speech we would have to refer to the 'single-sitting-on-thingy', the 'double-sitting-on-thingy' and the 'three-or-more-sitting-on-thingy'. Wonderfully, the English language has provided us with single words that accurately describe a chair, a loveseat and a sofa.

Marriage is the same way. It is not a 'living-together-thingy' where any two or more people living together is called 'Marriage'. God has defined marriage as a man and a woman committed to each other for life. Any other relationship outside this is not marriage. This is not a matter of cultural preference. This is a definition that has been around 1000's of years.

Surely, the English language is rich enough to furnish another word or term to describe a same sex or other union. Why must the term marriage be used? The word we use to describe the union between one man and one woman is Marriage.

If you are going to come up with a new type of union, come up with a new term to describe it.

Just like we have a 'single-sitting-on-thingy' as a 'Chair' and 'three-or-more-sitting-on-thingy' as a 'Sofa', so we need to have a whole new word to describe this new type of union.

We could even run a nationwide competition to create a new word, that years from now could invoke warm and sentimental feelings, just as they do now about marriage. The chair does not feel discriminated against because it is not called a sofa.

Why is the term 'Civil Union' unacceptable? Perhaps, it has nothing to do with the recognition of a lifetime commitment between two people, and everything to do with the destruction of the idea of what marriage truly is? Why did the lesbian couple that took their cause to the Supreme Court apply for a divorce only five days after they were married? Hmmm.

New definitions will not destroy the institution of marriage, but it will drastically dilute its meaning and we will all lose in the end. A chair is a chair and a sofa is a sofa. For thousands of years, the English word to describe one man and one woman in a committed relationship to the exclusion of all others has been marriage. It does not mean, a 'living-together-thingy', however you want to define it this week.

I think the article Mr. Johnson sent in sums up very well the concerns that a lot of people have. I would like to tell members about my riding and the concerns people have in my riding.

As members might well imagine, coming from rural British Columbia, the government's Bill C-68 firearms registry bill was a huge issue. As the costs went from an estimated $2 million to almost $2 billion and still rising, their outrage became even more pronounced, However, as big as that is, it is dwarfed by the way people feel in my riding about this particular bill.

I have had over 4,000 letters and e-mails from constituents. I have even taken the trouble to stir the pot a bit to suggest that not many people are writing in supporting this and, if they are out there, I am not hearing from them. Out of those 4,000 letters that generated a total of 15 people who support this. There might be some support for this somewhere but it certainly is not in British Columbia Southern Interior.

As far as how this is being handled in the House, it is very interesting. It is a free vote, say the Liberals who introduced this bill. Well it is not quite a free vote. It is a free vote for the people on the backbenches but the members of the cabinet were told that it was not a free vote for them. They must vote the way they are told or they will be kicked out of cabinet and have their shiny new cars taken away.

It is a free vote for the people on the backbenches, except that I happen to know some of them quite well and quite a number of them do not support the bill. The pressure on them to comply with the way the government tells them to vote, even though it is a free vote, or, alternatively, to make sure they are absent when the vote is taken, has been intensified.

Members of another party, the NDP, the kissing cousins who live down the street and who dream of grandeur they will never realize on their own, do not have a free vote. They have been told that they must vote in support of their Liberal cousins. Even though the Liberals themselves have said that it is a free vote, the NDP have said that its members must support the Liberals in this because it dare not ever allow this to be a free vote.

When the Prime Minister was asked about having a referendum on this he said no, that he would never allow a referendum on an issue like this because he had little doubt that the majority of Canadians did not support the bill and he would not allow the majority to dictate to a minority. Is that not a wonderful process we have in the House of Commons where the majority does not rule?

I hear the Liberals yipping and yapping across the way wondering why we would expect in a democracy that the majority would ever rule or even have a say that they would listen to.

This is a very unfortunate bill. I had a lesbian couple come into my office to verify something I had said. I said that I had no quantitative evidence for this but that I believed that a lot of gay and lesbian people did not want or ask for this legislation. They did not want the notoriety. They are just people like everyone else. They have their jobs, their friends and their recreation. They want to go about their lives like the rest of us do. However along came the Liberals saying no, that they had to elevate them to something they had not asked for because they have very strange ideals. The couple who came in said exactly that. They said that they had never asked for this. They said that their lives were just fine until the Liberals came along and that now all of a sudden they were under a spotlight. Maybe that is what the Liberals intended but who knows.

In closing, I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to the Liberal Party of Canada because this is the kind of issue that will help me in the next election. It will help me to be one of the Conservatives who come back to replace the government. We will not play around with bills that very few people ask for. We will not arbitrarily rule on things where the majority is not allowed a say. We will bring in the kind of good legislation this country has waited for. It will be interesting to hear what kind of yipping and yapping the Liberals do once they are sitting over on this side of the House.

Property Rights

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

My colleague says it is beautiful. It is a very beautiful statement about what the meaning of property is. It is men and women mixing their labour with nature, thereby having a sense of ownership over it.

As has been said many times, the omission of property rights from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a worrisome oversight and we would certainly like to see that document amended to include property rights. The rights that Canadians enjoy with respect to property are only done through some provincial and federal statutes, but there should be, as my colleague suggested, an overriding principle so all laws can abide by this principle.

In Quebec, of course, property rights are found within the civil code of that province.

Since property rights are not entrenched in the legal system, Parliament can easily overturn property rights under virtually any piece of legislation. There are examples of that in this Parliament and the last.

The proposed endangered species legislation in the last Parliament by the Liberal government could mean vast tracts of land are taken away from landowners of the smallest size at the discretion of political figures and governments without giving due compensation. That is a key thing to remember. This is not saying that the government never has a reason to take property away but if it does so, it has to give fair market compensation. That was an important principle that we fought for in the last Parliament.

The recent anti-terrorism legislation authorizes police to seize certain property without normal judicial review. The mapping of the genome and advancements in health sciences have brought about new debates in intellectual property. There is the issue of firearms seizure under Bill C-68 with respect to the firearms registry.

There is also the issue of patents, copyright and intellectual property rights, which are an important area of the work I do as the industry critic for the official opposition. In this digital day and age, we see repeated violations of property rights. Music is downloaded and shared without paying anything to the creator. Major motion pictures are also copied and shared through the Internet. This is an important point. Locke made the whole innovation in terms of mixing our labour. However, it is also mixing our intellectual labour with something and being a creator and, thus, being rewarded for the efforts and the intellect that one pours into something.

The University Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 considered intellectual property a fundamental right of all peoples. However, Canada has been less aggressive than most of its international competitors in linking innovation to intellectual property or in protecting or promoting intellectual property rights.

On the other hand, the Conservative Party at its policy convention in March of this year passed several motions that will improve property rights for Canadians. I am proud to say that it was my riding association that was one of the sponsors of these, the good members of Edmonton—Leduc.

The policy reads:

i) A Conservative Government will seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just and timely compensation.

ii) A Conservative Government will enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

In addition to this, the Conservative Party passed two more resolutions that would improve the protection of intellectual property. We would create a process to allow the patent holder to restore time lost on 20 year patent protection due to delays in government approving certain things, like pharmaceutical medicines. If the government takes two or four years to approve a product, we believe there should be some restoration in the patent period to that company and to the company that holds the patent.

We also believe we must continuously examine and update our copyright legislation. To that end, we have passed a comprehensive set of objectives to guide the party in future amendments to copyright law.

Music file sharing is a massive problem in Canada. There is a proliferation of websites providing resources and copies of music used by most to avoid paying for a copy of a CD or cassette tape.

I was struck by the comments by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He engaged in an act of sophistry which I have not seen him do in this Parliament.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will soon be introducing copyright amendment legislation that actually tries to protect the works of creators, people like Tom Cochrane, Tragically Hip and Blue Rodeo, who are famous Canadians musicians. It is based on a perception that if they pour their intellectual, moral and labour into something, then they have a right to derive a benefit from it. That is property rights. That forms the basis of that legislation

We cannot have copyright legislation unless we have an abstract understanding of what property right legislation should be.

Canadian musicians have been waiting for more than a decade for amendments to the Copyright Act. As it currently stands, Canadian composers, song writers, lyricists and music publishers are not being fairly compensated and in some cases their rights are being violated because we have no workable enforcement mechanisms in Canadian law.

I am calling on all members to seriously think about this motion and examine it. It is a very thoughtful motion and it is put forward in the most gracious spirit that one can ask for from the member for Yorkton--Melville in terms of protecting property rights of all types, property rights and intellectual property rights.

However, I want to address in my conclusion one of the big issues. Members have said that it is a right wing or centre right issue. That is absolute nonsense. They say it is for big corporations. That is absolute nonsense.

The whole history of the development of property rights theory is linked frankly to small landowners, small creators trying to protect what they put in, whether it is against a bigger landowner or against a government that comes in and arbitrarily takes away what they have.

There is the example of legislation in the past Parliament. A small landowner whose land is simply expropriated under the endangered species act needs to have fair market compensation so he or she can keep going on the farm and can have his or her livelihood kept intact.

That protects the smallest landowner as much as it does the largest landowner. It is a protection for the small creators, for the small farmers against the actions of an excessive government or the actions of another excessive corporation or individual. Therefore, property rights are there to protect the small creators, the businesses, the people who really do need our protection.

I support the motion. I hope all members will do the same. I was going to conclude with a comment from Frederick Bastiat, who I think was called one of the greatest economic journalists of all times. He said that the whole notion of law, and the copyright law is one example, is if the law does not recognize property rights, it is so mistaken. The law itself, he would argue, especially common law, was derived so much from the whole development and notion of property rights itself. It is an inverse relationship.

Therefore, I encourage members of the House to fully recognize that relationship and to amend our laws and Constitution to fully recognize property rights here in Canada.

Criminal Code

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-215.

Like all those who spoke during the first hour of debate, I too share the view that the objectives of the bill are laudable. However, I, like most of the members who spoke, am concerned that the approach taken to address the issue raises significant problems.

Having reviewed the transcript of the first hour of debate, I could not help but notice the strong tone taken by the member for Calgary--Nose Hill with respect to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. She said that the parliamentary secretary could not have read the bill. This was in relation to the concerns that he raised with respect to the potential application of the minimum penalties proposed in the bill.

The member for Calgary--Nose Hill took great pains to read out the offences that are listed in Bill C-215. The point she wished to make was that the hypothetical case of an 18 year old shooting a bunch of car tires was not an offence captured in the bill and that it was irresponsible for the parliamentary secretary to say that it was.

I have read the bill and I am certain that the parliamentary secretary has read the bill. It seems to me that the member for Calgary--Nose Hill has not read it herself. Perhaps it was she who was acting irresponsibly in enumerating all the offences amended by the bill but neglecting to mention section 85, which is the offence of using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.

Mischief causing damage to property over $5,000 is an indictable offence. It is indeed captured by this bill which seeks to amend section 85 by providing a minimum penalty of 10 years for discharging a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. This penalty must be consecutive to the one imposed for the underlying offence.

The possible application of such a severe penalty, given the nature of the hypothetical crime we mentioned, must undoubtedly be the reason why the parliamentary secretary felt compelled to highlight the problem.

Another issue the member for Calgary--Nose Hill took issue with was the concern most of the other members expressed with respect to the proposal to add supplementary penalties. Ironically, she did mention section 85 in this context immediately after having omitted it from the list of offences being amended. Therefore she appears to be aware of section 85's existence. Perhaps it is just that she did not know how it applied. The Liberal, Bloc and NDP members all understood and made the point that the supplementary sentences proposed were problematic.

I would like to take the time to explain, for the benefit of members of the other party, the problem with supplementary sentences. It is actually not that complicated.

It is not possible to have two penalties of imprisonment for one offence. As an example, let us look at how Bill C-215 proposes to amend the robbery offence. Clause 10 proposes that every person who commits a robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable:

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence or in flight thereafter, to imprisonment for life, and to an additional minimum punishment of a term of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the term imposed for the offence, of

(i) five years if the firearm is not discharged--

(ii) ten years if the firearm is discharged...or

(iii) fifteen years if the firearm is discharged...thereby caused bodily harm or death;

It is not possible to provide two terms of imprisonment upon conviction for one offence. The member asked why this was a concern when currently section 85 sets out an additional minimum penalty, to be served consecutively, for using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. My colleague mentioned that we do use minimum sentencing in our law for firearms offences.

Two things are important to note: first, section 85 is a separate offence and it has its own penalty; second, section 85 does not apply when the underlying offence is one of the 10 serious offences listed.

The 10 serious offences listed are: criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, intentionally causing bodily harm with a firearm, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion.

A higher minimum penalty of four years has been incorporated in the penalty provisions for those ten serious offences already if they are committed with a firearm.

This was the principled approach taken in Bill C-68, which provided significantly higher minimum penalties for specific serious offences committed with a firearm, a bill that I supported.

The additional minimum penalty of one year or three years, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offence, at section 85 can apply to other indictable offences: those that do not currently attract a minimum four year penalty.

Some indictable offences provided in the Criminal Code can be less serious in nature, even when they are committed with a firearm. This is why it is so important that we consider reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

The parliamentary secretary, in the first hour, mentioned one example, which some members found to be too far-fetched. However, given that it is almost identical to a hypothetical case considered in an actual judgment on the issue of section 85, I would suggest that it is not at all unreasonable to consider it.

The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles gave another reasonable hypothetical case of someone who agrees to stand as a lookout while an accomplice carries out a robbery in a store. This lookout person would receive 19 years if Bill C-215 were passed.

The fundamental problem with Bill C-215 is that it would establish an inflexible penalty scheme, one which would force the courts to hand down grossly disproportionate sentences in cases that could quite reasonably arise.

As I stated at the outset, although the goal of the bill is commendable, that is to send a clear message to deter those who would use a firearm to commit a crime, it would not be of any use if the scheme proposed is not viable and, as such, stands a very high risk of being struck down by the courts.

I will not be supporting the legislation and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

Civil Marriage Act

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has moved Canadians to action and to become involved, reinvigorated as active members of the Canadian democratic process. I have had interventions from several thousand of my constituents, more so than on any other piece of legislation, even Bill C-68, and we know how controversial that has been and how many people have come to the fore on that. Several thousand of my constituents have told me that they are also against the purpose of this bill. They also wonder why we should be occupied by this matter rather than the more pressing issues that affect millions rather than a few hundred Canadians.

It reflects the nature of our modern age, perhaps even the corruption of our legal system, that a very vocal minority can put their issue on a national platform even when the vast majority of Canadians have better things to do. And they still claim they have no voice.

I know the Prime Minister will feign outrage at this, but we are pretty tired of his phony moral stances over here. It has taken him only a few years to run completely from poll to poll, from one side of an issue to the other. He has now exhausted every position he can hold on every issue. He has nowhere left to run.

Speakers on all sides of the House have articulated the background to the introduction of Bill C-38, but not everyone has been playing with a full deck of facts. The former justice minister said in the House that the traditional definition of marriage was safe and secure and that the Liberals had no intention of changing anything. Not that long ago, like every Liberal promise, those words disappeared after the election.

Despite voting to take every action necessary to protect our foundational institution, those same Liberals stood by while junior court after junior court defied the Supreme Court and Parliament and thousands of years of history to claim they have discovered words in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are not actually there at all.

The Prime Minister claims to hold the charter sacred while he lets judicial activists distort this document into radical new shapes. He says nothing while judges claim they find words where none exist. This is not progressive. This is radical and there is always a danger to the overall common good when a few radicals hijack a national document and use it to push their own agenda.

A few of my colleagues in the House circulated a letter in which they claimed no one was behind the push for same sex marriage. It just sort of sprang up from the ground. We are not sure how it came about. The radicals we are concerned with are a group that wants to overthrow the institution of marriage because it does not conform to their social view. But they are not the only radicals at work. Greater conflicts are coming. When a democratic government participates in the breakdown of its own foundations, it cannot know where that process will end and neither can the radicals who are pursuing this narrow agenda.

The Prime Minister said that this bill is about minority rights. He is wrong. The Supreme Court has said that he has a choice to legislate on marriage because the definition is up to Parliament. It did not say he had the right to establish or create a right for marriage. No one has a right to get married. When we believe we have found a mate that we want to spend the rest of our lives with, there are a number of options. Some will shack up, as the saying goes, and not care about government or parental approval. Some will seek government approval after a time and get benefits and pension rights. That option is open to everyone now.

Some will enter into what they hope is a lifetime commitment. They will look at the list of prohibitions contained in the marriage act and finding they qualify, will get a licence and undergo a solemnization ceremony at city hall or in a church. They will promise to stay together for life and raise their children in a loving household. Not everybody makes it through their whole lifetime, but no one regards divorced individuals as second class citizens which is one of the spurious complaints of these radicals.

If I had a right to be married, I could ignore the rules set out in the marriage act, ignore any rules of solemnization in my province and certainly reject any fees they try to charge me for that process. If I had a right to get married, I would tell the clerk that I am not paying for the licence because it is my right. What about divorce? My wife can never divorce me because that would contravene my right to be married. That is how spurious this is.

Many people are miserable after divorce and it is not because they lose half their income. If the government shared the court's preoccupation with people's feelings and dignity and actually believed it was guaranteeing rights, surely it would bring in legislation to force people to stay together, or maybe provide a spouse to anyone who still wanted to exercise his or her right to be married. It is a lot of nonsense of course.

Society, not courts or governments, created the institution of marriage to provide security to men and women in a relationship they could both understand and count on and to create a unit that nurtures and protects vulnerable children as they grow and learn about their heritage. We know this breaks down often in our society and it is tragic when it does, but people do cope. Children can be and are raised in a variety of environments and turn out well. We are not talking about what everyone must do, but about what society has come to understand as to what is best for the most people most of the time.

The radicals would have us believe that because the guidelines do not include every possibility, they are flawed and must be rewritten. They have obviously convinced the Liberal cabinet, apparently, in the last few months that by rewriting the rules of society, all will be happy and we will not have to rewrite any more.

It is ironic that the Prime Minister now wants to paint himself as the great defender of minorities. We know the gun registry is an onerous document that targets a law abiding minority in this country. We know that Bill C-68, as written, tramples on at least a dozen rights from the Constitution and, as it is clumsily applied, violates a dozen or so more. So far, no Prime Minister has stood up for this minority.

We have had language laws imposed in this country that the United Nations has recognized as illegitimate, but not one Prime Minister has seen fit to help minorities where votes are at stake. So much for fundamental rights.

Our primary food producers are abused by trade disputes, hammered by unreasonable restrictions and taxed off their land. Their crops are seized and sold, and they get nickels back while somebody else makes millions.

There is the ongoing case of single income families that the Supreme Court admitted are discriminated against, but apparently they do not have much of a lobby over there. There is not a single Liberal standing up for their rights.

The whole process is pretty selective and clearly more about what is fashionable than what is right. The methods used by selfish radicals and their Liberal allies to manipulate discussion are reprehensible. Just because we say it is about minority rights does not make it so, especially when the rhetoric can never match these actions.

The Liberals claim to stand for a repressed minority, but this minority, which is really a small part of a minority, seems to have access to government and courts that most Canadians cannot even dream of. I have heard some Canadians say that we should just throw in the towel and give in whenever someone makes enough noise. Often they reflect a level of frustration about the lack of control they feel in the political process. Sometimes they are apathetic and do not realize that what is at stake is more than marriage and more than the demands of one politicized section of one minority.

To give up would be a mistake for two reasons. What the Liberals are pushing here is illegitimate and giving in will only make things worse, paving the way for more demands for so-called rights. They are prepared to let a few activist judges not interpret the Constitution but to continuously remake it without any input from the people who have to live with those consequences.

Canadians who let the government get away with that are guilty of putting their future into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of radicals whose demands we cannot imagine at this time.

What about marriage itself? Some people say, since they will still be married afterwards, what is the big deal? The same sort of dismissal greeted the change in divorce laws, and probably the insanity and lack of debate that passed for abortion laws in this country. The fact is, when a group manages to alter an institution that affects all of society, then many other changes creep in, whether we object to later consequences or not.

We are not talking about changing marriage here. We are talking about changing society. Professor Thomas Sowell points out that marriage is not an institution that grants rights. On the contrary, it imposes responsibilities. He writes:

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes--and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society does not tell individuals what to do; it only provides a framework to carry on that society for posterity. It is ironic that the radicals would invite the government into their bedrooms to take away their rights under the guise of claiming new rights for themselves.

Journalist John McKellar, who founded HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, reports that the January 2001 same sex wedding in Toronto was an embarrassment for most gay communities, not a triumph. He said, “Better to stay at home and clean out the fridge when your public image is so embarrassingly represented with such maudlin specimens of martyrdom”.

What Mr. McKellar objects to and what every thinking Canadian should object to is the Liberal's knee-jerk reaction to every claim of discrimination and hurt feelings. He also said, “This is no time for the modern, feel good, pop culture mentality that stands behind C-38”.

He counts himself among the happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who do not wake up every day finding hate, bigotry and discrimination under the bed, and go running to the courts, governments and human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

McKellar is describing the heart of what is so objectionable about Bill C-38 and, of course, last year's Bill C-250, for that matter. There is a disturbing trend today to bend the purposes of society and democracy to the will of the few with the hope of making one group feel good about itself. In the meantime, everyone else's right to free speech and opinion, everyone else's right to a dependable social order, and everyone else's right to enjoyment of property is trampled in the misguided rush to satisfy the perceived feelings of a minority of a minority.

In closing, I have always personally supported the traditional definition of marriage. I will continue to support and fight for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians to order their lives as they see fit, and I unequivocally reject the false assertions in Bill C-38.

Financial Administration Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act. I participate in this debate to express the concerns that have been brought to my attention regarding this piece of legislation.

I come to this debate with a clear conscience knowing that I voted against Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act. I had a number of concerns regarding that legislation and it would appear that my concerns were well-founded. This piece of legislation, Bill C-8, as has been acknowledged by the governments members, is a continuation of Bill C-25, which is another public service reorganization.

I am proud to confirm my record of supporting the men and women who are members of the Public Service of Canada. When civilian jobs were threatened on Canada's military bases, I joined the picket line to protest a visit by the Prime Minister to my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. That was when he was spending all his time trying to depose Jean Chrétien and not attending Treasury Board meetings.

The Prime Minister was not doing the job of finance minister by his own admission while on the witness stand at the Gomery commission. Canadians will never know, if the Prime Minister had attended some of those Treasury Board meetings he allegedly missed, whether some of the 100 million ad scam dollars would not have gone missing. That protest was our successful campaign to stop the supply chain proposal at the Department of National Defence. Bill C-8 sounds like the supply chain proposal all over again, except this time, rather than just pushing it on to the Department of National Defence, this is the supply chain for the entire public service.

The experience of Canadians, whenever the federal government seeks to reorganize, has been higher user fees, fewer public servants leading to longer wait times for basic services, more regulations, reduced accountability, and a reduction of service and higher cost, ultimately leading to higher taxes.

In centralizing personnel functions, will this allow for greater accountability of public servants or will this allow another sponsorship scandal to occur with no chance of anyone getting caught taking taxpayers' dollars? Is Bill C-8, and Bill C-25 before it, a case of closing the barn door after the horses have already been let out?

Canadians monitoring the Gomery inquiry into government corruption have been shocked while listening to the testimony of former elected Liberals, like the public works minister. He claimed the fraud and corruption schemes described as money laundering as being the fault of public servants.

Today's editorial page of the Ottawa Citizen sees this bureaucratic reorganization as nothing more than shuffling the deck chairs on the SS Liberal , or does it mean the Titanic , as a way to buy votes rather than improve administration of the Government of Canada? This is what the Ottawa Citizen says about the government procurement:

What about government procurement? There used to be two separate departments--Public Works, and Supply and Services. Jean Chrétien combined them into Public Works and Government Services in 1993 and eventually put Alfonso Gagliano in charge. Just ask the Gomery Inquiry how well that worked.

Canadians must ask, will Bill C-8 make it harder or easier for another sponsorship scandal, the worst scandal involving financial mismanagement in this country and perpetrated against the people of Canada?

Canadian confidence in how this country is run is further diminished when Canadians are told by the Prime Minister that once funds are allocated to a program, there is no accountability on how the money is spent and whether or not the program objectives are being met. Where is the justice in a Prime Minister who feels it is more important for the taxpayer to buy golf balls with his name on them to give away to his golf buddies or a minister of public works, who has a box of expensive pocket watches beside his desk to hand out to his political contributors, when there are children in this country who are going to bed hungry at night? There are a million Canadians who do not have a family doctor.

We fight separatism with good government, not monogrammed golf balls and Canadian lapel pins made in China. Where is the justice in that sort of activity?

It was evident from the arrogant testimony of the former Prime Minister that in his mind, his mistake was not in setting up a program that resulted in the defrauding of tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers, but the very way he presented himself to the corruption inquiry made it clear that he and those who supported his way of thinking felt that their mistake was in getting caught. An independent public service makes it far more difficult to perpetrate the type of corruption and mismanagement that Canadians are listening to, which took place at the senior levels of the government.

If Canadians are looking for a single reason to be skeptical when the government talks about costs, programs and how costs are managed, they should look no further than the horrendous example of the bloated out of control Liberal gun registry to understand why a majority of Canadians do not trust the government when it comes to accountability and how it manages programs that involve taxpayers' dollars.

When Bill C-68, the gun registry, was introduced, the Liberal Party assured Canadians that the program would operate at a net cost of $2 million. Where is it today? As of March 31, the hated gun registry will have cost the taxpayers of Canada $1 billion.

One billion dollars would have funded a lot of day care spaces. One billion dollars would have saved a lot of lives with the purchase of needed medical equipment like MRIs. One billion dollars could have been used toward the purchase of strategic lift for our armed forces, so they could deliver humanitarian aid on a timely basis. That first billion dollars is only the direct costs.

Even the CBC, which has supported that program in its newscasts, estimates that another billion dollars has been wasted on the indirect costs of the gun registry. Some $2 billion for a program that was promised by the government to cost $2 million. These are the indisputable facts.

The sad part of this miserable episode is to hear government ministers continue to defend this terrible waste of money. It is with this record in mind that I look at what Bill C-8 really means. This legislation is part of an internal services modernization program that will encompass the whole Government of Canada. The idea of a common infrastructure and service delivery review is now being driven by 9/11.

The federal government found that with so many departments using different platforms, there is a basic inability of the various departments to communicate with one another. With about 800 interfaces to other systems and more than 100 data centres, this means that Big Brother effectively does not know what is going on within its own organization.

Centralizing the functions of government, including the personnel function in this legislation, is meant to increase control. There is no evidence that efficiency will increase as well. The planned layoffs of government employees that will follow this legislation are necessary in order to sell this plan to some elements of the government party.

Bill C-8, along with the previous bill, Bill C-25, is part of a seven year plan to radically change how information technology is handled. That in and of itself is not a negative goal, but will it improve services to taxpayers? Past experience says no.

There is a plan in this internal services overhaul to create an information technology shared service organization as a special operating agency within Public Works. I would remind the minister that Canadians still do not have answers regarding the $161 million that went missing from the Department of National Defence as a consequence of its information technology reorganization changes and the lack of financial controls and proper accountability of how taxpayer dollars were spent.

When the Prime Minister tells Canadians he does not care how dollars are spent, which is what he told the Gomery inquiry, he is sending a clear signal that nobody should care, including the individuals who administer these programs.

I recognize the element of Bill C-8 that restores the comptrollership function that was cut back so extensively by the former finance minister, now Prime Minister, that led to the missing millions from DND and ad scam, but is reinstituting the comptroller enough?

The status quo projection for the next seven years is that the program areas themselves will spend an additional $9 billion performing similar related functions. Program managers and employees will spend approximately $17 billion on administrative matters. The likely spending by identifiable corporate function organizations in the areas of human resources, financial, materiel and information technology services is in the order of $40 billion. That is a lot of money.

What will it cost to implement this internal services modernization program? We can look for an expenditure in the upcoming budget of $2 billion for the corporate administration of this project over its seven year projected life, with a further $1.5 billion over five years to purchase the information technology to go with the program.

What is the human cost of this plan? Bill C-8 is all about human resource management so why does the government feel it needs legislation to supercede orders in council, which is the preferred way of sneaking change to avoid democratic oversight?

When this program was originally presented it was done so on the premise that “harvested savings” would pay for the reorganization. Now it has been determined that the so-called savings do not appear before year four of the seven year plan. The need for new money has resulted in Bill C-8. If the government is going to save $1 billion in annual operating costs, the money has to come from somewhere and once the master plan is announced the last thing the government wants is public scrutiny.

The projected impact of this plan, measured in full time equivalents, is 32,000 people. That means 32,000 positions in the public service will be directly affected by this program. The number of employees expected to lose their jobs is 13,000. Let me repeat that the federal government expects that 13,000 employees will lose their jobs implementing this program.

Moving public servants into the shared service organization that is envisioned by this plan will allow for processing functions to leave Ottawa, which is the carrot to get scared cabinet ministers from vulnerable ridings to sign on to this program.

What this has traditionally meant is pork-barrelling into the areas of the country the government is afraid of losing, as The Ottawa Citizen so aptly pointed out today. The concern is not the lost jobs in Ottawa, and I hope Mayor Chiarelli is listening. It is moving the remaining jobs to ridings outside of Ottawa.

The tactics of this new program have been laid out: get control quickly and centralize that control. Constituents of my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke are already suffering from the effects of the government's reorganization plan.

The federal government has identified the recently reconfigured Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, as a department with a pressing need to transform service areas within that department. HRSDC clients are the latest victims in this current experiment in government reorganization.

What this has meant for unemployed insurance claimants, seasonal workers applying for benefits in my riding, is that a 28 day waiting period for benefits has become, in some instances, a two and a half month wait. That kind of delay is clearly unacceptable.

The federal government knows that come late fall seasonal workers will be coming forward with their unemployment insurance forms. This is not new. This is the reality of certain kinds of employment in Canada.

What is new is when my constituency office is told by HRSDC that somehow it was taken unaware of the fact that for certain types of employment those workers are laid off during the winter and, surprise, surprise, will be applying for unemployment insurance benefits to tide them over to the next season. Two and a half months is a long time to go without any money in a household when one has bills to pay and children to feed.

It is bad enough that the government is running a $46 billion surplus in the employment fund, a fund for which workers pay in the form of a payroll tax. The economy pays for the payroll tax with fewer jobs since dollars that could have been used to create employment are paid out, in a payroll tax, in a fund that has a $46 billion surplus. However the government is trying to make it as difficult as possible for workers to draw from a fund that they pay directly into to protect against times of unemployment. To qualify and to then be told that one has to wait 6, 8, 10 or even 12 weeks for benefits is a symptom of everything that is wrong with the government.

This is the latest bureaucratic reorganization. It is recognized as having the potential to make a few individuals and their companies very wealthy. The number of vendors who will be able to provide services to the Government of Canada will be rationalized, in the words of the federal government. In the process of cutting suppliers, the opportunities will be presented to the favoured few, and that is a lobbyist's dream.

Any human resource reforms must have the support of the people they affect if they have any chance to succeed. What the public servants of Canada do not want is another top down plan imposed upon them without their consultation. Before any of these plans are implemented, I encourage the government to talk to and engage the people they affect before the plans are implemented.

As it has been noted elsewhere, 40 years of restructuring have never produced the results that are promised every time a bill like Bill C-8 is written. If the federal government were seriously committed to managing government more proficiently, it would start with ministerial accountability and it would start at the top with the Prime Minister.

Petitions

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition calls upon the government to freeze further spending on the implementation or privatization of the national firearms registry and to repeal Bill C-68 in its entirety.

Main Estimates, 2004-05

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Nova.

We just heard the phrase “value for money”, and that is exactly what I will be zeroing in on as I make some remarks about one of the biggest areas of misspending that the Liberal government has ever endeavoured upon. It is an area in which we would like to have a modest reduction of about $20 million, or $24 million if we take in both motions, that we would like to see in the vote that will take place later today.

The issue I am talking about is the gun registry. The government wants to portray this as gun control but it has gone 500 times over budget at this point and it could even be more than that. It is unbelievable that we would have the government portray this as wise spending and a good investment.

I want to begin with a statement that was made by the Auditor General in December 2002 when she brought down her report on the gun registry. She said, “Parliament is being kept in the dark”. I assert today and I want to impress upon the members of the House of Commons that Parliament is still being kept in the dark. I believe that the minister and the bureaucrats are still deceiving MPs and Parliament.

I have put in over 500 access to information requests on this issue trying to find out what this government is doing. It hides the information, not just from me, but by extension Parliament and all Canadians. It is one of the hugest boondoggles ever and we as Conservatives would like to reduce the spending in this area a little bit.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety sent out an e-mail a couple of days ago. In that e-mail he made 17 claims that I am going to point out are blatantly false. They are at variance with the truth and I will take them one by one and go through them.

Twenty minutes ago a Liberal, who has since disappeared, came in here and said that she wants to hear some rational arguments. I am going to give some and I wish she would be listening because I do not think they can vote to support the ridiculous spending that is still going on with the gun registry.

The following is the first claim that was made by the parliamentary secretary. He said, “important client service and public safety results are being achieved by the gun registry”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire premise of the gun registry defies all logic. Let us think about this. We have a firearm and beside it is a registration certificate. How can laying this piece of paper beside this gun prevent anyone from pulling the trigger or doing something with that firearm? It defies logic that it would ever work and yet that is the entire premise of the gun control measure that the government has portrayed as being an important client service and public safety results being achieved. That is why we do not see anything being accomplished by this.

The following is the second claim the parliamentary secretary makes. He says, “An Environics survey taken in January 2003 found that 74% of Canadians support the current gun control legislation”. The questions that were asked in that survey were: Do you support gun registration? Do you support safe storage of firearms? Do you support background checks before people buy a firearm? Do you support safety courses being taken by firearms owners? If they had asked me those questions I would have forgotten they were even talking about gun registry by the time they went through the whole list and I probably would have said that I support those things, which I do, but the registry is the biggest boondoggle. Therefore to say that 74% of Canadians support the registry is misleading at best.

I want to tell members about another survey that was taken in April, 2004 by JMCK. The question it asked was whether we would want the gun registry scrapped and put that money into fighting violent crime and devoting it to other areas such as frontline policing. The results, which I think were a very accurate indication of where Canadians were at, were that 76.7% of the people said to scrap the registry and put the money into places like frontline policing where it will do some good. That is what we are asking.

It is very misleading for the Liberals to say that the public is on side. They are not.

Another claim that the Liberals make is that the Canadian firearms program is much more than gun registry. It comprises safe storage, handling and transportation of firearms, safety, training and education, effective border controls, in addition to the licensing of firearms owners.

Before the government passed Bill C-68 we had all of those things and it was done for approximately $10 million a year. Now the government is saying it will try to get the costs down to $85 million per year. It has been way above that at the present time.

We had all of those things prior to 1995. Now the Liberals are starting to make the claim, “Oh, this is what it is all about”. That is extremely misleading and Canadians had better take a closer look when they begin to support the Liberals on this because it is not true.

Let me talk about another Liberal claim. The government says that there are about two million firearms licence holders and about seven million firearms registered, a true success story in just over five years.

I gasp when I hear the Liberals make this kind of a claim. They know and I have revealed to them the information that I have garnered through my access to information request. The government says five years. The Liberals cannot even count. The bill was passed in 1995. They cannot count years.

The Liberals claim it was a success, when according to academic studies that have been done on this, more than 400,000 firearms owners are still unlicensed. Some 400,000 are unlicensed. According to the government's own import and export records, there are still at least eight million guns in this country that are unregistered.

The government claims this is a success story. If there are less than half of the firearms registered, how can that be a success?

That begs the question, even if the firearms were registered, how does that piece of paper affect what the criminal does with his firearm? It does not. He is probably not even in the registry.

Here is another Liberal claim. Approximately 12,000 individual firearms licences have been refused or revoked to date by the chief firearms officers across Canada. What does that amount to? It is a 0.6% success rate. Canada had a 20 year licensing program previous to this which had over twice that rate and we did not have to spend over $100 million per year.

What does that $2 billion firearms centre do with the 12,000 newly identified criminals, the 12,000 who have not been approved to buy a licence? They are taken off the list and they are never checked again.

In fact, there are 176,000 people in this country who have been prohibited by the courts from owning firearms. There are 176,000 people who do not have to report their change of address, but if they are licensed firearms owners they do.

If a person does not report their change of address within one month, that person could end up in prison for up to two years. However, if a person does not have a licence and the person is one of those 176,000 that should not own a firearm, that person does not have to report a change of address and no one will check.

If I were cynical I would say that if a person wanted the government to stop hassling him, he should apply for a licence and be rejected and then he would not have to worry any more. Then he would not be hassled by the government.

I have counted 17 claims that the parliamentary secretary made that are blatantly false. I would like to deal with more of them, but my time is running out.

I will read something that was said in reply to the Liberal claim that there are 6,000 firearms that have been traced in gun crimes and firearms trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. Here is what the police chief of the largest police force in Canada said:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety.

That sums it up.