Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2007

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the opportunity to meet with the mayors from Atlantic Canada. As well, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, met with them this morning. These people have indicated to us that they have never seen a more clairvoyant government in terms of handling the issues they face.

We will be able to see, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance tables his budget, where this government will lead the country and municipalities.

Peggy Nash Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians do not need a Ouija board to figure out what is happening. They are paying more in taxes every year. Their property taxes are going up, and yet roads are crumbling, transit is more expensive and community services are dwindling. This is true for cities from coast to coast.

Cities are the economic, social and cultural backbone of our country. With over $13 billion in federal surpluses last year, why will the finance minister not find room to help our cities and communities? Is he content to let Canadians live in cities that increasingly do not work?

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have committed to an unprecedented $16.5 billion in infrastructure money in budget 2006. We have committed $1.3 billion to improving urban transit in our country. We have helped a lot of communities through the gas tax.

My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be able to look at that in the coming days.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chris d'Entremont, Minister of Health and Acadian Affairs for Nova Scotia.

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government said that the economic fall out from the CN Rail strike would demand immediate action. The labour minister has said that he expects to have the legislation through the House by next Monday.

Could the government House leader update us on his plans for this legislation as well as the rest of his agenda for the balance of this week and next week?

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will begin debate on the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation, to which the opposition House leader was referring. Also, we will have Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, following question period.

On Monday, we would like to conclude the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, which is very important for Canadians for public security reasons. We are also getting down to the deadline when certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset.

I have consulted with the other parties and I will propose a related motion at the end of my business statement.

Next week we will consider the following bills: Bill C-37, financial institutions; Bill C-41, competition; Bill C-11, transport; Bill S-3, defence; Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill C-36, Canada pension plan and old age security; Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties; and depending on developments regarding the railway strike, we may call the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation.

Thursday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

As I mentioned earlier, following discussions with the House leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion. I move:

Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, once the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act is called on Monday, February 26, and when no member rises to speak on debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act be deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at 5:30 p.m.

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a small point for clarification. Could the minister indicate specifically which portion of the procedure with respect to the strike would be held tomorrow and which portion would he expect to be held next week? Does he know exactly when next week he would proceed with that second stage?

Peter Van Loan York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the procedural motion on the strike, we would begin with this on the Friday. That would be an effort to set terms for the debate and if there were a consent by all parties, one could move very quickly. If that were not the case, one would have to respond otherwise. In terms of when we would actually get to the legislation itself, that would depend on the disposition of the procedural order.

I hope that satisfies the opposition House leader.

I once again ask that the motion regarding the procedural order on the Anti-terrorism Act be put at this time.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The Speaker Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)