Rex Barnes

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the hon. minister released his transportation plan called “Straight Ahead”. There is nothing straight ahead with this document. It has more curves and bumps than the Trans-Canada Highway, although there are positives. I am suggesting that we look at some areas that need to be addressed.

In 2002 national airports paid $240 million in rent to the Government of Canada. In 2003 this rent is expected to rise by $20 million. If this continues, rent demands will grow to $500 million by 2010.

About four weeks ago the Atlantic caucus of Liberal members presented a plan developed by the people who understood the local issues affecting their towns. I ask, why did the minister choose to ignore it? Why did he not include this in his “Straight Ahead” vision for Canada? Why would he ignore the necessity and the importance these small airports contribute, both socially and economically, to Atlantic Canada? They are crucial to the long term economic future of the communities they serve. Air Canada officials have criticized this document for its lack of an action plan.

How will the recommendations be enacted? What will the price tag be?

We all know that the consumers will pay for the minister's misguided approach to the transportation issues facing Canada today.

Is this the minister's personal agenda? Surely he is not listening to what his caucus members and the transportation officials are saying?

Both air transit officials and Canadian National Railway officials state that there is no practical need for this. Let me repeat again that there is no practical need for this. We should be moving forward, not backward.

Most times we learn from our mistakes. However the minister should have reviewed the consequences of toll roads and the negative impact upon the downtown district, in which the government has invested so heavily to rejuvenate in the past decade.

The minister's predecessors recognized the economic impact and the heritage that these areas contribute to the Canadian way of life. The City of Montreal tried toll roads and, guess what? They failed. The province of New Brunswick experimented with toll roads and they too learned that toll roads were unacceptable to Canadians.

We are all trying to work within the Kyoto protocol. However the long lines of traffic and idling vehicles will contribute heavily and put additional stress on our already fragile environment.

The cost of tolls will be robbing dollars from the Canadian motorist who already pay provincial tax, income tax, municipal tax, water tax, fuel and excise taxes, which are supposed to be directed into our transportation infrastructure programs.

Premier Eves is proposing that 2% of revenue generated by the fuel excise tax be given back to municipalities which are charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining our roads. They know best what the local issues are.

Why could the minister not be more creative? The mayor of the City of Toronto was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying “This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard”. The Minister of Transport should take heed.

In this plan it is apparent that he never considered the cost associated with implementing such a cumbersome piece of legislation. How can we standardize policies when all provinces have their own issues?

Safety regulations are a priority, which we all agree with. However this plan does not deal with compliance or the additional workload already placed upon our highway safety inspectors. Will the minister allocate the necessary funds and is he cognizant of the impact upon Canadian consumers?

A couple of weeks ago shipping officials had their meetings here in Ottawa. I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation of them who were quick to point out that there was not one issue addressed in this plan, which basically has left them shaking their heads.

If we are going to expect buy-in and contributions from the shipping sector, then we will have to pay more than lip service. They were concerned about the new security policies and how they will affect how they do their business.

Databases are maintained, ship manifests provided and unnecessarily delays are a way of life, which is both costly and a hindrance in doing business in the shipping industry in Canada.

Submissions were made that would enable the shipping companies to remain competitive in the international markets. I have to ask why this plan excludes insight and expertise in the developing of this plan?

The hon. minister believes that after consulting with the transportation sector for the past couple of years that all that is required is a little tweaking. This is clearly a government without a vision for Canada's transportation network.

I have to say that the hon. minister has missed the boat. He is including $40 million for showcasing the transportation network in Canada. This we feel is better left to the transportation industry. When did government get into the marketing and advertising of private industries?

We need a mass transportation system and a national highway development plan. It is time for this country to have transit roads for the trucking industry, thus making our highways safer for the general public.

I ask the hon. minister to go back to the drawing board and once again ask for input from a cross section of the transportation industry and implement those recommendations.

Will the minister assure Canadians that the government will not miss the boat again?

[Gander Weather Forecasting Station, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the downsizing of the weather forecasting station at Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador is another step by the Liberal government to hurt rural areas. A primary employment industry, the fishery, has been mismanaged. Now the latest is the downsizing of our weather forecasting station in Gander.

Those of us who live in Newfoundland and Labrador appreciate the force of our weather and the impact it has on our lives. Because weather changes frequently and quickly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador require the best and most detailed weather information possible. For the safety of those in transport, offshore oil, the fishery, search and rescue and for the travelling public, the Minister of the Environment must reverse his decision.

If the federal Minister of the Environment does not change the course which he is pursuing, the negative impact it will have on Newfoundland and Labrador will be seen for many years.

I call upon the minister to reverse his decision and stop the downsizing of the weather forecasting station in Gander.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, we all know that Newfoundland and Labrador has a royal commission going on with regard to renewing and strengthening our place in Canada. Of course the member being from Newfoundland and Labrador and the constituency of Labrador, he is fully aware of it.

One issue that has arisen constantly in the public meetings is the clear and deep understanding that the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, present and future depends on the fishery. Given the collapse of the groundfish in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the lack of recovery since, participants have told us that rural fishing communities remain in a state of crisis.

We have heard that it is time for the Government of Canada to take overall responsibility for what has happened in the fishery, responsibility for doing whatever is possible to bring about a recovery in the fishery and responsibility for dealing with the fallout should a recovery not take place.

The hon. member is very knowledgeable. What does he think the federal government should do to make sure that these communities remain viable and make sure that these communities are not impacted financially?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question, because I know he is very knowledgeable in the fishing industry. We know that there are approximately a million pups being born every year. I know he speaks highly of the fact that his government decided to increase the allocation and have a carryover provision, but it does not come close to doing the harvest of seals that is required to save the cod stocks. I want to know what his view is on that and I want to know what his party's stand is on that. I think his party has failed miserably with regard to this.

[Airports, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 national airports paid $240 million in rent to the Government of Canada. In 2003 this rent is expected to increase by $20 million. In 2010 the government will collect a total of $4 billion in rent from airport authorities. This amount will be more than twice the book value of the assets that were initially transferred.

Federal rent demands will grow to $500 million if this system remains unchanged. These fees are the single greatest cost facing small airports and are a major concern to the aviation industry. There is a huge concern that small airports will not survive if the government's fee structure remains unchanged.

Will the government make the necessary changes to ensure that all the airports remain viable?

[Badger Flood, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, residents of Badger are facing an economic crisis. This economic crisis is caused by the closing of family businesses. Also there are large and small businesses that are in dire need.

Will the Government of Canada implement a special financial relief plan? Will the minister, if he can find time, visit Badger to see firsthand the impact upon the community?

[Badger Flood, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Badger are facing devastation as a result of the flooding of the Exploits River.

Their lives changed forever on February 15 when the raging water and ice floes resulted in the total evacuation of the community.

The devastation is phenomenal. Family homes have been destroyed. The town's infrastructure is collapsing. Businesses have shut down indefinitely. The social and economic impact is staggering. The despair and anxiety are gut wrenching.

Among these emotions there has been an outpouring of sympathy, generosity and caring. Compassion is what makes us proud to be Canadians.

I call upon the federal government to respond in our time of need. I ask that a special relief fund be put in place. The residents of Badger need to know that their country is with them at this very difficult hour.

[Veterans Affairs, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the government has promised to provide benefits to spouses of members of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit. However, to this date the government has not fulfilled that promise.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs deliver on the promise to provide benefits to the spouses of members of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit?

[Canada Transportation Act, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance for bringing this bill forward. I know he has great intentions with this legislation.

I am a member of the transport committee, and it seems to me that all this legislation would be doing is ensuring that the airline industry becomes more responsible for doing things that the court system should be more involved with regarding getting people's consent.

I firmly believe that Bill C-314 would only make an already bad system worse. I believe the system is unmanageable. For some reason or another we would be putting liability back onto the airline industry. Workers would be adversely affected if something were to be missed in the system. It is never the bureaucrats who get the underhand but rather it is the workers. As a result of this it is difficult to support Bill C-314. It is a great bill which draws attention to the fact that something needs to be done.

There are many loopholes which people can use to escape from this country other than using the airline industry. For some reason or another people are taking children who are not their own, and they are taking these children to other countries where it is difficult for them to get out. Right now in Canada if we block one hole individuals will use another hole in the system.

I cannot see how the bill before us would come close to addressing the problem. I firmly believe the court system will have to become totally involved. Adults use their persuasive ideas and tricks on children to get them to go with them. As a result, children go missing. There are numerous cases in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador alone where people ended up taking the children and moving outside the province.

We must have resources available so law enforcement can do its job. When individuals take a child away from the person with custody, they are doing this with help from other people and they are doing it in a way to ensure they will not get caught. The biggest problem is that the RCMP is doing the best job it can to ensure this does not take place.

The last thing people will do is use the airline system and fly somewhere with these children. Most people will not fly because the airlines have a record on who travelled and when. They know who is travelling on their airline. As soon as people get an airline ticket their name is put in the system. Officials can check to see whether the individual did in fact travel on the plane and whether or not they had any children with them. However the children may have a different identity. The system is failing them because if they have a different identity officials will never know if they are the right children officials are looking for. As a result, I do not see the bill doing what the member is looking for.

I know the member is sincere and concerned as we all are about the fact that people are travelling with children who are not their own. With this legislation we would again be putting the burden back on a system that is unmanageable as it is. I firmly believe that we must have more enforcement. At the same time however, people in these situations will not do a lot of air travel. If they travel at all, they will travel by road or by sea. They will escape the airline system. As a result I cannot see why we are doing what we are doing right now.

I do understand that there is a major concern in Canada about this. We need to be putting more emphasis on our police forces. We can try to block loopholes in the system, but as soon as we block one, we open up another.

I have travelled by train. I can go to a train station with people who are not my own. It just opens the door further and further.

We need to look at enforcement through our police system. The court system needs to be involved. Most important, if we give the police the tools to do the job, I firmly believe we could do more for the country and for those children who have been taken without permission. We have these support groups. We know the concerns of people in these organizations. We should put emphasis on that.

We need to put more money into the system. This bill will not stop people from taking children who do not belong to them. They probably would not fly because they would be an easy target. Most times they would go by road or by sea. We need the enforcement there.

I commend the hon. member for bringing this forward because it is an area of concern. However, unless my colleagues tell me that we should looking at something differently, we will not support the bill as it is.

We are always open to new ideas, and it is important that he has brought these ideas forward. However right now we should be looking at putting money into enforcement to ensure the resources are there to do the job. We should stop this on the ground before it starts, identify it quickly and fast track it before it gets out of control. If we had more police forces, more undercover agents and more money, we could take action as soon as we suspected something was wrong.

We know at times one or the other parent becomes disgruntled and takes the children. Sometimes it is not because of a broken marriage but because people do not have a sense of what is right. They just want to make people's lives miserable and they take children who are not their own. If we had more police officers, we could combat this on the ground first. The world and the country would be better off for this.

Unless my colleagues tell me that I have missed something drastically with regard to the bill, we will not support it. I thank the hon. member for bringing it forward.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as with any negotiations, we sit down at the table with a selected group of people, the ones who can go back to their people and tell them what we will accept and what we will reject.

The key is to get back to the table with the major groups so we can have open dialogue and discussions. It is no good having people at the table who cannot go back to their people and tell them what deal was arrived at. We need to have people at the table who can make decisions. It is no good having people at the table who cannot make decisions.

I would say that we need to have a process whereby we could have people at the table from all sides with regard to the land claims. We would then be able to iron out our differences and come to a final conclusion so the people of the first nations could be given their just reward.