Colin Carrie

[Rail Transportation, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the decision by CN to discontinue the passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst is a business decision made by a private company. The Government of Canada has no direct role in owning or operating railways, and the member knows that.

Railway companies are private entities that make their own decisions concerning their operations and what services and routes to offer to their customers.

Those are the facts.

[Rail Transportation, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's role in the discontinuation process of rail lines is to provide a legislative framework that encourage stakeholders to seek commercial solutions to address this discontinuation.

The Canada Transportation Act outlines the process railways must follow if they want to stop providing service. The line transfer and discontinuation provisions in the Canada Transportation Act are aimed at encouraging retention of rail lines, where it makes sense to do so, by giving other railways or other interested parties the opportunity to continue railway operations.

The decision to cancel the Algoma Central Railway passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst was a business decision made by CN, the owner of the railway.

At one point in time, some communities along the Algoma Central Railway relied upon the rail line as their only means of access. However, other transportation options, including local highways, are now available on a year-round basis. As a result, the ridership on the service has declined by 37% in recent years, to less than 5,000 riders annually.

With regard to the situation in New Brunswick, CN will continue to be responsible for maintaining the rail line, to ensure that service is not disrupted while the discontinuation process is under way. If CN does not complete the discontinuation process for the portion of the track in New Brunswick, VIA Rail, an independent crown corporation, will be responsible for making decisions about its passenger rail services.

This government provides significant funding to support passenger rail services. In 2013-14 alone, the Government of Canada provided VIA Rail, a crown corporation that operates independently of the government, with $305 million to provide passenger rail services to Canadians. Since 2007, the government has also provided VIA Rail with nearly $1 billion in capital funding to support projects, such as station upgrades, railcar refurbishment, and track improvements.

The government will continue to monitor these two situations, but ultimately believes that railways are commercial enterprises and that its role is to encourage commercial solutions to address rail line discontinuance.

[Young Hero, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand up in the House today and honour eight-year-old Ben Caprio from Oshawa.

This past Sunday evening, Ben faced a very frightening situation when his father, Tony, collapsed from a severe epileptic seizure. Ben's mother, Lori, had gone to work, and it was up to Ben to help save his father's life. When describing the event, Ben said,“I was feeling panicky because my mom wasn't there. She taught me you can call 911. You don't have to be afraid”.

Despite his fear, Ben dialed 911 and directed emergency services to his south Oshawa home and stayed on the line with the attendant until they arrived. Durham police who listened to the 911 recording commented on how calm Ben was during the call. They described Ben's call as sounding as if he was talking to his friends. Because of Ben's composure, his father Tony is alive today.

After the frightening event, Tony said of Ben, “I'm really proud of him. No one could ask for a better son”.

Ben's calmness and swift action in such a frightening situation is an inspiration to all of Oshawa. I would like to ask everyone here to stand with me today to honour Ben for his heroic actions.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I have the floor right now, I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for all the good work he has done recently in Ukraine, and he is aware of this. He has been travelling back and forth on government planes, and he has been secured by military officials because that is his role. That is because he is dedicated to holding up the ideals of this country, just like the men and women who put on that uniform every single day. He talks about the Polaris and what we have done. This is something Canadians should be proud of: Canadian men and women who go out into the world to make a difference.

I want to say that this member has himself worn that uniform. He understands the values and the commitments, unlike the New Democrats over here who are using this motion for partisanship and gains against the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend the leaders of our government. I want to thank the member for his commitment and his action to hold Canadian values up in the world, which we can all be very proud of.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat myself. I was sitting here. I will read the motion to the House:

That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

Many times the NDP have brought up ridiculous points of order that have nothing to do with today's motion. I stand here defending the system that we have put in place, the strict guidelines of Treasury Board, and the men and women who fly these planes and put their lives on the line by providing security for our government leaders and the Prime Minister of this country.

The NDP is trying to blur the lines because those members know that their leader is going to be in front of PROC defending their inappropriate use of government resources to open up partisan offices across this country without any rational government business. The Liberals have brought forward good points in an attempt to get members who are politically motivated to fill these positions. That is what this is about. I am proud—

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP understands 100% that the use of government aircraft is strictly governed by Treasury Board guidelines. It has always been like that. The guidelines are very clear.

It is shameful that the NDP has brought this motion forward today. I was in the House when the member for Timmins—James Bay brought the motion forward. I saw those members laughing and heard them making fun of the issue of security for the Prime Minister of this country—

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces operate flight services for representatives of the government on government business. The flight service operates throughout the year, seven days a week, 24 hours day.

The government ensures that taxpayers' dollars are always respected by strictly adhering to the Treasury Board of Canada's guidelines and policy. The very fact that we are discussing the use of these aircraft today is a testament to the exceptional services offered by our men and women in uniform.

It seems to me that we need to ground today's debate in a better understanding of the vital role military aircraft, aircrews, and air support play in enabling our armed forces to protect Canada's interests and values at home and abroad.

Readiness can be defined as the preparedness and flexibility needed to deploy in response to government direction, no matter the type, location, or severity of threats. This government has recognized the vital importance of readiness to succeed in ensuring Canada's security, in acting as a solid ally in defending North America, and in doing our fair share internationally, as stated in the Canada first defence strategy.

The Canadian Armed Forces are agile. They are capable of taking on multiple missions at a time. When they need to respond to a natural disaster at home or abroad, they deploy at a moment's notice. When they need to transport representatives of the government on government business, they answer the call.

Our readiness and our flexibility have been proven time and time again. That is why I would like to take a few moments to remind the men and women of this House of some of the security challenges our men and women in uniform have successfully taken on in recent years. They were challenges such as the Afghanistan mission, which saw over 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed over a 13-year period to help Afghans transition to a more democratic, secure, and prosperous future. There was Operation Mobile in Libya, which helped protect innocent civilians from the forces of the Gaddafi regime and helped move that country towards democracy. There were also hundreds of search and rescue missions mounted in co-operation with other organizations and levels of government, operations that have saved, on average, 1,200 Canadians lives every single year.

Rapid air response, and in particular transport capabilities such as those provided by the Airbus CC-150 Polaris, constitute a key component of readiness for these operations. In today's world, complex security challenges can arise quickly and can escalate rapidly in any part of the globe, from the high Arctic to the desert plains of the Middle East.

Not only are military aircraft usually the first responders when crises arise, ensuring rapid and effective delivery of emergency assistance, they are also key to the sustainability of any mission, because they provide supplies, troops, and medical evacuation.

In Afghanistan, for example, the Polaris fleet formed part of the air bridge between Canada and Afghanistan. It transported thousands of passengers and over seven million pounds of cargo during Operation Apollo alone.

When forest fires broke out in Kelowna, B.C., in 2003, the Polaris fleet airlifted around 1,500 troops to the area to battle the flames. When a devastating earthquake hit Pakistan in 2005, Polaris aircraft carried members of the Canadian Armed Forces to that country to provide emergency assistance. Clearly, the Polaris formed a crucial component of operational readiness in all those cases.

Let us take a more recent example, one that will be fresh in the minds of all present here today: Typhoon Haiyan. On November 8, 2013, it crippled the Philippines, setting off landslides, taking out power and ground transportation, and killing over 6,000 people.

The Canadian Armed Forces' response to this disaster was rapid and effective. It enabled the purification of around 500,000 litres of water, the medical treatment of around 6,500 patients, the delivery of over 230,000 pounds of food, and the clearing of over 130 kilometres of roads.

This response relied on capabilities like those of the Polaris, which was used to transport members and equipment from Canada's disaster assistance response team to the Philippines.

This government recognizes the vital importance of aircraft like the Polaris to operational readiness and success. That is why we continue to invest in the maintenance of these aircraft, the training and the well-being of their crews and support personnel, and upgrades such as the recent conversion of two Polaris aircraft to strategic air-to-air refuellers for Canada's CF-18 fighter aircraft. That is why we continue to ensure that these assets are available and ready for rapid deployment on Canadian Armed Forces operations around the world.

The proof is in the pudding: the proven ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to respond effectively whenever it has been called upon to do so in recent years.

While it is important for us to discuss the occasional use of the Polaris to ensure the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family, I would ask the men and women of the House to put this debate into its larger context and remember that the Canadian Armed Forces stands ready to serve all Canadians whenever and wherever it is called upon to do so.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP members' speeches today, and it seems as if they are trying to blur the lines. They should know that the use of government aircraft is strictly governed by Treasury Board guidelines. They are trying to pretend that there are no guidelines. If we look around the world at our colleagues in the G7, their countries all have strict rules that when their prime ministers or the leaders of their countries are travelling, it is very important to keep those leaders safe.

The truth of the matter is that the New Democrats put forward the motion today to muddy the lines. This is about using government resources properly. They know that their leader is being asked to appear in front of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to justify opening partisan offices around this country in areas where they do not even have any MPs. That is very clear.

I want the member to stand and tell Canadians the truth. What is their hidden agenda? What is the NDP doing using House resources to open partisan offices around the country?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I know that he is strongly committed to working with Ukrainians in Canada. He has spent tremendous time and commitment flying back and forth on government aircraft to make sure that things are being done as best as they can be for Ukrainian Canadians.

We are talking about government resources. However, we did not get an answer from the NDP. The member is well aware that the Leader of the Opposition has been asked to sit before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain his plans to open political branch offices across Canada, which clearly are not for government uses. With the smoke and mirrors and the opening statements we have heard from our colleagues across the way, I am wondering if he could clearly state his position and understanding of the appropriateness of using funds for political offices being opened up across this country.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by dealing with some of the misinformation he heard in some of the speeches today. In my community of Oshawa we have many people who are employed in the nuclear sector, for example, which has been proven to be a very safe form of electricity generation.

We hear the NDP's job-killing policies and the fearmongering that goes along with issues such as pipelines and their talk today about Fukushima and the nuclear sector. Why does he think the NDP members have to rely on fearmongering in their speeches and debates?