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.

Motions in Amendment

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the members to calm down, since things seem to be getting a little out of hand. We must be calm while doing our work.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

We must remember that, unlike what some government members have been insinuating, violent crime and the number of homicides are on the decline in Canada. Since 1992, crime rates have been decreasing in Canada, and there is every reason to be happy. Is crime going down because our economy is doing well, because, demographically, there are fewer young people? These are explanations that should be considered.

Let us talk about the solutions put forward by the government. It does not tend to take action in terms of prevention, to trust the judges, and to invest in social programs, but rather to resort to incarceration. It is inclined to go for mandatory minimum penalties, in its push for incarceration.

We in the Bloc Québécois are convinced that there are situations that call for incarceration. Moreover, it was the Bloc Québécois that took the initiative in the mid-1990s to propose measures to combat street gangs and criminal biker gangs. The Liberal government at the time said that the conspiracy provisions were enough to dismantle biker gangs. The Bloc Québécois, together with the police association and a number of other stakeholders, called for a new offence and new legislation. In response, the government introduced Bill C-95, which was amended by Bills C-24 and C-36.

Today, the government is addressing a real problem, compounded by the street gang phenomenon: the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. But the government is taking the wrong approach. It is focussing on certain specific offences, which are admittedly serious, disturbing and reprehensible. I am referring to attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. For each of these offences, the government wants to increase three-year minimum sentences to five, five-year minimums to seven and seven-year minimums to as much as 10. The government is completely ignoring the fact that true deterrence means that a judge who is sentencing someone who has committed an offence involving a firearm, which is reprehensible, must assess the overall context in which the offence was committed. Does the individual have a criminal record? Was the offence premeditated? Did the individual act on behalf of a street gang or organized crime? In light of these factors and using judicial discretion, the judge must hand down the most appropriate sentence. In criminal law and especially in sentencing, the punishment must fit the crime. It is not a question of being soft on crime or saying that individuals should not be convicted.

Why are minimum sentences not the answer to the problem we are trying to solve?

First, let us start with the studies that were provided by the Department of Justice.

When former minister Allan Rock—I do not know if I am conjuring up good memories or bad in this House—had Bill C-68 passed to create the firearms registry—a registry the police want to have and which is consulted 11,000 times every day across Canada and that the Conservatives want to abolish—he created mandatory minimum sentences for a certain number of offences, particularly those involving firearms. Minimum sentences of four years were created. The logic behind minimum sentences is that they are deterrents and studies have been done to determine whether their intended purpose is being achieved. Allow me to read what an expert said at the University of Ottawa, which is a good university. Criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1977 for the Department of Justice of Canada, which the parliamentary secretary should have consulted. He found that, “Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations...the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations”—he was referring to the rate of recidivism—“and no discernible effect on crime rates”.

In other words, just because some countries, some legislatures, or some justice systems have mandatory minimum sentences that restrict judicial discretion, that does not mean they have lower crime rates. All the studies show that a true deterrent to crime is the real fear criminals have of being caught red-handed and ultimately being charged. Being caught has more to do with our ability to lay charges, with having police in the field, with the ability of crown prosecutors to review the evidence, and so forth.

Furthermore, several witnesses told us about the perverse effects of mandatory minimum sentences. I would like to quote some of the witnesses. André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal—which is also a good university—said:

Minimum sentencing encourages defence lawyers to negotiate plea bargains for their clients in exchange for charges that do not require minimum sentencing. Minimum sentencing can also force a judge to acquit an individual rather than be obliged to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances, for cases in which an appropriate penalty would be a conditional sentence, community service or a few weeks in jail.

Obviously, minimum sentencing can have extremely perverse consequences. We are not saying that people who commit offences with firearms should be let go. What we are saying is that there are maximum sentences and that judges have the discretion to impose appropriate sentences somewhere between the maximum sentences and acquittal, sentences that take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the offence. That is why the Bloc Québécois, which has an extremely tough attitude toward criminals when severity is required, does not want to have anything to do with the artificial, ineffective logic underlying mandatory minimum sentencing. That is why we do not support either the bill or the amendments.

We have proposed a whole range of solutions to the government, solutions that include maintaining the gun registry, reviewing the parole issue, reviewing the double time issue, and doubling the budget for the national crime prevention strategy. We think that all of these options are far more appropriate than automatic sentencing, which does not stand up to scrutiny and which makes Bill C-10 a very bad bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Cannavino, whom I would like to welcome.

Ultimately, you'll agree with me that it's the duty of legislators to make decisions based on the most conclusive and most current information. As you'll no doubt remember — I don't know whether you were president of your association at that time, but you were definitely an active police officer — in 1995, a bill was passed, Bill C-68, which, in addition to creating the firearms registry, of which you are an ardent defender, added 10 mandatory minimum sentences for 10 offences. The reason we're coming out in favour of mandatory sentences is that we think they have a deterrent effect. We have to evaluate periodically whether they have a deterrent effect. That's not the only reason why we decide to impose such sentences. But that's part of the thinking.

I admit that few studies have been submitted to us by academics, by scientists. I'm not talking about interest groups. We understand it's not their work to do that, and I'm not asking you to conduct studies of that kind today. However, has any scientific study in the least satisfying been brought to your attention that would suggest that, since 1995 — we're just talking about firearms; there are roughly 40 mandatory minimum sentences in the Code, but let's just talk about those concerning firearms — mandatory minimum sentences, in the context of the commission of firearms offences, have had a deterrent effect? Would you be prepared to share your sources?

Transportation Amendment Act

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the two points that he raised. I most assuredly want to talk about the first as well as the second.

First, the member mentioned forcing the election. What a lot of crap. I know this hon. member and I guess I cannot say “Larry of the North”, so I will not, but we say that affectionately when working with the member on committee and at other times.

To say that the Conservatives are forcing the election is wrong. Bad government is forcing the election. Corruption is forcing the election. A loss of moral authority to government is forcing the election. If the government had not signed a deal with the devil as it were to keep it on life support, when it certainly did not deserve it, we would have ended its rule, its reign, and its dictatorship last spring.

The Liberals signed a deal with the NDP and I understand why the NDP did that. It has very much been the champion of social programs. On the surface the budget amendment looked as though it actually addressed social programs, but it did not. If we were to read the budget amendment, we would find that there are only 68 words that describe how $4.5 billion is going to be spent.

When we listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, he actually said in the House that it does not mean we are going to spend it. It is an enabling bill that would allow us to spend up to that amount. In actual fact, nobody is going to see any of that money.

It was good publicity for the NDP. I understand that. Unfortunately, that is part of the workings of this House. It was certainly a good deal for the Prime Minister. He said he would sign off on that. It really did not cost him anything and it kept the government going a bit longer.

Then the Liberals had other opportunities. They had an opportunity to accept a deal put forward by the NDP that would have prevented this election happening until after the new year. It would have given the government time to bring forward bills, such as Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill.

In fact, the government could have met with the House leaders and said, “Okay, which bills can everybody support? What is your priority? Let's move forward with the ones that people support, so we can get those things passed”. The Liberals would have found that a lot of bills would have passed, including Bill C-68.

People have to understand that it hits me right here every time I say something favourable about Bill C-68. I recall the $2 billion useless firearms registry under that same number.

As far as ACAP funding goes, the member who raised the question is absolutely right, it has been a good program. The funding is sliding downward rather than up. There is no stability in it. There is an incredible cost to apply for it, as I mentioned earlier on, and it is a crap shoot. The funding is applied for and nobody knows if they get the funding or not. Applications are not made frivolously.

When a runway is crumbling and a small airport is trying to service an entire region, it is critically important that these projects be funded. The government could do a lot better than it has done.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by sending a special message to someone very special. I spoke in the House last week and made a member's statement. I thought that would be the final time I would address the House. It turns out that much to my surprise the government has brought forward one of the more useless bills it has on the order paper. It talked about bringing this forward a number of times. I do not know if common sense prevailed or what, but it never did. Now suddenly on the final day of the government, we find ourselves with Bill C-44.

I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary to the minister say that he would concentrate mainly on air transportation. That is the part I would like to speak to as well.

Other bills could have been brought forward. I heard one mentioned. One of the questions the parliamentary secretary received from a member of his party caused him to raise Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill. That is a prime example of a bill that should have come forward, along with several other bills in the House. The government introduced it a long time ago. We indicated very clearly to the government that we would support that bill. For some reason it chose not to bring it forward. It is probably so the Liberals can campaign in British Columbia and say that it offered the bill and the Conservative Party caused it to be defeated.

We did nothing of a kind. The Liberals had more than ample time to bring it forward. They never did, and instead we find ourselves discussing Bill C-44.

Let us talk about the genesis of the bill. When the new Minister of Transport came forward in Parliament, one of the things he said to our committee and to me personally, as the vice-chair of the committee, was he would reintroduce Bill C-26. Bill C-26 was the predecessor of Bill C-44. He did not say that he would take the intent of Bill C-26, redesign it and try to respond to the needs that had come up with all the problems in Bill C-26.

That was one of the dumber things I have heard him say. I have some measure of respect for the minister, and I temper that with the word “some” very strongly. However, bringing Bill C-26 forward and reintroducing it definitely has to go down as one of his more foolish moves. Bill C-26 was so bad that with a Liberal majority government it could not get the Liberals to vote for it. Why on earth would the government want to bring it forward in a minority?

Let us talk about some of the things that are wrong with the bill. As the parliamentary secretary addressed primarily the air industry, I will do the same, although I would be remiss if I did not put a few words in at the end of my speech on my old arch concerns about VIA Rail.

First, I would like to talk about airport rent. The parliamentary secretary to the minister said that the government wanted to help the air industry, that it recognized how important air transportation was. Those are funny words coming from a party that has done everything it can to destroy the air industry in the country.

Members of the Standing Committee on Transport have studied this both in Ottawa and across the country. We have listened to witnesses from every aspect and every sector of the air transportation industry. We made a series of recommendations by way of an interim report. One of the first recommendations was that the government immediately reduce airport rents by at least 75%. The government responded to that. It said that it already had taken care of this and that it would bring in a 60% reduction in the rent paid by the national airports over the term of their leases.

As my colleague said in questions and comments, after the parliamentary secretary spoke, that is not a rent reduction. That is a 60% reduction in the amount the government will increase it by in the future.

I have said that when I retire I will practise the three g s, namely garden, golf and grandson. My grandson is a year old. If he should happen to grow up, get into the air transport industry and even become the CEO of one of the airport authorities, then perhaps he may have something to be thankful for the government bringing in the 60% future reductions. That is provided the air transport sector survives under Liberal policy. We need rent reductions now.

Toronto airport was spoken very strongly about, and I would like to address a couple of the comments the minister has made in the past with regard to it. Many people have been crying loud and clear for reductions in the rent at Toronto airport in particular because of it having the highest landing fees in the world. The minister's response to that was twofold.

First, he said that if we did not like the fees there and if we did not like landing at Toronto airport, we could always land in Montreal. It is an interesting thing for the minister from Montreal to say. Maybe it will garner him a few votes there, except I hope the people in Montreal have the good sense, and I am sure they do, to recognize that if he is that out to lunch in terms of airport rents in Toronto, it will eventually affect them as well.

The second thing he said was that the rents were not all that big a deal, that they were only 14% of the budget of Toronto airport and that its debt load was 40%. Therefore, it is not the rent, it is the debt. Let us talk about that debt. Let us talk about why airports have debt and have spent a ton of money.

In Ottawa the terminal building that the airport authority took over was deplorable, as it was in Toronto and several other airports around the country. It financed $335 million to build the new terminal that was long overdue. It did not cost the government or taxpayers a dime. The reason it was needed was the government of the day and governments in the past ignored the infrastructure needs of our airport system.

Airports used to lose for the government over $200 million a year. That was while the government was not putting any money into it. That was just its operating cost, a $200 million loss. Now all of a sudden it is saying that they have to have fair value. If it cost $200 million to run them and they were run for free, they have received fair value.

Over and above that, by the parliamentary secretary's own words, $6 billion has been spent at the Toronto airport to build up the infrastructure that the government neglected. In fact, in the case of Toronto it was even worse. The Liberal government cancelled the newly signed Pearson contract that would have built a new terminal at no cost to the taxpayers whatsoever. It established, through legislation, that the contract holder would not be allowed to sue the government, and decreed how much it would get for damages by way of a settlement.

I listened to the Liberal rhetoric. I was green, I was new. I thought that if the government was saying it, it had to be true. I was shocked that it was going to give the airports as much money as it did. As the new transport critic, a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, I decided I would hit the books and study this so I could come up with arguments as to why they should not even get that much money, having done all the bad things the Liberals said they did.

Surprisingly, the more I studied this, the more I discovered it was not such a bad deal at all. In fact, it was a pretty good deal. It was such a good deal that I found a memo from the department asking how on earth the it manage to get such a great contract. The department could not believe it got such a good contract on the department's behalf, and that is what the government cancelled.

Pearson has languished ever since. As part of the settlement that it finally was forced to make, it ended up buying terminal 3 back from private sector operators. That is where a lot of this debt has come from, all generated by the government.

The government did another thing, which was done by the minister's predecessor, David Collenette. This is one example of the really stupid things that has been done in the name of helping airports. Mr. Collenette said that there were a lot of problems, that the government was really soaking them with the rent, that he knew it was a problem, especially with the sudden downturn in traffic, so what the government would do was not cut the rent but defer it. They would still have to pay it, but the government would allow them not to pay it for a little while. That did absolutely no good because they had to put the money aside and save it for the day when the government said it had to be paid.

If the government wants to do something short term right away, it should cancel the payment of those deferrals. It was something that was supposedly going to help, at least the members opposite certainly crowed about it, and yet it does not do any good.

Another thing that needs to be brought up is ACAP. One of our recommendations was there should be a flow through of moneys received from airports. We heard a lot of people saying that airport rent should be eliminated. I do not support that. It should be greatly reduced. There should be enough money coming to the ACAP, the airport capital assistance program, for smaller airports that are the feeders for these national airports. We put forward that ACAP should be increased and stabilized. Right now there is no guarantee that it will even continue, and it has not increased. The government said that it was adequately funded. That is a lot of nonsense. The ACAP has not increased since it started. With the cost of everything going up, simply not increasing it means there is less money available for the various projects.

Another thing we asked was that the government simplify the application process. We talked to operators of the smaller airports who told us that it cost as much as $10,000 to apply for ACAP funding. In the grand scheme of things, I know the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, once said in the House, “what's a million?” A million dollars to the Liberal Party, with all the things it has done with taxpayer money, perhaps is not a tremendous amount of money. However, $10,000 for a little airport with a small budget is a lot of money, and that is only to apply for funding that it may not get. It is a long, drawn out process and it is absolutely unnecessary and unacceptable.

However, the government says that it is all right because they can add the cost of the application to the cost of the project and apply for the whole thing. First, they have to put the money up. Second, they have no guarantee that they will get that funding. The government could do a lot better that it has in this area.

We also asked that no rent should be paid on airports with less than two million passengers. There has to be some base from when they can then generate enough money to run their airports and then start to pay the rent. The government's response to that is it believes that airports with less than 2,000 passengers not paying rent would not satisfy the government's real property policy that states, “Where public assets are leased to private or commercial entities, the government should receive a fair return”.

We already have talked about fair return. Vancouver airport has undertaken a tremendous terminal expansion. It has built a second runway. It is continuing to expand its operation tremendously. It is known as one of the world authorities on the operation of an airport. What has it cost the government? What gas it cost taxpayers? Not one dime, but the government continues to use it as a cash cow to skim money from it.

Another of the recommendations was the government eliminate the air transport security fee and pay for the services through the consolidated revenues fund. The government says that the enhanced air travel security systems benefit principally and directly air travellers. In these circumstances the charge is fair and reasonable.

We have to ask ourselves what exactly is air security for? Is it for the security of the passengers or is this enhanced security that came as a direct result of 9/11 for the protection of the public at large against acts of terrorism?

The overwhelming damage and death toll in the case of 9/11 was not to the aircraft or the passengers on board, catastrophic though those events were. The damage and the largest loss of life was in the buildings. Therefore, we are doing this for the general safety of the public, and nowhere else in security does the general public not pay these security fees. They do not load this on any other sector. The government seems to think that there is so much money in the air transport sector that it can apply whatever charges it wants at any time at all.

Another thing we asked for was that customs services be provided at airports that can demonstrate they have regular transporter or international services. The government's response to that is charging fees for services has been the government's policy, dating back to 1989, and that it will have to continue with that. That is not true either. That is a very inconsistent statement because we do not charge any one sector. We do not charge the people who benefit when they cross the border. If that were the case, why are all the people who do not cross the border paying for those customs services at the border? The Liberals could charge a fee for everybody who comes across, if that is what they truly believe. Therefore, their policy is extremely inconsistent.

I want to get on to my favourite topic, VIA Rail, because this goes back right to my first days in Parliament and some of the things I found out about VIA.

I have a measure of respect for VIA and the service it provides, particularly in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. It is a necessary service. Essentially, it is an extension of commuter rail.

There are basically three types of service provided by railroad for passengers. One is commuter rail, in which I will include the Quebec-Windsor corridor and intercity transportation, but it is still essentially commuter rail and travel in a high density corridor. I think that it is quite justifiable to move people, to keep them off the highways, and to provide better access to travel. It is in a very restricted area.

We have it in Vancouver, not run by VIA Rail. We have a very good commuter service there. We have one in Toronto and we have one in Montreal. Then we have VIA Rail providing this intercity connection as well in the corridor.

We have remote communities. It is appropriate for the government to take a role in ensuring that remote communities are captured by way of differing types of transportation and have some service provided to them and ensure that service is maintained. The third thing is rail tourism. Rail tourism is for tourists getting a tourism experience.

We do not have passenger rail outside of those three items I mentioned. There is no such thing as regular passenger rail. For example, VIA Rail runs from Edmonton to Vancouver. Aircraft fly from Edmonton to Vancouver and the Greyhound bus goes from Edmonton to Vancouver. Only one of those three is subsidized, and that is VIA Rail. Even though it is subsidized, VIA Rail is the most expensive of those three methods of travel. It takes 17 times longer to go by VIA Rail than it does to go by aircraft. Obviously, people are not riding it simply for the transportation. They have to pay more and it takes infinitely longer to get there. The only reason they are on that train is for the rail experience, in other words, rail tourism, so why are we asking the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize tourism experiences?

We have a private sector company in British Columbia and Alberta that provides that amply well. It bought the service from VIA Rail. Travelling on the southern route and as well through to Jasper, VIA Rail used to carry about 5,000 passengers a year and lose money. The private sector company that took it over, and invested millions and millions of dollars in advertising, has won awards all over the world. It just recently won a very prestigious award by the International Tourism Association as one of the best rail experiences in the world. It carries over 80,000 passengers. Yet, we still have VIA Rail wanting to go back and compete with them and the government is looking at supporting VIA Rail on that. It is absolutely unacceptable.

VIA Rail only pays one-fifth of the trackage fees to CN and CP that companies like the Rocky Mountaineer have to pay because the government negotiated that and forced that on the freight rails. That is one-fifth, so they are getting that over and above the $500,000 a day in taxpayer subsidies.

I think the government is being very unfair to VIA Rail. VIA Rail should be allowed to operate commercially within the corridor, do a good job, and probably get a lot of kudos for doing so. I think it is absolutely wrong to subsidize a government operation to compete against the private sector.

I would like to go on about this and many other sectors and talk a lot more about VIA Rail as well, but I will end by saying, first, that I am very disappointed that the government chose to bring such an inappropriate bill forward when there are so many things that needed to be brought forward that we would have helped to pass had it done so. The Liberals have had the opportunity. We even gave them the opportunity to extend the Parliament to get those things through, if necessary, and they have turned it all down, perhaps so they can make a bunch of false campaign statements when they get out there.

The other thing I would like to say is that this will definitely be the last time that I will rise in the House as a member of Parliament. The government's life will end tonight and everyone will go on the campaign trail. I will not be returning. Perhaps some others, particularly on the other side, will not be returning either, but they think they are returning. I know I am not returning.

This is my last time, Mr. Speaker. To you and to the House, and to all members of the House in all parties, thank you for the experience. I have enjoyed it, these bills notwithstanding, because I know that good work can be done as well. Good work was certainly been done in the committee. That is what I was talking about today. We would have a better government if it would listen to and follow the reports of committees like the transport committee instead of coming up with bills like this.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as members already know, we have made a major initiative with Bill C-68 to further expand the Pacific gateway. That is only one of a number of initiatives that our government is working on. We are a trading nation. If we are to succeed as a trading nation, we have to have a very successful method of transportation to get those goods and services from our own country to others. I would like to commend the member and other British Columbia members for their work on Bill C-68 and the Pacific gateway.

It is not only the province of British Columbia but all of our western provinces and into the central heartland of Canada are looking at this initiative. We have a similar program at least being talked about in terms of the east with an Atlantic gateway and the big gateway going from our central provinces down to the Midwest in the United States.

Transportation is needed to get services from place to place. The hon. member talked about other factors that are so important to us in terms of our Canadian economy. He talked about opportunities for Canadian businesses, not only opportunities to make sure that they do get markets, but more important, opportunities that they see which must be protected by our various Canadian departments.

I can assure the member that in terms of foreign affairs and our international trading relationships, we as a government want to encourage the development of opportunities in other areas around the world, whether they be in Asia, Europe, or more important recently, in South America. With that, our government and the various departments are certainly working toward those initiatives.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member across the way is displaying his charm once more.

I also think the hon. member understands clearly that the call for the election and, ultimately, if there is an election caused, it will be the opposition members who will have to take responsibility since they will be voting to dissolve Parliament and we will be voting to sustain Parliament in order to continue the work that I will now lay out.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

On Friday we will call consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the do not call bill; report stage and third reading of Bill S-36 respecting rough diamonds; report stage and third reading of Bill C-63, respecting the Canada Elections Act; and second reading of Bill C-44, the transport legislation.

We will return to this work on Monday, adding to the list the reference before second reading of Bill C-76, the citizenship and adoption bill; and second reading of Bill C-75, the public health agency legislation.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days. There are some three dozen bills before the House or in committee on which the House I am sure will want to make progress in the next period of time. They will include the bill introduced yesterday to implement the 2005 tax cuts announced on November 14; Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill; Bill C-67, the surplus legislation; Bill C-61, the marine bill; Bill C-72, the DNA legislation; Bill C-46, the correctional services bill; Bill C-77, the citizenship prohibitions bill; Bill C-60, the copyright legislation; Bill C-73, the Telecom bill; Bill C-60 respecting drug impaired driving; Bill C-19, the competition legislation; Bill C-50 respecting cruelty to animals; Bill C-51, the judges legislation; Bill C-52, the fisheries bill; Bill C-59 respecting Investment Canada; Bills C-64 and C-65 amending the Criminal Code.

In addition, there are the supplementary estimates introduced in October that provide spending authority for a wide variety of services to the Canadian public and we the government would certainly like to see this passed.

Supply

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the opposition motion presented by the leader of the New Democratic Party which proposes that the Prime Minister should ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament during the week of January 2, 2006, and set the date for the election for February 13, 2006.

I must admit that it is a bit disappointing that the NDP has not put forward a substantive motion for debate today. Last time around, the NDP took a constructive approach to its opposition days by putting forward issues that matter to Canadians. For example, Canadians had the benefit of a full discussion on such matters as environmental aspects of automobile emission standards, access to employment insurance, which is obviously a big concern in my riding and in other rural communities across the country, and the health risks of trans fatty acids.

Today, the NDP wants to talk about scheduling, about how to ignore constitutional convention and speed up the next general election by a mere eight weeks.

Clearly, the priorities of opposition members have changed. Today, they are more interested in procedural tactics rather than substantive issues that Canadians want this Parliament to address. Opposition parties are not interested in the process of governing. The opposition day motion today is really about manipulating the parliamentary and electoral calendar to serve what are clearly partisan interests.

The motion calls for an election to be held on February 13, 2006, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has already promised to call an election in early 2006.

The Prime Minister made that promise to Canadians last spring. We all know by now that an election will be called within 30 days of the final report and recommendations of the Gomery inquiry, which are scheduled to be tabled on February 1, 2006.

According to the Prime Minister's promise, the next election will be held in March, or early April at the latest. By then Canadians will be familiar with Justice Gomery's recommendations and will be able to benefit from a much improved legislative environment.

Nonetheless, that is not enough for the opposition. They want to hold an election in mid-February, which is 8 weeks, at the very most, before the date the Prime Minister proposed to all Canadians on national television.

An election any sooner would be held before Justice Gomery has completed his work, and therefore, before Canadians have all the answers regarding the problems with the sponsorship program and—equally important—regarding the measures that will need to be taken to prevent such a situation from happening again.

It will be incumbent upon the opposition parties to explain to Canadians why they are disrupting the work, not only of the government, but also of Parliament, in order to force a premature election in the middle of winter, thereby going against what most Canadians want. In fact, Canadians are still waiting for a good reason for all this.

The opposition parties are saying they do not have confidence in this government. Yet, they want to use opposition days to confirm their confidence for a just few more months. This flagrant contradiction highlights the purely political motivation behind today's motion.

As the government House leader indicated, some opposition members seem to believe that the notion that a government must have the confidence of the House was somehow divisible, that we could have confidence today, but tomorrow? Maybe in a few weeks they would see if they had lost confidence. The government would continue to govern, until they decided to put that loss of confidence into effect.

I said a couple of days ago that the opposition members seemed to think that confidence in government, in parliamentary terms, was like Christmas lights. We turn them on in the evening, we turn them off in the morning and then we put them away in January. Canadians will not be fooled by that simplistic analysis.

When the first minority government in 25 years was elected in 2004, the government committed to doing things differently in Parliament. Canadians expected us, as members of Parliament, to work constructively together. The record shows in many cases we have been very successful. In just 19 months we have delivered on a broad range of initiatives that will advance the interests of Canadians and continue to ensure Canada's place in the world.

For example, we passed legislation to implement the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. A federal adviser on wait times was appointed. Steps continue to be taken so we can work with the provinces to protect Canada's public health system.

We passed legislation to implement fundamental reforms to the equalization program. This balanced approach ensured that all Canadians could benefit from social services and enjoy the same quality of life, regardless of the province in which they live. These improvements mean additional resources, additional moneys being transferred to my province, the province of New Brunswick. We already have seen an improvement not only in social services, education and health care, but improvements in infrastructure as well. The government and people of New Brunswick benefit by this cooperative approach.

We passed legislation respecting civil marriage to respect the fundamental values of equality and religious freedoms as well.

We passed legislation to implement a new deal for cities and communities. This unprecedented initiative brings together the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities to ensure that the infrastructure of our communities is responsive to local needs, culturally vibrant and environmentally sustainable. Again, small rural communities in my constituency benefit from this type of initiative.

We transferred, for example, the full refund of GST paid by municipalities as simply a down payment on the new deal for cities and communities. If the government of New Brunswick would organize itself to negotiate a deal with the federal government, municipalities in my constituency and throughout New Brunswick, as well as small rural communities, would benefit from this important initiative.

We passed legislation to implement our climate change plan and meet our Kyoto commitments. In two weeks, Canada will begin hosting the conference of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal to make further progress on our important climate change commitments.

To ensure Canadians have the best opportunities to flourish, we passed legislation to implement early childhood learning and child care agreements, which we have reached with many provinces.

To keep Canadians safe, we passed legislation to protect them from pornography and Internet luring.

I am proud of the record of this Parliament so far. We were able to pass a budget bill that further accelerated our priorities in public transit, in housing, in post-secondary education, in national defence and in foreign aid.

We made major changes to improve the employment insurance system, something that is very important to seasonal industries in my constituency. We removed many of the disincentives to work, which created a bizarre situation where a worker in a seasonal industry would go to work for what might be a shortened work period for reasons beyond the control of the worker. If the lobster season was not as productive that week, if the weather did not allow a certain harvest to take place, the workers were disadvantaged by a system which calculated employment insurance based on recent weeks as opposed to best weeks. We changed that in this Parliament and the government has served the needs of seasonal industries and seasonal workers very well, certainly in my constituency.

Contrary to the opposition parties, I believe there is still much work to be done. A premature election could jeopardize over 40 bills currently in the House, bills that would provide important benefits to the well-being of Canadians and to the competitiveness of Canada.

For example, Bill C-67, the unanticipated surpluses act, reflects the government's balanced approach to fiscal management by providing a proportional allocation of unanticipated surpluses to permanent tax reductions, targeted investments and debt relief. Our ability to allocate surpluses is a direct result of the sound financial stewardship of the Minister of Finance and of his predecessors.

Bill C-68, Canada's Pacific gateway act, provides the foundations for expanding our trade with the growing economies of countries like China and India and other Asian countries. This has been a priority for our government. The government of British Columbia has urged us to take action on the Pacific gateway. This is what the government is doing to ensure that the Canadian economy as a whole can prosper by the great opportunities that these markets present.

Bill C-11, the whistleblower's bill, is currently before the Senate and provides vital protection for employees who courageously come forward to blow the whistle on wrongdoing in their workplace. The bill reflects the hard work of many members of Parliament, members from Vegreville—Wainwright, Winnipeg Centre and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I do not think those members want Bill C-11 to die prematurely.

Bill C-37, the do not call list, is also before the Senate. It reached the Senate through the support of all parties. Jeopardizing this work for the sake of electioneering at Christmas time does not benefit Canadians.

Earlier this month the government supplementary estimates requesting from Parliament the funds needed to implement the programs that allow federal initiatives to operate. These supplementary estimates include additional investments for defence, immigration, climate change, infrastructure, public security, the health of first nations and federal-provincial partnerships.

For example, the estimates include $15 million to implement the veterans' charter; $36.4 million to alleviate and prevent homelessness; over $230 million for investments in first nations communities and first nations peoples; $102.9 million to mitigate the impact of BSE; $34 million to aid the softwood lumber industry; $74 million for the agricultural policy framework; and, $1.1 billion to enhance Canada's national defence.

This is only a sampling of the productive agenda the government has for the next few months and the government continues to move forward this fall to deliver on our commitments.

Next week we will have, for example, a first ministers meeting with aboriginal leaders in British Columbia to address the challenges faced by our first nations. First nations leaders have stressed how important this meeting is for their communities. It would be the responsibility of opposition parties to justify jeopardizing the results of that meeting with a premature election.

Later this month the Minister of Justice will unveil a package targeted at gun crime, which we all know is an important challenge for our cities and for the safety of our communities. This Monday the Minister of Finance presented his fall economic and fiscal update, which proposes significant tax reductions for Canadians and a prosperity plan for Canada's future.

Over the next five years more than $30 billion in tax relief is proposed and over 95% of that would be delivered through personal tax reductions. In addition, significant investments are proposed to create access to post-secondary education and encourage lifelong learning so Canadians can continue to be competitive workers in the global marketplace. Combined with investments and research, innovation and social capital, the economic update sets the stage for accelerated growth and prosperity for the nation.

It is important to highlight that student associations across the country were particularly pleased with the investments in access to post-secondary education. In my constituency I am fortunate enough to have Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick. The student groups there had spoken to me many times about the heavy financial burden of a post-secondary education. The measures announced by the Minister of Finance will help the students at Mount Allison University.

These measures will help students in my riding who are registered at the University of Moncton, for example. In fact, students across the country will benefit from these very important measures.

This is where the government's focus has been on governing. Canadians are tired of politicians playing partisan games. It is little wonder that cynicism about politicians is on the rise when people spend more time worrying about the timing of the next election than advancing the interest of their constituents in this Parliament.

Government members are here to represent their constituents and to work on making this Parliament successful. I have outlined the number of important initiatives that we have before us. We know there is an impending election that will follow the finance report of Justice Gomery. In the meantime Canadians expect us to roll up our sleeves and to get to work on delivering the commitments that we have all made to our electors.

The election will be at some point in early 2006. That was the Prime Minister's commitment. However, Canadians also want answers from the Gomery commission's final report before going back to the polls. That also was the Prime Minister's commitment. In the meantime, all parliamentarians should spend time working on the legislation that is before the House, that is in committee and that is in the Senate. They should be looking at many interesting private members' initiatives that are coming before Parliament.

In closing, I believe that Canadians want us to work together on what concerns them and on improving their lives and the lives of their families and fellow citizens. They hope the work we do here in Parliament will improve their quality of life. They do not want the debates to end in the partisan bickering that does little to honour this Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I suggest there are a number of fundamental problems with today's opposition motion. I will point to a few of them.

First, it is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of a parliamentary democracy which in fact have guided us throughout the history of this institution. It is a serious matter to change long-standing principles and practices with no consideration to the future members of the House of Commons.

The opposition parties essentially are willing to play some political and partisan games with our constitutional conventions. We can hear them laughing across the way. It is exactly what Canadians expect from the opposition parties when talking about our Constitution, nothing more than heckling and laughing. Those parties have proven they do not have any respect for the Constitution.

I want to make a few points and then during the question and answer period we can allow the members opposite to stand and rant and rave, as we expect they will. Nonetheless, I would like the opportunity to make a few points.

We have seen a time when members have worked quite well and quite cooperatively in the House, even in the face of challenges with what the opposition parties were looking to do. Canadians ultimately want to see a House that works on behalf of their initiatives. The House of Commons needs to work on behalf of the citizens.

Canadians want their members of Parliament to work on public business, not the private ambitions of any one party leader. Canadians want parliamentarians to debate the issues that are important Canadians, to address their daily concerns and what they are worried about. In fact, Canadians have not been getting legislation or policy that might make their lives better, more prosperous perhaps, and secure. What they are getting from the opposition parties is endless partisan posturing, political games and positioning for electoral advantage, quite frankly.

Members opposite always quote Canadians to suit their particular position. I have talked to Canadians and they have said that things in Parliament are not going well and members are yelling and screaming at each other all the time. I continue to make the point that we put forward and passed what I believe are important initiatives. But we have a situation now where the opposition parties, in particular the leader of the NDP, has put forward a motion that in fact does not fit with the constitutional requirements of this country.

I have to say that it is not only I who might say that. I am not alone in asserting that today's motion is a violation of long-standing democratic principles and practices of Parliament. The official opposition has said, and I believe the opposition House leader just said that the government needs to have the confidence of the House. That is absolutely correct. That is the way our system works. It is based on long-standing democratic principles.

The opposition parties collectively, since they are all supporting this particular motion, through the leader of the NDP are saying they want to vote non-confidence in the government today, but they want to have the consequences essentially some time in January because it suits their political purpose. They are saying they do not want an election during Christmas, but they want to vote non-confidence today and have the election later on. In the meantime, while the House remains in session, the House presumably would be passing important initiatives for Canadians that we put forward as a government and they would be voting confidence in the government, all the while indicating that they have no confidence in the government. The opposition wants to defeat the government, but not for another month and a half or so.

Parliament does not work that way and Canadians understand that. We cannot divide confidence. Confidence is not divisible. It cannot be cut up into little pieces and apportioned over different periods of time saying, “It is okay to pass this piece of legislation which is a confidence bill and we understand that. We will pass that bill, but we do not have confidence in the government. The government should not be allowed to put forward programs that expend Canadian taxpayer money because we do not have confidence, but we will hang around while the government does that and then we will come back and say we do not have confidence in the government again in January”.

The government very clearly either needs to have the confidence of the House or not. It is very simple. It is the way the system has worked for a long time. It is very clear to Canadians that the government must have an ability to make decisions that have an impact on Canadians going forward and it must be able to do that knowing that it has the confidence of the House, or at least the confidence of the majority in the House. Even if there are people who do not have confidence in the government, if the government does not have the confidence of the majority of the House, then it is unable to function as a government.

The opposition parties, in what they are saying and what they are reporting in the media, are essentially saying that they do not have confidence in the government, but what they are afraid to do is to take responsibility for what that may cause.

When a motion of non-confidence is put on the floor of the House of Commons, when the opposition parties vote for that and the motion passes, there is an election. The opposition parties have to take responsibility for that. They should be able to say, “We are causing an election. It will be during Christmas. We are dragging Canadians back to the polls even though two-thirds of Canadians agree with what the Prime Minister is saying and his call for an election in the spring, within 30 days of Justice Gomery's report”.

The hon. member opposite said that we should wait another five months for that. He is perfectly free to say that, and I am not going to argue that position because that is the position the opposition parties have taken, but what they must do in that instance is put forward a motion of non-confidence, not a motion that suggests they do not have confidence now but the effect will take place some time in the future because they do not want to have an election at Christmas. They are trying to position themselves as not having to take responsibility for a Christmas election, but Canadians will know that is where the responsibility will lie.

The opposition parties have had an opportunity to put forward a motion of non-confidence. While they go out and speak to the media and say they do not have confidence, in the House, in this chamber, they had an opportunity to do that today and they did not. They had an opportunity to do it this past Tuesday and the opposition parties did not. They will have an opportunity to put forward that motion either next Tuesday or next Thursday. They have an opportunity to express no confidence in the government by voting down confidence bills or important bills to the government. They have an opportunity to express non-confidence and vote down the government's spending estimates which provide moneys for ongoing programs.

The fact that the opposition parties have sought not to do so clearly shows to Canadians that it is not just an issue of confidence that is truly at stake here, there are some partisan political considerations.

The leader of the New Democratic Party has cited a couple of constitutional experts, but the majority of constitutional experts have sided with the government's approach on this motion. The opposition parties continue to say that even in this minority government, the Prime Minister does not have the right to set the election date.

I will quote Ned Franks, a professor at Queen's University who said:

It is the Prime Minister's right and prerogative to go to the Governor General and ask for a dissolution of the House. It is not Parliament's. That's very clear.

David Docherty has said:

[The opposition's] saying, “We like the things you've done but unless you let the opposition decide when there's an election, we will pull the plug and not only not get things done that we think are important, but quite frankly, not get things done our supporters think are important”. In short, they simply can't do it. Parliamentary non-confidence is very specific. It's non-confidence when there is a vote of non-confidence. If it's a money bill, a speech from the throne, a matter the government says is confidence or there is a motion of non-confidence, those are the times that it's clear.

That is what we are saying. Canadians should not be fooled. There is a lot of political rhetoric that is swirling around this place, but the government either has the confidence or does not have the confidence of the House and it is up to the opposition parties to express that.

When Canadians elected their first minority government in 25 years they expected their representatives to work together. They still expect that. They also indicated they wanted us to continue working on their priorities, Canadian priorities, not the political priorities of opposition parties.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. He went on national television and said that he would call an election within 30 days of the second Gomery report. He made that commitment and he wants to adhere to it.

I would say that Canadians want their government and their Parliament to deliver results and that is exactly what I have been trying to do and what the government has been doing. We have almost 90 bills before this Parliament.

The opposition parties have indicated that the House of Commons has no confidence in the government but the government has successfully met more than 40 confidence challenges and has been able to continue.

We have a strong record with respect to legislation passed on health care, equalization, a new deal for cities and communities, the offshore accords, climate change and early learning and child care. It is a strong record that we will take to the Canadian people and the Canadian people will decide.

We know Canadians want government and Parliament to focus on their priorities. They do not want a premature election. They do not want their representatives to be focused on political gamesmanship. They want the government and Parliament to deliver results, which is exactly what we are doing.

We are continuing to move forward with these priorities. The Minister of Finance has presented his fall economic and fiscal update that proposes further tax reductions for Canadians, a prosperity plan for Canada's future and it delivers more than $30 billion in tax relief in the current year and the next five years. Over 95% of that tax relief will be delivered through personal income tax.

Sadly, on the one opposition day available to the NDP in this supply cycle, it has chosen to focus on tearing this House down rather than building up this country. I have to say that the opposition day motion is an attempt by the opposition parties to demonstrate no confidence by not putting a motion before the House of Commons and saying that they have no confidence, but having that effect happen some time in January, is pretty convoluted. There has not been an expert out there who has been able to understand it.

We go back to the point of Gomery and when Gomery reports a second time. I know the opposition parties are arguing that can happen anyway and that this is all about some strategy.

The Prime Minister, when making that commitment to Canadians on national television, said that Canadians had the right to all of the facts of the Gomery Commission and all of his recommendations. However they also have a right to hear the response of the government and the response of the opposition parties before they cast their ballots. The opposition should be able to tell Canadians why they are afraid to wait for the final Gomery report before an election is called. If the opposition parties are not afraid, then they should be able to say that.

The commitment made by the Prime Minister was very clear. He said that within 30 days of the final report he would make that call. Obviously, it is not good enough for the opposition. They want an election to take place some time in February, which is four to eight weeks earlier than the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians, but that is the choice they can make. What they should not do is try to hide behind some muddy motion that is not clear to Canadians.

We are talking about four to eight weeks and, if they want an election earlier than four to eight weeks, then they should stand in their place, put down their motion and have this place work the way it is supposed to work. If there is no confidence in the government, then drag Canadians back to the polls during the holiday season and have Canadians ultimately decide. That is the way it works.

The opposition parties are insisting that if we do not accept today's motion, then they will vote non-confidence in the government. They either have the confidence or not. We are focused on moving forward important government initiatives, not spending this day debating a motion that really has no effect.

As I have said, it is the opposition's right to defeat the government if they do not have confidence in the government, but let us consider for a moment the cost of defeating the government before we get through this legislative agenda.

We have Bill C-67, the unanticipated surplus bill; Bill C-68, the Canada Pacific gateway bill; the whistleblower bill in the Senate, which is essentially a bill that has come out of committee with a number of amendments that all parliamentarians provided; and Bill C-37, the do not call list, which is also before the Senate.

By defeating the government from passing its supplementary estimates, it would prevents $1.1 billion for the Department of National Defence, nearly $200 million for investments in public infrastructure and nearly $120 million to promote peace and stability in fragile states.

The opposition parties also jeopardize the possibility of real concrete action stemming from the first ministers' meeting with aboriginal leaders in Kelowna next week. Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations who is opposed to Mr. Layton's motion, said that Mr. Layton's pledge to defeat the government could erase “all of the good work that we've done”.

Pacific Gateway Act

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have my chance to speak at second reading of Bill C-68, an act to support development of Canada's Pacific Gateway. In other words—since much has been said on this without any real explanation—it would be a sort of multimodal network of transportation infrastructures focussed on trade with Asia. I therefore feel able to take part in this debate because I am the Bloc Québécois critic for Asia and the Pacific. Those two regions are of the greatest interest to me, since we all know how buoyant the markets in Asia are.

I thank the hon. members from all parties who have spoken so far in this debate, especially my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher in particular, our transport critic. I mention this because this whole matter is interrelated. Among other colleagues who have spoken was our critic for international trade, the hon. member for Joliette. Hon. members can see how interrelated this all is, and I will go into that a little later on. My colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel have also made contributions.

I am not likely to make a habit of this, and it may not happen again, but I will certainly be supporting my colleagues' position on this bill introduced by the Minister of Transport. At least I shall support it in principle. I will tell you my reasons why. First, as has been said, this involves the concept of a gateway to Asia that opens from western Canada, a concept we support. As I said, this is not our usual habit and will not happen again. In this instance, however, we find this an interesting way of dealing with the problem of integrating everything in the way of modes of transport connected to trade with Asia.

We have some reservations, of course. They relate to a number of factors. We have reservations about the role reserved for the provinces, which is not well delineated in the bill. Once the bill is passed, creating the council itself will be very costly. We wonder how all of this will be put in place. We have a number of reservations about that.

There will be federal government support for businesses and employees in Canada's traditional manufacturing sectors and in Quebec, specifically, in sectors of employment such as textiles. A lot of products are imported from Asia. We would like a few more guarantees in this regard. We are aware that the rapid growth of trade between Asia and Canada, through this Pacific gateway in particular, is creating growing congestion in ports and the western transportation network.

I would like to elaborate on some of these reservations, but for the moment I will say why we support this concept. First of all, the gateway as it is called is very interesting. It requires a comprehensive view and a spirit of integration. It will be welcomed by those who work in the port facilities or manage them, both in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, because the integration involves a number of facets of public policy formulation. Physical infrastructures are of course involved. I mentioned the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. However, roads too are involved, as are airports and customs facilities. The list is long, because intermodal facilities are involved.

The bill also provides for policy and regulatory integration, which will have a major impact on labour and the labour market. It will also have an impact on operating methods in the supply system and even in security matters. We recall the immigration issue involving the periodic discovery of Chinese people in containers. This whole policy will have ramifications for the security of the ports in the west.

Trade promotion and standardization will be affected. Accordingly, municipal policy on land use will also be affected. This has already been addressed by other colleagues on both sides of the House. There is also the whole matter of sectoral cooperation.

As the critic on Asia and the Pacific, what I particularly like about this bill is the aspect of integration and, we must admit, a certain strategic consistency. This bill addresses principles that the Bloc Québécois defends, including sustainable development. We believe in it a great deal and the Bloc has been advocating this type of approach for many years.

In a more general sense, we can say that the network improves as it becomes faster and more energy efficient. Everyone applauds this initiative that encourages sustainable development. The sea and rail combination outlined in this bill could be another interesting niche. We would be wise to develop this niche and take it a step further.

Nonetheless, in order to put all this in place, a cohesive policy is needed and not one imposed by a dictatorship, but one developed through dialogue. A little later I will explain the reservations we have about working together with the provinces on this.

The intermodal transportation and gateway concept is quite interesting to the Bloc, especially because we think it could be applied generally. There are some aspects that could apply to the St. Lawrence River for example. There are some potentially interesting applications for the development of the St. Lawrence River.

Last spring, the Bloc Québécois held a series of consultations in various regions of Quebec on the future of the St. Lawrence. I am not getting off topic, since this still relates to shipping. Several shipping industry stakeholders told us during these consultations on the St. Lawrence in Quebec, that they would like to see improvements to everything involving “intermodal marine and rail connections”.

Some of this is addressed in the transport minister's bill. We would be interested in seeing how this type of integration could promote the development of the St. Lawrence River in the future.

However, in our opinion, the federal government lacks enough vision when it comes to the development of that river. We hear the government talk about it during elections. We get the feeling that the federal manna is going to fall, like a nice snowfall on Christmas Eve, and is going to favour the development of the river. However, the government does not have a more strategic vision.

This is not new. For example, the Quebec bridge in my riding of Louis-Hébert is falling into disrepair. We would like to see the federal Liberal government make the same commitment with regard to infrastructure in eastern Canada, such as the Quebec bridge and the airport. Yet this same Minister of Transport is also responsible for Quebec.

We applaud this willingness to foster the development of infrastructure in western Canada. It is impossible to oppose a great principle such as the Pacific gateway, since it is such an excellent principle. However, we do observe more willingness to act in western Canada than in eastern Canada, particularly when it comes to infrastructure in Quebec.

I would like to remind the hon. members that having a vision for Asia in the bill is a huge advantage. The spinoffs for Canada and all the provinces are attractive. At the same time, we need to point out that this same generosity should apply to Quebec.

In my opinion, it is important to adopt an integrated management policy and put an end to what I call silo or individual management.

I support the principle of the bill for the reasons I gave a little earlier. However, I hope that we will see this principle applied again—and I think my colleagues will agree—in connection with the St. Lawrence, which is so dear to our hearts.

I said earlier that the Bloc Québécois had concerns about this bill. Although we support it, we still have some serious reservations. Our first concern relates to the structure and appointment of members of the council. We have the following questions: why would all the members of the Pacific Gateway Council be appointed by the federal government, as set out in the bill? This concerns us, because we know that, in the past, some appointees have not always been the best candidate for the job. We also have questions about the council's structure and mandate. We have a number of questions in this regard.

Finally, we have a number of other concerns, but I want to stress above all else—and I will conclude here—the more positive aspects. We are opening ourselves up to the Asian market.

However, in order to do this, the federal government must understand the consequences of this and give the textile and other industries the time to adjust.

Once all that has been done, of course, we will support Bill C-68. The Bloc Québécois will work to improve this bill during consideration in committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that the gateway project is a national initiative. It will benefit all of Canada, provided there is a fair amount of contribution of federal dollars and that they get to where they are needed.

My riding of Langley, British Columbia will be directly affected by the planned Pacific gateway. This transportation issue is one of the most important regional concerns for all my constituents. I take this issue very seriously on their behalf and have been personally involved in finding solutions ever since I was elected.

I sit on two separate task forces which deal with traffic and rail issues that affect my community of Langley and the surrounding areas. These task forces have originated out of a need to share information and to find solutions with government agencies and other communities directly influenced by the international container traffic coming through Deltaport on the Pacific.

Canada requires safe, efficient and effective transportation to be competitive in world trade. Our Pacific port is crucial and essential to the future of Canada. I understand the necessity for the expansion of Deltaport and I am supportive of those endeavours, but the increased rail traffic will have tremendous impacts on Langley.

I have been meeting with many stakeholders in both the city and township of Langley and regional stakeholders in an effort to bring forward a solution oriented approach to the residual problems for Langley with the projected growth in train traffic as a result of Deltaport expansion projects.

The expansion of the port capacity at Deltaport will profoundly impact an already inferior and exasperated situation by adding more than 30% to train length each day to grade crossings in Langley and Surrey. The Deltaport expansion projects an additional 170,000 feet of train per day resulting in a 32% increase in rail traffic volume.

It is estimated that some trains will take 15 minutes to pass through a crossing. Five major roads already meet criteria for grade separation. The Langley bypass has more than twice that threshold. When a train passes through Langley, all five of those rail crossings are closed off simultaneously, making it impossible for emergency vehicles to cross. This puts our community at high risk.

The impact on road rail traffic in Surrey and Langley from the expansion will be staggering. Already horrendous commuter times will worsen. There are five grade level rail crossings in Langley that are experiencing substantial safety and congestion conditions at present, even before the proposed 32% increase in traffic.

While I am supportive of the expansion project, these concerns with regard to rail traffic through Langley need to be addressed. An integrated total solution is required. Solutions have already been devised and proposed at the local level. Every municipality affected by the tremendously increased volume of train traffic from Deltaport already has its list rail and road improvements they require to handle the increased train volume and at the same time manage vehicle traffic.

The objective of the Langley rail corridor task force, on which I sit, is to address the short and long term impacts of the growing rail and road traffic in the rail corridor going through the Langley communities. This group is working to identify cost efficient measures along with strategies for funding and municipal planning to support a safe livable community and an efficient transportation network.

We are considering methods to redirect rail traffic outside of the Lower Mainland, redistribute rail freight within the Lower Mainland, ensure grade separation, relocating rail lines, redirecting rail traffic and creating a joint planning process for the future that considers the needs of transportation and the needs of the community. We are looking at permanent, long term solutions to reduce the bottlenecks caused by rail traffic.

The Pacific gateway strategy includes $190 million in immediate investments and $400 million for undeclared future initiatives. Of the immediate $190 million investment, $125 million is for transportation infrastructure; $90 million for the Pitt River bridge and $30 million for road rail crossing separation from Abbotsford Mission-Matsqui out to Deltaport.

While the comprehensive study of the road rail interface on the entire line would complement work that is being conducted by our task force, there are five grade separations required in Langley alone, and $30 million does not even cover the cost of one rail overpass. One ground breaking will be happening within weeks. It is going to cost over $30 million. The question is what is fair, because of that approximately $35 million, the federal government is contributing $1 million. It is not fair. It is not proportionate.

In Langley there is a need for grade separation or alternate rail routes. Several options have been identified, such as grade separations and exploring an alternate route for at least some portion of the increased rail traffic. The option that perhaps is most appealing from an economic and community standpoint would be to explore an alternate route. Such a route currently exists which would utilize a portion of the Burlington Northern rail line through Surrey and Delta as well as an upgrade of the Fraser River rail crossing, possibly at Douglas Island. Another option would be to consider an additional overpass at Langley. As I mentioned, five locations for rail overpasses have already been identified.

The ultimate solution must work in harmony with the environment all the way along the line. We need railways, ports and governments to come together and come up with integrated, durable and sustainable transportation solutions.

The viability of the suggested alternate route is real. The costs of such an endeavour and whether or not that route can also handle the volume of rail traffic need to be addressed, along with what effect this alternate route would have on the balance of the rail network. We are solution oriented. We are finding solutions to address the rail traffic situation in Langley while at the same time supporting the growth of the Vancouver Port Authority.

Bill C-68 creates an advisory council to help decide how to spend the $400 million in the future initiatives portion of the fund that the federal government has announced in support of the Pacific gateway initiative.

I am concerned that the bill is more about politics than policy. My colleagues whose ridings are also affected by the Pacific gateway and I are concerned about the role, expense and productivity of the advisory council. The advisory council would create yet another level of bureaucracy while affected communities have already studied, analyzed and decided where the funding priorities lie. The communities know where they would like to spend the money. The federal government's role should be to provide a fair portion of the required funding.

While I support the concept of the Pacific gateway act, I would hate to see this legislation be the cause of delay in getting construction going on the solutions which have already been identified as the priorities.

The advisory council must act as a cohesive means to fast-track construction of these projects, not another bureaucratic hurdle to slow the process down. The advisory council would materialize into yet another stumbling block for seeing tangible results. Spending money on real infrastructure like overpasses and bridges is what our communities need, not another level of bureaucracy. Our communities need the infrastructure now.

The federal government should finance the initiatives identified by the comprehensive British Columbia ports strategy which was developed jointly by British Columbia's Minister of Small Business and Economic Development and the federal Minister of Transport.

Premier Gordon Campbell's government has developed a plan to invest $4.9 billion into B.C. transportation systems over the next 10 years. The province is asking Ottawa to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis. We are talking about $2.5 billion which is far from what is being proposed in this strategy. Most of the key priorities in the province's plan for significant infrastructure investment are not funded by the Liberal government's gateway announcement.

In conclusion, I agree that an effective framework or group should be established with appropriate authority and funding to develop long term transportation priorities for commercial goods and transit. Short term solutions must be developed and implemented to resolve immediate transportation needs.

Bill C-68 has my support as it directly affects my community. I hope that the Pacific gateway act will help us to bring transportation solutions into the next century rather than stand in the way with another level of bureaucracy.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in support of the Pacific gateway strategy and Bill C-68.

As all members know, the dynamics of global trade are changing. Today these dynamics are driven by rapid, seamless and secure movements of goods and people around the world, in global supply chains. Both the human and the physical capital to support these movements are concentrated in key geographic locations also known as gateways. These gateways are primary points where goods and services and people come into or leave Canada.

These gateways are connected to each other and to major markets by corridors. We have long recognized the importance of Canada's Pacific gateway as a critical entry point to Canada and North America. This is where all modes of transportation--rail, road, marine and air--come together and create a world class economic network that stretches back across much of the country.

The challenges are indeed immense. Across the Pacific Ocean, China's economic growth has been nothing short of incredible and it is expected to continue well into the future. While it is currently the world's sixth largest economy, it is predicted to be the second largest by 2016 and the largest by 2041. India is also experiencing incredible growth, as are Asian rim countries such as South Korea.

These developments create tremendous opportunities and Canada simply cannot and will not maintain the status quo.

In addition to infrastructure capacity, gateway performance is also affected directly by a range of factors, such as, for example: labour market issues, including skill 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; regulatory and economic policies of 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 its Pacific gateway. These include trade promotion, sectoral cooperation, 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.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy has been developed to address these interconnected issues and opportunities in an integrated way and accelerate the development of the Pacific gateway and its benefits for British Columbia, the western provinces and, indeed, the entire country.

A new policy approach of this scale requires a new type of governance mechanism as well. That is why Bill C-68 includes the creation of the Pacific gateway council. The council, headquartered in Vancouver, would advise decision makers on the priorities among the full range of transportation and other issues that impact the effectiveness of Canada's Pacific gateway and how well the Canadian economy takes advantage of it.

The council will be inclusive. Its members will reflect important areas of expertise such as trade, transportation, security, labour and municipalities. It will also include representatives selected after consultations with the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

In total, the Government of Canada has announced up to $590 million over five years to support the Pacific gateway strategy.

Immediate investments totalling up to $190 million over the next five years include: up to $125 million in transportation infrastructure; up to $20 million in funding to address border management capacity at key points where increased trade and travel will stretch existing capacity; up to $10 million for measures, led by Industry Canada and the Standards Council of Canada, to deepen links with the Asia-Pacific region through increased cooperation in standards related activities and harmonization; and up to $35 million over five years for Canada's Pacific gateway council.

Additional amounts of up to $400 million will be dedicated to future initiatives to develop and exploit the Pacific gateway, including initiatives in response to the recommendations of Canada's Pacific Gateway Council.

The Pacific gateway strategy reflects leadership that is both decisive and collaborative. It also reflects the efforts of dedicated stakeholders across western Canada who have been advancing an integrated approach through a range of gateway issues for years. The new strategy would build upon those efforts and take the concept even further. The response already has been powerful.

As we debate issues in this chamber, it is also important to view this initiative not in isolation, but to view it as part of a bigger plan to enhance Canada's productivity, to enhance trade among Canada and to enhance emerging countries and the ability of a nation to face the challenges of global competition.

The bill speaks to that reality. It speaks to the fact that we as a government have recognized the need to expand trade opportunities, to develop greater markets and to provide greater employment for our citizens. In a broader context this also is very much part of a strategy that recognizes that in order to enhance the standard of living of Canadians and to enhance the quality of life for Canadians we also need to view things through a productivity prism.

What I mean by this is there are elements, when dedicating one's self to strengthening an economy, that we need to address. We need to ensure that we have a micro economic environment that works. We need to have a tax system that rewards effort, innovation and productivity enhancement measures. We need to have a flexible workforce. We need to engage in trade. Trade forces companies to specialize and to innovate. It forces firms to ensure that they can compete in the global marketplace.

That is why the bill should not be viewed in isolation. It should be viewed as part of an economic plan that in many ways works quite well for the people of Canada.

When we look at the government's economic record, when we look at our performance and we look at people's incomes and how low unemployment is today, we need to have faith that this is yet another measure taken by the government to bring about the type of prosperity and productivity gain that will result in higher income for people, greater opportunities and more disposable income for Canadians, and not just out west. It would be a mistake to think that this would only benefit western Canadians. This is a national program and initiative that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I have paid attention to many of the comments hon. members have made and I have taken note of those. However, I have great confidence in this initiative because it truly will open up Canada to great world opportunities.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to Bill C-68, an act to develop Canada's Pacific gateway. As we have heard from many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, we do support this initiative.

I would like to speak to the bill on two fronts, first, as a representative from the west, and second, as the official opposition infrastructure critic, and address some of the challenges I still see that we need to address in moving forward.

As many Canadians know, the opening of the west has been an important part of Canadian history, from the development of the railroads to the building of the Trans-Canada Highway. For the Conservative Party and myself from Edmonton--Strathcona, it is paramount that the west not only receives fair treatment from Ottawa but also the respect it deserves. Unfortunately, we have seen over a decade of Liberal rule that the federal government is really out of touch with the west.

We are looking at initiatives of how to strengthen this gateway. My colleague from Cambridge asked the parliamentary secretary about the funding and the lack of funding. The greatest accomplishment of the public safety minister, who is a Liberal from Alberta, is the gun registry, for which I think most Canadians would agree we have seen no value. The $2 billion from that program could have helped fund the initiatives required in this particular project.

The whole gun registry is a scheme to register the long guns of duck hunters while the Liberals totally ignore the underlying causes of crime, such as drugs and gangs. If the Liberals did have respect for the west, they would go after these sorts of problems instead of focusing all the feigned outrage on western hunters who simply wish to share this unique experience of hunting with their children. If the government were in touch, we would see initiatives such as this actually being funded properly.

Canadians living west of Kenora realize that the Liberals are out of touch. This is why they continually, election after election, select a majority of Conservatives to represent them here in Parliament. It is something that I think Canadians in central and eastern Canada are also realizing. In the last election, Canadians overwhelmingly moved their vote away from the Liberals to other parties, namely the Conservatives who were the recipients of that benefit in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. In the next election, I think the Liberals will finally realize what Canadians already know. They will find that Canadians do not want an arrogant, tired, corrupt Liberal government that specializes in playing regions against each other. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that the Liberals have not yet learned.

We can take this bill as an example. It is a clear, unabashed attempt to win votes for the Liberal Party in British Columbia because of the way they tried to sell the plan. The Liberals think they can buy off one region of Canada against another and they are playing British Columbians against the rest of country, telling the detractors of this bill that if they do not support this bill they do not support B.C.

This sort of Liberal trick to try to play this game has not worked as well as they think. As a western Canadian, I am here to tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves and that this sort of thing has actually created more divisions and alienation across the country resulting in Canadians feeling disconnected with their parliamentarians here in Ottawa, especially the Liberal Party.

I also want to address Bill C-68 in my capacity as the infrastructure critic, first and generally, on the issue of infrastructure and then some specifics according to the bill.

The past 12 years of Liberal rule have brought Canada many infrastructure projects meant to boost Canada's transportation networks, and yet, in many ways, these programs have failed as the infrastructure deficit continues to grow. We have seen the FCM estimate the infrastructure deficit at over $60 billion.

The Canadian Automobile Association is another one of those groups that estimates the country needs to invest about $20 billion in our roads in order to bring them up to snuff. Where does it get this figure? It gets this figure from the provincial highway ministers who said that the figure in 2000 was about $17 billion. Of course, since then that has risen due to inflation and the lack of regard by the Liberals to the roads that we drive on across the country.

This is a very serious issue and I need to underscore this point. I would like to read an action plan that was developed by the CAA and published earlier this year in February trying to warn the government of warning signs, especially when it comes to our national highway system and our roadways.

The first action the CAA talked about was that they see roads as an investment, not an expense, and that when we consider all the gas tax money collected in the country, more of that money should be going into our highway system. The federal government should make better and safer roadways a major goal and consider them as an important part of the federal productivity agenda.

The second action would be to implement a national highway strategy. The federal government must recognize the national highway system as a strategic national asset and then it must adopt the national highway policy for Canada's NHS as proposed by the provinces and territories. It must then move immediately to fund this national highway system to ensure it is safe, efficient and environmentally responsible from coast to coast.

We have to set funding priorities. The federal government must invest in the national highway strategy to upgrade it to the optimal standard and address the future needs as well. This ties into Bill C-68, especially if we are expanding the gateway. The highway system will be crucial to that. It should also include speeding up the border infrastructure program and develop a rural road safety and improvement program.

We also have to invest in the roads of tomorrow, enhance the role of technology and innovation when exploring the development of better and safer roads and highways, and finally, encourage eco-driving. I think it is interesting that even the Canadian Automobile Association says that there should be some sort of incentives in place, especially as technologies are evolving, looking at new ways to develop hybrid cars and other types of fuel cells, that there should be incentives for Canadians to change their habits and that leadership should come from the federal government.

Those are all actions that as a future government I believe we would definitely support and initiate. The question is whether the Liberals are willing to listen to the motorists of Canada and start working to address those infrastructure needs.

What I have been arguing about this particular bill is that it sometimes seems more politics than policy. If the federal government really wants to support this gateway initiative I believe it needs to finance the initiatives that were identified by B.C.'s comprehensive British Columbia ports strategy. I believe my colleague from Cambridge referred to it. It was developed jointly by British Columbia's ministry of small business and economic development and the ministry of transportation in B.C. The B.C. progress board, a provincially nominated blue ribbon panel of experts, largely supports the recommendations.

Bill C-68 would create an advisory council to help decide how to spend the $400 million that the federal government has announced in support of the specific gateway initiative. The council would have 15 members, 9 of whom would be nominated by the federal government , 5 of whom would be nominated in cooperation with the four western provinces and the final member would be the chairperson of the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

Bill C-68 is a Liberal strategy so it can be seen as doing something to help promote B.C. ports. By setting up the council as a means of subjecting current initiatives to further consultation, the Liberals can continue to postpone their financial commitments while being seen as taking a bold step to support this initiative. I believe it will cost approximately $30 million just to operate the consultation group, which, as has already been proven, consultation has been done by the B.C. government.

The B.C. government estimates that about $3.5 billion will be required to actually identify and enhance the projects that would support the Pacific gateway. The province's number one transportation policy to date was not funded by the federal government's gateway announcement. It is looking at approximately, as my colleague mentioned, $1.5 billion on average, or maybe a little higher, that would fund about 50% of what is required to make the gateway project work.

With this level of shortfall, which I believe was a $400 million announcement for future initiatives, it will not even come close to providing B.C. the money for its initiatives. I know that the costs of some of the projects that were identified were quite large. We are looking at the Kicking Horse Canyon project, the North Fraser perimeter road, Port Mann Highway No. 1, the South Fraser perimeter road and the New Westminster rail bridge. None of these projects, which will directly affect the functionality of the Pacific gateway, were even touched in any of the proposals put forward. These are all significant projects and they have all been identified as crucial to making the new project work.

I will conclude with what we would have done and how we would have approached things differently. Rather than announcing ideas or policies throughout Canada's Pacific gateway, the Liberals have announced more bureaucracy. Western ports need real solutions to their challenges, not this Liberal half-step.

As a government, we would make real policy changes that would allow the Pacific gateway to become a reality, not a Liberal catchphrase. We would eliminate Ottawa's borrowing cap on the port of Vancouver, which is a big problem. We would allow B.C. ports to voluntarily merge for competitive advantage and facilitate their access to more investment. We would streamline security at our ports, offer assistance with dredging, invest gas taxes into our infrastructure, and work with provincial governments and port authorities on high priority infrastructure projects. This would be the proper blueprint.

Canadians deserve better than Liberal catchphrases.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague from St. Boniface a few things regarding his speech. Bill C-68, with the new gateway strategy, has some merit in that we are all hoping that we can diversify our trade alliances and not be quite as reliant as we have been on the north-south traffic as the overwhelming dominant force in our trade strategy.

I would ask the hon. member if that trade strategy with China and India and developing nations would take in more than just trade documents and trade agreements? It would take infrastructure as well.

The Liberal government is currently engaged in the sale of the Prince Rupert terminal under a cloud of secrecy, a veil of secrecy. Perhaps he can answer this and shed some light on it. It looks as though a fixture worth hundreds of millions of dollars, a public asset, will be sold for $3 million or $4 million as the going price, with no open tendering practice, and no ability to ensure that we are getting the best value possible for our crown asset that is the Prince Rupert terminal.

Would the hon. member explain to me how this kind of secrecy and this kind of treatment of our public assets is in keeping with the overall impetus to expand the trade and the gateway?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate at third reading of Bill C-54, the first nations resources bill.

When this is complete, we will consider reference before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting cruelty to animals. I expect that this business will carry over to tomorrow. We will then add to the list second reading of Bill S-36, respecting diamonds and second reading of Bill C-44, the transport bill.

When the House resumes on November 14, we will return to second reading of Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway bill; Bill C-66, the energy bill; and Bill C-67, the surpluses legislation.

We will also then return to any business from this week that is unfinished and if time permits, consider second reading of Bill C-61, the marine bill.

November 15 and November 17, as the hon. member across the way would have known weeks ago had he been at the House leaders meeting, will be allotted days. On Tuesday evening, November 15, we will have a take note debate on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Accordingly, I will propose the required motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.1(1). I move:

That a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, November 15 on the subject of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

Pacific Gateway Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to share the time with my hon. colleague.

I must say that while I stand here to speak in support of Bill C-68, I do so with mixed emotions. I am sure we all understand the definition of mixed emotions, but I will give an example. Mixed emotions is defined as watching one's mother-in-law drive off a cliff in one's brand new Cadillac.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with the first portion of the hon. member's speech. He did speak very effectively of his vision mainly in terms of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. I will make a few comments and let the hon. member reply to them.

First of all, the Pacific gateway is not simply a gateway for Vancouver. It is a gateway for all of British Columbia, a gateway for the three prairie provinces and a gateway for all Canadians. It would appear from my perspective that in terms of what has happened, Vancouver for some time has been concerned with both air traffic and port traffic as it thought in terms of trying to develop an economy facing the Pacific.

With this concept of ports and airports, the improvement of those facilities, and above all the improvement not only of the gateway, the gateway being a gate, but the pathways that lead to that gateway and the opportunities that have to be available to people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, they too have to participate in this debate. Bill C-68 shows that it is a bigger concept than simply one city or one province. It is a concept for all Canadians. In particular it is a very vital part of the economy of all of western Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay respect to my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale for his amazing efforts on behalf of the all-party border caucus and the work that he has done there. It is an important issue to his constituency and to all of British Columbia.

He spoke to many of the frustrations that I have with this bill as a British Columbian, which is to say that this bill is everything and nothing at the same time. It presents nothing. It outlines no specific spending formula and no specific projects that the government is going to announce. At the same time, it creates a body that will be discussing future potential projects so that the Liberals in the coming campaign can ask people if they are in favour of the South Fraser perimeter road for the Fraser port and to ease the traffic there, and they will say, “Of course we are. We had Bill C-68, the legislation that created the Pacific gateway council, so yes, we are for it because that council might recognize it”.

The frustration that I have and I know that the member has is that his constituents deserve specific concrete action. The issue of the Pacific gateway has been studied ad nauseam in British Columbia. The provincial government tabled a comprehensive report just a few months ago. Less than a year ago the BC Progress Board put forward comprehensive ideas on how we can move forward. Rather than actually putting forward specific things that we can do, such as the South Fraser perimeter road which is very important for the member's constituency and very important for all of British Columbia, or dredging on the Fraser River, or any of the dozens of concrete ideas that are out there to actually make the Pacific gateway a reality, the Liberals have created a council which will study these issues and make recommendations.

Right now in this House, given the reality that a budget will be coming up perhaps in January or February, we should be discussing specific ideas like the South Fraser perimeter road, and we are not because the Liberals have put forward a bill that creates bureaucracy rather than a bill that offers solutions. I want my colleague to speak to that.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to support development of Canada's Pacific gateway. That is what the bill is called, but upon reflection, the bill is much like any other Liberal bill and many other Liberal actions. It is misnamed. It is rhetoric with little action to back up the words. Perhaps a better name for this bill would have been an act to appear to support development of Canada's Pacific gateway, without actually doing much of anything. The bill does little to support actual development of Canada's Pacific gateway.

Instead, the bill sets up an official federal advisory council, most of the members of which are to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Based on what we have seen with recent patronage appointments by the government, I am not optimistic about the promise of the Prime Minister to end cronyism with the introduction of this bill.

Nor am I confident that Bill C-68 is the solution to this issue. However this tiny step forward is all we have had from this government in 12 years, so we will take what we can get.

In truth, there is little need for a new advisory panel to attempt to reinvent the wheel. The B.C. government has already studied the issue in depth and produced the B.C. Ports Strategy. While the government continues to dither over Bill C-68, the province of B.C. produced its final plan for the ports back in March.

Let us take a look at what the B.C. government has already set as its vision and goals.

Its vision is for British Columbia to become the leading gateway for Asia-Pacific trade and the most competitive port system on the west coast of the Americas. Achieving this vision will enable the port system to contribute an additional $6.6 billion each year in economic output to the Canadian economy by 2020, with $4.7 billion of that accruing to British Columbia.

The number of ports related jobs in B.C. will grow from 18,000 now to 50,000 by 2020, with the value of wages rising from the present $1 billion to $2.7 billion annually.

By 2020, British Columbia's port system will have: an international reputation for a secure, world-class port system with exemplary service performance from dockside to customer; state of the art port terminals that use an appropriate mix of technology and people; the needs of industry and local communities in balance while preserving the environment and ensuring safety and security; one consistent region-wide approach to infrastructure planning and development with integration across the entire supply chain, avoiding duplication and overlap; a common policy approach across all levels of government that treats the port system as a strategic asset and economic generator, stimulating investment; and finally, a growing, productive and prosperous workforce.

The growth in B.C. ports is going to happen in three areas. First, through maximizing Asia-Pacific container traffic growth opportunities. Second, through maximizing export and regional growth opportunities. Third, through maximizing B.C.s position as a world cruise destination.

That is a great vision and one that is achievable and yet it is going to require significant investment. Absolutely essential is the need to expand our port capacity and transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, the transport minister has offered only a pittance so far from the federal side.

While the $590 million recently announced for roads and bridges is desperately needed and long overdue, much more is needed. The B.C. Ministry of Transportation has outlined a list of priorities that are needed right now to deal with the gridlock and congestion. Among these are the proposed Port Mann-Highway 1 project, which includes twinning the Port Mann Bridge, upgrading interchanges and improving access and safety on Highway 1 from Vancouver to Langley.

The project provides for extending HOV lanes to Langley, allows for transit over the Port Mann Bridge and includes cyclist facilities across the new structure. It will relieve severe congestion impacting commuters and the large number of commercial vehicles that rely on this route, the lower mainland's primary truck route.

Another project is the North Fraser Perimeter Road, which is a proposed set of improvements on existing roads to provide an efficient, continuous route from New Westminster to Maple Ridge.

TransLink is responsible for the section through New Westminster, while the ministry is responsible for the segments from King Edward Street in Coquitlam to Maple Ridge, including a new Pitt River Bridge to replace the aging swing bridges. The proposed upgrades will improve safety and reliability along this important corridor, serving goods movement, commuters and growing communities.

A final project is the South Fraser Perimeter road which is proposed as a primarily new four lane, 80 kilometre route along the south side of the Fraser River extending from Deltaport Way in southwest Delta to 176th Street and the Golden Ears Bridge connector road in Surrey and Langley. It will provide a continuous and efficient route to serve the port facilities, rail yards and industrial areas along this key economic corridor and will also benefit commuters.

Each of these projects is designed to reduce congestion and vehicle idling, as well as speed commercial traffic to the ports. These projects will not only help build the Pacific gateway capacity, but they will also help the environment. Yet, the tepid response of the government so far to funding all these projects demonstrates the minimal concern the Liberals have for the problems faced by the lower mainland commuters and industry and for addressing a real environmental problem.

As a lower mainland MP who has to personally deal with the transportation infrastructure in B.C., I can tell the House the gridlock is a major problem in B.C. and the paltry funding that the Minister of Transport put on the table recently barely scratches the surface of the problem.

I want to mention one other critical problem affecting B.C. ports which the government is actually responsible for causing. That is the lack of an adequate police presence at west coast ports and, indeed, at all Canadian ports.

As co-chair of the parliamentary border caucus, I hear regularly from various front line officers of the Canada Border Services Agency who are dealing with threats to their personal safety and who are aware of the presence of organized crime having a significant foothold in many of our international seaports.

Of course, the smuggling of narcotics, weapons, money, people, stolen vehicles and other contraband can be achieved most efficiently through the seaport, and yet the Liberals are directly responsible for disbanding the specialized ports police when they first came to office.

Restoring integrity to the operation of our ports is essential if we are to attract and keep new business. As part of the Pacific gateway strategy I would urge the government to revisit the issue of port security as not only a criminal justice issue, but also as an issue of strength and competitiveness for our legitimate ports business.

The Prime Minister told the nation at the beginning of his mandate that if western alienation remained unchanged he would have failed. I know that the Prime Minister often forgets the promises that he makes but let him be reminded that actions speak louder than words and Bill C-68 is mostly words and very short on action.

As my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast pointed out recently, the Liberal government is willing to blow $1 billion in an attempt to buy a seat for B.C. in this House, but it cannot seem to find the money to deal with the real problems that British Columbians face.

B.C. has long been a net contributor to equalization in Canada. Now, at a time when our ports need expansion, when traffic congestion grows, when our softwood producers need a national government to defend their interests, when street racing threatens lives, when the salmon fishery is in severe decline, when grow houses fill the suburbs, when waiting lists for surgery grow, when pine beetles threaten the interior forests and when tax relief is desperately needed, where is the Liberal government on these issues?

The view from the west is that Liberals are nowhere on these issues. They have consistently failed to defend B.C.'s interests. They have consistently failed to step up to the table with adequate funding for critical problems. They have consistently failed to reform our criminal justice system and they have consistently failed on every file.

Relationships, whether with people, provinces or other countries are a two-way street. This is something the Liberals fail to grasp. If the Prime Minister wants to know why western alienation is at perhaps an all time high, then he needs to recognize how each of these problems has grown worse under his Liberal administration.

We are willing to cooperate with the government even in its modest efforts to improve our B.C. ports. We are ultimately interested in standing up for British Columbia and Canada, despite our misgivings about the government and its lacklustre approach to the Pacific gateway initiative. As such, our party will be supporting Bill C-68.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that was made by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, the Minister of Western Economic Diversification.

I think Bill C-68 is actually a typical Liberal bill in the sense that it is everything and nothing at the same time. The bill does not actually prescribe solving any of the solutions that the port of Vancouver in British Columbia faces in creating a Pacific gateway. What the Liberals are doing is setting up a body so that if they are ever asked about what they are doing about the Pacific gateway, they can say they are doing everything because this body might consider it someday.

The government is not actually addressing some of the specific issues that are of concern to the Pacific gateway, like allowing the ports of Vancouver on the lower mainland to merge, eliminating the cap on borrowing, and allowing them to issue tax exempt bonds dealing with dredging on the Fraser River.

The minister will get up, I am sure, and say that this body will study it and advise the government. The government has been in power for 13 years. We need specific action on these things. I want to ask him other questions in his capacity as the Minister of Western Economic Diversification. In my riding, there are a lot of transportation issues that need a lot funding. They need a lot of support from the federal government.

I have been an elected member of Parliament for going on five years now and I have been persistently dogging the government, trying to get some commitment from it on issues such as the Mary Hill bypass, the traffic jams we are seeing on Lougheed Highway, and the problems we are seeing at the Cape Horn interchange and the Coast Meridian overpass in Port Coquitlam. They need support from the federal government. We need assistance with East Road in Anmore, which is seeing real problems with degradation due to summer traffic, with people going up to Bunsen Lake and into the interior during summer vacation time.

We also need general support for the northeast sector. The RAV line for the 2010 Olympics has received a lot of publicity and a lot of attention from the federal government. It just so happens that it goes through the minister's riding. I am sure that is a coincidence.

The northeast sector of the lower mainland, where I am from, is the fastest growing area of British Columbia. We have huge housing starts happening in Heritage Mountain, in downtown Port Moody along Murray Street, on the south side. All kinds of housing is going in there. The north side of Port Coquitlam is one of the fastest growing communities in all of Canada and the fastest in British Columbia. We have received no support from this federal Liberal government. Even when Liberal member of Parliament Lou Sekora represented my riding in this House, we got no attention whatsoever from this federal Liberal government.

We have a light rail project that is supposed to connect the Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre. We have asked for federal support for it and have received no feedback whatsoever. We have asked for support for West Coast Express so it can continue its expansion to service my constituents and there has been no response on that.

I am going to specifically ask the Minister of Western Economic Diversification, who has done nothing for the northeast sector of the lower mainland, how is this bill going to help my community? The $590 million the Liberals announced had no specific projects in mind. There are a lot of projects in my riding that need attention and the Liberal government has not paid them any mind or any just dues at all.

On behalf of my constituents, I want an answer from this minister. I enumerated all the projects: the Mary Hill bypass, the Lougheed Highway, the Cape Horn interchange, the Coast Meridian overpass, assistance for East Road, assistance for Ioco Road, the light rail that is being proposed, and the support for West Coast Express. Ours is the fastest growing area with a lot of traffic congestion. We need support. Can the minister please rise in the House and tell me if any one of these projects will receive any support from this federal government?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf on Bill C-68, which is something that is quite extraordinary in the modern history of Canada. It recognizes that the west of Canada, British Columbia, is the gateway to the Asia-Pacific, which is an extraordinary area of the globe in terms of growth, population, immigration and part of the very special makeup and diversity of the country itself. British Columbia is being recognized as the gateway for a national project.

The Pacific gateway is something that is good for every Canadian. There are three billion people in the Pacific Asian market who are building a middle class. With 250 million people who now have joined the middle income ranks of the Chinese population, they are looking to purchase goods and resources to build their extraordinary economy that is growing at 10% a year, and has for almost the last 20 years.

The gateway concept is extremely important. We are trying it out. The concept understands that for economic growth, prosperity, tourism and the quality of life in our country, we have to take advantage of gateways to the world. There is a gateway in southern Ontario to the United States and a gateway in Halifax over to Europe. We will be developing more gateways on this model as it develops.

However, let me just mention a few aspects of this important Pacific gateway. First, it will deal with infrastructure. We have heard some comments about inadequate infrastructure. The federal government has invested over the last 10 years some $12 billion to $13 billion in infrastructure along with and in partnership with provincial and municipal governments. That is leveraged to over $30 billion of infrastructure.

The government leads on the concept of infrastructure. When the Pacific gateway initiative was announced by the Minister of Transport last month, he said that $590 million would be the down payment, the same words that the Prime Minister used, on future infrastructure needs. However, we are starting out in a cautious way to prove the model and to ensure that these investments are in the very most needed and important ways.

It will deal with border infrastructure, security and efficiency at the border. We must have both. That means high technology. It means expanding our border services, and that will come out of this Pacific gateway initiative.

We know the demographics of the country demand that we increase our immigration, not only in numbers but also to ensure that those people are paired with the necessary skills needed and when they have foreign skills and training, that they receive appropriate certification as soon as possible on integrating into Canada.

There are the cultural, skills, border and transportation links. Harmonization of standards is extraordinarily important and this Pacific gateway initiative addresses that. The money is only a start. We know the British Columbia Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, which has been a sectoral transportation council for the last eight years, has identified many projects that will decrease the congestion, particularly around the movement of goods around the greater Vancouver area. This will start to address, in partnership with the provincial government of British Columbia, some of those very desperate needs.

However, it will go beyond that. It will go to increasing the port facilities at Prince Rupert. Last April the government made the announcement of an investment of $30 million into a container facility in Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert is an extraordinary place in terms of this Pacific gateway.

Prince Rupert, as I think many people know, is the deepest port on the west coast of North America. It has a sheltered, ice-free harbour, but it has clearance to it through the south of Haida Gwaii. Most important, it is close to Asia. If we look at the configuration of the continents as well as the curvature of the earth, it puts Prince Rupert 40 hours by ship closer than Seattle and Vancouver to major Asian ports.

Vancouver itself a major part of the gateway at the current time, is itself over 50 hours closer to Shanghai by ship than is the port of Los Angeles.

We have tremendous aspects to our gateway concept that merely need to be invested in and developed to provide greater employment, investment and trade and therefore a higher quality of life for people across our country.

The previous speaker spoke about the gateway council. He had some difficulty with it, although I am not sure why. The way it is set up in the bill, and I am glad to see he is supporting it in general, it is widely representative. It would include transportation sectors, the environment sector, the aboriginal community, appointments recommended or made in consultation with the four western provinces and representatives from municipalities in the various advisory committees of this council.

This is an extremely important recognition of the reality of new governance, which goes beyond any one government getting its own act together or even coordinating well with other levels of government. It goes out to civil society, to business, to the professions and to our research and teaching universities. Quoting from the bill, clause 5(b):

promote consensus among interested stakeholders and raise awareness among decision makers regarding solutions to problems identified by the Council;

What could be more conciliatory and collaborative? However, it goes on in clause 5(c):

promote collaboration, engagement and complementarity of activities with existing networks of stakeholders that have an interest in the Asia-Pacific region or Canada’s Pacific gateway.

What could be a better example of the reality of modern governance, of bringing the ideas from the people who are most involved to government for consideration through their recommendations.

The history of the Pacific gateway did not start last month when this initiative was first announced. This has been going on for some period of time.

There are 300,000 people of Chinese ancestry who live in British Columbia and a further 300,000 from other Asian countries with Asian descent. This is an extremely important competitive advantage of our country. Our multicultural makeup itself is an advantage in our trading relationships.

A project that has gone on since 2002, through my department, Western Economic Diversification, also is called Gateway to Asia. It was started to link new immigrant entrepreneurs from Asian countries with manufacturers and suppliers in British Columbia in order to take advantage of two things. The first is the need for new markets, and previous speakers have mentioned the need to diversify our markets. The second is to link back to those networks, those contacts that new Asian entrepreneurs have with existing manufacturing companies in British Columbia. Now that has spread into Alberta and it will spread across the west.

In the first two years of that gateway project with the Immigrant Services Society's success in Vancouver, a very outstanding organization, over 750 companies signed up in British Columbia for that link with Asian entrepreneurs. They did over $4 million worth of business in those first two years. That has now gone up to $6 million in the third year with over 900 companies engaged in that process. That is a previous gateway initiative.

We know the Canadian Tourism Commission is being moved from Ottawa to Vancouver to take advantage of the fact that not only will we be hosting the 2010 Olympics, but that Vancouver has been named year after year the most livable city and one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world.

That is very significant, and certainly this expanded gateway initiative will add measurably, and even immeasurably, to the tourism potential of all of Canada, but through this gateway in many cases. We have negotiated and are close to concluding with the Chinese government the assured destination status, which will lead to potentially hundreds of thousands of Chinese tourists a year coming to Canada. That is another aspect of this gateway.

Let me say as well that we have an organization created in 1984 by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau and called the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. This is an extraordinary foundation, a research and cultural communication institution that has recently been given a $50 million endowment by the Government of Canada so that it can enhance, in research into economic, cultural and social issues, our relationship to the Asia Pacific countries. This complements perfectly this new Asia Pacific gateway concept.

Let me say with respect to the gateway, if I may, that there is an extremely talented 92 year old artist from Vancouver, John Koerner, who started a Pacific gateway series in his art in 1979, so that while we all claim credit and pride in this new Pacific gateway concept, it has been in this fantastic artist's mind for some time. He has produced some of the most extraordinary art in Canada. I should declare my interest here. He is my father-in-law. He continues to paint very prolifically on this great theme.

I will conclude these introductory remarks by talking a bit about what is happening in China. The port of Shanghai at the moment is one of the top three ports in the world for container shipments. Per year, it ships 15 million TEUs, twenty-foot equivalent units, out of Shanghai. Over the next four years, that will expand to 32 million TEUs. Where are they going to go?

China is now building ships that are too large to go through the Panama Canal. They will come to the new infrastructure in the ports of Vancouver, as well as the other ports of British Columbia, Canada's west ports, including this extraordinary capacity which can be built up in Prince Rupert.

Not only is Prince Rupert a deep port with unconstricted access and much closer to Asia than any other port of the Americas, it is also uncongested by population or geography. It is connected by the CN network of railroads, some of the best-run railroads in the world, right across to Edmonton, to Winnipeg, into the Sault and the Great Lakes system, down the St. Lawrence,over to the east coast, down through Chicago and the Midwest, down to Louisiana and the gulf, and out to the east coast and New Jersey.

Thus, literally, this gateway, coming through B.C. ports, which of course have both CN and CP, will link Asia not only to all of Canada but right through the United States and even on to Europe through this great increase in container traffic. The opportunities are limitless.

In concluding these remarks in terms of diversification, which we hear a lot about--and my department of course is western economic diversification--I would suggest that we have to diversify in a number of areas. Obviously we have to diversify in markets.

To my amazement, the member for Burnaby--New Westminster decried the importance of NAFTA. I am sure that if he were to realize the trade surplus that we have with the United States, which is quite extraordinary, he would think twice before he downgrades or degrades our relationship with the United States and the wealth that it brings to Canadians, to the strength of our economy and therefore our quality of life.

We must diversify. The softwood lumber dispute shows why not to replace trade with the U.S., because that will continue to grow to the benefit of Canadians, but to provide other opportunities, and of course Asia is one of those great opportunities.

There is a new community on the outskirts of Shanghai, a suburb of Shanghai, which is a demonstration project for British Columbia designed and engineered homes, using British Columbia softwood. It is developing houses for the Shanghai market, which I am sure members know is growing at a tremendous rate. It is one of the largest cities in the world, perhaps the largest, with a greater Shanghai population of approximately 29 million people.

The diversification of markets is critical. We also have to diversify up the value chain to add value to our raw materials. Part of the boom and bust modern history of western Canada has been the problem of the fluctuations in international commodity markets. Of course commodities by definition are low value added and large quantity, with a very narrow profit margin.

I will end with this. With those narrow profit margins, they are boom and bust in the swings of commodity prices, so we must add value to add employment to Canada, of course, but also to have broader profit margins that withstand those commodity price fluctuations. That is another aspect of this diversification. Of course, those products that we are adding value to will be shipped back in containers to Asia. It is obvious arithmetic that if we can fill a container for both ways, we cut its price in half.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-68, an act to support the development of Canada's Pacific gateway. I will begin by saying that we in the NDP support the bill in principle, but we have serious concerns about the government's overall approach.

The bill itself is innocuous. It appoints another advisory board. In a moment, I will come back to concerns about the appointment process by the Liberal government. The reality is that the issue of the Pacific gateway is linked much more clearly to broader issues around the infrastructure deficit that we have had over the past two decades under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Clearly there is a neglect of our infrastructure across the country.

The reality is that the funding, coupled with the advisory committee set up by the bill, is clearly inadequate to meet the needs and objectives of what we in British Columbia have to do to repair the infrastructure after decades of neglect, but also inadequate for us as the province of British Columbia and also as the country of Canada to respond to the need to diversify our trade markets, because very clearly the trade strategy of the current government has been a failure.

With NAFTA, we have seen the dispute settlement mechanism being basically ripped up by the Bush administration. There has been no reply from the government. There has been some posturing and there have been some speeches. The NDP put forth a three point action plan in September and none of those actions put forward in September have been undertaken by the government. It is very clear to me that this shows the Bush administration the government is not serious about defending Canadian interests.

If the trade policy has been a failure, one of the key things we have to do is diversify our markets. In order to do that we have to repair the neglect of our infrastructure over the past two decades and start to respond with broader infrastructure maintenance and broader infrastructure construction.

As for the bill itself, we will be supporting it in principle, but we have five concerns. I will start with the actual administration of the moneys that are attached to this particular bill.

We are talking about $190 million that has actually been allocated, both to infrastructure programs in British Columbia and in connection with transportation in and out of British Columbia. At the same time, about $35 million has been allocated to the advisory committee.

We are talking about $190 million when we know that for infrastructure needs the federal government's share should be at least $2.5 billion. While the government has allocated an additional $400 million for photo ops during the election campaign, this much needed money has not been allocated and very clearly is being kept in reserve so that when an election comes, sooner or later, members of the government can go forth and be present at the funding announcements.

However, $190 million has been allocated when we need $2.5 billion. I will come back to that in a moment. Very clearly, that is short-sightedness on the part of this government.

I will also talk a bit about the overall neglect of infrastructure. That is a key issue that the NDP, in this corner of the House, has been concerned about for some time. There is the issue of the neglect of infrastructure. There is the issue of the inadequacy of the funding that is attached. There is the actual role of the advisory committee, which has no clear governance role, as it basically advises the government and the government makes the decision.

Primarily this is an issue of the overall mismanagement of governmental programs. I will touch on that at the end of my presentation, but I would also like to start by quoting the Gomery report on who is responsible, those major findings by Justice Gomery, because it is important for the record to hear the concerns that have been raised about programs run by the government. We have $190 million that ostensibly has been allocated and $400 million that has not been allocated.

What did Justice Gomery say? What did the commission of inquiry find in terms of Liberal management of programs?

The commission of inquiry found clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the program, insufficient oversight, and a veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the program and an absence of transparency in the contracting process. The inquiry also found a reluctance for fear of reprisal by virtually all public servants to go against the will of a manager who is circumventing policies. It found gross overcharging by communications agencies, inflated commission and production costs, and the use of the program for purposes other than those for which it was intended. It found deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation, including the Canada Elections Act, the Lobbyists Registration Act, the Access to Information Act and the Financial Administration Act, as well as federal contracting policy and the Treasury Board's transfer payments policy. It found a complex web of financial transactions involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the program, five agencies that received large contracts, regularly channeling money via legitimate donations or unrecorded cash gifts to political fundraising activities, and certain agencies carrying on their payrolls individuals who were in effect working on Liberal Party matters. It found the existence of a culture of entitlement among political officials involved with the program, and the refusal of ministers, senior officials in the PMO and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility.

The reason I raise this is that we are experiencing the exact same problems now around the issue of the Toronto Port Authority and $35 million that was allocated for a bridge that was never built. It is unbelievable. Some $35 million has disappeared from the federal coffers through the Ministry of Transport, and despite repeated requests under the Access to Information Act, and despite repeated questions, no answers have been forthcoming as to why it would cost $35 million not to build a bridge.

Very clearly what we have here is an ongoing pattern of mismanagement, the veil of secrecy that Justice Gomery referred to so clearly, where moneys that are public funds, paid for by the taxpayers of this nation, go forward and the ministry, in this case the Department of Transport, has sent that money away without any receipts, without any sort of production of documents to ensure that we are getting good use for those moneys.

I raise that because here we have another incident where the federal Liberal government wants to spend $35 million for an advisory committee, but since the practices that Justice Gomery has identified, that are current today and that we have seen not only with the David Dingwall affair but also very clearly with the Toronto Port Authority, have not been cleaned up, how can any of us in this House be fully assured that we are going to get the proper accounting for taxpayers' dollars that is a necessary obligation of the government?

Justice Gomery identified clear issues. The government has not responded to them. Other issues are coming forward, the Toronto Port Authority and other examples of the allocation of funds without the appropriate due diligence, yet the government continues to stonewall legitimate questions that are raised about the allocation of those funds.

That culture of entitlement is the first of the concerns we have about Bill C-68. Clearly if moneys are being allocated and very clearly if we have funds of $400 million that remain unallocated and obviously will not be allocated until a potential election campaign, it is important to raise those legitimate concerns about what is going to happen to that money. The government has not cleaned up its act, so there are legitimate concerns that the opposition, like the NDP, can express about whether or not those funds would be allocated properly.

The second concern is around the issue of the advisory committee itself. The deck presentation around the gateway bill talks about an innovative new governance structure. The innovative new governance structure is an advisory body, and the advisory body has only the mandate to advise governments. The advisory committee itself does not have the power to actually push forward projects. All it can do is advise the government.

One wonders about this, perhaps cynically with an election coming up. The transportation infrastructure in British Columbia has not been dealt with for decades under the Conservative Party or under the Liberal Party. The infrastructure in British Columbia has been completely ignored, but now we see an advisory committee that will be coming forward that has no power to actually implement anything. All it can do is advise the government. One can say that perhaps this will be an advisory committee that is set up primarily for electoral purposes. I hope that is not the case, but it is a legitimate question and we are asking that question.

There is another question that stems from this. Given that the appointment process has not been cleaned up in any way by the government, similar to the financial transactions identified by Justice Gomery, a couple of weeks ago the hon. member for Ottawa Centre presented a clear seven point plan for cleaning up government, cleaning up Parliament, ending the appointments of political cronies that we have consistently seen from the government. There has been no response.

Creating another advisory committee will put us in the same situation. The government seems to be attracted to cronyism. Will the advisory committee actually be composed of legitimate individuals, or will it simply be another place where the Liberal Party appoints its cronies? This is my second legitimate concern.

I have a third concern. It is over the allocation of funding for this particular group of projects. I mentioned earlier that we are talking about $190 million that has been allocated. Some $125 million has actually been allocated to transportation infrastructure, including the Pitt River bridge on Mary Hill in the tri-cities area of British Columbia, the Deltaport road rail grade separations, and North Portal, Saskatchewan which is the same thing, road rail grade separations. Deltaport is allocated $30 million and $3 million goes to North Portal.

These are projects that are important, but it is a drop in the bucket to what the actual infrastructure needs are. The infrastructure needs have been identified at over $5 billion. The federal share of that would be $2.5 billion. Because of the neglect around infrastructure and transportation infrastructure over the last 20 years by the Conservatives and the Liberals these needs must be fulfilled. At the same time, over the last 20 years the population in greater Vancouver has grown by three-quarters of a million. We clearly have a gap between what the needs are and the government stepping forward to actually meet them.

Some $190 million has been allocated, and $125 million has actually been allocated to transportation infrastructure projects, and another $400 million has been kept in reserve, obviously for the next election campaign. The needs are many times what the actual allocation has been. That is the third concern with this bill and the allocation that goes with it.

It is important to mention the overall neglect of the government when it comes to infrastructure generally. Over the past decade we have seen the clear neglect of our infrastructure.

In the 1960s we actually had double the rate of public infrastructure investment to overall tangible capital. It was twice the rate in the 1960s than we are seeing now. That gap has led to the shortfalls that have been identified by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Very clearly our transportation infrastructure has not kept up with the needs.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has estimated the infrastructure deficit at about $60 billion across the country. Those are funds that Canadians need because of the shortfall between what should have been invested by the government and what actually was invested.That deficit is growing at about $2 billion a year. We have a substantial infrastructure deficit that continues to grow.

We are talking about $60 billion across the country, and the government is putting $190 million toward some transportation infrastructure projects. For the most part that just starts to address the problem. It is so far short of what is needed. There is a clear gap between the rhetoric of the government to want to respond to the urgent needs that are occurring in British Columbia and the reality of actually meeting those needs.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association has talked about a deficit in terms of actual infrastructure funding between 2004 and 2008. We need about $7 billion to maintain our existing urban transit infrastructure and about twice that, $14 billion, to actually expand, which is what we need to do. As I mentioned, in British Columbia there are three-quarters of a million additional people over the last 20 years. We need $7 billion to maintain the infrastructure over that four year period from 2004 to 2008 and we need $14 billion to expand.

Not just my party but a number of parties in this House have raised the issue of the national highway program. We do not have a national highway program in place. Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not have one. We have seen the deterioration of our highways across the country. It is another example of the infrastructure deficit that exists.

We are seeing a deficit in infrastructure. There are very clear needs that have to be met. The bill, and the relatively small amount of money that goes with it, does not in any way address the infrastructure deficit that has occurred certainly over the past 12 years of the Liberal government but even before that under the Conservative government.

I would also like to mention a number of examples of the mismanagement that we have seen around the overall issue of infrastructure and maintenance in British Columbia and elsewhere. Concerns have been raised about Ridley Island, the sale at the Prince Rupert port facility. A number of companies in the Mining Association of British Columbia have raised concerns that the transport minister should take a second look at a proposal to purchase Ridley Island because they are concerned about the actual sale that is being pushed through by the government.

Concerns have been raised about the Fraser River dredging. The Fraser River Port Authority has not been left with funds to actually do the required dredging in the Fraser River. This is another clear example of a need that is not being met.

In my riding, something that affects the entire greater Vancouver regional district is the Burnaby Lake issue that has come forward. The Burnaby municipal council, on behalf of the GVRD, made an application to the federal government to get funding for the Burnaby Lake revitalization. Mayor Derek Corrigan of Burnaby put together the financing on the municipality side. Harry Bloy, the MLA for Burquitlam, pushed the provincial government to provide provincial government funding for the infrastructure to revitalize Burnaby Lake, an important jewel in our community. We continue to wait for the federal government. We continue to wait.

In fact, the city of Burnaby was told that the infrastructure program did not finance Burnaby Lake renewal, but we know that the same program financed the renewal in Saskatchewan. Very clearly we have an issue around infrastructure. We raised those concerns. We have the provincial government on board. We have the city of Burnaby on board. Both sides who have put that allocation forward are waiting for the federal government to step in and make the commitment.

We have broad concerns with Bill C-68, although we are supporting it in principle. We have concerns over the overall financial mismanagement that we have seen and which was confirmed by Justice Gomery. We have concerns about the actual appointment process of the federal government. Despite the interventions of the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, we have not seen a change to that appointment process. Any time we talk about a new advisory committee, that raises the alarm.

We are concerned about the inadequacy of the funding of $190 million when $2.5 billion is called for. We are concerned about the infrastructure deficit that we have seen over the past 20 years, particularly over the last 12 years. We are also concerned about the mismanagement of current projects that should have been resolved.

With all those caveats, I close my presentation.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with my hon. friend. Canada has had the highest standard of living of all the G-7 countries over the last few years. He will know that the G-7 countries include the United States, which has a far larger disparity in terms of rich and poor than Canada. I believe this is a result of the social programs that we have talked about. I believe it is because of the health care programs and the $41 billion we put into health care.

As members know, the United States does not have a health care system. Thirty-five million people do not have any health care system. It has larger disparities. It has the very rich, like Bill Gates, but it also has the very poor. Because of its social network, I believe, Canada has a better standard of living across the total population.

Other G-7 countries include France, Germany, Britain and Japan. We have had the best standard of living and job creation. When this government took over, the unemployment rate was heading toward 12%. We have almost cut that in half. That is a good thing.

As members know, in the last budget we helped some low income people, particularly seniors, by increasing to about $10,000 the amount that they do not pay any taxes on. This will mean that literally hundreds of thousands of people will pay no taxes. I think that is a good thing.

I say to my hon. friend that we will have to disagree, because I believe the standard of living and the quality of life over the last few years have indeed improved. That is not to say that we cannot do more. That is what this government is all about. That is what this bill is all about: ensuring that we have the money and the income to do it.

On the second point, I think it would be agreed, going back decades, as I said in my speech, that we need to diversify, plus we have the U.S., the largest market in the world, right next door. We need to diversify. That is what Bill C-68 is all about. In order to diversify and to help the great people I talked about in terms of labour and the companies, small, medium and large, it is the government's responsibility to put the infrastructure in place.

As members know, through this period we have done it with the cities and communities. That is what this bill is all about. Even though the member may have been critical in that regard, I think we are both saying the same thing. We are trying to diversify so that when the downturn comes, which will inevitably happen in all countries and in the United States, we are able to compete.

When it comes to some of the trade disputes, this government has been very strong with the United States. In the cases of the softwood lumber and the BSE, when we have felt that the U.S. has not acted in the best interests of our country, this Prime Minister and our ministers have been very strong in terms of dealing with the United States.

I believe, as has been said, that Bill C-68 will enhance and help us go into the emerging markets.

I will note one thing last thing as we wind down. Because of these emerging markets in Asia, and the two I talked about in particular were China and India, we need to focus on the west coast. I know that there have been some discussions about what we are doing on the east coast. I am sure that my hon. friend, coming from that area, will give his full support to this piece of legislation because it is a good piece of legislation which will help companies right across this country in regard to competing in markets.

When we do this, I know that it will increase our standard of living and quality of life. I know that is the goal of all members in the House. All of us hope that at the end of the day we will be able to achieve that for the constituents we are here to represent.

Agriculture

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing gophers this afternoon. I noticed as my colleague from Wetaskiwin was speaking that you were listening intently, Mr. Speaker, and all the pages were paying attention to his informative and educational speech on gophers and what they are about.

I was a little concerned this afternoon, because I heard a couple of colleagues asking what we were doing talking about gophers and I overheard someone saying that just what he came here for was to talk about gophers. I need to remind the folks here of the old saying that all politics is local.

In this situation, I think that applies very strongly, because this is an important issue for a group of people: our farmers and our producers. Although some people may think it is a bit of a joke, I can assure them that it is not a joke for people facing this problem.

This government has really damaged farmers' ability to control these pests through a couple of different means, one of them being Bill C-68, which we are all familiar with. First, the government refuses to back off in its support of a gun registry that is costing Canadians billions of dollars and which in my part of the world is affecting farmers' ability to control these rodents. Second, the government has interfered with our ability to control them by interfering with the application of strychnine.

I have to compliment the member for Vegreville--Wainwright because he has been persistent in this fight to try to make sure that farmers have access to 2% strychnine. I know that it is not a new issue for him. I was here during the last Parliament and this was an issue for him then as well. He has been very persistent. In this Parliament alone he has brought two private members' bills forward, Bill C-377 and Bill C-381, both dealing with this issue. He has also brought this motion forward. My colleague should be commended for his strong work in this area.

I know that my time today will be brief, but I want to make sure, as my colleague from Yorkton--Melville did, that farmers once again are reminded of a call to action. There is an opportunity for them to influence the government's decision in this area. Until November 24, anyone who has been affected by this issue has the right to submit a brief to the government. They can send it to: Publications, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9.

It is essential that people participate in this process. The government needs to know that farmers are being affected by this so that it will take the issue seriously. Those submissions should outline things like the type of damage that has been caused by gophers and the estimated cost for farmers in a bad year. I know that the costs can be huge. We have had areas in my riding where these gophers have wiped out 50, 60 or 70 acres of crop just because there are so many of them in a small area. They can be a significant problem. In 2001 and 2002, they had a huge impact on certain areas in western Canada.

In their submissions, farmers need to talk about the effectiveness of the chemicals that are available to them now. The stuff that is 0.4% is just not working and I think is probably more of a danger to the environment than the stronger strychnine solution because it ends up just being left around. The gophers do not eat it. They are not using it up. Farmers need to talk about that.

Farmers also need to talk about the cost savings and the convenience to them of having the 2% liquid strychnine solution that they can mix with their own grain. I encourage as many as possible to send in their submissions.

We only have about four ways to control gophers. Poison is one and we are here talking about it today. We think we need an effective way of doing this. Some people have suggested that we trap the gophers. That might work in somebody's city yard, but it certainly will not work on a large scale. Trapping is barely enough to control gophers in a garden. Some people have tried different methods of fumigation. It has had limited effectiveness. As I mentioned, of course, shooting gophers is getting to be more difficult because of the restrictions this government has brought in. The government does not seem to mind inconveniencing farmers. It is a bit disturbing that the government would continue to make this a problem for them.

In conclusion, let me say that we should step forward and support this bill. The environmental issues certainly can be controlled. It is our obligation to do things to help out our farming community. In a tough situation and tough times, this is something we could do that would not cost the government a lot of money and would be very effective for our producers. It would be an important step forward.

I am eager to hear what my colleague from Vegreville--Wainwright has to say in conclusion on this matter. I ask members to support his motion.

Pacific Gateway Act

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-68. I will talk a bit about the Canadian Pacific gateway council.

Canada, as has been mentioned by a lot of members in this House, is probably one of the most trade dependent nations in all the G-7 countries. Much of the prosperity depends upon trade. We all know that in the neighbourhood of 86% of our trade is presently with the United States.

However, the Government of Canada has long recognized that the Pacific gateway is strategically positioned as a gateway to North America. Not only the Prime Minister but all members in this House from all political parties realize that the trade that will be coming in place with China and our friends in India as well is very critical. They are known as the emerging Asian tigers.

I think there is agreement here that we need to, on all parts, diversify our trade. We have been blessed being right next door to the largest market, the United States, but there can be downturns for whatever reason. There have been economic downturns, historically, in the patterns of the economy. We need to ensure that we diversify into some of these emerging markets.

The fact that we probably have right now the largest number of people coming from China and India to Canada gives us a real leg up in that area. I am pleased that Bill C-68 will take a look at the Pacific gateway and ensure that we have the infrastructure in place.

I agree with my hon. friends that we need to look at some of the work that the B.C. government has done in taking a look at this issue. As has been mentioned, and I know friends from the Bloc Québécois feel the same way, the provinces have a very strong say in what happens in their trade policies. That is one of the reasons why Canada, in the past, has gone on trade missions and invited the premiers from all of the provinces to attend. We are fairly decentralized in terms of our federation and the provinces do need to have a say in exactly what is happening.

I am pleased that we are listening to our friends in B.C. and the B.C. government, and what they are looking at doing in expanding in that area. I know the previous speaker talked about that a little bit and was actually very helpful, in terms of understanding what the B.C. government is doing. That is one of the reasons these debates are helpful. My good friend to the left here who spoke a little bit earlier and my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about some of the things happening in that area. So, I am particularly pleased that the government will attempt to look at these emerging markets, particularly with our friends in China.

The Government of Canada is fully developing the Pacific gateway. To do this most effectively, many interconnected issues need to be addressed. I think that is paramount. It is not just one solution. There need to be some interconnected issues, not only transportation infrastructure but building deeper links with Asia-Pacific and, as well, maintaining secure and efficient borders and labour market pressures. While we talk about some of the infrastructure, and particularly in this case the transportation infrastructure issues, there are also other issues.

Federal policies and investments in this area have achieved real results for Canada. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to continue to have greater focus on the need of connecting them in the gateway context. These interconnections reach beyond transportation, and so must the consensus building. That is why I believe that the advisory process of future decisions is so very important.

We must recognize, as a federal government, that we do not have all of the answers to the solutions and that we need to look at the advisory process and get some good advice in the other areas.

I am glad members on all sides have talked about some of the things that the B.C. government is doing by sharing those ideas and repeating them in the House. Having them reinforced with the various ministers can only help in achieving our goal of helping everybody who is affected by this.

There are some who would say that it affects just one area of the country. I do not believe it does. Our trade affects all the country. When we do one thing that is good for a particular area, it benefits all of us in the spin-off jobs that come as a direct result of it.

Canada's Pacific Gateway council would be created through the legislation to advise on the decision making process on a full range of transportation and other issues. I am glad to see it in the legislation. I know governments of all political stripes attempt to consult, but I like the fact that the legislation deals with transportation and other impacts affecting Canada's great Pacific gateway.

The council would provide a dedicated forum for examining these interconnected issues in an integrated way. It is important, when we are having the debates and discussions, that they be in an integrated way. There is no sense moving ahead on one front if it needs to happen on perhaps one, two, three or four other fronts as well. By having the advisory process, it will help to ensure and to reinforce the things that need to happen and get a consensus on the priorities.

I think all members would agree that sometimes priorities have to be made not only in this area, but also in areas of health care, education and the spending. If we can build a consensus on the priorities, it will make it much easier for the government to make the decisions. Far too often in the political process we do not build the consensus on the priorities. We sometimes seem to manage from day to day. By doing the long range process, we can build a consensus on priorities and that can provide the advice to the government.

I know opposition members will say that the government does not listen in respects. I think on most occasions the government attempts to listen when there is a broad consensus on what it should do. Having been involved, I know the government attempts to look at all the good ideas coming forward from all members.

If we can set the priorities, if we can get a consensus on priorities, if we can stop some of the partisanship that happens as a result of this, then I think it will be helpful to the government. We probably could do that in building the consensus on the priorities.

The council would have a mandate to advise the decision makers on the full range of issues that impact on the effectiveness of the Pacific gateway and how well the Canadian economy can capitalize on those opportunities. It is not just setting up the infrastructure. We need to ensure that Canadian businesses across the country, small, medium and large, are able to capitalize on that.

We have been blessed in many respects. We have a lot of natural resources, wood, oil and minerals. However, our single biggest factor in making us successful is not the physical attributes with which we have been blessed. It also is the fact that we have the greatest people in the world. It is those people in the small, medium and large businesses who will capitalize on these opportunities.

Where they need help from the government is in the infrastructure. That is where we as parliamentarians can assist them. I have every confidence in the world that if the government can do the right thing in helping with the infrastructure and with some of the things we have talked about, then our small, medium and large business will be able to compete in this new marketplace.

It would be fair to say that they also need government assistance for the infrastructure. This is where I believe the government can take a very strong role. It is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and our party in the last election called for an increase in the infrastructure for municipalities. We believe we have a role to play.

I know some people on all sides who disagree with that. They have told the government to stay out of the jurisdiction of municipalities. In the vast majority of the cases, municipalities, certainly in my area and I think in all areas, welcome the infrastructure investment.

The council would consist of governor in council appointments with expertise in a number of areas. Those areas will be a cross-section. They include transportation, which we have talked about a great deal here today. They include international trade, which is extremely important. We need to ensure that we have the discussions on international trade. They also include labour, which also is extremely important.

As I said earlier, our people give us the great strength. The labour issues need to be addressed and talked about with the various labour unions. They are the producers of the great products that we are then able to ship out. Again, we have the best workers in the world, bar none, in virtually every industry.

The people in the area where I come from produce cars faster, better and cheaper than anywhere else in the world. It is not because of the infrastructure. It is because of the people. When I say that, I mean the Canadian concept. I know my friends, particularly from the Bloc, may not sometimes think of that. Canadians across the country compete with the Americans. There are producers not only in Ontario, but in Quebec. I say this for the aircraft manufacturing as well. We produce products faster, better and cheaper than anywhere else in the world with the great expertise of our people.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we will now get back to being more relevant to the bill after those last comments.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. As a former treasurer of the province of Alberta, his input in the debate will be welcome and quite timely. I would also like to mention that the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, the Conservative Party critic on transportation, has done a tremendous job on this issue and certainly carries forward issues from British Columbia to this Parliament.

Bill C-68 was the number applied to another bill in another Parliament which dealt with the gun registry, so I hope this bill will be more successful than that one was. The summary of Bill C-68 states:

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.

In another part of the bill it defines that and this is the part that concerns me. It says that the council will “provide policy advice and analysis to the public and private sectors regarding the best application of public and private sector interventions”.

Some people get very nervous when they hear that instead of the government listening to people in the private sector, it is going to start telling them what to do. We will see how this process goes. Two of the aspects are that subcommittees can be created, one for transportation and another one for opportunities.

For this Pacific gateway initiative to be successful those opportunities have to be developed very quickly. We need to have markets for the products that we are so blessed with in this country, our natural resources, our energy, the manufactured goods, the value added that goes on in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This gateway will deal mostly with those products but, of course, successful trade packages with the Asia-Pacific region will be good for all of Canada. That is what we have to remember.

A strong economy is good for all Canadians. It is good for the environment. It has been proven in the past that most environmental initiatives start when the economy is good. All of this comes together to create the importance of having a strong ability to move product. That is my concern.

In the bill the government talks about an expenditure of up to $590 million. The B.C. government has identified a need of $3.5 billion in B.C. alone. This bill is talking about just a fraction of what is needed. The list of items that the British Columbia government has already identified as priority areas to move goods to the coast is very extensive. It is not only on the coast itself, it is the infrastructure, the highways, the rail lines to get the product from the interior of our country to the west coast.

I am from Alberta and we have a problem now with our rail transportation system. It is clogged for the movement of grain. There is lots of grain on the Prairies, but it is of poor quality this year. The system is clogged to the point where there is nothing moving at the moment. We have made a concerted effort. We have talked a lot in the House about finding other markets outside North America. It would be easy to just go south of the border and try to find a market. We could put a product on a truck and send it south and sell it, but we have to find other markets. That includes having more than just the ability to put a product on a truck.

Of course we can truck goods to the west coast. We can send products by rail, or by air for smaller items, but the big bulk movement of freight is in dire need of upgrading. There has been some investment by the private sector and the railroads to improve the system, but looking at the big picture it is absolutely amazing what the potential for growth is on the Prairies and in British Columbia. The little bit of improvement that has taken place is not enough to open up the bottlenecks that slow the product down.

In my area of southern Alberta people want to put together an interior container port so they can put agricultural products and manufactured products on rail cars and ship them to the coast. Right now the easiest way to do that would be to send them south and get them on the east-west system that the U.S. has. We have to be very careful of that. We need to put the investment and the effort into the Canadian system so that we can truly use our own resources and our own people to ship goods.

We talk about the issue of value added a lot when it comes to agricultural products, about not selling raw grain, about turning it into a product that can be shipped. In order to do all of these things, we have to have timely transportation systems. In this day and age people do not want to keep large stocks on hand. They want just in time delivery. That compounds the problem. If we cannot get the product to where it needs to be, then that sale will not happen. We have seen this. We are trying to get product into India and other areas that coincide with certain aspects of their culture, and if it does not get there on time, then it is of no use. It is absolutely critical.

When one drives off the prairies and goes through the mountains and follows along the highway and railway systems, one can see that the rail lines are absolutely running at capacity. Some changes have to be made so that they either carry double the height of product or the tracks are twinned so that traffic can move both ways. The port can work both ways. We need it to ship our products into the world market, but we also use it to bring products in. To get products off the coast and into the interior and even into eastern Canada quickly is something that absolutely has to happen.

One of the issues that was brought forward earlier by our critic was that a lot of work has already been done, and in particular the British Columbia government has spent a lot of time and effort identifying the areas that need to be improved. What we see here today is just a fraction of what is needed. I think it is even less than 20% of the total dollar value that is needed to put the infrastructure into place to make the transportation system work to get goods to the coast which is what the government is talking about.

We are going to support this initiative because it takes a small step in the right direction, but a lot more is needed. With the system that is in place and the council that is going to be in place, hopefully there will be some more commitment from the government. For many years we have been calling for investment back into the transportation system from the money that is collected through the gas tax. It has to be dedicated to this type of thing. We know that some of this has been started already but it is all tied up with other requirements and municipalities have to able to access the money.

I mentioned inland terminals. People in the trucking industry are facing higher costs in running a truck down the highway because of the higher fuel costs. For every mile that a truck moves it costs somebody more money because of the cost of the fuel. Usually it is the end user who pays. That would be the consumer. Consumer goods cost more.

Everything has to be made as efficient as possible. The highways have to be such that large quantities of goods move with very little interruption. A serious investment needs to be put into the rail lines. That probably is the best way to move large quantities and large tonnage of product to the coast. There is the infrastructure on the west coast for handling containers. I have even been told by people in the container industry that there will not be bulk grain shipments in the future. Even grain will have to be put into a container so that the product is traceable. People who purchase and consume it will be able to ask where the product was grown, who grew it and what methods were used.

A lot of change is happening. As we know, the possibilities are endless in the west, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, for our natural resources and our energy sector. As for the ability to produce, we are becoming a bigger player in this country.

Although this initiative is a small step, it is something that our party will be supporting when it comes to a vote.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of hype from the hon. member across the way but not much of a concrete plan. I would like to address one particular point to which I would like him to respond.

I do agree with the hon. member on one thing. To try to enhance trade with areas like Asia-Pacific, countries with obvious poor human rights records, does put pressure on them to actually improve their records. On that basis I agree with him that this initiative and others that are underway with countries that have poor human rights records should be supported. Those initiatives do have economic benefits and, in that vein, this initiative is a positive step.

I know the member was extolling the virtues of the government investing in infrastructure and in its commitment. However it is clear to me that the money the government has proposed in Bill C-68 for Pacific gateway projects falls far short of what British Columbia identified as being required in order to build that national transportation vision and enhance that trade corridor being proposed by the government. The money that is put forward in the gateway announcement in the bill is just barely half of what is being called for to enhance our ports and roadways. A number of initiatives are completely left out under Bill C-68

In extolling the virtues of the government, how does the hon. member expect us to maintain a competitive advantage when the bill does not contain the backing required to make us more competitive? Maybe he could explain that to the House.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleagues for their contributions to the debate on Bill C-68 on developing Canada's Pacific gateway. We have seen from their expertise that, if we had a sovereign Quebec, we would at last have the skills, interest and expertise to defend our territory and better defend the interests of our people as far as the whole international trade issue is concerned.

I would also like to ask two questions of the colleague who has just finished his speech. Can he explain to me the reason for this insensitivity, lack of interest, and lack of desire to provide more support to our vulnerable industries: textile, furniture, even bicycle manufacturing, in the face of Asian competition? I stress that we are not opposed to this bill. It would, however, have been interesting to see it go hand in hand with actions from the present government to support our industries more.

Can he also tell us about his concerns that the members of the Pacific Gateway Council would be appointed by Ottawa? That could create a problem. We could end up with a council made up of Liberal Party cronies, one that would be somewhat detached from the grassroots, from what people need, as we have seen before in recent years. I would like to hear my colleague's responses to this.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to note that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It gives me extreme pleasure to rise to speak in connection with Bill C-68. We have had the opportunity, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to hear a little about it during our consultations regarding a bill that has been tabled by a member of this House regarding our relations with Taiwan. The opportunity to speak this afternoon has allowed me to go into somewhat greater detail about Bill C-68.

First, as our spokesman has said, we are in favour of this bill, but we have very grave reservations about the mechanics of it. The bill also reflects a degree of naiveté on the part of the government. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who is a former Conservative—I can see that his Conservative roots have not been abandoned—accuses us of protectionism when we express interest in the jobs and industries that could be threatened by competition, fair or unfair, from countries in Southeast Asia. I am accordingly happy to find in this House people such as the members of the Bloc—for how long, unfortunately for Canadian workers, remains a question—who are concerned about these impacts. I will come back to this later.

The parliamentary secretary is perhaps not aware of the developing economies of Southeast Asia, their needs and the markets that they represent. For Canada, this represents a major challenge, if we are not to find ourselves at the back of the line. This is the case at present, as we have learned. This situation is getting worse, year after year, under the Liberals, particularly since the sponsorship scandal. In terms of competition and especially of productivity indicators, we are in a state of continual decline. In this connection, the Liberals cannot shift the blame onto the Bloc, the Conservative Party or the NDP, since they have been in power since 1993. They alone are responsible, because they do not take things seriously. They mistake appearances for content.

As I was saying, we are in favour of the bill in principle because we find the gateway concept interesting. In fact it should be applied to the St. Lawrence, which is a natural gateway for eastern North America as much for Quebec and Canada as for the north-eastern United States. We would like the government to make an additional effort, once it realizes that it is not just western Canada that needs this type of extremely important improvement to intermodal transportation, but that Quebec and eastern Canada need it too. This type of facility will provide a multimodal transportation infrastructure based on trade with Asia, but for Quebec and eastern Canada the focus would be on trade with Europe, the north-eastern United States and all of South America. We must not forget Africa, which, unfortunately, is forgotten far too often when we are talking about economic and social development.

We are in favour in principle. However, we have reservations about the structure chosen and the method for appointing members to the council. We found the details of the bill especially interesting in terms of the composition of the council and the nebulous mandate of this council, when we know that this agency will be channeling hundreds of millions of dollars. In our opinion, there should have been as much effort made in defining the council's mandate as in specifying the committee's membership. My colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher will have a chance to come back to that during this debate and in committee.

Another aspect completely lacking from this bill—which is no accident, but we are used to that—is any indication of the provinces' role. We know that the provinces have important responsibilities in transportation. I hope the provinces in western Canada, British Columbia in particular, will use enough pressure to make their place known. In just reading the bill we see that provincial representatives will be appointed by the federal government. This goes somewhat beyond its responsibilities. This should be left to the provinces. I hope that the hon. members from British Columbia in this House will do what it takes to ensure their province is present, and the same goes for the other provinces involved, so that they will be able to appoint their own representatives themselves.

As I said earlier, we are not against trade with Asia, just as we do not oppose opening our borders, because Canada and Quebec are trading nations. We are quite aware of this fact. Nor, however, are we as naive as the Liberal government and some, if not all, of its members.

I am referring to a small book I really like and which I buy every year called L'Économie mondiale by the Centre d'études prospectives et d'informations internationales. The 2005 edition includes a very interesting study on the long-term growth prospects of China and India. I will not read it but I want to refer to the figures provided in the study.

The paper is based on studies conducted by five different economists. It is estimated that, by 2030, average growth world-wide will be 3% per year. Obviously, I am talking about growth in real terms. For India, this represents between 4.5% and 5.5%, and for China, 5% for this entire period with, in both cases, a slight deceleration near the end. As a result, India will represent between 2.5% and 3% of global GDP and China, between 9% and 11% of global GDP.

Obviously, it will depend on exchange rates. We know that, currently, the international community is debating this. Many countries are accusing China of maintaining its currency at artificially low levels, giving itself a competitive edge it would not normally have if its currency reflected its economy's strength, in terms of growth.

Obviously, the percentages could be higher. We must not deny that, for Canada, particularly western Canada and British Columbia, the Asian market with China and India as its two motors represents an undeniable opportunity. I say a thousand bravos to this bill on the Pacific gateway.

This document indicates, moreover, that by the year 2015 or so China should rank second in the world economy after the United States. By 2030, India would overtake Japan at third. Clearly, then, in the medium term, there are some very interesting perspectives.

That said, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence seems not to understand is that average per capita incomes in China and in India will remain extremely low. The issue for us is not to simply become a resource reservoir for China—as we are now becoming—and for India, to watch our jobs disappear and to have only a few mining or oil companies earning a lot of money, while some people and communities are without work and unable to manage.

It will be extremely important to have a strategy to deal with this, to benefit from the opportunities afforded us by the development of those economies but also to be aware that the consumers will not be in China or India. They will be Canadians. What is more, while our resources are going to them, if we have no strategy to ensure that some degree of Canadian and Quebec know-how, in engineering for instance, is put to use in China and India, we will end up again as the proverbial hewers of wood and drawers of water.

I cannot understand the Liberals labelling this protectionism. I personally do not consider it that. I see it as what responsible parliamentarians need to do to ensure the well-being of the people we represent, the Canadian population as much as the Quebec population.

If opening up markets without any concern for employment, social and community concerns is protectionism, then it is an approach I cannot accept.

I would like to clarify the statistics even further. In 2040, that is in 35 years—pretty far away still—according to this study, the per capita income in China will be one-quarter of the figure for the U.S., and in India one-tenth.

What we need then is a strategy that will enable us to be competitive in a certain number of areas in which we will be in competition with the Chinese in developing high-end good and services, and also to ensure that our businesses will be able to have markets in China. We will then not be merely exporters of natural resources and of oil.

We are therefore favourable to this gateway, but it is far from resolving the debate on Canada's strategy as far as economic and commercial development is concerned, both domestic and foreign. I hope that the Liberals will get it, one of these days.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our Conservative colleague. First of all, I want to say that the Bloc supports Bill C-68.

The gateway is an interesting concept and increased trade with Asia is not bad in and of itself. However, we must take into consideration the negative impact on workers in traditional industries.The federal government must provide better support to manufacturers in the furniture, textile and apparel industries. They are having trouble competing with their new Asian counterparts who have access to a cheap pool of labour, and this is threatening the viability of some of our companies.

My question is for my Conservative colleague. Along with Canada's Pacific gateway strategy, does he not believe that the current Liberal government should be more sensitive in order to support, assist and help our industries weakened by competition from Asia?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia

I am happy to rise to discuss Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway legislation. I will be speaking in support of this legislation, but I take exception to what was said earlier about how it may be enough. I say it is actually too little and too late, but let us hope that we can salvage something out of it. We certainly do not want to stop what could be a productive move.

Across party lines, investing in Canada's trade capacity with Asia through a strong Pacific gateway should be a rallying point for us to all come together, but this legislation does not answer that call. The legislation is about delaying commitments, passing the buck while trying to take credit for simply talking about this issue.

The Pacific gateway concept has received much attention, and rightly so. Years of hard work by the British Columbia government, including the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development and the Ministry of Transportation, as well as the BC Progress Board, a provincially nominated blue ribbon panel of experts, resulted in a comprehensive plan with detailed recommendations.

Instead of trusting the hard work and recommendations of British Columbians, the federal Liberal government has announced its own advisory council to help decide how to spend the $400 million announced in support of the Pacific gateway initiative.

This falls well short of the priorities identified by Premier Gordon Campbell's government. The B.C. plan recommends a $4.9 billion investment in British Columbia's transportation system over the next 10 years. The province is asking Ottawa to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis. The federal Liberals are once again late to the table and about $2.1 billion short. Also, the real work that needs to be done was once again ignored in this Liberal plan.

Let me speak of a few of the recommendations that were ignored. One is the Kicking Horse Pass project. Anyone who has driven through the Kicking Horse Pass realizes what a slowdown it is for freight, especially anyone who has driven through there behind a transport truck and ends up down at about 20 to 25 kilometres an hour. The recommendation was for $730 million to improve this corridor through the Golden and Yoho National Park area. The Liberals decided to ignore that, which is a very crucial part of moving not only people but freight through this pass.

The North Fraser Perimeter Road, at a cost of $250 million, was another recommendation. The B.C. government wanted “to improve the competitiveness of the region's integrated intermodal freight system”. This is essential. The province stated that this would be essential to expanding containerized freight in the lower mainland. There is a tremendous clustering of primary industries around there, but the federal Liberals forgot to recognize that this perimeter road is an integral part of that.

The Port Mann-Highway 1 primary east-west transportation route is another one. The recommendation was for $1.4 billion to improve this route. This is very critical to the freight related truck traffic that goes in and out of that very highly congested area.

Another one is the South Fraser Perimeter Road, at a recommended cost of $800 million. This also was forgotten. This was recognized as a primarily new, four-lane, high standard transportation corridor along the south shore of the Fraser River through the municipalities of Surrey and Delta.

Another is the New Westminster rail bridge, at an undetermined cost. The province has identified that this bridge, being 100 years old, is probably in need of repair. Once again, that recommendation was ignored.

Instead of all these real and important investments that British Columbia and Canada's exporters need, another advisory council of political patronage appointments was put in place, and probably the last thing we need is to discuss something that we all know is broken.

Canada's gateway to the Pacific does not need more bureaucracy. It needs action today.

Federal action needs to be consistent with its international trade strategy. That would be easier, of course, if there were an international trade strategy. What is the point of a gateway to nowhere?

Whether we travel by cargo ship, airplane, rail or road, the fastest way to get between two points starts with knowing where we want to go, but the federal government has not committed to a blueprint or a strategy or even a train of thought on Asia-Pacific trade in the last 12 years.

Canada has had to watch Liberals bounce from country to country, spouting the cliché of the day, trying to suck up to or aggravate the trading partner du jour. The long anticipated international policy statement was more of a rambling question on the issue of Asia.

There is passing recognition of China and India, only an acknowledgement of Japan, and then the ill-conceived selection of South Korea as Canada's entry point into Asia. This will be pursued by a free trade agreement that Canada's trade department is working on as we speak.

There are a few significant concerns in regard to the selection of South Korea. By their own admission, the Liberals have agreed that Canada's shipbuilding sector will be negatively hit.

Canada's auto industry also could be left reeling, as import controls on cheap Korean cars could bring unwelcome pressure on production and foreign investment.

So far, these seem like significant concerns for a free trade partner.

The trade potential with Japan far outweighs that of South Korea and Japan is a more complementary partner that builds on the shared commitment to democracy, human rights and free market economics.

The international policy statement described Japan as follows, “Japan remains the region's largest economy by a substantial margin, the most important investor in Asia, its financial hub, its leading industrial power, and a world leader in R&D”.

Why did we not think about a free trade agreement with Japan?

Japan is Canada's second largest export market and our largest source of foreign investment from Asia. No lasting success can be achieved in China or other dynamic Asian economies without involving Japan. As a result, this Liberal Prime Minister went out and started free talks with, let us guess, South Korea.

The Conservative leader, supported by his caucus, has repeatedly presented a bold vision for Canada's future economic relationship with Japan. Securing a free market access agreement with Japan will create jobs in Canada, bring the prosperity of trade back to our communities and increase our ability to share this wealth with the world.

The absence of a strong Asia-Pacific strategy has left our trade partners to question Canada's priorities and commitments.

Japan's ambassador to Canada was recently so mystified by the Prime Minister's trade plans that he felt compelled to go public with his country's frustrations at a press club speaking event. The ambassador publicly questioned the Liberal government's priorities and expressed disappointment in the failure to expand trade between Canada and Japan.

Said the ambassador, “it's important to see things in perspective. China and India are emerging economies, yes. At the same time in terms of the relative sizes of the economy, Japan's gross domestic product is three times that of China, five times that of Canada...”.

Once again, Liberals are hurting job creation and prosperity in Canada. We know that employment rates rise to the tune of about 11,000 new jobs for every billion dollars' worth of exports and it is shameful that export opportunities and jobs are being lost due to the Prime Minister's lack of perspective.

Despite the promise of export trade to Japan, Statistics Canada reported in May that Canadian export trade to Japan has dropped by 11.4% since the same month last year, a trend that has seen Canadian exports to Japan decline steadily since the 1990s.

There are a couple of points I would like to make very quickly. The government is not addressing the agriculture crisis. We have an opportunity to address one of the issues that impacts my producers, and that is a very slow system of exporting grain. We have congestion in the lower Fraser Valley. One rail line goes to Prince Rupert. The terminal in Prince Rupert works seasonally.

We think the government could have addressed some of these issues through the gateway legislation, but once again it has missed the target. We will not see improvements made to rail transportation or truck transportation that could benefit my producers.

[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.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

The members do not like to hear the truth. The history of Liberal legislation over the past several decades shows very clearly the fostering of divisions by the government and previous Liberal governments. They do not like it but they cannot deny it.

What is astounding is that Bill C-14 appears to recognize the right of the Tlicho First Nation to enter into international agreements and, in some cases, to stand in the way of Canada entering into international agreements. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. Further, it requires that the Government of Canada consult with the Tlicho First Nation before Canada enters into an international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho citizens. That is very broad and disturbing language and puts a remarkable restriction on the constitutionality reserved for a federal government.

We in the Conservative Party believe that the broad language of the agreement could impede the power of the federal government to enter into international agreements and agreements with the provinces in the event that the Tlicho First Nation were to believe that in some way it could affect its nation or one of its citizens.

We do not need agreements in this country that could be tied up in court challenges on an endless basis, which is why we must be very clear and concise with the language we use. We must do our best to ensure that words like “may, should, could, possibly, perhaps” or “maybe” cannot be applied to the language of the agreement and cause challenges to it. Our obligation to the people of Canada is to ensure that every piece of legislation or agreement that we enter into with the provinces, the first nations or any other peoples or territories do not use terms that cause doubt about the agreement that may lead to challenges on and on in the years to come.

The Conservative Party of Canada looks for agreements that have distinct language and very clear terms that should not be able to be challenged because of broad language that may cause people to believe they can interpret the language for their own terms. We have all the abilities to ensure that agreements are safe and sound and have safety nets within them for all people of Canada.

The electoral system within this agreement causes us great concern. People living in a new Tlicho First Nation government, living within those territories and under that jurisdiction, while they should still be under the jurisdiction of Canada as a whole, because all of the territories, all of the provinces and all of the first nations in our country are all part of Canada, they all must be covered and protected under the Constitution of Canada and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.

It appears to us that this agreement would create what could be described as a racially based electoral system. The agreement creates a category of citizen called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs. Further, 50% of the elected council must be Tlicho citizens. This is arguably counter to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must ensure that anyone living under the jurisdiction of the Tlicho self-government is treated fairly, equitably and in a manner that is governed and overseen by the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies to every other individual in Canada.

Another point I would like to make is the agreement contains similar languages to what I believe will create a problem down the road. It appears to be giving governing powers within our country which in some respects, and even one is too many, would allow the formation of another country or nation within the Canada. It would have powers that would supersede the powers of the Government of Canada, the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are very dangerously close in the agreement to creating a country within a country as we have been dangerously close on previous agreements.

The Liberals have talked about wanting to unite and have a unified Canada. If there is any doubt they have said that, one only has to look at their attempts in the sponsorship issues going on right now. One only has to see how much money they spent, in many cases under suspicion, but that is another story. They talked about how important it was to have a total Canada, including Quebec and including every people in this country, no matter from where they came, Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, a Canada that was unified. We are in danger once again, as we have been on past agreements dealing with first nations. The terms of the agreements gave rise to fear that we could be creating a country within a country, enclaves within a country, apartheid, a partition, because of the lack of common sense and the use of broad language in the agreements that we have entered into.

When I believe a divisive type of legislation is being applied to people of the country, I am very happy to say that I have had the opportunity to speak against it. This is another example to which I am proud to speak.

The agreement is jurisdictionally confusing as well. I just talked about this. The agreement describes three different hierarchies to determine which legislation is paramount in the event of conflict: the federal legislation, the territorial legislation, Tlicho laws or the agreement. It is not clear that the Tlicho citizens will have the benefits of protection under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the even of conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

It just amazes me how the government could allow such open-ended language in such an important document. We are trying to create a self-governing environment for the Tlicho nation, one that will give it the confidence that it can do some long terms planning and one that will give Canadians confidence that the issue will now be settled. It will be one that we will not be looking at over and over again as we go down the road into the future. It will be one that we will not be faced with constant challenges and confusion about who has the authority.

Canada has the authority. Canada is the federal authority to run the country. It creates laws. It delegates authority to provinces and to territories. Authority that the federal government delegates away must be an authority that is good for all Canadians and good for the agreement. It should not give rise to questions in the future.

I remember speaking to the dangers of Bill C-68, the infamous gun registration bill, when it came into the House in 1995. I asked then justice minister, Allan Rock, if he would tell Canadians whether Bill C-68 and the regulations contained therein would apply to every single Canadian. It was a simple question. We had been hearing from the Liberals for several weeks that Bill C-68 was a law for all Canadians and everyone would be included under the regulations. New parliamentarians in the House will hear the following type of responses from ministers. The justice minister said, “Bill C-68 is universal in its application”. That was okay because it would apply to everybody. He then said, and it is in Hansard , that it would be “flexible in its implementation”. In other words, it would apply to everyone but it really would not.

Bill C-14 is proof positive that we were getting double talk back in the days of Bill C-68. The agreement specifically gives the Tlicho first nation authority and power to make its own laws over firearms and ammunition. Therein is the comment the minister made back then, “flexible in its implementation”. It never was meant to apply to everyone. Time and time again we have seen the government delegate authority to first nations to govern their own firearms and ammunition regulations.

Bill C-68 then becomes what could be called race-based legislation because it applied to one group of Canadians but not to another. That is very dangerous. Why would we want to foster divisions rather than promote unity? Every Canadian is as valuable and equal to every other Canadian and should be treated the same under the same laws and under the same Constitution and Charter of Rights.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the Constitution of Canada, but it must have a finality to it, it must have clear language and it must have absolute terms. We cannot have terms in broad language that would lead to interpretations down the road once the agreement was signed.

To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the Charter of Rights applied to aboriginal self-government. The least we can do for our first nations people in Canada is give them equality, protection under the Charter of Rights and the Constitution and assure them, by signing agreements with them, that they are equal and as valuable as any other citizen in the country. We are a unified Canada, not one where divisions are fostered by a government.