Debates of Oct. 31st, 2005

Pacific Gateway Act

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in Newton--North Delta, in North Surrey and, indeed, all along the Fraser River we have bottleneck after bottleneck that is absolutely driving up the price of us being able to do business with the world. The truck drivers and the trucks are just being held up and absolutely jammed and it is all due to the federal Liberal inaction.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, The Environment; the hon. member for Québec, Canada Post Corporation.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House today, both as an MP for North Vancouver and as the chair of the B.C. caucus for the Liberal members in British Columbia, to speak to Bill C-38 and offer our support and my support.

This important legislation may have found its inspiration in western Canada but there is little doubt that strengthening Canada's position in the competitive world of international commerce will benefit our entire country. Today I want to outline some of those benefits.

However, before we start with economic benefits, it is important to note that the Pacific gateway strategy is about positioning Canada in the rapidly evolving world of international commerce, but it is more than that. It is also about more than doing business.

The Pacific gateway strategy recognizes that not only products will be passing through this Canadian gateway. The gateway will also welcome the multitudes who travel to Canada each year. To put it in context, last year Canada welcomed more than 87,000 Chinese tourists, generating some $150 million in revenue for our tourism sector. Many begin their visit in western Canada and then travel onwards throughout this great country. With new liberalized air agreements in place, it is expected that this number could triple to over 260,000 visitors in the future from China alone. Other Asian countries are also sending many visitors our way.

Canada shows the world its commitment to diversity not only in how we embrace all cultures but in how we engage and trade with all markets, ones that are both established and emerging, such as those in China, India and other Asian countries. Trade and prosperities hinge on the rapid, seamless and secure movement of people and goods. Canada is uniquely placed and our people are exceptionally skilled to provide a gateway to serve those needs in the Pacific markets.

Many have already begun to see the advantages. For example, China is currently Canada's fourth largest export market. Our exports to China have grown more than 90% between 1995 and 2004, and during the same period, Canada's imports from China grew more than 400%, making it Canada's second largest supplier. China's recent dramatic growth is expected to continue. While it is currently the world's sixth largest economy, forecasters say that it will be the second largest by 2020 and the largest by 2041.

As a result of this growth, the B.C. government predicts that by 2020, container cargo coming through British Columbia ports will increase by up to 300%, from 1.8 million containers to between five million and seven million containers. The value of this trade is projected to reach $75 billion by 2020, up from the $35 billion currently. This would contribute $10.5 billion annually to the Canadian economy, including $3.5 billion beyond B.C. The trade increases are also projected to result in 178% growth in direct jobs by 2020, from 18,000 to 50,000.

If we continue to invest together in trade, we all win. We are talking about more trade, more business and more jobs for Canadians. We are talking about prosperity for all. This strategy clearly moves us in that direction.

In terms of jobs, we know that a skilled labour force and efficient labour market are ever important ingredients in Canada's winning formula for prosperity. Through ongoing investments, and now particularly the Pacific gateway strategy, markets in the Asia-Pacific can count on our country's highly educated, skilled and innovative workforce to move goods and services quickly, efficiently and in a secure manner.

In terms of trade and the economy, through the Pacific gateway strategy, our country has a unique competitive advantage to be host to trade and investment that is already flowing to these vibrant and emerging markets. Through the Pacific gateway strategy, our capacity for trade will continue to grow.

However, as I said at the beginning, this initiative will not only benefit the west, by investing in Pacific trade, Canada's economy grows and Canadians everywhere, from west to east, from north to south, stand to benefit.

An important part of the Pacific gateway strategy is that it builds upon Canada's strong record of infrastructure funding to further enhance the Canadian transportation network from west to east. Improving the transportation infrastructure by linking Canada's central and Atlantic provinces to the Asia-Pacific regions helps to reduce costs for firms involved in international trade. The reasons we should do this are clear. The central and Atlantic provinces exported close to $9 billion of goods and services to Asia in 2004, 82% of which depended upon marine transportation and port infrastructure.

Specifically, over $3 billion of Ontario's exports and close to $2 billion of Quebec's exports flowed through British Columbia to other countries, with another $50 million from the Atlantic flowing through that province as well. These provinces also imported roughly $17 billion worth of goods from Asia.

Improving logistics and security at borders while reducing transportation time are also key to attracting foreign direct investments in and facilitating exports from all parts of Canada.

With Canada's Pacific gateway strategy, the government is not just looking at transportation infrastructure. The strategy and the legislation have been designed to allow decision makers to better address a full range of interconnected issues that impact the effectiveness of the gateway and how well we take advantage of it. Deepening our links with Asia-Pacific is a central part of this: to permit Canada to support the better positioning of Canadian businesses, products and services in China and other emerging markets.

One of the specific measures that was announced October 21, 2005, as part of Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is an initiative to improve connections between Canada and emerging markets through the increased harmonization of standards. International standards and technical regulations directly affect more than 80% of the goods traded world-wide each year, with a total estimated value of more than $4 trillion U.S. The funding in this initiative will support Canadian participation in bilateral and multilateral standards harmonization activities and foster a greater understanding among implicated stakeholders of standards harmonization activities and developments and their impact on trade.

Mutually acceptable international standards, certification procedures and accreditation guidelines promote increased reciprocal market access for Asian and Canadian firms. Standards result in technology diffusion, common certification approaches and testing procedures. They also increase product interoperability, encourage innovation and reduce trade barriers. In addition, harmonizing standards increases product safety and encourages environmentally sustainable activities. This initiative will promote better access to Asian and other markets for businesses right across the country.

Of course, the Pacific gateway is not the only Canadian trade gateway. There are a limited number of other potential locations where an integrated gateway approach may be warranted by trade volumes of national significance and by transportation policy considerations.

In that vein, Transport Canada is developing a national strategy gateways and trade corridors policy framework that will guide future measures to tailor the gateway approach to other regions. While this framework will be based on the principles of the Pacific gateway strategy, future measures will not be identical to it. Instead they will be tailored to the circumstances and the opportunities in the regions concerned.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is an important part of the federal government's efforts to enhance Canada's long term prosperity. It will strengthen Canada's trade relationship as a leader in technology, manufacturing and service industries and support Canada's record as a safe and desirable country for tourists. It also represents a new policy direction for the government and builds upon other major initiatives to promote sustainable development, such as Canada's new deal for cities and communities, and will establish directions in transportation policy.

As my colleague pointed out, this strategy may be international in outlook but it is domestic at its core. Canada's Pacific gateway strategy has important advantages and benefits not only for western Canadians but also for Canadians right across the nation.

I look forward to helping implement this strategy which will bring further prosperity to all regions of Canada. I am sure everyone understands how important port activity is to my riding and to the people of greater and Lower Mainland British Columbia, not only for the movement of goods but also for the movement of people and tourists through western Canada to all of Canada.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the characteristics of effective leadership is to demonstrate a high degree of quality vision for the country. In 1997 and 1998 my party talked about British Columbia being the gateway to the Asia-Pacific market. That was at a time when the Liberals continued to ignore the important issues on the west coast, and when the seven tigers in the Asia-Pacific market had an extremely high rate of economic growth. British Columbia being strategically placed in the North American market, particularly the port of Vancouver, had a big potential to enhance trade with those seven tigers. As a result, British Columbia could have been the engine for prosperity and economic development, and development of trade, for Canada. The Liberals ignored that plea and they missed the boat.

Now, as a result of misplaced priorities by the Liberal government in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we have bottleneck traffic jams. The South Fraser perimeter road would have been completed by now if the Liberals had demonstrated a vision. That would have solved the problems and enhanced trade and mobility of people in that area.

The government has made announcement after announcement about the South Fraser perimeter road, which is supposed to be there sometime, but it has not done anything. The Delta Chamber of Commerce, Surrey Chamber of Commerce, people in my riding and neighbouring ridings have been demanding that road for a very long time, but we have not seen any effective action from the government, except for announcement after announcement.

Similarly, Fraser docks, which is also next to my constituency, needs to be expanded. The government has not done anything with respect to that. The government has cut the funding for dredging the South Fraser River which jeopardizes mobility in the Fraser River. It is seriously affecting Fraser River docks.

The member said that he was the B.C. caucus chair. What pleas has he made to the government and what concrete action has the government taken? I know it is too little and too late, but would he be expressing the concerns which I explained to him to his government? Will we see any action or will we simply hear more talk and announcement after announcement? As has been demonstrated in the last 12 years, the government has ignored the infrastructure needs of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the interest of the Canadian Liberal government for many years has been to improve trade with the Asia-Pacific region.

In my former capacity as mayor of North Vancouver, I visited China and Malaysia. At that time I was part of delegations organized by the federal government, the team Canada delegations, and also Asia-Pacific delegations and Canada-China Business Council delegations which indicated the federal government's commitment to building trade in that area.

As an hon. colleague indicated previously, it takes time to build trade in Asia. We plant the seed, we water it and develop it. A well-known Asian approach to building business relationships is friends first, business later. It takes time to develop these connections. Those connections have been built over a number of years by the Canadian government and by the delegations led by the Prime Minister.

There has also been a commitment to improve the tourism interconnections between Asia and Canada. We make reference for example to the approved destination status that we are very close to achieving with China. This will greatly increase the number of Chinese tourists coming this way.

The goals are to improve trade and to improve the dialogue. It is a very complex area. There are a number of interconnected activities that have to be coordinated. The Pacific gateway strategy will bring those various components together, hopefully to work in a seamless manner and in a manner in which they will complement each other.

The Fraser River dredging, the issue of the port's operability and profitability and the requests that have come forward are all things that will ultimately be considered by this new gateway council. The council will include representatives from the major stakeholders and from the provincial government.

We acknowledge the initiatives and efforts of the provincial government in British Columbia in also wanting to improve trade with the Asia-Pacific region and to make British Columbia, the Lower Mainland and Prince Rupert truly economic gateways for all of Canada.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of very specific interventions and investments in terms of where the moneys are going in order to improve trade and capitalize on the movement of goods and services. We have heard about that across party lines.

I would like my hon. friend to comment on the current investments we have made. There are half a dozen specific infrastructure investments that will come from this bill which will improve the ability of western Canada, and British Columbia specifically, to maximize the opportunities to capitalize on Asian markets. Asian markets are expanding quite dramatically.

Some members, particularly from the Bloc Québécois, have alluded to wishes that the federal government would engage in protectionist practices to safeguard Canadian companies. They suggest that erecting protectionist barriers to trade would somehow be beneficial to Canadian companies

The Bloc Québécois members should listen to their former leader, Lucien Bouchard, who wrote a scathing piece as to the failure of certain political leaders in the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois to address the very important challenges that Quebec has in terms of labour movement, productivity, education and barriers to trade.

How does my hon. friend think that the investments that have been made through the bill are going to assist the movement of goods and services and trade for western Canada with respect to Asian markets?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. First of all, some of the money would be going toward the railway grade separations in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland area to facilitate the movement of goods and services through communities and to reduce the potential bottlenecks that have existed in the past. We want to ensure that there is smooth movement of traffic.

For example, goods from Shanghai can get here something like 50 hours faster by sea than to any of the U.S. ports. We can capitalize on that advantage by also having the rail facilities and the trucking facilities to move those goods throughout Canada and indeed throughout North America to the U.S. markets faster than they could come from Seattle or Los Angeles.

Second, we are investing in the north portal in Saskatchewan. As we have said, this is not just investment in British Columbia. This is investment in infrastructure that will serve all of Canada. We are going to be seeing grade separations as well in Saskatchewan.

We have committed to the Pitt River bridge. We have committed to the South Fraser perimeter road. The question earlier from the member opposite alluded to that question.

Why is the South Fraser road important within the context of the gateway policy? Both the B.C. government and the various stakeholders have argued that this new corridor can be one of the most important elements of the Pacific gateway. They believe it will become one of the most important trade routes in the B.C. region with more than 1,000 daily truck movements.

Those kinds of investments, plus the money spent on harmonizing regulations that I referred to in my presentation and the input from the gateway council identifying new priorities we believe is a wise investment in the future for all of Canada.

[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.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to address the concerns that the Bloc Québécois member mentioned a little while ago. He mentioned concerns about opening up our doors without respect or consideration for Canadians, their employment and social programs. That is what this is about.

This bill is about concern for Canadians. It is about concern for our jobs. It is about concern for having a tax base that will provide for social programs, health care, and an array of social programs in the member's province of Quebec, as well as every other province in Canada.

We have implemented this bill because it is about productivity, competitiveness, job creation. Canadians will have more money in their pockets, more jobs and better paying jobs than other parts of the world. It boils down to an array of solutions, including the gateway strategy, education, the removal of barriers to trade internally and externally. It is about research, productivity, strong macro and microeconomic policies. That is what this is about.

In contrast, the former leader of the member's party, Mr. Bouchard, just wrote a scathing article recently and gave a scathing speech in the province of Quebec saying to his separatist brethren that if they wanted to be a part of the international community, if they wanted to remove the torpor that has occurred in certain parts of their province as a direct result of the separatist policies of the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois, then they had better do a number of things, including the removal of barriers to trade and revamping archaic education policies.

These things all reside within the realm of the provincial leaders, the provincial government, the separatist government and past governments. That is where these responsibilities lie. Mr. Bouchard made it very clear that the separatist actions and policies are only a hindrance to the people of Quebec and their ability to compete, to get health care, to have more money in their pockets, and to provide for their families as individuals.

I want to ask my hon. colleague a question. What does he think about Mr. Bouchard's comments about what he and his separatist colleagues need to do to offer creative solutions to the people of his province that will enable them to have better higher paying jobs and stronger social programs?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share Mr. Bouchard's concern about keeping our jobs and our industries here. Perhaps there could be discussions about the ways to do so. This is a concern of Mr. Bouchard, which this government does not have, as evidenced by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary.

He told us that productivity had to be improved. Since the Liberals took office, Canada has been steadily falling behind, year after year, in terms of productivity. A report was published a few days ago. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me. Allow me to quote figures from 1985 to 1998, which I happen to have with me. In 1985, Canada ranked seventh in terms of the valued added of manufactured goods. It currently stands in 17th place. It fared even more poorly in the latest report.

This did not happen under the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois; it happened under the Liberals. They did nothing for research and development, even though that is the key to success. Making workers poor and jobs precarious is not the solution. The government will never succeed in competing with the Chinese in that respect. What it should do is invest in research and development, and education, and move forward. We can see the results. This is especially true for productivity. With the Liberals, Canada's ranking has been dropping steadily in terms of international competitiveness.

Let me list those countries Canada is trailing behind. There is Switzerland, a small country with consistency, interesting social policies and where people stand on their hind legs. It ranks first in terms of manufacturing. There is also Ireland, which achieved independence in 1921 and successfully developed its own model. Then comes Singapore. This is not a large country, but it developed policies and managed to cope. It is followed by Finland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Norway, all countries with the same characteristics as Quebec.

Listening to the remarks coming from the other side, I am convinced that it is in the best interest of Quebeckers to urgently move toward making Quebec sovereign. That is the only way out when dealing with people like the members opposite, who cannot hear the facts.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette on his excellent speech. He is an economist by training. Whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence likes it or not, he has met his match.

I obviously lack my colleague's skill. I am not an economist by training. It is, however, true that we work well together in the Bloc Québécois. Our members are of all walks and all communities.

There is good reason for our supporting the gateway principle and the policy in the bill if it is for nothing other than the global view of the transportation process. Canada's economy suffers overall from a huge gap in intermodal transport between shipping and rail. There are other problems as well, such as with highways, not to mention air transportation.

I personally have some concern over gateways. The Bloc supports the concept. However, in Quebec, we had to live with the situation. I will provide a little background. Members will recall that Quebec was the international air transportation gateway of the 1960s. This is in fact why the Liberal government of the day, the Pearson government, decided to build an airport of international calibre in Quebec for Canada. That was Mirabel airport.

Following the initial idea, there came along a certain Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In his day, Quebec was no longer the international air transportation gateway. Other gateways were created, such as in Toronto and Vancouver. The principle of gateways defended by the Liberal government causes me some concern.

Obviously, it is less of an issue for Quebec, since we are talking about a gateway to the Pacific. Perfect. We must point out, however, that we support gateways, including one for the Atlantic. We hope, of course, that it will be in Quebec, because of the St. Lawrence. You cannot take our St. Lawrence away from us. You can take many things away, but you cannot move a river. We have it in Quebec.

So, we agree with the concept of gateways and all they require in terms of investment in adapting all means of transport: shipping intermodally with rail, road and air transportation. Goods and services have to reach their destinations.

I say that because we are coming up to a very critical period when stores need to be supplied with products on time for the holiday season. This time last year, several independent chains complained about the fact that some goods might not arrive on time for the holidays. We hope all these situations will be resolved by this intermodal improvement in order to ensure delivery to the retailers.

My colleague from Joliette is right. In Canada, there are an increasing number of producers or manufacturers that provide consumer services, but jobs are being lost because of this government's policies. As far as what is left of the economy, which is retail sales, if we cannot guarantee our retailers that their goods will arrive on their shelves, then I think we will have a serious problem one day.

This is worrisome to the Bloc Québécois. My colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, indicated that the Bloc Québécois was worried about the repercussions to the traditional industries. Our workers and our economy are seriously affected, especially the textile industry, but also the other industries that are in catastrophic situations because of competition from Asia and India.

We cannot sit in this House and say we are defending the interests of our constituents and not comment on this serious situation involving our industries, including the textile industry. Every year tens of thousands of jobs are lost and go to other countries for various reasons.

For example, as the hon. member for Joliette mentioned earlier, China is artificially keeping the value of its currency low, while the value of our own currency is increasing. Some might say this is a good thing, but the whole processing industry must make adjustments. More specifically, business owners must be able to quickly modernize their operations to save jobs. This is always hard on workers. A member of Parliament cannot claim to protect the interests of his constituents if he does not mention the problems resulting from the international competition in areas such as the textile or manufacturing industry. We are all experiencing this situation in our ridings. We have all experienced closures and job losses in our traditional industries. We must be able to protect our interests and, indeed, recognize the need for a Pacific gateway. However, at the same time, we should be concerned about the job losses that are occurring in our ridings and that are hard blows to our fellow citizens, whom we represent here.

The Bloc Québécois is probably the only party in this House that has always been consistent and that has always risen to protect the interests of workers and citizens in our communities. We make a point of doing so. It is not difficult. It is simply about having principles, something which the Liberals have very little of, and something the Conservatives lost a long time ago. As for the NDP, it is not always true to itself: sometimes it protects the unemployed, while at other times it negotiates with the Liberal government to keep it in office. It is a political choice. By contrast, the Bloc Québécois has always been true to itself. It has always worked to protect workers' interests and will continue to do so, even as regards issues as critical as the creation of the Pacific gateway and the globalization that is represented by the Asian and Indian markets. Those who are watching us can always trust the Bloc Québécois to protect their interests.

However, we notice that the bill provides for the setting up of a structure and the establishment of a council. It is worth taking a look at the composition of this council. All its members would be appointed by the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister. Even the members coming from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would be appointed to hold office during pleasure by the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister. So, these are government appointments. I do not understand why even Liberal members would get caught at this game.

Despite all the statements made by the Prime Minister on transparency and his intention to govern in a different way, the new Prime Minister, who was the Minister of Finance for a long time in the Chrétien government, is following the same old way established by former Prime Minister Chrétien. Such is the good old Liberal tradition: engage in cronyism and partisanship, and appoint friends of the Liberal Party to all sorts of boards and councils.

I do not understand why some Liberal members are rising in this House to defend such a thing. We know all that is going on right now, and tomorrow we will see how the Liberal Party benefited from the dirty sponsorship money. Still, Liberal members continue to rise in this House to defend a council that will be responsible for the whole Pacific gateway initiative, and whose members will be appointed by the government, namely the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister. In other words, these are partisan appointments.

I understand why each and every poll shows that the public is skeptical about the government's ability to distance itself from the methods used in the whole sponsorship scandal. It is incapable of doing that, as it is clearly demonstrating today.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to address the area of health care research in which the province of Quebec has done such a good job.

The federal government has made a significant investment in health care research across the country for the last few years. Canada has the third highest per capita spending on health care research in the entire world. That is important not only from an economic perspective but also from the perspective of Canadians' health, in particular those who suffer from cancer and an array of diseases. The investment that we have made in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has allowed us to capitalize on basic research that has been utilized by the private sector. We are truly a world leader when it comes to our relationship with the private sector and our universities.

Does my colleague not see this gateway strategy as being an opportunity for industry in his province to capitalize on this strategy to provide lifesaving health care research initiatives not only within Canada, but to export those health care initiatives and the pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical initiatives to other parts of the world to save people internationally?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, it is true that medical and pharmaceutical research is being conducted in Quebec.

Some part of the industry will probably be able to take advantage of the Pacific gateway, although this is not, we hope, why the minister took this step. Health care and medication, and all they encompass, are not the most difficult issue for the entire transportation industry in Canada. I do not think that this is why the Pacific gateway is being created. However, we will use it if it is available. That is why, right from the start, the Bloc Québécois said that it was in favour of the Pacific gateway.

However, we do not have anything to learn from the Liberal government with regard to investments in health, especially since, when the system was created in 1962, the federal government paid 50% of the costs. In 1996, it lowered its contribution to 13%, and then tried to increase it to meet the recommendations in the Romanow report, for a 25% contribution. We are far from the 50-50 agreement reached by the various governments when they created the health care system. Quebec and the other provinces have nothing to learn from the federal government about health.

As we have seen, the government's sole responsibility in health is aboriginal health care. Given what has happened recently on a reserve in northern Ontario, we have absolutely nothing to learn from this government. No province has anything to learn from the federal government about health.

[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.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. He has to deal with some serious problems in his riding, including those affecting the textile and bicycle industries. He has become the great defender of the latter, which has to deal with some quite simply unfair competition.

It is all very well to accuse us of protectionism, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence has. Trying to save jobs in our ridings is not protectionism. We are merely trying to preserve employment. Too bad the Liberal government cannot see it that way. That is my response to my colleague.

We have before us Liberal MPs, including Quebec Liberal MPs, who are incapable of getting up in this House and telling their government that it has done the wrong thing.

In response to the hon. member's final question, I will just say that this situation is not going to be solved with cronyism and appointments of friends of the party.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here today as a British Columbia MP to speak to this bill.

It is an issue that goes to the heart of the concerns of many of our constituents in British Columbia across party lines. It goes to the heart of what Canadians care about such as jobs, a strong economy, strong social programs, a level playing field and a better environment in which to live. They want leadership from the federal government to enable them to do those things. They do not want governments to interfere in areas they ought not to be. However, they also recognize that the federal government has an important role to play in ensuring that the private sector has the ability to competitive internationally.

As has been said many times across party lines, we are a small country of 30 million plus people. It is large in size, small in population, but competitive internationally. It is a history and a legacy that we mean to continue. That is the root of the bill.

It does not come by pulling ideas out of the air. It does not come through somebody's fantasy. It comes through hard work, working with provinces and different levels of government. It comes through good ideas and the implementation those ideas. The bill is about that.

We have heard members from certain other parties, particularly the Bloc, express their concerns that the bill would somehow impede or endanger the ability of Canadians to compete and have jobs. On the surface, it sounds like a very reasonable concern. Canada, with its 30 million people, is competing against a country with a population of 1.2 billion, a country that has a much lower standard of living, lower wages, less consideration for their people and fewer and poorer social programs.

However, at the end of the day, we should examine the facts. We must understand history. We must understand that the alternative to what we are trying to do is protectionist policies. If we try to erect subsidies, erect barriers to trade and support the private sector through taxpayer money, that is a very poor use of taxpayer money and an unwise investment economically. In the long run it hurts the very people we want to help. It increases the unemployment rate, weakens the moneys to the purse, erodes social programs and it damages the country.

We need to look no further than the experience of many northern European countries that had a very socialist view with respect to their economic policies. What did that do? It did not increase employment. It did not improve the social programs that existed in their countries. It did not promote some kind of Nirvana where people were taken care of and they lived happily ever after in a full employment environment with strong social programs. It eroded a country's economy, damaged social programs and increased unemployment rates.

Use of the taxpayer money as a subsidy, as protectionism, does not work. What does work is to improve productivity, whether through education, lowering taxes or removing useless rules and regulations, both within countries and between countries. In short, by doing that, we produce a productivity agenda that enables the private sector to be vibrant, to be competitive and to compete internationally with other countries.

It is true that some countries do not play on a level playing field. We have seen that with respect to the United States and the softwood lumber issue. That is pure unadulterated protectionism. It is not a fair situation. We have tried, through every legal means possible, to address that situation and to ensure that our softwood exporters can compete with the United States on a level playing field. If they were able to do that, they would continue to be as competitive and as productive as ever.

The member of the Bloc expressed concerns, which I think we all have in terms of our own ridings and our interest to ensure that nobody loses their job and that our private sectors are able to be competitive. We need to focus on the issues of productivity. We need to maximize those issues of productivity. We need to maximize those macro and micro economic initiatives to allow people and private sectors in our ridings to be competitive.

We also know that no economy stays static. No economy is not a creature of evolution. Any economy that is static is one that is withering on the vine. It is up to us to influence and implement solutions that will allow us to put forth initiatives and solutions to help the private sector thrive. This gateway is all about that.

It is an investment in Canadians. Even though this is a western based initiative, it is one that will clearly benefit Canadians in other parts of the country. It will improve the transportation arteries that will enable our private sector to compete.

Why are we doing this in this? It is clear that the private sector cannot do this. It cannot afford to make the very large investment into transportation arteries that will allow them to compete. That is why a federal government gets involved with provincial governments. It is not something that occurred in isolation. This occurred in consultation with the private sector, interested citizens, councils and provincial governments. It is a group effort. A reflection of that is the support that we have heard from members across the way. I think at the heart of the matter all of us recognize that this is a good idea.

Do we have to build on it? Absolutely. We have tried to add a number of other elements to this issue. We are working with the provinces. The Minister of Finance has introduced the beginnings of a productivity agenda, including the one-third, one-third, one-third initiative for surpluses over $3 billion. That initiative is a smart and wise thing to do. One-third of the moneys will go into debt reduction, one-third will go into tax reduction and one-third will go into critical expenditures such as this. This is the kind of expenditure the private sector needs to create jobs for Canadians.

Why the tax reduction? To date we have introduced $100 billion of tax reduction and we will continue to pursue that. We have also reduced the corporate tax from 28% to 21%. Why? Because we have to ensure that our private sector has a level playing field when it comes to taxes. Some may want to increase the taxes on the private sector. However, if we do that, we create an egress, an outflow of capital to other parts of the world. Capital will flow where capital can get the best bang for the buck.

We have no control over that nor should we. What we do have control over is ensuring that Canada is fertile for the private sector to create the jobs, high paying, interesting and dynamic jobs for Canadians. We also want to work with the provinces to ensure we meet the skill deficits that we and all western countries have. That is why ministers, such as the Minister of Industry, have worked with trades groups and unions to ensure we fill the critical skill deficits in the trades.

The Canadian Home Builders Association has an excellent plan to ensure that the people it needs to build homes have those skills. We recognize the changing demographics as western nations, with low birth rates. Quebec is an example of that problem, as are many others.

Low birth rates cause problems. Although we are not as bad off as European countries, it is something we should take into consideration. We have an aging population and if we do not address the problem we will see a contraction of the workforce and an expansion of that group of retired people who will be putting demands on our social programs. As we get older we put more demands on health care, pension and other things. We have a bit of a see-saw effect.

As that demographic progresses and the baby boomer bubble flows through, there will be an increasing demand on the public purse to provide the social programs that we have come to enjoy. We have to grapple with that but we need to do it in a fair and equitable way while ensuring that those Canadians who need those social programs, such as health care and pensions, have access to them, particularly those who are in the lower socio-economic scales, such as some seniors and people on fixed incomes. We must ensure they have the money to live comfortable lives. It is our role, in a compassionate society and with a compassionate government, to ensure that we have the structures to do that.

This gateway initiative is important because it would enable us to capitalize on foreign markets, particularly the Asia-Pacific rim which is growing by leaps and bounds. If we do not capitalize on that market, one can only imagine what could happen. Our economy would not evolve. We would be moving backward while other countries move forward. Would that be a responsible thing to do? The answer is self-evident. It would be utterly irresponsible for the Government of Canada not to engage in and implement such a proposal. As a government it would be irresponsible for us not to capitalize on those markets.

As an aside, some members have expressed concern over human rights issues. I will deal with China initially. I want to draw attention to the fact that our Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to meet with the Dalai Lama, against the objections of the Chinese. When the President of China visited Canada this summer, our Prime Minister made it very clear to him that we found the human rights abuses by the Chinese against the Tibetan people and other abuses within China to be completely unacceptable to Canada and Canadians.

Can we change the behaviour of China in its human rights policy? No, but what we can do is engage people within China to do work differently and to behave differently. In my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, we have a very dynamic university, Royal Roads University, with a very dynamic president, Dr. Rick Skinner, who is using the university to train and teach foreign students. Many of them come from China, Japan, Korea and other Asian countries.

We are exporting Canadian educational expertise and training abilities to pupils from the Far East who are willing to pay large amounts of money to come to Canada for short periods of time to learn. What does that accomplish? It accomplishes jobs here in Canada. We are training people, not only Canadians but people from abroad. We are building ties between the Far East and Canada. I would suggest that those students who go back to China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are partly Canadian because they have studied for a time in Canada and they have experienced our values, our system and our way of life.

When those people go back to their countries of origin, I think they take back a part of Canada with them. They, in turn, in the work they do and in the leadership positions they implement, cannot but think that the rights, morals, activities, initiatives and values that we as Canadians extol are something that they have to impart and would wish to implement in their own countries.

The Canadian initiatives of working and exchanging ideas with members in China have not only economic benefits but social benefits and, I suggest, human rights and peace benefits. There is clearly a peace dividend to our countries working together on issues of common interest. For those relics, those dinosaurs in certain countries who wish to engage in appalling human rights activities, for which some continue to profit, they will have to change and evolve. For those who have studied in Canada they recognize that those kinds of abuses are unacceptable in the international community and, indeed, hurt their own countries in the long run.

What we have also done is we have married this particular initiative with a few others, including the green initiative by the Minister of the Environment and the sustainable cities initiative that we put forth. I am pleased to announce, again, with my colleagues, that British Columbia was the first province to sign on to the cities agenda which allows the municipalities to sequester and utilize federal moneys for infrastructure development, sewers in transportation arteries and other critical infrastructure. We did this because we wanted to ensure that taxpayer money would go to those particular areas and those initiatives that the private sector needs to do its jobs and for Canadians to live in healthy environments.

The moneys that we put together with respect to the cities agenda are in part going toward a greening initiative. With the announced changes that the Minister of Finance just put together, they will go very well to ensuring that the transportation changes that are occurring will be pro environment.

One of the initiatives the Minister of Finance has put together is an initiative to ensure that Canadians can access $5,000 if they wish to insulate their homes. Why is this important? If we want to make the Kyoto protocols and, in fact, go beyond them, which is what we have to do, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are two ways of looking at how we reduce fossil fuels. One is simply to reduce the number of times we use those fossil fuels. The other side of the equation is to take that equation and insulate or make more efficient the use and the burning of those fossil fuels. One of the most efficient ways we can do that is the way in which we insulate our homes and the way in which we use energy.

For example, the insulation of our homes and buildings using existing technologies will enable us to approach or go beyond the target set in Kyoto. That is very exciting because that means we have the means today to actually meet our Kyoto requirements by using the concept of conservation and insulation. By insulating our homes and our buildings, the demand on our fossil fuels lessens which in turn reduces the amount of greenhouse emissions. That is very worthwhile.

The other aspect is the investment that will be made with respect to public transport. In my province of British Columbia, a significant investment is taking place within the public transport sector which will encourage more people to use public transport instead of their cars and thereby burn less fossil fuels and fewer greenhouse gases.

The gateway proposal will invigorate the private sector in British Columbia and enable Canada and British Columbians to capitalize on markets in the Far East. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in all parties to ensure our country continues to be on the leading edge of export development, productivity and job creation which will provide us with the moneys needed for the social programs that Canadians want and need.

[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.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, the investment in the bill, above all else, must be affordable. The government will not go into the red. It will not take our economy and the federal government expenditures into the dark old days of deficit spending. We recognize that it is irresponsible and it is destructive to the economy.

I will give my hon. colleague a few examples of what the bill would do. It would make an investment in the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the North Portal grade separation, the Pitt River Bridge-Mary Hill Interchange and the Deltaport grade separations. That is just part of this bill, but it does not end the productivity agenda.

In order to do what the hon. member suggested, which is what we want to do in terms of improving productivity, we have ensured that we have the one-third, one-third, one-third plan for surpluses beyond $3 billion: tax reduction, which I know he will support; critical investment into needs such as this; and debt reduction.

Therefore the debt reduction, the tax reduction and critical expenditures are all part of what we are doing with productivity. We are also continually trying to remove the barriers to trade internally and externally. We also want to work with the provinces to give them the resources to ensure we are meeting the trades deficits and school deficits that we like every other western country have.

It is a comprehensive package. This is only one part of it but it has to be seen in total with the other initiatives that the government has put forward.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that is important about the success of the gateway strategy will be inclusiveness and bringing together the various interconnectivity.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could comment on two aspects. First, since a number of advisory bodies already exist, why create another one? We are familiar with the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, the Asia Pacific Trade Council and the Asia Pacific Foundation. Could the parliamentary secretary comment on why we should create yet another council?

Second, could he indicate what consultations have been done with the aboriginal communities? Certainly in British Columbia and across Canada we are trying regularly, whenever the opportunity exists, to include first nations in the economic success of Canada and each of the provinces so that they can build their infrastructure and be part of the growth and success that comes to Canada.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has done a tremendous amount of work as a British Columbia MP to make this gateway strategy a reality.

Aboriginal communities are consulted on this. In fact, they are an integral part of the gateway strategy.

There is no other body that will do what the advisory body will do. If there had been another advisory body, we would have utilized that body, but there is no other group that has the mandate to do what the advisory body has to do in order to make this a reality.

There is one point I wanted to touch on and did not, and which is very important given the environment that we live in today. That is the issue of security. Part of this gateway strategy is an investment in port security. It is of concern to everybody that if we were not able to invest in the port security that is required, it would leave Canada and other countries open to threats, in particular explosive devices that could cause a significant problem.

We have not only created these arteries but we have also made an investment in the security of these arteries, which is very important. Not only will these areas be an east-west conduit but this gateway will also be a north-south conduit. Ports like Prince Rupert shave off two days with respect to the time at sea between the Far East and North America. Another important initiative we need to bear in mind with respect to the gateway strategy is it has a significant security component.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. On the form, we are in agreement. On the substance, I have not picked up anything concrete in what he said.

Earlier, he mentioned that the government would be investing in four programs. We have heard nothing about any program or any investment. He also talked about improving productivity. Basically, he rambled on for ten minutes and, when he was done, we had not learned a thing.

The same is true for questions put in the House during question period. My friend from Brome—Missisquoi says any odd thing to elicit any odd answer. We are used to it. Essentially, he goes on and on saying nothing.

We are used to not hearing or getting anything concrete. We will keep raising issues. He talked about improving productivity. How does he intend to do that in concrete terms? He said nothing about that.

I could help him in that regard. Consultations were held in Montreal concerning part III of the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps the representatives of SMEs held the solution. Perhaps the Liberals should try it out, because they get along very well with enterprises. They are very found of them. These people suggested that the minimum wages in each province should be added up, the average calculated and a new minimum wage established accordingly. With the savings, they would be able to buy machinery and have more productive machines. Thus, their own productivity would be improved and they would be able to accomplish something.

There is, however, one thing that we must bear in mind. We are taking about industry, but we overlooked bicycle manufacturing. We touched on it earlier. This is one of the industries in my riding. Legislation was passed in Canada concerning the allowable percentage of bicycle imports. We are talking about 30%, 25% and 20%. These are protectionist measures for bicycles.

This decision has been known for six weeks already, but we have yet to hear about what the government intends to do to save these jobs in my region, which would be taken away from us and given to people in Asian countries.

What will the government do? What can it do? How will it go about saving Quebec's bicycle manufacturing industry?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the member is actually talking about a decision by the CITT. It was a recommendation. He should also know that we have two anti-dumping decisions against imports from China. Import tariffs on those exist right now.

In terms of the changes that the member is talking about which are further changes in terms of errors, he should know full well that the initiatives he is describing are not supported by bicycle manufacturers in Canada. Only two support his position. The vast majority of bicycle manufacturers in this country do not support the policies that the member from the Bloc Québécois is proffering.

[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.

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks and his indication of support for the proposal for the Pacific gateway.

I come from Ontario, where we believe that the Pacific gateway will benefit us too. Because all of us in this country are the recipients of products that are shipped from coast to coast to coast, if access from the Pacific area is indeed improved substantially, the infrastructure and all the transportation linkages will improve. This gateway proposal is meant to benefit the four western provinces initially, but I am sure it will provide benefits to us in Ontario as well.

The member can realize benefits for his constituency as a result of this proposal, which he indicated is a good start. When it gets to committee there will be further suggestions. I would request that he expand upon how this proposal would affect his riding in particular. Perhaps he could provide some suggestions that could make a good idea even better.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I have an issue brought to me by the private sector. It was a request for an inland terminal and was brought to me by some people who are trying to export out of southern Alberta. They have created a bit of an inland terminal to unload grain cars, but they want to expand it to be able to handle containers.

I think that is going to be critical as we go through the development of the agricultural industry, as I have explained. Customers are going to want to know where the product came from, not just what country. If there ever is a problem, they are going to want know what field it came out of and how it was produced.

There is this whole issue of containers, the ability to ship and the opportunity that exists if we can open the west coast ports. Right now, products get backed up. Producers cannot get trains to haul product out there in the first place. When they do get it there, they are in a queue thousands and thousands of containers long before they can get it shipped out of the area.

There is another particular issue in my riding. We have a huge concentration of intensive livestock operations in southern Alberta. In my riding, there is a capacity for 600,000 to 700,000 head of feeder cattle. The BSE issue affected us tremendously. It hurt a lot of people. We learned a very pointed lesson as a result of that. We learned that the fact is we must have more markets. We must have a variety of markets that will take a variety of products. We had all of our eggs in one basket and that was the American market. When that border closed, we were in trouble.

There is an important aspect to this. This should be done for all aspects of our economy. We need to get out and find markets. I think the government can play a big role in finding those markets, but the private sector needs to do its part as well. If a product is needed in another part of the world, we need to find out who those people are and make the arrangements to get it there. Without a proper transportation system, we will not be able to do that.

The opportunity is there for our country. The blessings that we have been given in this great country through our natural resources and the people who create the goods can really be maximized if we have a proper system in place, find the markets, get the transportation system in place, and then turn the private sector loose.