Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point. Grade separation would deal with the issue of traffic congestion while long trains go by.
However I find it a little strange that we are getting apparent criticism of this bill when the bill is meant to address some of these very issues. We have now attributed $190 million of the first $590 million to deal with some of these issues that are most pressing and are most obvious. We have another $400 million, for which we will be looking for recommendations coming out of these broadly representative, including municipal, provincial and a full range of stakeholder committees and advisory councils, to deal with some of these very things.
From everything I have heard so far I would think that every member in the House would be roundly supporting the bill. We should make sure we get going.
As I said in my opening remarks, this has been described as just a down payment. We look forward to working with the hon. member and the people of the Langley area to ensure the grade separations needed there are dealt with.
With respect to the member's comments, I was not suggesting that the local mayors were not representing their people properly. I was suggesting that the hon. member who made the previous statement was not properly representing his constituency in ensuring that the issues that he claims are so important, and I believe they are, are brought forward as infrastructure projects by the province and by the local municipalities.
The $12.5 billion for infrastructure, then the $700 million GST rebate and now the $5 billion for gas tax, we are looking for decisions to come from the bottom up, with the three levels of government agreeing on the due diligence and such.
A lot needs to be done in terms of the new governance and different levels of government getting together so that these local needs, whether they are a provincial or a federal responsibility, are properly looked after together.