Bev Desjarlais

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question as to the reason why the government does that. It has to keep raking in money because it keeps giving breaks to someone who is a whole lot higher up on the income scale.

When corporations that literally make billions of dollars are given tax breaks, then the government has to get that money back from somewhere. It gets the money back from the people it can harass to death for owing the government 50 bucks. However, the corporations that owe the government $200,000 or $300,000 or a million dollars are allowed to get away with it because it is too much trouble to get the money from them.

The government gets the money from a lot of little people down the road. There is no question that it is unacceptable. There needs to be changes to our tax system.

I believe the position the New Democratic Party had taken was $15,000. I am glad to hear my colleague from the Alliance who thinks perhaps it should be $20,000. There is no question, there needs to be a change. People have to be able to make a living, not a great living but a living to provide things for themselves such as heat, water, food, rent, clothing, basic needs. I am not talking about buying a huge television screen or a new car every other week. That is not about what we are talking. We are talking about the basic necessities of life that people need.

A good number of these people are seniors. They are the same seniors to whom the government refuses to give that money back.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I know my colleague worked very hard on the issue of the guaranteed income supplement. It took a good three years of constant badgering before the government even made an effort to let seniors know that it should have been rightfully theirs. The government used all these arguments, that it could not breach privacy with this by letting seniors know that the money was rightfully theirs.

Talk about an act of omission, a lie of omission, an absolute unconscionable act of omission. The government's way of getting around it is proof to the Canadian public that governments do not act in the best interests of the people.

I would say that members would be hard pressed to find a handful of Canadians who think there should be a clause in place that says if Canadian seniors did not apply on time they would not get the money. If members can find a handful of Canadians, I would ask that they stand up in front of the Canadian public and say that they agree with the government that if seniors did not apply on time for this money, they should not get it. If they can be found I would like to see them.

Nobody believes that seniors should not get that money, even if it took them 10, 15 or 20 years to apply. They darn well deserve that money and the government should be giving it back to them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of work needed to be done. There is also no question that a lot still has not been done. Quite frankly the government's priorities were out of whack in some of the areas.

No one was suggesting that we do not want to get rid of debt and deficit. Absolutely a government does that. However the bottom line is Canadians paid for those savings, not the government with all its fancy finagling and book work. Canadians paid with loss of services. Most Canadians did not benefit from decreased taxes or premiums or this kind of thing.

There is no question there is a lot of work to be done, but there was also a lot of wastage of government dollars. I believe that happened within the gun registry, not gun control. These are two different things. I strongly support gun control. A much better job could have been done to ensure safety for Canadians through good gun control rather than through the mismanagement of the gun registry or that whole registry process which I think was just a sham to appease some people, giving an impression that it was going to provide safety when it was not going to.

There was also the money that was wasted through the whole Groupaction scandal. When Canadians hear someone say, “It was only a billion dollars, a bit of wastage here and we had to do this”, my gosh that money would have gone so far in those communities experiencing poverty to ensure that there was proper housing, proper dollars for schools and proper funding for increased infrastructure, for roads. So much more could have been done.

It is fine to say that we are putting this in, but year after year the government cut so much that it could have done a great deal more. We have to see that money go to where it is needed and that is not happening.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a great opportunity to speak on the budget implementation act and, I am sure much to the chagrin of the governing party, an opportunity to comment on what the budget is lacking and the failure of the budget itself to do what it needs to do to better the situation in the country.

I want to start by speaking first on an issue within the budget that is tied directly to my critic area, that being the issue of the infrastructure funding in the budget and, quite frankly, in past budgets, in that it is and they were severely lacking in the amount of dollars needed for transportation infrastructure and other infrastructure.

Certainly in the area of transportation infrastructure there has been a call throughout the country from the municipalities and the provinces that there has to be some real and serious investment by the federal government into infrastructure. We have heard of the numerous cases where water and sewer infrastructure are needed and where problems have arisen, but in the area of transportation we know wholeheartedly that the situation on a number of the roads throughout the country has reached points of absolute crisis and there are safety issues.

We know that the increased transportation of goods by road has put greater stress on the highways. The government's failure to make these improvements has as a result increased the risk to travellers on the roads, for the transport truck drivers as well as for others on the roads in smaller vehicles. The government, in the course of the last month or so, introduced through the transport minister a blueprint for a transportation vision in the country, “Straight Ahead”. I have stated before that it was sort of like straight ahead and off the cliff, because the highway infrastructure just is not there in a lot of areas. It is an increasingly serious problem.

One can have a wonderful vision but if somewhere in that vision one does not put in place the reality factors that have to be there to make that vision happen, there is just no point in talking about it with any serious approach. Quite frankly, that was certainly the case with the funding for transportation infrastructure in the budget.

As I indicated, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had called on the government for increased infrastructure dollars at the municipal level, for assistance on roads but also with other infrastructure. I am not going to even try to recall what the exact amount was in this budget, because quite frankly when we looked at the different dollars that the government was suggesting for infrastructure, it was another one of these shell games that it often plays, when it says, “We have given money for this program through infrastructure, we have given money for it this year in this program for infrastructure, and in this one”. The reality is that it really is not the whole amount that it suggests it is putting into infrastructure this year, and it still is not nearly enough to meet the needs of Canadians.

I think the figure we came up with was that it would take something like 190 years to address the infrastructure needs in the country with the support that the federal government gives. While doing that, somehow the government suggests that it is okay to have tax cuts in numerous areas, which will not benefit the entire nation but will certainly benefit some businesses. That is disappointing, not that I want to see Canadians taxed to death, and nobody does, but the Canadians I know, who are more or less the middle income, small and medium sized business owners, do not mind paying their fair share. But they want to see something come back in return.

When we hear of tax cuts benefiting huge corporations that often do not even have head offices in Canada, that do not put in the investment that they need to in Canada, it is disappointing. It was no great surprise to see the Premier of Ontario doing the same thing in his budget announcement this past week, where the company in front of which he did his big advertising campaign for the budget is going to reap huge tax breaks in Ontario within the changes in that budget, the same company that gave him a whole lot of money. The premier in Ontario has chosen to do that but in reality the federal budget does the same thing in a lot of areas and that is disappointing, because it will have a direct impact on so many programs throughout the country.

Certainly the budget is lacking in the area of transportation infrastructure. If the government does not make some serious considerations in that area, it will continually get worse. Municipalities and provinces will feel the pressure to get into a privatized toll type of approach to the highway system. Canadians do not want to see that. Everybody says we have to do it but the bottom line is that we would not have to do it if there were priorities within the government and a real effort to make access available to everyone without those additional user fees in place.

As well, the budget is lacking with respect to the issue of housing, extremely so. I noted in some reading I did yesterday that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities again has called for changes to the whole CMHC mortgage structure. This has been a bone of contention with me for the last year or so.

As I did more reading of the propaganda that comes from CMHC, I saw how it was doing all these wonderful investments in different types of housing and in marketing of housing throughout the world, I was going, “Where the heck are they when it comes to putting in place a good CMHC mortgage structure for Canadians to be able access mortgages?” What about working at lowering the interest rates for mortgages in Canada and making them accessible to more people? What about getting rid of the whole attitude of making sure to get every penny out of everybody without making it possible for a good number of people to access housing?

When I see this stuff about how it is going to do the marketing to other countries, I think that it might be important but quite frankly that is not my vision of what CMHC is intended to do. To me, it is intended to be there to offer a good mortgage setup so Canadians are able to access housing. If it wants to go and do marketing, let industry do it. Let outside business do it. We have put enough money into all these different operations so that we can market this and promote the business aspect outside of Canada. How about promoting things that will benefit Canadians?

There was a situation in the community of Leaf Rapids, Manitoba, a one industry town. When the mine decided to close a whole lot earlier than it was supposed to, a number of people were left with mortgages. Some of these people were able to get jobs elsewhere and others were not, but they found that at every step of the road or every mile of the road there was a roadblock put in place. They had the insight and the fortitude to go out and get a job. They had mortgages in Leaf Rapids. Some wanted to turn back their mortgages because they could not afford them. They wanted to be able to go somewhere else, get jobs, work and contribute to the tax base of Canada. They were told that they still had to make the mortgage payments in Leaf Rapids and make them somewhere else with whatever income they were making, which probably was less because they did not have the seniority they previously had. For those people who were able to get jobs, it was a struggle.

What also happened, though, was that a number of people were told that they could get a quit order, that it was recognized that the situation was serious, but to get another mortgage after that they would have to wait for two years or put down 25%. The situation was that a family that had just lost its income, and often two incomes because if one in the family moved the other had to move, was trying to go somewhere else. In some situations in other communities they could not rent places; all they could do was buy, but meanwhile they could not get mortgages.

I would like to see a much more accessible and considerate CMHC mortgage operation than what we have seen. Again the budget did nothing to provide affordable housing throughout Canada to address some of those concerns. It went purely on the whole business aspect: “We are going to get every penny out of you even if we get you into the ground and have to stomp on you a couple of times”.

As well, let me suggest that there were some good things within the budget. One of the things mentioned was the accessibility to caregivers' assistance through the EI program for someone wanting to stay at home and look after a family member. There is going to be some time for people to do that, but to me the time that was offered was absolutely a slap in the face to those caregivers who have to leave their jobs to stay at home to look after a family member. A good number cannot and they want the opportunity to be able to do that. Our health care system is going through a challenging time and we have caregivers who are family members. Quite frankly, a good number of those doing this were women. By the nature of the way things worked, it was mostly the women who were willing to take time off work and stay home and look after a family member. There were men too, but it was mostly women, and there were extremely great financial difficulties.

What they wanted to do seemed simple enough. People are paying EI premiums. It is not as if this is something for nothing. People have paid for that insurance. They wanted to take a reasonable amount of time off to look after a family member at home with a terminal illness or a sick child who required acute care. What we were asking for were some real contributions through the EI program to provide people with reasonable time off. I think that what the government came up with was a six week period.

Anyone dealing with people with acute medical needs or a terminal illness knows that they need someone there for more than six weeks of that time. The challenges and emotions that are involved in that kind of family situation are really tough. What does the government respond with? It says it will give someone six weeks to access EI. This is from a government that has taken a $42 billion surplus out of EI. It says it will give back six weeks. This is not about a person receiving money for nothing. If people pay EI premiums, it is an insurance policy.

I once had a discussion with a previous minister and said that with most insurance policies one looks at ways of enhancing programs. If the funds are available, the program should be enhanced and extend what people can be given. What we saw under this government year after year were cuts to benefits, cuts to EI.

My colleagues from the Alliance have argued for cuts to the premiums that people had to pay in. The government gave them every reason to argue that point because it kept having a surplus and did not give the benefits back. I, on the other hand, as a worker had no objection to paying a few hundred dollars a year for an insurance policy which would ensure that if I did not have my job I would be able to collect EI for a period of time. If I had to access the sick and disabled part of EI, I could do that. If for other reasons I had to access EI, I did not begrudge paying that as a worker. I was able to claim it as a tax deduction.

What benefits do most workers and, for that matter, most businesses receive by the cuts to the premiums? Some would argue they are saving all this money in payroll taxes. A good number of small and medium sized businesses out there benefit through training programs they are able to access through human resources and the EI funds. It was not as if someone did not have the opportunity to gain from dollars going into EI.

As I said, as a worker I quite frankly did not mind paying for an insurance policy that was guaranteed. I did not see it as a tax. It was an insurance policy in the same way that I pay my life insurance. I pay so much money so that if I happen to die in an accident at a certain time a specific amount of money is going to come back to assist my family. If by luck I never have to access that life insurance policy, hallelujah brother, it worked out great. I am not going to ask for the money back because I recognize that it is an insurance policy.

That is what EI was intended to be, an insurance policy, so that if rough times fall upon people they are able to benefit from it. What we have seen time and time again are cuts to the EI program, cuts to the benefits, a few minor cuts to the premiums as a result of pressure, and the fact that there is a $42 billion surplus when what we really should have seen was more money going into the benefits side of the EI program so that women and other family members who wanted to stay at home to look after a sick or terminally ill family member could do that.

There is another aspect that should have been accessed under EI. We have called for this before. There are some workers who have worked for 5, 10 or 15 years who have never had to access EI even for minor things, but so be it. They have paid into EI and they might find that they want to try something different, like increasing their educational opportunities. I want to say that it was nurses in Canada who first brought this to my attention. They wanted the opportunity, after working 5 or 10 years in a certain part of the nursing profession, to perhaps enhance that professional training opportunity or to try something a little different like perhaps taking a year off to do some other kind of training. They wanted the opportunity to access EI, an insurance program that they have paid into year after year.

Did the government open up any of those opportunities? We need improved health care in this country. We need more trained people in this country. Did the government offer an opportunity for nurses throughout Canada to enhance their professional training, or to other workers for that matter? No, it stomped on them, saying, “We have a $42 billion surplus and we want to use it to give a tax cut to someone else over here, possibly, what the heck, Bombardier, Groupaction, whoever. We want to make sure all of them get a tax cut”.

However we do not want to open up any better benefits or opportunities for Canadian workers who have paid into these funds. It is not giving them something for nothing. They would access those funds because they paid that insurance. That would have been an enhanced EI program. That is what a good, considerate government with a conscience and caring for its people would have done. However not this government under this budget. It is extremely disappointing that the government had an opportunity to do that with a $42 billion surplus in EI but it never even bothered to think about it.

Another issue came up on EI in the last week or so. Flight attendants were always, in my view, considered part of the flight crew. They are our number one first responder if an airplane goes down. I always said how we expect them not to be injured any more than passengers was always beyond me. However they are considered the persons to respond to emergencies on the plane. Lo and behold flight attendants are not considered part of the flight crew. As a result of them not being considered part of that crew, it has changed the whole concept of how CCRA and human resources will make available to them the opportunity for EI payments.

Every contract with every airline has different kinds of agreements for the flight attendants. I hate to say this because it is disappointing to have to be reminding the government over and over again, but this has opened up a situation where once again mostly women will be challenged as to whether they can access EI payments, even for maternity leave, because of the way the government now sees their hours.

Without getting into how the hours for flight attendants work, we all know that we get on a flight and it leaves at a certain time. The flight attendant is there looking after us, helping out with a family member who might be a little tense or providing assistance if it is needed. If the plane is delayed and it is sitting on the ground waiting, for a lot of flight attendants that is not considered flying time. There are things built into the contract that mean it will be dealt with differently. However the government is not going to acknowledge that. It will only consider the flying time and it will finagle around other agreements flight attendants have as to whether they will be counted as hours worked. As a result, flight attendants will be denied EI benefits.

We are still working on this one and I hope the government will have the decency and conscience to recognize that if the flight attendant has to sit there and wait an hour and a half while the plane gets back on track that time will be considered as time worked and allow them to use that time to collect EI.

I know I only have a short period of time left but there were so many other things I wanted to mention. Let me just get on to a couple in that short two minutes.

I wanted to mention the situation with the seniors' access to pension. Once again, a government with any conscience would not put into place a rule that says if seniors did not let the government know they wanted this pension which was rightfully due, then they would not receive it because the time had expired.

These are our most vulnerable people in society as a result of cuts the government has made to health care, housing and numerous areas. They have paid their dues to Canadian society time and time again and have worked hard to get us good programs. Our seniors have supported health care over the years. With the Canada pension plan, seniors have been paying that for us. What is the government doing? It is telling them that if they did not apply on time they will not receive their pension which they were rightfully due. They might get $15,000 to $16,000 a year and the government expects them to live on that, and it will not give them any extra cash.

That is absolutely unacceptable from a caring, considerate country such as Canada, and obviously acceptable to the government, which is not okay for Canadians. I hope Canadians will recognize that next time around when they have seen the actions of this government in a number of areas.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer as someone who comes out of the labour movement and totally supports successors' rights and recognizes that even the WTO has acknowledged that unions result in far better conditions within a country because they improve the wages people make. They improve the economic opportunities for small and medium sized businesses as a result of unionized wages. Quite frankly, within the province of Manitoba private firms operate very efficiently with unions in place.

Even with successors' rights in the province of Manitoba, for those who do not know, if a company takes over it will reach a point where it can renegotiate. Very few unions, if any, will not recognize and deal with it if a company is truly in economic hardship, very few. We see it right now with Air Canada employees looking at doing something differently. The CAW employees are recognizing that there is a struggle in the airline industry. They are looking to address it, possibly through wage concessions or in some other area. They know their jobs are on the line.

For the Alliance to suggest that successors' rights for unions is an issue as to why a private company cannot survive is just pure and simple hogwash.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in light of some of the debate we have heard already today, it will be a truly enjoyable experience speaking to Bill C-26.

We do not often have the opportunity to support legislation with which the government comes forward. I am happy to say at this point in time that we intend to support Bill C-26. We look forward to the bill going to committee where we will have the opportunity to discuss it more thoroughly and ensure that what the government has put in the bill is really upfront with what it suggests it will do. I do want to indicate that and I have indicated that to the minister as well.

The bill is an attempt by the minister to right some of the wrongs that the government has done for the last number of years. I want to emphasize that these wrongs were followed through as a result of bad actions, deregulation overall and the whole idea that a marketplace, capitalistic approach was the only way to go within the transportation industry. I want to emphasize that the Liberal government's agenda was supported wholeheartedly by the Reform party and now the Alliance Party.

My colleague from Red Deer spoke today about understanding the need for differences throughout the country, and I am glad to hear that. In reality that is not the message the Alliance Party has brought to the House time and time again on numerous issues.

New Democrats, and even Canadians who are not New Democrats, do not believe for one second that a marketplace attitude is necessary in every aspect of building a nation. It is certainly not necessary in every aspect of transportation, not if we are going to do things to benefit the entire country and do things to address the different geographical aspects of this nation.

Initially it was just men who had a vision for Canada and they realized that as part of that vision they had to recognize the different geography of Canada and the differences in the provinces. They realized that some commitments had to be made as a whole to benefit all regions of Canada.

The rail line that brought our nation together was done with one area putting a little more out than another because it was nation building. We have to look at things differently with regard to transportation, if we are to meet the needs of a country from coast to coast to coast.

I will use Nunavut, the territories and Yukon as a major thrust of this because they do not have the road system that the rest of the country has because they are newly developed areas of Canada. As a nation, are we going to tell Nunavut and the territories that they have to pay for it all themselves because the Government of Canada believes that the transportation system of tomorrow should remain largely market driven where the government sets a competitive framework and intervenes only as a last resort? In spite of that, I suggest that we support the legislation at this time and deal with some of the issues in committee.

However the government is still saying that a marketplace economy is the only thing it will look at. I suggest that cannot be done in a nation such as Canada because there are certain areas of Canada that cannot offset those costs. We cannot just deal with the issues of marketplace and making profits.

To my colleagues from the Alliance, from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are dealing with issues right now with regard to the additional cost for trucking their grain and other farm products as a result of rail lines being taken out. I hope farmers and people in rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba are listening. The issues and hardships they are dealing with are a direct result of the Alliance Party and the Reform party pushing for a market driven economy. There is no question that they are a direct result of the Alliance pushing and the Liberals saying “We are going to do what they want because this is really a right wing agenda and it is what we want to do anyway”.

In the history of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, people worked together. People did that in rural communities. They had to work together for the benefit of each other. In the early years people got together to build homes and farms. They helped each other out when there was a disaster. If someone could not get his crops in on time and another person was done, they rallied together to do the job.

The promotion that has come out of the Reform and Alliance Party is if it is more costly for farmers to get grain from White Fox, Saskatchewan, they will have to pay more than the farmer right along the American border. We do not want that one farmer along the border to get less profit because he is that much closer to maybe shipping it across the border. We work together in a co-operative spirit to ensure fair marketing for everyone. That was what we did as communities.

The reason I mention that is because my colleague from Red Deer talked like he believed it when he talked about transportation policy. It is necessary to recognize there are some differences in different communities, We are not going to be able to have a profitable line that runs from Montreal to Toronto or to Ottawa. We have to recognize there is greater opportunity for profit in those areas and we will have to offset that somewhere else. I agree with that. I just quite frankly do not agree that we should be building a transportation system within our country based upon profit alone. That service should be there for all Canadians.

In my five years here in Ottawa, time and time again we have dealt with the crisis in the airline industry, a crisis that was that much worse because we had a situation where companies were out strictly to make a profit. There were threats of anti-competitive actions. They were out strictly to make a profit with no consideration of providing service to the smaller communities, to smaller regions on the east coast and the smaller regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As a result, we had this action where we want to make a profit, be the biggest and have everything. We lost one major airline in this country. The others are at major risk. Then when another crisis happens, it is just that much worse because everything is being done purely because we think there should be a marketplace approach.

That is wrong for any nation that has any kind of a vision to provide services. I believe the entire country, every business and every person living in a community, benefits from an officially run transportation service and one that is there providing service throughout. I do not think every person who hits the airport should have to pay an additional fee as an airport improvement fee. I do not believe everyone who drives on a road should have to pay a toll charge. Even though others are not on that road or in that airport, they benefit from access to those services and by others having access to those services. Whether that means other business people can come in and work in their community or sell their products in their community, we all benefit, and that is what it is about.

I mentioned that I support this bill and I want to talk about a couple of the key points in the bill. There is no way I can get into all of it. It is an omnibus bill and it deals with a lot of issues. I do not agree with everything in the bill but I believe this is an attempt by the minister to right some of the damaging wrongs that have happened in the past, and I am acknowledge that.

One key issue mentioned in the bill, as my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve previously mentioned, is the issue of train noise. It has been an ongoing thing that I dealt with as our transportation critic. My colleague from Vancouver East has had numerous related issues in her riding regarding train noise. There was absolutely no recourse for anyone. Can members imagine having something in place where the noise creates such a problem for the residents around an area but there is absolutely no recourse, no type of mediation process or anything that can be done with the rail lines to address the problem for those citizens who have a problem with it?

The bill actually looks at addressing that, to the point where it indicates that there will be a mediation process as well, that the CTA will be given some teeth to deal with it. That is an absolute plus. It might seem like nothing to most people. For the people who do not live by the rail line it is no big deal, but it has been a major issue in many parts of the country and I was pleased to see it addressed.

My colleagues from the Alliance talk about VIA Rail being made a crown corporation. The bottom line is that the process for VIA Rail would be to have it operate as a crown corporation to give it the opportunity, as that corporation, to borrow money from alternative sources, so that we can put in place a much better passenger rail system in Canada, so that we can meet the needs of Saint John, New Brunswick, and so that we can continue to meet the needs of the line going up to Churchill where there is no other mode of land transportation. In Manitoba, from Thompson to Churchill there is no other land transportation for people, and for some other smaller communities as well. VIA Rail has provided that service, sometimes in conjunction with other rail lines. It has provided that service and we need to ensure that this service is maintained.

I think VIA does need to be given that opportunity. Quite frankly, my concern on the issue of VIA Rail was the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services when she said that we are not looking to privatize VIA Rail yet. I will actually pull up her comments, because it was pretty clear that there was sort of this intent to privatize VIA Rail. I have a serious problem with that. Even private rail lines in other parts of the world have had to get government support. There is not a single passenger rail service in the world, not one in the entire world, that does not operate without government support. We can mickey mouse around with it and hide the support, whether it ends up as giving them the money for the infrastructure or some grants to do something, but the bottom line is that they do not operate without government support.

I would much rather that we not put our passenger rail service in the same type of situation as our airline service because somehow there is this push that we have to privatize it. What would I like to see? I want to see high speed rail between the densely populated areas in Quebec and Ontario. I think Canadians should be supporting that kind of approach, because it is beneficial for the entire country. We would be getting a lot of cars off the roads and giving people the opportunity to travel where they do not have to be involved, not just because of the CO

2

emissions, which is highly important, but it also would give them the opportunity to not have the stress of travelling on some of those congested highways. Again it is crucially important that we support our entire country.

Quite frankly, as for me benefiting from the number of times I am going to hop on that rail service, I do not see it as a big thing, but it certainly would be extremely beneficial for the people in Quebec and Ontario. I suggest that it would give the opportunity to people from the east coast, should we improve that rail service again, to also be part of that. Once again we would be working to join our country together and make rail a much more efficient system.

As a last note, as I have a smidgen of time left, so in line with a doublespeak sort of approach by the government, there is this situation. As we talk about improving rail service and the need to get trucks and cars off the roads so that we do not have to put more money into highway infrastructure, or at least keep the costs down, we have a situation in Windsor where there actually is a rail tunnel. The municipality, from what I understand, wanted to improve that system. They wanted to improve the use of the tunnel and support that process. That was the municipality's approach to it. Then we had three Conservative bureaucrats from transportation in the Province of Ontario get together with three federal government bureaucrats and they decided they would pull out that tunnel, that they would not keep that rail tunnel. This is their approach. They are going to pull out that tunnel from the absolutely busiest trade corridor in Canada. They are going to take away the rail tunnel and stuff things back up on the roads.

What is wrong with that approach? It is that kind of hypocritical attitude and approach that has everyone wondering where we are really going. This is why I say I support the bill before us, but I certainly want to be actively involved in our committee process to make sure that what is there is accurate.

We have to stay on the government on an ongoing basis to make sure it is not getting away with some of this. I do not know what to call it. The government talks about improving rail service and getting cars and trucks off the roads, but on the busiest trade corridor it is going to pull out the rail and the tunnel. What can we call that? Quite frankly I call it absolute stupidity and I am sure there are other words for it as well. It is absolute foolishness, especially when the municipality was looking at enhancing that rail service, which is what we should be doing. The federal government should be supporting municipalities with additional funds to keep as much cargo as possible on the rail lines and off the roads.

The other point I will make is about the vision for transportation. “Straight Ahead” was the Department of Transport's title for their new vision on transportation. My thought was straight ahead and over the cliff, because we got this vision and then we had a federal budget with no money, not near enough money, to even look at implementing any kind of vision for transportation within Canada.

I think we will all agree with my colleague from the Alliance, who said that there absolutely has to be a long term strategy. Certainly I will. There cannot be a strategy for transportation policy in any aspect of the transportation sector or infrastructure in a country such as Canada without having a long term vision. I am not talking from budget to budget or even from one federal government to the next. If Canada as a country does not have a strategy that stretches over at least 10 to 20 years, we will be doomed to be fighting crisis after crisis within the transportation industry.

I am looking forward to seeing this legislation before the committee. I look forward to having more discussion on it, and I look forward to questions.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from the Bloc, I was a little at a loss to hear the comments from the member, but I will target a slightly different area.

My colleague from Red Deer indicated that transportation is the biggest producer of CO

2

and that the government was nowhere on the Kyoto issue in addressing it. Yet for months, if not years on end since I have been here, I have listened to Alliance member after Alliance member go on about how CO

2

emissions are not the issue related to greenhouse gas, that they are not the problem and that all the work everybody was supporting on the Kyoto issue was not really necessary.

Quite frankly, when the hon. member talks about the need for intelligent legislation, I agree. We also have the need for intelligent discussion. For the first time, I have to say, I heard some extremely intelligent comments related to CO

2

emissions, Kyoto and transportation from an Alliance member and it is deeply appreciated.

[Iraq, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position on Bush's war in Iraq is typical Liberal doublespeak. On one hand the Prime Minister has been saying that Canada will not participate. On the other hand the Liberal government has authorized over 100 Canadian troops serving in exchange programs with British and American units in the Middle East to participate in combat, if and when those units invade Iraq.

The Liberals seem to be the only people on the planet who think that authorizing troops to participate in combat means we are not participating. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have told the government that they do not support this U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Rather that listen to and respect the views of Canadians, the Liberals are saying one thing and doing the opposite. The majority of Canadians do not want our soldiers involved in this conflict. The honourable thing to do now is for the government to live up to its promise not to participate and call our exchange forces home.

Finally, I invite all members of the House, the people of Canada and people throughout the world to pray for all the men, women and children who most surely will be injured or killed as a result of this unnecessary war. Let us pray for peace and understanding. At this point that is their only hope.

[Infrastructure, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the transport minister must have been snoozing last week when the finance minister delivered his budget. Somehow the transport minister did not notice the lack of funding in the budget for strategic transportation investments that his blueprint says are a high priority. The total infrastructure funding in the budget is not enough to repave the Trans-Canada Highway from Winnipeg to Portage la Prairie, yet it is supposed to cover roads, rail, public transit and clean water systems for the entire nation.

If the transport minister says this is a high priority, why was it such a low priority in the budget?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, key to one point and sort of responding to my colleague from the Alliance, when the member for Mississauga South talked about giving incorrect information and expecting Canadians to fall for it, I would suggest that the issue here with Canadians is that the government has been giving incorrect information and using that information to waste taxpayer dollars in a good number of cases, or possibly even misusing taxpayer dollars. Quite frankly, that is what has created the problem. I would like the member to respond to that.