House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was provinces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to that by saying that the policy of the official opposition is that there be dedicated funds for highways, for transportation, and that those funds would come from fuel taxes. The moneys collected from fuel taxes would go into a dedicated fund for highway infrastructure improvements.

We were very concerned about what would be in the budget for infrastructure programs. The great concern that I have as a member of the opposition is in the setting of priorities. I would suggest there is not a Canadian out there who does not see the fixing of highways as a safety issue. They are afraid for their well-being when they travel our highways because of the poor condition they are in. Canadians would put a priority on that rather than bocce courts, curling arenas and all of these other things that infrastucture money was used for.

In this year's budget there was only $150 million identified for highways. Yes, there was other infrastructure money, but there was only $150 million set aside for highways. I do not find that to be a good priority. I would suggest that other Canadians would agree with me that the priorities of the government are not well placed.

Supply March 22nd, 2000

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the official opposition to bring this very important motion to the House and to debate it before the Canadian public. It is very apparent to most of us who sat and heard the budget released by the finance minister that the government places very little importance on the transportation system in Canada.

We in the official opposition believe that with a country the size of Canada transportation is critical and crucial. Much of the history of our country relates and has been developed by transportation with the train system from coast to coast. Today our economy depends on a very good seamless transportation system.

I am not just talking about trucks and highways. Nor am I just talking about trains and rail, airplanes and airports, or ships and ports. I am talking about how all these modes of transportation interconnect in a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system.

Canada has done exceptionally well over the last number of years and the government has taken every opportunity to take credit for it. However our international trade has grown at an incredible rate and the United States has been responsible for most of that economic growth, due mainly to the free trade agreement and to the NAFTA.

I remind Liberals across the floor that they were opposed to both these agreements that are responsible for the economic growth the country has faced. Exports to the United States grew by almost 70% between 1994 and 1999. Today, on average, over $1.5 billion worth of goods cross the Canada-U.S. border each and every day. Despite the massive increase in traffic there has been no corresponding increase in transportation infrastructure. In fact the federal government spends far fewer dollars on transportation infrastructure today than it did in 1994.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East and opposition members will be splitting their time throughout the debate.

As I was saying, the government has not made any commitment to supporting transportation infrastructure. Although the federal government has jurisdiction over trade and commerce, the Liberals have completely abandoned the federal government's role in interprovincial and international transportation.

There is a growing and existing need for a safe, seamless, integrated transportation plan, not just a national or a continental strategy. This is one instance where the federal government should be playing a leading role but it has completely removed itself from that discussion and that debate.

We could ask ourselves why there is need for a central plan for a national continental strategy. We need to develop consistent transportation regulations with the provinces and with the United States. I am not just talking about reregulating the industry. That is not what we want. We do not want the federal government to reregulate transportation.

There should be minimal consideration of regulations to ensure safety, to protect environmental concerns and to ensure that there is competition. I want to make very clear that we are not talking about the federal government getting back into massive regulations in transportation, although we recognize there are areas that might require minimal regulation on the part of the federal government.

I emphasize that it is important for the federal government to be acting as a co-ordinator, as a mediator, as a consensus builder. It is important for the federal government to bring the parties together at the table. This is an area that the federal Liberal government of today has reneged on.

While co-operating with other levels of government and the private sector, the federal government must be prepared to put in its share of funding. The federal government must recognize that it plays an important role in developing the infrastructure that is so important for our economy. The economic wealth and well-being of our country depend on a very strong and safe transportation system. The federal government has to play a part in helping to make this a reality.

The federal government has to quit using fuel taxes as a cash cow. Last year the federal government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes, and yet it has put only $150 million back into highway infrastructure. I hear the same complaint from the air industry where the federal government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in lease agreements but putting only tens of millions of dollars back into airport infrastructure.

The federal government must overhaul its tax policies for the transportation industry. In today's economy we find that the transportation industries in Canada are not competitive internationally, largely because of the tax structure in this country. It is important that the government place our industries in a more competitive position by overhauling its tax policies.

Our transportation industry has gone through and is going through some major changes. It is quite apparent to those of us sitting in opposition and to Canadians generally that the government is not able to handle these changes. I speak of the Air Canada acquisition of Canadian Airlines and the fallout. I speak of the CN-BNSF combination. I speak of the crisis in the Canadian trucking industry. My colleagues will talk in greater detail about the particular problems facing each of the various transportation industries in Canada so I will not dwell on them.

There is great need for the federal government to take a leadership role in the strategic development of a future transportation system.

The federal government must play a leading role. It must be prepared to make obvious to the transportation industry that it is a strong player in the discussions that have to take place. It is not that the government should dictate what those policies should be, but the federal government must take a leadership role in bringing the stakeholders to the table and finding a consensus on how to develop our transportation system. This is badly needed and has to be done sooner than later.

With the growth in demands in the transportation industry, with a growth of over 10% of exports and imports over the U.S.-Canada border per year, we cannot afford to continually lag behind the need for developing our transportation infrastructure. We must have more than a national plan. It has to be a continental plan. It has to recognize that the movement of goods and people is north-south as much as it is east-west. We need a continental plan to move goods and people.

What is equally important is that this strategy and the financial commitment to this strategy have to be long term. We have to think long term. We have to look at not only what the growth is today and was yesterday but at what the potential growth will be. It should come as no surprise to those watching the growing trade with the United States that there is an equal growing need to create an infrastructure which can handle that. Canada cannot afford to renege on this responsibility because the gridlock in our transportation system today will only get much worse in the future.

If the federal government will not take the leadership role and will not facilitate the development of a strategic continental transportation system, Canada can look forward to chaos. That will affect our economic well-being. The transportation system is important to economic growth in Canada, which supports health care, the education system, social services and all other things that Canadian feel are important to them.

They depend on the economic well-being of our country and the economic well-being of the our country depends on a good transportation system so that we can move goods and people. Trade agreements will not work if goods cannot be transported markets. I say to the government of the day that it is time to prepare Canada's transportation system for the 21st century.

Tags March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the jobs fund was not an isolated instance. The government claims to be a sound manager of the taxpayers' money, but the truth is starting to leak out.

Will the minister tell Canadians just how many programs in her ministry are not following the rules and regulations?

Tags March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, last year an internal audit by HRDC revealed that the majority of projects contained no evidence of supervision or monitoring. There was no review of applications, and in some cases the payments did not comply with the terms of agreement.

No, I am not talking about the transitional jobs fund, but rather a special audit of TAGS signed off on April 18, 1999. When did the Minister of Human Resources Development learn about this audit and what did she do to correct the problem?

Petitions March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one that I can wholly support. It calls on parliament to provide more funding for the national highway system in the 2000 budget. Unfortunately they are a little bit late in expressing that sentiment. I certainly think they are going in the right direction in asking the government to provide more funding for the highways program.

Petitions March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents and residents in British Columbia. The first is a dated petition concerning the NATO actions in Yugoslavia calling upon parliament to do what it felt was fair.

Human Resources Development March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the department-wide action plan in August dealt with the controlled release of the internal audit if an access to information request was received. Communication plans talked about release strategies and the need to equip the minister with questions and answers, question period cards and media lines.

Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that she only learned about this audit on November 17, as she stated in the House?

Human Resources Development March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, under access to information we received an extensive communications plan developed by HRDC to handle the release of the internal audit on the billion dollar boondoggle. It includes strategic considerations, story lines, media strategies and timelines. It was dated August 30, 1999.

After a week off to consider the facts, why is the minister still spinning the same story?

Human Resources Development February 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, René Fugère has a remarkable ability to pull money out of many hats. HRDC said that there was no money available for the sawmill but when Mr. Fugère got involved the money suddenly appeared.

Is it not true that when Mr. Fugère shows up on one's doorstep it is the same as a visit from the Prime Minister?

Human Resources Development February 25th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, we are also interested in what else the Prime Minister's assistant, who is known for interfering in TJF projects, talked about at that meeting. We know a new request for funding came for Les Confections Saint-Élie a month after HRDC had broken the rules and had approved the final payment for that initial grant.

Did Les Confections Saint-Élie receive any further funding from HRDC as a result of that meeting?