Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to voice our complete agreement with the assessment of Bill C-101 as stated by my Reform Party colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
During the last election campaign the Liberals outlined in their infamous red book how they were to do business differently. Does the House remember that? They could hardly control themselves describing how they would do business differently once they seized the reins of power.
The Deputy Prime Minister was so reckless as to claim the Liberals would replace the goods and services tax within a year of coming into power or she would resign. The GST is alive and well and the Deputy Prime Minister shows no signs whatsoever of voluntarily resigning her seat as she promised to do. Is this what Canadians are supposed to buy as doing business differently?
My constituents are asking: "Different from what?" This type of shenanigans is the same as the shenanigans of the Mulroney government. They are all doing business differently and we all know what the people did with Mr. Mulroney's party and its way of doing business differently.
What are we looking for? What are we looking at? We are looking at failed promises. The Liberals promised major changes to the MP pension plan. They gave us minor changes which do not reflect private sector pension plan standards.
The Liberals promised they would empower individual members of Parliament through an increase in the use of free votes. My goodness, free votes in the House of Commons. The Liberals have reneged on that promise by enforcing a heavy handed control of voting on their own party members.
The point I am leading to is simple. In the view of the motion being forwarded by the government at this time, there is no way we on this side of the House can trust the Liberal government. Neither should the Canadian public. The Reform Party's transport critic is quite right in the stand he has taken. British Columbians rely on railway transportation. B.C. has relied on railway transportation since the time of Confederation. Mining and forestry constitute a substantial portion of the economy in British Columbia.
We have contacted many companies in British Columbia respecting the bill. Our solicitations for input have caused an avalanche of information to flow to our offices. Detailed amendments to the bill keep coming in from many industry sources. All these companies make it very clear they feel strongly that Bill C-101 is vital to maintain and enhance competition in Canadian railways.
However there exists a danger that the Liberals intend to use the bill as a baby step in the right direction. Canadian railways are infected with exorbitant taxes and regulations which have created an unlevel playing field between us and our major trading partner. If there is anything the federal government can do to improve Canada's competitive advantage in terms of land transportation policies, these companies would have us do it.
We all agree that the major accomplishment of Bill C-101 of establishing a clear redefined process for line abandonment is desirable. This would enable railways to establish short line routes to be governed under provincial legislation.
The major flaw in the bill is that the free market is prevented from establishing prices. The Liberals intended the railways to continue to be treated as a service rather than as a business. They will continue through the bill to allow the transportation agency to regulate prices.
The Liberals are once again attempting to use policy as a means of regional development. It is a shame. Canadian businesses are sick and tired of this treatment being used on policy which affects their livelihood. The bill gives cabinet the authority to decide which rail lines will be abandoned in the next few years.
The Liberals are sealing their exclusive right to use these abandonments as policy footballs in their pre-election campaign. There is no reason for the bill to be sent to the committee directly following first reading.
Such a move is only convenient to the Liberal political agenda. We on this side of the House have seen many times in the past what this kind of request from the government benches really means. The Liberals would have us believe that this manoeuvre is another example of doing business differently, using the Grits terms. However we know differently. The Liberals are only interested in facilitating CN's share offering due this fall.
The Liberals are circumventing access to the committee hearings. The committee, suffering from a bad case of Liberal dictatorship, has already affixed arbitrary deadlines for submissions from stakeholders.
These deadlines were adopted by the committee as a result of the domination of Liberal Party membership on the committee. We all know what happens to Liberal Party members who do not vote the way of the Liberal Party intelligentsia or the way they are told to vote. We have seen it before in the House.
On this side of the House we know that the committee has received numerous submissions over the summer. We also know that the committee promised to circulate the submissions so that all hon. members could take them into consideration.
Finally we know that none of the submissions have been circulated. I might add that we know that the Liberals are doing business differently. I remember the last government. I cannot see the difference. Do you see the difference, Mr. Speaker?
Here is the different way of doing business that Canadians are seeing. Bill C-89 and Bill C-91 were fast tracked through this place by the Liberals. At that time the Liberals said that it would provide a more amendable process or something like that. Both those legislative proposals were passed without a single amendment. That is doing business differently. They do not allow any amendments whatsoever. It would be laughable if it did not concern important legislation regarding the interest of Canadian stakeholders.
I strongly urge the House not to vote for Bill C-101 which requires due process. Let us make sure this piece of legislation gets the due process this place should give it.
