Dean Del Mastro

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member made a couple of points, including a couple I took issue with, not the least of which were his comments on corporate taxes and corporate tax rates. Of course, railways, CP and CN, are among the most heavily invested in by funds that are seeking solid, stable investments, such as OMERS pension fund and the Ontario teachers' pension fund and Canada pension plan and, of course, a wide range of private sector pension funds that look after members like the Canadian Auto Workers and so forth.

When the government takes less from those companies, it actually builds up their investments and pension portfolios, which is important, because we all have a stake in that, each and every Canadian in this country. Therefore, it is important that we do that.

He also mentioned that the bill would not get into rates. One of the reasons the bill does not get into rates is that the sector is already regulated in that regard. The industry actually has North American standards with respect to freight rates. These are put onto charts and railways actually work off those charts, and rates can be determined very easily as a result.

It is important that we have that because what we really have in many cases is a virtual monopoly. However, it is competitive from the standpoint that it is regulated and the government already looks at standardized rates for all North American railways.

One of the things that is really important to recognize, which I think the member does have an interest in, is that when we are looking at new development and how we are going to encourage investment in, for example, plan nord in Quebec or the Ring of Fire in Ontario or all of the natural resource wealth that extends into the territory the member represents, how are we going to ensure that these companies are prepared to make the investments, and the service requirements are met by these companies in those areas so that we can in fact explore these resources for the benefit of all Canadians?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a number of good points in his intervention. One of the things he indicated, which I happen to agree with quite strongly, is that it is important that we hold to account companies like CN and CP and others, which are large, private companies that are very profitable, and that we set specific expectations for them. That is why, for example, we brought forward the railway safety bill in the previous Parliament. It was a bill we worked on with other parties to come to an agreement on; then it had to be brought back in this Parliament as well.

The bottom line is that these are private companies, and sometimes when we are making an assessment of whether the money is being put in the right spot, we have to understand the railway system as a network. The member who spoke previously talked about how his freight rail service is now down to a class 2, which limits the speed to 25 miles per hour for freight. That is actually quite serviceable for freight, although not perfect. He spoke about having a derailment. Obviously, that is something we want to avoid. That is why we brought in the railway safety bill.

However, when we are talking about investments into rail, as an example, perhaps the greatest investment we could make to improve the efficiency of the Port of Montreal would be to improve the railway tunnel in the city of Windsor. Most people would not think of that, but it would actually improve the efficiency of the port services in Montreal.

I would like the member to expand a little on where he thinks we could better hold the railways to account. I think he is on the right track with that, and I think the bill is going in that direction.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the comments that I have heard are simply rhetoric. They are not fact-based at all.

Has the member actually looked into the improvements that have been made by CP and CN in terms of on-time delivery and on-time pickups from shippers right across this country? Has he noted the increase in rail freight traffic in this country in the last five years? Has the member noted any of these things, or is he simply here to spew rhetoric of a partisan nature?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the member's comments. Over the last number of years there has not been a government that has invested more money into railways than this government, certainly not in decades.

The reality is that we put $1 billion into VIA Rail for improved tracking and new rolling stock in locomotives, which the member's party voted against. In 2006, we partnered with the government of Quebec to put in place a program to rebuild railway short lines with over $70 million, and the NDP certainly did not support that funding. We partnered with Genesee & Wyoming and the Canadian Pacific Railway to rebuild the Huron Central Railway between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. I worked for some two and a half years to put the funding into that. It was the first time in history that the Province of Ontario had partnered with the federal government toward regenerating and rebuilding railway infrastructure in this country.

This government has demonstrated time and again, whether with Pacific Gateway, Atlantic Gateway or railways in general, that we are committed to improving railways in this country. We are committed to improving railway safety and we demonstrated that with a bill that has already gone through this place. We are dedicated and committed to improving rail service. This member should get on board.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am delighted to hear the hon. member indicate that he is going to be supporting the legislation.

I think it is important that members recognize that when we talk about Canada's freight rail system, we have to talk about it in a North American context since it really is a fully integrated system. Ultimately we have to recognize that while there are challenges within the system with respect to the shipper-railway relationship at times, even though that rarely happens, we really do have the greatest freight rail system in the world. It enables so much business and gives so much back to our economy.

Does the hon. member agree with the principle that first and foremost we would like to see market-based solutions, and that this mechanism should be used as rarely as possible, wherever there is a situation that cannot be solved between the shipper and the railway?

I think this is a good follow-up system. What the minister has put forward is a good system to support shippers and railways and to help them derive market-based relationships and solutions on their own. Would the hon. member agree with that?

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party was asked to table the Kelowna accord during my first session here, which was 2006-07, I never saw it. It is interesting that gets put forward.

I am aware that this government has settled well in excess of 70 specific land claims. The Liberal Party, in 13 years, could not lay claim to anything like that record.

First nations are seeking an opportunity and they want to pursue economic development through self-government agreements. I think of the Westbank First Nation in B.C., which has been operating under a self-government agreement since 2003. The Whitecap Dakota in Saskatchewan has been operating under the FNLMA since 2004. It has created over 700 jobs.

I met with an aspiring first nation just this week that wants the opportunity to welcome jobs, opportunity and investment. That is what this government is seeking to do.

Sure the government is seeking transparency and accountability, but is not working with aspiring first nations to create jobs and opportunity the right thing to do?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member's speech, it was almost as if she had not been here for the last number of years, but I know she has. She asked a number of times about the government's priorities, which I would just like to remind her of.

For example, the government has said that its number one priority is jobs and the economy. We have created more jobs than any other comparable industrialized economy in the world, now over 900,000. Statistics Canada has said that the bulk of these are full-time and good paying jobs.

We have also made health care and education priorities. We have funded those more than any other government in history and we have protected transfers to the provinces.

We have also made it a priority to stand with our partners in NATO. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken out on behalf of those less fortunate in the world, those who need someone to speak on their behalf.

Those are the priorities of our government. Where has the member been?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a number of NDP speakers have risen and, in succession, have talked about how they support reform in principle but that they feel that there are amendments that should be made to the bill but have not been made yet. That is why we send bills to committee. That is why Parliament has a committee process. One would think that the NDP, which often makes process arguments here in the House of Commons, would support moving to the next step of the process, which is to advance the bill to committee.

I am pleased that the bill will be moving toward committee with the strong support of this government. Since we have brought it forward in the last number of Parliaments, it is time to get it done. We would like to see the NDP supporting it at least to go to committee. Its argument today does not seem rational.

[The Economy, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in a fragile global economy, we need to pass measures to support economic growth and job creation here in Canada.

However, the opposition, through stall tactics and ploys, is trying to block help for Canadians, such as help for Canadians trying to save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans; improvements to the registered disability savings plan; the closing of tax loopholes that benefit only a select few; greater oversight and safety of Canada's financial system; the new, economically vital Windsor-Detroit bridge that my colleague from Essex has fought for for years; the job-creating hiring credit for small business; vital support for Canada's airlines and the people whose jobs depend on them; and reforms to federal bureaucrats' pension plans that would make them more financially sustainable for the taxpayers footing the bill.

If the opposition had its way, it would simply stall Parliament. We would make no progress on Canada's economic recovery. However, this government, this Prime Minister and the members on this side will not have it. We will stand for it, squarely behind Canadians.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate all day and I have had the opportunity to listen to this member on many occasions making interventions. However, today most of it is around one single subject that he cannot seem to get his mind past.

One of the things that has occurred to me, and frankly I really think it matters, is that in every Parliament every once in a while in this position one has the opportunity to do something that is truly transformational and truly important. We have had that in the time since I have been elected. I think of the Federal Accountability Act, the 2009 federal budget and the economic action plan.

I think of other Parliaments that have voted on things that were significant, such as John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights and the U.S. free trade agreement. These are things that have fundamentally transformed Canada and made a positive impact. The record of members who have supported those things is something that is celebrated today.

I wonder how this member will feel when he looks back 20 years from now and sees that he had the opportunity to provide transparency and accountability, which is something I believe will become the mainstay, expectation and right of every single first nation citizen. How will he look back at his time when he had the opportunity to make a difference, to stand up for transparency, accountability and those less fortunate in Canada, but he voted against it, the way he has indicated here today?