Denise Savoie

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the hon. member's great question. One is that real consultation has so often been missing. We have seen it recently in the way the government has consulted on post-secondary education. The government called it consulting by posting an announcement on the web and not advising the people who are most impacted by the subject, i.e. students. Even some university presidents were not consulted.

I certainly agree that when there are issues such as noise and environmental concerns the federal government needs to be more present in working out these issues with communities. I believe that by withdrawing from so many important areas of social policy, the government is giving the wrong signals about the way it consults.

The hon. member raises another issue, that of noise, and I do believe that is a valid concern. That does not mean eliminating the rail. It means consulting and finding solutions. As I listened to the debate yesterday, I understood that there are mechanisms to really address the noise question.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that our future depends on how governments—this one and the ones to come both at the provincial and federal levels—will be able to help and implement meaningful infrastructure programs to ensure the continued existence of railway lines.

Bicycle paths might be considered. In Europe, however, France, Germany and Switzerland have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible for railway lines as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths to coexist.

It was not my intention to suggest that railway lines should be sold to be converted to something else. I simply wanted to point out that, if, for whatever reason, a line was no longer viable, the best thing to do might be to just sell it. It think that continued operation of railways must be protected, with governments not selling parts of them for purposes of development or other purposes. As the hon. member mentioned, the need for public transportation is recognized and will keep growing.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. As already mentioned, this legislation does address some important issues. However, it is not a transportation strategy and so represents a missed opportunity. Canadians will have to wait a long time to hear about the reduction of greenhouse gases and other matters. I therefore pose the question: where is the national transportation plan?

What we see in this bill is a hodge podge of measures to solve these nonetheless important problems, and I would like to talk about that this morning.

I would like to touch on some issues of concern to my community. The bill presents amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Act. A terminal in my community, according to federal authorities, presents some security issues.

Projects having been going on In my riding of Victoria to build a new terminal as an entrance to the city. After 9/11 the federal government intervened and made some requirements to improve security measures. This created financial problems. When the federal government imposes new security measures relating to transportation, it is important that it not just download responsibility but provide funding for the community. We have been waiting for years, through the previous governments and now the present government, to have these issues addressed but they have chosen not to.

It is important to consider transportation security as a whole when considering these entry points and to provide help to cities dealing with this issue. I would like to call upon the government, when dealing with these amendments and looking at security issues, to be attentive to the needs of the community.

I was pleased to see amendments or provisions regarding the railway lines in particular because it has posed problems in my community. Years ago a major federal rail company was discontinued and pieces of the right of way were sold when the community tried to preserve the integrity of the whole right of way as a cycling-pedestrian path. It was with great difficulty that we were able to get back this piece of the right of way that had been sold to the private sector.

The provisions regarding the discontinuance of rail lines becomes very important. This piece of the right of way was sold to a private company and it was left to local government to negotiate beyond what it was able to do financially to get the piece back.

Similarly, reversion rights need to be clarified, which the bill attempts to speak to on pages 24 and 25. However, for years CP Rail, after obtaining a great deal of land from the federal government in the early days of this country in exchange for running a railroad in perpetuity, had slowly become disinterested in running a rail company, not only in Victoria but throughout the Island, and the service became progressively worse. CP allowed the infrastructure to deteriorate and it became difficult for communities up and down the Island to work with CP Rail without much help from the former Liberal government to prevent the rail service from being absolutely discontinued.

Again, it was local government all the way up and down the Island that worked together to ensure that the rail service was not stopped. It is a concern when the federal government is not there to support communities' needs that are well articulated and presented in a thoughtful manner, as was the case in the issue of E&N Rail.

Eventually municipal governments got together and a non-profit foundation agreed to continue the service. This is what is happening right now, but the question of discontinuance or abandonment of rail service becomes crucial in communities that have put in serious investments to continue the rail service.

Here is what I would ask for when the bill goes to committee, if it does. The principle of the bill, as much as it does not include all the norms and the mechanisms that we would like to see in a more complete act, nevertheless does provide a mechanism for communities to talk to the transportation agency about some key issues. Until now there have been few mechanisms to deal with these issues as they come up, whether they be noise or other issues.

I agree with other colleagues who, in talking about the bill, have criticized the absence of any real environmental protection in the bill. Again, not only is there no reference to greenhouse gas emission reductions, but there is no real protection for communities through which rail service runs.

We know that on Vancouver Island there have been cases of spraying of pesticides that have run into salmon-bearing streams, resulting in serious environmental impacts. I think these are issues that should be considered and should be integrated and discussed seriously at the committee level.

Again, talking about the federal government being more present to support communities that want to have a rail service that functions well, where is the infrastructure money? Where has the infrastructure money been and where is it now? This is an area that I would like to see the federal government looking into as it brings the bill to committee.

Finally, there are some issues that I think need to be looked at in more detail. I mentioned the rail right of way that should be serving the communities. One of the issues that has been very important on Vancouver Island and in British Columbia generally has been the rate of accidents that have occurred. As some members may know, BC Rail was privatized two years ago and the rate of accidents has increased considerably. This is something that we are concerned about not only because of the loss of lives that has occurred but also for the environmental impacts of derailments.

This is the last point I want to deal with when the bill goes to committee, if in fact it is supported to go to committee. At the moment, the provisions for transfer of the rail line in the case of abandonment of a rail line or discontinuance simply say that it will go to urban public transit. I think that is too limited. I think it can be used for public transit, but there are other public goods that need to be considered in the case of a rail line being abandoned.

One that should be considered, for example, is the Trans Canada Trail, in which many people have shown a great deal of interest. Certainly on Vancouver Island and in Victoria, bike paths and pedestrian paths should be considered as one of those valid uses. I will be strongly suggesting to my colleagues when the bill is discussed at committee that there be a legal mechanism found to include that use, along with urban transit.

On that, I will take questions.

[September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two follow up questions.

First, Statistics Canada has recently released a report showing that undergraduates in Nova Scotia, for example, pay almost double the tuition that undergraduates in Manitoba pay and that is over triple what undergraduates pay in Quebec. It is something like $6,700 in Nova Scotia compared to approximately $1,700 in Quebec. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that is making post-secondary education accessible to all Canadian students?

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the government is prepared to do to improve that situation for all students.

[September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I asked the government to restore the billions of dollars that the Liberals cut from post-secondary education during the 90s. I still have not received a satisfactory answer.

Students and families continue to deal with absurd tuition fees, even for average-income Canadians. Graduates have a hard time starting their careers while burdened with crushing student loan debt.

We know that current financial aid and tax credit programs for students are nothing more than a motley assortment of measures that do nothing to improve access to or enrolment in post-secondary studies. Too many Canadians are left behind.

Professors are faced with huge class sizes and a shortage of resources and materials. In colleges and universities, administrators are having difficulty balancing tight budgets as they face a pressing need for new professors, infrastructure renewal and so on.

The provinces and territories are still under tremendous pressure. Some have frozen tuition fees, often at the expense of class sizes and quality. Other have allowed tuition fees to skyrocket.

This government must stop confusing tax credits with a well-thought-out social policy.

It is time the government put some real effort into achieving a universally accessible, high quality public system of post-secondary education and skills training in Canada. The federal government has a key policy role to play to increase access to post-secondary education for all Canadians and that starts with a substantial, long term reinvestment in core funding through a dedicated transfer to provinces and territories. Even the premiers can agree on that, if nothing else.

Social justice aside, surely a Conservative government can see the economic case here if Canadians are to compete globally. In the global economy they need access to quality education. We also know that post-secondary education enrolment has remained static since 1995. Is it any wonder, when tuition costs have reached unreasonably high levels in those provinces?

I met a young married couple this summer, each with $35,000 of student debt at 30 years old. They asked me how they could even begin to think of starting a family. I had no answer. Would a reasonable person think this is a manageable debt level at that age?

I do not want to hear that the 2006 budget of the Conservatives helped all students. It helped those students who already had a scholarship and tossed a free textbook at the rest. We can help all students by funding truly accessible, quality post-secondary education with lower tuition, more teachers and better resources across the board.

Yes or no, will the government help to make this happen now?

[Workplace Learning, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate the second annual Learn at Work Week, a national initiative of the Canadian Society for Training and Development. It recognizes the enormous value of lifelong learning to Canadians, to our economy and also to the quality and security of our jobs and our standard of living.

There is widespread agreement that Canadians require access to quality continuous learning opportunities, yet Canada is currently underperforming in workplace learning in comparison to other countries.

I thank the CSTD for raising the issue of workplace learning across Canada. Learn at Work Week gives us the chance to recognize the importance of developing a culture of learning on a broader level and to renew our call on the federal government to encourage investment in workplace learning as part of a pan-Canadian strategy for lifelong learning.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP certainly shares the concerns of the Bloc about the safety of public transportation.

As I mentioned a little earlier, there has been a recent increase in the number of railway accidents in British Columbia. I am sure that the member will agree with me that the problems of public transportation safety greatly exceed the capacity of each province or any one province to find solutions.

I ask what solution does the Bloc propose to deal with this very serious problem, the matter of safety?

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his thoughtful analysis of some of the issues. Because I also believe that railway is the future, I want to talk a little bit about railway safety.

As some members might know, there has been a frightening increase in rail accidents in British Columbia. The former Liberal government's last attempt to deal with this matter was to ask CN to develop its own proposals, which was ridiculous, it seems to me. I am wondering if the member would now support the proposal to launch a public inquiry into Canada's sagging railway safety record.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for describing some aspects of this new bill, the principle of which is a very good one. He is establishing mechanisms that will encourage dialogue so that communities and transportation agencies will finally start talking to each other and also introducing measures designed to protect the environment and correct noise problems.

I know that there are problems in my part of the country, in British Columbia. So let us hope that this bill will help to solve them, or at least to open the way for dialogue so that these problems can be resolved.

I have a question to ask regarding the amendments, in relation to abandoning rail lines.

In my part of the country, in British Columbia and specifically on Vancouver Island, a rail line was to be abandoned by CP Rail and VIA Rail. I know our communities up and down the island spent years trying to arrive at some solution. The process was cumbersome. It was not transparent.

Therefore, I truly hope the bill will help in the future and will continue to help our communities, which are trying to make this rail line run better to serve our communities.

I have a question concerning one of the proposed amendments. There is a suggestion that it will extend the measures that relate to the transfer or the abandonment of rail lines that can be used for public transportation or transit.

Could the minister tell me whether he feels that this will also apply to the use of possible abandoned lines as cycle paths in the context of the Canada Trail?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As many members have already stated, a degree of cynicism has made its way into our Canadian democratic system. If I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is to restore the confidence of Canadians and Quebeckers. However, I believe that Canadians are concerned about a party that is pledged to break up our Canadian federal parliamentary system. I put this question to the member: how does the Bloc propose to restore the confidence of those Quebeckers who see their future in a strong Quebec, but within Canada?