Jamie Nicholls

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing here is the inability of the government to make the transition from being a minority government to a majority government, in the sense that it does not have a long-term vision for the future. It is still going on with flashy little things here and there, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians with its programs, saying that it is taking care of Canadians' tax dollars.

With respect to the infrastructure program, making the gas tax permanent is great. However, the federal government takes 10¢ out of the pockets of the people when they pay for gas and gives them 5¢ back. What happens to the other 5¢? Why is that 5¢ not going to our municipalities which are currently so burdened?

The way the program is run is more about taking credit for doing things than actually taking concrete action on the ground. The bill does not have anything substantial to build the future we need to build.

Could my hon. colleague speak to that point?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, mentioning the government's lack of vision is very apt.

Currently, we are trying to get increased funding for public transit projects. We are trying to make the economic argument that they help innovation and productivity. These projects would make the economy run smoothly. Sometimes it feels like we are running up against a brick wall because of the government's lack of vision. It does not see the economic benefits of these elements that we in the official opposition have been proposing.

Could the hon. member speak more to innovation and improvements with respect to Canada's economic productivity?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have a daughter named Pera who is seven years old, like the member across who has a boy similar in age. Our salaries are quite large and therefore enrolling our children in activities is not a problem for us, although lacking the time might be.

What would the member say to a single mother who is earning perhaps $20,000 a year who cannot afford to enrol her child in these activities? How would this bill help that mother enrol her child in activities?

[November 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is my hope that the government will not rest on its laurels.

The hon. member talked about the gas tax fund. Presently, the federal government collects 10¢ in gas taxes and returns 5¢ to the municipalities. I would hope that instead of holding on to that 5¢ it would give municipalities the other 5¢.

I was addressing the strategy and planning behind the Champlain Bridge. It is my hope that the federal government will work closely with the provinces and the municipalities surrounding the Champlain Bridge in order to do proper planning so that they actually have in place the transit system that they want. This will take a strategy, and so far I have not seen any evidence from the government that it has done proper planning in terms of working with the provinces and municipalities to offer an efficient, modern transit system.

[November 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak more about the Champlain Bridge and public transit on the bridge.

As we know, the Champlain Bridge is federally owned but, clearly, the provincial and municipal governments involved want to see public transit on the bridge, particularly in the form of light rail.

We are being asked why the NDP talks so much about public transit. We currently have a national strategy. Bill C-305, which promotes a national public transit strategy, has been introduced in the House.

Why are we talking about public transit and, in particular, public transit on the Champlain Bridge? In short, it is because of the competition, the economy and the economic spinoffs that are generated by public transit.

What are the economic spinoffs for the greater Montreal area? Public transit provides 13,000 jobs on the island of Montreal and injects a billion dollars into that economy. The federal and provincial governments collect $300 million a year from public transit alone. In addition, 50% of parts for the manufacturing of personal cars are imported, compared to 10% of parts for public transit vehicles. This means that 90% of the parts used in public transit vehicles are produced here in Canada, which represents major economic spinoffs.

There are other, non-economic spinoffs as well. Promoting a transit system reduces the cost of public transit. The cost per unit for one personal automobile is two to three times higher than for public transit. That is a saving of roughly $570 million a year. Transit provides stimulus to family homes because it enhances consumer power and gets people around to major centres more easily and more efficiently.

There are many economic spinoffs related to public transit. We want to plan well in order for public transit to use the bridge and boost the economy in the greater Montreal area. We believe that, with a strategy in place, we can generate healthy economic spinoffs.

[Highway Safety, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government should stop backing away from its responsibilities. The fact is that the licence to use the tunnel is given by Transport Canada. Do Montrealers not deserve to know if this tunnel is safe? In New York, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested to make tunnels safer. Is the government waiting for a fire or disaster before taking action?

Will the government take up its responsibility to protect public safety and act on this issue?

[Highway Safety, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Montrealers are worried about the Mount Royal Tunnel. There are no emergency exits, and two reports indicate that the tunnel does not meet fire safety standards and that it is impossible to make old tunnels compliant with current standards. Yet the commuter train travels through this tunnel every day.

Does the government consider the Mount Royal Tunnel to be safe?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board's testimony left us with more questions than answers. As if by magic, of the 242 projects proposed, only 33 remained. Who in the government assessed the relevance of these projects? Why did no department document the process?

Canadians have a right to know, and this government has a duty to be transparent. When will we finally get the truth?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, not only was the President of the Treasury Board asked to hand over the FedNor evaluation done by Tom Dodds, but he was also asked to give Parliament the project applications that went directly through his constituency office, to which the President of the Treasury Board responded, “Sure.”

The person who controls our country's spending must keep his promises. When will we see these documents?

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay talked a lot about nation-building and now we are facing nation division.

He also mentioned two founding nations. As he well knows, the first nations were also involved with those two founding nations.

Unlike the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who cited George Brown, I would like to mention George-Étienne Cartier, who was the hon. minister of defence in Macdonald's government. Cartier's position is debatable among historians but, according to historian, Claude Bélanger, in accepting the compromise of 1867, several guarantees were sought and obtained by the provinces that feared they would be overpowered by other provinces. Quebec received a fixed number of seats and would serve as the basis of calculations for seats in other provinces so that as the country grew the historical weight would be maintained.

Could my hon. colleague speak to that again for the House?