House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 36% of the vote.
Rail Transportation January 31st, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the member will know, with respect to the Newcastle subdivision, that this was a business decision made by a private company. There is a regulatory process in place, which the company is following. While the discontinuance process is under way, CN is responsible for maintaining its track infrastructure. As previously indicated, the federal government has no interest in acquiring this rail line through the discontinuance process.
Rail Transportation January 31st, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there is a regulatory process for the discontinuance of railways, and that process is being followed.
Quebec Bridge January 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the bridge was among lands transferred by the government to CN in the early 1990s. CN is the owner of the bridge, and this means CN is responsible for the operation, maintenance and safety of the bridge. The federal government provided $6 million to support CN in fulfilling its commitment to complete a major restoration of the bridge. CN has confirmed that the bridge is safe and continues to carry out regular annual maintenance.
The government has initiated court proceedings to protect taxpayers and ensure that CN, as the owner of the bridge, fulfills its obligations to complete the restoration of the bridge and ensure its long-term viability. Again, in August 2013, Transport Canada inspected the rail section of the bridge that falls under jurisdiction and did not identify any problems with the rail section of the bridge. The road section is under provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec Bridge January 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I hope to bring some clarity on this issue.
Our government recognizes that the Quebec Bridge is a vital crossing for automobiles, freight trains and VIA Rail. The Quebec Bridge is a key enabler of the local and national economy, and a vital link in the social fabric of the community. As the longest cantilever bridge in the world with an impressive span across the St. Lawrence River, the Quebec Bridge is a prominent landmark in the community. Indeed, our government recognizes the importance of the bridge within the community as a national historic site of Canada, and therefore recognizes the importance of completing the restoration of the bridge and ensuring its long-term viability.
I would like to underscore our government's significant investment since 2006 in public infrastructure. Under the $33-billion building Canada plan, our government has supported over 12,000 infrastructure projects across Canada. As part of economic action plan 2009, our government contributed funds to another 30,000 infrastructure projects, and as announced in economic action plan 2013, beginning in 2014-15 the new building Canada plan provides $53 billion in new and existing funding for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure over 10 years.
Our government has also identified two priority bridge investments that underline our long-term commitment to infrastructure investment: the replacement of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, and the new Detroit River international crossing between Windsor and Detroit. Clearly, our government recognizes the key role that transportation infrastructure plays in supporting Canada's economic growth and prosperity.
However, and let me be clear on this point, CN is the owner of the Quebec Bridge. As such, CN is responsible for the operation, maintenance and safety of the bridge. In 1993, the federal government and CN entered into an agreement for the transfer of all Canadian government railway lands, including the Quebec Bridge, to CN for $1. In exchange, CN committed to a restoration of the bridge and ensuring the long-term viability of that bridge.
Two years after completing the transfer of the bridge to CN, the federal government and the province of Quebec signed a tripartite agreement with CN to fund a $60-million restoration program over a 10-year period. The Government of Canada committed $6 million.
Despite expending the entire budget for the restoration program in 2005, CN had not painted approximately 60% of the bridge surface. To protect taxpayers and support the good condition of the bridge, the government launched court proceedings in 2007 that seek to compel CN to fulfill its obligation to completely restore the bridge and ensure its long-term viability. The trial is scheduled for May 2014.
Let me conclude by reiterating that, as owner of the bridge, CN is responsible for the bridge's operation, maintenance and safety. CN has confirmed that the bridge is safe, and the railway undertakes regular annual maintenance. In August of 2013, Transport Canada inspected the rail section of the bridge that falls under federal jurisdiction and did not identify any problems with the rail section of the bridge. The road section of the bridge is under provincial jurisdiction.
Air Transportation January 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, Canadian families work hard to make ends meet, and every dollar counts. When Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured of a voice, a choice and fair treatment.
We have already taken action to protect airline passengers, most recently by enacting all-inclusive advertising laws so that consumers can clearly see the real cost of an airline ticket without the hidden fees. We continue to monitor the situation and will take whatever measures are required to ensure consumers are treated fairly.
While we are working hard for Canadian consumers, the NDP's $20 billion job-killing carbon tax would ruin the airline industry.
While we are working hard for Canadian consumers, the NDP wants to impose a $20 billion carbon tax that would destroy the airline industry.
Air Transportation January 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, air transport is essential to the lives of many Canadians. This government is keenly attentive to the situations that Canadians face when they travel by air.
Canada has a system in place to protect air passengers under the Canada Transportation Act, and this government has undertaken a number of actions to both improve and reinforce it. Our main objective is to provide consumer protection to passengers without unduly increasing costs for users or carriers.
All carriers operating in Canada must have terms and conditions of carriage that they respect and make easily available to passengers. The air transport regulations outline the issues that must be addressed in these terms and conditions, including cancelled and late flights, lost and damaged baggage, and denied boarding due to overbooking. The Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to assess passengers' complaints by considering whether carriers have acted in accordance with their terms and conditions of carriage as well as whether these terms and conditions are reasonable.
A number of recent agency decisions have resulted in improved passenger protection. For example, in June 2012, the agency issued five different decisions in favour of passengers that addressed the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of carriage for Air Transat, WestJet, and Air Canada regarding the overbooking, cancellation, delay, and rerouting of flights. Other decisions in June and August of this year further reinforced carriers' obligations with regard to denied boarding due to overbooking.
In addition, in December 2012, our government brought into force new measures to ensure that airfare advertising reveals the full price of an air ticket, inclusive of taxes and charges for flights within or originating in Canada.
Canadian families work hard to make ends meet, and every dollar counts. When Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured of a voice, a choice, and fair treatment. While our government provides that voice, the NDP wants to implement a $20-billion job-killing carbon tax, which would ruin the airline industry. The NDP's $20-billion carbon tax would raise the price of airline tickets and would be an additional burden on hard-working Canadians.
In conclusion, our government closely follows air traveller consumer protection issues, and we will take whatever measures are required to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. We will continue to monitor this situation closely. However, we will not undertake initiatives such as those put forward by the NDP, which would result in higher costs for travellers.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention and want to move to the issue of postal banking and ask a number of questions on that today to find out whether the member supports postal banking without having the facts, or whether he has the facts and that is why he supports postal banking.
My question is very simple. What would it cost Canada Post to capitalize a postal bank? What would it cost Canada Post to operate all those postal branches as banks? How does he expect Canada Post to be able to pay for that initiative?
We will find out whether he has the facts about postal banking or whether it is ideology.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberals in 1981 who established Canada Post as an independent arm's-length crown corporation and in law gave it a mandate to be financially self-sustaining. The Liberals doubled the price of stamps when they did it, too, but that is a different issue. The Liberals gave Canada Post the mandate to be financially self-sustaining. It is an obligation.
With letter mail declining by a billion pieces between 2006 and 2012, not unlike what is happening in other countries in the world, and revenues plummeting as a result, and Canada Post having to be financially self-sustaining, will the member opposite, like her colleague who is heckling right now, stick her head in the sand and suggest that there is no financial problem when Canada Post is losing $60 million a month right now? Will she admit that Canada Post has taken action to ensure that there are no financial problems down the road and that it will get back on track to being financially self-sustainable?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate today one would think that the problems with postal service in Canada were somehow Canadian only, but in fact, they are happening all over the world.
From a report in the U.K., declining letter volumes have accelerated since 2008, declining by 20% by 2015, at a rate of 3% a year. Losses are increasing for the Royal Mail, and its pension deficit is worsening. The U.K. government responded by privatizing its postal service.
If we look at the independent GAO report in the United States, there is a decline of 27 billion pieces of letter mail, and plummeting revenues with it. There is $90 billion in unfunded pension liability, and it is growing, barring substantial restructuring. They proposed draconian things, like cutting the workforce in half in the United States.
Canada Post has a five-point plan. Canada Post is having similar problems, with one billion fewer pieces of letter mail in 2012 versus 2006. There is no solution, by the way, or no thought about a solution, from the other side; just much more talk and less action, which leads to a growing problem for Canada Post.
I want to point to something the member said. He talked about mail as an essential service, and I presume in the context of door-to-door delivery. He believes the same.
Does he then advocate that door-to-door delivery should be extended to the two thirds of Canadian addresses that do not currently have door-to-door? If so, how would he propose Canada Post, in its current financial situation, pay to expand that service?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have returned to the question of New Zealand. The New Zealand post office created the Kiwibank and capitalized it out of postal revenues to the tune of about $360 million. This is a country, by the way, of about four million people. Kiwibank has been very profitable—the member is correct—but it is cannibalizing postal services, actually. The capitalization of Kiwibank has cannibalized the postal delivery service.
The member can google this right now if he wants to, but New Zealand is cutting back delivery to three times a week, closing dozens of postal offices and slashing 1,000 postal jobs. I thought that postal banking, as New Zealand was saying it, was supposed to save those jobs. It is not helping postal delivery services. It is helping a postal bank, by the way.
Will the member be able to tell us how much creating a postal bank would cost in Canada? How much would it take to capitalize it; how much would it take to run post offices as branch banks; and how would Canada Post be able to afford that in its current fiscal situation?