Joe Volpe

[Rail Transportation, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to railway safety, the Minister of Transport seems to be asleep at the switch. Train derailments have become commonplace, some with disastrous environmental consequences, all under his watch.

Today the transport committee had scheduled an examination of the problem with expert witnesses, but the minister appears to have caused the chair of the committee to pull the item off the agenda.

What is the minister afraid we will find out and how many more personal injuries and environmental disasters is he willing to tolerate before he acts on rail safety?

[Transportation, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps he might want to take a look at what the facts are. He has been absolutely disinterested in security and safety.

CATSA, for example, has collected $250 million more than it spends on security and the minister is silent.

On rail safety, he leaves the private sector to resolve the problems.

For two straight weeks the Senate committee has highlighted breaches in safety and security in our ports and still the minister says nothing.

In fact, nothing is what is available in the budget for transportation.

Does the minister have a plan or is he waiting for the Prime Minister to appoint somebody with influence around the cabinet table in his place?

[Transportation, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, according to parliamentary inquiries and numerous media reports, safety at our ports and airports is still a major concern. For the second week in a row, a Senate committee has found that Transport Canada is unable to do the bare minimum with respect to this matter, and is thereby endangering public safety.

How, then, can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities keep saying that everything is fine? Why is he still endangering public safety?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right on. As an accountant, he understands who is going to profit by some of the tax measures, some of which are just simply rhetorical. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors as my colleague says from Vancouver, and she is absolutely right. It is mostly smoke but there are some mirrors. Some of the things the government has announced, re-announced, repackaged and re-announced again.

The fact of the matter is that people can say they have been given a $2,000 tax credit, but if they are not earning the money that is required to turn that into revenue, it is not real money. It is a boondoggle yet again. It is an opportunity for the minister to say that the government is taking care of everybody, but there is actually no money flowing.

If the government is not going to give seniors an opportunity for income splitting that actually produces a real result, then it is nothing more than empty rhetoric, which is exactly what the government is doing.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to expand on that, of course. We look for transparency and honesty in the books, and we do not get them. It struck me that when the Liberal government replaced the Conservative government there was a mantra that developed around the country that Conservative economics were about as phony as a $3 bill along with their NDP allies. Because of that alliance we are again heading in this direction.

My hon. colleague from Mississauga South is absolutely right. Over the course of that 13 year period when the Liberals were in government, there was an increase in the number of jobs being created. There was a total of about 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs being created every single year, so much so that there was a labour shortage all across the country.

That came as a result of real hard facts, very good economic management and fiscal management of the books. We would not have seen this kind of nonsense in Liberal books, but it is back again in the Conservative books.

I am going to suggest to all members opposite that they take a real close look at the vision of the country they are putting forward. One thing that emerges is that the Conservative government wants to wash its hands of all nation building instruments and the financial resources that are associated with those nation building instruments that make this country whole, together and tight. It has decided it wants nothing to do with government, and will let the provinces and the marketplace handle itself on its own. If people are looking for government, they should change the present one.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Read the book. Read the book.

I am looking at this and I am saying that maybe all these other people who have critiqued the budget are also like so many of us: unable to see a vision for this country from that government. It is not there.

We do not know how the government is going to improve the lot of Canadians with that additional $4 billion it is going to raise and the additional $10.6 billion it is going to spend. The Conservatives are going to put us in debt. How are they going to make the country better? Is it on infrastructure?

Take a look at infrastructure. Here we have train derailment after derailment and the Minister of Transport cannot convince the Minister of Finance to put in money for rail safety. He cannot convince the Minister of Finance to put money in the budget for air safety.

We had a witness before the transport committee. I see the chairman here with me; he is a good man. The chairman of that committee heard Judge Moshansky say that the bill would diminish air safety everywhere in the country unless the government puts money into an inspectorate. Where is the money? It is not in this budget.

We have a Minister of Finance who cannot give a hoot about air safety and rail safety, and we have a Minister of Transport who does not have the courage or the influence to get his cabinet colleagues to put money in this budget to make this a better and safer place for Canadians everywhere.

So, what are we doing when we are talking about asking the Canadian public and this party to support a budget that shows no vision, is absolutely down the road away from truth and honesty, and is leading the country back to the dismal position that it had before the Liberals came into government?

The Conservatives are going back down a road of deficits and increasing debt. This thing has to be put away.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the facts as they are then and I will stay away from that unparliamentary language. I apologize if I have offended all of those who normally talk about only the proper language to be used.

When the minister took credit for a $22 billion in debt paydown, he was actually referring to $13.2 billion paid down by the former Liberal government in 2005-06. That is what the book says. But he says, no, they paid that down. I do not know how that happens. That is not what the book says.

The book also says that they paid down $9.2 billion last year and they are going to pay down $3 billion this year, but they are going to be $6.6 billion further in debt. This is voodoo economics.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I feel aggrieved. I was going to say he was being dishonest and he lied, and I chose the right parliamentary term, but now I have to withdraw that too.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the children opposite will understand that the facts speak for themselves, especially when the Minister of Finance asked us to look at this.

He is going to spend $6.6 billion more than he is actually going to raise, but he is going to reduce the debt by $3 billion. Oh my gosh, this is mathematics 101. We cannot spend more than we earn unless, of course, we borrow, but if we borrow, we run into deficit.

This is all repackaging. There is nothing really new here. There is absolutely nothing new. One would be forgiven if there were a moment of suspicion that somebody was trying to mislead the Canadian public, maybe even the House, on what this package is all about.

Here is the real book. Look at how thick it is. It is all about how those people in government are going to spend an additional $4.4 billion that they are going to raise next year. Imagine. Let us be serious. We are talking about $4.4 billion. We have heard figures thrown out here during question period today and yesterday, and over the course of debates about $30 billion in additional moneys being invested in infrastructure, about $33 billion being invested in this and that, and about billions of dollars being thrown here and there and everywhere. The book does not lie. The book says the government only has $4 billion more than it had last year.

Do members know what else the book says? I see my colleagues nodding. The book also says that the Minister of Finance misled the House when he told the House that there was a $22 billion debt paydown. Do members know why he was misleading? Misleading is an appropriate term. In 2005-06 the--

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be part of the debate, especially after the interventions of two members on the government side a moment ago who wondered about finances and how programs are funded.

I know they share the views of all members in this place, that if there is a vision that drives the party in government, it will be expressed in the budget document. The budget document will itemize exactly what the government will do. It will give an indication of how moneys will be raised and where the moneys will be spent and who will benefit and profit.

So here it is. I am going to have a look. The Minister of Finance said, “Read the book. It is all in the book”, so let us see what is in the book.

According to the book there are going to be projected for this coming fiscal year an additional $4.4 billion in revenues. It gets better. It means that the government vision for the country is going to be predicated on that $4.4 billion. The rest does not matter because it was already there. It is money that was in the last budget. It is money that has already been raised. It is money that has already been packaged. It is money that has already been put out to Canadians as part and parcel of their experience and their commitment to government and to the growth of this country. They have increased their revenues by $4.4 billion.

It gets better. A Conservative government purports to be responsible, accountable and transparent. What is it going to do? I know you will love this statement, Mr. Speaker, and it is right here in the book. It talks about the program expenses of the government opposite, that one right over there, the one that talks about the best interests of Canadians everywhere, that one whose accountability and accounting processes are limpid, and what is it that the government is going to do? The Conservatives are going to raise an additional $4.4 billion and they are going to spend $10.6 billion. They are going to spend an additional $10.6 billion.

My colleague from Mississauga South who is an accountant will understand this. I know my accountant friend will tell me that leads to deficits and a decline in confidence in the government and the country to proceed along a sane and reasonable economic and fiscal path. It leads to increased borrowing costs everywhere. It leads to a loss of confidence by business in the country. But that is okay.

This is blarney economics on the part of the Minister of Finance who stood in the House today and said that he was a terrific guy and he could only do terrific things, that he could only do, and I think the term he used about five times was historic things. The historic thing is to return to the Conservative practice of spending more than is actually raised.

I know that my colleague from Mississauga South is waiting to see what the vision is in this book. It is in the book. The vision is there. The Minister of Finance said to read it. He is going to reduce the debt; this is from someone who is spending more than he is raising. He is going to reduce the debt by $3 billion. How does one reduce the debt by--