Merv Tweed

[Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few comments on the record. I have listened to a lot of the debate and although there have been varying aspects of the debate we are starting to get into the discussion of what we are actually trying to do.

I want to put on the record that I support the bill. The international bridges and tunnels act has been long overdue and is necessary. Having listened to the debate, I know that most of the focus so far has been on the 24 international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. I certainly recognize their importance for all the reasons that have been presented today but I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the international rail bridges and tunnels. Although they are fewer in number, they are an important part of our national transportation system, particularly with respect to the movement of freight. Bill C-3 applies equally to those international bridges and tunnels.

Railways have been described as the backbone of Canada's transportation system and we all know that rail is certainly one of the oldest modes of transport. Some railway companies date back to before Confederation. I have almost finished reading “The Last Spike”, which tells the history of the railway that was built into western Canada. To read about the trials and tribulations that people went through to construct that national tie has enlightened me a lot in some of the difficulties that they went through but also the objective and goal that they were trying to obtain.

It is interesting that this past February the Canadian Pacific Railway celebrated its 125th birthday. An even older birthday was celebrated this year, the 170th birthday of the Champlain and Saint Lawrence Railroad, Canada's first railway. It was established in 1836 and ran from La Prairie to Saint Jean in Quebec. The rail lines have been an important part of the Canadian economy but also our Canadian heritage.

The importance of rail to the movement of goods and people today cannot be underestimated. There are a few things that I did not know. In 2003, 59 million passengers travelled by train using the country's commuter and tourist excursion lines and cross country service provided by VIA Rail. That is a huge number of people and is something that we should always be cognizant of when we talk about safety in infrastructure that transports that number of people.

In terms of moving goods, over 270 million tonnes of freight is shipped annually using the Canadian railways. It is still the cheapest method of shipping containers and bulk commodities over long distances. Many would argue that we have moved away reluctantly from the use of the railways, which used to be the lifeline of many of our communities, particularly in rural and western Canada, to a highway system. As the member so rightly commented, it has created a huge expense and burden on governments. How do we afford to move from one to the other and pay for both? Are there better ways to utilize the dollars we have?

There are two main national carriers, as we all know, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways. The CN Railway's network extends from Halifax to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, through the United States to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. CPR's network runs from Montreal to Vancouver and to Chicago and New York. These important links to the United States are assured by the ownership of and affiliations with several U.S. railways.

CNR and CPR account for about 90% of the industry's activity in revenues. It highlights how much volume there is and how important these two lines are to us. The other 10% is made up by several provincial carriers and short line railways that complete the network. Manitoba is very proud to have one of those short line networks that is establishing the rail lines that are currently being taken out of service by the majors. I am very proud to say that one of them is in my community of Brandon—Souris. I know it is doing an excellent job of providing the service.

A significant portion of CN and CPRs' business is trans-border traffic and traffic within the United States. This, along with increased trade with Asia, has led to a healthy bottom line. Both CN and CPR are able to compete with the U.S. railways and offer some of the lowest rail freight rates in the world.

The contribution of rail and rail bridges and tunnels to Canada's national transportation system by ensuring the movement of many millions of people and millions of tonnes of freight per year means that international rail bridges and tunnels are deserving of the same protection and the same federal government oversight as the international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. We need to acknowledge and confirm that these are important aspects of this bill. We must include them and encompass what they are doing for Canadians and for the rest of North America when we are talking about this particular issue.

Over the past four decades the trend has been toward deregulating the rail industry. We know that this industry is still regulated, particularly in terms of rail safety, and that is one of the emphasis the bill tries to address.

Any regulation made under Bill C-3 in the area of bridge or tunnel safety and security would only complement those that already exist. What we are trying to do is to take what we currently have and move it into the modern era, take it to today's position where we understand the concerns and the issues that people bring forward. The bill moves directly to address this.

Just as in the case of international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicles, there currently exists no formal process for approving the construction of new international rail bridges or tunnels. Bill C-3 addresses this and would fill this gap. The construction of new international rail bridges and tunnels would also have to be approved by the government.

The fact that the bill includes international rail bridges and tunnels just goes to show how valuable they are to the Canadian transportation system. They clearly fall within the scope of this bill, the intent of which is to ensure the efficient movement of goods and people over these critical structures, and the safety of the same. Just like the international vehicle bridges and tunnels, they are important to international trade and tourism and they are a source of jobs for Canadians in the transportation industry.

I will be supporting the bill. I congratulate the government for moving ahead with this legislation in a timely fashion.

[Keystone Centre, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the grand opening of the Agricultural Centre of Excellence, the newest addition to our Keystone Centre complex in Brandon and western Manitoba. The Keystone now boasts a world class facility, including 540,000 square feet under one roof. The latest addition to the Agricultural Centre of Excellence and related upgrades makes the Keystone Centre a prominent economic generator for the western Manitoba region.

Home to the Brandon Wheat Kings, several other hockey and curling leagues, groups and organizations, the upgraded facility can accommodate up to 800 animals as well as being host to many special regional and national agricultural events. The Keystone Centre will host several significant events over the next year.

This June marks the 125th anniversary of the Annual Manitoba Summer Fair. As well, the 30th Annual Manitoba Ag Days and the 100th Annual Royal Manitoba Winter Fair are in the planning stages for 2007.

I invite all Canadians to put Brandon and western Manitoba on their holiday schedule this year.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on January 23, Canadians turned over a new leaf. No longer did they want a government that made promises and then sat back and did nothing.

In 1993 the Liberal Party campaigned to scrap the GST. After much time, much talk and even recommendations from the member for Malpeque to lower the GST by at least one point, the Liberal Party did nothing.

Thirty-two per cent of Canadians do not pay income tax and would not save a dime from the Liberal income tax plan. A Conservative government has promised a tax cut that will benefit every Canadian. Every member of our family will see the benefit of the reduction of the GST from 7% to 6% and eventually to 5%. We will leave more money in Canadians' pockets every day.

What a novel idea, a government that says what it will do in a campaign and then actually delivers. Reducing the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% is something Canadians can take to the bank.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think it will benefit families. I see families in my communities who have no choice but to pay their tax dollars and get no benefit from the child care system that the previous government was proposing.

What we have to consider is that we are not only offering the $1,200 for every child under six to families, but we are saying that we will create more child care spaces. The past government for 13 years talked about child care and child care development but delivered nothing. It signed agreements with provinces and it always had a 12 month opt-out clause. All we have done is implement the policy it set in place.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. In the past several years many opposition parties, in fact all opposition parties have criticized the previous government for the way it handled the EI premiums and the EI fund. We have to look at opportunities. It is a huge amount of money. It is a large amount of money that I certainly do not want to see rolled into government general revenues. It should be specific to the issues that are concerning people.

I would suggest to my hon. friend that it is not just Quebec that is suffering from these situations. It is a Canada-wide situation. In a lot of cases it is somewhat regional, but I think we will see this government move on those types of issues in the future.

In the throne speech we directed our comments specifically to the five commitments that we made. It was our opportunity to show Canadians that we are committed to doing what we said we would do in the election campaign. Obviously there are other issues that the government will deal with as we go through this process. I would ask the member to offer his comments and suggestions to improve the system for the people in his community. I am sure he will find a very open mind on this side.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

Before I proceed with my comments on the throne speech, I would like to offer my thanks to the constituents of Brandon—Souris. I have had the pleasure of representing that constituency. This is my second election and I am very grateful and honoured by the confidence that they have shown me by allowing me to be their representative. I would also very briefly like to acknowledge and thank my family, and my wife, Bev, who is a working person as I am. She was unable to attend my first speech and unfortunately could not be here today, but has been with me all week and saw some of the highlights of Ottawa and Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate you on your new appointment. I am very pleased to see that. I know that you will be a very strong representative. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister for their comments last night.

Last night was the first time since I have served in this Parliament that I actually, at the end of the day, believed that we got straightforward honest answers from government and that it understood the issues and concerns that the agricultural community is going through and responded with direct responses. I think that is such a refreshing attitude for a new government and I hope that it continues throughout.

In the communities of Brandon—Souris, 85% of our revenue is generated through agriculture and agri-food related businesses. My communities and I recognize how very important a successful, thriving agricultural industry is and I look forward to working with the minister on a continued basis offering advice as asked, and sometimes when not asked, to ensure that our positions are represented when governments make decisions.

On January 23 Canadians turned a new leaf. They made a new decision that they would like to take the country in a different direction. I feel very fortunate that I am a part of that. It was a turn of a new leaf for change, a change from the way government has acted and performed in the last several years, and the attitude and the disdain with which it treated the Canadian population, particularly in the last few years.

Canadians have asked us to provide change. They have asked us to clean up government. For many years I would have said that as honourable people we would not need this type of an act. Unfortunately, it has come to that point in our history and I am very proud to be a part of the accountability act that we are going to present to Canadians. It will change the way we do business in Ottawa but also reinforce and regain the confidence of Canadians who for some time have been quite skeptical and cynical of Parliament and the members who represent them.

I am pleased that we are going to move on our promises made during the election campaign. One of the very first things will be the accountability act, but the reduction of the GST from 7% to 6% will be announced in the upcoming budget and eventually it will go to 5%.

As I travelled throughout my constituency, and I know many of my colleagues have made the same comment, many of the criticisms came from the fact that it is not going to benefit certain groups or individuals in our community. I say to them, that is simply not true.

The reduction of GST by 1% and eventually 2% will impact every individual in my community and every Canadian in the country. Whether one is paying for a gas bill, hydro bill, telephone bill, transportation costs, legal services, and even when our children go out to make a purchase, they will have less to pay. A lot of people use the phrase that we are going to put more money in the hands of Canadians. In my position, the way I look at, we are going to leave the money in their pockets and let them choose how they choose to spend it and do with it as they will.

Be assured that when Canadians tally up their year end or month end expenses, that reduction will be significant over a period of time. Whether they are homeowners, whether they are buying a new vehicle or even buying a newspaper, over time people are going to see the benefits of that reduction. And Canadians are going to see a bigger benefit when it is reduced to 5%. Every Canadian will benefit from this reduction.

We talked about ensuring safe communities. How can anyone argue about ensuring the safety of our communities? During the election campaign, a lot of the debate in my communities was that we have to provide rehabilitation services, that we have to provide a form of transition for criminals to work their way back into our communities to become a productive part of our communities, but at the end of the day, my communities want to feel safe. They want to know that the perpetrators of crimes are going to serve the time that they have been sentenced to. They want to know that those criminals are not going to get out on an easy street pass to go back into our communities and commit the same types of crimes that they had been charged and prosecuted for.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that we are working on behalf of the criminals to get them back into the community. We forget the other half of the equation that so many Canadians are worried about, which is, what we are doing to protect the law-abiding citizens of our community.

It is very important to stress that these sentences must be served to their completion. There cannot be an easy way out. If that means serving the full time, then that is what I want to see. I want to guarantee the safety of my law-abiding constituents. I will deal with the criminal element at the end of their term and hopefully bring them back into our communities in a safe environment, but first and foremost, I want to protect the people who live in my communities in a safe environment.

We have had many discussions about child care. The communities that I represent, and I suspect many of the communities that other members represent, are rural communities. We have no access to institutionalized day care. We have no access or the wherewithal to provide these types of services. Many of the working families in the communities I represent work shift work or work part time. Husbands go one way while their wives go the other way. It is just not possible to provide a cookie cutter system of services for those people. They have said to me time and time again that they continue to be asked to contribute their tax dollars to provide these services, but at the end of the day, they do not get any return on their investment.

By offering the dollar benefit to families with children under six years of age, it provides them with a real choice. It provides them with an opportunity to choose where they receive their child care services from.

If we look at the studies that many people often refer to, moms and dads, when asked who they wanted to care for their children, their first choice was the mother or the father. Their second choice was the children's grandparents. Institutionalized day care was fifth on that list.

I think we have actually addressed many of the concerns that people expressed in the campaign and before that. We cannot have a national system that provides services for 20% of the population. That would not be a national system. I suggest that the previous administration's proposal to do that would be just as catastrophic as the health care system that we currently have, where access to care and timely service has been completely forgotten in trying to be all things to all people.

In the campaign we were told many times by the past government, the Liberals in opposition now, that the Conservative Party has come up with simple solutions to solve complex problems. For 13 years the Liberal government ignored the simple solutions and that is why the problems have become so complex. If we want to decrease wait times, put in a wait time guarantee. If we want to increase economic activity, decrease consumption taxes. If we want safe streets, provide resources for the police officers and make sure criminals serve their full time. It may be simple, but it is common sense and I agree with it.

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about one concern that has been expressed to me by some of my constituents. Right now if one wants to have one's name removed from the phone book, a monthly fee is charged. Some people out of necessity must have their names out of the phone book and quite often cannot afford to make that monthly payment.

I am wondering if the member could the advise the House about this. The member talks about a third party to administer the program. What if people choose to have their names removed or put on the do not call list? Is he suggesting that those people who want their names on that do not call list will be subject to a charge?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again it becomes obvious that the minister graduated from the Liberal school of entitlement.

This year the minister spent more Canadian taxpayer money on entertainment expenses than it takes to feed a family for a whole year. Sadly, he thinks he is entitled to this. Excessive spending on meals, trips and questionable expenses plague his department and he continues to wallow at the trough.

Does the minister believe he is entitled to force hard-working taxpayers to fund his excessive, frivolous and unnecessary spending?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General released a report that stated that the Liberal government was underfunding the RCMP. In Manitoba alone the government has cut 25 officers from the highway patrol unit.

Last Friday a local business woman from my constituency of Brandon--Souris had to call three RCMP detachments and wait five hours before an officer showed up, following a robbery at her rural grocery store. She stated that she felt very frustrated as they helplessly were forced to watch thieves take off with their goods.

In light of the Auditor General's report, the increasing street crime in Canada's cities and the lack of police manpower in rural communities, I call on the government to admit its Liberal soft on crime approach has failed Canadians and to state that a new Conservative government will end the useless long gun registry and give more support to our front line officers.

[Justice, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that those who commit serious sexual assault could get house arrest under exceptional circumstances. For Canadians, house arrest for sexual assault under any circumstances is just unacceptable.

Can the minister explain how he defines exceptional circumstances, or is that just code for more soft on crime Liberal justice?