Barry Devolin

[Trent-Severn Waterway, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in the debate this evening. As the Trent-Severn Waterway cuts across the middle of my riding, it is big issue for many people in my riding, both along the waterway and north of that.

I will not go into a description of the waterway as many of my colleagues have already done that very ably in the first hour of debate, as well this evening. The member for Don Valley West talked about some of the characteristics of the waterway, how large it is, how important it is and the importance of some of the heritage. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas has also touched on several of those issues. I did not know that he was originally from Ontario and had actually spent time along the Trent-Severn probably in my riding.

It also appears that if the Liberal Party and the NDP are supporting this motion that it will probably pass. I sincerely hope it does and I hope the government and the minister will proceed with it. I am optimistic in that regard.

I believe it is time to conduct a comprehensive review of the Trent-Severn Waterway. This system really has two parts. The first part is the waterway itself, the part everyone thinks about, which is the recreational canal that stretches from Georgian Bay at Port Severn through central Ontario down to Trenton and into Lake Ontario.

However, the second part of this waterway that is very important is what is referred to as the reservoir lakes. Most of these lakes are in Haliburton county, which is my home. Over the course of the summer, water is drawn down from those lakes to maintain a static or constant level in the waterway.

For those who actually live on the Trent-Severn Waterway itself, their water level does not change at all because the system draws water from Haliburton. As a resident of Haliburton, as a resident on the system and as a former realtor in that area who sold cottages to people, I am very aware of water level issues and how they affect recreational users in Haliburton county.

First, I support the need for this review and I look forward to it taking place. I would like to offer my advice to the minister and the government, if they go ahead with this, on how they ought to conduct or structure this review. I would argue that there are two principles that need to be put forward. The first is that we need to ensure environmental sustainability. There are a wide range of environmental issues that arise when we talk about the Trent-Severn.

I think it is important for people to realize that more than 100 years ago nature in central Ontario was altered when this canal system was created. The reality that exists today is not natural to what was there 200 years ago, but it is the new reality and we need to recognize that the water system of the Trent-Severn exists. It is there and it must continue to be operated and maintained. Abandoning it is not an option even in a theoretical sense. This waterway must stay in operation, must be maintained and we must deal with the environmental issues that arise, some of them as a direct consequence of the fact that the waterway is there.

The second principle that I would like to put forward, and this follows up on the point that the member for Don Valley West made, is that we must also protect heritage values. Some of those heritage values are natural and some are from our aboriginal history. I know there are places along the waterway where there are paintings on the rocks that date back hundreds or thousands of years, and that is very important. There is also heritage in terms of more recent history. In fact, many of the locks themselves are historic sites.

It is quite amazing that something built over 100 years ago still works. This is an operating system. My colleague mentioned the two hydraulic lift locks. The famous one is in Peterborough but the equally impressive and only a slightly smaller one, which most people do not know about, is in Kirkfield. Those are tourist attractions. Not only do tourists and their families visit these attractions, but engineers also visit them and marvel at how a system that just uses the weight of the water to push the hydraulic lift locks up and down works so well.

I would also like to set out three, what I would call, priorities for this study and I encourage the government to consider these carefully. The first would be public safety.

The system has 160 dams on it. Some of these dams do not look very impressive when one stops the car to look at them. They only become impressive when one realizes this. If the lake level has been raised by six feet, eight feet or ten feet and we multiply that by how many acres of water are behind it, we realize if the dam ever let go what the consequences would be downstream.

During the first hour of debate one of the members from the Bloc suggested that the member for Simcoe North, the sponsor, may have a conflict because his family operated a business on the system. I must declare that I may also have a conflict in this regard because live below one of these dams. I have stood in my backyard, looked at the river and have tried to decide that if the Drag Lake dam let go, would I lose my whole backyard. I think the house would be safe because it is on the side of a hill.

I believe public safety is the first priority. I believe each of those dams should be inspected for structural integrity.

I have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with these dams. The staff do an excellent job. They visually inspect them on a regular basis. I also know there is modern technology akin to an X-ray that can look at these dams and determine whether they are structurally sound.

Infrastructure failure is never a story until it happens. Unfortunately this past weekend we had a tragic example of that in Montreal. All I can say is if one of these dams ever let go, the consequences would be far greater.

My second priority is to look at the interests of the communities and the property owners along the system. There are many towns and villages. There are literally thousands of property owners. Property in this area has become very expensive. People moving into the area, retiring in the area or buying cottages, when they are paying $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 and $600,000 for waterfront property, want water there. When something happens downstream and they draw the lakes down by six feet or eight feet and all of a sudden the beach disappears and the dock is high and dry, those people are not very happy.

It is really important to the communities and the property owners along the system, in particular those who live on the reservoir lakes and who have to deal with these dramatic changes in water level, that their interests are carefully considered and are put near the top of the priorities.

The third priority is visitors and other users. As has been mentioned, this is a common and popular tourist destination for people in the GTA and southern Ontario, whether they are boat owners and boating on the system or families going up to use public beaches or parks along where these locks exist. Visitors and the way they impact the tourism economy is very important. An example is the town of Bobcaygeon, which is on the Trent-Severn. It is a very popular site for tourists. They go there to eat lunch or shop. Bigley's shoe store there is famous. Every woman in Ontario knows where Bigley's shoe store is because most of them have visited it a time or two.

Last year, when there was an interruption in the operation of the locks, it had an immediate and detrimental impact on a lot of merchants and businesses along the system. How we develop and market this diamond in the rough, as I have heard it referred to, is important. We need to let people know it is there and encourage them to visit.

Other users is a broad category, and I probably do not have time to get into all this tonight. As has been mentioned already, hydroelectric power is something that is generated at many places along the system. There is much evidence that, with improved technology, we could probably generate more power from the same facilities. There is new technology, such as run-of-the-river, that can generate green power. However, it is important for people to realize that if we augment the power generating capacity and that draws more water, we are exacerbating the problems of the property owners have with lack of water in front of their properties.

We need to look at all these users and interests. I am very confident that through this process we can come up with a strategy to move forward to put the Trent-Severn Waterway on a sound footing, to launch it into the next 100 years. I am also confident that we can address all of these issues, come up with a plan that is workable, a work plan and an action plan for the staff at Parks Canada as they go about operating the Trent-Severn.

[Afghanistan, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of many Canadians who has been treated well abroad simply because I am Canadian. In high school I had the opportunity to spend a year in the Netherlands as a rotary exchange student where I enjoyed a never-ending series of warm receptions, especially from older people, as a consequence of Canadian sacrifices made during World War II.

About 10 years ago I had the opportunity to live in South Korea for a year and a half. As in Holland, I often received a positive reaction when I said I was Canadian. Once again, I was standing on the shoulders of Canadian soldiers who travelled halfway around the world to fight for freedom and democracy.

I hope that one day, maybe 20 years from now, my son and daughter will have the opportunity to travel and maybe they will choose to go to Afghanistan. At that time I trust they will be warmly received as I was in Holland and Korea. I expect the Afghan people will say, “We appreciate the fact that Canadians were here to help us in our moment of need. It was never easy and it was not always popular, but Canada and Canadian soldiers and aid workers were here when we needed them most. Thank you”.

[Agriculture, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have been asked many times why I focus so much on farmers and foods. That is a good question and here is my answer.

First, farming is a primary industry. As such, farmers create new wealth that is recycled many times throughout the economy. In other words, every farm that survives and prospers helps to support many other businesses and jobs in our rural communities.

Second, I recognize that it is farmers who produce the food that our families eat. In fact, every meal we have ever eaten originally came from a farm somewhere. After 60 years of plentiful food in Canada, I guess it is easy to forget that simple fact.

Third, Canadian farmers desperately need more advocates right now. It would take 10 minutes just to list all the challenges they face, let alone describe them.

One of the things I have learned in life is that we must focus to be successful. I know that there are many worthy causes in social, economic and foreign policy before Parliament. However, the place where I want to play a leading role is standing up for Canadian farmers and food.

[Auditor General's Report, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today's report by the Auditor General sheds further light on serious abuses of public trust by the previous Liberal government.

First of all, the Auditor General highlights even more wasteful spending for the billion dollar gun registry than was previously known. Second, and this is something that is even more disturbing, the Auditor General also illustrates how the Liberal government kept Parliament, indeed all Canadians, in the dark about some of these costs. That is shameful and unacceptable.

The good news for Canadian taxpayers is that help is on the way. Canada's new Conservative government is committed to making Ottawa more effective and more accountable.

Starting with the federal accountability act, we are taking action to earn back the trust of Canadians. As we mark the 100th day in office for this Conservative government, I am pleased to say that we are well into the job of cleaning up Ottawa.

Never again should Canadians be subjected to a government that wastes their money and then hides that information from them.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one point for the record. There is no national child care program and there never was any national child care program. In 1993 the Liberals ran on a platform that they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 1997 the Liberals ran on a platform that said they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 2000 they ran on a platform that said they would create a national child care program and they did not. In 2004 they ran on a platform that said they would create a national child program and they did not. Those are the facts.

People can debate whether there ought to be one or not, and I am sure my colleagues in the NDP will argue that there ought to be one, but I think they would agree with me that there is not one.

In the last Parliament I sat on the human resources, skills development, social development committee. When the then minister was appointed to that file I thought there probably would be legislation but no legislation was brought forward on a national child care program. After 12 years of promising it, the Liberals never delivered it.

The bottom line is that the last government committed funds to national child care. The minister negotiated a series of one on one deals with the provinces. Some were signed and some were not.

Why does the member perpetuate the misconception that there is or ever has been a national child care program? There never was and, under your government, there was never going to be. Why do you keep putting this idea forward as true when it clearly is not?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with reform of this place. There were comments made about changing the nature of Parliament. It is a topic that I have had a personal and professional interest in for a long time.

There are two concerns I have always had with proportional representation that I would like the member to comment on. First, under our current system, any citizen of Canada has the right to run for this place directly and to represent his or her peers as a member of Parliament. Under a proportional representation system, that would not exist any more. As an individual, one would have to go through a party. A party would actually determine who would be here.

That raises my second point. If it is a list system in a proportional representation legislature, who determines who gets on the list? These two points are connected. As a member of Parliament in my riding, I feel responsible to my constituents for what I do. There are a lot of Saturday mornings when I roll out very early to head off for a full day of events because it is my riding and they are my constituents. I think that people elected in a proportional representation system would be much less likely to do that.

I have two parts of one question. First, how does the member resolve this issue that individuals actually cannot run for Parliament, that it is up to parties to decide who would sit in this place? Second, how would the member convince the voters out there that they would be better served by members of Parliament who are not actually directly connected to them or not directly elected by them, and consequently have no responsibility back to them, but who will be less accessible to them because it is not their own constituency per se?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest as my Liberal colleague talked about the Liberal day care plan. My recollection of history is a little different. I remember that in 1993 the Liberals promised a national child care program. In 1997 the Liberals promised a national child care program. In 2000 they promised a national child care program. In 2004 they promised a national child care program. After the 2004 election, with some fanfare, the member who became social development minister took this on, and many people in Canada thought that this promise, after 11 years and four elections, might actually be kept.

I happened to sit on the committee of human resources, skills development and social development in the last election. We also anticipated that the government would bring forward legislation to create a national child care program. That did not happen.

The reality is that today there is no national child care program in Canada. The previous government did not create a program. The last government made an allocation of $5 billion over five years, roughly $1 billion a year. With great fanfare during the recent campaign, it increased that to $10 billion over 10 years, which still sounds a whole lot like $1 billion a year. It could have said $20 billion over 20 years or $50 billion over 50 years, but it said $10 billion over 10 years, which is essentially the same thing.

There is no national child care program. The previous government never passed a program. What the minister did was negotiate a series of bilateral deals with provinces to give them money.

Why does my hon. colleague perpetuate the myth that in 13 years the Liberal government created a national child care program when it never did? There is none today. How does he answer to people who wanted that, but it was never delivered? How does he sit here today browbeating this government, saying we are going to cancel something that does not exist?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a large number of petitions all regarding fuel tax. The fuel taxes are too high in Canada.

Some of these petitions are in certifiable form and some are not. I would like to present those that are in certifiable form today. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table those petitions that are not in certifiable form.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present several petitions today. The petitioners ask the government to reduce fuel taxes across the country.

I have several petitions here. In fact, I have a larger stack back in my office in uncertifiable form. We are working on those petitions and we will be introducing them soon. I bring these petitions forward on behalf of my constituents.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it may not be a surprise to anyone that I agree entirely with what the whip of my party had to say. He is a wise man and also a lawyer. What am I hearing from my constituents? I am hearing from several people that, yes, they support the bill. I am hearing from other people in the agricultural and sportsmen communities a very cautious willingness to consider it or to live with it, as opposed to really liking it, but always with the condition that a couple of the problem areas be cleaned up through amendment in committee.