CONTENTS
Thursday, February 13, 1997
Motion for concurrence in 54th report 8045
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8045
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8045
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8046
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8069
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8072
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8074
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8081
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8082
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8086
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8086
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8087
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8090
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8090
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 8090
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8091
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8091
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 8091
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8092
Consideration of motion resumed 8092
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8098
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8107
Bill C-353. Motion for second reading 8111
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8111
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 8119
8045
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 13, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to 36 petitions.
* * *
(1010)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 54th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance.
With leave of the House, I move that the 54th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present to this hon. House today. Pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I present a petition from my constituents who
pray and call on Parliament to support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which
will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a second petition with 320
signatures of constituents in my riding.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate
their commitment to education and literacy by eliminating sales tax
on reading materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate books,
magazines and newspapers under GST. They ask Parliament and
provincial governments to zero rate reading materials under the
proposed harmonized sales tax.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present this morning. The first is from Mr. Bob
Pollock of North Vancouver and 35 others. The petitioners mention
that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes and
the Canadian Automobile Association reports that the federal
excise tax on gasoline has already increased by 566 per cent over
the last decade.
Therefore the petitioners request Parliament not to increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Joyce Mulligan of North Vancouver and 57
others.
In this petition these residents of Canada draw the attention of
the House to the fact that 38 per cent of the national highway
system is substandard, that Mexico and the United States are
upgrading their national highway systems and that the national
highway policy study identified job creation, economic
development, national unity, saving lives and avoiding injuries,
lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs and better
international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed national
highway program.
The petitioners call on the federal government to join with
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
8046
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the last
petition is from Margaret Wheeler of North Vancouver and 47
others.
The petitioners point out that approximately 52 per cent of the
cost of a litre of gasoline is in the form of government taxes, that
the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent over the last
decade, and they request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
(1015 )
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table a petition signed by 214 voters from my riding of Bourassa
and from elsewhere in Quebec.
These people are asking Parliament to intervene to ensure that
the provision of the Citizenship Act concerning the automatic
granting of citizenship to any child born in Canada not be dropped.
This petition is in response to the federal government's intention to
amend the existing legislation.
In support of their request, the petitioners maintain that such an
amendment will create stateless children. Canada would then be in
the position of not respecting its international commitments in this
regard. They therefore ask that the legislation be left as is.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The
first one is from approximately 50 petitioners who point out that
phase 2 of the national AIDS strategy will expire in March 1988.
The petitioners urge Parliament to ensure that a dedicated AIDS
funding approach beyond that March 1988 deadline be put in place
and to ensure that a sufficient AIDS strategy be continued by the
government.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is presented by approximately 50
petitioners from east metro and metro Toronto and parts of
southern Ontario.
The petitioners point out the previous and continuing
involvement of the federal government in the area of disabilities
for Canadians. They call upon Parliament to urge the government
to continue to be responsible for disability issues and to ensure that
all Canadians are treated equally.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 91 and 103.
[Text]
Question No. 91-Mr. Milliken:
What were the personnel costs of the Sound and Light Show on Parliament Hill in
1995, and what costs were incurred by federal government departments or agencies,
other than the National Capital Commission, in respect of the said show?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by
the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public
Works and Government Services as follows: The National Capital
Commission, NCC, personnel costs for the 1995 Sound and Light
Show on Parliament Hill were $35,400.
In 1995, total expenditures in the amount of $103,407 were
incurred by Public Works and Governments Services Canada,
PWGSC, in respect to the NCC Sound and Light Show.
This was a one-time contribution, consisting primarily of a
$100,000 payment to the NCC for the purchase by the NCC of a
projector for the Sound and Light Show which was necessary for
the adaptation of the show due to the restoration work being carried
out on the Centre Block south facade.
An additional $3,407 was incurred for the design, supply and
installation of new stainless steel lighting brackets on the north
wall of the Peace Tower. The old brackets which were of ordinary
steel were corroding and damaging the stone.
Personnel costs cannot be identified as this work, the
replacement of lighting brackets, was included in the Peace Tower
project.
PWGSC, as custodian of the Parliament Buildings, is
responsible for assets occupied by tenants and is also responsible
for grounds.
Other departments and agencies have no information on this
subject.
Question No. 103-Mr. Robinson:
With respect to applications for Canada pension plan disability benefits and
considering the time presently required between the submission of an application
and when benefits are received, or the application is definitely rejected, can the
Minister of Human Resources Development indicate: (a) the mean time, (b) the
median time and (c) the maximum time for each quintile of applicants and what
measures are being taken to reduce these delays?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): As part of a major redesign of income
security programs intended to streamline and modernize our
delivery systems, the Canada pension plan, CPP, disability program
was decentralized during 1996. This included the regionalization of
8047
operations and brought decision making for CPP disability
applications and reconsiderations closer to our clients throughout
Canada.
Roll out of the regional functions occurred on a schedule from
November 1995 to June 1996.
As a result, all applications for Canada pension plan disability
benefits, except those for Quebec and Prince Edward Island, are
received and processed in the regions.
From January to the end of December 1996, Canada pension
plan reveived 79,778 applications for disability benefits.
It is a massive undertaking to move files, functions, technology
and some staff from headquarters to 10 regions, and to train local
personnel who will be performing new duties, all this while
continuing to receive and process applications of the magnitude
received by CPP on a daily basis. Delays are inevitable during a
breaking-in period. We are in that period now.
This adjustment period and the loss of some economies of scale
subsequent to decentralization and the underestimation of
resources have resulted in backlogs in some regions in the
adjudication of disability applications.
a) Presently, the average national time to process a disability
application in the region is 59 working days. In some instances
further information is required from medical specialists. These
cases require additional time beyond the national average. The
following reflects the time elapsed from receipt of the application
to the time a decision to grant or deny benefits is made. By region,
it is as follows:
Newfoundland: 41
Nova Scotia: 35
New Brunswick: 60
Ontario: 49
Manitoba/Saskatchewan: 43
Alberta: 68
British Columbia: 117
b, c) A major redesign of the systems supporting the Canada
pension plan disability process is under way. When it is in place in
1998 it is expected that the average processing time for a disability
application will drop to 30 days. This will also give us the means to
gather, manipulate and analyse in a variety of sophisticated ways
data regarding various aspects of our service delivery approaches.
Until then it is not possible to provide the response time in terms
of the median time and the maximum time for each quintile of
applicants.
Plans are under way to redirect as of March 1, 1997 some
regional files to headquarters where the efforts of some 30
adjudication staff will be redirected from the reassessment program
to the processing of regional disability applications. Decreasing the
backlog in British Columbia as well as Ontario where the volumes
are greatest will be the first priority.
All regions are presently implementing an action plan that will
decrease response time to an acceptable level by the end of May
1997. This will include hiring and training additional staff, the use
of overtime and further streamlining of work processes.
A national committee has been established to develop an
improved method of forecasting resources required for the
disability program.
[English]
Mr. Zed: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8047
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for its approach to federal
transportation policies, and in particular, the cancellation of the Pearson Airport deal,
the continued neglect of Canada's national highway system, costly inefficiencies in
the grain transportation system, and the on-going subsidization of VIA Rail at the
expense of taxpayers and private-sector passenger rail and bus operators.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Reform supply day
motion. There are four specific items named in the motion but of
course others may choose to expand beyond them. I will speak on
three of the four items highlighted in the motion, leaving the grain
question to be handled by my colleagues from the agricultural
sector.
I open with a few comments on the Pearson airport contract.
Yesterday Reform exposed some of the myths projected by the
Liberal Party dealing with its finances. It seems unfair that the
finance department alone should be singled out.
Let us take a look at the Pearson airport deal. It is a myth that this
is a payoff for Tory businessmen. The fact is that there are more
known ties to the Liberal Party in the make-up of the Pearson
contract holders.
Another myth is: ``We had to cancel the deal because it was too
rich''. The fact is that secret government documents have revealed
it was a good deal for the government. What is more, the
government is now in court arguing that the contract holders would
not have made any money at all.
8048
The true facts of this scandalous, mishandled political blunder
are as follows. During the election campaign the Liberals stated
that they thought the Pearson deal was bad and that a Liberal
government would investigate and would cancel the contract if it
found wrongdoing.
I have no problem with that. To be honest, I felt the same way. At
this point the public was ready to believe anything about
Mulroney's old party. The problem was that when they got elected
and investigated the contract, the Liberals could not find anything
wrong with it. Further, studies in the possession of the Liberals
clearly indicated that it was a good deal for the government and
thus for the Canadian taxpayer.
(1020)
Without one shred of real evidence the Liberal government
slanderously attacked the Pearson contract holders using no
evidence whatsoever and using only political rhetoric. To protect
themselves the Liberals then introduced the most undemocratic
piece of legislation the House has ever seen, Bill C-28.
What should they have done? After the investigation did not
actually turn up any evidence of wrongdoing and armed with
studies that pointed out the value of the contract of the government,
the Liberals should have stated that the contract was not quite as
bad as they thought it might have been and that they would try to
make some changes that would make it acceptable. I am sure if
they had gone to the contract holders they could have arranged a
few face saving changes to the contract and then pronounced it
okay to proceed with the changes that the Liberal Party had made.
What did members of the public get instead? Right now they
have a legal bill that is over $13 million to date and still growing.
They have a lawsuit with a potential settlement of hundreds of
millions of dollars, a lawsuit that the Liberals had been warned
about in those same secret documents in their position before they
proceeded.
Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport would have been
substantially rebuilt instead of being in the deplorable condition
they are in to this day. They have no plans for the needed rebuilding
of those terminals and they have no money in the bank. It will be
interesting to see how the upcoming budget addresses that
particular problem.
Finally, there were enormous job and tax revenue losses for
metro Toronto. The loss of direct and indirect jobs from the
cancellation of the contract has cost the Toronto area tens of
thousands of jobs and business activity. If there is any honour
among the Liberals they would pay the cost of their politically
motivated mistake from their own party account. We know this will
not happen because that honour is not there.
With regard to the recently released report on the national
highway system renewal, there is nothing in it that deals with a
solution to our deteriorating national highway. There is nothing
there to get excited about. It is again filled with Liberal rhetoric.
I should mention that the press release put out by the chair of the
Standing Committee on Transport has a neat little trick in it. It
says: ``Not only are we excited about this but the official opposition
has signed on and we are all singing together''. Maybe the official
opposition did but the national opposition party certainly did not.
The report is full of Liberal rhetoric and when it comes to real
solutions there are not any there. There are three fundamental
problems. A huge majority of the witnesses who came before the
committee asked for some portion of the federal fuel tax revenues
to be dedicated specifically to dealing with the national highway
system. It should be noted that the government collects about $5
billion a year in highway fuel taxes and spends a mere $200
million.
In a highly manipulated move the chair decided to hold a
one-day invitation only round table discussion which he used to
override the testimony of four months of witnesses. Virtually all
the recommendations in the report arise out of that one-day
meeting instead of the four months of testimony.
The report states that the government should commit long term
stable funding for highway rebuilding but refuses to do this through
a dedicated account because then it would have to live up to that
commitment, which is something it will not likely do.
The second area where the report errs is by suggesting that
shadow tolling is a funding source. Shadow tolling involves the
checking of traffic and making a payment based on the traffic to the
operator of the highway. It is a method used to repay a private
contractor for building or rebuilding a bridge, highway or some
other portion of highway infrastructure, but the payment still has to
be made by the government. Shadow tolling and public-private
partnerships are valid cost saving efficiencies but they are not
funding sources. Unless the government is planning to rebuild our
national highway system by the introduction of massive vehicle
tolls, this section of the report is deliberately misleading.
The final and most important area of the report is relying on the
private sector through public private partnerships to deal with
much of the highway problem.
(1025)
This in itself has much potential but only if there is confidence in
the private sector that the government is honourable in its dealings,
and there is much evidence that this honour does not exist. The
government handling of the Pearson contract was only the smallest
tip of the iceberg.
In 1989 the government went to the private sector and asked it to
take over the money losing VIA Rail Rocky Mountaineer. The
8049
private sector responded. The Rocky Mountaineer was purchased
by a company known as the Great Canadian Railtour Company.
Although it was losing money at the time of its purchase, the
Great Canadian Railtour Company spent millions of dollars
building and advertising the Rocky Mountaineer. Today it is an
overwhelming success story. It has increased its business by 30 per
cent per year on an ongoing and constant basis.
When it was taken over there were 5,000 passengers utilizing
that system. In 1996, 42,000 people travelled on the Rocky
Mountaineer. Also in 1996 they announced their expansion plans
for 1997. They then went to VIA Rail and purchased the coaches
necessary for this expanded service and sent them to Kamloops in
British Columbia to be refurbished and to bring them up to the high
standard Rocky Mountaineer insists on. Three months later VIA
Rail, knowing the expansion plans of the Rocky Mountaineer and
having sold it the cars that Rocky Mountaineer was using for this
expansion, announced that it wanted back in. That is unacceptable.
What is even more unacceptable is that the Minister of Transport
is actually considering allowing it. He is not only considering it but
actually we believe he is at the point of announcing it. This is not
only unacceptable to me but it is unacceptable to a great list of
other people.
I have a copy of a letter that was delivered to the Minister of
Transport from the organization the government is now relying on
to bail it out of the highway system problem it has got itself into.
The letter is from the Canadian Council for Public-Private
Partnerships. It states:
In the case of VIA Rail's Rocky Mountaineer service the government correctly
got out of a money losing activity. If the government wants to re-enter the business
now that an entrepreneurial private sector operator has made it profitable, this will
deter future private sector companies from bidding on future government
privatization opportunities. The example of the government exiting and re-entering a
business will send a bad signal to entrepreneurs who are looking to establish these
types of public-private partnerships.
So much for the government's great plan to rebuild our national
highway system. It first has to get the private sector's trust. Even as
the government says it wants it, it is throwing this in the private
sector's face.
If the minister thinks that allowing VIA to proceed is good for
tourism, why have the Council on Tourism Associations of British
Columbia and the Tourism Alliance of Western and Northern
Canada emphatically stated their opposition to it?
How can the minister think allowing VIA to proceed is good for
B.C. when every passenger VIA takes from the Great Canadian
Railtour Company means another person staying and eating on a
subsidized VIA Rail train instead of staying in B.C. hotels and
eating in B.C. restaurants?
If the minister raises the support of the Canadian Tourism
Commission, is the minister not aware that his crown corporation
has been subsidized to the tune of over $7 billion through VIA that
it gives in terms of CTC dollars every year? Should he not
reconsider that its input is biased? This is especially true if we
consider that the vice-president of the Canadian Tourism
Commission is a former VIA employee who was unsuccessful in
his bid to acquire the Rocky Mountaineer and who ended up in
litigation with the Great Canadian Railtour Company.
The chair of the Canadian Tourism Commission marketing
committee is vice-president of marketing at VIA Rail and was also
involved in the unsuccessful bid for the Rocky Mountaineer.
According to the Liberal government there is no bias I am sure.
(1030 )
What public need is served by allowing a crown corporation that
is subsidized hundreds of millions of dollars to compete against a
private sector taxpaying company that has done everything the
government asked it to do when it sold the route in the first place?
I have a few interesting quotes: ``If the government does not
need to run something, it should not, and in the future it will not''.
That was said by the Liberal Minister of Finance. The mayor of
Kamloops said: ``VIA Rail's plan to increase passenger traffic
would have a devastating impact on the Great Canadian Railtour
Company and the Kamloops economy''.
Here is another dandy. I trust the parliamentary secretary is
taking this one in: ``I cannot emphasize too much that we are not in
the business of putting at risk anyone who has taken on risk in the
private sector trying to help us out in the railway industry''. Who is
that one from? The then Minister of Transport who is now the
defence minister for that same Liberal government.
What did the public have to say through organizations like the
Canadian Taxpayers' Federation? ``Forget the Vancouver-Jasper
decision, Mr. Anderson. Put VIA Rail on the selling block, a 1990s
version of the Last Spike that is long overdue''.
What is even more disturbing to me is the matter of honour with
the Liberal government. In December the chair of the Standing
Committee on Transport announced to me that he wanted to hold a
round table discussion in Ottawa during the recess of Parliament in
January. I told him I was not in favour of this because there was no
possible way I could attend. This is not a break, as it is
euphemistically called, but is in fact a required time to work in our
constituencies.
Mr. Keyes: Not required-optional.
Mr. Gouk: It is an option for Liberals. Only Reformers actually
work in their constituencies.
He said: ``I really want your approval for this and I am willing to
make some kind of a deal with you. What do you want?'' I said:
8050
``What I need is a statement from the committee that it is the wrong
signal from the government to allow VIA Rail to get back into
competition with the company it sold to the private sector and that
it is sending that signal out at a time when you are counting in the
private sector to bail you out''. He agreed to that in writing. He then
proceeded to hold the round table which is being used to override
four months of testimony. Then they reneged on the written
commitment that was made.
There is no honour on that side of the House. There is no honour
in the Liberal Party. There is no reason for the private sector to trust
the government as it now goes around saying: ``Help us, we have
made a mess of the national highway system and now we need you
to bail us out''. The private sector is capable of bailing out the
Liberals, but it had better be awfully careful when it enters into a
deal with the current Government of Canada, the Liberal Party.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just two points for the hon.
member opposite who is a longstanding member of the transport
committee, of which I have had the honour to be a part since my
election in 1988.
The member should know that a committee of the House of
Commons is the master of its own destiny. If the member could
possibly understand, a committee makes its decisions to proceed in
the best way possible in order to glean all the information it can to
make the decisions at the end of the day.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): How can you keep a straight
face?
Mr. Keyes: Unfortunately the hon. member opposite would
sooner spend his time, as he said he did, back in his riding holding
what he called politically oriented meetings, et cetera, rather than
doing the job that his constituents sent him here to Ottawa to do.
We were working very hard on a triple T study, as we call it, a
trade, transportation and tourism study. We heard a bevy of
witnesses on the subject.
(1035 )
To the credit of the chairman of that committee, he pulled
together 22 players, who either came to the committee at one time
or made written interventions to the committee, to sit at one table.
It worked wonderfully. Unfortunately, the hon. member missed it.
Not one member of the Reform Party was present. However, the
government and the official opposition were there.
Twenty-two people were sitting around the table. Instead of the
usual way a committee works, hearing witness after another,
unconnected, and only hearing one side of the story, we had all
these witnesses sitting around the table discussing the idea of
finding new options, exploring new ways of helping to finance a
national highways project. One person would say something and
another person would argue sensibly, quietly and diligently why we
may not be able to do something.
It was the most fruitful meeting I have been at in the nine years I
have been sitting on committees. There was interaction at the table
between the private sector, the public sector and members of
Parliament who represent their constituencies. At the end of the
day, there was a consensus among all the players. Even more
important than pulling in witnesses and trying to come to some
consensus as individual witnesses, it was a table that came together
as a consensus. It was marvellous.
The consensus was to move toward a model. We would take an
example of a structured road somewhere in Canada and apply the
strategic thinking that went on at that committee to the model to
see how to crunch the numbers, to see the options of payment, and
to see where the government and the Canadian taxpayers would be
taking a lower risk on a particular venture. These are the great ideas
that came out of that meeting. Unfortunately, the member opposite
was not at it.
On the subject of the Pearson airport deal, I have to ask myself
about the hon. member of the Reform Party. Let us remind
ourselves that he belongs to a party that prides itself on being the
party of constituent consensus. Let us look at constituent
consensus. What did constituency consensus state? In the Toronto
Star, for example, on December 4, 1993, it stated: ``Prime
Minister's Chrétien's decision to cancel the privatization deal of
Pearson International Airport is a breath of fresh air that cleans the
stench left behind by the shady deal worked out by the Tory
lobbyists for friends of the previous government''.
``Friends of the previous government''. After hearing the
intervention of the Reform Party member opposite, I have to think
that he could not be a friend of the taxpayers. He is a friend of these
lobbyists, of the company run by a guy by the name of Don
Matthews, a gentleman who was a chief Tory fundraiser and past
president of the Conservative Party. He came forward with this
deal. There is not even an option or opportunity for the not for
profit corporation, the GTAA, Greater Toronto Airport Authority,
to get into the bidding process. It was not allowed to bid on the
project and the deal went to Paxport.
At the end of the day Paxport, the company that won the deal, did
not have the resources to follow through with what it wanted to do.
What did it have to do? It had to reach out and pull in someone in
order to meet the deal that it had promised the Conservatives.
Therefore, it reached out to the owners of terminal 3, Claridge.
Mr. Gouk: Liberals.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Liberals, because Claridge wanted to make the
airport work properly. However, I have to ask the hon. member:
8051
Who is he standing up for? Is he standing up for the consortium that
wants $600 million for itself, never having put a shovel in the
ground, or is he standing up for the Canadian taxpayer who says:
``Government, you do what you have to do. You take these people
to court. You make sure that you try to achieve a goal that says we
are not going to give another penny over what is deserving,
somewhere between $30 million and $60 million, not $600 million
as demanded, to pay for things that were not done for the lobbyists
and for the friends of Brian Mulroney?'' Where does the hon.
member stand for the Canadian taxpayer?
(1040 )
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have enough time left to
respond to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Transport.
First, I will deal with the last part of his tirade on the Pearson
airport. He refers to the Toronto Star as his constituency. We know
the Liberals play to the newspapers and we now have proof, right
out of the mouth of the parliamentary secretary.
He keeps talking about the fact that this is a pay-off for the Tory
supporters, but in fact, by his own admission, the principal group
involved at the time of signing is the Claridge group which is made
up of Liberals.
As far as the settlement is concerned, we do not want a specific
settlement, we want the rule of law to apply like anyone else. The
Liberals cannot screw up, which is what they did with the Pearson
cancellation, and then write legislation to protect their own hides.
With respect to the highway study that he mentioned, he is the
person who continually says that the committee is the master of its
own destiny. I believe the chair of the committee is an honourable
person, but he got orders from on high to disregard the
commitments he made to me.
The suggestion was made by the hon. member that I would rather
be in my riding than down here doing my work. There is a
parliamentary schedule. There is a schedule to be here; there is a
schedule to be in the constituency. While he was dithering around
doing who knows what, I was in my riding conferring with my real
constituents, the taxpayers of this country, not the Toronto Star. I
held 18 town hall meetings during the January recess period and the
parliamentary secretary knows that.
He says that they pulled in all these wonderful people. The
principal leader was Moya Greene, who came right out of the
transport department. He made a mistake. I asked for a certain
report and they faxed it to me. In the report which they faxed to me
were handwritten notes made by Moya Greene. They goofed again.
The more the Liberals try to twist the facts, the more trouble they
get into. They heard four months of testimony from witnesses and
on a one day, by invitation only, round table, they brought in their
own special people to manipulate this thing. They overruled four
months of testimony and wrote a report based on one day.
If that is what they intended to do, why did they waste hundreds
of thousands of taxpayers' dollars travelling from one end of the
country to the other? Time, money and effort were expended by all
those witnesses who thought they were getting democracy, when
the Liberals intended to hold a one day meeting and override the
whole thing.
Honour and democracy are alien words to that side of the House.
Instead of buying a new red book they should buy a dictionary.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the remarks
made by the hon. member and the Reform motion before the House
which condemns the government for its approach to federal
transportation policies.
First, I would like to address the concluding remarks of the
member opposite. He said that his constituents are somehow
different than the constituents of the Toronto Star. I have spent
some 16 years in television news-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Keyes: It was not just the Toronto Star but many other
media outlets which displayed the same outrage on behalf of the
people who read their newspapers, who just so happen to live in my
riding and in the riding of the hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke.
The views of the taxpayers are seen on the editorial pages.
Maybe the hon. member does not go beyond the editorials written
by the paper and read the editorials with constituents' names
attached to them. Some of them are outraged. Many have written to
say they did not like the deal, that it was a deal which was hatched
in the dying days of a Conservative administration that was on its
way out because it had the worst eight year record of fraud that was
ever established in Canadian history. On how many occasions did
we watch, as I did, ministers on the Conservative front bench
stepping down because of their improprieties?
(1045 )
The media outlets are there. They are doing their job. In order to
represent the Canadian taxpayer, they are the people who are
watching out. It is quite so these days that this House of Commons
does not have an opposition. The opposition is the news media in
this country and I say thank God for that.
The government's transportation policies, the very policies that
the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke would have this
House condemn, are helping to boost Canada's trade competitive-
8052
ness. They are strengthening tourism. Best of all, they are creating
jobs in Canada. That is because the transport minister and this
government have a clear vision for the future of transportation in
this country.
Over many years governments in Canada invested in, operated,
owned, regulated and controlled our transportation systems. This
led to an overbuilt, oversubsidized, overregulated environment.
Today however a far reaching modernization is under way.
I believe it was the Minister of Finance who first pointed out to
this House in one of his first budgets that the government ought to
get out of the business of running business. That is part of the
modernization process I am speaking to. Our government is
working toward a more efficient, commercially driven, regionally
responsive infrastructure that is less dependent on public subsidies.
We are working toward transportation that a new economy can ride
on.
For proof of that work we need look no further than the first
subject of today's motion, Pearson airport. Our government
transferred control of Pearson airport to the Greater Toronto
Airport Authority last December. That is what the people wanted in
this country. This transfer cleared the way for the GTAA to
redevelop Pearson to its fullest potential and to market the airport
as one of North America's leading international gateways.
The federal government ran Pearson airport for many years and
it ran it well, but the federal government had neither the freedom
nor the mandate to pursue the full commercial potential of the
airport. However the GTAA has done both. It is free to aggressively
market Pearson airport, to pursue new business opportunities, to
use innovative financing for capital works.
The commercial orientation will ensure that Pearson, Canada's
largest and busiest airport, remains responsive to the needs of the
travelling public, shippers, carriers and the surrounding
community. Already the Greater Toronto Airport Authority has
announced a major redevelopment plan for the airport that will see
terminals 1 and 2 eventually replaced by a modern, unified
terminal building. The redevelopment plan represents an
investment of $2 billion in the airport; that is $2 billion, with a b.
That is in addition to the $250 million worth of projects already
under way at Pearson, including the construction of a new
north-south runway and a centralized aircraft de-icing system.
I emphasize that our government transferred control of the whole
Pearson airport, not simply terminals 1 and 2. That will allow the
airport authority to develop and put in place a vision for the airport
as one single strong entity.
In accordance with our government's national airports policy,
the GTAA must also abide by strict principles of public
accountability. It must ensure that the concerns of airport users, the
people who pay the bills, the local community and the taxpayer are
not superseded by those of private interests, the friends of my hon.
friend from Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The authority's board of directors must be composed of
representatives from the community, the various levels of
government and other participating organizations such as boards of
trade and labour organizations. That is what our government's
national airport policy is all about: ensuring that Canada's airports
reach their full potential, that they generate growth, create jobs, all
the while working in the best interests of the community and the
country.
The national airports policy is just one of our government's
achievements in the air sector. We have been working hard to
modernize Canadian air transportation. We have introduced a new
international air transportation policy designed to better meet the
needs of travellers, shippers and airport communities.
Also of significant impact to Canadian travellers was the signing
of the landmark open skies agreement with the United States back
in February 1995. Thanks to open skies, Pearson airport is enjoying
a significant number of new direct flights to the United States.
(1050 )
On the issue of highways, just as improved air transportation
leads to increased trade, tourism and jobs, so too does a safe, well
maintained national highway system. That is why our government
will be spending $292 million on cost shared highway development
projects in this fiscal year alone. This is in addition to the
approximately $100 million we spend each year on federally
owned highways and bridges across the country. That is a total of
$392 million, an amount that we just moments ago heard the
Reform Party allege was a meagre amount.
To quote the Reform Party member: ``The government is
spending a mere $392 million on highways'', a mere. That is close
to half a billion dollars. Only a Reform Party member could call an
almost half a billion dollar investment in highways a mere amount.
That is also why our government will be studying very carefully
in the days ahead the recently tabled report from the Standing
Committee on Transport which deals with the very issue of
highway funding. It was when the report came together, when we
returned to this House after the break, that we worked diligently
day after day, hour after hour without the member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke who speaks so eloquently that we have a
schedule here and a schedule there. Well, the schedule started two
weeks ago and the member only returned to the House after our
serious deliberations and meetings-
8053
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I think the hon.
parliamentary secretary knows that it is improper to refer to the
presence or absence of members. I invite him to refrain from that
kind of comment.
Mr. Keyes: Point taken, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. members across the floor well know, highways are
mostly the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The many
funding agreements we have signed with the provinces and
territories however are proof of our government's commitment to
work with other levels of government to preserve and enhance
Canada's national highway system.
On the subject of grain transportation which the hon. member
brought forward but did not speak to, our government's efforts to
ensure the provision of a well maintained road system in this
country mirror our work to modernize the rail sector. This leads me
to the subject of grain transportation.
The motion before us suggests that the federal government is
responsible somehow for the inefficiencies in the grain
transportation system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since coming to office, our government has taken bold steps to
modernize rail transportation, the principal means by which grain
is shipped in this country.
The Canada Transportation Act for example has given Canadian
railways the flexibility to compete by reducing costs and those
excessive regulations. The new act has cut the number of railway
actions or decisions requiring government approval to about 40
from a previous high of 200. Cutting excess regulation will benefit
not only the railways but also its customers, which include the
grain shippers, through lower rail costs. The new act also shifts the
focus from rail line abandonment toward the development of a
healthy shortline industry.
Canadian National is now a private company with the tools it
needs to compete. Putting CN into the private sector was an
important step in our government's plan for modernizing the rail
transportation system. The privatization has placed CN and CP rail
systems on a level playing field. It has also subjected CN to the
disciplines of the marketplace.
Not only will this move ensure the survival of the railway, but
the gross proceeds from the sale of the crown's 80 million shares
returned to the Canadian taxpayer in the amount of $2 billion. The
enthusiastic response to the share offering by investors through
Canada, the U.S. and internationally was outstanding. In fact it
demonstrates CN's position as a strong player in the North
American rail industry.
Finally, let us talk about the issue of transportation subsidies. As
even a casual observer will notice, our government has
dramatically cut subsidies in the transport sector. We have done so
because we believe that those who use the transportation services
should pay a greater share of the cost of providing those services.
VIA Rail for example will see its annual subsidy reduced to $170
million for the fiscal year 1997-98.
Mr. Morrison: Only $170 million?
Mr. Keyes: Only $170 million because prior to that, my friend
in the party opposite, it was well over $300 million and we have cut
the subsidy. To its credit VIA Rail has not cut services in the
process.
(1055 )
In conclusion, I have addressed all the principal concerns set out
in what I call this laughable motion, but by no means have I
exhausted the list of accomplishments our government has
achieved in the transport sector. There is the national marine policy
for example. There is last November's transfer of the air navigation
system to the not for profit corporation called Nav Canada, a move
that also netted the taxpayers of the country $1.5 billion. I am
proud to say that we are meeting our goal in this government.
For five years I sat on the opposition benches. For five years I sat
on the transport committee of the House and I watched the
Conservative government-the same Conservative government
that had its current leader sitting at the cabinet table-shelve
document after document and not pay attention to the needs of
transportation, not modernize transportation, not bring forward all
the essences that make Canada great, that pull us together, that
make us competitive and create jobs in this country.
I am proud of this government's record and I am going to stick
by it. I am prepared to entertain any questions the hon. member
opposite might have.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every time I hear the hon. member who just spoke I am
more impressed with his talent. He just stood and gave 20 minutes
of the biggest bunch of drivel I have ever heard yet he kept a
straight face through the whole thing. Perhaps it is explained by his
suggestion that he has a background in radio and television. I guess
that is where he got his training.
A couple of quick points. He said that the CN share sale was a
huge success, and it was. In fact it was such a success that many
Canadian purchasers wanted to buy shares. However they were not
allowed to because the Liberal government in its document
designated a large portion of them to be sold only outside the
country. This was in spite of the fact that the Reform Party put in an
amendment to say that for the first 60 or 30 days allow it for
Canadians only and then open it up. The government refused to do
that and many Canadian purchasers who wanted to keep the rail
company ownership in Canada were refused because of Liberal
policy.
8054
The hon. member says that the Pearson deal was signed in the
dying days. I do not know, maybe the hon. member lives in the
publishing office of the Toronto Star instead of a house because
if he has ever bought or sold a house he knows that once you make
a commitment to buy a house, the signing, the final completion
of the contract, the conveyance comes further down the road. Once
the commitment is made, both sides are locked in. To do otherwise
would be a breach of contract like the one the government has
now found itself in as ruled by the Supreme Court of Ontario.
The hon. member said that government is oversized and
oversubsidized and that the Liberals intend to cut it down. He also
said that the government ought to get out of the business of running
business. Why then would the government even consider for a
moment allowing this huge subsidized VIA Rail currently being
subsidized by an amount of $600,000 a day to compete against the
private sector, the private sector that it in fact asked to take over
VIA Rail operations? They not only did it, they were good. They
made it one of the best successful businesses in British Columbia
and now they want to destroy it.
If the hon. member is so worried about the papers, tell the papers
in Kamloops and through them all the people in Kamloops, why
this Liberal government wants to destroy 42,000 hotel nights a year
in Kamloops by letting VIA Rail get back into the very business it
sold. I would specifically like to hear an answer to the question as
to why, given his own words-unless he is prepared to go back on
them-they would even consider allowing VIA to now go into
competition against the Rocky Mountaineer?
Finally, with regard to Pearson, he mentioned $2 billion in
expenditures at Pearson airport. I have heard that amount too. The
new head of the GTAA has said: ``We have this great plan. We are
going to spend $2 billion''. Never mind the $800 million the
private sector was going to spend without it costing the taxpayer a
dime. Where is that money coming from? The Pearson contract
specifically banned the private sector from introducing passenger
user fees except under exceptional circumstances. Where is the
money going to come from? Who are they going to stick for the bill
for rebuilding the terminal now that the private sector which was
going to do it at no cost to the taxpayer has been kicked out?
(1100 )
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I will directly answer the member's
questions. All the the member's hyperbole notwithstanding, there
is a right to be protected here, the right of the Canadian taxpayer in
regard to the Pearson airport deal.
Mr. Gouk: The right to pay more.
Mr. Keyes The member asked if I own a house. Did I ever sell a
house or make a contract? Yes, I have bought a house but I have
had the opportunity of knowing exactly what I am buying.
Unfortunately, the Conservative government of the day sold a bill
of goods in the dying hours of a campaign. It knew it was on its way
out. The Canadian taxpayers recognized the deal was a sham,
hatched by the Conservatives, and it was not going to be the right
deal for the Canadian taxpayer.
However, the government is still on the record as saying it will
leave every option open to reach a settlement that is satisfactory to
the Canadian taxpayer, satisfactory to the plaintiffs in this matter,
completely satisfactory. It means a payment, interestingly enough,
with which the consortium is not happy.
The consortium is not happy with what it received back in
payments to the tune of approximately $60 million. They are going
all the way on this thing because they have bills to pay for their
Conservative lobbyist friends; $600 million as opposed to $30
million or $40 million. Imagine.
There is a member of the House who represents constituents in a
riding in British Columbia who is saying: ``I agree with those
fellows. Let us give them $600 million because, gosh, we had a
contract''. Let us talk about who is to be protected here. The
Canadian taxpayers that we represent need the protection. The
Canadian taxpayers have recognized this deal as a sham. This
government is standing on its own two feet and making sure that
the taxpayer is protected. It is ensuring that the right of the
Canadian taxpayer is given paramount consideration in this matter.
Mr. Solberg: I think we need protection from your government.
Mr. Gouk: Do not forget to answer the VIA question.
Mr. Keyes: I know the hon. member opposite is very interested
in the VIA question. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with the
opposition, it is only telling half the story.
Let us look at the full story. A private sector company called the
Great Canadian Railtour Company is doing a fantastic job, a
wonderful job of providing-
Mr. Solberg: Why are you trying to destroy it?
Mr. Keyes: Do you want to hear it or do you want to keep
yelling?
That company is doing a wonderful job of providing a tourism
service. It provides the customer the opportunity to get on a train,
travel through part of the Rockies, stay overnight in a community,
have a meal and entertainment and get back on the train in the
morning and continue on their way to the next location. It is a
magnificent tourism service, a first class service.
VIA wants to run a train from one part of B.C. to another during
the daylight hours, providing transportation to a group of people
who live in B.C. who number in the thousands that are saying: ``We
8055
do not have enough room on this particular train. We need more
room on another train to get from A to B.
Mr. Hermanson: And lose money.
Mr. Keyes It is not a luxury service. It is not going to be an
overnight service. The members over there want to compare apples
and oranges and cry that it is not fair.
We are working with Mr. Peter Armstrong at the Great Canadian
Railtour Company to try to achieve a goal that will be fair to him
and at the same time fair to the Canadian taxpayer who pays the
bills for VIA Rail who has said: ``We will be arm's length from
you. You are going out there. You are going to do the business
necessary in order to get a return on the investment of the Canadian
taxpayers''.
VIA's subsidy of $350 million a year is now down to $170
million yet it is not dropping any services. We telling them to
become commercial and get competitive. That is exactly what it is
trying to do. However, if VIA came in and duplicated the service of
the Great Canadian Railtour Company in B.C., the government
would not stand for it, I would not stand for it and neither would the
constituents of British Columbia.
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): I am
pleased to speak today on this Reform Party motion condemning
the government for its approach to various federal transportation
policies. The Reform Party has opted to focus on the partisan
choices made by the present government. They are entitled to do
so, and this may be one aspect that is particularly striking.
I wish in particular to draw the attention of the House to the
present government's inefficiency in the area of transportation. At
the present time, there is a fairly impressive number of examples of
the federal government's shirking its responsibilities and therefore
costing Quebec and Canadian taxpayers considerable amounts of
money.
The first example is the Pearson airport. The former government
decided to privatize the airport, and this one made a campaign
promise to cancel that privatization. To that end, it tabled a bill
which the hon. members on this side of the House rejected on the
grounds that it was inadequate, inconsistent and unrealistic. It was
even defeated by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
The government has had eight months now, since June 1996, to
find a solution with the promoters of Pearson airport to settle the
dispute without costing Canadians an arm and a leg.
We are still waiting. Will the federal government introduce a
new bill in an attempt to get out of this mess, which is going to
cost, who knows, maybe $85 million to $100 million if there is an
out-of-court settlement? If there is a decision-the case is
currently before the courts-the suit is for some $600 million.
The federal government is being illogical in defending the
privatization of Pearson airport, after the Prime Minister himself
said while campaigning: ``This privatization must be cancelled,
because there will be outrageous profits, $200 million''.
Now the government lawyers are saying in court: ``No, no, the
profits will not be that high. So they do not deserve any significant
compensation''. The government needs to get its act Together, face
its responsibilities, and take a stand.
Unfortunately, as far as transportation is concerned, for the past
three years the government seems to have been on automatic pilot.
It has deregulated and privatized, but it also stopped doing
something that was not necessarily undesirable in all sectors. It
stopped monitoring the effects of these policies.
We had an example this fall. In 1996, there was a dramatic
increase in railway accidents. There was an increase in the number
of deaths and accidents as a result of safety problems on the
railway network. We had an aging network on which the lines were
not always maintained. The government decided to privatize the
system, which was not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand,
the government had no right to look the other way and cease to
fulfil the mandate it still has, privatization or no privatization, to
ensure the safety of our railways.
The motion presented by the Reform Party today concerns the
partisan approach of the federal government to its transportation
policies. However, I think the biggest mistake, the most obvious
weakness in the government's approach is the fact that it is
incapable of taking a position, making decisions and acting
responsibly.
I gave the example of Pearson airport. There is worse yet.
Yesterday, a judgment by a judge of the Quebec Superior Court
stated that the federal government had failed to act responsibly in
the matter of changing the roles of Montreal's airports at Dorval
and Mirabel.
Today, we have a situation where everyone is back to square one.
There are regions whose economies have been hard hit by this
decision. The judge made the decision on the basis of the case
before him. For the past six months at least, the Bloc Quebecois has
suggested two things the minister should do. First, conduct public
hearings on the question. And second, act responsibly as the lessee
of the facilities at Mirabel airport and Dorval.
(1110)
These recommendations by the Bloc are exactly the same
recommendations that were made in the judgment by Judge Viau.
8056
So it is not just an opposition party speaking out. Now we have a
judge who made a ruling. The federal government, which has been
dithering for six months, will now have to pull up its socks and act
responsibly. This is one more example of the federal government's
lack of effectiveness in the transportation sector. This department,
which for years had been huge and very slow to act, is now having
trouble monitoring the reforms that have been introduced and
ensuring they will be implemented.
A third example is Canadian Airlines International. For many
years the federal government has been artificially supporting this
lame duck. According to its vision, we absolutely needed two
national carriers in Canada. Well, one of them has been on life
support for a number of years: it was given grants, even a tax
holiday and compensatory funding. A precedent was set when the
government intervened in labour relations to allow Canadian to
survive.
This is irresponsible, coming from a government that sees itself
as an advocate of free competition. When it formulated this
principle, it should have abided by it and let the companies do the
same. Air Canada has already done a lot of house cleaning. It had to
make some very difficult decisions in the past: lay-offs of pilots
and other staff. Today, it is a profitable company. It operates well
and is aggressive on international markets. It would be prepared to
expand if the Canadian government was not paralysing it by
limiting its international routes.
Here we have three examples of federal government
inefficiency, lack of decision making ability and inflexibility. They
are Pearson airport, the Montreal airports and Canadian
international. So we can see how the federal government has
problems being effective in its transport policy, with examples such
as these. One tends to wonder about the upcoming reforms.
In December 1995, the government tabled a reform of Canadian
ports policy. In the meantime, it tabled Bill C-44. In December, we
considered it clause by clause, but we have heard nothing since
then. The bill has not reappeared in the House, and communities
are quite anxious about how their port facilities will be returned to
them.
Will there be enough money to return the ports to the
communities in a reasonable state? Is the current figure of $125
million sufficient? Will they take into consideration our
recommendation that commercial ports like Cacouna, in my riding,
for example, be treated differently from ferry ports like
Saint-Siméon and Rivière-du-Loup, which is also in my riding?
This sort of facility must be treated differently. The
government's intention to maintain ferry services and port
facilities, so long as the ferries continue to run, must be absolutely
clear. We need clarity, because the longer decisions are put off, the
greater the impact on the decision of business to settle in a region.
Eastern Quebec, as you know, was hit very hard by the
employment insurance reform. So the federal government must
hasten to establish clear guidelines and make choices in order to let
people know the conditions under which the port of Cacouna will
become the property of the port development corporation, so that
business wishing to set up in our region may do so in full
knowledge of the facts.
When a business makes a choice and says: ``I will set up a plant
in a given sector'', this is not a short term vision. It is looking 5, 10,
15 and 20 years down the road. However, we are in a period of very
rapid choices. Without adequate answers in these matters,
businesses that may have been considering settling in our region
could decide to go elsewhere, in New England or some other part of
the U.S. eastern seaboard, where they will know where they stand.
I urge the federal government to take a position in this matter as
soon as possible.
(1115)
Another example of the federal government's inefficiency and
lack of foresight is last year's reform of the line conveyance
procedures. Up till then, before a line could be closed, public
hearings had to be held, and if the stakeholders' could find
sufficient justification, the line was maintained.
The legislation introduced by the federal, which it got through
the House but which we rejected, now allows the companies simply
to put the line up for sale again. If the company can find a buyer,
the line is sold. Otherwise, the line is abandoned. But they forgot to
be specific enough in the legislation.
Let me give you a very concrete example. On the
Matapédia-Chandler-Gaspé line, in the Gaspé, runs the Chaleur, a
train administered by VIA Rail. The legislation should have
included a safeguard whereby the government could prevent
private companies from dismantling their lines without any regard
for the existing passenger transport networks when there is only
one operational line, especially during winter, to ensure that this
only line is maintained.
The absence of such a safeguard in the legislation led to the
current nonsense. CN is selling the portion of the line between
Matapédia and Chandler. They have a buyer, the Société des
chemins de fer nationaux du Québec, for that portion because it is
used not only for passenger transport but also for freight transport.
There is no buyer, however, for the other line between Chandler
and Gaspé, which is the continuation, because it is used only by
VIA.
VIA Rail passengers are therefore being held to ransom
following the company's decision, and the federal government has
8057
absolutely no say in all this. It can only try to see, through a
feasibility study, how the economic future of that line could be
ensured. Again, we can see that the federal government lacks a
sense of planning