Alex Shepherd

[Enabling Resource Centre, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the enabling resource centre is one of four temporary, and I underline temporary, projects within the employment equity positive measures program that concludes at the end of March. Many of the initiatives started under that program have become part of the normal business practices, including training in adaptive computer technologies for persons with disabilities, which already has served as a great model in other departments.

We remain committed to the concerns of the disabled community. This initiative has done its work. We are now using it to enforce the rights of--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill.

We have discussed back and forth to some extent the concept of the airport security tax. In fact, the member who spoke previously discussed her dissertations in the transport committee of which I am also a member.

It is interesting to note that the agenda of that committee took us as far away as Washington to discuss with the American authorities the implementation of the U.S. airport security tax.

Much has been said in the House about the Canadian tax being $12 and the American tax being only $5. The theory is that somehow we are trying to gouge the travelling public in Canada.

We had the opportunity to talk to the director of aviation in the United States. It was clear in discussions with him that the Americans believe the $5 tax is inadequate to support the cost of the security implementation program and think the tax will have to be increased in the near future.

It is unfortunate that the opposition has focused on this discrepancy because in reality we are shooting at a moving target. We are a much more responsible government here in Canada because we realize the true costs and we are telling the general public what the costs will be. It may well be after the legislation is reviewed in due process that the tax can be reduced. It is better to have a reduction rather than an increase. We will see how it unfolds in the United States.

The previous speaker said that we were using this as an opportunity to increase taxes for the travelling public in Canada. I do not think anything could be more absurd. Today is the six month anniversary, if we can call it that, of the tragic events of September 11. That somebody would stand in the House and say that we are trying to take advantage of a situation as disastrous as that simply to increase taxes is absurd and I say that for what it is.

Debate in committee centred on the issue of who should pay and what and why they should pay. I talked to my constituents. Probably less than 20% of them are regular travellers on the airlines. They asked me why they should pay this tax because they are not users and do not consume the services, that it is the travelling public who do that. I have a lot of empathy for that. That is a fair and reasonable process.

Those people who use the airlines should pay. People who go to the theatre pay to go to the theatre. People who go to hockey games pay to go to those games. It is surprising to me that the Canadian Alliance, a party which believes in user fees, would actually have the whole Canadian population pay for the business people who travel on the airlines from Toronto to Montreal. Such is the strangeness that comes from that side of the House.

A number of members asked about the float planes and so forth. I notice that certified takeoff weight of not more than 2,700 kilometers is exempt from the charge. In other words, smaller aircraft are exempt from the charge. Similarly, the schedule of the legislation states that this charge would be imposed on about 90 airports. That means if it is not on the list, simply put, the fee will not be charged. There is a process to recognize smaller airports and smaller aircraft.

There has been ongoing debate within the country and within this place about whether short haul takeoff and so forth should pay the same fee as longer duration trips. It makes no difference if somebody has to go through a security system.

It does not matter if it is in Vancouver or Kelowna and it is somewhat irrelevant how many actual kilometres people are travelling, they still have to go through a security system. There is a cost to the government to administer that. Clearly, people have said if people are going to travel, then they are likely going to pay.

Some people in our northern communities and so forth are going to be upset with that. They are going to say that they have to travel. If they need medical help for example they are forced to travel. It is not always a luxury item. There may be other ways to deal with that than trying to use the airport security tax as a way of exempting some and dealing with others.

It is a problem not only in Canada. When we talked to the director of aviation in the United States he said exactly the same thing. There are many places in the United States where they cannot service the outlying areas with the current fee structure.

To use that terrible word subsidize, maybe we should subsidize certain types of travel in certain parts of the country to offset it. I think we are doing that in reality anyway.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that it costs $700 return airfare from Toronto to Ottawa. A lot of us could not get halfway to Europe for the same kind of money.

There is a methodology of moving money around. I am sure many routes are not viable in Canada but we defend them because we believe that our country is bigger than simply small concentrated areas of high population.

The airport security tax is fair. Some people are concerned about the accounting methodology. The reality is that the Government of Canada had to pony up $90 million to start this. The airlines that were directly or indirectly responsible for airline security had not been keeping up.

The equipment that the airline securities corporation absorbed from the government in its setup to my understanding had never been updated. When it showed up on the screen that we needed more equipment and more modern equipment, the federal government had to fork out $90 million to make the system work. It is a reasonable proposition that the government is now trying to recover that. That is basically what the airline security tax is attempting to do.

People have made disparaging remarks about the accounting procedures and maybe we should amortize the cost of the equipment and so forth over a longer period of time. That is very well and good but the reality is the accounting for the federal government has always been based on fund accounting. That means that when it is off our books, it is off our books.

We are getting into a larger argument if people want to find ways to amortize the cost over longer periods of time. We are talking about changing the basic fundamentals of the accounting of the Government of Canada, but I do not think it is really part of the debate on the airline security tax.

In conclusion, I would like to say some positive things about the budget. I always put out a little circular for my constituents, which goes back to 1993 surprisingly enough. Our total expenditures as a percentage of our GDP have gone from 16% to only 12% but in fact the debt as a percentage of our GDP has gone from 70% all the way down to less than 50%. That is an excellent record for this government and one which I support. I am sure we are going to continue with that agenda.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member because he is very interested in foreign policy which is not common among his compatriots on the other side.

Part of the motion by the New Democratic Party talks about sovereignty. As I listened to many of his party's members intervene in the House, I heard them be concerned that they do not think our foreign policy specifically on Iraq mirrors that of the United States. They have been concerned that our military should be more harmonious and work more closely with the United States. Just today we talked about the airport tax. They questioned why it could not be just like in the United States. They have been very vocal on the whole issue of a continental energy policy, that somehow we ought to integrate the energy policy of North America, that Canada's energy policy should be dovetailed with that of the United States.

I find it miraculous that the member can say that Canada needs saving. It seems to me that we need saving from the kind of thoughts his party is putting forward, that if we want to have an independent foreign policy, we have to walk the talk and have an independent foreign policy.

Every time members of his party stand, I hear them ask why we cannot be ready, aye ready with the Americans. Could the member address that issue?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech he expressed his concern about farming. I understand he is from a farming community. I am as well.

I listened with great interest to the member's leader who spoke earlier today. He talked about going around to the farm kitchens listening to people who, with tears in their eyes, talked about their financial futures. His answer and demand to the government was to reduce taxes.

I understand that taxes are calculated based upon a person's income. For people who have income, why would a reduction in taxes be an answer from the Leader of the Opposition? How is it possible to speak with two tongues? He is telling me that people are so desperate in the farming community that they have no income but that an answer to that problem would be a reduction in personal income taxes.

[Infrastructure Program, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut who has been such a tireless worker for her constituents of Canada's north.

I am pleased to announce that the President of the Treasury Board, along with her colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as the premier of Nunavut, the hon. Paul Okalik, signed the Canada-Nunavut infrastructure partnership agreement yesterday.

The agreement will leverage over $4 million for green municipal infrastructure over the next two years. I am especially proud that this partnership agreement will help strengthen the economy of Nunavut, as well as enhance the health of its people.

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member has got it fairly close. Actually in Canada it is handled differently depending on the province. In my own province of Ontario it is handled quite differently because the province of Ontario has its own infrastructure apparatus. What we are trying to do is work through that apparatus. I think it is similar in Quebec. It has its own apparatus for infrastructure funding. What we are trying to do is not duplicate that structure.

In others areas, like Newfoundland, I believe, the province would apply directly to a body administered by the treasury board. The member is quite right that the municipalities move forward with, if I can say it, their wish lists. I know that there are more projects than there is money available and that is unfortunate, but it seems to be the nature of government. There are always more ways to spend money. Then the province goes through a process of approving those it thinks are priorities to try to put them in some kind of prioritization sequence. The province then sends that to us.

All we are trying to do is not pick and choose. We are trying to ask if it fits within the original concept of green infrastructure. In other words, if it is a swimming pool and we thought we would improve the water quality of St. John's West, it probably would be rejected.

If what the member is orienting himself to, if it is a water treatment facility--

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to respond to the member for St. John's West who quite frankly has been a vociferous candidate for his riding in the House.

I am pleased today to speak about the infrastructure Canada program, a Government of Canada initiative that will improve the quality of life for Canadians in rural and urban communities.

When I gave the answer originally to the member, I talked about the $6 billion which is across the country. I am happy to note that $153 million of that has been directed toward the province of Newfoundland.

The member himself was concerned about drinking water in that area. A good portion of the infrastructure program was earmarked for environmental and green infrastructure.

Infrastructure Canada makes green municipal infrastructure a priority. Why? Because nothing is more fundamental to communities than clean drinking water, clean air and a healthy environment. These areas are very fundamental to the vibrant communities. Without them, Canadians cannot enjoy the high quality of life they have every right to expect in this country. There are many other important areas in municipal infrastructure but we believe that investment in green infrastructure comes first.

We did not reach this conclusion alone. Partnership with other levels of government is one of infrastructure Canada's unique strengths. When we designed the program, we consulted broadly with municipalities. Indeed, I believe that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities originally was the impetus and the driving force in getting the government way back in 1993 to start the very first infrastructure program. It told us quite clearly that green infrastructure was an immediate priority. The member is drawing that to our attention once again. We consulted with the provinces and the territories and they too identified this area as one of urgent need.

We listened and we have responded. In each infrastructure Canada agreement we took steps to stipulate a minimum level of green municipal infrastructure investment in each jurisdiction. Newfoundland has agreed with that. I have noticed that many of its projects have zeroed in on green infrastructure.

I think the member's real question was that he wanted to know if we were going to accelerate the program. The $6 billion is over a five or six year period. I think a number of our own ministers have mentioned the possibility of accelerating that program, in other words, moving the funding from year three or four into year two and so forth. The answer is that it requires agreement among three levels of government. I think those negotiations are in progress but I cannot actually say where they stand at this time. It is a difficult commitment for some of the provinces and municipalities because they are one-third partners and they have to come up with the money as well.

In conclusion I would say that we have a litany of projects in Newfoundland. There is a $1.1 million investment in the Placentia water treatment plant and a $45,000 upgrade to the Trepassey chlorination system. I think those are in the member's own riding. There is a $3.8 million investment in the Shoal Harbour treatment plant, a $1 million upgrade of the Victoria sewage system, and $647,000 toward the Lourdes water system. We have been committed to solving the member's problem.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I also had the member's House leader at the time confess that the original document did not add. If we want to get into the history of this, it was discovered on a flight back to Calgary with the House leader who noticed it at the same time. He confessed that it was true.

Here we have a party that cannot even add two and two but it was telling us how to balance the budget. It is pretty clear that just does not happen. People would be well advised to continue doing what they have done in the past, that is keeping the government in power.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to deal with the issue of the flag because in spite of the member's comments I was not one of those people who had a flag on my desk. Indeed we had flags in the House of Commons. I believe that is a suitable display.

I was chagrined about the charade. I was even more chagrined when I tried to bring forward a private member's bill to create a flag day. I proposed to make February 15 a national holiday and some of his colleagues voted against making it a votable motion. That is hypocrisy if I have ever seen it.

Second, back in 1993-94 his party had a wonderful plan. It put out this little thing called fresh start or something like that. It had a budget plan which did not add. I got your leader to admit that it did not add. You could not even--

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow my colleague from Etobicoke North who gave such an excellent speech. It is a great honour to discuss the motion. For those at home I will deal with two aspects of the motion. These are the simplistic comments that the earlier speaker referred to.

The first states that we can solve the problems of our budgetary concerns if we simply:

(a) reallocate financial resources from low and falling priorities into higher need areas such as national security;--

It is a very simplistic approach to somehow identify the areas of low priorities and reallocate the money. Of course the opposition is not very specific and does not say what the low priorities are. It does not exactly indicate who would suffer because of those cuts. It is a very simplistic approach.

I will then jump to the bottom line of the motion, which is more of the same. It states:

(f) sell non-core government assets and use the proceeds to accelerate debt reduction.

Once again there is no discussion about what core Canadian government assets we are required to sell. However, in previous discussions the Alliance Party has been very specific in some areas. One of the things it talks about cutting is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. In fact at one time it was very keen about cutting the department of agriculture. It does not seem to be so keen any more. Also there is CIDA, of course, which is the very agency now trying to do some underpinning in Afghanistan and other areas where we have some global problems. These are the kinds of things that the Alliance would cut and gut. As a matter of fact, others have suggested that we are not spending enough in the area of foreign aid and that we have not reached our UN commitments, but not so for the Alliance. The Alliance would spend significantly less. Finally, it talks about the Department of Canadian Heritage which the Alliance presumably also has no particular use for, more specifically the CBC. These are all the things that I understand the Alliance is in favour of getting rid of.

This actually starts to form a bit of a policy platform if we put it all together. The Alliance does not like things involved with Canadian heritage, but at the same time its members talk about creating this great North American perimeter.

By that they mean that they would like to mimic, indeed copy, immigration laws that exist in the United States. They would like to simply have common border points. What they mean by that is, why should we have Canadian customs officials on the border when we could have just one agency, perhaps one that is shared by both Americans and Canadians? I cannot say how we would deal with that because the reality is that the Americans will have always have the upper hand. We are debating softwood lumber, steel imports and so forth. It is not a mystery to me that the reality is that the Americans will control that process. It seems to me that the Alliance is very happy to have that.

I am not trying to belittle our American friends. They have obviously lived through some tremendous times recently. I was fortunate to go to Washington recently to study transportation security. It is surprising. The Americans themselves have no interest in having common border guards. They have no interest in a common immigration policy. I have never heard them refer to the argument of a perimeter for North America, or in other words, having a commonality of Fortress North America.

It seems to me that only the Alliance Party is convinced that by being closer to the United States we will be better off somehow. I do not think the average Canadian feels that way. As a matter of fact, I remember the great debate in the House about four or five years ago when the Alliance, in those days the Reform Party, wanted to put Canadian flags on all our desks. It seems to me what it wants to do today is put American flags on our desks because that is what it seems to represent, the American party.

There are some real problems that we must deal with in the upcoming budget. Some of them will deal with transportation issues. We have been spending a lot of time consulting people in the transportation industry in Canada and the United States.

There are some real problems and there are some lesser real problems. Americans are going through a period of reaction mode. They have a tendency to overact in some areas. The unfortunate part about that is it has a tendency to impact Canadians.

I would like to give the House an idea of the knowledgeableness of some Americans who are involved in the aviation industry. I was chagrined about a week ago when one of my colleagues asked a member from the Federal Aviation Authority just how many hijackers had come from Canada. The member from the FAA said he thought two or three. This gives a clear indication that Americans do not often understand what is going on and quite often do not understand what is going on in their own country.

It is important for us to take a measured approach to how we change our security system so that it is effective. That is important. Canadians at this time want to feel secure in their airlines and in other places but they want to know that it works. They want to know the money that we spend in these areas will be effective in solving those problems. That is why we spent a great deal of time studying that very area.

I prepare my own analysis of the financial statements that the government presents after each budget. I put it all on one page when I present it to my constituents. It is like a report card. It starts back in 1993 and goes through to the 2001-02 budget. It shows a significant change. Back in the 1993-94 period total spending was at $120 billion. By the last budget it was at $121.5 billion. We paid $35 billion off the national debt during this period of time. This is a significant contribution.

I have young children myself. It always bothered me that we had this huge national debt which I thought we would leave to another generation. It is very important that this generation of Canadians deals with that problem and reduces our debt. I was happy to hear from the Minister of Finance that we would not go into a deficit.

The Alliance has been making a number of comments in the last two or three months. It wants to spend more money on defence, to spend more money here and there. When one adds those things up it would put us into a deficit. That is absolutely and totally irresponsible.

There are some people out there in the community, especially some economists, who say it would not be so bad if we were having a small recession. They say that we had a bit of a deficit because that is what government should do. That goes back to Keynesian economics which states that we should be spending money when times are bad.

I do not have to say that most politicians and governments in the west have forgotten the other side of that equation, that we should save during periods of good times. That creates an insatiable appetite among legislators. Once they get into deficit mode it is like printing new money, and they keep on going down that road.

It is imperative that we do not go into a deficit ever, that we try to hold the line. I should not say ever because if there were a national calamity or something of this nature it would obviously require government support.

However, in spite of the doom and gloom from the opposition benches that want to talk about the recession as if it were a depression, it is not. If it were a recession it would probably be one of the mildest recessions in history. As a matter of fact this is an unprecedented period of time of expansion of our economy. It has been the longest period of expansion since the second world war and we have learned to benefit from it.

I will be preparing an analysis of the budget on one page for my constituents so everyone can understand it. I must say that in the past I have given the government an A for its efforts to bring sobriety to our country. Fiscal responsibility will continue to do that, not the simplistic solutions presented by the Alliance today.