Debates of Feb. 17th, 1994

Defence Policy

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 15, 1994, the recorded division stands deferred until three o'clock on Tuesday, February 22, 1994.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall I call it 6.30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, in late January media reports informed us that Public Works Canada had completed a preliminary study which proposed that the public service in Ottawa vacate up to 25 per cent of its downtown office space and move to outlying areas. This study was part, I am told, of a Tory legacy following a last minute, poorly thought out public service restructuring plan announced in June 1993.

These media reports told us that the cost of the proposal would be approximately $175 million over 10 years, while the annual savings for moving to the suburbs are estimated at about $20 million a year. One does not have to be an engineer or an atomic specialist to figure out that it will cost quite a bit. Over a matter of 10 years we will not even recover the cost of the moves.

I am not saying the proposal is being implemented. I have been trying to get some information from the department on it and as of today I have not received any. That is why I am rising in my place today to bring this matter to public attention again. If the proposal were implemented, the equivalent of three buildings the size of L'Esplanade Laurier could be vacated in downtown Ottawa. Obviously this is a large office space component and could have a very detrimental effect on the downtown core of the national capital city.

Media reports also suggest that the implementation of the proposal would involve the departure of 11,000 to 14,000 public servants from downtown Ottawa. I want to address the impact this could have and I want to talk about the spinoff effects the policy could have.

For example, we all know a public service job generates about two or three other jobs in the service sector. This will have a damaging effect on small businesses in the area; it will make it very difficult for them to survive. The downtown core will suffer significantly because of the disparity between the actual requirements of businesses now and the possibility of them not being able to survive in the downtown area depleted of public servants.

The current state of the real estate in my capital, the Ottawa community, is not that great that we want to make a proposal that would make it more difficult to exist. Local taxpayers have invested heavily in transportation infrastructure, including the OC Transpo transit way. It was built on the assumption that there would be and would continue to be a high level of employment in the centre of the city.

Finally there is the green government concept, the environmental impact this would have if thousands of public servants begin to work in the outlying regions but live inside the Ottawa community. I wonder how many will switch to public transportation rather than use their cars and private means of transit. This will mean more vehicles on the road. It has been recognized that exhaust is the main source of air pollution in Ottawa. Therefore it would have a detrimental effect on our environment.

When I first raised this matter in the House in my question on February 1, the minister of public works indicated that no decisions would be made on the matter-and I believe him-until there are wide consultations with members of Parliament as well as with the ministries of industry and of intergovernmental affairs.

The minister's office also offered a briefing to me and my colleagues from the region on February 1. I indicated that in my mind a briefing should be given no later than February 15. Unfortunately as of today I must report that no date, in fact not even a timeframe, has been provided by the minister's office for this briefing.

I raise this out of frustration at trying to understand what is going on in terms of this supposed interim study which would affect seriously the downtown core of my city.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer my colleague's question and explain what the situation is. He raised a few points when he talked about his concern for the economic well-being of downtown Ottawa.

As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assured him in the House in response to his question on February 1, it is the intention of the minister to listen to the points raised by the hon. member and those of our national capital region colleagues.

The process of consultation is part of the openness we intend to pursue. With regard to recent media reports on government plans for office occupancy related to the national capital region, I would like to reiterate what the minister has said on the subject. The review is preliminary only. It was developed for strategic planning purposes and allows for all options to be considered.

The government restructuring initiative involved the combining of some 16 departments into 8. This resulted in a need to review their space holdings. It is only part of a normal planning process. It is within the mandate of Public Works and Government Services to provide productive and affordable work places for the federal government. Given the magnitude of inventory of crown controlled space in the national capital region, some 2

million square feet of office space, this can only be achieved through long-term planning, the study of various options, and their impact on not only the departments concerned but on other departments, other governments, the economy, the environment, and the private sector.

We recognize the impact that changes in government have on the economy in general and the real estate market in particular.

After salaries, facilities management is the major public service expenditure. The federal government, just like the private sector, seeks the most cost effective accommodations for its employees but also wants their work environment to be conducive to their productivity.

I can only reiterate what the minister has said. It is a preliminary study. All options are on the table. No decisions will be made until full consultations have taken place.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, last Friday, I asked the transport minister the following question:

Is the minister aware that the new radar facility of Bernières. . . does not work between the 241st and the 247th degrees, although all of the air traffic between Quebec City and Montreal uses that corridor?

What was the minister's answer? The decision was made a while ago, and other cities have lost their radar control terminal and safety was the basic criterion.

My question had nothing to do with the timing of the decision, nor the name of other cities that might be subjected to the same fate, or even the criteria that led to this decision.

I know for a fact that on November 27, 28 and 29, 1993 calibration flights were undertaken to test the Bernières radar facility. I do not have the report in hand, but I am aware of some of the conclusions: first, the area between 241 and 247 degrees does not come under primary coverage; second, the primary north-east coverage of the airport is poor.

Clearly, what it means is that between 241 and 247 degrees, the Bernières radar, which will take over after the Quebec airport radar control terminal has moved, at the latest on September 1st, will automatically be disconnected to avoid ground interference. Planes between Quebec City and Montreal all use this corridor. That means that for a few minutes these planes disappear. How can the minister believe that I can be satisfied with his answer when he says, and I quote:

There is no doubt in my mind that the transfer of the control terminal from Quebec City to Montreal will not jeopardize safety.

The fact that he did not answer my question, even though it dealt with public safety, gives rise to all kind of speculations, including the notion that this could be revenge against French-speaking air controllers who fought for language rights 15 years ago.

My supplementary related to the fact that, in his letter to the Official Opposition critic for Transport, the minister claimed that his civil servants' decision was based on a recommendation of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. In my supplementary, I reminded the minister that a report prepared for his department by an American group of experts, the Sypher-Mueller group, recommended not only that the Quebec City and North Bay facilities remain open, but that they be expanded.

Again, the question is quite simple: Which American experts are we to believe? Those from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration whom the minister vaguely alluded to, totally out of context, or those hired by his department to carry out a specific study on the specific project to centralize the terminal control units of Regina, Halifax, Saskatoon, Quebec City, North Bay and Thunder Bay. The latter group unanimously recommended that the facilities in Quebec City and North Bay not be closed.

I am not satisfied with the minister's answer when he keeps arguing that the same criteria apply to all units and emphasizing the fair and equitable way in which all decisions are made.

My question was an important one. It questioned the very basis of the Department of Transport's decision to close down the control terminal in Quebec City.

I deduce from the answers to these two questions that the minister cannot give the people of Quebec, the Association des gens de l'air, the aircrews, the flight attendants and the members of this House the assurance that the new radar facility in Bernières is capable of taking over from the unit in Quebec City. The minister also failed to demonstrate to the people of the Quebec region that the decision to close this unit is based on hard facts provided by the experts. This leaves the door open for all manner of interpretation.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport answered the questions and sent a letter including a briefing note and also held a briefing session.

What concerns me in this affair is that my colleague simply does not want to hear the answer.

The member knows that the priority of the Minister of Transport is to provide safe and efficient service to pilots and their customers, Canadian passengers and freight carriers. To do so, we count on a considerable number of sophisticated aviation systems and on highly skilled personnel.

Once again, the air traffic control system has some basic elements. One of these is the control tower at individual airports, as is the case for Quebec City.

Another basic element is the regional control centre, like the one in Montreal.

The member is well aware that the radar in Bernières will be fully operational when the transfer takes place.

The technology exists to give pilots safe and efficient service.

He is trying to convince us that Quebec City was treated differently. That is certainly not the case.

The terminal control units in Halifax and North Bay, which had more traffic than the TCU in Quebec City, were also relocated, as were the terminal control units in Regina, Thunder Bay and Saskatoon.

I hope that the member and his colleagues will take note of the invitation from the Minister of Transport to visit the regional control centre in Montreal so that they can all understand that their constituents will continue to receive safe and efficient service, in French, from a very sophisticated centre equipped with the most modern technology.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I rose in my place and put a question to the government which was answered by the Minister of Transport. However I believe he failed to catch the full impact of the question. He treated it as a pre-budget question which it was not.

Essentially the question concerned the government's intention with regard to the Crow benefit under the Western Grain Transportation Act, something that the red book forgot and which the Liberal Party ignored during the election. It is time the government became more clear as to what its intentions are with that Crow benefit because it is very important to the continued development of the economy of western Canada.

For those who do not know, the Crow rate was established to encourage settlement of western Canada. Settlement would not have occurred at the levels it did at the turn of the century without the Crow rate. In 1982 a previous Liberal government decided to kill the Crow and put in its place a Crow benefit which was supposed to continue into perpetuity.

The previous Conservative government under Brian Mulroney decided to begin dismantling that Crow benefit 10 per cent starting August 1 of this crop year and tabled a bill from the Ministry of Transport which would have the effect of doing away with that financial benefit entirely in four years.

That means the government will save somewhere between $650 million and $730 million annually. I suppose that is why it causes great fear in my heart to think the Minister of Transport would only see it that far.

Essentially this Crow benefit and the Crow rate that preceded it have been the underpinning of land values in western Canada. At the moment farmland values amount to something in the area of $35 billion. Doing away with this benefit will essentially make that land worthless.

If the government wishes to do away with the benefit, it will be taking away about $35 billion of equity in western Canada's economy which cannot be easily replaced and is being used now to finance the restructuring of that western economy. People borrow against farmland to build small and large plants in their own communities to diversify the economy of that part of the country.

If the Department of Transport has its way this opportunity for diversification will be cut off right at the knees. Not only will it be cut off but government will be cutting off all hope of future diversity financed from within the region. It will be killing the hopes and dreams of people and sometimes four generations of work of the people whose businesses will go bankrupt as a result of this policy.

If the government does not understand how the economics of this work, it should simply take a quick look at my own community where the Crow benefit amounts to something like $29 a tonne. We produce about one tonne per acre and the cash rents in that area are about $25 a tonne. Doing away with the Crow benefit means that cash rents have a market value of minus $4 per acre. I can assure the spokesman for the government that minus $4 an acre return means that the land is not worth very much.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mackenzie has again raised the issue of the Western Grain Transportation Act.

Yesterday he noted that the previous government had implemented a 10 per cent reduction in the government subsidy effective last August and that proposals for further changes had been tabled. Last year's reduction in the WGTA subsidy was a consequence of the previous government's December 1992 economic statement.

The Minister of Transport yesterday advised the hon. member to wait until next Tuesday when our colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, will have the pleasure of tabling the first budget on behalf of our government.

This budget will reflect one of the most extensive and open consultative processes that has ever preceded the tabling of budgets in this House. Canadians have reason to be confident that this budget will be seen as a major initiative toward getting people back to work and addressing the financial challenges facing the country.

Last summer the previous government tabled a draft bill on reforming the Western Grain Transportation Act. It set in motion certain processes for consultation with interested parties on two key issues: method of payment as well as grain transportation and handling efficiencies.

My colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, has stated that our government has no entrenched commitment to the draft reform legislation. We recognize that the WGTA is an extremely important issue to all Canadians. We also acknowledge that many people have devoted considerable time and energy to the consultative processes that were under way when we took office.

For those reasons we have decided to complete processes and then determine our next course of action. I understand the ministers involved hope that by the summer they will be in a position to give a more definitive response concerning the government's plans for the Western Grain Transportation Act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.)