House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, September 27, 1994 at 3 p.m.

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall we now suspend to the call of the Chair and conclude the business of the day with the late show beginning at 6.30 p.m.?

Party FundraisingPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.18 p.m.)

The House resumed at 6.25 p.m.

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

Party FundraisingAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, on June 16, I rose to ask the Minister of Transport about his plans for the transportation system in this country which clearly seemed to indicate in large measure that they were plans to dismantle a national transportation system.

The irony is that while the Liberal government is very proud of telling Canadians how much it has done in its infrastructure program-sewer systems, roads and highways-it is at the same time dismantling through the transportation policy that was announced by the minister earlier this year the most fundamental infrastructure system, the nation's air system.

I was pleased to have received a letter from the Minister of Transport in which he stated in late June that he was interested in all members of Parliament consulting their constituents on transportation policy.

Before I was able to undertake that consultation process, just three weeks after having received that invitation from the minister, the minister made a speech whereby he outlined his whole transportation policy.

It seemed to me that it was not a serious attempt to have members of Parliament consult their constituents at all, because there was certainly not sufficient lead time on that. It led me to believe that the minister's objectives as he outlined in the response to my question were less than what I had seen actually happen in practice.

When this national airports policy-one part of the transportation policy-was announced, it clearly demonstrated where the government was going. It was a transparent attempt to transfer responsibility for airports to municipalities, provinces and territories. It seems to me there is nothing national about that, leaving communities to fend for themselves.

As a northerner, as a Yukoner, this is a particularly important question because it is very difficult for smaller airports in rural and northern areas of Canada to be self-financing. If a government is truly committed to a national air transportation system, that must be taken into account in any policy. Alas, I had not seen that in the minister's comments at the time of my question nor in his subsequent comments.

There are many questions about what the impact will be of the national transportation policy on rural and northern areas, on costs both to consumer and to carrier and of course on safety costs as well.

The government has decided to do a little word play by using the word commercialization instead of privatization but any way you slice it, it is privatization.

I recently attended a regional consultation on the automated air navigation systems being proposed. While it was certainly a useful consultation by Transport Canada-I think it presented it well-having listened to the arguments and to the people who were there from the industry, it is clear there will be two results of this policy. First, the air navigation system will be privatized; second, the cost will go up to consumers and the cost will go up to the owners of carriers.

There was no evidence to indicate this would cost less to the consumer or the owner of the carriers or even remain the same.

There are many, many questions that have been left unanswered about the transport policy of the minister. The question that I am addressing tonight is one of them, but there are many more to be addressed. I must say that I have a lot of concerns that these are not being done in a fundamental way with a full broad based consultation. Privatizing simply to lay off federal employees is not the answer to the national dream of a national transportation system.

Party FundraisingAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that an efficient, reliable, safe and viable system of transport is absolutely essential for Canada's future growth and prosperity.

What Canada must have is a national transportation system that emphasizes safety and reliability, that is efficient, that builds strong viable companies in all modes. It is time to give the frustrated Canadian taxpayer a break. It is time for those who use the transportation system to pay a fair share so that as a government we can better allocate our scarce financial resources.

The budget called on Transport Canada to review the potential for the commercialization of a number of its major activities. This will be done in consultation with affected parties with the objective of improving efficiency and ensuring long term viability.

Commercialization means users dictate what services they want to have provided and how costs can be controlled. Commercialization means that whatever option is selected it must allow market discipline to lead to more efficient service, greater flexibility and less dependence on tax dollars.

Commercialization means that the goal must be higher quality and more efficient service to the user at less cost to the taxpayer. For instance the Minister of Transport recently announced a new national airports policy. Under this policy the operations of Canada's largest and busiest airports will be transferred to Canadian airport authorities made up of community interests. These airport authorities will be able to make the most of their airport's commercial potential and to explore new methods of finding financing and to achieve greater efficiency and cost saving and to match their services with the local demands.

Commercialization will not dilute Transport Canada's priority ensuring and where possible enhancing the safety and security of all Canadians.

Transport Canada does not have to be the owner and operator of a service in order to make sure it is a good service. The department's role can be defined by its role in policy and regulation.

There is every reason to believe that carefully planned commercialization will mean major savings to taxpayers and better service to the clients.

As the Minister of Transport said in responding to the hon. member's original question with commercialization: "We will maintain the involvement of the Government of Canada in a supervisory, a regulatory and policy way".

Party FundraisingAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

(The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.)