Debates of Feb. 13th, 1997

Supply

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few points came up there.

First, aside from everything else he said, the parliamentary secretary should know that the auditor general, the government's own infrastructure auditor, said that the infrastructure program was a job creation failure. He warned against using this type of infrastructure program as a job creation scheme. Therefore, it was very clear to the auditor general that it was nothing more than a handout of money to Liberal sponsored schemes. There was plenty of evidence of that right across the country.

In terms of the Pearson airport deal, what the people involved in that project were entitled to was their day in court. They were entitled to their day in court to let a court of this land decide who was at fault and how much the award should be. It is absolutely improper and a terribly bad precedent for a government to pass legislation that virtually dictates the outcome and protects the government from any sort of lawsuit. It is absolutely outrageous.

Frankly, I do not give a hoot for the parliamentary secretary's personal guarantee that the Minister of Transport will make the most sensible decision. I do not give a hoot for that personal guarantee because I do not think it will be the most sensible decision. It will be made for political reasons.

It saddens me greatly to see the risk that the Rocky Mountaineer is being put at in the interests of a political ideology from the other side of this House that is contrary to private enterprise in this country.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it terribly unbalanced on the member's part not to recognize in his speech some of the great efforts that have been put forward by the Government of Canada, specifically in the Vancouver area.

When we think of the entire port infrastructure that has evolved in Vancouver, the Government of Canada has always led the way. I can think of all kinds of infrastructure support. Maybe the one highway he cited did not have quite the use it should have had at the time, but the Government of Canada presence in Vancouver is one of the most dominant of any city in Canada. I am sadly surprised that the member would not recognize that.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member failed to give any examples so I will give a nice example to back up my side of the story.

The port of Vancouver has been treated like a cash cow for the government. So much in dividends has been sucked out of the port corporation that we cannot afford any more to build new passenger facilities. It is treated like a cow with its head in Vancouver and the udder in Ontario right here in Ottawa. It is a disgrace.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to debate this opposition day motion and to speak particularly about the issue of highway transportation.

The story we have to tell as a government and the types of things we are proposing and intend to proceed with show quite clearly that the resolution condemning the government is totally inappropriate, misses the mark and does not accurately reflect the reality of what is taking place today.

Quite frankly the issue of transportation is an important one for me and for my riding. Parry Sound-Muskoka, part of the most beautiful part of the world, depends in large part on tourism. Indeed the vast majority of tourists who travel to my part of the country do so on the highway transportation system.

In my riding we depend so much on that industry that almost one out of every two jobs is tied to tourism. For every million dollars of new tourism expenditure we attract to my riding, primarily again through the highway transportation system, we create 39 person years worth of employment. For me personally as the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka the whole issue of highway transportation is an important one.

I also had an opportunity with others on all sides of the House to participate as the chair of the natural resources committee in a rural development study. We had an opportunity to talk to Canadians from coast to coast to coast about the needs of their communities, about the need for improving the economic climate that exists in rural Canada.

Almost to a person in the types of testimony that was provided to us the issue of transportation infrastructure, particularly highway infrastructure, came up. Not only was there the issue of tourism which we heard about from my constituents and from constituents across Canada, but we also heard about the importance of moving our natural resources from where we either harvest them or extract them in rural Canada to our markets and the importance of the highway transportation system to do that.

There is also the importance of a strong highway transportation system in terms of being able to value add to our natural resources in rural Canada and of being able to move those to market in an efficient way.

The committee on natural resources in its rural development study has examined this issue. It clearly states that transportation is important. The government is committed and concerned to have seen us as a committee of the House deal with the issue. I congratulate members of the transportation committee, which released its report yesterday dealing with the whole issue of highway transportation in Canada, for the work they have done, for the report they have tabled and for the recommendations they made in terms of highway renewal.

Not only for rural Canadians but for all Canadians the highway transportation system is critical. Ninety-five per cent of all transportation that goes between cities is on our highways. Seventy-five per cent of all freight that we move goes by highway. Sixty per cent of our exports to the United States, our largest export partner, goes by road and 80 per cent of our imports. Therefore it is critical for rural Canadians and for Canadians everywhere.

We need to look first at where we stand today. The reality of the situation when we are talking about highway transportation is that it is primarily, although not exclusively, a provincial responsibility.

Just this past October the Minister of Transport had an opportunity to meet in Prince Edward Island with his counterparts. He talked to them and dealt with the whole issue of a national highway policy. He received strong support from his provincial and territorial counterparts for the need to move forward but with a clear understanding that the lead responsibility in the issue of highway transportation rests with the provinces. The federal government should and must take a role in highway policy.

Historically the federal government has supported the whole issue of highway transportation since 1919. The best example occurred between 1949 and 1971 through a series of federal-provincial agreements involving the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway. As it had been in the previous century when it was linked from coast to coast by rail the nation was being linked coast to coast by a national highway.

The commitment and the ongoing involvement in highway transportation continue today. The federal government in fiscal year 1996-97 is committing somewhere close to $300 million or $292 million through federal-provincial agreements to highway construction and maintenance. In addition it spends approximately $100 million on highways and bridges for which it has direct responsibility.

Improvement in our highway transportation system is needed. That is why the government has had both the natural resources committee through its rural development study and even more directly the transport committee working on trying to develop ways to proceed, the proper actions that should be taken, the kind of strategy we should be looking at as a government to pursue improvement of our highway transportation network.

As the report on transport made quite clear there is a need for action now. We have an aging system. It is considered to have a 30-year lifespan. Right now it stands at something like 14 years. We are facing increased costs to maintain the system. As it grows older governments at all levels are having to commit increased financial resources to maintain it.

There is growing congestion in our major metropolitan centres. I often drive to Toronto and it does not take long to see the congestion. There has not been adequate investment in our highway transportation system.

Where do we go as a nation? Where do we go as Canadians? Where do we go as governments of all levels? One of the important things we need and one of the things the transport committee suggested is a national highways policy. We need a framework. We need a blueprint. Governments need a strategic road map to ensure a proper highway transportation infrastructure.

The committee made a number of suggestions and included a number of components which I think are appropriate. It talked about the need for a long term commitment of federal financial assistance. It talked about the need to develop partnerships between the public and the private sectors and between different levels of the public sector and the provincial and federal governments. It talked about the need to explore and develop new technologies and best practices in creating and maintaining our highway infrastructure. It talked about the need to develop innovative financing models to come up with the necessary financial resources that will

be required to make the major investment in updating and maintaining our highway infrastructure.

On some of these points the government has made very clear what it intends to do. The fact that it is presently committing close to $300 million to highways in Canada is appropriate. We should continue at a minimum to make that kind of financial commitment to a national highway system.

This has been debated a bit by previous speakers in the House but it is important that a infrastructure program be used to assist in transportation. In the program announced by the government right after the election in 1993 much of those funds were used in several provinces to help with important transportation related projects.

Unlike what one member was trying to suggest before, the program worked based on decisions as to the local priority, where the money should be spent and the types of transportation infrastructure. If transportation was chosen the decision was made at the local level. It was not made by the bureaucracy in Ottawa or by the members who sit in the House or in the various provincial legislatures or by their bureaucracies. The decision was made where it should be made: by local councils, local individuals who understand and know their priorities. We should continue to have such an infrastructure program and part of it should be used for transportation.

I will speak as a rural member for a second. It is important to note rural Canada has significant challenges that are somewhat different from those faced by urban Canada. Our transportation system is one of them. Obviously the geography is different. We have much larger distances to go. The density of our population is such that the need to communicate between a series of smaller municipalities intensifies our need for a highway transportation system. Our need to pursue our economies by transporting natural resources to market suggest that as we pursue a commitment of federal dollars, be it through an infrastructure program or otherwise, we must remember the needs in rural Canada are particularly high. We must recognize that when allocating the resources we allocate as a government.

We need to look at our financing options. We need to be creative. The third party sometimes has difficulty with the whole concept of being creative in government, looking at new solutions and looking forward as opposed to looking backward.

There are a number of creative ways to attract investment into a highways infrastructure. It could involve different levels of the public. It could involve a situation where we attract private investment into the infrastructure program, where we have the private sector invest in highways. We could recover that investment in a number of different ways. It could come from the public pursue through governments paying back that investment over years as the assets are depreciated. Or, it can come from the public through user fees if that is the types of decisions that might be made.

The key point is that we need to be creative in how we approach our financing of this type of infrastructure. I applaud the transportation committee in making that point very clear. We need to be creative. We need to reach out for innovative solutions in how we create highway transportation infrastructure.

The motion suggests that the government should be condemned. It is hogwash to use that word because the government should not be condemned.

The government should be complimented because in the last three and a half years, through its sound management of the Canadian economy, through the work it has done in managing Canada's finances, it has been able to create a financial environment that allows it options it would not have had if it had not acted in a prudent manner.

It is appropriate to look for a second at how some of that has worked. First, the government has taken a deficit which was about $42 billion when it took over and it is going to come in somewhere a little over $17 billion. We will know soon when the Minister of Finance brings in his budget.

The government is moving very quickly to a balanced budget. That will allow it to be able to make a long term financial commitment to a highway transportation system without increasing the debt. The government will be able to make that long term commitment without having to add on to its carrying charges. Sound fiscal management in reducing the deficit is giving the government the options to pursue such things as a national highway transportation policy.

By having economic policies that have led to the lowest interest rates in 40 years has made it possible and attractive for the private sector to make investments in things like highway transportation. The environment has been created. That is what the economic policy is all about. The government has created an environment, in this case low interest rates, that will give the private sector the opportunity to make the kinds of investments that it wants to be able to make.

These economic policies have led to the lowest sustained rate of inflation for well over a generation. It gives governments and the private sector the opportunity to make long term capital plans with some sort of surety in terms of future cost. That is what a stable inflation environment has been able to provide. It is working to allow the government to work in partnership with the private sector to pursue a policy that can lead to improved highway infrastructure.

Let us look at another matter. The government has created an environment so that trade has increased substantially since it has been in office. It has increased by something like 28 per cent. Today about 42 per cent of the value of all the goods and services produced in Canada come from trade. We have created the volume, we have created the market, we have created the need so that a proper investment and infrastructure can occur.

The member talked about not wanting to invest in a highway that was going to be empty. The reality is that as a trading nation and with the volume of trade going up, again investment in transportation infrastructure makes good, sound economic sense.

In summarizing, let me state clearly that first, the government has had some very specific policies that have helped in the area of highway transportation infrastructure. That is important to know.

Second, the government recognizes that more needs to be done. We do need an improved highway transportation infrastructure and the government is moving forward in that respect. We saw it with the natural resources committee, we saw it with the transportation committee. We are seeking out solutions. The Minister of Transport has met with his provincial and territorial colleagues to come together and find the best way to go forward.

Finally, by bringing sound fiscal management to this country, by creating a low interest rate environment, a stable inflation environment, the government has created the conditions so that investment can occur in our transportation infrastructure.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech, in particular toward the end when he got into fiscal policies. The only thing that is even more incredible in the outrageous claims that he has made on behalf of the Liberals is the fact that he actually seems to believe all this stuff.

He talked of how the Liberal government wants to find creative ways of raising new highway funds. He talked about either paying for it from the public purse, coming from the taxpayer by way of government payment or collecting it directly from the taxpayer. If anybody knows of creative ways to extract money from the taxpayer it is the Liberals.

He does not seem to recognize or accept that there is only one taxpayer. When the Liberals talk about making payments it does not matter where they get it from, it is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. He talked in terms of user pay and that the user should be paying for this highway system, not the government. Obviously in the end it will be the taxpayer one way or the other.

Let us go directly to the user. He suggested in the course of his speech that the highways are primarily a provincial responsibility. I do not disagree with that.

I have actually two questions for the hon. member. First, what is his reaction to the concept of making the provincial government responsible for 100 per cent of the highways? The federal government will bow out. But before it does, let us also recognize that the federal government extracts from the taxpayers, the driving public, a 10 cent a litre federal fuel tax originally which it brought in and called a highway tax. The tax amounts to $5 billion a year but in the entire country the government spends about 5 per cent of that back.

User pay? The user is paying 2,000 per cent of the cost of the federal government to maintain the national highway infrastructure. What about turning controls of highways 100 per cent back to provincial governments? But first tell them: "If you accept this responsibility we will give you at least half" and that is being generous. That is allowing the federal government to continue to extract from the Canadian driving public $2.5 billion a year and not put anything back. However, it would turn the other five cents over to the provinces with the explicit requirement that it is spent on highway infrastructure within their provinces.

If he is prepared to do that, I would suggest that the provinces are prepared to accept. British Columbia spends $1 billion on federal fuel taxes and the government spends $200 million for the entire country. If it wants user pay, great. But first account for the money that the user is already paying.

Second, he talked about highway transportation here in Ontario, his province and how necessary it is for his area.

Let us look at bus transportation in the province. VIA Rail officials came before the transportation committee and in response to my question of how VIA could possibly justify taking an already hugely subsidized passenger rail fare and cut it in half, the response was: "We want to increase our ridership and have a greater business volume so we are cutting our fares in half to take business away from the bus companies". Those bus companies are tax paying, non-subsidized, private sector operators trying to make a living, trying to transport tourists to the hon. member's area, that he talked about being so necessary for his local economy. How can we possibly justify VIA Rail taking a fare that is already hugely subsidized and cutting it in half to take passengers away from the private sector?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of points. Quite frankly, members opposite speak in general terms to something I have had an opportunity to talk about before and which I am going to take the opportunity to talk about again. They do not understand the nature of Canada, the nature of Confederation, and

they do not understand how this works. The hon. member laughs when I talk about Canada and Confederation. That speaks volumes about exactly how he feels.

This nation is a partnership of provinces and of Canadians. He talked about what British Columbians pay in gas tax. They do contribute significantly to Canada. However, other parts of the nation may not have the opportunity to contribute quite the same for whatever reasons.

Does that mean that part of Canada gets that much more service? Does that mean the less advantaged areas of the country are doomed not to receive assistance from those parts of the country that are more fortunate? Is that the kind of system he is calling for? I suspect it is because when their rhetoric is looked at and listened to, it is obvious they do not understand the very fabric of Canada and the very nation of Canada.

He suggests that we pay $5 million in gasoline tax and then turn around and send the money out and only use it for that. However, if we do that what happens to those public services that we provide as a government for which we do not collect any revenue? Does that mean that we do not have a national public health care system because there is not a revenue stream for it? Is he calling for an end to public health care?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Andy, did you hear what he just said? He wants to increase the income tax.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Oh, I see, he wants to raise taxes. That is an interesting thing coming from the Reform Party. I think that is somewhat against their new start or fresh start or whatever start it is on this week, I am not quite sure.

The point is that we do not necessarily say that if one has a revenue stream that it must be matched to a specific expenditure. What is going to happen? Do we take that money and divide it up by province? If one province pays more into it does it get more than the other provinces?

We are a nation. We are a nation from coast to coast to coast. We are all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We provide for ourselves on a national basis. I become very concerned when members of the third party sow the seeds of parochial provincialism day in and day out and try to sow the seeds of discontent from one region to another region. Those are the types of things they are talking about. Those are the types of things that their policies are going to lead to.

We want a national transportation system. We want a national highways transportation policy. It is the Liberal government, through sound fiscal management, that is going to give various governments and the private sector collectively the ability to do that.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening with a lot of interest to discussions on a national transportation policy with which I totally agree.

Our colleagues from the third regional party have come up with their own fresh start. I think it is about the fifth or sixth time they have had a start on this. However, in this one they are talking about giving back $2,000 per family on income tax. The one colleague over here right now has just made a statement that he was going to increase income tax.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

B.S.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Liar.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

You just said it. Anyway, no matter what he says, I heard him distinctly make that statement.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A point of order, the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Absolute bull.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Hold on, hold on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is inferring that he is quoting a comment I made that was responded to by another member. With regard to the comment I made, I simply said: "You still have your income tax revenues". They are claiming that I said something other than what I did.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Thank you for clarifying that. In fact, these last questions and comments have been a bit of a disaster. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka gets to reply in about 25 seconds.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to say that we have, as a nation, a challenge in terms of our highway transportation system. The Liberal government is working toward finding solutions. However, those solutions have to be found in partnership with other public sector governments, primarily the provincial governments, and in conjunction with the private sector as well.

This government has done a good job. It has set good economic fundamentals which will allow for investment in infrastructure.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before the House today a motion presented by the Reform Party, and I will read the first sentence: "That this House condemn the government for its approach to federal transportation

policies". Need I say that I could not agree more with this motion? With regard to airports alone, we have two clear examples of the need to condemn the transportation policies of this government.

And this is only the airports. There is also the Pearson question, and I will simply say that the Liberal government's decision in this respect has meant that we as taxpayers are faced with a law suit involving more than $600 million in damages.

However, I intend to concentrate on the issue, which was in the news again yesterday, in connection with the decision made by ADM to transfer all international flights to Dorval and, without any real authorization, to start work at Dorval on the facilities that will be required as a result of these transfers.

As you know, yesterday in Superior Court in Montreal, Judge Viau reversed this decision, and his accompanying comments were very critical of both ADM and the federal government. The ruling, which is 260 pages long, contained some very interesting comments. I will quote only three.

The first one is more or less as follows: the judge orders ADM to act in the public interest. Here is a creature of the federal government that is accused of not acting in the public interest. I wonder whether we actually realize how shocking this is. Let me recall that well known saying: like father, like son. And ADM is a creature of the federal government.

Second little pearl: the judge accused the ADM of manipulating the results of a study. Here again, and I underscore this, the ADM is a federal creature and is being accused of tampering with the results of a study to its advantage or to the advantage of the lobbies supporting it. I will not mention them here.

Third pearl: the ADM is being accused of abusing power. This government offspring is being accused of abusing power because it decided on a radical change in the functions of these two airports, when the government, as landlord, was entitled to insist on consultation and to authorize all changes in their functions.

I am proud to point out that our party, the Bloc Quebecois, criticized these practices from the outset and called on the government, the final authority in matters of air transportation, to put a stop to them. It is not up to our party to speak for Mirabel or Dorval.

It is our role, however, to criticize the behaviour of the ADM and the government in this matter and, especially, the arrogance of the seven members of ADM, who, without consulting anyone, according to the judge, not even SOPRAM, the advisory body available to it for consultation, decided the future of a region and the future of airports in the greater Montreal area.

We also asked, equally unsuccessfully, that the studies the ADM used be made public. We tried under the Access to Information Act.

Our request was turned down, because as a creation of the federal government, it is not subject to this act. We were denied access to the studies. As a result, no one knows on what basis a decision crucial to the regions was made.

I will wrap up quickly. As a sovereignist, I will not complain; in fact, I should thank ADM and Ottawa for proving once again to Quebecers that, within the federal system, management without interference by the lobbies is impossible. We cannot hope for reasonable management or for management in the public interest over the transportation issues debated here today. Our only hope is for a sovereign Quebec to be managed in an honest and reasonable fashion.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to provide more details on the consequences that this will have on Mirabel airport. What happens now with the two airports? Could the hon. member elaborate on this, because we need further information on this?

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot anticipate whether ADM will appeal the decision or not. Nor can we anticipate what the federal government will do, since the judge is asking, and in fact demanding, in the five conditions he set to allow ADM's decision to be implemented, that the government take certain measures.

I will simply say this: millions of dollars have already been spent in legal costs alone by the two parties, millions that could have been saved had the government followed up on the Bloc Quebecois' recommendation to hold public hearings, where representations would have been made and studies submitted, at a much lower cost. The issue should have been discussed in public, not behind closed doors.

We do not know whether the saga will continue, whether millions of dollars will be spent should ADM decide to appeal, or what the government's position will be following the judge's recommendations. At this point in time, I do not know what will happen. It all depends on ADM's decision and on the federal government's decision.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression I will have to continue after question period.

There are four items I would like to discuss in this debate on a motion tabled by the Reform Party which attempts to express the dissatisfaction with the federal government's transportation policies.

The items mentioned include, first of all, Pearson airport. I think this is a subject that has been discussed by a number of members in

this House. I could not agree more with those who thought it was very disturbing and in fact shocking to see the way the government is trying to salvage this mess.

Let me recall the facts of the case. The present Liberal Prime Minister said, when he was in the opposition and also during the election campaign, that he would reverse the former Conservative government's decision to privatize Pearson airport in Toronto, saying it would be far too expensive. They were talking about $600 million.

Not long ago in the newspapers, we read that one hundred million dollars would be needed to pay compensation alone. To salvage what could be salvaged and to try and honour a commitment, the government thinks one hundred million is too much.

Many citizens are talking increasingly about a second subject, the highway system. Many have asked their member of Parliament to table petitions, and I will probably table one myself. They want the government to spend more money on improving or repairing Canada's highway system.

By the way, we deplored the fact that Quebec does not get its fair share. Between 1952 and 1986, only 16.5 per cent of federal spending on highways went to Quebec, although we have more than 24 per cent of the population, as you well know.

From 1986 to 1988, spending dropped to 13 per cent. In 1991-92, spending dropped to its lowest level ever, 4.2 per cent. It went up a little subsequently, but never exceeded 12 per cent. In other words, half of the money the federal government should be spending on the highway system in Quebec is not being spent.

There are two more items, but I think I will have to continue after question period.

[The Speaker]

Certainly, my dear colleague. You will have the floor after Oral Question Period. You have seven minutes left if you want to use them.

It being 2 p.m., we shall proceed to statements by members.

Prebudget Town Hall

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, York North residents gathered at our annual prebudget town hall to discuss the country's current economic situation and to consider how best to proceed.

Residents called on this government to continue to focus on reducing the deficit and creating an economic environment that encourages job creation. They also urged the government to refrain from costly tax cuts until a balanced budget is achieved.

Discussions focused on how to build on success. They acknowledged that over 770,000 jobs have been created and that the deficit battle has almost been won. Now we must take advantage of our accomplishments and ensure our economy remains strong. Investing in youth, technology and small businesses were seen as high priorities. Participants called for a further reduction in red tape for small businesses and improved access to both information and capital.

This community takes its role in the budget process seriously. Residents have seen their ideas and suggestions become government policies. The residents of York North continue to make a difference.