Debates of March 16th, 1998

Competition Act

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the government has undertaken a number of actions to facilitate the use of alternative fuels and emissions in our fleets. We have provided the departments with the tools to make assessments of the potential of each vehicle. We have established and demonstrated a project in the showcase to alternative vehicles and we have provided environmentally friendly policy frameworks.

With all this the assessment is that a limited number, in fact only 6% of the existing vehicles in the fleet, would be cost effective to operate on alternative fuels. The results of this limitation include the restricted selection of vehicles available in 1998 models offered by manufacturers. Only six trucks and vans and three sedans are available.

The lack of cost effective components by suppliers to convert the vehicles is another impediment. Limited infrastructure for alternative fuels in some parts of our country is severely limiting our applications for alternative fuel vehicles in the federal fleet.

If gasoline remains a primary fuel for most of our fleet we must find other ways, in addition to alternative fuel measures, to reduce emissions. This can be done primarily by reducing fuel consumption through the use of efficient vehicles.

Our analysis indicates that 53% of the fleet travels less than 20,000 kilometres and 24% travels less than 10,000 kilometres. Under the new policy emission reductions will come from greater use of alternative fuels combined with greater efficiency in the use of the Canadian government fleet.

We are well aware of my colleague's exploits in the environmental field and the Government of Canada is continuing to pursue methods to ensure we have clean air for Canadians.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 1998, following the report on the first year of the EI reform, I questioned the minister as to the short term action he intended to take, given that this report, which I would call a rather rosy one, made no recommendation concerning the EI amendments.

The minister had been saying for a number of months that he was following the reform very closely and that we must wait for the first-year report to see if any changes were required. The report itself contains no recommendations. It even claims to have been unable to really evaluate the effect of the EI reform.

Unfortunately, those in the field have already seen the results of this punishing reform only too well. They will see it even more clearly, unfortunately, in the coming days and months with the so-called spring gap. This is the period when those who have not been receiving EI benefits long enough to carry them through to their next job, particularly seasonal workers, will have a difficult six, eight or ten weeks with no income.

It does not take an extensive report to understand the reality of the situation, and we would like the government to do something about this quickly.

In response to my question, the minister talked about how successful his economic policies have been in creating jobs. But the minister gave the wrong answer, as what is being assessed is the success of social policies.

This has been clearly demonstrated by the distinguished economist Pierre Fortin. He has established beyond a doubt that, in Quebec alone, 200,000 individuals who have been forced onto welfare since the EI reforms were implemented would still be receiving EI benefits if the basic rules had remained the same. Not only is the loss of income substantial, but individuals are also marginalized by being moved from the employment system to the welfare system. The minister's EI reform policy is an abject failure.

In that sense, what I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me is how they can possibly accumulate a surplus of $135 million a week in the employment insurance fund and allow eligibility requirements to marginalize and impoverish people when it has been clearly demonstrated that people do not abuse the system.

The fact is that only 3% of claimants defraud the system. This percentage is no higher than that of people who try to cheat the tax system or who exceed the speed limit. Yet, they are improperly, disproportionately penalized. The facts speak for themselves. The decisions being made even encourage them to drop out of the labour market.

Could the parliamentary secretary provide some clarifications and give me the assurance that changes will promptly be introduced by the government, now that the report has been considered by the parliamentary committee, among others?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back in the same place at the same time.

The hon. member knows very well that the new Employment Insurance Act requires that we monitor and assess the impact of the reform on individuals, communities and the economy. He knows that the first report had to be tabled in early 1998.

Given the magnitude of the reforms, the limited time some of the changes have been in place and the time required to obtain and analyse complete information, the 1997 report gives a preliminary assessment of the start-up year of the reform.

This is the first of five reports. It lays the groundwork for subsequent reports that will take a more comprehensive look at how people are adjusting to the reforms. We have already demonstrated that we will respond to concerns. Last year we put in place adjustment projects to address concerns that the reform had created a disincentive to work.

That is why the monitoring and assessment process is so important. It ensures that we are gathering and assessing information on an ongoing basis and enables us to respond when there is a need to do so. However, we will not abandon the reform on the basis of the hon. member's exaggerated claims.

Even though we have preliminary results, there are encouraging signs that people are adjusting to the reform and an improved economy is helping them to do that.

I want to say that we are on the right track. The fact that we are not wasting our time in committee presenting a report to the House of Commons on a preliminary report is a good use of our time as a committee. For the member to suggest that we should review the monitoring report in committee and spend weeks talking to people about it is rehashing what we did last year in committee when we brought in this report. I think we should get on with the business of seeing that Canadians get employment and the economy continues to progress the way it has.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, just over a month ago, on February 4, I stood in this House and asked the Prime Minister to explain a document that had come into my possession that detailed a government plan to shut down the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

This plan, stamped “secret” on every page, included a precise chronology for the privatization of Devco. Then, in the likely event that privatization would be unsuccessful, the government was told exactly which parts of Devco could be sold off, parts like the Donkin mine. Most important, the plan told the government what it had to say to convince the people of Cape Breton that the destruction of their jobs, of their traditions and of their communities was a good thing.

When I revealed this document the Prime Minister would not answer my question. He passed me off to the natural resources minister who had not even been paying attention. That is how seriously this government takes the voice of Cape Breton Island. The Prime Minister had advance notice of my question and he did not even bother to brief his minister.

It took a week for the Liberals to respond to my release. It took them a week to come up with a line to explain away written proof of their underground strategy to destroy the Cape Breton coal industry. The best they could do after a week was to say that the plan they had authorized at cabinet level had never been presented to the cabinet.

This defies belief. Is the government asking us to believe that when the cabinet requests a study it simply disappears? If the cabinet tolerates civil servants behaving that way then our country and this government are in more trouble that I thought.

Eventually the Liberal spin doctors decided this line was a little too unbelievable as well because they dropped it and said that yes, there had been a plan but that it was abandoned because of the pressure applied by the island's Liberal MPs David Dingwall and Russell MacLellan.

A cabinet minister who was explicitly mentioned in the cabinet memorandum as being a key player in implementing the privatization or shutdown was suddenly transformed into the saviour of the corporation. Even better, Russell MacLellan, a backbencher, was supposed to have input into a cabinet document that he could not have known anything about.

This explanation insults Canadians. Any grade 10 political science student knows we have a parliamentary system that relies on cabinet confidentiality as one of its central pillars. So if a backbench MP is getting access to secret cabinet documents, then at least one cabinet minister should be forced to resign.

This fudging of answers has reached a fever pitch as the Nova Scotia election gets closer. The backbench Liberal MP turned Liberal premier struggles to convince Nova Scotians that his total lack of activity on their behalf over the past two decades is not due to his total lack of ability. Paul any economic recovery will bypass Cape Breton Martin and Jean your out of luck Chrétien are singing Russell's praises in trying to pretend that they actually remember who he is. But this will not work.

The people of Cape Breton are still waiting for the Liberals to answer the question I asked last month. We do not want any promises, we just want the truth. If the truth is that the government has tried and failed to make Devco commercially viable and has tried and failed to privatize it, why will it not be honest with the people of Cape Breton Island?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair must remind the hon. member that in referring to members of this House, she must not refer to them by name but by title or by constituency. I would urge her to comply with the rules in that regard in the future.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to see you poised between those two very very beautiful Canadian flags that should be presented in this House.

The future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation or Devco is a very serious issue for miners, the people of Cape Breton and not the least to the Government of Canada. Coal mining and Devco contribute to the economic well-being of many families in many communities in Cape Breton and provides opportunities for all Canadians.

As we all know workers at the corporation are dealing with geological issues and technical uncertainty about the future of the Phalen mine. It is in this context that I am concerned the hon. member may be politicizing the matter which provides disruption to the community, to the workers and to the corporation which is trying to support jobs in that area.

I would not want the hon. member to have to live up to the editorials that are coming down about her within her riding. They basically suggest that the spin of the hon. member for Bras d'Or is ignoring the facts.

The government's position with respect to Devco has been very consistent. Therefore I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the government's position on this very important crown corporation.

Devco must be commercially viable. Nothing more, nothing less. It is worth repeating that we believe this is a necessary step toward ensuring the survival of both the corporation and the coal mining industry in Cape Breton.

In the context of the hon. member's question from this afternoon and from previous questions, let me assure this House that there is no secret plan to privatize Devco nor is there a 15 month shutdown plan for Devco. The hon. member's frequent assertions that such a plan exists appear to be based on a draft document that was never presented to cabinet. Instead, as we all are aware, a decision was made to focus on commercial viability.

The only approved plan that exists for Devco today is Devco's business plan. Based on this plan the government has made a decision to continue to provide financial support. The government has confidence in the management and the employees of the corporation. These people will work toward the goal of commercial viability.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to bring attention to the River Glade to Moncton toll issue. In short, I disagree with tolls charged on highways because highways are basic public goods needed for economic and safety reasons.

Since the New Brunswick government announced its secret deal with the Maritime Road Development Corporation to build a new highway between River Glade and Fredericton, I have opposed the deal. The process by which negotiations were conducted between the provincial government and Doug Young's company should not have been secret but instead should have been open to public scrutiny before any contract was signed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

I know the Liberals hate to hear this because it is the truth and that is why they are all complaining at this point.

Highways should be paid for by our income tax which lets people pay for services based on a percentage of their incomes instead of tolls which are unfairly applied at the same rate to both poor and rich citizens.

In addition, I oppose the tolls on the Trans-Canada section between Riverglade and Moncton to MRDC because this section should not be part of the deal. The section in question has already been paid for by our taxes, both provincially and federally. The highway is part of the Trans-Canada, a national symbol which links Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This section is the only highway linking residents of the riding with health care needs which they can only obtain in Saint John or Moncton. The federal government has double-dipped in the pockets of Atlantic Canadian businesses.

This toll tax on the main corridor between the maritime provinces and the rest of Canada will result in an increase in the cost of goods and services imported and exported from the maritime region. The tourist trade will also be directly affected.

In addition, the people of New Brunswick will be looking at a $2 billion tax increase.

In 1995 the Liberal government eliminated the Atlantic Canada freight rate subsidies, promising to invest $326 million over five years to modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Where did it go?

In Atlantic Canada freight rate subsidies existed to help Atlantic Canadian businesses compete with central Canadian businesses which were favoured because of lower transportation costs. This represented thousands of dollars in subsidies every year for many Atlantic Canadian businesses.

Now the toll highway, already paid for by tax dollars and the savings of the subsidies eliminated, is costing these businesses more than before. It does not add up.

For example, a company which used to pay $1,000 to ship its products to Ontario would get a rebate of $250. Now they have to pay the $1,000 plus an extra $110 fee per day to travel.

In closing, I would like to say that the Trans-Canada Highway should be toll free from coast to coast. In the words of Ruth Jackson, present mayor of Salisbury: “A toll on any part of the Trans-Canada Highway is a breach of trust to the citizens of Canada, removing them from the freedom of unifying transport across this country. Any tolled road, be it provincial or private, must be separate and distinctly not part of the Trans-Canada Highway system. If this toll is allowed to proceed, all geography east of Moncton will be denied the freedom of national highway access to any commercial transport”.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that highways, including those segments which make up the Trans-Canada Highway, fall under provincial jurisdiction. Both the existing and proposed Fredericton to Moncton highways are the responsibility of the province of New Brunswick. This means that the Government of New Brunswick decides on their alignment, design, construction standards, tendering process, financing, as well as subsequent operations and maintenance.

The decision to establish tolls on these highways is exclusively a provincial decision.

The federal government had co-funded some of the completed work under existing federal-provincial cost-shared agreements. The total federal contribution toward the completed work was $32 million. Of this, $16 million was spent on the 23 kilometre section between Riverglade and Moncton, which will become part of the toll highway.

New Brunswick has not included the federal contribution in the cost base that was used for establishing tolls and the annual provincial payment for the remaining capital cost. In effect, the federal funds have reduced the capital cost of the total project.

The federal government entered into cost shared federal-provincial highway agreements because it wished to accelerate the construction of safer and more efficient highways, and this objective was met.

Once project construction is completed to the satisfaction of both parties, the federal role ceases.

Past and current agreements contain no provisions preventing the establishment of tolls or requiring the agreement of the federal government. The government has no legal basis to prevent provinces from imposing tolls on provincial highways, including those which have received federal contributions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.55 p.m., 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 6.54 p.m.)