House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transport.

Topics

Cultural HeritageOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the question is out of order. The motivation behind it is out of order as well.

This was a cultural event, with a group of Canadians celebrating the Tamil new year. These were young people. They were professional people. They were people with a vast range of occupations who had come to celebrate a period of enjoyment. The minister and I and others from the provincial government and municipal governments were there.

To condemn these people, to call them terrorists, is anti-Canadian. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is Irish blood coursing through my veins, and I am not a member of the IRA.

Air TransportationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois moved amendments requiring Air Canada subsidiaries to comply with the Official Languages Act.

The Minister of Transport opposed these amendments and thus jeopardized a significant presence of francophones in the airline industry.

With the warning from the Association des Gens de l'Air du Québec, does the Minister of Transport not realize that, by rejecting our amendments, he has himself compromised the francophone presence in Canada's airline industry?

Air TransportationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Not at all, Mr. Speaker, because we introduced amendments to give full expression to the feelings of francophones and to provide means of ensuring good service to francophones throughout the country.

If there is a problem in future, it can be addressed in another bill, but it is very important that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. I must point out that consideration of the bill in the House has been concluded and that it is now before the Senate.

Canadian Broadcasting CorporationOral Question Period

May 30th, 2000 / 3 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, the president of the CBC has said that the broadcaster is not a priority for the government and that the CBC is on life support due to underfunding.

Due to passionate protests by Canadians from coast to coast, the CBC has pulled back from axing regional shows entirely. But the problem remains and it is one of money and political will.

My question is for the finance minister. At a time when the federal coffers are overflowing, why is it that the government is leaving the CBC, one of our most revered national institutions, on life support?

Canadian Broadcasting CorporationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is not totally fair to the president of the CBC. What he did say, and he did correct his statement at committee when the member was there, was that the priority was not to add money to the current envelope of $901 million plus what CBC can get from the television production fund.

For the member to say that the CBC is not a priority is totally erroneous. The president of the CBC said no such a thing.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Today the commissioner for the environment released another damning report over the government's dismal environment record. He pointed out the government's lack to grasp or understand the benefits of aggressive tax incentives to support energy efficiency initiatives, not just lip service. Alberta's environment minister, Gary Mar, has recognized the need for this particular initiative in his best effort strategy.

Is the reason the government continues to flounder on climate change because the Minister of the Environment is fighting over the file with the Minister of Natural Resources, because the Prime Minister has no grasp of the file, or because the finance minister has no clue what a tax cut is?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, in terms of internal political battles within a party, we certainly will say that the Tories have far more experience and are much better at it than we are. They have many more corpses on the floor.

I would say to the member that he has chosen the one minister of the environment from all the provinces, who drives the largest SUV with the worst gas mileage, to cite as his example for the rest of us. I think it is quite ridiculous that he would make such a suggestion.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Dieng Boubou Farba, Speaker of the Senate of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was talking about toll roads as being one method by which some governments have seen fit to put spending back into roads.

I received a letter from Bruce Law from the Lundar area of Manitoba. His opinion was that tolls on roads are another form of taxation. He was also concerned that the money collected from tolls on a specific road or bridge would eventually find its way to another fund. There is an element of distrust on the part of many Canadians with regard to the government taking in user fees, tolls and those sorts of thing for a specific purpose and then using those moneys for a totally unrelated initiative.

While I recognize that provincial jurisdiction primarily prevails in regard to highways, the federal government does take in the larger portion of tax money from Canadians and, as a result, has a responsibility not only for the national highway system but also to assist the provinces with their major roads.

The reason we have a crisis in transportation, particular on roads, is because the government has given no long term plan in conjunction with the provinces for infrastructure. It has indicated no long term funding. It is more a case of letting it get bad, letting it become a crisis and then it will do something.

With regard to the railways, in the past, when the Government of Canada owned the Canadian National Railway it was at the height of being a regulated system. However, we saw that the Canadian National Railway, in its contracts with employees and different things, was a very inefficient railway. It signed contracts out of convenience. It made it hard for the normal competitive commercial industry. It is only now, with Canadian National being a private company, that we see it moving toward a more efficient system.

We see some of the same problems that Canadian National Railway had showing up in the case of VIA Rail. It is my personal opinion that the user fees being charged by VIA Rail are probably not sufficient and should be a little higher. As long as VIA Rail is totally protected from the marketplace, I think it will continue to have to be highly subsidized by the federal government. There needs to be some marketplace discipline associated with the operations of VIA Rail.

My final comment on transportation and this supply day motion is with regard to the airline industry. This is a current issue that is underdeveloped and is continuing to evolve. However, the one thing I do know is that we need airline competition in this country, real competition that puts the consumer and the air traveller first, not second.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member with regards to the transportation policy or the lack of a transportation policy.

I think the member would agree that there is a huge difference between western and eastern Canada. I contend that one of the reasons that eastern Canada does not have the economic clout that it should have and deserves to have is because of a lack of a cohesive transportation policy that allows us to transport goods in and out of Atlantic Canada. This goes back to the free trade debate in 1988.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, and I know the member knows, the party opposite railed against the free trade debate. After forming the government, it embraced it as if it had invented it. If there has been any shortcoming in that free trade agreement with the Americans, it is the fact that we never actually developed transportation links in Atlantic Canada heading north and south which would have allowed us to move our goods out of the area. This has hampered development in Atlantic Canada.

To this day I cannot understand why the government has not come up with a policy that recognizes that difficulty. From confederation up until 1988, our trade links were east and west which benefited, for the most part, central Canada.

Does the member have any understanding as to why the national government, the Liberal government of the day, has not addressed the problem of modern transportation to our neighbours to the south?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with those comments in general. The Liberals do have a history of saying one thing, doing another and not living up to promises. The member pointed out many times the example of the GST.

The maritimes and western Canada do have a lot of similarities as well as some differences. The similarities are that they are small in population and that they have limited influence in the Parliament of Canada at times when Ontario and Quebec seem to hold sway.

The west has traditionally had north-south trade routes but they were artificially changed by government policies. The Crow rate was one example of artificial regulation by the federal government that did not let normal commercial patterns develop. I think the maritimes suffered from that same situation.

What the government should now do is make sure that trade between the maritimes and the United States is not hampered and that there is harmonization in any area where there is a need, for instance on trucking regulations and criteria like that.

The member has a valid comment in that the federal government should make sure there is road infrastructure. It should also get out of the way of the railways so that they can put in the type of rail service that is needed to deliver goods both north and south from the maritimes to the U.S.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, our point with this motion today is not actually on specific issues but on the concept, approach and inconsistency of the transport policies and unco-ordinated approaches. I am sure the hon. member does not have the 1999-2000 estimates at his fingertips, but I will read a couple of numbers for him and ask him to comment on them.

In the estimates for transport the government has allowed for funds to pay provinces under the elimination of the Atlantic regional freight subsidy program. The province of New Brunswick for instance gets $500,000 under the elimination of the Atlantic regional freight subsidy program whereas the province of Quebec gets $15,747,000. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on why the province of Quebec gets $15.7 million and the province of New Brunswick only gets a half a million dollars under the elimination of the Atlantic regional freight program.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not know the details of those agreements. No doubt there is some justification for Quebec receiving more. It is a much larger province with its economy being that much larger. I am sure it was prorated on an equitable basis. If it was not, I would ask that the member submit the figures which show that it was done on an inequitable basis or in preference of one province over the other.

The bigger issue in rail transportation is that the federal government continues to want to highly regulate and micromanage every aspect of the rail economy when it comes to grain transportation in the west. I am not sure what the major use of rail transportation is in the east. Certainly logging is a major issue there and mining is coming along with the nickel mines. Railways are important in the east too.

It is a matter of the government making sure that the marketplace is free to work in the manner in which it was meant to. It should not be artificially designed through freight rate subsidies to help one region over the other. That probably did not occur with Quebec and New Brunswick.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the comment made by the member of the Conservative Party who said that his party put the motion not to deal with specifics but rather to deal with the big picture. I am not surprised. I do not think the Conservatives would want to deal with specifics when we consider that at their recent policy conference they approved $23 billion a year to be spent in debt reduction and over $100 billion over five years for tax relief.

Just about everybody who knows anything about what is going on around here knows that the total surplus that has been announced as available is about $95 billion. Both private sector and government figures have confirmed that. I would not want to get into specifics too much about a transportation policy if my party's policy called for spending in the area of tax relief and debt reduction $123 billion out of a surplus of $95 billion. That would not leave a lot for specifics or spending on transportation. That was just a side point with regard to the member's comment.

When talking about national transportation in this country, it is most helpful if there has been an opportunity to travel in Canada and see exactly what our transportation networks are about. I recently had the distinct privilege of spending four days with my wife travelling through Nova Scotia up into Cape Breton and around the Cabot Trail. I would also point out that it is a province which is represented by many Progressive Conservatives.

We had the pleasure of landing in Halifax, renting a vehicle and travelling to Digby. Members will know that Digby scallops are the finest in the world. We enjoyed the wonderful friendship of the people, the seafood, the ambience. Interestingly, we enjoyed some incredible highways. Having travelled in every province in this country, the transportation network in Nova Scotia is second to none. It is quite remarkable.

We drove almost 2,000 kilometres exactly. When we got the rental car back to the airport, we had done 2,000 kilometres around Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. I do not intend to give a travelogue, but I was so impressed with the quality of the roads, the lack of congestion, the monitoring, the safety and everything that I saw. Of course to do that kind of mileage we were in the vehicle eight and nine hours a day travelling from point to point.

We left Digby and went up through Mahone Bay. My wife did a bit of shopping. This was a vacation opportunity for us to see that part of Canada. We went into Lunenburg and from there up to Truro where we spent the night. Once again I was immensely impressed with the quality of the roads. Even the roads that were off the beaten path seemed to be very well maintained.

From there we travelled across the Canso Causeway into Cape Breton and the home of Al MacInnis, a terrific hockey player in the NHL. We went up what I believe is the north coast of Cape Breton Island along the Cabot Trail. It was spectacular scenery but I must say quite spectacular roadways. The Cabot Trail of course is historic and known throughout the world. There is a transportation system that is truly a marvel. We went right into Sydney, then on the last day from Sydney down the south coast and back through the heartland to the Trans-Canada Highway at Antigonish and from Antigonish back into Halifax. We flew home the next day.

My point is that the quality of the roads was superb. The traffic management systems were superb. It is interesting to have the party that represents most of the ridings in that province, unfortunately for us at the moment, telling us that we need some kind of transportation strategy. I think Nova Scotia has obviously done very well.

On other occasions I have had the privilege of driving from Halifax through New Brunswick and across the bridge into Prince Edward Island. The fixed link is truly a wonder of the world. It finally brings P.E.I. into the world of modern transportation. I am not 100% sold that the islanders necessarily want to be brought into that world. I think they quite enjoy their beautiful island and are happy to be left alone in some instances. But in all seriousness, they understand the importance not only for tourism, but also for moving goods to and from their island for export. They are very successful in exporting a number of their products, in addition to potatoes.

On the east coast we see a situation where transportation on the roads is second to none. I did not hear members opposite representing the Conservative Party say that. If I lived in that province I would be shouting about the successes that exist in that spectacular part of Canada. I would be telling Canadians to come and enjoy Nova Scotia, Halifax, the Cabot Trail, Sydney, Rita MacNeil's beautiful tearoom in Big Pond and all of the spectacular things that are there, and to admit that there is a physical infrastructure in place in that province that is second to none.

It brings me to the concept of a national policy. Let us look at Ontario. People would recognize in my case at least, I come from the city of Mississauga where one of the great strengths is the transportation available to us on the Great Lakes, on the roads, on the rail system and certainly in the air with Pearson International Airport.

There has been some concern about toll roads. The province has sold Highway 407 to a private sector consortium which in turn will be increasing the tolls to replace the income that was lost in the share that goes to the government.

There is a double sided edge with toll roads. Was it Nova Scotia that eliminated the toll road? The member opposite would know.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

An hon. member

New Brunswick.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

It was New Brunswick. I thought it was. Premier Lord closed the toll road. The problem is that it is fine to do that, because I am not particularly a fan of toll roads, but what was it replaced with? It drove up the debt.

The federal party has decided to endorse that. I guess that is not a great shock when we consider the fact that the Conservatives left a $42 billion deficit when they were in government. They shout over there because they hate for us to remind them of that, but it is the truth and it needs to be told. It needs to be spoken about because the obvious solution to their spending plans is to somehow take us back into the era of deficit financing.

I am really surprised at that. I would have thought that the Progressive Conservative Party had learned its lesson and had realized that the running of deficits every year is like running an overdraft. I have said it many times. When they run an overdraft, how do they pay it off? They pay it off by piling it on top of the national debt. If we equate it to a family, it would run an overdraft and pay it off by putting it on top of the mortgage on the family home. We all know we can only do that for so long. At some point in time something has got to give.

We do not have the answers. It is so easy to stand and pontificate, as the Conservatives have done in their motion, that we need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people. They do not have any specifics. They do not have any answers. They do not have any solutions they are prepared to put forward. They simply want to say that someone has to fix this problem.

Let us address the problem. I have already spoken about what would appear not to be a problem. Look at the shipping which comes into Halifax harbour. Are they going to tell us that there is not an infrastructure in the harbour in Halifax to accommodate international ocean-going vessels that come there on a regular basis? Are they going to tell us that the airport in Halifax is not capable of handling the traffic that comes into that province? Are they going to sit there and tell us that their province is full of congested roads with potholes when we know that it is not true?

I would suggest that the crisis they are talking about is a fabrication in their own minds. It is all because of one issue. It has to do with the so-called merger, although it is more of a takeover, of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada. Let us analyze that. Certainly there have been and will continue to be some route justifications in parts of the country, but the government realizes the importance of providing good quality service in the air. Look at the size of the country. We cannot expect that people are going to be able to get around without some kind of a national airline system.

The cry is that we need more competition. I hear the official opposition—I can never remember the new name, I am going to have to sit down and write it out 100 times or something, but whatever it is, the reform alliance conservative progressive whatever—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

CCRAP.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Oh, I would not say that. This is a family show so I cannot use that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled that the name of this party should be used as it is properly registered. It is Canadian Alliance and I would urge the member not to demonstrate his total inability to learn two words by actually using the name Canadian Alliance.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Mississauga West is correctly admonished and I hope illuminated and elucidated.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have two words for the member and they are not Canadian Alliance, but that is another story.

I stand to be corrected but I think that it is the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party. That is five words. That is the registered name or something like that. There are five words in the registered name, not two, so if the member thinks that I have a problem, maybe that explains why.

However, I want to get back to the issue of a national transportation strategy, because the reform party, or the Alliance Party, pardon me—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Canadian Alliance.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

The Canadian Alliance Party. They have a party. I will call them what they want but the people will understand what they are voting for, believe me. They will be voting for the same old thing when they get an opportunity after the same leader is re-elected. We know that.

We also know that party's position. By the way, they are all over the map in this regard. The position of the official opposition is that all transportation issues should be run by the private sector, that there is no reason for government to be involved in providing any kind of infrastructure. Its own members have criticized the infrastructure program.

They love to throw around the word boondoggle. I think they learned it as a new phrase this year when they were away at a caucus retreat. We can just see them all gathering around going boondoggle, boondoggle. Anyway, they learned this word and have suggested that the infrastructure program is in some way not a proper expenditure of federal government money.

There has never been in my view a more successful uptake of a program that I can recall than the infrastructure program launched in 1993. Why? Because it involved the entire community. It was not the government coming out, cutting a ribbon and passing out a cheque: “Me and the Prime Minister brung you the cheque”. It was not done that way. There was involvement with the municipalities across Canada. All the provinces had an opportunity.