Debates of March 18th, 2003

Transportation Amendment Act

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully and I am fully aware of some of the concerns he raised. I would like him to comment on transportation as it affects our own province in particular. I will mention two examples.

The first example has to do with the complete lack of infrastructure funding. The government, in its recent budget, talked about $3 billion in infrastructure funding, and everybody said that was a lot of money. One billion dollars of that will go into special projects, which will take it away from regular road work, et cetera. The other $2 billion will be spread over 10 years. In a country like Canada, $2 billion spread over 10 years will not be enough to keep the potholes filled up. I would like him to comment on that.

My second example has to do with air transportation and the cutbacks that have negatively affected eastern Canada in particular, but more particularly the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, even more particularly, the area of Gander. I would like him to comment on those cutbacks.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, this year I think the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador may only receive approximately $3 million to $5 million for highway development. It has already been stated in the province that it will be short approximately $50 million to keep up with the basic needs of the province. The province is spending about $50 million right now and it will be short approximately $50 million. When we talk about $3 million for the whole national scheme, it seems like a lot of money but it is not a lot.

As a result, only a small amount of dollars will be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada. I do not think there is any doubt that the provinces will have to come back to the federal government for more money.

In Newfoundland and Labrador right now the cost to fly out of the province is tremendous. People are being taxed to death. Airport authorities have been asking the government to get rid of the passenger tax because it has been a major hindrance. Airport authorities are being burdened to death with the excise tax with regard to fuel. If some of this money were rebated to the airports then a lot of the airports could stay more competitive than what they are today.

I think the government has missed the boat in that area. It has to start rebating some of the money it is taking from airports throughout Atlantic Canada. If it does not eliminate the tax totally, some of the airports in Atlantic Canada will not survive. If the government does not totally eliminate the tax, there will be a very negative impact on the whole of Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada cannot afford that because it will be the one hardest hit throughout the country. The government needs to start listening to airport authorities and the people who use the system.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member for Gander—Grand Falls is very simple. How would the member see being able to achieve the goal of eliminating the bias against rural Canada that currently exists as a consequence of the way our taxation regime and infrastructure support work in the current framework? They discriminate against rural Canada in a way that I know the member for Gander—Grand Falls would understand as well as I, being from northern Vancouver Island, do.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, some days there is never an easy question.

The important thing is to look at the rural areas and population decline, but individuals still need air transportation and a transportation service. There is a cost sometimes to help out the people most in need. The urban centres are getting all the big breaks with regard to the transportation sector.

I firmly believe that we have to sit down and talk to the stakeholders, talk to people from the areas that are affected and come up with a Canadian plan for Canadian taxpayers that will have little impact on the taxpayers themselves but more of an impact on the fact that Air Canada and other carriers provide an equal level of service for all of Canada.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a tendency to speak very quickly and to mumble, but inside of one minute I suppose I can level what may be the thesis of a greater talk that I will have the opportunity to do in the future.

The greatest criticism of this bill is, frankly, the way in which it was brought in by the Minister of Transport. I am pleased that the Minister of Transport is sitting on our side of the House at the moment so this criticism will be crystal clear. I know he heard it at committee and he will hear it again in the future. The way in which this bill was brought in was really unfortunate.

The bill was brought in a week after the federal budget. Therefore, any of the promises or anything else brought forward in the bill will be of utterly no use because the transport minister failed to stand up to his cabinet colleagues, who for a decade have been shutting out the transportation sector. He brought it in a week after the budget, therefore rendering the bill and all of its contents completely meaningless.

The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, March 17, it is my duty to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-24.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the length of bells will be 15 minutes.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion for second reading of Bill C-24.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that the vote on the previous motion be applied in reverse to the vote on the main motion on Bill C-24 and to the vote on the motion on Bill C-2, with the addition to the Liberals voting of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, the member for Scarborough East, the member for Oakville and the member for Scarborough Centre.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the member for Cumberland—Colchester to the Progressive Conservative members voting.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

Since the vote has been applied in reverse, I declare the motion for second reading of Bill C-24 carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-24, the main motion, the member for Fundy—Royal and the member for Kings—Hants will be voting in opposition to the motion.

[The Speaker]

Clearly this will not affect the results, but we will make the necessary adjustments on the list of the vote.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, be read the third time and passed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)