Joe Fontana

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that this member may not have much respect for this institution but I am sure he would have respect for the Speaker.

I thought I heard the Speaker give some guidance to this member and ask him to stick to the subject matter which is Bill C-12. That is what we are discussing today. Opposition day is tomorrow. There are plenty of opportunities in this House for this member to speak about anything else he would like.

Surely Canadians, taxpayers, who are watching this institution would expect that the hon. member would respect the wishes of the Chair and stick to the subject matter we are discussing today, Bill C-12, and not ramble on about everything that this House has done or will do in the foreseeable future.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance for this member who just does not seem to get it.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Time.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all appreciate this history lesson but I thought we were on Bill C-12 regarding the business corporations act. I am sorry, I do not see the relevance whatsoever of the member's comments with regard to Bills C-91 and C-22. I thought we were talking about Bill C-12.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could direct the member to speak to the bill before this House.

[Regional Development, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question with regard to VIA, yesterday the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Transport indicated to the House that the $6 million report that is awaited and being done by three levels of government, the Quebec, Ontario and federal governments, is due some time this summer.

At that point the government will study the opportunities and the alternatives available to it to look at the very intriguing project of high speed rail.

We are not discarding anything, but it would be premature to say anything at this point until such time as the study was complete. Then we would be willing to work with all members of the House to see whether or not it is viable and feasible for the country.

[Mil Davie Shipyards, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked many times in the House of the Minister of Transport and of the Minister of Industry. The Minister of Transport is looking at all options available for the replacement of this ferry.

No decisions have been made. We will take all considerations into account and when a decision has been made we will advise the House.

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. It is always important to put one's comments in perspective. The Minister of Transport did not hide the fact that the government has no other money to give to VIA Rail.

The future of VIA Rail will depend on the availability of financial resources both from the government and from passenger revenues and will be affected in large part by the outcome of the current labour negotiations that are under consideration now. After these negotiations VIA will present its plans to the government at the appropriate time and we will deal with them then.

The government supports VIA's current efforts to maximize efficiencies of its operations before a decision is taken on the long term future of the corporation. For my friend's information, VIA has made fantastic gains in the past three years in terms of efficiencies in its operations, in terms of manpower, in terms of locomotives, in terms of equipment. They have made great gains but more can be done.

Clearly there can be no immediate service changes. VIA must present a proposal to the government. I repeat there can be no cuts without the government's approval.

It is very important that the Canadian people and goods be moved efficiently throughout the country. Canadians want to see a workable, affordable transportation system. It would be premature to speculate on service changes, aside from the fact that VIA will operate a network which Canadians can afford.

In addition, the member spoke about the Liberal task force. I was one of the co-authors of that task force, as many of my colleagues know. We will take some of those task force recommendations into account as the minister and the government take a look at the options available. We will also look at ways of modernizing the VIA network. We will look at those recommendations, as I said.

More important, the member should understand that. He talked about whether the government should intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This is one place where in fact the federal government would work with the provinces, as it has in Ontario. We would welcome co-operation with the Quebec government, municipalities, the private sector, community groups, all to come and play and be part of the solution so that we can maintain a viable national VIA network across the country.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

I would hope that the member on the other side would find it possible not to also send out derogatory remarks such as calling members on this side of the house puppets because that is impugning the character of members on this side of the House.

The Bloc has put forward an amendment and a proposal asking for a public hearing. I want to know how the member can justify the great delay that would take, the great expense that would also entail and would it not be prudent to put this behind us? The bill is pretty clear as to what we will pay and what we will not pay. We will not pay lobbyist fees, we will not pay loss of profits, loss of opportunities but we will pay out of pocket expenses. The bill is pretty explicit. In fact it says that we negotiate on those terms. If we cannot negotiate on those terms, 30 days after proclamation there in fact will be no further negotiations and the people will get nothing.

The Bloc talks to us about fiscal responsibility, talks to us about transparency, talks about getting on with building this country, building Pearson and so on. How can it put forward a proposal that will cost the Canadian taxpayers more money, not less money, and in fact delay the process even further?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw the remark, my apologies to the House.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is only unparliamentary when it is not true. I will not withdraw the comment because we are taking all kinds of accusations-

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, he is a hypocrite and so is his leader and-