Dale Johnston

[Petitions, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition which states that the Minister of Finance has raised taxes in six budgets out of six and that the burden on Canadian families has skyrocketed by 30%, and also that in six budgets out of six business taxes have grown from $9.4 billion to $20 billion.

Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to give taxpayers a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years.

[Petitions, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present this petition on behalf of Canadians.

The petitioners state that, whereas on June 8 the House of Commons passed a motion which stated that in the opinion of the House it is necessary in the light of public debate around recent court decisions to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage, therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament will withdraw Bill C-23 from its agenda.

[Employment Insurance, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the government's tax them until they drop policy, the EI surplus will hit a whopping $35 billion this year.

Since only about $15 billion is needed as a hedge against a recession, Canada's premier payroll tax will be used to fund the government's pre-election spending spree. Workers and small businesses who struggle to feed this government's insatiable appetite for taxes are outraged that their EI premiums will be used to prop up Liberal electoral fortunes.

Debt reduction and tax relief are needed immediately to stop the brain drain and to stem the exodus of our homegrown industries. But these Liberals are so out of touch with reality that they think they can buy the hearts and votes of Canadians by simply reversing the changes they made to the EI rules.

Canadians want lower taxes and real jobs, not make work projects, grants or EI. Liberals are not going to give that to them, but a Canadian Alliance government would make it a priority.

[The Senate, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, loyal Liberals are waiting by their phones as the Prime Minister mulls over his choices for the seven vacant Senate seats. The Alberta vacancy, however, is sending shudders through the Prime Minister's office.

Albertans elected Bert Brown as their choice for senator in October 1998 and now they expect the Prime Minister to appoint him to the Senate.

The problem is the Prime Minister would rather bypass their wishes in favour of a patronage appointee. What a change from those long forgotten days when he was opposition leader. Back then he said “The Liberal government in two years will make the Senate elected. As Prime Minister, I can make that happen”.

A year later, he said “To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”.

Will this be just another in the long list of broken Liberal promises? The Prime Minister has a choice. Will he choose democracy over patronage?

[Government Grants, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, declaring “everyone loses”, Arthur Kroeger, a former HRDC deputy minister and Mel Cappe's predecessor, today chastised parliament for failing to provide guidance to officials on what it would regard as a sensible balance between the oversight of the expenditure of public funds and the flexibility of serving clients.

What this former bureaucrat failed to mention is the unprecedented amount of political interference by the governing Liberals. This goes to the very heart of the problem. Grants without applications are not the result of overworked officials but the unwarranted intrusion of Liberal politicians.

As Canadians fill out their tax forms and sign over their hard earned dollars to the government they have every right to expect that the money will be used judiciously and not as a political slush fund.

There is something rotten about the way the government has manipulated the grants and contributions programs and until there is a new government over there the biggest losers will continue to be the Canadian taxpayers.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the national highway infrastructure today is just as important as the national highway system was when the country was being opened up.

The highways are like the arteries of Canada. When we have such a huge and diverse country we should designate the roads that are needed as trade routes. However let us first of all get the roads that are already designated as national highways up to standard and perhaps we can look at more north-south routes later on.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lethbridge.

It is a pleasure to rise to debate the motion put forward by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley on transportation.

I have been listening to the debate with great interest and we have heard all sorts of angles on this issue. It occurs to me that there is one area on which the Liberals have a corner and that would be taxation. Their overriding philosophy seems to be that if it moves we should tax it and if it does not move we should tax it anyway.

In 1941 the federal minister of finance, who at the time was a Liberal, discovered a new method of taxation. He decided to tax gasoline. That gasoline tax remained in effect until 1948, but it was John Turner who resurrected the gas tax in the 1970s. Since then successive Liberal and Tory governments have relied on this lucrative method of raising money to fund their insatiable spending habits.

As the number of motorists increased, the government coffers swelled, and the more wear and tear there was on Canada's highway infrastructure, the more the highways deteriorated. Canada used to be very proud of the Trans-Canada Highway, but those days are gone, along with the 1948 excise gas tax reprieve.

Canada is the only developed country without a national highways program or even a coherent national highways policy. What is the reason for that? It is simply neglect.

In this competitive global economy a well maintained network of highways stretching from coast to coast to coast is absolutely essential, especially in a country the size of Canada. It is our economic lifeline, but the government is content to pay it only lip service, and sometimes not even that.

In 1992 a federal-provincial study identified 25,400 kilometres, including the Trans-Canada Highway and a few major cross-border arteries, as the national highway system. At least it was identified, but nothing has been done in the interim. As a matter of fact, it seems as though it has been completely forgotten. There is no administrative framework and no federal funding for maintaining or upgrading any of the identified system.

Every year the federal government collects about $5 billion in fuel excise taxes, including $4.3 billion specifically from highways. Then it disappears into that abyss known as general revenue. I am quite sure that a good amount of it finds its way into grants and contributions as well.

This year the federal budget allocated $150 million to highways. That is something, but it is only a drop in the bucket, especially when we consider that the Liberals have been trying to explain the $1 billion mishandling of HRDC funds as no big deal. It is only $1 billion.

A recent poll commissioned by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety showed that the cost of bringing the national highway system up to standard increased from $12 billion in 1998 to $17.2 billion in 1999. Those are the last years for which we have figures. If the finance minister still has doubts over why his budget does not meet with widespread accolades, he need not look any further than there. Maybe he should take a long drive. I bet the Prime Minister would give him the time off.

In June 1999 a national poll conducted by the Canadian Automobile Association showed that 78% of CAA members wanted the federal government to allocate funding for roads despite the many other social needs facing Canadians. In 1998 87% of respondents said it was important for the Canadian economy to have a national highway system well paved and free of congestion. Eighty-five per cent of CAA members said that the federal government should play a role in funding our national roadways. This level of support translates into almost 3.3 million CAA members calling on the federal government to address these key routes.

What is the price for government inaction? Canadians pay the price of the government's neglect. Structural deficiencies have resulted in hundreds of deaths and thousands of people being injured. If this were not enough, thanks to the deplorable state of our roads, millions of hours have been lost due to traffic congestion, millions of dollars have been lost in extra fuel consumption, and tonnes of additional pollutants have been needlessly pumped into the atmosphere.

This all contributes to lost productivity and lost trade opportunities. It does nothing to advance the cause of job creation. It deters tourists from other countries from visiting here. It encourages Canadians to holiday elsewhere. If we picked up any newspaper from any part of this country we would find articles about the need for new and expanded highways.

In Nova Scotia a woman who had been seriously injured in a car accident held a vigil by the side of Highway 101 in her wheelchair to draw attention to the need to twin that particular busy roadway.

Closer to my home, the mayor of Edmonton, Bill Smith, came to Ottawa in February with mayors from 21 of the country's major cities to plead for cash for roads. It was not for the streets in their cities but for interprovincial highways. All their lobbying efforts netted was $150 million. That will have to be split between the 10 provinces and the three territories. I do not think that will go very far.

My colleague the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has championed this cause of dedicating gas tax revenues to a national highway system. His private member's motion debated in the House on November 19, 1999 sought to divert one-fifth of federal excise fuel tax to the national highway system, some 20%. I do not think that is asking very much. It is a very reasonable request.

At the very least had his motion passed, we would have been able to repair the worst parts of the system before it deteriorated beyond the point of no return. As the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands stated, if we do nothing and total replacement becomes necessary, tens of billions of dollars will have to be found somewhere or we will all have to revert to Red River carts.

Perhaps my colleague has hit on one of the new government strategies. Perhaps if we all had to go to Red River carts it would cut down on the Kyoto emissions. There might be some increase in methane gas, but it would certainly cut down on carbon dioxide. How else can the Liberal lack of attention be explained on this important transportation link?

The notion of dedicating some portion of federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes to be spent on construction and renovation of highway infrastructure is not just a Reform idea. When the Standing Committee on Transport travelled across the country as part of its study of highway renewal—notice that it has already been studied—witness after witness supported the concept which has been Reform Party policy for some time.

Millions of dollars are spent each year to obtain public input. These exercises in democracy are merely make work projects for the government backbenchers. It seems that if they have too much time on their hands and are hanging around town, they will figure out ways to dump their leader.

In reality, the government rarely listens to anyone or anything that does not happen to be a supporter or contributor to the Liberal Party. The transport committee's majority report, “A National Highway Renewal Strategy”, ignores the wishes and advice of those close to the problem. It concluded the study by indicating that the problem required further study, if you can believe it, Madam Speaker. If that is not the standard Liberal cop-out, I would like to know what is.

Three years later and the report is gathering dust on the library shelves. The highways are continuing to disintegrate and the Minister of Finance allocates just enough money to fill in some of the potholes.

Enough time has been wasted on studies. Canada's highway system is in tatters and it is time for the government to work with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector to plan, implement and fund a national highway infrastructure program.

[Act Of Incorporation Of The Board Of Elders Of The Canadian District Of The Moravian Church In America, March 22nd, 2000]

moved that Bill S-14, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have been able to bring this item to the House today.

Bill S-14 corrects some technical anomalies in the incorporation of the Moravian Church in America. It seeks to modify the long title of the French version and it gives the board of elders of the Moravian Church a name. It removes restrictions on the board's investment powers as well.

The hour is late and I am only going to take a few minutes for this. For those who are unfamiliar with the Moravian Church, it was founded almost 500 years ago in the area that we know as Czechoslovakia. It is similar to the Mennonite Church in some aspects. The Moravians are renowned for their missionary work. It was to pursue this vocation that they came to Canada and Labrador in the beginning.

In 1909 an act of the Parliament of Canada established the Moravian Church as a legal entity. One of the clauses of incorporation precluded the church from owning property worth no more than $50,000. In 1952 the church approached parliament to have this limit increased to $500,000 and it was done at that time. In 1986 the elders of the Moravian Church started a process to have the clause removed altogether.

We can see that they have been at this for a long time and they have been waiting very patiently for this to come about. They have complied with all of the requirements and advertised their plans in the requisite publications at considerable expense to themselves. It is fairly significant that no objections were ever raised to their intentions to do this.

Since that time they have endured several parliamentary delays, none of which was any fault of their own. As legislation of this nature generally originates in the Senate, the late Walter Twinn, who was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party at the time, took up the cause back in 1992.

Legislative scheduling and other delays in the Senate, not the least of which were the elections in 1993 and 1997, and then of course the sudden passing of Senator Twinn, all played a part in holding up passage of the bill.

Last fall it came to the attention of Alberta Liberal Senator Nick Taylor who successfully piloted the bill through the other place just before the Christmas recess.

Now with Reform sponsoring the bill in the House of Commons it is truly one that is non-partisan. In the spirit of that non-partisan co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I think that you would find that there would be unanimous consent, should you seek it, for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-14, an act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America, be now called for second reading, and that the House do proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages, including committee of the whole.

The members of the Moravian Church have waited a long time for parliament to deal with this simple request. It is a pleasure for me to be here to see it happen today. Thank you for the co-operation of all the people involved.

[Committees Of The House, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with the other parties and I believe there would be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Wednesday, March 1, 2000, be concurred in.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the parties and if you were to ask, I think you would find unanimous consent for the motion that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Wednesday, March 1, be concurred in.