Jim Gouk

[Highways, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Highway 97 in the B.C. interior should be recognized as part of the national highway system.

This highway is critical to the economy of the most densely populated region in the B.C. interior. It is the principal non-toll link between the west coast and the rest of Canada.

However, designation as part of the national highway system alone is not enough. Parts of Highway 97 are badly in need of major repairs. This costs money.

Last year the federal government extracted from B.C. motorists over $1 billion in fuel taxes designed to build and maintain the national highway system. It put back less than $300 million nationally. Pro-rated out, we got back a mere 3% of our own money. That is not good enough.

The federal government acts like it is doing us a big favour when it gives us back a tiny portion of our own money. B.C. has the most challenging highway system in Canada and it is in need of repair.

I call on the federal government to return a more appropriate portion of our highway taxes so that B.C. motorists and visitors can drive safely on our highways.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk primarily about the public sector getting involved in the national transportation system and the concept of public-private partnerships.

In the last parliament I was involved quite heavily in transport. I was transport critic and did quite a bit of work with the transport committee. One of the big things that we were driving on at that time was public-private partnerships. It was a real goal of government to get the private sector involved more with the transportation network in the country and pair with them in order to get a better system going.

It is interesting because there are a lot of things right now in the country where we could be doing that, particularly in the transportation sector. Take, for example, VIA Rail. In the case of VIA Rail, it has always relied on massive government subsidies for its operation. Interestingly, in 1997-98 the subsidies dropped but the losses in VIA Rail actually went up.

Given that the government owns and operates VIA Rail, it is kind of absurd that it claims its subsidies have dropped while at the same time the losses of the operation go up. The government of course has to cover that.

The subsidies in 1997 were $212 million. The government dropped them to $178 million for 1998. Ironically, the losses went from $253 million to $261 million.

Interestingly, we have a really good private sector comparison that we can use. VIA Rail used to run a passenger rail excursion system in British Columbia called the Rocky Mountaineer. It was a concept that VIA said could make lots of money and it really wanted to get into this. VIA ran it for a time and had the ridership up to a little under 5,000 people in a season. It lost money at it, like it did with most other things it operated, but it still said that it was wonderful.

However, the government of the day, in a moment at least of wisdom, decided that VIA would have to cut some of its losses by selling off the Rocky Mountaineer. It put it up for sale, and along came the private sector, which said, “We think that can make money if it is run right without subsidy and we'll buy it”.

The people in the public sector actually paid good money to VIA Rail to purchase this company, to buy the rolling stock and to buy the passenger list, for whatever that was worth. There certainly was not a lot of goodwill, but they paid a lot of money in any case. They bought additional cars. They refurbished the old cars. They hired crews, provided nice, snazzy uniforms for them and trained them the way they felt people needed to be trained in order to provide the service that the public was really looking for.

They then spent a great deal of money advertising. They advertised in Europe and brought tourist dollars to our country. They advertised all over this country, in the United States and brought people up from there. They made arrangements with cruise ships to make it part of a cruise-land package so people could explore the beauty of this country when they landed in Vancouver on one of these passenger ships.

They had a struggle when they started. However, without government subsidy, they now carry over 70,000 passengers. They bring in an incredible amount of tourist dollars. They provide a lot of good, solid, sustainable jobs and they pay taxes. Rather than get subsidies, they pay taxes. It is a success story. It is a success story that could be repeated in the whole passenger rail system.

The owners of the Rocky Mountaineer also decided that they needed to be good corporate citizens, unlike VIA Rail. Wherever the Rocky Mountaineer goes it advertises, it leaves a good impression and it makes great brochures. VIA Rail leaves something too. It leaves raw sewage on the tracks everywhere the train travels. There is no containment whatsoever. It just dumps straight through.

We can imagine the horror of CN and CP Rail workers when they have to work on tracks that VIA Rail has been down. Heaven forbid that people should ever go fishing under a train trestle. They should make sure it is not one that VIA Rail travels on or they may get more than they bargain for when they take the old rod out and head for the water.

The Rocky Mountaineer said “We can't do that. There is no regulation that says we have to change, but we have to be good corporate citizens”. It began converting all the rail cars, and all the new ones that came that way. They came fully contained. One by one it began converting them over, with the most used first, and gradually completing its entire changeover by 1996, which cost a lot of money that it would have liked to have put into shareholders' pockets for profits, that it would have liked to have used for advertising, that it would have liked to have used to buy more rolling stock, that it would have liked to have used even to reward the workers, who made this system work, with better wages.

However, it said “We have a corporate responsibility. This is distasteful what is being done and we have to change it”, and it did. That is the private sector. VIA Rail said “If you want us to change, okay, give us the money. Write us another cheque for this”, because that is how VIA Rail operates.

The private sector can run a transcontinental rail system in this country. It will work.

I know the minister and even some reports that have been in the newspapers and magazines have said that the private sector is not interested because there is no money to be made. I do not believe that. I say that we should give the passenger rail system in this country a chance to enter the golden age without the use of taxpayer funds. It worked in British Columbia and it could work right across this country.

If the minister's answer to this is that there is no profit in passenger rail therefore the private sector will not be interested, then I offer this challenge. I will put together a series of proposals that will offer complete, unsubsidized rail transportation across this country. If I can do this, allow the transport committee to review the proposals and recommend a decision on the future of rail travel in this country. The private sector can do the job. We have to give them the opportunity.

I want to touch on airports because they are also part of our great transportation system, particularly in a country this size. It is the other side of privatization of sorts, community-owned small airports. They are operated like businesses, very much like the private sector would operate.

In 1995 the federal government decided that it was losing so much money on airports, other than a few money-makers like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and a few others like that, that it wanted to get out of the smaller regional airports. It was losing money at virtually every one of them. It therefore went to the local governments and asked them to take over the operation of those airports.

The government said to the local governments “We know these airports are losing a tonne of money, but here is what we are going to do. We are going to make some changes and one of those changes is that we are going to change the requirement for on site airport firefighting equipment and personnel. You provide us with your plans showing how you will have a sufficient reaction time in the event of an emergency declaration and that you will be able to provide service to the airport and we will accept that”. All the communities did just that and the government accepted it.

The communities then agreed to take over the operation of those airports and turned them around. In Castlegar, my home airport, we were losing over $500,000 a year. That is a chunk of change in the grand scheme of things to the federal government, but for a small community like Castlegar that was a lot of money.

The community took on that airport and turned it around. It now makes a small but modest profit that continues to give it a little cushion and a nest egg in case there are some problems down the road. Interestingly, there happens to be some right now with all the airline upheaval that is going on.

The government is now making a move to reintroduce the very thing it cancelled. It is now saying that it will change the requirements on these small airports for the response time and that on site airport firefighting requirements will now be required. This is being done after the arrangement was made that the communities would operate the airports without this expense, and it is a tremendous expense.

I worked at airports for 22 years. Airport firefighters are trained, dedicated personnel. They are good people. However, in the 22 years I worked at an airport, I never saw an opportunity for them to save a single life.

This move by the government jeopardizes the financial sustainability of small airports throughout this country. Canada needs a better transportation network. VIA is financially unsustainable without the massive and ongoing injection of taxpayer money. The government must allow the private sector to do for VIA Rail what it has done for small airports. Ironically, what the government is doing instead is threatening the hard work that make community airports sustainable after decades of needing government subsidies. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Division No. 1188, March 22nd, 2000]

With my party.

[Division No. 1188, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the standing vote which recorded the names but I am present now and I would like to have my name counted in all future votes.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's preface to his question asks why anybody on this side of the House does not stand and talk about the successes in the program. Obviously he did not listen to my speech because I did just that. I said that my riding has done extremely well and is the second highest recipient of these funds in the province of British Columbia.

The problem in their ridings is that they are inappropriately handed out, not all of them, but certainly in some particular ridings.

In my riding, because of the scandal of the minister and the Prime Minister, they had to do an audit. The audit was done early on in my riding. It was completely clear and there was absolutely no problem. The program has resumed.

It is interesting listening to the hon. member who spoke out previously. He does not want to listen. He asks the questions on behalf of his other colleagues and does not answer them.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I assure you that in using the word nonsense I was trying to be polite.

I hear things like ultra right-wing because we want to examine a scandal that the hon. member says does not exist. He said there is no scandal, that everything is fine in Liberal land. If that is the case, why are there 19 RCMP criminal investigations going into misconduct in the handling of these funds?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy to respond to the hon. member. He is right. I was kind of smiling. I am sorry. I got carried away. When I hear nonsense I do tend to laugh at it. It is considered the best defence.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

An hon. member across the way says that is not true, that that does not make her a good minister at all. I bow to the judgment of the hon. member who is now basically saying that she is not a good minister. Far be it from me to argue with him on that point.

The second thing the hon. member said this morning was that the government was filling a need. This program is supposed to be about job creation. There is job creation at its pinnacle. The government is filling a need. First it creates one and then it fills it. It creates it through its oppressive tax regime so that companies need help just to survive. That is terrible. It is absolutely unbelievable.

Finally, in response to some of the other comments that have been made in the House by the government, I want to say that I am not necessarily opposed to all of these programs. I will be the first to say that my riding has done very well. If hon. members would button up long enough, I would tell them about the success of the program in my riding.

Why is it a success? I have worked with the HRDC people in my riding. They are good people. There have been no scandals or cover-ups. Criteria have been laid down. The first one is to determine if there is a need and if it is going to provide real genuine benefits. We do it to ensure that we never give a subsidy to anybody who is going to use it to compete with a company that is not subsidized.

What kind of things have been going on in the minister's riding? Companies have been lured away from a neighbouring riding. That is good job creation. Funds were used to get a company in the garment district into the Prime Minister's riding. That is an interesting conflict. What about a much needed subsidy for a really oppressed company that is struggling to survive and make ends meet, Wal-Mart? Is that not interesting.

Now we hear all the cries from the other side. The crocodile tears are coming down. It is a sorry sight to see the few Liberals who are crying out here because they have been caught manipulating the system.

If the Liberals have an inquiry into this, the kind of inquiry they want is one that they control. They want to appoint the person who will make the inquiry. They want a draft report to see if it is appropriately done.

The government should take responsibility for its mistakes when it makes them. Nobody expects it to be perfect. Heaven forbid, we certainly do not expect the Liberals to be perfect, but when they make a mistake, they should own up. They should say “yes, we made some mistakes but we are going to correct them. Let us move on. We are sorry and we will not do it again”. Had they done that, it probably would have been okay but no, they had to deny it, blame others and cover it up. That is not the way the government should respond to the waste of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will and I apologize. I certainly should not have characterized the hon. member in the way that he acted. That was standing to justification.

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington said that the House, particularly members of the opposition, instead of what we are saying should be praising the Minister of HRDC for attempting to solve the problems, that she is a great minister and she is attempting to solve the problems. There was some one handed clapping on the other side as a result of this. It seems that the hon. member's definition of a good minister is one who can solve a problem which, if she had done her job, she would not have got into in the first place.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will start off with a point that the hon. member made during her answers to questions and comments.

The member said that she would rather spend the huge amount of money, which it would cost for a public inquiry commission, on job creation. I agree with that. I think the best way to have this inquiry would be through the auditor general who already has a mandate to investigate and who we could rely on for some impartiality.

The government has a habit of having independent inquiries. I think we should look at this. We do want to get some kind of inquiry on this. We do have to come to some kind of settlement to determine how much political interference there was on this and how much cover up there was once the interference had been discovered.

I have looked at some of the things the government has held public inquiries on in the past. Does this give us an example of something that we could rely on in the case of the HRDC scandal?

One of the things I was more directly involved with in the last parliament was the Pearson Airport inquiry, which was an interesting story right from the start. It began with two internal studies that were done by the department and both conflicting with the government's position.

I bet the Bloc Quebecois members wish they could do what the government does. The government just hires someone else, tells them what they should say and then gets them to say it. I am sure the Bloc members would like to have that kind of power in determining the next referendum where that could decide who would vote in the referendum and then get the people to vote their way.

The government named Robert Nixon, a close friend of the Prime Minister. This is supposed to be an independent inquiry so we are off to a good start with the word independent. He is someone who worked with the Prime Minister and, as I say, is a close personal friend and very heavily and closely connected to the Liberal Party. Even at that, his original report conflicted with that of the government.

Madam Speaker, I should have done this at the start, but at this point I would like to announce that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The original Nixon draft report still conflicted with the government. He did not say exactly what the government wanted to have him say, so there was a second report that changed that and surprise, surprise, it said exactly what the government wanted to say. So much for independence.

We know he is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Is there another connection that we can use in this HRDC situation right now? As a matter of fact there is. This is a wonderful coincidence because Robert Nixon, the independent inquirer for the government, is none other than the father of the current minister of HRDC who is knee deep if not neck deep in this whole scandal. In fact the question has been asked in the House if the current minister of HRDC learned her tricks from the Prime Minister and this suggests the fruit fell a little closer to the tree than that.

With regard to Mr. Nixon from whom there was an independent inquiry, what did he get out of it aside from his fee, which I believe was $50,000 but I am not sure on that so do not quote me. If during questions and comments hon. members want to say that no it was not that, it was $70,000, I will not argue with them. Aside from that, what did he get when it was finished? He became the chair of Atomic Energy of Canada. An independent inquiry. We really like that.

What did this independent inquiry cost us? Not in terms of what we paid that individual, but how well did this work for us here in parliament to resolve the problems of the House by having an independent inquiry done in this manner? It cost us hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars because instead of proceeding, as all the studies prior to the independent inquiry suggested, by getting Pearson airport going, the government instead bought out the people involved who in fact were trying to sue the government. It bought them out and spent hundreds of millions of dollars just for that.

They were to rebuild terminal two at no cost to the government, but what did we get instead? The government will have to provide this money now. Here we are years later, and if anybody has been in terminal two lately, they will see that it has not been rebuilt. In fact, nothing at all has happened except that we are out of pocket by hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the way the government works.

This morning I would like to have intervened after listening to the mad dog act of the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington. It was certainly an interesting performance.