Jim Gouk

[Employment, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned in 1993 on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. That promise has never materialized for my constituents in Kootenay West-Revelstoke or, for that matter, anywhere else in Canada.

The Liberals latest tax grab, a 70 per cent increase in the Canada pension plan payroll tax, is the latest example of how the Liberals are killing jobs instead of creating them. This outrageous payroll tax increase will cost the workers in my riding $652 a year. In a small company of only 10 people, this amounts to almost $7,000 for the employees and another $7,000 for the employer. That is nearly $14,000 from one small company.

The government keeps claiming that there are no new taxes. Why has the average Canadian family seen its real disposable income shrink by $3,000 since 1993?

For every $1 the government rips out of the pockets of my constituents it gives back 23 cents. Twenty-three cents cannot create as many jobs as dollars left in my riding. Canadians know that. When will this government understand?

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to bring that particular point up again. The only thing I ask, on a point of procedure, is that if a member, whether it be this incident or a different one, speaks on an open microphone, and if it is viciously directed at another member, no matter on which side of the House, I contend that it is not sufficient for the hon. member to withdraw that remark. When it is made openly against another member it should be in the form of an apology.

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I rise on is with regard to procedure.

When the Chair examines the blues for a possible breach of conduct or unparliamentary language, the normal procedure, should the Chair find that something did in fact occur, is to ask the member to withdraw that particular statement.

Given that the statement in question that we allege took place regarding the hon. member for Beaver River was on an open microphone and given that the person who we believe made that statement-

[Divorce Act, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had a letter from a constituent in my riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke who was concerned about the issue the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River brought forth, that is denial of access of the non-custodial parent.

This individual was very concerned having over the years paid thousands upon thousands of dollars which he was required to pay. He paid each time on time with honour and yet was denied access. There is nothing in the system to address that. It is a very important point.

My hon. colleague addressed it very well as he always does when he speaks. Would he make a few comments on why such a common sense provision has met with such resistance by the government?

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member who just spoke. I have enjoyed working with him the past three years.

I just want to clear up one point. I gather he is under the impression that I oppose involving the private sector through public-private partnerships. I do not. I think it is a good idea. What I objected to specifically are two points.

First, the implication that things like shadow tolling are alternate funding sources. They are not. There are ways to save money and do the job more efficiently at which I think we should be looking. For that aspect of it, I applaud the committee. However, the report suggests that it is an alternate source of funds and it is not. It is simply a cost efficiency and to imply otherwise is extremely misleading.

Second, if we are going to involve the private sector obviously there has to be trust between the government and the private sector. We heard the specific example of highway 401 where the builder-operator of the highway said that it was necessary to negotiate an agreement with the government that it would not upgrade to a freeway standard the other portion of the highway that parallels the one the builder-operator built. Otherwise, no one would travel on the first one if it was not brought up to full highway standard and obviously the company would never recover its money. That trust and agreement had to be made as well which is understandable.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport went into a small tirade but when it was explained to him he understood the wisdom of it and withdrew his objection.

My concern is with the deal that appears to be coming up with Rocky Mountaineer and VIA Rail. If the government allows VIA to go back and compete directly against the very company it sold, it sends a bad message to the private sector. I would specifically point out that the Canadian Council on Public-Private Partnership, the parent organization for that entire movement which is looking to build co-operation between the government and the private sector wrote the minister and specifically said: "Please, do not do that with VIA Rail because it sends a bad message". That is the concern that I have.

The other point is that he said we need to invest more in highways. We heard a huge number of witnesses ask for dedicated revenues. The federal government spends $292 million but it takes in $5 billion from gasoline taxes. Some want dedication of the total amount and others said two cents out of ten cents. That is only 20 per cent. It still allows the government to keep 80 per cent of those revenues for other purposes. This money could be put into a dedicated revenue fund so there is an absolute commitment for long term planning. The funding could not be interfered with.

I would ask for the hon. members' comments. Just before he answers because this is such an important issue, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it was enjoyable hearing the hon. member give us his thoughts on the Liberal policies on the national airport program.

No doubt the hon. member has heard the word skimming before and is well acquainted with the meaning of the word skimming, to take something off the top. With regard to the national airport program, the program he says is doing so well with these 26 national airports, is he aware that some of those national airports are already financially insolvent? They are financially insolvent because of the fee the federal government collects from them. That fee structure is based on deemed revenues and deemed profits, not what they really make. The government said: "We will calculate it based on this projection and that projection, you will bring in this much money and it will in turn give you this much profit and we want it".

At least two of the airports, Calgary and I believe Edmonton, are already financially insolvent. The hon. member mentioned Halifax. Halifax is well aware of this and has hired the same financial consultants because they know that this is an absolutely unworkable formula.

With regional airports, which the hon. member also mentioned, there is another form of skimming. I will use my province of British Columbia as an example but this problem exists in every province. My home airport, Castlegar, feeds six flights a day to Vancouver and two flights a day to Calgary. The same thing happens throughout my region, at Cranbrook, Penticton, Kamloops, Williams Lake and all those other airports. The big airport that is part of this national airport plan, Vancouver airport, relies on these small airports.

In the case of Castlegar the federal government used to spend $800,000 a year to operate Castlegar bringing in only $300,000 in revenues. The government says: "We still need the flights coming from Castlegar because that is what makes our national airports work, but we are not going to give it any funding. We will help it if it needs to rebuild a runway or a taxiway, but in the general day to day operation of the airport, even though it was costing us 100 per cent more than the revenues, we will not give any money. We will phase it out and make it stand on its own".

That is not turning it over to local decision making; that is turning over financial burdens. The government should have allowed a larger portion of the profits coming from the national airports that make huge profits to be put into the regional airports on which the national airports rely to supply them with passengers. Likewise the federal government has to redo its formula to ensure fairness for the national airports so that they can survive and grow so that we will have as good a system as the hon. member would like to think we now have.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a question to the minister, specifically with regard to VIA.

The minister said he will be coming to a decision soon. I trust he has given due consideration to the input he has received and that he will make the right decision. In my opinion, that decision is against

allowing VIA to expand to compete against the very company that it sold.

The minister mentioned that he had received a tremendous amount of input. I have seen much of that input. The only input, I believe and understand other than from VIA, which supported this application, is from the CTC which is in an incredible conflict of interest position.

The minister also mentioned that he understands the committee's position. I would like the minister to know the position that the chair of the committee agreed to with the Reform Party. In a message in writing from the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport he states: "As to your suggestion regarding VIA and Rocky Mountaineer I have no problem supporting your request".

A follow up to my request in writing to him states: "that VIA Rail not be permitted to expand its service to compete in any way against the business it sold to the Great Canadian Railtour Company, the Rocky Mountaineer".

In his written response dealing with VIA Rail the chair writes: "I want you to know that I agree with the position that you have advanced on this matter and I will support you when it comes up for discussion in the final report of transportation, trade and tourism. "Furthermore, I have spoken with-and I will not name the member-the parliamentary secretary to the minister who has also agreed to support your position as you have stated it".

I have faith in the wisdom of the minister. I know he will do the right thing. To decide in VIA's favour would be devastating to Rocky Mountaineer, to British Columbia, to the tourism industry in British Columbia and most specifically to the town of Kamloops. I trust he will make the right decision.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Hold on, hold on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is inferring that he is quoting a comment I made that was responded to by another member. With regard to the comment I made, I simply said: "You still have your income tax revenues". They are claiming that I said something other than what I did.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Point of order.