Jim Gouk

[Aviation Fuel Tax, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Alberta does not have any trouble figuring out what the right thing is. Why does this government?

Thus far the Canadian auto workers and CUPE have not agreed to the democratic process of allowing their members to vote on Canadian's restructuring process. The parliamentary secretary says four out of six. These were the other two.

Buzz Hargrove, the head of the CAW, is actually in a conflict position. He has members in Canadian facing a salary reduction while he is trying to negotiate a raise for those same members in Air Canada. Faced with this dilemma, there is no way he can act in the best interests of both parties simultaneously. Canadian's employees are rallying today, asking for the right to vote.

Parliament is the final court of appeal. Is it listening? Is it going to act?

[Aviation Fuel Tax, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Transport said that Canadian Airlines lost $1.2 billion over the last 10 years.

That is true, but it did not stop the government from taking $32 million a year in fuel taxes from the financially troubled airline. Maybe that is because the government is in worse financial shape than the airline is.

The government's insensitivity to Canadian's employees is deplorable but perhaps it is understandable given that the average Liberal pension is higher than the average working wage of Canadian's employees.

The employees are not looking for handouts. They are looking for fairness. When is this government going to do the fair thing and end its unfair aviation fuel tax, a tax that is destroying Canadian jobs and Canadian companies?

[Taxation, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is fine to say that Canadian Airlines has to restructure but there should be some light at the end of the tunnel. There should not be a government waiting there with their tax barrel to fill it back up again at aviation's expense.

Since the hon. member, in answer to a previous question, stated that he believes that all Canadian's employees should be entitled to vote, what exactly is the government doing to ensure that will happen?

[Taxation, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said that the government has a responsibility to the taxpayers. Canadian Airlines is a taxpayer and so are its employees.

The government extracts $95 million a year in federal fuel taxes from Canadian aviation companies, an input tax that was supposed to be taken away when the goods and services tax was introduced.

If the government is so concerned about Canadian taxpayers and Canadian jobs, why does it continue to extract this money from an industry that is in financial trouble?

[Transportation, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the government is listening now; it never listened before. Reform has been calling for the removal of the federal fuel tax on aviation gas but the federal tax is only part of the problem. An international treaty on air transport, agreed to by 184 countries including Canada, prohibits taxation of fuel used for international air transportation. The federal government has complied but a number of provincial governments have not.

Given that this provincial aviation fuel tax on international flights contravenes the treaty signed by Canada and compounds the competitive problems for Canadian air carriers, what action if any has the minister taken to have this provincial tax removed? If he is

finally talking to them about that, why did he wait until Canadian was in such deep financial trouble?

[Transportation, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the employees of Canadian Airlines have been very loyal to their company. They have made sacrifices in the past and are being called upon to make yet another. That decision is up to them.

I believe that the Minister of Transport's suggestion that he might remove the domestic fuel tax if they accept the restructuring plan is offensive. These employees should be able to see the value of their sacrifice in advance and know that the overall restructuring plan will work. That means the fuel tax should be removed before they make their decision.

Will the minister do the honourable thing and remove the aviation fuel tax in the manner promised with the introduction of the GST before Canadian's employees have to make their final decision?

[Taxation, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the parliamentary secretary talks about 700 new jobs at Canadian when 16,000 are in jeopardy through its policies.

This government supported free trade with the U.S.A. and open skies with American airline companies, both of which have increased competition against Canadian companies. Airport and air navigation service deficits are now nearing full elimination.

Given the government's agenda to open the borders to American competition and the removal of many aviation oriented expenses to the government, can the minister advise this House why he continues to allow aviation companies to be charged an unfair level of special taxes, taxes that are destroying Canadian Airlines and putting 16,000 jobs at risk?

[Taxation, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government saw fit to open the borders to American competition against Canada's air carrier industry through the open skies policy. While I did not object to having a more open and competitive industry, I do question why the minister did this without first levelling the playing field on federal fuel taxes.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Given that these American competitors have significantly lower fuel taxes and that fuel costs are a major component of an airline's operating expense, will the minister take immediate steps to lower the tax on aviation fuel in order to permit Canadian aviation companies to compete equally?

[Liberal Party, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, from time to time members search for acceptable words to use to describe blatantly inaccurate statements by other members. Well, the Prime Minister has kindly provided us with a new one.

On a recent trip to the west, the Prime Minister made numerous statements of very questionable accuracy. When challenged, his response was that he was using linguistic shorthand. That explains a lot.

When the Liberals claim they have fulfilled their red book promise to create jobs in the face of unemployment figures which show that unemployment is still just as high as when they took office, it is linguistic shorthand.

And when the finance minister claims to have fulfilled the red book promise to break the back of the deficit while increasing our debt by $111 billion and increasing our debt servicing costs by more than the total transfers to provinces for health care, that is linguistic shorthand.

The next federal election is coming soon and Canadians will get to decide whether they want more linguistic shorthand from the Liberals or a fresh start from Reform.

[Transport, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary offers words of reassurance but those words do not square with the facts. The facts are that when any airline's planes take off in Canada for the first time, they have not been inspected by Transport Canada. It only inspects the airline's paperwork.

I again ask the parliamentary secretary: How can he guarantee the safety of the Canadian public when his department only inspects the paperwork, not the plane?