Jim Gouk

[Cn Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when I made my first speech in the House I stated I was not here to oppose for opposition sake. If the government brought forward good legislation I would be the first to congratulate it. I also stated if I thought the legislation was not good I would offer constructive alternatives as to how the legislation could be made better. Bill C-89 covers both of these situations.

There is no denying the primary concept of the bill, to privatize CN Rail, is a good move. It is something the Reform Party has been pushing for since before the election. I spoke strongly in favour of privatization during transport committee hearings with the NEWCO concept and again when I made a presentation to the all Liberal task force on CN Rail.

The tone of the discussions by the members of the all Liberal task force raised the concern with me they might not be working toward the privatization of CN Rail. I am very pleased to see the government finally got around to doing the right thing. It is certainly better late than never.

In keeping with the first part of my maiden speech, I congratulate the government for accepting yet another Reform policy. However, as it seems to be a constant pattern with the Liberals as they adopt Reform ideas and policies, they lose most of the common sense in our ideas when they put their own stamp on them. This brings me to the second part of my first speech, constructive alternatives needed to make a badly worded concept a viable reality.

The Reform Party will support Bill C-89 at first reading so it can be sent to committee where I hope the government will be as receptive to amendments necessary to make this legislation work sensibly and fairly as it was in following our idea on the concept. In supporting the bill at first reading, I can assure the House it is the concept and not the content we are in favour of.

With regard to the content, there are many problems I will be addressing at committee. Areas of concern include the minister's unrestricted power to reduce or even eliminate CN Rail's debt. In this there is a potential for disaster for both the Canadian taxpayer and the rail transportation industry. If the minister plans only to do what is reasonable then he should not mind restrictions in the bill to confirm this. If he plans to go further than is reasonable then he must be stopped.

In the same area of concern is the question of the real estate assets of CN Rail being separated from the rail operation to be sold. The sale of these assets should be the primary method of debt reduction of loans carried by CN Rail. That sale should go to the private sector, not from the taxpayer owned corporation to a department of the government using the taxpayers' money to buy their own assets from themselves. This action would bring us to a new height of creative accounting.

There seems to be some confusion between government departments, the Liberal dominated Standing Committee on Transport and the minister as to what is really planned. The Reform Party is quite prepared to help them sort that out in committee.

I am also concerned about the section which limits the share of purchases to a maximum of 15 per cent of the total shares. In marketing the shares of CN Rail to the public there are only two types of investors who would look at such an offer. One is the common investor made up of individuals, companies or investment groups. This type of investor buys shares primarily for a return on investment. CN Rail's track record does not provide a very rosy picture for this sort of investor unless they feel a new private sector operator can run the company much more efficiently than it has been run in the past.

This brings us to the second type of investor: a company or a group of individuals who believe they can operate the rail company much more efficiently than in the past, thus raising the value of their investment. Such an investor would be far less likely to invest if they felt they could not purchase a large enough portion of the company to ensure that the needed new operating efficiencies would be implemented. Let us not kid ourselves, the general investors are not going to be lining up to purchase a company with such a losing track record as CN Rail has had.

Two provisions contained in the legislation that would create restrictions on a new company when formed are neither common to their competitors nor necessary. These two restrictions are the requirement to maintain the corporate headquarters in Montreal forever and the requirement to maintain the current official language policy of the government. It makes no sense to require a company to maintain its headquarters in any one city, nor to require it to follow any other restrictions that are not followed by the rest of their industry. As I said earlier, this company is going to be hard enough to market without placing a bunch of ill-conceived restrictions in the way of the sale.

Other concerns involve items that are not contained in the legislation. These include some measure of protection for Canadian investors, including individual workers and unions in the company. The rail industry in Canada has occupied a special part in the building of this country. Many Canadians may want to try to be part of the revitalization of one of our national rail companies and certainly should be given every opportunity to participate. One way to ensure they would have this opportunity would be to restrict the sale of shares upon introduction to Canadian individuals and companies before opening it up to the international market. I know that it will likely take an international market to sell off all the shares of CN Rail, but what is wrong with offering a little benefit to the Canadian people who we are here to represent in the process?

Another area to be considered is the suggestion I made in my presentation to the all Liberal task force last year. That idea involves the consideration of selling only the rolling stock and buildings of CN Rail and retaining the track infrastructure to form a common rail system that would be open to all railway operators on a cost recovery basis. This would include revenue from diesel fuel taxes paid by the rail companies. To be successful this would have to incorporate CP Rail's track as well, but it would not have to be government owned. It could be set up as an industry and user operated system, just the same as we are in the process of doing in the aviation sector with air navigation services. This would open up the track to any rail operator, which would greatly enhance the potential for short line operators.

These are some of the concerns I will be bringing to the committee stage of the legislation. The government has shown good sense in accepting the concept of Reform policies on this issue. I hope the good sense will continue, so that they can also accept the amendments necessary to change this from a good concept to good legislation.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition to present, again from the residents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

The petitioners call on the government to reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes.

I trust all members will keep that in mind when we vote this afternoon.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions dealing with the firearms legislation, one with wording very similar to that of the petition presented by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

The second petition calls on Parliament not to accept the justice minister's anti-firearms proposal and insists that he instead bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than the innocent.

[Port Of Belledune, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very convenient when the federal government says to spend money on this or get nothing at all in what it decides.

The minority report produced by the Reform Party on federal port reform makes it very clear that subsidies are not the way to go in the port industry. They only end up causing excessive dependence on the public purse when the people of Atlantic Canada are really looking for economic self-sufficiency.

Will the minister explain to the House how Atlantic Canada will ever reach economic self-sufficiency if the government continues to fund unviable ports like Belledune so that it can compete for the revenues of the viable ports?

[Port Of Belledune, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in mid-April the Minister of Transport pledged not one cent of federal money would go into the expansion of the port of Belledune in New Brunswick. Now we find out that in addition to the colossal $20 million loan, the expansion project will also

receive an outright grant of $6 million including a grant of $1.5 million from the Ministry of Transport itself. This expansion comes at a time when the New Brunswick ports of Miramichi, Bathurst and Dalhousie are on the verge of closing down due to overcapacity in east coast ports.

Given that no private sector investors have been found for the Belledune project and other ports in New Brunswick are capable of handling the expanded capacity being planned, why has the minister had this sudden $6 million change of heart? Where are the so-called sound business decisions he says are so evident?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify that he did not suggest they were destitute, but he did seem to shed some tears for their situation. Many of those people who are somehow scraping by on less than $29,900 a year are in their fifties, in their forties, and some are even in their thirties. Perhaps they have found themselves a job and they are able to support themselves.

Another comment, which involves the specific point that I wish to address, which is opting out, was made at the start of this whole debate by the chief government whip. The chief government whip used the word hypocrisy. I am really surprised to hear him use that word, given the hypocrisy on the government side over the whole issue of opting out. The opting out is the biggest hypocrisy this government has ever dumped on the floor of the House. If the Liberals were serious about opting out, they would have offered any conditions that could have been offered that did not cost the taxpayers money.

Opting out means a refund of contributions. This is what they are offering. The majority of that refund cannot simply be transferred to an RRSP. Contributions paid by MPs are specifically earmarked for retirement. During the period of contribution MPs are cut off from an RRSP contribution due to the fact that they are participating in a registered plan. The total amount MPs pay into the government plan is less than the amount they would have been allowed to contribute through an RRSP if they were not blocked from doing so.

If the Liberal Party were really interested in saving the taxpayers money, it would make opting out a more attractive alternative. Why is it not doing this? If opting out were handled seriously instead of punitively, the Liberals may find that many of their own members would be opting out, and this would embarrass the government. They cannot have that. What is more, they would run into a situation where suddenly, with so many people opting out, they would have a problem justifying continuing the old plan for those few members who remain and may be forced to give up the lucrative pension for those who are looking forward to this high income for life.

What could they have done? What is the alternative? One alternative is to create a matching RRSP contribution, pure and simple: 50 per cent from the MP and 50 per cent from the government. The advantage to this is that it is $1 to $1 instead of the old $6 to $1, which has only been dropped by half a point in the new proposal. Now they have mixed some accounting magic and say that given the number of people who drop off, we will not count them and we will not count some other things. So they came up with some lower numbers. No matter how they play with it, it is still considerably higher than $1 to $1. That $1 to $1 does not have the potential of any kind of accounting magic whatsoever. It is a real and genuine $1 to $1.

The other advantage of this is the cost to the taxpayer stops when the service to the taxpayer stops. This would be a pure and simple matching during the tenure of the MP, stopping as soon as they no longer served as an MP.

The very minimum the government would offer if they were serious about the opting out would be an amendment to the Income Tax Act that simply allows the pension contribution made by MPs who were opting out to be transferred into an RRSP. This is money that was put aside for the specific purpose of retirement. This would not involve any matching amounts, but would ensure that money MPs have put aside for that purpose continued to be held for retirement purposes.

Then there is the matter of the future opting out. There is none. If this were a serious thing that we should be considering, MPs at any time could either decide if they wanted to get into whatever the pension plan was at the time of their election, or if they found it as distasteful in the future as Reformers find it now then they would have the ability to opt out as well. This is not being offered. Once again, the Liberals are afraid that if too many people start opting out they may be forced to do so as well.

The first speaker today, the chief government whip, started with the word hypocrisy. That is the word I will end with. It is hypocrisy on the part of the government to offer a facade that is really not in the interests of taxpayers. It is only in the interests of those high income Liberal MPs.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak primarily on one aspect of the bill the opting out section. However, I cannot begin until I make a comment on the speech of the hon. member who just spoke.

He made it sound as though we would be destitute without the pension and that the Reform Party proposes that there should be no pension. We have no problem with the concept of a pension, only that it should be a pension that is reasonable and fair, given the marketplace and given the economic conditions in which Canada and Canadian taxpayers find themselves.

The hon. member for St. Boniface rose in the House and, shedding great crocodile tears, informed us of the hardship of 60 per cent of the MPs who are retired and who have to somehow make do on less than $29,900 a year. My heart really goes out to them. That is a real hardship, I am sure, given that we are asking Canadian taxpayers who make less than that in total income, who are trying to raise their families and pay mortgages, pay taxes so that we can then-

[Hughes Aircraft, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just love it that the minister raised the question of my favourite subject.

The government has been quite willing to cancel contracts including those with Andersen Consulting, Micronav International, and, yes, the Pearson airport contract.

Hughes Aircraft has only delivered a meagre 10 per cent of its promised contract. Now it states that it cannot meet the original terms of the deal and will only produce a scaled down version of the air traffic control system if it gets more public money.

I have a supplementary question. Why will the government not cancel the Hughes contract immediately? Not one more cent of Canadian money should be wasted.

[Hughes Aircraft, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Hughes officials informed top level officials of Transport Canada last month that they could not meet the terms of the

original contract but were willing to deliver a scaled down version for an extra $150 million.

The Minister of Transport, however, told the House that Hughes officials had assured him the project was on target and within budget. This makes me wonder whether or not the government would have quietly given Hughes more money if the deal had not been made public.

When did the government learn of Hughes' inability to meet the original terms of the contract and why was the House not informed of this serious matter?

[Hughes Aircraft, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Hughes Aircraft of Canada received a government contract to modernize our air traffic control system at a cost of almost $420 million. The system is already 15 months late and now we have learned that Hughes is looking for as much as $400 million more of taxpayers' money to complete the job.

The Minister of Transport expressed his dissatisfaction with the delay and said that there would be a limit to the amount of money the government was willing to add to the contract. The government should not add anything to the deal. It was a fixed price contract and Hughes should deliver.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he assure Canadians that not one more dime of public money will be given to Hughes Aircraft?