David Anderson

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

The peanut gallery is making comments. They did absolutely nothing to achieve the recognition of British Columbia as a distinct region of the country. They did nothing at all. Months later their complaints start.

The Prime Minister listened to our caucus. The result, for the first time, was that British Columbia was recognized as a distinct region for constitutional purposes. We are no longer lumped with the other western provinces.

I would like to go back about 50 years and quote from Bruce Hutchison's book The Unknown Country . He said: ``Crossing the Rockies you are in a new country, as if you had crossed a national frontier. Everyone feels it. Even the stranger feels the change in tempo, in outlook and in attitude''. That was 50 years ago. Fifty years later it was recognized by the Prime Minister. That is what leadership is all about.

I would like to speak on transportation, tourism and Asia-Pacific. The Reform Party's motion refers to British Columbia's position as Canada's gateway to Asia-Pacific. I would like to mention some of the policies, which are apparently unknown to Reformers, in transportation and in other areas which are helping to make British Columbia not only Canada's gateway, but, as I indicated earlier, the hemisphere's gateway to Asia-Pacific.

We are making it a priority to maximize the blessings of geography, for example, with respect to Vancouver's airport. The Reform Party is proposing today that we recognize B.C. as the gateway to Asia. That has already been done. As the saying goes, better late than never. It is better that the Reform Party recognize now what has gone on over the last three years rather than continue in the ignorance which its members have displayed to date.

Sweeping and bold changes were introduced by the government which are liberating business in B.C. from red tape and bureaucratic clutter. They are allowing businesses to compete successfully with the very best of European, Asian and American businesses. They are strategic, forward looking and they are helping to position British Columbia as the international gateway.

Let me cite a few examples. The Vancouver international airport is fast becoming the hub for passengers and cargo travelling between Asia, Canada, the United States and Latin America. The Vancouver international airport served more than 11 million passengers in 1995. Its growth in that year out performed the national averages in every single sector. Indications are that 1996 will be even better, with the airport reporting a 21 per cent increase in passenger handling as of the end of July. This is not happening by chance. Policies laid down by the government are making it possible. Open skies, signed in February of 1995, is an excellent example of how policy helps the private sector.

It is not the impediment to growth that the Reform Party is indicating today. Rather, it is a landmark new initiative which gives Canadian air carriers unlimited route rights from any point in Canada to any point in the United States. It provides reciprocal rights for American carriers across Canada except with certain limitations in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal where there is a phase-in period.

Vancouver, as much as anywhere in the country, has seized the opportunity this government created with the open skies accord. To date, approximately 25 new routes between Vancouver international airport and the U.S. have been introduced. That is a massive leap in traffic at a time when most airports are experiencing far slower growth.

Air Canada has added services from Glasgow, Osaka, Paris, Seoul and Zurich to Vancouver over the past three years, as well as the Canadian international flights which are long established and better known.

In addition, we have been negotiating with many of the countries of the Asia Pacific region to establish new services. These include Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines. The Philippines only two or three weeks ago established a daily service to Vancouver.

The distance from Hong Kong to Chicago is almost 1,000 kilometres shorter when you use Vancouver instead of San Francisco as the gateway. We are making sure those advantages are realized.

The advantages of the new airport policy have again been seized enthusiastically by Vancouver. We now have in Vancouver one of the most successful modern airports in the world. I toured it

recently with the American secretary of transportation and it was pleasant to hear his compliments on this score.

The port of Vancouver is another extremely important element in the transportation system. In terms of tonnage it is among the top three ports in North America and is the major generator of jobs, growth and economic benefit in Vancouver.

The port's activities generate more than 10,700 full time jobs, and that is directly. The government looked at ports, looked at Vancouver, looked at the other ports of the country and then asked how can we make this better. And in fact, we did.

We want to ensure more local control, more businesslike approaches and less red tape. All this is taking place under the new marine policy. We will have greater efficiency, cut costs and we will give communities more control over their ports. That will allow Vancouver to further take advantage of its geographical and ice free port position.

Last year the port of Vancouver handled approximately 71.5 million tonnes of cargo from over 10,000 foreign and domestic vessels. Cargo worth more than $29 billion went through the port's 20 major terminals to and from more than 90 different countries. With the introduction of Bill C-44 by this government, the subsequent years are likely to be a great deal better and stronger.

The cruise passenger industry is another area of great success. Once again positive policies of the government have contributed to that success.

Among other examples I will mention is the customs accord which was signed at the same time as the air accord in February 1995. We are expanding and improving the facilities at the border, thus making travel easier, thus making cross border trade a great deal better.

I could give figures on tourism but I think they are well known. Tourism has dramatically expanded. The gain from this tourism increase to the Canadian and British Columbian economies has been dramatic.

I might add that the party opposite certainly did not support the Prime Minister when he tripled the amount of federal funds that went into tourism promotion; indeed it opposed it. Now it sees the results, a greatly expanded economy, and naturally it is trying to swim on board.

Specific B.C. issues have made British Columbia's economy more effective, more competitive and more stable for investment from overseas. As my time is limited, let mention three examples: softwood lumber, B.C. Tel and the Triumph decision.

Softwood lumber is an area where we heard next to nothing from the Reform Party and yet a critically important issue to British Columbia. We have had over the last 10 years constant U.S.-Canadian bickering over softwood lumber exports, and Canadian exporters posted approximately $800 million worth of bonds and cash as countervailing duties just to get their products into the United States.

This government brought an end to all of that and we now have the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, announced in April of this year. The U.S. has now made the unprecedented commitment not to launch any trade actions on softwood lumber exports from Canada for the next five years. Thus stability for the industry, thus an industry which is nowhere in the country more important than in British Columbia, a definite economic gain.

Softwood lumber exports are 65 per cent from British Columbia to the United States. The remaining provinces have the remaining 35 per cent.

On the quota, province by province, British Columbia lumber companies receive the initial allocation of 59 per cent, which was welcomed by the industry both publicly and in private communications. I think the Reform Party probably now understands that and once again would like belatedly to get on board.

With regard to the B.C. Tel issue, an exception was made for British Columbia telephone which allowed the national policy to work effectively and which satisfied the important considerations of British Columbia at that time.

Similarly for Triumph, the research facility at the University of British Columbia, once again steady funding over the period, an opportunity for that to do its very best and to expand the economy of our province.

In summary, we have a clear example here of government policies which have led to improved economic conditions, an improved position for British Columbia. Our only problem we face in this House is that we have 24 Reform MPs from British Columbia who do not seem to understand the importance of working constructively to make sure these advantages are made even greater by working collectively in the years ahead.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

The hon. member says "belatedly". I wonder where they were when this issue was being debated.

Last December a bill was introduced which indicated how the federal government would approach the constitutional amending formula. It outlined a regionally sensitive formula, but it did not include British Columbia. As a result of representations from myself and my colleagues in the British Columbia caucus-

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Reform Party for once again providing an opportunity for the government to look good. Its members have worded its resolution in a manner that is negative but, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it gives us the opportunity of pointing what the facts are.

The motion, although confused, deserves a straightforward response. This government over the last three years has put the right priorities in place for British Columbia. I would like to talk on that point in five specific areas.

First, the economy and how the government is successfully following policies on the deficit and on jobs that fit well with the aspirations of British Columbians and, indeed, Canadians from one end of this country to the other. This the hon. member and his friends over the last three years have completely forgotten.

Second, I would like to point out that the government's emphasis on Asia-Pacific is good news for all of Canada, but no part of Canada more than B.C. It is in British Columbia that this emphasis on Asia-Pacific context with the Pacific rim, trade with the Pacific rim, has benefited us enormously. I am sure my colleague, the hon. secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, will be speaking on that.

The third point I would like to stress is what someone might call the political or constitutional-not that we are keen on the word constitutional these days-which is the government's historic recognition of British Columbia as a distinct region of this country, instead of simply being lumped with the prairies as has been the case when we used the term, the west, and included all four provinces. British Columbia is different. It is important that that be recognized. I am very pleased it has been recognized.

Fourth, the Reform Party's motion refers to British Columbia's position as Canada's gateway to the Pacific. I would like to mention some of our policies in transportation and elsewhere that are making British Columbia, particularly the airport in Vancouver, not just the gateway of western Canada or even North America to the Pacific but the whole western hemisphere. I will be talking about that at some length.

Fifth, I would like to mention several specific issues that relate particularly to British Columbia where we have had, thanks to the government's actions, B.C. priorities brought to bear on national decision making.

The final point I would like to make is that in all these major areas of concern for all British Columbians, the Reform Party has been a non-factor. It has been invisible. It has been insensitive. It has been ineffectual. It has been incompetent and, generally, it has been in a tailspin. This is shown clearly by the polls that have them falling rapidly and steadily in British Columbia from the position it held at the time of the election.

First is the debt, deficit, economy and jobs issue. In the last election campaign in British Columbia, British Columbians and Canadians across the country made it clear that the government had to get its fiscal house in order. The government promised that and it is delivering.

Job creation and deficit reduction go hand in hand. With a balanced and prudent approach, the government set out not only to meet but to exceed the targets set in 1993 one after another. Remember that not too long ago, Canada was faced with a deficit annually of $42 billion. By 1997-98, that will have been cut to $17 billion, which represents a 60 per cent reduction over that period.

We have worked hard on the government side to create a climate in which Canadians in business can expand, can grow, can hire more other Canadians and can provide the opportunities which result from that.

In British Columbia, the results are encouraging. It has one of the strongest provincial economies in the country. In fact, in most of that period it has been the strongest. British Columbia has created 100,000 new jobs since 1993 and the provincial inflation rate has dropped on a year over year basis of 1.2 per cent in April 1996. The employment growth is the highest in the country.

We expect this to be exceeded in the future. Over the next decade, it is expected British Columbia will create approximately 400,000 new jobs. It is not a question of the federal government doing this alone. However, the policies put in place allow the private sector to achieve the successes necessary for expansion and improvement in the job position.

We also of course are extremely lucky because of our strategic position on the edge of the Pacific and in relation to the Asia-Pacific trade. British Columbia is also endowed with resources which contribute dramatically to its opportunities.

However, the government has done its appropriate part to make sure British Columbians and British Columbia take advantage of those opportunities that I mentioned. We have the fundamentals right. The fundamental fiscal problem is being dealt with and we are getting the situation in the country as a whole, and in particular in British Columbia, into a far happier situation than it was three years ago.

Interest rates have declined three percentage points in the past 12 months. British Columbians know well, as do others across the country, that lower interest rates are the key to job creation because it encourages businesses to make investments and expand. It also, I might add, allows families to save thousands of dollars on their mortgage payments.

The inflation rate is the lowest in 30 years. British Columbians know how important it is for attracting foreign investment. Cutting the deficit, lowering interest rates and controlling inflation mean a stable economic climate in which foreign investment can be attracted and the economy can grow.

My second topic is Asia-Pacific. Canada is a Pacific nation and the government has brought that fact to life more than any previous government in recent history. The Pacific advantage is an advantage for all Canadians wherever they live, but it is particularly important in British Columbia.

The province of British Columbia is showing the way by taking advantage of the opportunities in the most economically vibrant region of the world. We are trying to work together with our fellow Canadians to make sure we benefit by the opportunities provided on the Pacific rim.

APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference, will be held in Vancouver, which is in my view the premier international city now and a jewel on the Pacific rim. As a British Columbian, I am pleased to see this city develop into a major commercial, cultural and tourism centre for the Pacific rim but also for the world. Its role as the gateway for the Asia-Pacific market will be showcased when the Prime Minister hosts the heads of state for the APEC leaders' summit in November of next year.

Our active participation in APEC over the last three years ensures that the interests of British Columbia and Canadians are fully taken into account in any decisions which strengthen trans-Pacific trade. We are in constant contact with other nations of the region in all sectors, private and public, so that the trade, economic and cultural objectives in Asia-Pacific can be realized.

There will be a series of other meetings taking place next year with respect to APEC. We have indicated that 1997 will be Canada's year of the Pacific. I, for example, as Minister of Transport, have invited my counterparts to a transportation ministerial meeting to be held in British Columbia in June 1997, the theme being "transportation supporting trade and growth in APEC". I believe the involvement of the government in APEC is a pretty clear indication that when it comes to looking to the future and expanding opportunities we are doing what we can and doing it well.

Team Canada has been talked about frequently. The trade missions have been outstanding successes. Members will recollect that the emphasis of those trade missions has been the Pacific rim. In the red book we made a commitment to strengthen our trading relationship with the Pacific rim and those trade missions were a direct result of that red book commitment.

We have had Team Canada trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaya and they have proved to be extremely successful in providing opportunity for British Columbia and other Canadian businesses to obtain entry into other markets.

The figures of billions of dollars of trade have been explained at other times in the House. I need not go into them again. All I can say about the specific British Columbia component is that the

increase in trade with the Pacific throughout the country inevitably benefits the city and the province best suited to take advantage of its geographic position on the Pacific rim.

We are not, however, resting on our laurels with respect to trade. We intend to have a further mission. The Prime Minister in January will lead another trade mission to Asia. Once again I confidently expect that British Columbian entrepreneurs and business people will be among the most active of the people who accompany him.

The recognition of British Columbia as a fifth region of the country is important.

[Canada Communication Group, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty with the hon. member's supplementary. The first question was about open bidding. In the supplementary he is not talking about it.

What I would like to point out to him is that it is simply not possible in a complex system such as the federal government to make such totally sweeping guarantees.

For example, if we have computer software of a particular type, it is not possible to open it up to open bidding to companies that could not supply that product because of copyright infringement problems. There has to be some give and take.

In addition, there have to be some elements, which are successor contracts, where we already have developed a system in place. To throw out existing work and start completely afresh every time a new contract may come down on a program would simply be bad business management and exactly the opposite of what the private sector would want this government to do when it protects taxpayer dollars.

[Canada Communication Group, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, I can point out to the hon.

member that there are times when the standard procedure of open competitive bidding, which is the general policy of the government, has to be varied by reason, for example, of some trade mark or copyright.

They require standardization of equipment that can only be obtained from one supplier. In addition, there may be other reasons of a similar nature. I can only assure him that our general policy is, of course, open and competitive bidding.

[Air Transportation, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House yesterday that our policy with respect to the two airlines was one of even-handedness and equal treatment.

Airlines are free to hire whom they wish. If Air Canada chooses to hire a civil servant who was responsible for the negotiation of air bilaterals, that is all right. If Canadian International wishes to hire someone previously hired by one of my colleagues on either side of the House, that is all right as well. The fact is that we are treating the airlines on the basis of strict equality.

Having said that, I have to tell the House that we have a new policy in place, one which allows Air Canada for the first time to fly to Hong Kong, Korea and Japan. It is this government which made that change and allowed Air Canada to get that opportunity under our secondary airline policy.

If there is any indication of the importance that we attach to the competition between the two airlines and the importance of equal treatment, it is in the record of this government.

[Air Transport, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is and has been to have even-handed treatment of both major airlines.

I certainly agree with the hon. member there are links that American Airlines has with Canadian. In fact, British Airways also has links with it. However, Air Canada has links with Lufthansa and Continental. If we were to stop giving anything to Air Canada because of its links with Lufthansa because it may benefit Lufthansa or some German provider of services, I think that would be absurd.

Obviously in the world of aviation today all our major companies will have links with other major international companies. Both our airline companies are operating in that environment and both are operating competitively. I would prefer to have our airlines try to improve service rather than spend their time on political battles in this House.

[Air Transport, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government with respect to our two major carriers is one of even-handedness. Air Canada for example, the company the hon. member is concerned about, is flying to Asia, Hong Kong and Japan for the first time as a result of decisions by this government.

I would remind the hon. member, with respect to the route to Hong Kong he mentioned, we negotiated with the Hong Kong authorities who agreed with exactly the number of flights per week that Air Canada asked for. The result was that when Air Canada established its route shortly after we had been dealing with the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong authorities, it now wishes to have a change. The trouble is that Hong Kong has many things on its mind at the present time, including the establishment of a brand new facility on Lan Tao Island which will indeed be the world's most modern airport when it is opened.

We cannot constantly go back to every one of the 2,000 to 3,000 air bilateral agreements we have whenever one airline or another-

[Carriage Of Passengers By Water Act, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to request the permission of the House to have both bills referred to committee prior to second reading in this House.

[Carriage Of Passengers By Water Act, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the government that this bill be referred to committee before second reading.