That is not what I said.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 34% of the vote.
Supply February 13th, 1997
That is not what I said.
Supply February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
The hon. member addressed VIA and the Great Canadian Railtour Company. I would like to touch on both of them in my question.
He mentioned that VIA is cutting and still losing money. I suppose it is losing money because the federal government has to subsidize it. But let us put the whole story before the Canadian people. The whole story is that VIA Rail had operated with over $300 million in subsidy per year and has had that subsidy reduced by the government to not $200 million as the hon. member said in his speech, but $170 million.
VIA has been able to streamline, to work efficiencies into its company in order to maximize its return. It has managed to keep virtually the same VIA Rail service it had a couple of years ago with over $300 million in subsidy money, with only $170 million in subsidy. That subsidy is going down again. That company is demonstrating it can get on a commercially sound footing.
Unlike some provincial governments that just slash it and say off you go and that is it, the government understands the need for VIA Rail and the service it provides for Canadians from coast to coast. It does not want to jeopardize that need, as some of his colleagues have addressed, of Canadians and communities that rely on a good passenger rail service and VIA is working toward that end.
As far as the Great Canadian Railtour Company is concerned, I want to assure the hon. member opposite and the critic for transportation in the Reform Party that the government has no intention of watching a government subsidized rail company called VIA go up against any private company in Canada that is trying to do its job. It has no intention of doing that.
If it can be established, and the Minister of Transport has talked to the people of Kamloops, he has talked to this caucus, he has talked on many occasions to Peter Armstrong at the company and VIA-
Supply February 13th, 1997
No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that I was hiding behind the curtain. I want to correct the record. I was not hiding behind a curtain.
Supply February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed that the Speaker did not rise on that intervention only because the hon. member pointed out I was not in the House at the time of his remarks. I was behind this curtain communicating with my colleagues. There are television sets back there. I am well aware of every remark this hon. member made.
Supply February 13th, 1997
Point of order.
Supply February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of this government and, in particular, the hon. minister of agriculture, as if to say that it is all the minister of agriculture's fault that this thing is coming down.
Again the Reform Party focuses on rhetoric instead of the facts. The fact is that CN and CP are now private corporations. The fact is that winter has been very severe in western Canada and has affected the rails. He ignores those facts.
To quote the hon. minister of agriculture: "The government is interested in solutions". The member for the Reform Party has the opportunity to give us some ideas on how we can make this situation better.
He comes from the west. He knows how important it is to them. Instead he gets into political rancour and debate. We need solutions today. That is what the minister of agriculture is looking for. He is out there. He has been speaking directly with the players in the industry, in grain shipping and the rail sector.
He is trying to co-ordinate the three areas so a solution can be reached, not to lay blame, not to find out who was right or who was wrong or who was insufficient and who was careless. That does not accomplish anything. Let us get on with the solutions.
Could he stand today and give us some ideas on solutions to try to solve this problem, not the usual political rhetoric.
Supply February 13th, 1997
The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe has put it exactly right. It is a fair system. It is a responsible way to reduce the deficit, to remove the burden on the taxpayer's back and put it on entities like CN or Nav Canada. This government is doing what it can in a fair and responsible way.
Would the hon. member acknowledge we can do it the way Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, has? We could use the Conservative slash, gash and gouge method of reducing the deficit, putting hospital care up against the wall, and putting education at risk in the province of Ontario. I wish he would acknowledge that we are reducing the deficit in a responsible, fair and progressive manner. Could he acknowledge that?
Supply February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party are creating, in my humble opinion, unnecessary debate. The hon. member speaks highly political discourse that is quite frankly lacking in fact.
We are dealing with the transportation sector. The member speaks of spending, smaller government and government initiative. I remind the hon. member that this government inherited a $42 billion deficit in 1993. This government took that $42 billion deficit and in three years time turned it into a $19 billion deficit.
How was that accomplished? This government did it department by department, minister by minister. This government is talking about the issue of the day, the Department of Transport. In transportation the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport have made an enormous contribution to that bottom line.
The member talks about smaller government. We have moved from 43 cabinet ministers in 1992 in the Mulroney era, down to 22 cabinet ministers. We reduced the deficit.
Because of the policies of the Department of Transport and the two ministers of transport, we have been able to privatize CN Rail and put it on a level play field with the CP rail systems. We have been able to take the air navigation system and put into not for profit hands called Nav Canada. That is a saving in those two area, CN and Nav Canada, of billions of dollars for the Canadian taxpayer. We acknowledge that reductions in government and reductions in subsidy have to occur, but it is a step by step process.
Supply February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure and remind the member and his constituents who are watching today that the Mirabel and Dorval airports were transferred to the ADM. The reason they were transferred to the ADM was to respond to those local initiatives and to ensure that each one of those airports is managed and developed in terms of the local needs.
It was the ADM that came forward and said: "In the best interests of the Mirabel-Dorval-Montreal area, this is the proposal we feel will best meet the needs of the public who are using the airlines, the airlines themselves and the division".
I just wanted to assure the hon. member that Transport Canada is doing a thorough examination of the court decision that was just rendered yesterday.
Supply February 13th, 1997
It is not a luxury service. It is not going to be an overnight service. The members over there want to compare apples and oranges and cry that it is not fair.
We are working with Mr. Peter Armstrong at the Great Canadian Railtour Company to try to achieve a goal that will be fair to him and at the same time fair to the Canadian taxpayer who pays the bills for VIA Rail who has said: "We will be arm's length from you. You are going out there. You are going to do the business necessary in order to get a return on the investment of the Canadian taxpayers".
VIA's subsidy of $350 million a year is now down to $170 million yet it is not dropping any services. We telling them to become commercial and get competitive. That is exactly what it is trying to do. However, if VIA came in and duplicated the service of the Great Canadian Railtour Company in B.C., the government would not stand for it, I would not stand for it and neither would the constituents of British Columbia.