Steve Mahoney

[Grain Transportation, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this issue. Some of my colleagues have asked what a member from the great metropolis of Mississauga might be concerned about with regard to this issue. Obviously transportation, whether it be grain transportation or the rail system, is of significance to all Canadians right across the country.

When I was in the provincial legislature in Ontario I sponsored a private member's bill to try to assist short line rail lines from disappearing and to assist the takeover and privatization by providing an exemption to short line rail operators from successor rights. This very serious problem saw private business trying to take over certain short line rail lines having to assume as many as 17 different union contracts that simply made it uneconomic and inoperable. This is a concern right across the country with regard to our railway system.

Obviously, grain production and the marketing of such is a key sector of the prairie economy. It is also important in many other communities across Canada.

Since the majority of grains and processed grain products are exported off the prairies, the grain transportation and handling system must be as efficient and reliable as possible in order to minimize costs to farmers and respond to their customers' needs. The system is very complex and involves a number of different stakeholders.

I would like to give a few statistics relating to the grain transportation and handling sector to help put things in perspective.

There are currently about 120,000 Canadian Wheat Board permit holders in western Canada. The average crop production is about 45 million tonnes, nearly 60% of which is exported. Farmers truck their grain an average of 15 miles. There are about 1,100 primary elevators located at about 900 shipping points in the country. There are over 13,000 miles of rail lines in western Canada alone, of which some 5,000 miles are grain dependent branch lines.

Prairie grain is exported through terminal elevators—and to prove my point about it being a national issue—located at Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill. As well there are transfer elevators at a number of locations on the St. Lawrence River.

Grain transportation reform is one of several key transportation initiatives that have been implemented in recent years. There are four main reasons for reforming grain transportation policies.

There was a requirement to comply with the new world trade rules which impose significant dollar and volume restrictions on trade-distorting subsidies such as payments under the Western Grain Transportation Act.

Reform was necessary to create a less rigid and more responsive operating environment and encourage a faster, lower cost and more efficient system for the benefit of farmers, shippers and railways. Hardly an abandonment, I might add, of the prairie farmers.

There was also a need to eliminate the freight rate discrimination against value added production and processing, diversification and economic growth.

Finally, the government wanted to help reduce government spending in the battle against the deficit while re-focusing remaining expenditures on key growth oriented priorities.

There were five components to western grain transportation reform.

First, the WGTA subsidy payments to the railways were terminated effective August 1, 1995. Second, the overall legislative and regulatory framework was revised to encourage a more efficient system. Third, a one time ex gratia payment of $1.6 billion was made to prairie farmland owners in recognition of the impact on land values that may have resulted from the elimination of the subsidy. Fourth, a $300 million adjustment fund was established to provide assistance for improved agricultural infrastructure for farmers affected by seaway pooling and for the alfalfa dehydration industry. Fifth, new and additional export credit guarantees of up to $1 billion were provided for sales of grain and other agri-food exports to non-government buyers.

The role of the government in car allocation as well has been terminated and turned over to an industry body called the Car Allocation Policy Group. The government encouraged industry to include a producer representative on this group thereby introducing a private sector aspect to this policy.

Although the WGTA was repealed, the government continued to regulate maximum freight rates for former WGTA traffic.

In addition to western grain transportation reform, the government also commercialized CN and encouraged rail renewal through a new Canada Transportation Act. The CTA reduced or eliminated unnecessary regulations which impeded the railways' ability to compete. It created a more commercial environment for railways and shippers, including short line haulers.

The government implemented these extensive changes because it believed they were in the best interests of farmers, shippers and the railways.

One of the commitments when the WGTA reform was implemented was to conduct a statutory review in 1999 which will indeed assess the impact of the CTA provisions on the efficiency of the grain transportation and handling system and the sharing of efficiency gains.

The review will also examine whether or not the maximum rate provisions should be repealed.

There were widespread calls for the government to conduct an early grain review stemming in large part from the problems in moving grain which were experienced at this time last year. Some stakeholders feel that the difficulties in moving grain were symptoms of systemic problems which were not addressed by previous efforts at reform.

This government agreed that it was necessary to undertake an early grain review. The Minister of Transport in December, as we have heard, appointed the honourable Mr. Justice Willard Estey to lead this review.

Justice Estey has commenced his consultations with producer groups, grain companies, railways, the provinces and other interested and affected parties. He has received a strong and positive response and is looking forward to the ongoing co-operation of producer, industry and government representatives in identifying problems and working collectively toward constructive solutions.

In closing, I believe that the motion introduced by the member is indeed being responded to now. This government has done everything it can to support western grain producers and the transportation system. We are indeed implementing effective reforms.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest and bewilderment to some of the comments actually coming from the hon. member opposite representing the Bloc.

What we heard was a speech on what we should do better in running the finances of Canada. I made some notes. I heard him suggest that we should reduce the employment insurance premiums, increase transfer payments to the provinces, cut the fees currently charged to new immigrants, cut the increased cost of passports, reduce user fees in our parks and we should redistribute money to students, seniors and people along those lines. This is interesting advice coming from a member of party that is dedicated to destroying the country.

I wonder why we would be given such advice when in fact his party's stated goal is open. There is no question that it is honest about its goal in this country. I find it rather curious.

I heard the member talk in terms of two visions. He said one was of a central government in this country based here in Ottawa with more power and more responsibility in the hands of the national government. The other vision that he talked about was one of decentralization, one that gave more power to the provinces. However, the member must admit that there clearly is in this place a third vision that is propagated by his party which is to secede from the federation known as Canada. I find it somewhat at opposite ends of the particular issue.

I have two questions for the member. If indeed he believes that we should increase transfer payments to the provincial government, and most notably to the province that he represents, the province of Quebec, why would he vote against Bill C-28 yesterday in this place which clearly did exactly that and replaced the transfer payment level back to $12.5 billion? Is this really just a game or is the party opposite giving us legitimate advice that all Canadians would benefit from? Or is it strictly looking at it in a myopic and self-centred fashion for the province of Quebec?

[Beverage Containers Act, February 5th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act respecting beverage containers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would encourage recycling by ensuring that all beverages sold in Canada are sold in containers upon which a refundable deposit would be charged. It would benefit the municipal sector in the area of landfills and in the blue box program.

I am pleased to introduce this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Yes, go ahead and applaud yourselves, trained seals all. In any event, I am assuming they are trying to do something for first time home buyers but they are doing it in the most ridiculous way because they are asking all the taxpayers in Canada to foot the bill. They are asking this government, if we were to adopt this private member's bill, to assume the potential liability that could be as high as $6 billion if we were to take it to its ultimate extremes. We are not prepared to do that. That is not the stated goal of this government.

When I first looked at this I thought it would be great to be able to deduct the interest on my mortgage. It is a laudable idea. Anyone looking at it would think it was wonderful. However, we do not pay taxes on capital gains when we sell our principal residences. That might have to change if that situation were to occur. There is a bit of a quid pro quo there.

The other aspect is when I look at the potential damage and the cost and the fact that we would be asking non-first time home buyers, renters, seniors, people who owned their homes for a number of years, to subsidize this. It is wrong headed.

What makes more sense is keeping our inflation rate low and non-existent, keeping our interest rates as low as they are because that benefits all of us, whether we are buying a first time home, an automobile, whether we are taking a vacation, whatever it is. It allows us to get the true benefit of revenue and money staying in our pocket because we keep interest rates down.

If Reformers would understand that, they would understand that this private member's bill, contrary to what they would say, is nothing more than a spending program they are asking this government to do, which I could not support.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

The Tories do not like to hear about this. They wave it off. They do not want to hear us constantly remind the Canadian public about the legacy of Brian Mulroney. However, the facts are that in 1993 this government started out with a huge deficit which hurt us internationally. It hurt us in the money markets and in the marketplace. People said you cannot even manage your own household, don't talk to us about other households.

We have managed this household. We have put this country on the road to fiscal responsibility and have balanced the books. From time to time the Leader of the Opposition stands up and admits that but then says, like the poor hungry boy in Oliver, please sir, I want more. That is all we hear. I have never heard such whining and snivelling coming out of the parties representing the west, primarily and the Reform Party, as we hear every day in this place. Please sir, I want more.

What they are proposing with this bill is that they want more. In what I can only hope is a noble attempt to try to do something for first time home buyers, I am prepared to concede that at least their intention is good.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Members think this is funny. Let me share this with them and show them why the taxpayers of Canada would see this as a spending bill.

Anything that provides a tax cut means there is a cost to the federal treasury. The indications are that the cost of this at the minimum, at the floor level, would be $150 million. To maturity the cost could be as high as $3 billion. If we were to go to the next step, which would be to take it further than just first time homebuyers and expand it to include all homebuyers, the cost could be as high as $6 billion to the federal treasury.

What the member is really asking for is to go to what fundamentally is an American system. This does not surprise me because all I hear when I hear Reform Party members stand up in this place is the defence of the great U.S.A. and its tax system, its safety system and social system. All they ever talk about is how great the United States of America is.

It would be a real treat to hear a member of the Reform Party stand in the House of Commons and talk about how great Canada is. But we do not hear that. We hear, “Let us get the Star Spangled Banner up there and tell everybody boy oh boy, the way to run things is the way they run it south of the border”.

I happen to think they are wrong, as they chirp away, not only wrong but a dangerous policy.

There are ways to help first time home buyers. One very obvious way that the members opposite neglect to recognize is the interest rate in this country. Just think about the difficulty that a first time home buyer would have in buying a home in my community. The low end would be somewhere around $130,000 for a townhouse up to $200,000 for a fairly modest three bedroom home in a subdivision in my city. They would need a down payment of approximately $30,000. They have to save that money. If they were buying a semi-detached or single home with a maximum CMHC insured mortgage, they would end up with a mortgage payment, if the interest rates were at 10%, as high as $1,500 a month. That is a lot of money for a first time home buyer to assume.

If they were to buy the smaller home then they would be able to cut that down but it is still going to be $1,000 or more per month. What people tend to forget when they are buying a townhouse is that they have to add on common area maintenance fees to the mortgage. Even for a townhouse at the lowest end of the market in big city Canada, we are talking about $1,200 to $1,500 a month in mortgage payments if the interest rates are as high as 10%.

What has happened since this government took office in 1993? By putting confidence back into the marketplace, by eliminating the $42 billion inherited—

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to comment on this private member's bill.

First let me tell members in this House, some of whom may represent rural or agricultural ridings, that the agricultural product in my city of Mississauga happens to be homes.

When people ask what the population is of Mississauga, I generally respond by asking “What time is it”. In times of recession in this country we have experienced growth in our community in the neighbourhood of 20,000 people a year. We currently have approximately 600,000 people. Our ultimate population will be 750,000 according to our official plan. Many of those will be people moving into homes and we would call them first time homebuyers.

Frankly, anything that is done that would legitimately assist a first time homebuyer in the city of Mississauga, in the community I represent, you would think would be something we would want to support. What is really interesting when we examine this bill in particular coming as a private member's bill from a Reform Party member is that this is a spending bill. If we analyse it, it is not a tax cut at all.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to dance around it at all. When the government was elected in 1993 it inherited a $42 billion deficit. I said in my remarks, and the hon. member can look it up if he wants to, that changes absolutely had to be made in the transfer payments and they were made. There is no argument about that.

This is about restoring it to the level we are committed to, a level that it will never fall below. You understand that you cannot simply continue to spend money you do not have. It is a philosophy of the government. It is the leadership shown by the finance minister and the prime minister. It is turning things around but the job is not done. There is a long way to go.

I am convinced that with this next budget and with bills like Bill C-28 we will save our health care system, restore the confidence of the Canadian people in our education including post-secondary education, and build a great nation.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

That is right, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the statistics, the total transfers will be in the neighbourhood of $25 billion. The province of Ontario will benefit over the period that this bill encompasses by some $2.5 billion in increased transfer funds.

I think it is an excellent point that should be brought out. It just shows that we are prepared to set a floor, as I said in my remarks earlier. We are prepared to say to Ontario and to everywhere else in this country that it will never fall below that level under the terms of the agreement that we are entering into through this bill. There will be increased funding as well in the bill.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First, there would not be much point in setting up a commission and going to all the trouble that this government has to study that very specific issue and then simply ignoring it in a knee-jerk reaction.

We have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say there will be no merger approval and we want to see that report before any discussion about whether or not such an activity will take place.

I heard the NDP member for Kamloops say he supported the increase in the RESP contribution from $2,000 for $4,000. He thought that was good. He supported a number of other issues in Bill C-28. Yet at the same time I could not quite believe that he went on to denigrate the economy. He said that our economy is not strong. He referred to the hon. parliamentary secretary as referring to some other country in his imagination when he talked about a country with a strong economy.

Our economy is strong and it can get stronger and it will get stronger by all of us working together.