Jean Dubé

[Education, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since 1992 there has been a 44% reduction in transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education. The student debtload has increased 130% since 1982 and tuition fees have gone up 126%.

Can the minister tell us when post-secondary education is going to be accessible to all Canadians, rich and poor?

[Points Of Order, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the very lively question period you ruled two questions out of order concerning matters which were raised in the report of the auditor general yesterday.

It may be that you did not hear my question, which had to do with actions by a government department in awarding crown funds. These are clearly matters within the competence of the minister, and the minister is accountable for these funds.

[Liberal Party Of Canada, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in Papineau—Saint-Denis, represented by her predecessor at HRDC, a company by the name of Rougier Inc., which received $81,000 from the TJF program, gave Liberal candidates of Montreal in the 1997 election a total amount of $8,400. Then in 1998, after receiving a TJF amount, it increased the donation to the Liberal Party of Canada by $1,000 and received contracts of over $40,000.

Are there any links between donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and getting—

[Liberal Party Of Canada, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled yesterday the auditor general said there might be a link between the awarding of contracts by the government and donations to the Liberal Party of Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Are there any links between moneys awarded to companies through the TJF fund and financial contributions to Liberal members?

[Air Transportation, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday night at midnight, InterCanadian, the only carrier servicing Charlo, New Brunswick and a number of other Canadian airports, shut down its operations with neither notice or explanation.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether he was aware of this situation and if he has any immediate plans for restoring air service to Charlo and other affected Canadian airports?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Yes, the question must be clear and specific. I would like the government side of the House to answer clear and specific questions.

Since it took office, this government cut $17 billion from health care. It is absolutely incredible because, meanwhile, the demand for health care is increasing. We all know that the ageing of the population is increasing the demand for health care and yet the government cut some $17 billion in health care.

In the last budget, the Minister of Finance gave back some of that money, in transfers for health care, but that simply brought us back to where we were ten years ago. To have such a government in this day and age is absolutely incredible.

Canadians are furious at the Prime Minister for having revived the constitutional debate. Given the government's record in the House right now, I can assure members that Canadians want change. I can hardly wait for the next election, because then the people will have the opportunity to say exactly what they think about this government.

Let us consider the problems in the health field. During the past year, I had the privilege of being a member of the Conservative Party's committee that toured Canada to study poverty. The government has nothing to brag about when it comes to poverty, which is growing in Canada. We have seen much evidence of this. I had the opportunity to meet some university students during the tour and, believe it or not, I discovered there are soup kitchens in Canadian universities. It is absolutely incredible that there should be soup kitchens our Canadian universities.

We wonder why health costs are so high. It is because of the constant stress Canadians are under. In some regions, Canadians are looking for jobs, they are having a hard time making ends meet and they are under heavy stress as a result. And where does stress lead? Stress gets people into the hospital, sometimes for long periods of time. We also know that stress has an impact on the cardiovascular system.

I think all the hon. members in the House know only too well what this causes and what it costs. We should be focusing our efforts on this, to reduce health costs.

I totally support Bill C-13, but I think we should examine the origin of the problem and the causes of skyrocketing health costs. Again, we have an aging population in Canada. Nowadays in Canada, young families are like mine, with two young children aged six and two; there are no more families of six and more; we do not see that anymore.

So, we have an aging population, which has an impact on taxes collected. We will have to pay attention to this. We have serious problems, and we really have to focus our attention on the causes of health problems.

I want to go back to what I said a few minutes ago. I was saying that I was deeply disappointed with the government's work during this session. I honestly think this is one of the laziest governments we have seen.

It has to be the laziest government in this century. It is totally unbelievable. We are going on to the constitutional debate again when Canadians really want to hear us talk about health care. I know I want to talk about health care and I think most of the people in here want to talk about health care. I am sure most of the people on the government side want to talk about health care as well.

Unfortunately, today and for the past week in the House everyone knows what we have been talking about. Who initiated all this? I think it was our friend across the way, the Prime Minister of Canada.

It is totally unbelievable to throw gas on the fire like that. It is ironic because our party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, believes in a united Canada. This was demonstrated when Jean Charest left our party to head the federalist party in Quebec. He seems to be doing a good job there trying to bring up the popularity of federalist troops in Quebec. We saw in a poll about two weeks ago that the federalist forces in Quebec were on their way up. I think it was at 57% and the Lucien Bouchard troops were down to 30%.

We should keep an eye on the polls in the coming weeks to see what happens in Quebec. I am sure we will see a change in the polls.

Members of parliament were debating clear issues that people were concerned about. We were talking about jobs and health care. We must be getting close to an election because it seems to me that every time there is an election in the country we talk about the constitution. Believe me, we should be talking about much different things.

When I say that it has to be the laziest government in this century, I think that is why the PM is trying to hook onto this.

Let us look at what we did as a Conservative government and at the balanced budget today. Why do we have a balanced budget today? Let us take a look at what free trade did to the country. Free trade was brought in by this government. It is one of the biggest pieces of legislation this country has had in this century. That was a proactive government taking care of business.

What free trade has done for us in Canada is to raise our exports from $90 billion to $230 billion over five or six years. That is absolutely incredible. These are very fine figures indeed and I believe the government is very proud of them today.

Had the Liberal government had it its way, free trade would not be what it is today. However, the Minister of Finance must be very pleased with that $230 billion figure today. The Liberals are patting themselves on the back now about having a balanced budget. But why is it that they have that balanced budget? I think the $230 billion certainly has something to do with the fact that there is a balanced budget. Let us be realistic.

As for the GST, I was not much in favour of that as a businessman, and many people in Canada were also opposed. We saw what happened in 1993. Looking a little further, we can see that the GST will bring in $24 billion in revenues to the Government of Canada this year.

Looking at what we did as a government and what the present government has done, it is evident that the employment insurance cuts have hurt the poor, particularly women. It can be seen from last week's Statistics Canada report that the poor are the ones most affected by employment insurance reform.

I am pleased to take part in this debate, and we are going to support Bill C-13.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from New Brunswick, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, for his excellent work at the Standing Committee on Health. I also want to point out to the House that this is the first significant bill dealing with health care that has come before us during this parliament. It is incredible that this is the first bill dealing with a matter of such significance.

This reminds us of the fact that the present government is the laziest of this century. It is absolutely incredible that, today, the government is putting an emphasis on health. The Prime Minister recently reopened the constitutional debate. To him, it seems more important to debate constitutional matters than to discuss the priorities of Canadians regarding health, education and employment. This is absolutely incredible.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me today to be able to speak on this bill.

My colleague said that he used to be the mayor of a municipality. The municipal level is very dear to my heart, for my father was the mayor of the city of Campbellton until his death a month ago. I can therefore say that today's bill is close to my heart, and that is why it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak to it.

In conversations with representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, it is abundantly clear that municipalities and their organizations do not appreciate having the legislation rammed down their throats. Municipalities were not given any advance notice that the legislation was being introduced. No information, no background notes, no news releases, no summaries and no other materials were sent out to these various municipalities. These municipalities are on the front line serving our constituents. They are the front line government and I believe the most important government in our federation.

The municipal governments have not had time to study the bill and respond to it. In the case of the FCM, it has not had time to consult its members on the bill. This begs the question: If this is such a great piece of legislation, what is the rush?

We all know from experience that when legislation is rushed through the House mistakes often get overlooked. Quick legislation is bad legislation. As a member of the House and as a member of the committee, along with my colleagues, that will attempt to clean up the mistakes in the bill, I call on the government to allow more time for the House standing committee to work on the bill and more time for municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure that the legislation will correct past problems without creating new ones.

Speaking of past problems, the very fact that we have a Municipal Grants Act is a bit of an absurdity of history since the government does not officially recognize the existence of municipalities. Towns, cities and local service districts are not mentioned in the constitution. They have no official mandate. They are entirely a creation of provincial governments. Furthermore, the federal government has a constitutional exemption from paying local taxes.

The problem is that the federal government, which owns property in almost 2,000 municipalities across the country, benefits from all kinds of municipal services, such as water and sewage, roads and other infrastructure. Those services are not free. In spite of its constitutional exemption, the federal should pay for those services like every other good property owner in Canada.

This paradox was resolved in 1950 with the passage of the first Municipal Grants Act which has been updated and revised many times, most recently in 1990. Since 1980, there have been a number of issues pop up that the current legislation does not and cannot resolve. This is the basis of the bill that we have before us today.

For example, a couple of years ago, I remember that there was a dispute between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and local municipalities as to whether the department had to make a payment in lieu of taxes on wharves.

Not too long ago, the federally owned Aéroports de Montréal protested a property evaluation by the city of Dorval. Ottawa re-evaluated the land at $100 million less than the property assessment and told the city that if it did not like it, it could contest the figure before a federal government appointed tribunal.

In my home province of New Brunswick, the provincial department of municipalities estimates how much municipalities will receive from federal payments in lieu of taxes and pays them that amount. The department then goes about collecting the payments from the federal government, but it is only sometime later that the federal government actually pays the amount due and, in some cases, the payment has taken years.

In 1995, the city of Halifax yelled foul when, after increasing the evaluation of the Citadel from $15 million to $36 million, the federal government reduced its evaluation from $15 million to $1.2 million. Short of going to court, the two governments had no ways of resolving this dispute.

In 1992, the Government of Quebec gave municipalities the right to replace all or part of their business occupancy taxes with a new real property tax. The result was a sudden $41 million increase in the federal payments to Quebec municipalities.

In Ontario, the provincial government eliminated its business occupancy tax. To make up the lost revenue, Ontario municipalities increased their commercial real property tax rates by an average of about 45%. These reforms cost the federal government as much as $100 million a year more in payments in lieu of taxes in leasehold occupancy costs. Furthermore, crown corporations are paying approximately $30 million more.

As well, a freeze on payments from 1993 to 1995 made municipal governments mistrustful of the federal government and made the current system unreliable.

Clearly, it is time to update the legislation to deal with these problems that have presented themselves in recent years.

The bill before us today proposes changes in a number of these areas. The bill would change the name of the legislation from Municipal Grants Act to the payments in lieu of taxes act, while references in the legislation to “grants” will be replaced with the word “payments”. This is to better reflect the nature of the program and the relationship between the Government of Canada as a property owner and Canadian and municipal governments.

The bill proposes introducing compensation for late payments by the federal government to municipalities. It also would give the authority to Ottawa to make payments when tenants on federal property default on their local tax bills. These are important changes under which the federal government accepts a position much closer to that of other property owners regarding its tax obligations.

It would establish a dispute advisory panel under the act with a minimum of two board members from each province and territory. The advisory panel would recommend solutions to the minister when disputes arise between municipalities and the federal government over the appropriate amount of payments.

Outdoor swimming pools, golf course improvements, outdoor theatres, residential driveways and employee parking improvements would be added to the definition of “federal property” and the bill would clarify the wording of the act as it relates to a non-building structure.

As well, Bill C-10 proposes to improve the predictability of payments for municipalities by clarifying how payments are calculated for federal farm property and how deductions are calculated when municipalities are unable or unwilling to provide the federal property with equivalent services to those received by similar private property or structures. It would also clarify the status of Parks Canada assets as federal property.

Although the bill does introduce some important changes, there is one important area where I have strong reservations.

Other than section 4 of the bill, which states the intent of the act and which I think is a waste of space as it accomplishes nothing, I would say that 90% of the bill is an improvement over the existing legislation. The important exception is in section 14, which would establish a new dispute advisory panel.

There are two major difficulties with the proposed new panel, the first being one of fairness and balance and the second being the composition of the panel.

Imagine a court trial in which the defendant got to pick his own jury, got to pay the jury and install himself as final judge with no chance of appeal. How would the defendant do? I suspect he would win just about every case. Would we describe this system as fair? I do not think so. Yet this is exactly the kind of dispute settlement panel the minister has proposed in Bill C-10.

Differences in opinion often arise between municipalities and the federal government over how much the crown owes for payments in lieu of taxes. These disputes are often based on the valuation of a property or the definition and classification of a property.

What the minister has proposed is that he should establish an advisory panel composed of a minimum of two persons from each province and territory, for a total of at least 26 members. The members will be chosen only by the minister, and we can just imagine who will be chosen. The minister will decide how qualified the members of the panel need to be. He will pay them $125 per hour plus expenses and they will report only to him.

The minister can fire any of the members of the board at any time for any reason if, for example, he disagrees with their decision. He can completely ignore any decision of the panel if it suits his purpose and his decision is absolutely final. There is no appeal. Not a bad deal. So much for fairness.

On issues related to the composition of the panel, let us look at section 14 in more detail. Subsection 14(1) proposes, as I have said, a panel consisting of no less than two members from each province and territory with relevant knowledge or experience.

My first reaction was that once the bill passes, there will be 26 very happy Liberals across the country who will have brand new patronage jobs. After all, $125 an hour plus expenses is a pretty good day's work.

I call on the other members of the House to support the bill at second reading so we can get it into committee and hopefully fix some of these problems.

[National Highway System, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the motion put forward by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands which calls for a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline to be directed to federal and provincial programs to upgrade and renew many substandard sections of the national highway system.

Our party supports the motion because highway renewal is extremely important and must be a priority. An increased portion of gasoline excise tax is one way of finding more of the necessary resources.

A recent report commissioned by the council of ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety shows that the cost to bring the national highway system up to standard has increased from approximately $12 billion in 1988 to $17.2 billion in 1997.

Our national highway system consists of approximately 25,000 kilometres of highways, including the Trans-Canada Highway, which connects all of our capital cities, commercial and population centres, and access points to our largest trading partner, the United States. For decades the Government of Canada provided funding through federal-provincial funding agreements for highways. Over the last five years all of those agreements have expired.

Federal government policy has allowed the railways over the last 15 years to decline and heavy truck traffic has taken the place of the railways as the major product and commodity movers. This federal policy has resulted in increased damage to our highways as goods and services transfer from rail to highway trucks. Pressure is increasing on the Government of Canada in conjunction with the provinces and territories to reinvest in our deteriorating highway system.

While there may be increasing consensus toward the need for reinvestment, all options must be considered in order to achieve the goal of improving our highways. Therefore, we are supportive of the idea of directing more of the revenue generated from gasoline excise tax toward upgrading the nation's highways.

This idea, however, is not new for us. My colleague, the PC transport critic, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has already recommended this plan to all provincial and territorial ministers of transportation in their continuing discussions with the federal Minister of Transport. The PC transport critic has contacted all provincial and territorial ministers in calling on the federal government to increase the portion of the tax collected on gasoline and diesel fuel sales that is invested into highways from the current 4% level to a 15% level.

This proposal would yield 15% of $6 billion collected each year, for a total of $900 million. Considering that the estimated cost for upgrading our present highway system is over $17 billion, this funding alone, with matching provincial funding, would go a long way toward correcting a problem that has been overlooked for too long.

We have argued that asking for 15% of the total gas and diesel tax to be returned to the highways is eminently fair and more than reasonable. It would still enable 85% to be dedicated toward general revenues. It is our belief that public opinion would also be supportive of this measure and the federal government would have a difficult time not going along with this plan.

In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, there are two items at the head of the agenda, including the Van Horne bridge, which has been unsafe for years.

Construction and upgrade work on this bridge should have been done several years ago. Now, the people of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and especially of Campbellton who use the bridge linking New Brunswick to Quebec are in danger, because the bridge's structure has been neglected.

The public works department has been aware of the problem for several years now, but again, the government has not responded. The department had to reduce the number of heavy duty trucks on this bridge used every day by Canadian consumers and citizens.

The other item that has me very concerned and that comes under the motion put forward by my Reform colleague deals with the major highway in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, to be more precise in the Upper Madawaska Valley. The previous parliament had voted moneys for the construction of a highway between the economic sector of the Upper Madawaska Valley and the Trans-Canada Highway.

We all know what happened in this case with the government and the then transport minister Doug Young. The government transferred the money, and believe me, it was strictly for partisan purposes. All the local stakeholders were unanimous: the mayors, the people, the provincial government and even the federal government had achieved a consensus on the need to build this highway. Again, we saw money being transferred strictly for partisan reasons.

I would like to tell the House again that a greater portion of revenues from gasoline taxes should be used directly for highway improvement in Canada, as members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been requesting for a long time.

Another colleague of mine, the member for Brandon—Souris, also brought forward in the House a motion asking that the federal government apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada. Even though this is not a new idea for our party, it does not mean it should not be considered by the present government.

There is a consensus among Canada's premiers. I hope the Government of Canada will respect that consensus.

Since 1994 the premiers have called on their federal partners to ensure that money is reinvested. Many organizations across the country are increasing their call on the government to act. The mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Automobile Association are just a few of the groups that are speaking out.

In addition, Canadians are recognizing more and more that the federal government is spending too little on our roads. In a national poll conducted in October, 81% of Canadians who were asked thought that the government should be spending more money toward improving our highways. As well, almost 90% said that we have real safety concerns with the state of our highways.

There are many positive impacts of reinvesting, namely, increasing the safety of our roads and the safety of our citizens, which is something the government does not seem to be able to see. This is extremely important when one considers the high number of injuries and fatalities each year on our roadways. Road accidents are the most serious transportation safety problems that we face. They account for nearly 95% of all transport related deaths. An improved highway system would also provide the important economic spinoff of increased commercial activity for business and increased tourism.

We support this motion and hope that the government will seriously look at this type of proposal.

[Petitions, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is a privilege for me to present to the House a petition bearing the signatures of residents and users of the wharf facility in the community of Durham Harbour, in the riding I have the honour to represent, Madawaska—Restigouche.

The signees are asking that parliament authorize, with no further delay, dredging work that is badly needed. Some work was started in 1985 but was never completed. These people have already shown much patience.

I therefore whole heartily support their request.