Douglas Young

[Highways, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we continue with the programs already in place to deal with highway construction in a number of provinces, no doubt citizens in every part of the country are seeking as much as they can get to build highways. That is the case in Nova Scotia.

We fully understand the concerns, especially in my case being a New Brunswicker. We recognize that highways in Atlantic Canada need a lot of funding.

Rather than railing at the rally in the valley about the 104, I look forward to the hon. member and his party telling us where they would get more money and what they would propose for highway construction in the country. Since this is not federal jurisdiction, they might want to tell us how they propose to fund highway construction in Nova Scotia and elsewhere where it is required.

[Highways, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is very interested in this matter and I understand her concerns. We have listened to people who have made representations with respect to highways in Nova Scotia on a number of occasions.

Although the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is a very hard working member of Parliament, it does not change the reality that decisions for highway construction, the allocation of funds and the routing of highways is a provincial matter.

I know it is extremely difficult for the hon. member who has asked the question to understand that, but I intend to be patient and to continue to explain to him that whether it is in Manitoba, British Columbia or Nova Scotia, the decision for the construction of highways and how the funds are allocated is the primary responsibility and falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces in question.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 20th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-101, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act, and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I move for referral of the bill to committee before second reading.

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

[Peacekeeping Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have paid close attention to the number of votes taken tonight with members of the House participating and I want to check with the Chair to see if we could be informed why the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has not participated in the voting tonight.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 19th, 1995]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Hughes Aircraft, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if there were a knowledgeable air controller on that committee I might consider it.

Because we have to deal with this issue in a fairly short order we will proceed as best we can to deal with finding a solution to this problem. We will make sure whatever deal is arrived at is absolutely transparent.

As this matter came to my attention I immediately advised the auditor general of our concerns with respect to it. We will try to resolve a very serious problem.

The hon. member should recognize that our intention to commercialize the air navigation system, which I hope he will support, should avoid any problems like this occurring in the future.

[Hughes Aircraft, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the Reform Party who is critic in matters of transport obviously lives an exciting life. On one hand for months in the House he has talked about the cancellation of the Pearson contract as an example of what governments should not do. Now in the case of the Hughes contract he wants it cancelled.

We have to do the best we can in any commercial undertaking to arrive at a solution in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers.

I have said that with respect to the Hughes contract and all of the CAATS arrangements so far the government is extremely concerned about them. We are concerned about cost overruns, about glitches. We are attempting to find a solution in the best interests of both air safety and the Canadian taxpayer.

The hon. member will have to decide whether he wants to cancel contracts, support contracts or try to negotiate out of a specific contract. In the case of Hughes I wish the hon. member would decide which way he wants to go.

[Amf Techno Transport, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the possibility of commercializing CN is a very serious issue. So is, of course, the future of AMF, both for its workers and for greater Montreal. We are all aware of that, and every effort is being made to try to find a solution.

We will continue to co-operate with CN, in the hope of finding a way to reach an agreement which would ensure the sale and survival of AMF, which is a very important industry for the Montreal region.

[Amf Techno Transport, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that AMF's situation is precarious. I hope that the hon. member will realize that other regions in the country have experienced the same situation. As a New Brunswick native, I can tell you that we had the same problem in Moncton, when CN decided to pull out of there, a decision which affected over 1,000 employees.

AMF's best chance of survival is to find a solution to CN's current problem in its negotiations with an international company interested in moving there. A solution must not only be found to the impasse related to the acquisition costs, but also to the productivity of that plant.

We all recognize the problem which exists at AMF, and I hope that CN and the eventual buyer will find a solution to the difficulties which, so far, have been a major obstacle.

[Transport, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to have the hon. member stand in this House and lecture us on ethics is somewhat akin to listening to a tom cat talk about morality.