Douglas Young

[Transport, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question of allocation of funds to highway construction, as the hon. member should know by now, is a provincial responsibility.

In the event that the Government of Nova Scotia or any other government in the country wishes to discuss the reallocation of funds, we will be prepared to do that, as we have done on dozens of occasions as a federal government over the past 10 years.

The case in question the hon. member refers to is a situation that arose when the Government of Nova Scotia decided to reallocate funds within the existing agreement. Section 12 of that agreement allows for the reallocation of funds by consensus.

If the Government of Nova Scotia wishes to reallocate funds to this or any other highway, as is the case with any other province where a similar agreement exists, we will look at it, because that is what the hon. member often refers to as being flexible federalism.

[Air Navigation, June 1st, 1995]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that, as I have repeated time and time again, every existing provision aimed at protecting the interests of people who speak either official language of Canada will be maintained in the new organization.

As far as ensuring that all views are represented and that all concerned can be heard, we will certainly see to that. I would like to point out that it is practically unheard of to have the support of every sector in the air industry, as we do for commercializing the air navigation system in Canada. I hope that my hon. colleague will come forward with any suggestion he may have, because we intend to have a totally transparent process.

[Air Navigation, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we intend to table before this House a bill to authorize the commercialization of the air navigation system. I can assure my hon. colleague that every provision of the Official Languages Act currently applying to this system will be maintained in the new structure.

[Canadian National Railways, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a fundamental question that has to be addressed by all members of the House of Commons as we deal with the commercialization of CN is whether members want to do it.

We can address all the theoretical questions. We can discuss whether the deal is absolutely perfect or whether the taxpayers of Canada will get an absolute best value on every aspect of the deal.

The Bloc Quebecois will have to decide whether it wants to support the commercialization and the privatization of CN. If it does, we will listen to its recommendations as to how we can do it well. However, if it does not want to do it, if it just wants to carp about it, it should simply oppose it and not try to deal with issues it obviously has no understanding of whatever.

[Canadian National Railways, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the commercialization of CN is very complex.

I know the hon. member has had the opportunity to sit in committee and listen to people we consider to be as expert in this area as anyone in the country, who try to explain the need to provide an opportunity for CN to be sold in a viable way, to elicit enough investment interest to carry the issue to be put out this fall, but also to allow it to continue to compete on an equitable footing with Canadian Pacific.

The hon. member knows representatives of the competitor of CN, CP, have gone before the committee and explained they understand the need to have a reasonable debt-equity ratio, that we have to qualify for a triple B bond rating in order to raise funds on the investment market to operate CN and provide money for the acquisition.

I know it is a complex piece of business. I can only encourage the hon. member to take the word of the Minister of Transport and the government and also to listen to the people who understand the business principles involved in the commercialization of CN. It is in the best interest of taxpayers, the best interest of shippers and the best interest of competition that we are trying to do the best job we can.

Even the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail agree that on this one we are doing a fairly good job.

[Infrastructure, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate the hon. member does not understand that when the Government of Nova Scotia looked at the funding available for the highway to which the funds were originally dedicated it understood very little would be achieved in the spending of the very limited amount of money available.

It deemed it was in the best interest of Nova Scotians to allocate the funds to another highway. We consented to that, as is provided for under section 12.2 of the agreement where the agreement can be amended by consent. That is what occurred.

Unfortunately for the hon. member he will have to keep beating his dead horse because he does not seem to be able to find another one these days.

[Infrastructure, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been on a bumpy road with this line of questioning.

A meeting was held with the minister of transportation for Nova Scotia in January during which agreement in principle was achieved on the reallocation of the funds. In February the minister of public works on my behalf announced we had agreed to the funds being spent as was consented to by the province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada.

I reassure my hon. friend this situation has occurred over and over again in these agreements. The reason it occurs is that, unlike my hon. friend, most of us on this side of the House understand that the construction of highways and the choosing of routing for highways are within provincial jurisdiction.

[Cn Rail, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the experience of Canadian Pacific which has been operating as a private shareholder driven company since the last century is such that there is no indication of any interest to the extent that we should be concerned about foreign ownership.

What I am far more worried about and what the government is concerned about is in order to have a successful issue of this size, we are of a mind and of the advice we have received both domestically and internationally that the issue is just too big for Canadian investors to take up. We feel that protection for the future of CN is really far more important in the context of our restriction on 15 per cent ownership for any individual or corporation.

The important thing here that everyone should keep in mind is this is going to be the single largest transaction of its kind in Canadian history. We are trading on a global basis. This railroad has to be competitive in the global economy. We think that restricting foreign ownership would not give the kind of signal that we believe is important, that is, that Canadians want to do business with everybody around the world. We are confident that as is the case with CP, CN will be retained in a majority way in Canadian hands.

[Cn Rail, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly moved by the hon. member, who is concerned about CN's future as a Canada-wide venture, from Halifax to Vancouver. At one point, I thought the member felt our government had decided not to restrict foreign investments, precisely to allow people like him, who want to achieve independence, to have an interest in that company.

[Canadian National, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, but I understand he had his supplementary written down before he listened to the answer, there is no intention on the part of the government of giving any credit to CN that is in addition to any prior market value that would be identified.

The sale of CN is a major undertaking. We understand the opposition has agreed to it in principle. We hope we can demonstrate that on a business basis this will be done in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer. Any evaluation of assets, real estate or otherwise, will be done on the very best basis of business and ordinary commercial practice.