Douglas Young

[High Speed Train, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we are all anxious to get to the end of this exercise. It has been a costly one. There have been a lot of studies. There has been a lot of expense on the parts of the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

It would be highly irregular after all the time and effort put into this by three governments to have the Government of Canada set out its policy unilaterally. That is one of the things I hear my hon. friends in the opposition refer to constantly as being an improper way for the Government of Canada to act. When we consult and try to arrive at a consensus, it is not acceptable. When we try to dictate terms, it is not acceptable. We will just do the best we can to bring this to a conclusion as quickly as we can.

[High Speed Train, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is a rather tricky situation. Since three governments are involved-the Government of Quebec, the Government of Ontario and the federal government-a consensus among all three governments is essential before the study is submitted to the responsible minister and published.

Discussions are continuing to see if we can reach a consensus on the report. In fact, our deputy minister met his Quebec counterpart not long go, and the change of ministers in Ontario may have delayed things as well.

We are still waiting for all three governments to agree so there will be at least a consensus on the issue.

[Transport, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the AWOS has a number of flaws in it. We have recognized that and have taken steps to correct it. We are responding to the concerns she has expressed on behalf of the industry.

However, AWOs was designed in the current environment. CAATS was designed in the current environment. There are problems with both of those systems but she does not want us to change the system. She wants us to continue a system that has produced these kinds of problems. It does not make any sense.

[Transport, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again the Reform and the NDP must be drinking from the same cup of coffee.

The problem with CAATS which was raised by my hon. friend last week with respect to the overspending is as a result of the system that is in place now. The problem with AWOS is as a result of the system that is in now place.

If there ever was justification to go to the commercialization of the air navigation system where there are the deliverers of the service, the users of the service, and the people who pay for the service sitting at the table as the operators of ANS, the question that was just asked by the hon. member is the best rationale for all of that to be done.

[Port Of Belledune, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very odd way of approaching this. He has mentioned the port of Chatham, the port of Dalhousie, the port of Bathurst, the port of Belledune. He probably knows there are a few other ports in New Brunswick.

What we have said as a policy is that in New Brunswick there will be two ports, the major port at Saint John which is a very important international port and a port at Belledune that was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s to handle Brunswick Mines which happen to be there. It is there because NB Power has a thermal generating plant that happened to be built at Belledune.

If the hon. member had thought about what he was saying, he would understand that rather than have a half a dozen ports that need subsidies of all kinds to continue to operate, we will wind up in New Brunswick with two viable ports, one at Saint John and one at Belledune.

[Port Of Belledune, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question put by the hon. member is riddled with misstatements. On the basis of what he has said, he does not even understand what is happening at Belledune.

One thing he did say is that the port of Bathurst, one that he says will be affected, is in my constituency. We are aware of the need to rationalize ports.

The port of Belledune has participation from the province of New Brunswick and the municipalities surrounding the port of Belledune. We believe it is a step in the right direction.

I ask the hon. member to point to other examples anywhere in Canada where municipalities, provincial governments, the private sector and the federal government are prepared to spend money on port expansion.

[Shipping, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of pilotage, the St. Lawrence authority as well as any other pilotage authority operating in the country is subject to change. The transport committee, which looked at the question, has made some recommendations. We are going to continue to study it and we look forward to recommendations from the hon. member.

One thing we have insisted on throughout this review of the responsibilities of Transport Canada is that we will continue to exercise our fiduciary responsibility for safety and security. That includes how we deal with pilotage authorities.

[Shipping, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government will examine the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and I hope that we will get some suggestions from the people we will be consulting with across Canada during the process which has already begun in the east.

It is regrettable that the hon. member who raised the question today did not seize the opportunity to propose suggestions which could have been of interest to the committee. He preferred instead to raise questions of the kind we just heard, which do not really help to resolve the problems with pilotage on the St. Lawrence and elsewhere.

[Canadian National, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to follow the reasoning of the hon. member because, as he would know, Canadian Pacific has no restrictions on its share ownership. I have not seen and I am pretty sure the hon. member has not seen any major change in the way Canadian Pacific handles its shipments as opposed to CN.

The main reason for the decision taken on Friday is western farmers and people from coast to coast want to maintain competitive rail systems in Canada. We believe CN on a level playing field with Canadian Pacific is the best way to achieve that.

[Cn Commercialization Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I intend to move for referral of the bill to a committee, before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).