Douglas Young

[Pearson International Airport, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we did not get the true face of Reform last week but we are getting it today.

In the documents presented to the court the claim is for some $172 million but there are third party claims as well. What I said to the hon. member, and what I say to the people of Canada, is that the total amount of claims that have been submitted to Mr. Wright, who represents the Government of Canada in this matter is $445 million that the deficit cutting Reform Party is prepared to put at risk just to satisfy its little political games.

[Coast Guard College In Sydney, October 18th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that word and replace it with one that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition understands: double talking.

[Coast Guard College In Sydney, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the approach that the hon. member is taking in linking the activities of the coast guard facilities at Sydney with a facility in Quebec and other facilities across the country is

typical of the kind of approach that the Bloc Quebecois has taken in the House.

We are trying to give the best possible service we can to people that need them. One thing for sure is that what is being done today is very similar to what was being done when the duplicitous leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a member of government.

[Coast Guard College In Sydney, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a point of looking into the situation to which the hon. member refers, but I am sure, given the long history of the Coast Guard College in Sydney and the institute in Rimouski, that offering such services to students in both institutions is nothing new. Probably it was done that way when the Leader of the Opposition was in the government.

[Via Rail, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, VIA is approaching the problems it is facing in the same way as the government. We have problems in operating a service in the country that loses over $300 million a year and is

supported by taxpayers. The cuts that were announced by and large were about 50:50 as between administrative positions and operating positions.

The hon. member would know, because he has a very definite interest in it, that we are trying to do everything we can to maintain levels of service across the country. It is true that we have made cuts to VIA with respect to personnel. There have been no cuts or even requests put before us for eliminating any of the routes.

We still have another area to look at, that is what happens with the ongoing labour negotiations at VIA. The commitment of the government is to try to maintain services coast to coast with VIA but also to protect the owner of VIA who happens to be the Canadian taxpayer.

[Pearson International Airport, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that in the same question the hon. member talks about the free spending or high spending Liberal government and asks where we are going to find the money.

The transportation critic has just said that he does not know whether it is a good deal or not. As a matter of fact he said, "do not know one way or the other". That, Mr. Speaker, I believe.

One thing we will make sure of is that while the members of the Reform Party do not know one way or another whether paying $445 million to the consortium is a good deal or not, we know it is not and we are going to make sure that the bill goes through in the other place one way or another.

[Pearson International Airport, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in time truth will out. Obviously what we have here, as we deal with Bill C-22, are not Tories in sheeps'clothing, but in wolves' clothing. The hon. member knows we quoted from his press conference where he said there is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal.

The Reform Party and the transportation critic for the Reform Party are in the minority of about 35 people in the entire nation who think the Pearson deal was a good deal.

[Canadian National, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would know that if the unsolicited offer from CP Rail was accepted by the government it would have the effect of privatizing all rail activity east of Winnipeg. That is why the government recognizes that we have to look at the unsolicited bid from CP Rail on a businesslike basis. It also involves a very serious policy question. That is one of the reasons why we have asked members on the government side of the House to look into other options including the commercialization of CN with employee participation.

As a fundamental part of government policy we recognize that it is absolutely essential to have a rail line from Halifax to Vancouver. That is the policy the government will pursue.

[Government Expenditures, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a simple matter.

The hon. member is taking the position of his transport critic who said: "There is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal". That is what the member of the Reform Party who represents their position on transportation matters said: "There is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal". Anybody over there who believes that will never understand anything I tell them about the Pearson deal.

[Railway Transportation, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the last thing we would want to do, whether as a minister or government, would be to tell the Standing Committee on Transport what to do.

As my hon. colleague and my friends from the Reform Party know-they announced just last Friday that the committee would be holding hearings on airport transfer, on the air navigation system and on bilateral talks with the United States; this makes for a very busy schedule- nothing stops this parliamentary committee on transport from reorganizing its schedule to review the whole issue of how the railway system is going to operate in Canada. Nothing is stopping it from doing that.