Simon de Jong

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It concerns the continuing cuts to the CBC.

Despite promises made in the Liberal red book during the last election, the government is proceeding with a further cut of some $190 million to the CBC budget. This will result in a 35 to 40 per cent reduction in both TV and radio services and a loss of some 2,500 jobs.

How can the minister possibly expect the CBC to fulfil its parliamentary mandate as a public broadcaster with these massive cuts to its budget?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 26th, 1996]

Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. All New Democrats present today will be voting against this motion.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear both the spokesperson for the government and for the Reform Party joining again together to protect the interests of the large railway companies at the expense of the people who are affected by those decisions, in this case the provincial governments.

All of our motions have been requested. The inclusion of the three new clauses were called for by the representatives of the three prairie provincial governments in their submission and appearance before the transportation committee. These new clauses are extracted from the previous Railway Act provision, sections 351 to 354.

Also under these provisions, provincial governments which have since 1972 been receiving confidential cost information concerning the railways would continue to do so.

There has never been a question of the confidentiality of this information ever being compromised by the prairie governments. For the government and the Reform Party to raise the issue now is nonsense. It has never been a problem.

The information is required if the provinces are to continue to have meaningful input with the Canadian Transportation Agency when the agency establishes maximum grain rates and inter-switching rates, for example. There are some real reasons why we are introducing the motions.

The prairie provincial governments had requested them and it will make things easier for them. I understand why the government and the bureaucrats are not interested. I suspect that what we are hearing from government members is what the bureaucrats have been telling them. However, I am really surprised to hear the Reform Party members consistently coming out in favour of the interests of the large railway companies.

Maybe it is the fact that they are just paying off the debt of $40,000 that the CPR donated to the Reform Party last year. Perhaps today is the payback period.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to present a few points in this debate. Most have already been made by my colleague for Mackenzie in whose name several of the amendments have been presented.

We have been accused by the transportation critic of the Reform Party of trying to subvert the bill. Indeed we are. We feel that the bill before us does not meet the needs of Canadians and we make no apologies that as an opposition party we are opposing it. Had members of the Reform Party spent a little less time listening to bureaucrats in committee in Ottawa and gone to the prairies and to the back roads and listened to the people in the coffee shops, maybe they would have heard an entirely different requirement of how rail transportation should be dealt with.

In essence, the bill is everything the railways want. It totally ignores the needs of the users. Let us not forget that a tremendous amount of public money has gone into both of the major railways. There is a tremendous amount of public investment and public interest which has been backed up by Canadian tax dollars in the

rail transportation system. The users, the public, the people of Canada have some legitimate rights on the question of rail transportation.

That is why many of our amendments tried to create two classes of rail lines for the purposes of abandonment so that the main lines are considered in a separate category. These are not just the veins, they are the arteries of the system. We could lob off a finger and bits of pieces of the rail transportation system but when we start attacking the main line, we are attacking the essential structure of our transportation system. That is why many of our amendments tried to create two different categories for the purposes of abandonment.

Among many other things we tried in the amendments to make it a little more user friendly. One example is Motion No. 30. The act now states that if there is a plan for abandonment, the railway company has to prepare and keep up to date a plan and they shall make the plan available for public inspection in offices of the company that it designates for that purpose. We want to make certain that the plan is also available in the affected communities and that the plan is not just tacked on a bulletin board in head office in Montreal and the local people have no idea what is going on.

Our amendments are intended to make this act more user friendly, to protect the interests of the users, the communities, especially rural communities whether they are in the maritimes or in northern Quebec, Ontario, on the prairies or in the interior of British Columbia, communities that depend on the railway, that their interests are also taken into account, as they certainly are not in this present legislation. That is why we are opposing this legislation.

It would be interesting as well to see how the Reform Party will end up voting on it. We are being accused of trying to sabotage a bill that I suspect the Reform Party in the end will also be voting against.

[Petitions, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, as I am duty bound, I wish to present to Parliament a petition signed mainly by constituents from Regina, Saskatchewan and district.

The petition, as many others presented to this House, implores the government not to increase the tax on gasoline. It notes that the excise tax on gasoline has risen by some 566 per cent over the last 10 years.

While this petition has come to me after the budget, I suspect the petitioners are concerned about next year's budget. Therefore, I present this petition to the House.

[Income Security Program, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As the minister must be aware, the moving of the some 50 jobs of the income security program from Regina to Winnipeg has become a major issue. The cost of the move could climb as high as $2.6 million and will certainly result in the deterioration of services to seniors and the disabled in Saskatchewan. Will the minister rescind this move of jobs from Regina to Winnipeg, a move that will squander scarce dollars?

[Refugees, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our country is about to close its doors to refugees who travel through the United States to get here, which is approximately one-third of refugee claimants.

The proposed Canada-U.S. agreement allows for the returning of a refugee to whichever of the two countries they had reached first. The U.S. has a sorry record when it comes to dealing with refugees, especially those from South and Central America. It has a record of rejecting and refouling 98 per cent of refugee claimants from El Salvador and Guatemala. Amnesty International has warned that the U.S. is not a safe destination for refugees.

This proposed agreement is just another example of the downsizing to the lowest common denominator. It strips away compassion from our society. It abrogates our moral responsibility to those fellow human beings fleeing danger and persecution. It makes our country less.

This agreement will be signed by a Liberal government that in opposition strenuously opposed this measure. Concerned Canadians would say, shame to this government.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the government's response to Motions Nos. 1, 69 and 25.

Motions Nos. 1 and 69 go a step further and add to the list of people for which there would not be any barriers to transportation. The act already talks about persons of disability and the motions would include elderly people.

There was some concern mentioned earlier about why we should include elderly people, that if they had disabilities they would surely be covered under that section. There is a grey area. People are living longer. They want to stay in their home communities rather than go to care facilities hundreds of miles away.

I know several elderly people who live quite active lives but their eyesight prevents them from driving. Sometimes they might even have difficulty renewing their drivers' licences. It is not that they are totally blind, it is not that they fall into the disabled category, but there is a need there. It is also a transportation need, particularly if their eyesight is not good enough to allow them to drive on the highways. They still have this tremendous need to go to other centres for medical services or to visit family members and so forth.

The amendment simply wished to spell out that elderly people should also be included in the grouping. If the government does not accept these motions, it will be because of the bureaucrats who do not like to see any changes to what they have proposed.

Motion No. 25 was introduced by our colleague from Saint John. She made excellent sense in presenting her case. I am again surprised the government has not listened to the legitimate concerns which are being expressed. Instead, it is listening to the

bureaucrats and ploughing ahead with what the bureaucrats have deemed, which is not what common sense would dictate.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a general agreement that Canada needs a public broadcasting system so that Canadians are able to see and hear each other. Twenty-five million Canadians tune into the CBC at least once a week.

I also believe Canadians support the CBC's need for stable, multiyear funding. However the special tax proposed by the Juneau report is not the answer. Canadians are in no mood for any tax increases. A new tax for the CBC would unleash a storm of anger directed at the public broadcaster which is the last thing the CBC needs.

Providing stable long term funding for the CBC should not be achieved by new taxes or manipulating the tax system. The solution is quite simple. The government should guarantee funding for five-year periods.

This government promised in its red book: "A Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC". All it has to do is to live up to the political commitment it made to the Canadian people.

[Employment, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Human Resource Development.

In 1990, 87 per cent of unemployed Canadians were eligible for unemployment insurance. Two years ago the Liberals drove it down to 50 per cent. The CLC predicts that the latest announcement means that two-thirds of out of work Canadians will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance, around the same level that exists in Mississippi.

How can the minister claim that this will benefit working Canadians? Surely they are trying to balance the deficit on the backs of out of work Canadians.