Bill Casey

[Airports, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Transport made some questionable remarks about the airports at Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John.

In those remarks he said “I come from Toronto. We have one airport that serves eight million people. If someone wants to come there it takes a three hour drive. We are used to that kind of sacrifice, and I hope that people in New Brunswick could make some accommodations”.

Is the minister trying to get the people of New Brunswick ready for news about Saint John, Fredericton or Moncton airports? Where does the government stand on the future of those airports?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if the hon. member for St. John's East could help us. It is my understanding that Marine Atlantic had a board of directors that spent about a year travelling around the world looking for alternative craft, alternative ferries, to provide better service.

It is not only money that discourages tourists from travelling to Newfoundland; it is also the service.

This week a lady asked me how to contact Marine Atlantic. She wanted to make a reservation. She was unable to make a reservation for her family to travel to Newfoundland this summer. We are trying to help her. If she and her family are not able to go to Newfoundland, that will mean lost tourism dollars.

Could the hon. member enlighten us as to how Marine Atlantic goes about purchasing new ferries? These are substantial investments of $40 million to $70 million. There was a recent deal on one new ferry, plus a short term fast ferry for the summer. Could the hon. member elaborate on the process?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the NDP for her support even though we have fundamentally different perspectives on how this should work out and how it should be handled. I do take exception to her statement that the Conservative policy is much the same as the Liberal policy.

I would like to refer her to a study done by the University of Manitoba Transport Institute. It is from a very distinguished province with a very distinguished university. I am sure she will agree with me on that. It reports that when the Liberals came into power there was zero revenue surplus in the Department of Transport. Considering all the revenue in and all the expenses out, it pretty much broke even according to the Manitoba study. It projects that by next year the Department of Transport will have a surplus of $3.9 billion based on revenue from gas taxes, fuel oil taxes and all the other sources of revenue and its expenses. That is $3.9 billion that has been taken out of the transportation system since the Liberals came to power.

Does the hon. member think that the $3.9 billion would have had an impact on the roads in Manitoba, perhaps the viability of the airports and the possibility of a mass transit system in the country?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the remarks made by the previous speaker from the Bloc. He said that he was not going to support the motion because there was nothing in it that dealt with the jurisdiction of the provinces over the feds. I just wondered if he would elaborate on his view of the subject.

Do we need a policy to correct some of the wide variety of problems, which he has outlined in his speech, on air, sea and land transportation from an economic development perspective, and on the problems with airports, including Montreal?

Aside from the fact that the motion does not acknowledge his concerns about the jurisdiction of the provinces, does he acknowledge that there are problems in our transportation situation?

Does he acknowledge that there is an inconsistent approach to transportation where some provinces may get a highway agreement and some provinces may not, where some may get money for the elimination of the Atlantic freight rate assistance program and some may not?

Does he agree that there are inconsistencies in the applications to privatize the airports, and that the way the government applies its policies are inconsistent and unco-ordinated from one transportation mode to another?

Does he agree that we need an overall policy that should be developed by all of the stakeholders, including the provinces and the provincial ministers of transport?

Would he agree, other than the fact that the motion does not address the provincial jurisdiction, that there are problems and an inconsistent, unco-ordinated system by the Department of Transport?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is interesting. That is exactly the policy we used to have. The member for Churchill has described a policy we used to have wherein the Department of Transport managed and operated all airports in Canada. The stronger ones which had more economic opportunities and were more viable supported the weaker ones.

This is not a matter of poor management on the part of small airports. They just do not have the volume of passengers going through the small airports to establish alternative sources of revenue.

An airport like Calgary, for instance, has established itself almost as a destination point. It is almost worth going to Calgary just to see the airport. Such a dynamic business community has been created within the airport because millions of passengers go through there every year.

A small airport like Saint John, as I mentioned earlier, does not have the traffic to support the alternative sources of revenue like the stores, the food shops, the rental car facilities, et cetera. The small airports have no ability to generate alternative revenue. They have just a fraction of the revenue of big airports from terminal fees and landing fees. They do not have a chance to compete. Even though their expenses may be lower, their opportunities for revenue are much lower than those of the big ones.

The Government of Canada has to go back and revenue this decision. I do not disagree with turning the airports over to the communities, but the government has to review the decision and find a way to make it equitable for the small airports through negotiations on rental deals, a supply of capital or operating expenses to maintain their operations. We cannot let our small airports decline, become unsafe and deteriorate.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government has done anywhere near enough to address the problem.

The problem is fundamental. We need a co-ordinated transportation system. We cannot make these decisions based on putting more money into small projects, or making a deal on certain provincial highways, or pouring more money into VIA Rail to help it survive but not making a change. There is no fundamental change. The minister should co-ordinate fundamental meetings with agendas to address all our transportation issues to try to co-ordinate all our modes of transport.

Some of the issues are being dealt with in the airline merger now with competition from companies like WestJet and all other charter airlines. My colleague just raised delays and such things a minute ago. I believe they will be addressed eventually, but still we do not have a co-ordinated approach.

When we go to other countries we can see where they have had long range planning. They have the rail lines co-ordinated with the ports, with the subway systems and with the highways systems. They have highways that go directly from the airports non-stop right into the centres of towns or industrial areas. The rail lines and the subways come directly to the airports.

We need a total co-ordinated transportation package in Canada, not piecemeal approaches to resolving the issues.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

moved:

That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to coast by all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this issue. My interest in transportation goes back a long way, perhaps to the early 1990s and probably into 1996, because of a project I wanted developed in my riding but there was a lack of federal government policy on funding for our national highway system.

The province of Nova Scotia, faced with a dangerous highway, no money and unable to establish an agreement with the federal government, tried to come up with an unique and innovative way to build part of our Trans-Canada Highway. It is now known as the Cobequid Pass and it is a toll highway. It is the only toll highway on the Trans-Canada Highway system right now and it runs entirely through my riding. It certainly focused the issue of transportation for me.

It is not only highways where there is a lack of co-ordinated, consistent policy, where there is a policy of long range planning rather than just react, react. It applies to the rail system; the airline system, as we have just seen recently; the port policies; shipbuilding; and passenger rail service. Again, there is just reaction. There is no long range plan, no consistent approach and no thought put behind these issues.

The ferry system in Canada, especially Marine Atlantic, is now coming under fire and criticism because again, after years of having one system of supplying and managing the Atlantic ferry system through Marine Atlantic, all of a sudden there is a new system and nobody understands what it is. The people in charge of Marine Atlantic are circumventing the process and nobody knows the thought processes, if there is any protection for consumers or if there is any accountability.

In this debate I will be focusing on some of the issues I have just listed. My very learned colleague from Brandon—Souris will be discussing rail and grain issues, which are in his area of expertise. The very distinguished member for St. John's East will be discussing the Marine Atlantic issue. I will also be focusing in on some airline issues.

This morning, for example, when I flew from Montreal to Ottawa, the plane was delayed for a little while. I called my office and said that I would be delayed and that I would be in Ottawa for my presentation this morning but that it would be close. When we were ready to get on the plane there was another delay. This has happened to consumers right across the country. I do not want to hone in on that because I know there are transitional issues, but delays for consumers now are completely unacceptable. There are consistent delays. I hope the new dominant airline can address these issues and bring them back to the former standards.

However, the problem is not Air Canada or the airline mergers. It is that there was very little government involvement in this merger issue. It was almost all private sector driven. The government should have been establishing plans years ago to predict the collapse of Canadian Airlines. It should have been prepared for it but it was not.

As things got worse and worse for Canadian Airlines, another private sector company, Onex, became involved and made a proposal. It looked like that was going to happen, then it did not happen. Then we had all kinds of other proposals and jiggery-pokery with American Airlines and many other partners in this whole issue. Again the private sector determined the aviation policy in this country, not the government. The government was behind the eight ball and it fell far short of the expectations of the Canadian people.

The first issue that I brought up was highways. This is probably the only country in the world that does not have a highway policy. Right now there is not one provincial transportation minister who can tell us what the federal government's policy is on highways. They have been making sounds about maybe some day establishing a policy, but right now there is no policy on highways. It is amazing that a country that is so dependent on highways like Canada, perhaps more than any other country in the world, has no highway policy. Years ago the provinces could make co-operative highway funding agreements with the federal government and now they have all expired except for a few. The remaining policies are now completely inconsistent.

To point out the inconsistency in my area over the next two years, the province of Newfoundland will get $55 million this year and $50 million in funding next year from the federal government, for a total of $105 million. That is on one side of Nova Scotia. On the other side of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick gets $102 million over the next two years. Nova Scotia, in the middle, gets zero. I point out that this is completely inconsistent. I do not say either one of them is right but the point is that it is completely inconsistent.

The road builders, the governments, the shippers, the manufacturers and the industrial parks cannot make plans on how they will establish their facilities, where to build their buildings, where they will hire people and how they will ship their products to market without a co-ordinated, long range, long term policy. That policy has to tie in rail with highway, highway with air and all these have to be tied into municipal passenger systems too. None of that is being done. We are addressing the issues as they come up: bang, there is a highway program, we will build a toll highway; VIA Rail is broke, we will give it more money; Canadian Airlines is in trouble, we will let them merge or whatever. This country, which is so dependent on transportation, perhaps more than any other country in the world because we are so big and our populations are so focused in certain areas, needs a transportation policy.

We want to grow, compete and be in the global market but we cannot be without a transportation policy that ties them all together. That means the government must work with the provinces, the industry, the shippers and the transportation industry to come up with a co-ordinated policy that handles all these issues.

Instead, we have piecemeal deals where the government decides to privatize the airports. This has not happened yet, but I predict that some of the smaller airports in Canada, which are the lifelines and the hope for economic development in small communities like Saint John, New Brunswick for instance, will suddenly find themselves unable to survive and compete.

It is critical that the small airports be brought into an overall policy of the government. We must not just diversify, privatize, commercialize or divest all the airports in Canada. They have to be part of an overall plan.

The big airports will survive. They will do well and prosper. I see great things in the future for the major airports.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention that I will be splitting my time with the very hon. member for Brandon—Souris. He is very anxious to get up and talk about wheat. He knows a lot about wheat and I know very little about wheat, but I do know something about transportation. I do know that there should be a policy that co-ordinates all these issues together.

What has happened is that instead of having a department of transportation, we now have a profit centre. When the government came to power in 1993, the department virtually broke even or lost money. According to a Manitoba study, in the year 2002-03 the department will have a profit of $3.9 billion, counting all the fuel taxes, all the taxes it brings in, the rents from the ports and the rents from the airports.

I do not know how members feel, but the Department of Transport should not be a profit centre. It should not be an avenue to make money on behalf of the government. It should provide the very best transportation and infrastructure possible for this country. It cannot be done on a wing and a prayer. It has to be long range. Highways, rail lines, and airports take decades to plan and decades to build. It cannot be done in the haphazard manner that is happening now.

I will just go back to the aviation merger which changed things so much in the last few months. The divestiture of the ports and the airports are not all bad but they are not part of an overall plan. They have to be part of an overall plan.

There is no plan for highway construction in the country. When I was first given the position of transport critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I wrote every provincial minister of transport in Canada. I asked them what the number one issue was facing ministers of transport. Every single one said that it was highways and that they needed highway money.

This is a critical issue because there is now such a large transfer of goods and services to the highways from rail. It is more economical, more efficient and more practical to ship by truck. Trucks are getting bigger. The provinces are all asking for permission to have bigger trucks and bigger regulations, which will put more workload on the highways, causing more damage to the highways.

The provincial ministers of transport, absolutely together, say that they need a transportation policy for highways, one that they can plan on for 10 to 20 years and one which they can count on for certain amount of funding based on the gas and oil tax that is collected. It is only fair. Right now only 5%, 6% or less than that goes back into highways. If 15% of the gas and diesel oil tax went back into highways it would resolve most of the issues in the country. It is not a lot to ask.

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today. It is getting to be a bad habit in that I am following the hon. member for Halifax West again today as I did last night, but I guess I could do a lot worse.

I want to put my comments about this important issue on the record. We have already had the opportunity to discuss the issue at some length through the debate on the motion by my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I have a few additional thoughts.

Most people in my area do not even understand, nor do I, the roles of the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, where one jurisdiction starts and one ends, and how they fit together and work. The motion by the hon. member helps to simplify that, to make it clearer for all, and to help define the roles of each organization.

The Conservative Party definitely supports the initiative of the reform member and we want to congratulate him on his excellent work. However we are going to return to what we have already pointed out with regard to the motion's limitations. That is the underlying assumption that it is impossible to determine the signs that predict world conflicts and to develop responses to those conflicts well in advance.

The purpose of the motion is laudable but I think it is somewhat over-optimistic. Even in this Chamber we often have trouble reaching understandings on issues and we have trouble agreeing with one another despite our good intentions. Imagine the difficulty that would be encountered by the various world bodies which certainly have diverging interests even country by country. But then again, walking on the moon was merely a dream 40 years ago, so maybe if we keep trying we can achieve this goal.

The time for reform of international institutions has certainly come. There is no question.

The Minister of Finance explained in great detail during his meeting yesterday morning with the members of the foreign affairs committee that the necessity for reforming these institutions is paramount and the time is now. He stressed the urgency of international co-operation in establishing international standards and codes in order to reduce the risk of financial instability in the world's financial system. We heard the same story from the first deputy managing director of the IMF, Mr. Stanley Fischer. The demonstrations in Washington and Seattle are not isolated gestures either.

It is imperative that the world's institutions listen, respond and understand that their decisions have an impact on ordinary people's everyday lives. It is through national governments and the representatives they mandate to represent us that we will be able to influence these organizations and not otherwise.

We live in a time when everything is done on an international scale. Unfortunately I do not think the people's needs are being genuinely respected. It is not for lack of desire to do so in some corners, but because the way international institutions operate is just too complex and they seem to serve the interests of certain stronger countries at the expense of the less influential countries.

For instance, during the gulf war the UN played an important part in the decision making process, but during Kosovo the UN proved insufficiently effective for some of its members and was promptly replaced by NATO. Why did that system fail?

Everything depends on the interests of the member countries, and the interests often diverge. Another factor is that world bodies have proliferated in recent decades. Their functions have become more ponderous and they have become less effective because of their excessively complex procedures. I am thinking here of the hierarchy of international organizations.

Often the result is either that action is delayed until it is too late or that everyone is so confused and no one really knows anymore what the solution to the problem is or even whether there is a solution. We have seen that firsthand.

The players on the international scene choose an organization that suits them depending on their own interests rather than on the basis of what would be the best way to solve the problem. The best example I can think of is the trade conflicts that may arise and do arise, and there are plenty of them even between Canada and the United States.

If one party thinks it has more chance of winning by choosing the WTO, it will address itself to the WTO for arbitration. But if it is the free trade agreement that would serve its interests better, the country will opt for that process. We are thus finding ourselves in a real spider's web of bilateral, multilateral and international agreements. The result is confusion, inefficiency and ultimately, conflict.

Frequently foreign affairs would like to introduce an initiative but unfortunately finds that it clashes with an agreement signed with one of the world organizations. On a given issue the answer is yes under the agreement with one organization but no under the agreement with another. It has become a real tangle.

When everything becomes too complicated it is time to simplify as proposed in this motion. It is in this perspective the Progressive Conservative Party has concluded that it is high time for the thinking and discussion process on internationalization that is suggested by this motion.

The operations of international bodies should be simplified and clarified with a view to making them efficient and effective enough to meet the needs of ordinary people. Let us not forget that is why they were set up. That is how we will prevent conflicts in the future.

[National Highways, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary flips over the pages I sent him and reads on to next year's estimates for contributions to the provinces, he will see that Nova Scotia falls off the page completely. It gets zero while the Outaouais gets a raise to $5 million.

How does the province of Outaouais get $9.7 million in the next two years when the province of Nova Scotia gets less than $2 million? Where is the fairness and what is the explanation to the people in Nova Scotia?

[National Highways, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I just sent over a copy of the Department of Transport estimates for this year to the government side. In those estimates there is a line that says “contributions to provinces toward highway improvements”. Then, in the list of provinces, there is the province of Nova Scotia which gets $1.8 million. Then there is the Outaouais, which gets $4.7 million.

Could the minister explain to the people of Nova Scotia where is the province of Outaouais? Why do they get two and a half times as much money as the entire province of Nova Scotia for highway improvements?