Bill Casey

[Gasoline Pricing, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, over the last year diesel fuel prices have doubled. As a result some truckers have been forced to leave their trucks at home and some are protesting up and down the highways of Canada. Meanwhile, the department has increased the tax on diesel fuel to over a $100 million increase per year.

Will the minister reverse some of the $100 million tax increase per year that has been applied to the trucking industry? Will he reduce it so the pressure being experienced by the truckers can be alleviated?

[Gasoline Prices, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The Department of Transport has gone from a zero surplus to a three thousand million dollar surplus in a very short time. At the same time, the trucking industry cannot even make ends meet because of high taxes.

Again, will the minister reduce the taxes in the short term to help this troubled industry?

[Gasoline Prices, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Now that the Department of Transport is enjoying huge surpluses as a result of increased fuel tax revenues, will the minister reduce the fuel taxes on trucks, at least in the short term, to assist the trucking industry, which is fighting hard to make ends meet?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 16th, 2000]

With regard to the exchange of surplus land at Mirabel Airport for two property lots belonging to the town of Mirabel, for which the federal government's approval was announced by the Minister of Transport on November 22, 1999, what are the current market values of these three pieces of land?

[Income Tax Act, February 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in this debate. As the last member said, I was directly involved in the car business for 18 years and probably another 5 years indirectly before that. I worked with mechanics for years and years. I feel very close to this proposal and totally support it. It is long past due and I hope all members will support it in the end.

We have a lot of unemployment in my area. It has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Canada. We have a group of people that want to work and train but are unable to do so because of the high cost of training and the high cost of getting into the business.

We have two problems that we could resolve with the bill. It would be a tremendous incentive for people to go into the business. It would help people to get off unemployment. Any cost that the government would incur in lost revenue would be more than made up in unpaid employment insurance.

I have watched the car business completely change over the last 15 years. At one point people would come into the business if they could fix a carburettor or a distributor, adjust points or change them or the wires, and that sort of thing.

Carburettors are not in existence any more. It is all electronic fuel injection. Distributors are not distributors with points and rotors. They are electronic ignitions. Transmissions, which used to be so simple to work on, are now very complicated because they are electronic and interrelated with onboard computers and everything else. Brakes used to be the most simple thing. Almost anybody could change them. They are no longer simple because they have sensors involved with the ABS or anti-lock brake and traction lock systems.

Even the exhaust systems are different. Anybody used to be able to change a muffler and a tailpipe. They cannot do it any more. They need special tools and training because the exhaust is an integral part of the pollution system in a car. As cars change with new fuels, new standards and everything else, mechanics will have to change. All the tools they have will be obsolete even though they have spent $10,000 to $20,000 to purchase the tools and were unable to write them off.

In all kinds of industries and professions people from musicians to plumbers can write off the tools and equipment they use in their businesses. It makes absolutely no sense that mechanics cannot write off their tools. It is an absolute necessity. Mechanics need these tools. They need to upgrade them almost weekly. They cannot take them home. They are not a luxury. They are an absolute necessity to earn their money. I applaud the member for bringing forth the bill, and I totally support it.

In closing, I hope all members of parliament will support the bill and vote in favour of it. It is a wrong that needs to be righted. It has been wrong for a long time. I urge the minister to act quickly to implement the proposal when the bill passes.

[Airports, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. With all due respect, I want an answer. This is the fourth time I have asked the question. I simply want to know why the Government of Canada reneged on a signed contract with the Halifax International Airport Authority.

If the parliamentary secretary does not know, will he commit to report back to the House on why the agreement of August 27 was broken?

[Airports, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On August 27, 1998, the Department of Transport signed an agreement with the Halifax International Airport Authority which included the statement: “Transport Canada agrees to continue to be responsible for the pyritic slate runoff existing prior to the transfer date.”

I asked this question on Wednesday and the minister said there had been another agreement signed but did not answer my question. Why did the government renege on this signed contract with the Halifax International Airport Authority?

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again we have switched Speakers. I welcome you back to the chair. I want to say how pleased and honoured I am to be sponsoring the last private member's motion of the century. It is even called Motion No. 102. Highway 102 goes through my riding, which is kind of coincidental.

The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington questioned whether his speech was relevant. He was talking about the roads of 2,000 years ago. I thought that was relevant because a lot of the time when I am on the highways in Nova Scotia they feel as if they are 2,000 years old, considering the condition they are in. That is why we are here today to talk about a federal-provincial funding program for highways.

As a coincidence, in my previous presentation I talked about toll highways. While I was speaking, the new premier of New Brunswick, the honourable Bernard Lord, announced that he agreed in principle with the highway development company, Maritime Road Development, the company of former minister Doug Young. They have agreed in principle to take the tolls off the New Brunswick roads which is a big step, considering the auditor general's reports both federally and provincially are against this concept. That leaves Nova Scotia with the only toll highway left on the Trans-Canada Highway.

During some of the comments I was thinking that there should be a caution sign at the beginning of any toll highway in Nova Scotia for politicians that reads tolls can be hazardous to our health. In New Brunswick the Liberals put tolls on the Trans-Canada Highway and they were soundly defeated in the next election. In Nova Scotia the Liberals put tolls on a highway and in the next election they were soundly defeated. In Nova Scotia there were 11 federal Liberal MPs before the last election and they were all defeated. A government should be very careful before it puts tolls on highways in Canada.

I want to come back to the point that we definitely need a highway funding program. We need a national transportation system program that the provinces and all parties involved can use for long range planning; predicting the future; planning their communities, their routes, safety issues and certainly pollution issues; and planning all other things that are appropriate.

As I said in the motion, because of our geography it is of the utmost importance for Canada to have a proper transportation system, especially a national highway system. It should be a priority, as the minister has said over and over again, but he has not done anything about it.

In closing this debate we urge the minister to make it a priority and actually do something about it because there is a total vacuum of transportation policy with respect to our national highway system.

I thank all colleagues from all parties for participating in the debate. I really appreciate it. We have heard some excellent debate and some excellent ideas. I wish one and all a merry Christmas and a happy new year and a great century.

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

My proposal is very simple and it does involve the gasoline and diesel tax. It amounts to dedicating 15% of the gas and diesel oil tax to a highway funding pool. This pool would be available to the provinces on the condition that they match it dollar for dollar. In this way, it is user pay because the taxes are only paid for by the people who buy gas and diesel oil. It will leave 85% for the Minister of Finance to put in general revenues. It will allow long term planning by the provinces so they can plan five, ten and fifteen years ahead and know they will have funding available.

A tax of 15% on gas and diesel fuel yields about $700 million a year. If that is matched with the provinces' equal contribution, it would come to about $1.4 billion a year to go into highways. Spread over 10 to 12 years, that would restore our highway system, our bridges and our main transportation system to the level it should be as identified by the auditor general.

It would not mean any new taxes. It would provide safe highways. It would make us globally competitive and would certainly address our transportation needs. User pay is politically acceptable. It is a great plan. It is nice and simple. I advocate this as my proposal.

Before I close my remarks, I wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year to the staff, all members of parliament here today and all citizens watching on television.

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Potholes, right. Potholes on the road to the millennium.

The auditor general also agrees that it is the number one problem. He confirmed that it will take $17 billion to restore, not improve, our highway system to a standard that is acceptable.

Two years ago, the minister laid out highway spending as his number one priority. It has not happened. Nothing has happened. There have been Department of Transport studies and even Federation of Canadian Municipalities studies. A couple of years ago, the transport committee wrote a very indepth report stating that the highways needed a great deal of repair.

It is interesting that even the Liberal members of parliament, about a month ago, wrote a report called “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, calling for government investment in highways. They condemned toll highways. These were written by Atlantic Canadian members of parliament. I do not know where they were when the Liberals were building these toll highways, but we did not hear anything from them then. Now they have discovered that those highways are not good for the economy and are not an appropriate way to fund highways.

Our number one competitor in the global economy has recognized the problem. The United States has just recently identified and dedicated $36 billion only over six years to improve the system.

Where we are is that we do not have a system at all. Our system is in disarray. Our highway funding system was abandoned years ago. Our competitors are getting ahead of us and that is where we are.