John Duncan

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 1997]

I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, he said it. I will withdraw it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of vision on aboriginal affairs has been exposed.

Last week at the meeting of national chiefs the AFN agreed to stage a national day of protest on April 17 due to Liberal inaction. Again last week the Prime Minister and the minister refused to meet the AFN to discuss the $60 million royal commission. Why do they duck and weave?

Two weeks ago an aboriginal Liberal senator said the federal government should stop funding the Assembly of First Nations. This week the minister is barging ahead on the misguided Indian Act II to give the appearance of doing something.

The Liberals are so compromised on aboriginal affairs that their solution has become spend, spend, spend. David Nahwegahbow has a word for the minister. Last week this author of the aboriginal affairs section of the Liberal red book said: "For the Liberals to say they fulfilled their promises in the red book was a lie".

[Liberal Party Nomination Process, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister overrode 15 Liberal associations to appoint pet candidates. This year the Prime Minister is again sanctioning pet candidates.

In Nepean the retiring MP has expressed her disgust. In Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke the Liberal Party banned Hec Cloutier from the party for five years in 1993 because he ran as an independent against the Liberal appointee. In Edmonton North national Liberal officials twisted the rules so that the PM's anointed candidate would be unchallenged. An executive has been excommunicated for their continued support for the incumbent ousted Liberal MP.

This should be no surprise. The Prime Minister ensured his own election victory in 1972 and 1974 by setting up a patsy as his PC opponent.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss. I certainly heard what the parliamentary secretary had to say. Nevertheless I do not fully comprehend or have any confidence that this decision will be made on economic principles as opposed to political rationale. That is the point of our exercise. That is the point behind my speech today.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

That is what I heard you say, that VIA is maximizing its return. It is only getting a $170 million subsidy. If we want to talk about the Canadian Railtour Company and VIA competing head to head, if we really want to level the playing field, how open is the government to providing a subsidy to Great Canadian Railtour Company? Not very open I suspect.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could say that a $400,000 a day subsidy is maximizing the return.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the minister did not shorten his responses somewhat to allow more questions from the opposition parties.

It is a pleasure to debate today the Reform Party opposition motion condemning the government for its partisan approach to federal transportation policies. The government's handling of transportation issues is a litany of mismanagement, neglect, politicization and outright incompetence. From Pearson to airbus to VIA to our national highway system, the government has brought new meaning to the word botched mostly at the expense of the taxpayer and in some cases at the expense of private sector transportation operators.

The government's record on transportation is devoid of vision. In the area of rail policy the government seems to feel that money can buy vision and decisiveness. The solutions of the sixties and seventies are not compatible with today's problems. No longer is there a bottomless pit of dollars to salvage and subsidize sinkholes like VIA Rail. So-called privateers like the Bombardiers that innovate as long as government dollars are there are not solutions but drains and no more so than in rail policy.

Let us take a closer look at VIA Rail. It is one of the biggest money losing, over-bureaucratized entities in Canadian transportation. What does the government do to improve the situation? It subsidizes VIA Rail to the tune of $200 million per year and pays its executives six figure salaries to run it further into the ground.

There is only one solution to get VIA out of this morass. Without question, putting VIA into private hands would cut costs, revitalize the corporation and its people and allow it to return many passenger routes that have been abandoned or are in danger of being cut. It does not take any vision to keep cutting and make a few dollars, but in the case of VIA it takes a special touch to cut and still lose money.

If VIA were to be turned over to private entrepreneurs, marginal routes could once again be viable. Complacency and debt endure under the public ownership of VIA. It has exhibited no marketing strategy, business plan or scintilla of vision in its current operations.

In 1989 VIA Rail made one enlightened decision. It sold a passenger railroad it had abandoned to the Great Canadian Railtour Co. With this came the birth of the new service, the B.C.-Alberta Rocky Mountaineer Railroad. VIA could not make a go of it. In fact, it lost millions and felt that the private sector would not make a dime either.

Here is an update. The Great Canadian Railtour Co. has made money and increased rail service on this line by an average of 30 per cent a year since the takeover. VIA Rail, never an organization to miss an opportunity to lose money, screw up or betray a deal, has decided that it wants to compete head to head with this passenger route now so competently run. VIA could not turn a dime for years, but the federal government, prepared to enable this pettiness, is about to let VIA in on the action.

How in the world can the Minister of Transport possibly justify allowing a crown corporation, subsidized by a weary taxpayer to the tune of $600,000 per day, to compete against an unsubsidized, tax paying, private sector company? It is another example of irrational and unfair strategic thinking by the Minister of Transport and the brain trust at VIA.

I wonder what the projected loss is estimated at and how much the subsidy is going to be to prop up this bad decision. The minister will not admit the policy flaws of this type of decision and clings to the notion that throwing money at a problem will solve it. Once again he is confusing motion with progress.

Rocky Mountaineer had planned to increase its capacity this year to meet the demands on this exceptional service. I ask the minister: What private sector company in its right mind would ever want to do business with him and his government again if such an act of betrayal is perpetrated by these uninspired and visionless executives at VIA?

Here is some advice for the minister to get rail policy back on track. The government cannot simply abandon its financial stake in the transport industry without having the sense to recognize how much revision needs to be enacted to bring transport legislation into the 1990s. Present legislation harshly, though unofficially, penalizes the rail industry through the present tax structure. It behooves the government to rewrite rail policy, clear up the anomalies and set a strategy in place to allow investors to enter the arena with clear parameters. To encourage and support this new regime, the Reform Party suggests the following measures.

First, we would encourage through tax reforms and low interest loans the development of short line rail operators in regions of the country where major rail companies are no longer viable or willing to provide the amount of capital needed to recreate a viable rail transportation industry.

Second, we would negotiate the reform of the property and fuel tax structure for main and secondary rail operators to bring these costs into line with their U.S. counterparts.

Third, we would formally recognize through federal tax reform the environmental safety and infrastructure benefits provided by rail transport as opposed to modes such as long haul trucking.

Finally, in relation to the last point, we need a thorough and fair revision in the overall tax structure for the nation's trucking industry to bring it more fairly into line with the costs now being incurred by rail companies.

Currently the government gives with one hand and takes with the other. Since taking power in 1993 the government has done an inadequate job. It is mired without clear vision or policy direction. Governments should set guidelines and step out of the way. Right now no one is pleased with the situation and the rail industry is suffering as a consequence.

I would like to turn to the national highway system, another example of a policy full of potholes. The government's recently released report on highway revitalization fails to address any of the long term funding problems that threaten the safety and integrity of Canada's national highways. The flaws in this report fall into three categories: dedication of federal tax revenues to highway renewal; alternative funding sources for construction and renovation of roadways, and public-private sector partnerships to carry out this renewal process.

In committee a significant majority of witnesses supported the dedicated revenues concept. The committee is supposed to report what it hears. It did not do that. It not do that with the Canada Transportation Act. It did not do it with the national marine strategy report. And it has not done it with this current highway report. The committee is acting as the minister's lapdog.

The committee's report-or should I say the minister's report-is misleading and an obfuscation in that it claims the concepts of public-private partnerships and shadow tolling are alternate funding sources. The fact is the only way these would provide a substantial source of funds is if the federal government is planning to repair our national highways by charging drivers tolls across the entire system.

The report simply does not answer the question facing our deteriorating highways network: where is the money to come from? The government's report states it must look to the private sector for participation. Is this a commitment or a platitude, I ask? The Reform Party has real fears with anything emanating from the transport committee and was forced to write a minority report on the renewal of the highway system.

As I stated earlier, we have three major concerns in our minority report, the first being dedicated funding. The federal government currently collects $5 billion a year in fuel taxes and spends $300 million on highway infrastructure. By any logic this is a national embarrassment. Second, the majority report is misleading on alternative funding sources. The concept of shadow tolling as an alternative funding mechanism does not answer where the money is to come from. And finally, the Reform Party has a major concern with government competition with the private sector. I mentioned the Rocky Mountaineer issue.

[Canadian Forces Base North Bay, February 11th, 1997]

We are asking the Prime Minister.

I am quoting Monika McGrath, a resident of North Bay and organizer of the bus trek: "The politicians always make decisions that affect everyone but tend to forget this country's most valuable resources, our children. Therefore, we will be here to present their petition to the Prime Minister under the heading: Don't Kill My Future".

Since 1993 the DND workforce at North Bay has been reduced by two-thirds. The people of North Bay deserve a response from this government-

[Canadian Forces Base North Bay, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today a group of North Bay residents is on Parliament Hill with a petition. It brings attention to the possible move to Winnipeg of the North Bay military base's main function, monitoring and maintaining air surveillance over North America. Political influence is expected to play a major role in the decision.

We are asking Mr. Chrétien to ensure the survival-