2000-03-22

The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Burlington.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World Water Day.
In 1993 the United Nations declared March 22 as a special day for water, with the aim of sensitizing people to the declining quality and quantity of the world's water supply.
Water constitutes one of the very basic needs of human beings, yet in many parts of the world, especially in Asia, people do not have access to a clean and safe supply of water. Today over one billion people are without access to clean water and over three billion people are without sanitation facilities.
Though 9% of the world's renewable fresh water is found within Canada, our water supplies are vulnerable to global pollution and climate change.
Unsafe or scarce water results in food shortages and serious health problems, such as diarrhea, skin diseases and hepatitis.
I commend the Government of Canada for its efforts to improve access to safe water in communities across Canada and abroad through CIDA projects and the Canada-wide six year green infrastructure program.
Bill C-23Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, the Liberal bill which is before the House, will grant the same spousal benefits to same sex partners as those granted to married couples.
My office has been flooded with letters, e-mails and phone calls from people who strongly oppose this legislation. These are people who understand the importance of building and maintaining strong families.
There are two strongly opposed aspects of the bill. First, that the definition of marriage, which was reconfirmed by the House when a Reform motion was passed just a few months ago as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, is not included in the bill. This is quite a surprise, considering that the Liberal Party defeated a motion recognizing same sex marriages at its convention this past weekend.
Second, my constituents and many others oppose basing eligibility for benefits on whether couples have sex.
The fact that the government has tabled and will pass a bill which shows so little commitment to the family leaves no doubt about the value this government places on marriage and on the family.
The Hon. Michael StarrMr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was saddened last weekend to hear of the passing of one of Canada's great parliamentarians, the Hon. Michael Starr.
Mr. Starr represented part of my riding and I met with him on a number of occasions.
This feisty Ukrainian was first elected to the House on May 26, 1952.
Mr. Starr's compassion for the underdog elevated him to the position of Minister of Labour from 1957 to 1963. He later became interim leader for the opposition during the Diefenbaker years.
The appointment of Mr. Starr as Minister of Labour made him the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be appointed to the federal cabinet.
I can tell the House that I have run into a lot of his supporters on my rounds, and they all have a story to tell. I think the most interesting was when Mr. Starr went down to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and got in line with a lot of GM workers to see what it would be like. In short order he bellowed out from the end of the line that if it did not start moving, somebody would lose their job.
Greek Independence DayMs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March 25 is Greek Independence Day. For all Canadians of Hellenic origin, and all Hellenes throughout the world, this national holiday commemorates the most significant day in our history.
March 25 reunites all Hellenes around the world, including the 300,000 living in Canada, reminding us that we should be proud of our heritage and of our ancestors.
Our Hellenic ancestors fought for justice, for liberty, for democracy and for freedom of a nation, the same rights guaranteed by Canada's charter of rights and freedoms. They found the courage and the strength to say “Enough. We will free our spirits, our children and the memory of all our brothers and sisters who did not survive to see an independent Greece”.
I invite all parliamentarians and all Canadians to celebrate with Canadians of Hellenic origin.
PakistanMr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to announce that March 23 is Pakistan's Republic Day. Celebrations will be held throughout Canada and Pakistan recognizing that on this day in 1940 the Muslims of the British-ruled subcontinent adopted a resolution to strive for an independent country which we know as Pakistan.
During the struggle for freedom the concept of an independent Pakistan was presented by the famous intellectual and poet Sir Mohammad Iqbal. His work and its underlining thought motivated the masses.
The political leadership of this movement was entrusted to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, or Qaid-e-Azam, meaning the great leader. His unwavering commitment, statesmanship, sincerity and belief in his cause won him the undivided support of Muslims in Pakistan.
It is for this reason I ask Canada's parliament to join me in recognizing and congratulating Pakistanis both here at home and in their native land on their special day, March 23, the day on which a great nation was born.
My friends, Pakistan Zinda Bad—long live Pakistan.
Correctional Service CanadaMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, amid multimillion dollar deficits and cutbacks to our frontline correction officers, Correctional Service Canada came up with an ingenious idea of producing a glossy millennium calendar for our inmates and parolees.
If Correctional Service Canada is willing to waste $78,000 on calendars for inmates, then what is next?
I am very concerned that the commissioner has gone new age and we will soon seen mud baths, herbal wraps and yogi flying at the Kingston pen.
I honestly do not think the solicitor general knows what has been spent. From documents I have obtained I know that on October 12, 1999 his department needed $75,000, but was short $30,000, which was diverted from other areas to complete the project. To add insult to injury, no one wants the darn things. I have a box of returned calendars for the solicitor general.
Lesson No. 5 is a little fatherly advice for the solicitor general: get control over the commissioner or face my next lesson on basic government management. He knows the part. It says that cabinet ministers outrank department heads.
Amateur SportMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has just announced that the carding system for financial assistance to amateur athletes will be simplified.
Senior carded athletes will receive allowances of $13,200 annually, compared to the previous amount, which ranged between $6,720 and $9,720. Development carded athletes will receive $6,000 annually.
The government has also announced its intention to create a national training centre in Quebec City. Finally, starting in June, the minister responsible for amateur sport will begin a series of regional consultations leading up to a National Summit on Sport in February 2001 and to the development of a national sport policy.
Things are on the move in the world of amateur sport. With this good news, our government is showing its faith in Canadian athletes.
Young OffendersMr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, a group of major Quebec organizations working with young offenders, asked this question:
How will the 197 clauses of Bill C-3, this array of principles and objectives on tens of subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs, these countless references to the Criminal Code, these 70 pages guiding the judge in determining the sentence and the custody provisions, these complex calculations about the release of an offender, in short this cumbersome semantic and legal document, help establish a more transparent judicial process?
What is the response of the Quebec federal Liberals to this question asked by coalition members? Are federal Liberal members blindly condoning a bill that is both complex and dangerous? When will federal Liberals from Quebec support the stakeholders who, for the past 30 years, have been working so hard to make our communities safer?
There is still time for them to wake up.
Richmond HillMr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the budget team of the town of Richmond Hill. The town recently received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.
In order to receive the award, the town fulfilled nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. These guidelines assessed how well the town's budget served as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device.
Having worked with these financial professionals before coming to this place, I know that they are very deserving of this award. I would like to offer the town staff my congratulations on a job very well done.
KashmirMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians lament the murder of 36 innocent Sikh villagers killed in Kashmir.
The sovereignty over the Kashmir territory between India and Pakistan is the oldest pending border dispute in the world and the most dangerous place on earth, according to U.S. President Clinton.
Canada lost influence in the region when this government had a knee-jerk reaction and hastily imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests in 1998. This weak Liberal government is doing nothing to support the American initiative.
Canadians are concerned that the conflict between these two nuclear powers should not only be contained but resolved.
Both India and Pakistan should respect the line of control they agreed to in 1972.
Canada has spent billions of dollars trying to cure conflict in the world, but the Liberals do not have the political will to prevent conflicts. Canadians want the government to be concerned and proactive before it is too late.
Atlantic CanadiansMr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Atlantic delegates came to the Liberal biennial convention this past weekend to put the ideas of Atlantic Canadians on the national stage. The delegates worked together to voice their priorities for the future of our great region with keen determination.
Their success was shown by many key priorities of Atlantic Canadians being adopted, concerning such matters as the Port of Halifax, P.E.I. potato inspection fees and employment insurance.
Additionally, the convention unanimously endorsed a resolution calling for the adoption of the economic strategies outlined in “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”.
I would like to thank Geoff Regan, John O'Brien, Jack Graham, Sandra Kromm, Lisa Lacenaire, Melissa MacInnis and Scott Andrews, who offered their candidacy for numerous voluntary positions within the Liberal Party of Canada.
Finally, congratulations are also in order for the Dalhousie Young Liberals who—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
Home CareMrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last month the government released a damning report of its own lack of a comprehensive policy on home care. The report released by Status of Women states that there is an extreme gender imbalance in all aspects of home care. The study further condemns the government's inactions by stating that this government's policies and practices have a negative financial impact on women as home care recipients and as providers, whether paid or unpaid.
The report indicates that poverty is not uncommon among female home care providers, recipients and their families.
While the government is cutting back on health care, it is also causing enormous difficulties for those who are dependent on home care.
It is unthinkable that the government should continue policies which so clearly cause increased economic, social and medical suffering to so many women. Comprehensive standards for home care and home care providers must be developed now. At the beginning of the new millennium it is unthinkable that the government should allow conditions for an extreme gender imbalance—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Bill C-20Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the group Pro-démocratie launched an awareness and information campaign under the theme “With C-20 nothing holds any more”.
This action by the civil society is in the wake of the measures taken by Quebec political parties, both here in this parliament and at the Quebec National Assembly. The objective of the campaign is to bring the federal government back to its senses, so that it will withdraw this contemptuous legislation. But instead of giving up Bill C-20, the Liberal Party appears to be in the process of ditching its leader.
The Pro-démocratie spokesperson views Bill C-20 as an attack against Canada's democratic institutions. Gérald Larose and André Tremblay are saying that “the target today is Quebec, but when the federal government tampers with the democratic rules, it is the freedom of all Canadians that is being jeopardized”.
When will the Liberal leadership contenders pledge to withdraw Bill C-20 and restore Canadian democracy?
TaiwanMr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the presidential elections in Taiwan offer concrete proof of the success of the constitutional amendments adopted in Taiwan in 1994, introducing direct presidential election.
After half a century in power, the original founding political party will be replaced in the presidency by the main opposition party. The verdict of the popular vote has been accepted. There will be a full constitutional succession in an atmosphere of political peace and goodwill.
The constitutional rules of the game, whose observance is vital for a free democratic society, will be respected in their full spirit as well as their letter.
St. Francis Xavier X-MenMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride to congratulate the St. Francis Xavier X-Men on winning the CIAU men's basketball title.
Sunday's 61-60 victory was a tightly contested match between the University of Brandon Bobcats and the X-Men, but for the second time in less than a decade, the X-Men came away with the national championship.
St. FX all-Canadian forward Fred Perry was named game MVP, while Randy Nohr, whose last second shot won the game for the X-Men, was the tournament MVP.
I invite all X-Men fans to join the thousands of St. FX students and alumni at today's rally in Antigonish to honour the champs.
Time and time again the young men who wear the X-Men basketball jersey have proven they are a class act on the court, in the classroom and in the community of Antigonish. This stems from strong mentoring from head coach Steve Konchalski.
The X-Men are number one. So is St. FX university as it continues to excel academically, athletically and spiritually as a world class institution of higher learning.
Hail and health to the national champs, an extraordinary effort.

Oral Question Period
Human Resources DevelopmentMr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been funnelled into the human resources minister's riding even though Brantford does not qualify for transitional jobs fund grants.
For months the minister has been saying that there were pockets of unemployment that justified giving these grants. Yesterday, Mel Cappe, the minister's former deputy, told a committee of this House there were no explicit guidelines for directing these funds to pockets of unemployment. The question is very simple. Who is misleading us?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, there is no contradiction between what the clerk said and what we have been saying in the House for a number of weeks now. There are four clear criteria that guided the transitional jobs fund. There was also flexibility to ensure that we could make investments in regions in every part of this country.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, why is it that the minister has so much difficulty answering this very simple question? Either there were guidelines for directing funds to pockets of unemployment or there were not. The former deputy minister says there were not. The minister repeatedly implies that there were. Who is wrong?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is wrong.
As we have said on a number of occasions, it is thanks to that flexibility that allowed us to invest in areas where there was less than 12% unemployment, including the Reform ridings of Kootenay—Columbia, Nanaimo—Alberni, Nanaimo—Cowichan, Okanagan—Coquihalla and there are more. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his own colleagues why we made those investments in their ridings.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, there is a more likely explanation but the minister will not give it. That is that there are no fixed criteria for allocating these grants because the government likes it that way.
Under the guise of flexibility, the government can dole out grants not only to legitimate recipients but also to its friends and donors regardless of whether or not they qualify.
When the minister says that flexibility is her guideline, is she not really saying that the door is open to a political and patronage directed granting system?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.
Let me just point out again for the record that party keeps casting aspersions on communities that had difficulties where unemployment levels were so very high. Those members are casting aspersions on the individuals who are benefiting from this money. I think Canadians are starting to wonder what it is that that party does stand for.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are casting aspersions on the programs that are absolutely illegitimate and politically motivated.
The Prime Minister said yesterday “Probably I should offer an apology to the people of Alberta because if we did not have flexibility in the program, not one cent would have gone to that province”. It turns out that it was so flexible that the justice minister got $2.5 million in her riding. The 24 Reform ridings combined got $1 million.
Why is the Prime Minister's flexibility limited to dishing out cash in cliffhanger Liberal seats?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that one of the very important projects funded in the province of Alberta went to the Canadian Paraplegic Association. It has come out on record supporting this undertaking in these investments and indicated that without this money there are men and women paraplegics in the province of Alberta, the hon. member's own riding, who would not be working.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I think every paraplegic in the country is every bit as concerned about the mismanagement of funds by this government.
The Liberals sure do have flex appeal. It is like this, “There are rules, but we can be flexible”, or how about “Sure the Treasury Board says we have to do this, but we can be flexible”, or how about, “The Financial Administration Act, do not worry about it. It is flexible”.
Why is it that when the Prime Minister talks about flexibility, he really means flipping cash for Liberal seats?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would ask why is it that party over there does not take the time to talk to its own members who have benefited from the investments of the Government of Canada. They have seen constituents in their ridings working where they would not otherwise be working. Why does the member not take the time to talk to the member for Okanagan—Shuswap who as recently as last week came over to me with a letter from the mayor of one of his communities encouraging me to approve a Canada jobs fund project in that riding?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as justification for payment of the $1.2 million grant to Placeteco, the minister said she had received invoices indicating that jobs had been created or maintained.
What sort of invoices is the minister talking about and how much of the $1.2 million did her department pay out?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again I want to make it clear that the invoices we received were sufficient to cover the expenses and the costs that were invested by the Government of Canada in this project. I say again that our choice was to continue to ensure that the opportunities were there for those men and women working at Placeteco, at Techni-Paint because from our point of view, making sure that they continue to have work was the right thing to do.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, so the minister is telling us that she received invoices for $1.2 million. We know that $1 million was used to pay off a National Bank of Canada loan. That leaves $200,000 unaccounted for.
Exactly what sort of invoices were they, for what purposes, and is she prepared to table them here in the House so that we may see what became of the $200,000? Because we know where the first $1 million went: not into creating or maintaining jobs but into paying off a National Bank of Canada loan.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again I would say that we have been working with the sponsors in this project. We have reviewed the files in both Placeteco and Techni-Paint. I would remind the House that this was an undertaking supported by the Government of Quebec because in this region of high unemployment, it was viewed to be appropriate and the correct way to invest.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the minister is still refusing to launch an investigation into the Placeteco affair, we have no other choice but to ask questions so that taxpayers may know what the $1.2 million grant was used for.
What we are asking for is not unreasonable. All we wish to know is what kind of invoices were supplied to the minister to justify payment of the grant to Placeteco.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the money went to salaries, to supplies. It went to an undertaking in the community of Shawinigan and also in the community of Trois-Rivières. Some 170 people are working. That was the intent of this program and it is working.
Paul Crête: Yet it is simple, Mr. Speaker.
The minister tells us there were invoices justifying the payment of the grant. Can she tell us whether the money went to pay a $1 million debt to the National Bank?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I say again that the invoices were for salaries and overhead. They were not used for a banker payment.
Health CareMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Alberta admits that Bill 11 is based on a secret deal with the Liberals. Let me quote the memo that confirms it:
Without Health Canada's agreement on the principle that it is acceptable for physicians to work in both the public and private sectors, the existing private clinic policy would not have been possible to implement.
Why does the Prime Minister not admit the obvious, that Ottawa acquiesced to privatization in the Alberta principles and that the government must now repeal this deal if the spread of two tier private medicine is to be stopped?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister and I have been very clear that the five conditions of medicare will be respected in all circumstances. In 1997 I understand there was correspondence between officials dealing with this problem but there was no agreement by the federal government. The document to which the member referred refers to directives by the Alberta government.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, apparently the government's narrow notion of defending the Canada Health Act does not actually include taking any action to stop the spread of two tier private medicine.
Action is needed now. The Prime Minister is going to Alberta this week. Will he move beyond the empty speeches? Will he repeal his secret deal which paves the way for a parallel, for profit health care system right across the country?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no secret deal, absolutely none. I will tell the premier when I meet him tomorrow very clearly that Alberta, like any other provincial government, is obliged to respect the five conditions of medicare. If it does not do that, we will do what we have done previously against the Government of Alberta, keep the money because it is not doing what it ought to do.
The EconomyPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, fuel prices across the nation have hit an all-time high threatening to ripple through the economy in the form of higher prices on goods and services. Today the Bank of Canada raised its key lending rate by a quarter point setting off a rise in the interest rates Canadians and businesses pay for loans and mortgages.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us what his plans are to prevent a potentially crippling round of inflation in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most economists will tell us while there is no doubt that rising fuel prices do place undue impact on families, on those who are driving cars, that in fact the current situation is not inflationary. The output gap in Canada remains such that while we must always be vigilant about inflation, it is well within check.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that indicates that the Minister of Finance seems totally oblivious to the signs of economic trouble. It is ordinary Canadians who will pay the price for his indifference through escalating costs for consumer prices and high interest rates.
What is the minister doing to prevent the kind of economic meltdown that we experienced during the Trudeau years? I remind him he has been there seven years.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member first of all has the wrong years. They were much more recent than that.
What the hon. member ought to understand, and perhaps the question he might want to address, is that in the Tories' tax plan brought down about a month and a half ago, not once did they mention rising fuel prices. Not once did they mention the plight of ordinary Canadians.
It is members on this side of the House who have led the fight to make sure we take care of them.
Human Resources DevelopmentMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know there was flexibility in HRDC. Things were so flexible people did not even have to apply to get the public's money from the government.
This is not about flexibility but about a document appearing when there should be none. The then deputy minister said yesterday that there were no explicit guidelines about pockets. However, the minister recently distributed a document to back up her claims that there were explicit guidelines.
Why did the minister write down policy that apparently existed only in her own mind?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again, when we look at the transitional jobs fund, the whole point was to help communities with areas of high unemployment to provide opportunities where they would not otherwise be found.
I have talked about this on a number of occasions. Originally 75% of the funds were to go to areas where unemployment levels were above 12%, and 25% for areas below 12%.
In over half the cases where the unemployment levels were less than 12%, we find the investments in opposition ridings.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that answer has nothing to do with the question. The question is: Why did the deputy minister say that nothing was written down and the minister produced a document? Obviously they cannot both be right. Either there are no explicit guidelines or there are explicit guidelines. Who is telling the truth in this matter? We need to have an answer?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the document to which the hon. member refers outlines exactly how the investments were made in every region of the country in areas of less than 12% unemployment.
I remind the House that time and again investments were made in Reform ridings because we believed it was the right thing to do and because we knew that the people in those areas of northern British Columbia, for example, needed the support of the Government of Canada to provide opportunities to diversify economies.
We know that members on that side of the House think a trickle down economy will solve the world's problems and the problems here in our country. We know that is just not so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told the House that the $1.2 million in funding was at no time used to pay back the National Bank.
I have here in front of me the articles of agreement between Claude Gauthier and René Giguère and the National Bank, and its subclause 3.2.2 states that “the bridging loan of $1,060,000 will be repaid as the Human Resources Development Canada funding is received, up to the limit of $1,060,000”. It is further indicated that any additional amounts received by Placeteco in connection with the grant could be allocated to its working capital.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development say what she has just—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to comment on the transaction of a particular business outside the relationship that we have with the transitional jobs fund.
What I can say, as I have said on a number of occasions, is that the invoices that we received from the company for salaries and supplies were appropriate under the conditions of the transitional jobs fund program. They were of a value that was equivalent to the moneys that were allowed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would invite hon. members to please stop yelling at one another when the question is being asked or when the answer is being given. The hon. member for Roberval.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers on the two previous cases are disconcerting. Lots of people are watching us. We have the proof here in front of us that, out of the $1.2 million, $1,061,000 was used to pay the National Bank. The minister tells us it was used to pay invoices.
What I am asking her is to tell us the truth. What invoices were paid with this money? Did the money get paid to the bank, yes or no, as the agreement I have just disclosed states? That is what we want to know. We want to know the truth. Where did the taxpayers' money go? That is what we want to know.
The Speaker: When a member from any side speaks to the House, the truth is what we are going to get. This must never be challenged.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, despite the hon. member's huffing and puffing, the answer remains the same. After reviewing the circumstances with the sponsor, we received invoices for salaries and for overheads that were equivalent to the amounts of money that were invested through the transitional jobs fund.
Export Development CorporationMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in typical Liberal fashion, the international trade minister only told us half the story about EDC loans.
In the last six years taxpayers have had to reach into their wallets and bail out just one arm of EDC to the tune of $640 million. That is how much money EDC has lost in bad loans to foreign countries, loans that were made so that foreign countries would buy products from some of Canada's biggest and most profitable corporations.
Why does the government think that Main Street should have to bail out Bay Street?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the Reform Party does not like good news, but I will begin by informing the House that Statistics Canada reported yesterday that our January exports exceeded $33 billion and up 2% just last month. This is more proof that Canada is a country largely dependent on trade and that EDC is an essential tool for our Canadian exporters.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that has more to do with the Canadian peso than anything.
If we give someone a loan but there is no interest paid on it and there is no requirement to pay it back, is it really a loan or is it just a giveaway of taxpayer money? Six hundred and forty million dollars was written off in bad EDC loans and who had to pay for it? The working people of Canada.
Is it not true that anyone could make a profit if they could shuffle their losses off to the taxpaying public just like EDC does?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, EDC has made more than $500 million over the last five years in terms of profit. It is helping Canadian companies to do very well on international markets. Indeed, the EDC works with two accounts. It has a corporate account with 98% of the transactions that describe exactly that.
The member keeps coming back to the Canada account which represents less than 2% and is there to help Canadian exporters on distorted markets. It respects every OECD rule and every OECD country has similar tools.
Human Resources DevelopmentMrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the standing committee on human resources development, Mel Cappe, who was appointed to the highest position in Canada's public service by the Prime Minister, said in answer to questions from the opposition that the internal audit reports for 1991, 1994 and 1997 cannot be released because they have not yet been translated.
Are we to understand that the highest public servant in the country is using the Official Languages Act to hide the administrative mess for which he is responsible?
Jane Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand the translation will be completed shortly and the documents will be available soon.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, does the minister find it normal that reports that are nine, six and three years old have yet to be translated?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, they are being translated and they will be made available as soon as possible.
Export Development CorporationMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, from 1977 to 1984 the EDC provided specific information on its transactions listing the borrowing bank, the product, the Canadian exporter and the amount. In those years Canadians could track EDC loans for individual projects. Today none of this information is available to parliament or to Canadians. Why the secrecy?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, on any EDC transaction all parties involved have to agree to release any information on the terms. It is a matter of commercial confidentiality.
Would the member appreciate it if his banker revealed what was in his bank account or if Revenue Canada shared information? The permission of the parties, both the seller and the purchaser of the goods, is needed in order to release information.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, let me give the minister an example of information found in an 1983 statistic review of the EDC: Country: Egypt; Borrower: Emac International; Products financed: aluminum form work and shoring equipment; Principal exporter: Aluma Systems Incorporated; Amount: $458,000.
If this information was available in 1983, why the secrecy now?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, on both the accounts we have described—I understand they do not want to understand because this is such good news—the EDC is trying to provide a level playing field for Canadian exporters on distorted markets, which every other country is doing. We on this side of the House want to promote the national and commercial interests of Canadians. We want to create jobs and export Canadian technologies around the world. We will continue to do so.
CinarMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the serious allegations against Micheline Charest in the CINAR case are well known.
We also know that, in the past, she presided a fundraising dinner for the Liberal Party of Canada.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In light of these facts, does he not agree that common decency requires him to ignore his buddies and demand that Micheline Charest withdraw from the board of directors of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said many times that the member is making allegations that weigh very heavily on the whole industry.
If he wants to make allegations, he should go to the RCMP, as we have suggested to him at least ten times.
National DefenceMrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
One of the most disturbing security issues facing the world today is the plight of war affected children. According to the UN, over 300,000 young girls and boys are taking part in armed conflicts as soldiers.
How will Canada now strengthen its position to help with this international issue of children in armed conflict?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Senate a bill was introduced as an amendment to the National Defence Act, which entrenches, in law, a practice that we have carried out for a number of years, and that is that no one under the age of 18 can be deployed to an area of hostilities in the name of the Canadian forces.
That helps to set a good, strong example of leadership for Canada to participate with other countries at the UN in dealing with the problem of war affected children. I am pleased to be working with my colleague in Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation to reduce the plight against war affected children.
Export Development CorporationMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. company Amtrak has been losing billions of dollars for many years. What happens? This government takes a billion dollars of taxpayer money and loans it secretly to this company.
My question is very simple. Why is this government lending billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to a failed U.S. company?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps repeat this answer in French, because Reformers seem not to understand their own language.
The Export Development Corporation does not give grants. The Export Development Corporation does not use taxpayers' money. It funds grants from its own budget, from its own funds, and its transactions are strictly commercial.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of using Canadian taxpayer money wisely. Canadians who have cancer are waiting more than 14 weeks for the treatment they require because we do not have the money.
My question is simple. Why is the government lending taxpayer money to a failed U.S. company, a company that the U.S. government would not touch with a 10 foot pole, instead of spending it here in Canada for Canadians?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the EDC's corporate account does not use Canadian taxpayer money for these loans. Can I be any more clear than that?
It has received in the last 56 years $1 billion which is in its equity. The $40 billion it uses to help Canadian exporters comes from its own coffers, profits it has made—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. Minister for International Trade has not finished.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that we have a corporation which has helped to leverage more than $300 billion of exports on international markets over its history. This is an extraordinary contribution. Members of the Reform Party should ask the business sector what it thinks of this remarkable contribution.
Human Resources DevelopmentMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, instead of fighting off talk of who his successor will be the Prime Minister should focus his time on finding a successor for his human resources minister.
Testimony yesterday by the former deputy minister clearly contradicts her statements about the loose rules for the so-called poverty pockets and transitional job funds. It is pretty clear the minister cannot even manage the cover-up that the government concocted.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Go directly to the question, please.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that the loopholes were built into the program purposely, not to help the unemployed but to help bolster Liberal fortunes?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry because, yes, we have to have some flexibility. Twenty-five per cent of the money was used for flexibility in the ridings of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Kelowna, Kootenay—Columbia, Nanaimo—Alberni, Nanaimo—Cowichan, Okanagan—Shuswap, Vancouver Island North, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan and so on.
They are Reform ridings and some on the list are NDP ridings, but there is a good chance that they will be Liberal ridings after the next election.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it can be very frustrating, just when you learn the game, that they change the rules on you.
The riding of Winnipeg Centre was told in no uncertain terms that it did not qualify for any TJF money. Only now that the program is over do we learn about flexibility, pockets of unemployment and all this stuff.
Could the minister explain to the people of Winnipeg Centre why pockets of unemployment in her riding qualify for millions and millions of dollars and pockets of unemployment which are all too real in my riding qualify for not one cent of TJF money?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, what I will explain is that we have made huge investments in the riding of the hon. member, huge investments that have been there to assist—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We heard the question. Now we will hear the answer, please.
Jane Stewart: There were huge investments under grants and contributions from the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. If the hon. member would like to return them, it would be up to him.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week the senior public servant in the land flatly contradicted the Minister of Human Resources Development on the issue of pockets of poverty.
Will the minister explain to us what a pocket of poverty is? Is it three Liberals in an apartment on Main Street in her riding?
The Speaker: Only the first part of the question is in order. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is incorrect. The clerks and I are not disagreeing on how the transitional jobs fund moneys were invested.
I would remind the House again that in areas where unemployment was less than 12%, the majority of the money, the majority of the projects is found in opposition ridings.
Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced TJF after the reform to employment insurance why were there no specific guidelines to protect taxpayers' very important money? Why were there no special guidelines to protect them from the very mismanagement we have before us today?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again with regard to the transitional jobs fund there were 40 criteria. Those were applied across the country.
There was also thankfully the opportunity to be flexible so that we could make investments in regions across the country that needed help. That included opportunities in northern British Columbia. That included opportunities in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
From our point of view ensuring that we had the opportunity to support aboriginal communities, Canadians with disabilities and areas, as I say, in northern British Columbia where they needed to diversify the economy, was absolutely the right thing to do.
The EnvironmentMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World Water Day, a day recognized throughout the world to draw attention within the international community to the urgent need for the sustainable use of water resources.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell the House what Canada is doing to protect its own fresh water resources?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is leading the way with initiatives to restore, to conserve and to protect major Canadian watersheds and ecosystems, to clean up our water and to protect this most precious resource.
It is the Minister of the Environment who is working with his provincial and territorial colleagues, leading the way on a Canada-wide strategy and accord by prohibiting bulk water removals. Furthermore—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, although members opposite did not seem to notice, the most recent budget included an extra $133 million to ensure we meet our target, to ensure that we have a cleaner environment for all Canadians.
Export Development CorporationMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said that EDC does not give grants, but we know it gives interest-free loans for up to 55 years. They are not payable for that time.
Public accounts show that the Export Development Corporation has lent Venezuela $24 million. Venezuela is one of the original members of OPEC, the international oil cartel which is responsible for the high gas prices that Canadians pay currently at the pumps.
Why does EDC feel it is necessary to lend money to a country whose policies are distorting international oil prices and which are directly hitting Canadians in their wallets every time—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite important to understand the role of the Canada account. It can take the form of insurance, guarantees or financing. There is nothing new here. Canada has been using the Canada account for more than 30 years.
Virtually every other OECD country does the same thing to help their exporters on distorted markets. The United States, for example, has a $500 million war chest that it uses to help its firms match financing. Every other country does exactly the same.
Gasoline PricingMr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has announced with great pomp and circumstance that he would, at the cost of $600,000, give the conference board the responsibility for looking into the rising prices of gasoline, whereas in a report published in June 1998, 47 members of his party voiced their concern for the recent tendency of the federal government to turn to outside bodies for data and figures on the oil industry.
How can the minister justify such an expenditure, when the taxpayers are already paying $25 million yearly for the Competition Bureau to carry out this type of inquiry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matters to be examined by the conference board are broader than just competition. We are trying to determine a variety of information on a variety of subjects, including the relationship between the prices of gasoline and other market factors.
The role of the Competition Bureau is limited to matters relating solely to competition, based on evidence submitted to it.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's three quarter of a million dollar gas price study does nothing for people coping with high energy prices. This is buck passing at its worst. All it does is transfer hard earned cash from consumers to consultants.
By the time the conference board reports, soaring energy costs will eat up every penny of the farm aid package, all future tax cuts, and many more truckers will have gone bankrupt.
Crude prices are dropping but consumers have not seen any relief at the pumps. I ask the Prime Minister if this is all we can expect from his government. Where is his action plan to protect Canadian consumers from soaring energy costs?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the Regina Leader Post of yesterday:
One of the industry's most persistent critics (the hon. member for Regina who has just spoken) praised the announcement by his Liberal counterpart. “The study is a good idea. I think there's some value in it”.
He called upon us to proceed with it right away. The member is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
National ParksMr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Mr. Jacques Gérin will be releasing a scathing report on the state of our national parks. Is the timing of the release orchestrated to justify the government's economic development restrictions contained in Bill C-27?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is speaking of the report that will be released by Mr. Jacques Gérin tomorrow. I think the report will have some very pertinent information for the government in terms of ensuring the ecological integrity of the park system.
I know, because of the strong support that the budget gave to the whole issue of the environment, it is very important that ecological integrity be included at the top of the issue of parks. Those will hopefully be the points made in Mr. Gérin's report tomorrow, which I know will be supported by all members of the House.
Jeux De La FrancophonieMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that the Ottawa-Hull region will host the Jeux de la Francophonie in July 2001.
Could the minister, who chairs the games' steering committee, tell us what progress has been made regarding the use of both official languages at these games?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell this House that the linguistic issue at the Jeux de la Francophonie has indeed been settled.
Recently, at a conference held in Beirut, all the participants, including Quebec, endorsed the following proposal from Canada “First, the Jeux de la Francophonie will essentially be held in French; the games will have a francophone image and there is absolutely no intention of anglicizing these games”.
These games will be a success. The Government of Canada is committed. They will be the best Jeux de la Francophonie so far.

Routine Proceedings
Employment InsuranceJane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to paragraph 3(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, I am pleased to table two copies, in both official languages, of the annual employment insurance monitoring and assessment report for the year 1999.
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
Committees Of The HouseDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Industry; that of Mr. Lowther for Mr. Schmidt. If and when the House gives its unanimous consent, I would move concurrence in this 21st report either later this day or at a subsequent sitting.
Citizenship And ImmigrationMr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a bona fide copy of the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank committee members for their hard work and good work, the witnesses who appeared before the committee who gave us their wisdom and thoughts, and the minister and the officials who also provided us good counsel and advice. The report contains some 46 recommendations.
We want to assure Canadians that not only is our border secure, but we want a fair and equitable refugee determination system, and I believe we have that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the honour to table its sixth report.
After considering the report on the performance of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for the period ending March 31, 1999, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has agreed to report it.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 108(3)(e), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the honour to present its seventh report. After considering chapter 21 of the November 1999 report of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled “Financial Information Strategy: Departmental Readiness”, the committee has agreed to the report.
Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActMrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table my private member's bill, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada. Many of my hon. colleagues and constituents will remember that I originally introduced this bill a few years ago; however, it died on the order paper, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to reintroduce it today.
This bill calls on a parliamentary committee to work with Canadians to draft an oath of allegiance to our flag. The oath would not be mandatory, but would be a way for Canadians to express their love for our flag and all that it represents.
I look forward to working with my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to help make this bill a reality.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Motor Vehicle Safety ActBrenda Chamberlain: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (ignition security switches).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table my private member's bill this afternoon, entitled an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which concerns ignition security switches.
Auto theft in this country poses a problem not only in terms of loss of property but also because stolen cars are often involved in high speed chases. This bill proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, making it mandatory for vehicles bearing the national safety mark to be fitted with a so-called kill switch, a device which prevents the vehicle from being started without an ignition key. By making it impossible to hot-wire a car this would reduce vehicle theft and as a result the number of high speed chases, resulting in safer roads for all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodePeter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-453, an act to amend the Criminal Code (attempting to disarm a peace officer).

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a bill which, as stated, would amend the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to attempts to disarm a police officer.
This bill would make it an indictable offence for any individual to attempt or to successfully disarm a police officer or a peace officer or to interfere with their protective equipment. This offence would carry a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. The offence would also be included within a list of offences over which a provincial court judge would have absolute jurisdiction.
There is a similar bill before the House, but I would respectfully submit that this would be a very worthwhile amendment to the criminal code. It has received broad support from those within the policing community and those in the Canadian Police Association.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Controlled Drugs And Substances ActMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-454, an act to to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill would provide greater protection for our youth against the illegal drug trade which is undermining our society.
My bill proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose a minimum prison term of one year for the first offence and two years for further offences in cases where a person is convicted of trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or narcotic within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-455, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Charlesbourg.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to introduce in the House a bill to change the name of the riding of Charlesbourg to Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier following consultation with all the inhabitants, as well as the principal organizations, of Charlesbourg, including the municipalities.
The name selected by the citizens of Charlesbourg is Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-456, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Lotbinière.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to change the name of the electoral district of Lotbinière to Lotbinière—L'Érable, which, I think, will be more representative of the whole district.
The purpose of this change is to give more visibility to the RCM of L'Érable which, like the RCM of Lotbinière, lies totally within the boundaries of the new federal electoral district of Lotbinière. The other RCMs that are part of the electoral district of Lotbinière are already identified in the names of neighbouring federal electoral districts. Moreover, the French word “érable” means maple tree, which is the most common tree in the area and one of the natural resources that characterize all the municipalities included in the electoral district.
In closing, I would like to point out that Plessisville in the RCM of L'Érable is the maple capital of the world.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Immigration ActMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-457, an act to amend the Immigration Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Immigration Act. The bill specifically increases the fines and the jail terms for persons involved in human trafficking and others who break our immigration laws.
I hope that all members will support this bill in order to toughen the penalties for those involved in human trafficking.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Competition ActMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-458, an act to amend the Competition Act (contest, lottery or game of chance).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce a private member's bill to amend the Competition Act. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the production or distribution of printed material that contains a game of chance or where prior payment of money is required before a prize can be collected. The bill is designed to protect Canadian consumers from a specific type of mail fraud. I hope that all members of the House will support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsMr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present four petitions. The first three hail from Hanover, Walkerton, Meaford, Owen Sound and Elmwood in the riding of Bruce—Grey.
The petitions deal with the subject of mammography. The petitioners ask that parliament establish an independent governing body to help implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and control standards in Canada.
Ovid Jackson: The fourth petition, Mr. Speaker, is on behalf of rural mail couriers. The rural mail couriers ask that the Parliament of Canada and Canada Post make sure that rural mail couriers have all the benefits and wages that are due to them and to make sure that they are covered for things like gas prices and so on. I would like to table that petition.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition containing about 75 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from my riding of Surrey Central.
The petitioners feel that the illegal immigrants who arrived on the Vancouver shores are causing undue hardship for bona fide, honest refugees. They maintain that our immigration laws encourage international people smugglers to target Canada.
They are calling on parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees. They want to allow for the deportation of those who are obviously and blatantly abusing the system.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am also honoured to present two petitions with about 135 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from Ontario. They are drawing the attention of the House to the discrimination they declare is caused by Canada's old age security system.
The act discriminates against seniors from certain countries. Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to grant old age security benefits to all seniors over the age of 65 years irrespective of their country of origin.
However, we know that the weak Liberal government, like the head tax, continues to discriminate against immigrants from certain parts of the world. It only follows that the Liberal government would discriminate against immigrants by—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows he is to give a short summary of the petition and not make a speech. I would invite him to comply with the rules in that regard. If he has other petitions, I will hear them, otherwise we will move on.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present six petitions with just over 500 signatures on them. These signatures are by concerned Canadians, mostly from my constituency of Surrey Central again.
The petitioners are asking why parliament was not recalled immediately to invoke section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause to override the B.C. court decision and ensure that the possession of child pornography in B.C. is illegal.
We know that this government will not—
The Deputy Speaker: We will move on.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of rural route mail couriers. These couriers often earn less than minimum wage and their working conditions are not good. They have not been allowed to bargain collectively, yet private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas are allowed to do the same, as, of course, are Canada Post employees who deliver mail in urban areas.
Therefore, these petitioners call on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from St. Catharines, Thorold and other parts of Ontario, the city of Saskatoon in Saskatchewan and so on.
The petitioners say that the Senate of Canada is an undemocratic institution. They are saying that it is composed of non-elected members who are unaccountable to the people of this country and that it costs the taxpayers of the country some $50 million a year. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, you would be surprised to note, that they want to make sure that we take the measures now to abolish the Senate.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one was signed by 124 members of the London and region chapter of the Breast Cancer Society of Canada.
The petitioners ask parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
Clifford Lincoln: I would like to present a second petition signed by several people from my region in Quebec. The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to continue urging the Chinese government to release all arrested Falun Gong practitioners in China immediately, to lift the ban on Falun Gong practice, to withdraw the international arrest warrant for Mr. Li Hongzhi and to achieve a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to present a petition.
The petitioners say that whereas the majority of Canadians understand the concept of marriage as only the voluntary union of a single male and a single female and whereas it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected, they call on parliament to enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and single female.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is about time. Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House a petition with 167 signatures from concerned citizens of my riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners are horrified by the existence of pornography that depicts children and are shocked by legal determinations that possession of such pornography is not criminal.
For this reason, the petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to take all necessary measures to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from sexual abuse. The petitioners request that parliament take steps to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that police forces be directed to enforce this law for the protection of Canadian children.
Mr. Speaker, I know you do not agree, but I do support my constituents.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows it is improper for him to say whether he agrees or not and he may wait much longer the next time if he persists. That is two days in a row.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have 27 petitions but I have narrowed them down to three for today.
The first one contains almost 45,000 signatures. The petitioners are primarily concerned about the hideous GST tax. They suggest that the Government of Canada take action to phase out this tax as a very progressive tax measure.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from people in Kamloops who are concerned about keeping God in our constitution and have a very strong case to make. I will pass it along to you later to have a look at, Mr. Speaker. Basically they want to keep God in the constitution.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have is from people who are very concerned about changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, and they want to amend the code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in very exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Mount Royal calling for an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides, having regard for the serious and demonstrable evidence of the risk to the health of Canadians from coast to coast as a result of the use of these pesticides.
This moratorium is to last until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of the application are known.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my first petition, the petitioners are asking parliament to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.
Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, the petitioners are calling on parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind. Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.
Two of the petitions urge parliament to fulfill the promise of the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000.
Jake Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners pray that parliament refrain from enacting legislation to remove references to the name of God or to the supremacy of God from the Canadian Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions in the House on behalf of my constituents of Kitchener Centre.
The first petition is from the rural route couriers who believe they are being discriminated against. They call on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests that parliament take all necessary steps to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a criminal offence and that police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you have saved the best for last.
The first petition I have is from my riding of Lower Sackville. The petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have three other petitions from the fabulous provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The petitioners call on parliament to investigate the powers and the undemocratic actions of the unelected Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the National Energy Board and remove NS98-2—Parcel 1 off the western coast of Cape Breton Island from the very hazardous conditions of our fragile lobster and fishery sites.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on poverty.
The petitioners, from right across Canada, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, want to draw to the attention of the House that one in five children live in poverty in Canada.
The petitioners remind us that in 1989 the House passed a resolution to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty by the year 2000. Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to use budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year program to improve the well-being of Canada's children. As we all saw, there were important steps taken in that budget.
Questions On The Order PaperDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Motions For PapersDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-4, in the name of the Hon. member for Brandon—Souris, is acceptable to the government with the reservation stated in the reply, and the documents are tabled immediately.
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before the House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, e-mails, memos and correspondence between the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of International Trade, the United States Trade Representative's Office and the United States Agriculture Secretary concerning agricultural trade irritants and the World Trade Organization complaints, specifically with respect to State Trading Enterprises and supply management.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-4 be deemed to have been adopted?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Notice PaperThe Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that there are some errors in today's Notice Paper under the heading of Business of Supply.
On page IV, Motion No. 2, in the name of Mr. John McKay, Scarborough East under Supplementary Estimates (B), Opposed Votes, should stand in the name of Mr. Peter MacKay, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
On pages XII and XIII, Motions Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 41 which are listed under the name of Mr. Lebel (Chambly) in the English text of Supplementary Estimates (B) should be listed under that name in the French text, and not that of Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue).
A corrigendum to that effect is available at the table. I regret any inconvenience or embarrassment this may have caused hon. members.
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 31, 2000, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practice, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
SupplyMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the official opposition to bring this very important motion to the House and to debate it before the Canadian public. It is very apparent to most of us who sat and heard the budget released by the finance minister that the government places very little importance on the transportation system in Canada.
We in the official opposition believe that with a country the size of Canada transportation is critical and crucial. Much of the history of our country relates and has been developed by transportation with the train system from coast to coast. Today our economy depends on a very good seamless transportation system.
I am not just talking about trucks and highways. Nor am I just talking about trains and rail, airplanes and airports, or ships and ports. I am talking about how all these modes of transportation interconnect in a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system.
Canada has done exceptionally well over the last number of years and the government has taken every opportunity to take credit for it. However our international trade has grown at an incredible rate and the United States has been responsible for most of that economic growth, due mainly to the free trade agreement and to the NAFTA.
I remind Liberals across the floor that they were opposed to both these agreements that are responsible for the economic growth the country has faced. Exports to the United States grew by almost 70% between 1994 and 1999. Today, on average, over $1.5 billion worth of goods cross the Canada-U.S. border each and every day. Despite the massive increase in traffic there has been no corresponding increase in transportation infrastructure. In fact the federal government spends far fewer dollars on transportation infrastructure today than it did in 1994.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East and opposition members will be splitting their time throughout the debate.
As I was saying, the government has not made any commitment to supporting transportation infrastructure. Although the federal government has jurisdiction over trade and commerce, the Liberals have completely abandoned the federal government's role in interprovincial and international transportation.
There is a growing and existing need for a safe, seamless, integrated transportation plan, not just a national or a continental strategy. This is one instance where the federal government should be playing a leading role but it has completely removed itself from that discussion and that debate.
We could ask ourselves why there is need for a central plan for a national continental strategy. We need to develop consistent transportation regulations with the provinces and with the United States. I am not just talking about reregulating the industry. That is not what we want. We do not want the federal government to reregulate transportation.
There should be minimal consideration of regulations to ensure safety, to protect environmental concerns and to ensure that there is competition. I want to make very clear that we are not talking about the federal government getting back into massive regulations in transportation, although we recognize there are areas that might require minimal regulation on the part of the federal government.
I emphasize that it is important for the federal government to be acting as a co-ordinator, as a mediator, as a consensus builder. It is important for the federal government to bring the parties together at the table. This is an area that the federal Liberal government of today has reneged on.
While co-operating with other levels of government and the private sector, the federal government must be prepared to put in its share of funding. The federal government must recognize that it plays an important role in developing the infrastructure that is so important for our economy. The economic wealth and well-being of our country depend on a very strong and safe transportation system. The federal government has to play a part in helping to make this a reality.
The federal government has to quit using fuel taxes as a cash cow. Last year the federal government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes, and yet it has put only $150 million back into highway infrastructure. I hear the same complaint from the air industry where the federal government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in lease agreements but putting only tens of millions of dollars back into airport infrastructure.
The federal government must overhaul its tax policies for the transportation industry. In today's economy we find that the transportation industries in Canada are not competitive internationally, largely because of the tax structure in this country. It is important that the government place our industries in a more competitive position by overhauling its tax policies.
Our transportation industry has gone through and is going through some major changes. It is quite apparent to those of us sitting in opposition and to Canadians generally that the government is not able to handle these changes. I speak of the Air Canada acquisition of Canadian Airlines and the fallout. I speak of the CN-BNSF combination. I speak of the crisis in the Canadian trucking industry. My colleagues will talk in greater detail about the particular problems facing each of the various transportation industries in Canada so I will not dwell on them.
There is great need for the federal government to take a leadership role in the strategic development of a future transportation system.
The federal government must play a leading role. It must be prepared to make obvious to the transportation industry that it is a strong player in the discussions that have to take place. It is not that the government should dictate what those policies should be, but the federal government must take a leadership role in bringing the stakeholders to the table and finding a consensus on how to develop our transportation system. This is badly needed and has to be done sooner than later.
With the growth in demands in the transportation industry, with a growth of over 10% of exports and imports over the U.S.-Canada border per year, we cannot afford to continually lag behind the need for developing our transportation infrastructure. We must have more than a national plan. It has to be a continental plan. It has to recognize that the movement of goods and people is north-south as much as it is east-west. We need a continental plan to move goods and people.
What is equally important is that this strategy and the financial commitment to this strategy have to be long term. We have to think long term. We have to look at not only what the growth is today and was yesterday but at what the potential growth will be. It should come as no surprise to those watching the growing trade with the United States that there is an equal growing need to create an infrastructure which can handle that. Canada cannot afford to renege on this responsibility because the gridlock in our transportation system today will only get much worse in the future.
If the federal government will not take the leadership role and will not facilitate the development of a strategic continental transportation system, Canada can look forward to chaos. That will affect our economic well-being. The transportation system is important to economic growth in Canada, which supports health care, the education system, social services and all other things that Canadian feel are important to them.
They depend on the economic well-being of our country and the economic well-being of the our country depends on a good transportation system so that we can move goods and people. Trade agreements will not work if goods cannot be transported markets. I say to the government of the day that it is time to prepare Canada's transportation system for the 21st century.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague across the way. Indeed some of the points she raised have great merit. Canada needs to move forward to the 21st century. We have highways that are in desperate need of repair. I travel the 401 on the way to Windsor. I saw the site where the accident occurred last summer. Construction has been done there and I hope it continues all the way to Toronto.
Could the hon. member enlighten me on how the funding of this infrastructure will be found? Would her party support a Liberal agenda for infrastructure money in the next fiscal year as we did in 1993-94? Would the hon. member be supportive of such an initiative in order for infrastructure money to put into highways and special tasks that could help the national transportation scheme?
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would respond to that by saying that the policy of the official opposition is that there be dedicated funds for highways, for transportation, and that those funds would come from fuel taxes. The moneys collected from fuel taxes would go into a dedicated fund for highway infrastructure improvements.
We were very concerned about what would be in the budget for infrastructure programs. The great concern that I have as a member of the opposition is in the setting of priorities. I would suggest there is not a Canadian out there who does not see the fixing of highways as a safety issue. They are afraid for their well-being when they travel our highways because of the poor condition they are in. Canadians would put a priority on that rather than bocce courts, curling arenas and all of these other things that infrastucture money was used for.
In this year's budget there was only $150 million identified for highways. Yes, there was other infrastructure money, but there was only $150 million set aside for highways. I do not find that to be a good priority. I would suggest that other Canadians would agree with me that the priorities of the government are not well placed.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question to ask my colleague.
There are small airports—small because of the distances planes have to travel—that have been handed over to the municipalities, among them the airport at Matane. Today, even if the mayor is full of good will, he cannot afford to have the repairs needed done at this airport.
The government is always telling us, basically, that the municipalities have to look after these airports if they agreed to take them over. A city does not necessarily have the funds to look after an airport.
Should the federal government not make a special effort for the airports which formerly belonged to it and which have now been handed over to the municipalities and, even if they have accepted them, should it not still contribute to their maintenance?
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right, there are all kinds of issues, such as small regional airports, remote airports, roads. The MacKenzie highway was promised by the government in 1972 under the Right Hon. Prime Minister Trudeau, but the government never followed through. We still do not have that highway. People in those communities are still looking for some way to get out of that remote northern area, other than by ice road in the wintertime.
That is why I think it is extremely important for the government to develop a transportation strategy which would take into consideration all modes of transportation. The government should sit down with all shareholders to come up with a plan that will work.
How will we make sure that the small airports have the facilities they need? How will we make sure that the communities are able to support them? How will we make sure that municipalities and provinces take on their responsibilities as well as the federal government? It can only be done by planning and by addressing all of the issues together. We must understand how they interrelate and how they work together to create a transportation system that will be very competitive for Canada in the 21st century.
Business Of The HouseDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the leaders of all the parties in the House, and I believe you would find consent for the adoption of the following motion in relation to the extension of the sitting this evening. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall not adjourn at 6.30 p.m. today, but, at 5.15 p.m., debate on the supply motion by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal of supplementary estimates and of interim supply and the bills based thereon shall be put forthwith and successively without debate or amendment and, immediately all business relating to supplementary estimates and interim supply is disposed of, if it is later than 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, the House shall adjourn or, if it is not yet 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, the House shall take up the Private Members' Business scheduled for today, and, immediately thereafter, the debate interrupted at 5.15 p.m. shall be resumed, provided that, during the resumed debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and provided that no later than three hours after the said debate is resumed or at 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to a very important subject which my colleague introduced, dealing with a seamless, integrated transportation system.
Our country is the second largest in the world. A huge country like ours with a small population requires a transportation system that will bring remote communities, small communities and larger centres together.
Forty per cent of our GDP is comprised of exports. We have a huge export market. Therefore our prosperity relies on an excellent transportation system.
Over the years we have had a very good transportation system, but due to the lack of funding and the lack of vision by the government we have seen cuts rapidly developing in our transportation system. With our growing exports and the NAFTA, the need for a faster, reliable transportation system has become very apparent.
I know that in a city such as Calgary the transportation system cannot match the growth that has taken place. There is a crying need for money to be put into the transportation system.
If we look back at the history of Canada, we see that Canada was opened up by the railways. We had a premier transportation system which ran from one end of Canada to the other. Railways played a critical role in bringing Canada together.
The airline industry also played a critical role. Our remote communities in the north were serviced by bush pilots and smaller planes, out of which grew a very viable airline industry. We all remember PWA, Wardair and other airlines which played a vital role in bringing Canada together.
When I say bringing this country together, we must remember that to the south of us is located the largest economy in the world. It is important for Canada to have a transportation system that runs from the east to the west. It is vital to holding the country together and to bringing unity as well.
No one can deny the importance of a seamless, good transportation system. I am speaking of the railways, the airline industry and the shipping industry. All of these have played a major role in Canadian history.
We reached a juncture last year when our airline industry faced a major crisis. One can lay the blame on a lack of vision of the companies involved and the government, as the government tried to control and regulate the industry. Those were the days of regulation. We all remember that Air Canada was a government monopoly and the restrictions which the government placed on Air Canada in its attempts to control the airline industry.
There is still some fallout today if we consider the restrictive ownership of Air Canada. On the other hand, Canadian Airlines was left to the market forces.
As we all know, this culminated in the major air wars that took place last year. The air wars may have taken place in the boardroom, but Canadians became apprehensive because they had come to rely on air transportation as one of the most significant ways of travelling our country. Canadians became apprehensive of what was happening.
There was a serious threat to the competitive environment in the industry and a serious threat of one dominant carrier having a dominant market in the country.
We all know that Air Canada grew from the government, became privatized and had quite a massive infusion of government funds which allowed it to have a better advantage than airlines in the private sector. Nevertheless, Air Canada's past has not been very favourable among its competitors. It has been accused of pirating practices, of trying to run Canadian Airlines out of business and of trying to muscle its way to becoming a dominant force in Canadian air space.
This has caused concern for many who come from western Canada.
Now that Air Canada has taken over Canadian Airlines, the apprehension still exists. We have not seen a plan. We do not know what is Air Canada's vision. Air Canada just walked in, probably smiled and said it had taken over Canadian Airlines. If we ask air travelling consumers, they are already feeling the effects of the merger and the loss of competition. They can already feel it when rescheduling and trying to make accommodations. It is having an impact on western Canada, and that is a cause of concern.
As far as I am concerned, Air Canada has not bothered to ask the travellers what they want. Its officials just went into the boardroom, looked at the bottom line and tried to create a merger within the airlines to remove the overcapacity which we all know existed. It should not have existed in the first place. The situation is creating tension and apprehension.
If this is the way it is going to go, we will have a serious problem. Canadians will demand more competition. We know the government has given Air Canada a two year period in which to integrate and address the needs of Canadians.
The fact remains that there will not be competition. Without competition the Canadian travelling public is going to pay a heavy price. We can already see that. Thousands of consumers have spent millions of dollars on air miles and already that is under a cloud of doubt. Air Canada talks about negotiating this.
We hope that Air Canada will not take advantage of this monopoly situation and use that against the Canadian travelling public. It knows it has a monopoly and it knows that people have no other choice but to use its services. I hope it does not do that. I hope it will be a better corporate citizen and address the needs of Canadians and look at other issues which come with competition.
I stated what I felt about the state of the Canadian airline industry. In the transportation committee the Reform Party proposed solutions in its minority report. I hope the government will look at them and seriously look at the issue of the monopoly situation in our skies today.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting listening to the opposition's arguments regarding the transportation system.
I would like to go with the the member's comments pertaining to the air transportation system. The hon. member is aware of the fact that we have an agreement which Air Canada management has committed itself to, regarding pricing, competition, employment and services to communities which had services at the time of the signing of the agreement. He has made some very misleading statements pertaining to the kind of service Air Canada is providing at the present time.
I think the member is referring to maintaining the service at the same level as it was when Canadian and Air Canada were going down the well toward bankruptcy together. Now that adjustments are being made with Air Canada's scheduling and so forth in order to pick itself out of that hole, can the member tell me and the House what plans he has?
The competition is there. He is from western Canada. WestJet and others are emerging on the scene. It takes time. It cannot happen overnight. It will not happen in one week. There are negotiations, investigations and exploratory measures by different organizations and companies going on right now in order to introduce competition in various segments of the aviation industry in this country.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's comments, my apprehension keeps increasing. His government's lack of vision while it has been in power and the question he asked me is what Canadians are afraid of. It is the lack of competition. The government has had two years. It knew this situation was arising. The government sat and did nothing. Even now it talks about the committees listening to these things but we do not see much coming from them.
Yes, the government gave Air Canada two years. We are saying to Air Canada right now that there is apprehension out there and that apprehension should be addressed. That applies to the government too.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Reform Party member and I have a question for him.
I would like to know what he thinks of the cost-effectiveness of air carriers, whether it is Air Canada or Canadian. I have no doubt that air carriers are making money between Quebec City and Montreal, because the flights are full and reservations are required. The same goes for the Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Vancouver flights. There is no problem there, there is free competition and people must make reservations at least a few days in advance.
The problem is in the regions. My question to the Reform Party member is this: If a regional airport is not making money, if an air carrier keeps accumulating deficits in providing service between a region and a major centre, would the member and the Reform Party close the airport in that region?
I would like the hon. member to confirm to me that, regardless of how remote or sparsely populated the region is, it is the federal government's responsibility to keep these airports open and to maintain air transportation in these regions. This is my own point of view, but I believe the Reform Party's view is that if it is not profitable, then it should be closed. I would like the hon. member to confirm this to me.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, our country is vast and has remote areas and many of these areas are accessible by airlines. At the end of the day, when we look at the whole issue, if there is no demand in many of those airports, the airports are underutilized. If there is nobody to use those airports, keeping them open does not become a feasible proposition.
Airports are part of the infrastructure and if one airline does not use them, others will. It all comes down to the fact that the airlines have been granted two years to provide these new services in order to create a network and methods for the efficient use of aircraft or the use of smaller aircraft so that the cost factor can be taken into account. There is no point in using big aircraft when there are no passengers. Smaller aircraft can be used. A fleet change can take place. These are the issues which need to be addressed.
Stan Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will share my block of time with the Minister of National Revenue.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the opposition's motion that the government provide necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system and that it do so by working in conjunction with other levels of government and the private sector to plan, implement and fund such a system.
I will demonstrate that the government is already addressing this motion. I will use its leadership in promoting sustainable transportation as an example.
Sustainable transportation goes above and beyond the motion put forth by the opposition party. Sustainable transportation is all about providing Canadians from coast to coast with access to transportation which is not just safe, seamless and integrated but also is efficient and environmentally responsible.
As we all know, a strong transportation sector is the backbone of a competitive economy. However by its nature, transportation does have an impact on the environment. We see its effects every day from air and noise pollution to greenhouse gas emissions and the use of land and other natural resources. For example, the transportation sector is responsible for approximately 40% to 50% of some of Canada's emissions of smog-forming pollutants. It is also the single largest source of our greenhouse gas emissions.
Achieving sustainable transportation is a long term goal. There are no magic solutions. That is because transportation is vital to our economy. It supports Canada's trade and tourism and underpins our competitiveness as a nation. Transportation will always play an important role in bringing Canadians together and in uniting this great country. Yet as transportation grows, we cannot ignore issues of congestion, air quality and climate change if we are to continue to improve the quality of life for all Canadians.
Making our transportation system more sustainable is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. It is a responsibility shared among all levels of government and all segments of our society. The federal government's approach is to tackle sustainable transportation head on but in partnership with those who can offer solutions and with those who will be most affected.
A good example of this approach is illustrated by the leadership provided by this government in tackling the challenge of climate change. Transportation is the single largest source of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions accounting for 25% of the total and it is growing quickly. If we continue on our present path, emissions will be 32% above 1990 levels by 2010 and 50% higher by 2020. I should point out that we are not alone in this. Climate change is a key issue facing transportation in all developed countries of the world.
What is causing this growth? A large part is due to road vehicles which account for 70% of all transportation emissions. This also means that the actions of individual Canadians, and that includes all of us in this House who drive, can make a difference.
Despite continued improvements in technology which reduce emissions and make vehicles more efficient, the numbers of cars and trucks on the road and the distances we drive are growing rapidly. In the freight sector shipments by air and truck are expected to double in the next 20 years while freight shipped by more efficient means such as rail and marine will likely grow very slowly.
The issues and solutions are complex. In freight, shippers must balance costs, time and service needs which vary depending on the product and the distance involved. For consumers, how we choose to travel depends on factors such as time, accessibility, cost, convenience and personal preference. Thus moving to a more integrated and efficient transportation system, one that maintains public safety and mobility and supports our growing economy but is also polluting, requires both leadership and partnership, the kind of leadership the government has shown.
In 1998 the Minister of Transport along with his provincial and territorial colleagues created the transportation climate change table to identify and evaluate options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The table comprised 25 diverse stakeholders including: local, provincial and federal governments; domestic and foreign vehicle manufacturers; petroleum and alternative fuel producers; carriers, including truckers, railways, airlines and shipping; environmentalists; and consumers. This very diverse group of interests came together because they recognized they have a real role to play in finding practical solutions.
This unique initiative provided a comprehensive and holistic look at our transportation system. Few countries in the world have undertaken such an exercise involving such a diverse range of interests. This group of stakeholders recently produced its final report which identified over 100 possible options to improve transportation. From their work it is clear that there is no single solution.
Canada's urban centres are important as they account for over half of our transportation emissions and face some of the greatest congestion pressures. The table studied over 30 different strategies to improve the efficiency of the urban transportation system.
A key strategy in many cities involves expanding the role of public transit. Improving transit infrastructure and services and expanding facilities to link transit and other options such as cars, rail and air are important.
Strategies need to be co-ordinated across municipalities in a region and integrated with land use plans at the local level. A leading example of this approach is the greater Vancouver regional district which co-ordinates transportation planning and services across a number of municipalities. The new liveable region strategic plan integrates land use and transportation planning over the next 20 years. The province is providing a portion of the taxes from fuel sales in the city to fund transportation improvements. This is one example of the kinds of action taking place in urban centres across Canada.
The table considered options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the movement of goods. New technologies and operating practices offer potential. For example, new trucking technologies using satellites, electronic speed monitors and advanced tires along with better driver training can reduce fuel use by 15% to 20%, cutting costs and pollution.
The table explored opportunities for improving the seamlessness of the movement of goods throughout the system. For example, the railways and trucking industry are now moving from being competitors to being partners in providing shippers with better choices. Both Canadian Pacific's Iron Highway and Canadian National's Roadrailer are integrating truck and rail, offering lower costs and less pollution.
Canada is leading in the development of many new technologies to reduce emissions from road vehicles. New fuels such as natural gas, ethanol from grain, wood biomass and eventually fuel cells, in which Canada is a world leader, hold great promise. New vehicle designs using lightweight materials will improve vehicle efficiency. The challenge will be to encourage consumers to purchase these new technologies as they become available over the next 10 years.
Because the North American automotive market is so highly integrated we will need to work with vehicle manufacturers, fuel providers and the United States to harmonize our standards. For example, the table studied a target of a 25% improvement in fuel economy by 2010 from new cars and light trucks harmonized with the United States.
This is just a snapshot of some of the options examined. More work is needed and the table's work is being reviewed by federal and provincial governments as part of the process launched by first ministers to develop a national climate change strategy.
In conclusion, the federal government has been acting on the opposition party's motion. We have been busy giving Canadians strong leadership and finding practical solutions to make our transportation system better. In the recent budget the government announced up to $2.6 billion for a new infrastructure program in partnership with the provinces and municipalities. Improvements to the national highway system and green infrastructure projects such as urban transit are potential areas for investment.
In addition, the budget announced over $500 million to invest in climate change solutions such as the development of new technologies. Canadian technology such as our past support for Canadian successes like the Ballard fuel cell and Iogen's new ethanol process will play a key role in helping not just Canada but all countries to achieve more sustainable transportation.
All countries of the world are grappling with these important but complex issues, but the government is determined to provide leadership and to work with the provinces, local governments, industry and all Canadians to find common solutions.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I must admit I am a bit confused as to the concern of the government that transportation is strictly an environmental issue.
I suggest to the government representative that transportation is much more than worrying about the environment. That is a component. That is a concern, but there is much more to an integrated, seamless transportation system than how it affects the environment. How much of the $2.6 billion over four years will be going for highway infrastructure?
Stan Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I used one component of the entire holistic transportation system to give the House an example of what we are doing as a government. We are working feverishly with a great number of partners in this country as well as in other countries on many areas to improve our system for this century. However I cannot take the time in 10 minutes to explain every one of them.
We were talking about $2.6 billion. The hon. member must realize that we are talking about partners. When it comes to infrastructure programs we are hoping that the provincial government and the municipalities involved will help to make the decision, but in many cases it will really be the municipality that will make the decision. We are hoping that the provincial government will also play a major role.
Three partners will be involved. Who knows? Maybe in some areas the private sector might even become involved and there will be four partners working on improving our present system. Basically this is how I hope most of the money will be utilized.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the government member. There are two points to this question coming from Atlantic Canada.
In the 1980s and early 1990s the Conservative government withdrew and cut passenger rail service in many important centres in the Atlantic region, notably Saint John, New Brunswick, and the rail line from my own community of Sydney to Halifax. The prime minister of the day challenged us to show that they were profit making and indeed they were. They were cut anyway.
Today there are many seniors who live in my community who have to make the route from Sydney to Halifax for medical treatment. They are afraid to drive on the twinned highways. They are afraid of the big trucks on these roads, which leaves them with one option, a monopolistic bus route.
My question is twofold. First, in the $2.6 billion is there a plan to return passenger rail service to these communities? Transport 2000 has recognized the importance of that. Petitions have been filed on behalf of those communities recognizing its importance.
Second, the current private rail system which exists to ship goods from Sydney to Halifax is in real danger now that the federal government has decided to close down the coal mines in Cape Breton. There is essentially very little product now since coal is not there to be transported. Yet we recognize the importance of that infrastructure if we are to build a new economy. It may require some government subsidization until the new economy is built. Will the government commit to that?
Stan Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the east coast of Canada has introduced a concern of mine. I come from Thunder Bay. My riding is Thunder Bay—Atikokan. Many of the highways in our part of the country are in deplorable condition and not very safe. Many people from the city of Thunder Bay drive an extra 200 miles and cut across the United States in order to come to eastern Canada because of the condition of the highways. We in the government are concerned about this.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: What about the Trans-Canada Highway?
Stan Dromisky: The Trans-Canada Highway is involved. The member talked about railways. He will hear very shortly a presentation being made by the Minister of Transport regarding a plan offered by the Government of Canada concerning the revitalization our rail passenger service.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the official opposition, the Reform Party, on the question of road infrastructure in Canada.
We all remember that back in 1993 we were involved in an electoral campaign. As a party we spoke at that time about the question of a global economy. We also spoke about the question of knowledge based industry and the transition Canada was going through to set the foundation for a brand new economy and to make sure that as a society we would be able to compete in the global marketplace.
As early as 1993 our party talked about the reasons why it was important for an industrialized country such as Canada to have a very good infrastructure. We spoke about an infrastructure program and the importance of such a move bearing in mind and knowing that when we talked about infrastructure we talked first and foremost about quality of life. We also talked about the competition faced by our industry in the national marketplace and in the international marketplace. We talked as well about economic development.
We all remember that back in 1993 the Liberal Party was talking about such a reality. Even though we spoke about a global economy and a brand new economy, we recognized at that time that the question of a good Canadian transportation system was not only key but a cornerstone to good economic growth.
Shortly after we formed the government we went ahead with the Canadian infrastructure program. I know a lot was done for roads at that time but we also did a lot for the infrastructure of the country as a whole. Then came a program review which was led by one of my colleagues at the transport department. Following that we came out with a brand new Canadian policy of which we are very proud to position the Canadian transportation system for the new era and to ensure that it would help our corporations to compete better in the international marketplace.
Following the program review we came forward with a policy called the national transportation policy which enabled the grassroots people in all communities across Canada to be responsible for the infrastructures in their communities. They are well positioned to know their needs and what exactly to do to have efficient infrastructures that work in favour of the corporations and enterprises in their local communities.
The issue raised by the official opposition party is a fundamental one. It is directly related to economic growth as well as tourism.
It is fundamental because of the size of Canada's public road system, which takes in 900,000 kilometres. The national system alone accounts for 25,000 kilometres. These 25,000 kilometres—the national highway system—represent 3% of all Canada's roads and carry 30% of all traffic in the country.
As members know, maintenance of the highway system is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Of the national highway system, 1,137 kilometres are the exclusive responsibility of the Government of Canada.
In recent years, there has been much talk about not just what we should do to improve the quality of roads in the system but also how to make the system more competitive. The Standing Committee on Transport was given a mandate in this regard in June of 1997. The conclusions were fairly positive. There was talk of renewing the highway system in order to promote the economy and trade and, in keeping with our philosophy, tourism.
The committee's final report in February 1998 recommended that the Canadian government provide special funding for this purpose.
It will also be remembered that, in addition to all these activities, which showed very definite leadership on the part of the Canadian government, all provincial and territorial premiers called on the Canadian government to become involved in the national highway system.
All this was followed by the October 1999 throne speech, which said, and I quote:
The Government will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach—by the end of the year 2000—agreement on a five-year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country.
Already, in the throne speech, which is really the government's program and vision for the years to come, there was a willingness to move forward in ensuring that the competitiveness of what happens to be a crucial element of any self-respecting country, particularly an industrialized country that belongs to the G-7 and G-8, is restored and maintained.
We know what happened. Members opposite talk about leadership, and I think we have definitely show leadership, we have taken concrete measures. First with the 1993 infrastructure works program and the various consultations that took place, with the throne speech and, finally, with the 2000 budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
In budget 2000, we announced that we were going ahead with an infrastructure program, a new one of course. The details of this program have yet to be negotiated and discussed with the provinces by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who, as members know, is responsible for that program.
We already know that an interesting and important part of the program will deal with physical infrastructures, including road and municipal infrastructures.
Another important element when talking about developing, fixing and upgrading these infrastructures—I stressed how important this was for trade and tourism—is to target certain corridors. We know there are specific trade and transportation corridors.
I am proud to announce today that the Canadian government has again played a leadership role. As we know, it has established an interdepartmental working group to ensure that these various corridors could be specifically analyzed and that, together with our various partners and not all by ourselves, we can develop a strategic framework promoting a better relationship with our main partner, the United States. In this respect, the Canadian government has once again demonstrated vision.
Shortly before Christmas I had the opportunity to replace my colleague in transport at a worldwide congress that took place in Kuala Lumpur. The people there were discussing the future and the financing of roads because we are all facing exactly the same situation. We want to make sure we have a good infrastructure in order to better compete in the global marketplace. From what I saw there, Canada is one of the leaders in the world.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the Minister of National Revenue's comments about trade corridors, which happens to be a pet project of mine.
Canada has accommodated preclearance to ease the traffic flow of people to the United States and through Canada to the United States. What commitment is his department prepared to make to ensure that there is the ease of flow of people who come to Canada through preclearance in the United States, not only by air but by rail and road as well?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the question is so interesting I am tempted to ask you how many hours I have to answer.
When we talk about customs, which is what my colleague is referring to, we are talking about risk management. When we refer to the shared border with the United States, it is the longest shared border of any two countries in the world. We need a very good risk management but, at the same time, as the member pointed out, we need to make sure that corporations will be able to do business as easily as possible in each country. However, at the same time Canada customs needs to ensure that it applies the customs legislation.
I am proud to say that not too long ago we went ahead with some pilot projects in that field. I refer members to the CANPASS program, which they probably know about. The CANPASS in Windsor, Ontario is a pilot project and works very well.
I am pleased to report that we are working on a joint CANPASS with the United States at Sarnia, Ontario. The philosophy that we are proceeding with is good management with the experience of human resources in customs who, by the way, are doing marvellous work for Canadian society. We are using the human resources of the department and we are also using technology. CANPASS is a soft technology, as we say, so we want to make sure in the near future to proceed with such a philosophy.
I am pleased to report to the House we will soon be moving ahead with the blueprint initiative, the plan to modernize Canadian customs.
René Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the minister.
No matter how much money we pour into roads, because of our weather and all kinds of other things, they constantly have to be fixed; also truck traffic is so heavy, it ruins the roads. Why not focus more on rail transportation and shipping?
In Quebec, we have the St. Lawrence River, which is hardly used. We have train going by all the time, but hardly used. It is fine to invest in roads, but why not consider a different approach to transportation, one that would be a lot less expensive and much more adequate?
I have one more question. The minister is familiar with the riding of Matapédia—Matane. He knows that the Matane airport was turned over to the municipality. Business people say about the airport “It does not make sense. It is closed. It is hopeless”.
Since the municipality cannot bear all the airport maintenance and repair costs on its own, could the government provide some assistance to regional airports?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of the Seaway, in fact the St. Lawrence River, as well as the railway system, I think the member is essentially referring to intermodal transport.
I believe that, across Canada, intermodal transport is well established. I am proud to say that several years ago, Economic Development Canada, of which I am responsible for the regions of Quebec, took part in an intermodal transport pilot project using both the railway system and trailer trucks on the roads. The results were quite positive.
I would like to stress that the railway system and the waterways are used a lot for commercial traffic. The folks in the Port of Montreal would not be very happy to hear what the hon. member is saying because right now it is one of the largest container traffic centres in eastern Canada, and perhaps the whole of the country. It is extremely competitive. Naturally, it is very strategically located. It handles an enormous volume.
As for the question about airports, because of my role in regional development, I was involved in implementing the national airport policy. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the objective of the policy—an objective which was commendable and supported by the public—was to ensure that communities could take back control and ownership of their own infrastructures, because they are better placed than governments to manage them and develop them with an eye to real needs.
I am happy to report today that the national airport policy was well implemented. The transfer went smoothly and I think that today the regions are proud to be able to work in partnership with the Canadian government.
Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say that, even if today is an opposition day for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion.
Essentially, the motion states that, in the opinion of the House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.
This motion is not votable. If it were, we would vote against it.
The federal government does not have jurisdiction over all transportation infrastructures; it has jurisdiction solely over the interprovincial system. The federal government does not have to implement such a system everywhere for everyone. It would be far better off financing an infrastructure program to be implemented by the provinces. I shall have the opportunity to come back to each of these points later in my speech.
In the area of transportation, the federal government has totally abandoned the regions since it came into power. Urging it to play a lead role in this area is ensuring that the regions will be left out. That is the Bloc Quebecois position as far as this Reform Party motion is concerned.
There are different types of transportation: land, marine and air. When we speak of land transportation, there is the highway system and the rail system, VIA Rail included. When we think of the marine system, we think of Fisheries and Oceans, the Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence River, the St. Lawrence Seaway. When we think of air transportation, there is the entire Canadian aviation system.
In the 20 minutes allocated to me, I am going to try to develop each of these themes. Yes, land transportation is a federal responsibility; it has the responsibility to be directly involved in the maintenance of interprovincial highways.
In my riding, the riding of Charlevoix, Highway 389 links Baie-Comeau and Labrador. It dates back to the time of the construction of the hydroelectric facilities, Manic 2 and 3, Outardes 3 and 4, and Manic 5. After Manic 5, this highway was extended toward Labrador.
This means that, in the region of Fermont and Farley, a person can come back from Labrador right to Baie-Comeau. Labrador and Quebec's highway 138 are linked by an interprovincial highway.
I made a number of representations as the member for Charlevoix and the one responsible for that part of the road network. I made representations to the Minister of Transport and to the transport commission, with the support of the mayor of the Manicouagan RCM and of the Baie-Comeau chamber of commerce.
The minister replied that, unfortunately, he did not have any money left, that a financial restructuring was going on and that the objective was to achieve a zero deficit. This is why the SHIP program was abolished. That program had been established under the Conservatives. Its objective was to maintain and improve our road network, but it was eliminated by the Liberals.
I was listening to the minister. He has done all kinds of acrobatics to extol the virtues of his government, a government that axed all the programs. Whether it is VIA Rail, the interprovincial road network, the maritime or air transportation network, the results have been catastrophic for programs in the transportation sector.
Highway 138 is the only road linking Quebec City to the Lower North Shore region. Highway 138 stops in Baie-Sainte-Catherine, where it intersects with the Saguenay River, and vehicles must board a ferry owned by the Société des traversiers du Québec.
Recently, the Quebec Minister of Transport Jacques Baril commissioned a study, which showed that it a bridge could be built between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac for the modest sum of $370 million. I emphasize the word modest, because the federal government spent $2 billion to build a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It spent $2 billion on a population smaller than that of the North Shore, with less development than the North Shore. The North Shore has all the natural resources, both forestry and mining resources. In short, everything comes in and out of our area by truck.
I believe that this matter needs to be a priority for the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, in Ottawa. Every time the federal government injects one dollar—I am again using the same example—if the federal government spent $2 billion to build the bridge between New Brunswick and PEI, 25 cents out of every dollar invested came from Quebec.
This means that $500 million of Quebecers' taxes went into the Prince Edward Island bridge. Since we have continued to pay our taxes to Ottawa, and will do so as long as we are not a sovereign country, it would therefore be a good thing if the federal government were to help the Province of Quebec with the project to build the bridge between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac. There is unanimity on this project in the Charlevoix region.
The minister of revenue spoke of the road infrastructure program. This is a desired program, of course, and one that should continue to exist. Unfortunately, what the minister has neglected to mention—and we know there are always two sides to a coin—is that he has put $2.5 billion into this budget over 6 years, which is $100 million for the year 2000. Yet, for three three or four years running they have been announcing that there would be an infrastructure program for this year, and this created expectations among the provincial premiers.
The premiers met in Quebec City to tell the federal government that it should put money into the highway infrastructure program. The government provides the funding for highway infrastructure and the premier of each province is responsible for administration of the program. The provinces should be running this program. Here too, we can imagnie what the expectations of municipalities were.
There are 52 municipalities and two Indian reserves between Petite-Rivière-Saint-François and Baie-Comeau in the riding of Charlevoix. If I take all the expectations and requests of the municipalities and RCMs from Petite-Rivière-Saint-François to Baie-Comeau, it adds up to more than $100 million worth of federal government assistance under the infrastructure program.
The $100 million approved for this year is for all of Canada. It is a drop in the bucket. It will create expectations and disappointment. There are mayors who have been given responsibilities by the federal and provincial governments; furthermore, some municipalities were asked to contribute financially to achieving a zero deficit.
Unfortunately, it is always the individual citizen, the individual voter and taxpayer who, year after year, watches his tax bill grow with no corresponding increase in services. It is the same for school boards. The provincial government cut their allowable expenses. The provincial government had to make cuts because Quebec had lost billions of dollars in transfer payments.
It wanted to transfer responsibilities to municipalities and school boards. The school boards, whose expenses did not qualify, were forced to levy a school tax.
I tell anyone who earns $65,000 a year and claims to net only $30,000 that he or she is mistaken. To determine what my net income is, when I do my income tax, I look at how much I earned, then I take my bank book and check how much I have left, because I pay not only income tax, but also federal, provincial, municipal and school taxes, not to mention the GST and the TVQ.
Over 60% of my salary is gone in taxes. I have a right to expect the federal government to give me something in return.
Why does Quebec want to separate? Why does Quebec want to achieve independence? Because it wants to control its own destiny, manage its own money and look after its own services.
Let us talk about VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois has a position regarding VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois is demanding that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport be complied with. The government must not act precipitously. It must start with a franchising pilot project.
Once that has been done, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the Montreal-Jonquière, Montreal-Senneterre and Montreal-Gaspé lines be fully maintained and that their maintenance be guaranteed for the future. To that end, the Bloc Quebecois demands that $170 million in government subsidies be allocated as a priority to the franchisees who make a commitment to operate the lines that are not very profitable.
The Bloc Quebecois demands that the allocation of lines be made in a balanced fashion, so that lines with a high potential for profits are not the only ones allocated, since it would leave those lines that are unappealing. The Bloc Quebecois will make sure that this government does not download its responsibilities onto the municipalities by overlapping on the basis of a partnership. It ought not, for instance, trying to hand railway stations over to municipalities against their wishes.
The Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the fate of these 120 VIA Rail employees from Quebec and, considering their expertise, demands that they be hired on a priority basis by the new franchisees.
The Bloc Quebecois demands that the head office of a new VIA Rail remain in Montreal and that the Montreal maintenance centre remain opened and keep its staff. That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to VIA Rail.
I would also like to talk about the marine transportation system. Some mentioned the fact that we have such a system. The projects of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for the coast guard, fell through for the most part. I am referring to the Minister of Transport's policy regarding the privatization of ports. I am also referring to the privatization of the ports of Baie-Comeau, Matane, Rimouski and Rivière-du-Loup.
These ports are not profitable for the federal government and it wants to transfer these infrastructures to municipalities and RCMs. Municipal or regional taxes are not supposed to be used to maintain an airport or a port. The federal government brought these infrastructures into this world and maintaining them should be its responsibility. Now it wants to hand them over to municipalities. This makes absolutely no sense.
I think the federal government should retain ownership of these infrastructures, that is airports and ports, and ask local authorities to manage them.
When we say that the federal government's plans with regard to marine transportation fell through, let us not forget the infamous icebreaking project where the federal government tried to charge $68,400 in fees to ferry operators, shipowners, industries and the Société des traversiers du Québec.
In this case, we are inclined to think the minister was floating a trial balloon. Faced with opposition from the Bloc Quebecois, the shipowners and the industry, the minister caved in.
In a riding like mine, there are six ferries: the Île-aux-Coudres-to-Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive ferry, the Rivière-du-Loup-to-Saint-Siméon ferry, the Tadoussac-to-Baie-Sainte-Catherine ferry, the Escoumins-to-Trois-Pistoles ferry, the Forestville-to-Rimouski ferry, and the Baie-Comeau-to-Matane-and-Godbout ferry. Everything is dependent on these ferries and tourism development.
Now moving to the air transport structure, I could spend several hours on this topic. Air service in Canada is in a shambles. When the minister decided, last summer, to strike a deal with Gérald Schwartz, the president of Onex—who is a well known contributor to the Liberal Party—people in Quebec and Canada got worried. The minister said the goal was to reorganize the air industry. The deal with Onex smacked of influence peddling.
We went through a period of turbulence. The minister jumped without a parachute. How he was going to land was everybody's guess. This whole matter caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in the personnel at both Air Canada and Canadian. Inter-Canadian went bankrupt; it is no longer in operation. Faced with the uncertainty created among regional carriers, Inter-Canadian was grounded by a lack of passengers.
Airport privatization is a kind of Trojan horse, or a white elephant. It is not the regional administration's job to administer such an infrastructure. I have nothing against the management itself, but it ought not to own it. This is the case for the airports of Baie-Comeau, Forestville and Saint-Irénée. Let the responsibility be given to a local company, the municipalities or the RCMs, but it is the federal government that is responsible for these infrastructures and for transportation safety.
Hon. members will also recall that the federal government has given Nav Canada the responsibility to administer the airports and deal with their deficits. The Baie-Comeau airport had an annual deficit of $1.2 million. According to Nav Canada, it was going to deal with this, that it was a deficit problem. It closed down the control tower, and did away with air controller positions, as well as the fire protection service. This service was handed over to the Pointe-Lebel municipality's volunteer firefighters.
Today we can see that the Nav Canada cuts were to the detriment of the passengers. Last year, Nav Canada had a surplus of $65 million, which was turned over to Air Canada and to Canadian, the major carriers. Why was this extra $65 million not reinvested into airline safety? If they do not want to reopen the Baie-Comeau control tower and give us air controllers, let them at least give us FIS, flight information service.
Airport safety is of great concern to us, with the Air Satellite crash at Baie-Comeau, with Nordair at Sept-Iles, with another crash at Gaspé. There have been three plane crashes in eastern Quebec within eight months.
There is much I could say on this. I will perhaps have the opportunity to get back to it for questions and answers.
In my opinion, things are always done better if we do them ourselves. The federal government should remain the owner of the infrastructures, that is the airports and ports. The federal government would remain responsible for all of these buildings, these infrastructures, and the local administration would look after administering them.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member's intervention. He spoke of a coin and said that every coin has two sides to it. Then he went on with his remarks about that coin.
What the hon. member failed to mention is that coin belongs to the Canadian taxpayer. That coin is held in trust by the federal government and when we have enough coins in the pot, then and only then has the federal government time and time again issued a promise through subsequent budgets to the Canadian taxpayer that 50 cents of every dollar would go to social programs and that 50 cents would go to tax cuts and reducing our national debt.
First, I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that coin does belong to the Canadian taxpayer and that the great province of Quebec has the opportunity and enjoys every advantage with every region in this country to be a part of our country and to have all the coins necessary, equally so with every province in the country, to the benefit of each and every one of the member's constituents and every Quebecer.
Second, the hon. member spoke of the debacle in the airline industry. I am certain that the hon. member understands and will apologize. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Transport of which I have the privilege of being the chair. He was a member of the committee when we went through six weeks of intense hearings to produce, if you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, a report on the restructuring of the airline industry that was endorsed by every party in the House. That report and study was so successful—
Michelle Dockrill: And the NDP?
Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the member is right, the NDP had reservations. I stand corrected. The NDP has reservations about many things.
What is important with that study is that we came together as a committee with all members of the House. We produced a study that was praised for recognizing the importance of protecting the consumer, ensuring that not only were we protecting the consumer but ensuring that regional services would be maintained, ensuring that the customer would benefit from what we like to refer to as competition in the airline industry, that those who work for the airlines, the pilots and people who labour each and every day to make sure that those airlines fly and fly safely, are protected against any kind of monopolization of the industry.
The hon. member knows we worked very hard and we produced a good report. It was accepted, praised and then adopted by a minister who, to the chagrin of the hon. member opposite who knows, had great pride in the work we did as a committee. He has produced legislation which we hope next week we will be able to put forward at second reading in the House and then send it back to the committee for even further study to ensure that the airline industry in this country is serving our country well.
I wonder if the hon. member would stand and say that the member for Hamilton West, the chair of the committee, is right in that the study was important and it did produce the results that were expected by our constituents in either one of our ridings.
Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for his question, which has two components.
Both sides talked about the two sides of a coin. I was alluding, of course, to the Minister of National Revenue, a “little guy from Charlevoix”, a “little guy from the Malbaie”, who gave his version, which is a Canadian version.
It is hard to keep track of what is going on in Charlevoix. What my constituents want to know is: what will happen to the Pointe-au-Pic wharf, the Saint-Irénée airport, and to Baie-Comeau? This is what they want to know. They are not interested in long speeches on international issues, in all that rhetoric by people who do not know what to say. They want to know what is going on in the federal government. We pay taxes and get nothing in return.
The unemployed pay taxes and contribute to the employment insurance program, but they are not even covered. We pay taxes, but what do we get in return from the federal government? This is what people want to know. We pay taxes to the Quebec government, but in return we have a road network, a health system, an education system. These are concrete things.
Back home, we have only one airport and one wharf left, and now the federal government is about to privatize them. What will the government do with our taxes? This is the first component.
I also congratulate the hon. member because, as chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, he does an excellent job and listens to all political parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, which stated its position. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who is our transport critic, did an excellent job with me in proposing recommendations. Some of our recommendations are found in the committee report, and the Bloc Quebecois also tabled a minority report.
Of course, the Standing Committee on Transport is there to hear witnesses, to improve Canada's transportation system. However, things must not be done only behind closed doors and in committee. The minister must now implement the report's recommendations, so that things will work.
René Canuel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Charlevoix, who when he spoke in defense of his voters was almost seething with rage. I understand that.
Gérard Asselin: There was love too.
René Canuel: There was love too. People who live in isolated areas like his and mine have the impression that the government wants to deprive us of all means of communication. Communications are airports and also wharves.
The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Does he have the impression, like me, that the government does not care about isolated areas? It takes good care of big cities like Toronto, Calgary and, above all, Shawinigan, but it is as if it wanted to cut people off. And the best way to do that is to cut off their communications, closing their airports and their seaports.
Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Matapédia—Matane for his question. The member for Chicoutimi agreed with his question.
The member for Chicoutimi is not a Montrealer, he is a fellow who knows the people in the regions well. Someone who is in shape can bicycle from Montreal to Ottawa. In Montreal, they have means of transportation, such as buses, trains, airplanes, taxis and cars.
In the regions, it is ten hours by car to travel the 950 kilometres from my place to Ottawa. There is a port and airport infrastructure in Baie-Comeau. There is an airport, which we must keep. It is very expensive to travel from Baie-Comeau to Montreal. Right now, we are worried about whether we will have one regional carrier or two.
Recently, I was speaking with the representative of a regional carrier and he told me that it was hard to make any money because there were not enough passengers. But there are not enough passengers because of the cost. It is the chicken and the egg. When it is necessary to fly from Baie-Comeau to Quebec City for professional services or health care, it costs a fortune, but there is no alternative because it is 450 kilometres by car. There are many so-called captive passengers who have to fly from Baie-Comeau to Quebec City, and they do not even get same day service.
We will never agree to the federal government closing our airports and we demand that it provide the regions with the same services major centres get.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks, I ask members for unanimous consent to delay the bells for the vote until I finish my 10 minute speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow for an extension?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I see the chair of the Liberal transport committee has refused to allow me to present the New Democratic Party's position on the motion. That is unfortunate because we have always tried to co-operate with the Liberal Party but I guess we will have an opportunity to get even down the road.
The motion before us is very important. I understand why the Liberals are unhappy about the motion. In my view and that of millions of Canadians, they have been negligent in terms of a national transportation system. They have been negligent in everybody's books not only in highway construction, rail transportation, air transportation and marine transportation, but in many other areas as well. They have been negligent because they have allowed the system to collapse. We are the only country of the 28 countries in the OECD that does not have a national highways program.
Before continuing, I again ask for unanimous consent to finish my 10 minute speech before the bells ring.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time beyond 5.15 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: He was not in his seat.
The Deputy Speaker: It does not matter. I hear noes. There is no consent.
Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To clarify, the hon. member does know I am sure that following the votes, the hon. member does have the opportunity to continue his speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is a point of order but rather a point of debate.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the transportation system in the country has collapsed because of Liberal policies.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member from the New Democratic Party is a very experienced parliamentarian. Usually we have discussions among the parties. The debate will continue after the votes. It is not a case that the member will not have an opportunity to speak. I understand that the debate will go on for hours after the votes.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the points have been made. The difficulty is that the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has only five minutes and is losing time. I do not want to take away any more.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how much time I have left.
The Deputy Speaker: About two minutes.
John Solomon: Out of how much, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: Out of 20 minutes.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have 15 minutes remaining after the votes, assuming we get back to this in accordance with the order adopted earlier this day.
John Solomon: Thank you very much for your generosity, Mr. Speaker.
The NDP supports the motion's call for collaboration between all levels of government and the private sector. These groups must work together to make sure our national transportation infrastructure serves the public interest and meets the needs of the private sector for economic development and job creation.
The federal government must in partnership with provincial governments invest in highways to facilitate the movement of people and goods. If the government allows the deterioration of our highways to continue, the human and economic costs will continue to rise at record levels.
Energy prices have been soaring to record levels day after day. The Liberals have refused to put together an action plan to defend the Canadian economy from the OPEC oil cartel. I have asked repeatedly in the House of Commons for an action plan by the Prime Minister to deal with the issue, to defend our economy. The American president, the president of the land of free enterprise and capitalism, has struck a 17 point plan to defend his country and the Liberal goons across the way have refused to do that with respect to defending the Canadian economy.
We are looking for a conservation plan. We are looking for a regulation plan for energy prices. We are looking for a plan to help truckers, small business people, and to help low income people pay for home heating fuel.
What we have seen is a lack of action, a lack of backbone and a lack of will because the Liberal Party is supported by the energy companies in terms of their political contributions. What they are doing is sucking up to the oil companies and continuing to support their policies of gouging Canadian consumers and businesses.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., and this being the final supply day in the period ending March 31, 2000, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1999-2000Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): moved:
Motion No. 1
That Vote 10b, in the amount of $5,165,881, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Human Resources Investment and Insurance, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1171The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 2
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $50,137,442, under JUSTICE—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1172The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 3
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $28,283,400, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Corporate Services, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1173The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 4
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $650,540, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1174The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 5
That Vote 10b, in the amount of $200,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1175The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 6
That Vote 40b, in the amount of $98,600, under PRIVY COUNCIL—National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1176The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 7
That Vote 50b, in the amount of $500,800, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Security Intelligence Review Committee—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1177The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find that, with the exception of the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan and the member for Don Valley, there is unanimous consent to apply the result of the last vote to Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 inclusive.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to bring to your attention the fact that our colleagues from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Jonquière are now here and that they should be recorded as having voted on these motions.
The Speaker: I see them, it is agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that the hon. member for Prince Albert has left the Chamber and should be noted as such in this vote. The hon. member for Edmonton North has rejoined the party and will be voting. It is has also been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is also present for the votes.
The Speaker: I see three members from the Liberals standing. I assume they want to be recorded on this vote. All are recorded.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 8
That Vote 10b, in the amount of $788,500, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Canadian Security Intelligence Service—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1178The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 9
That Vote 15b, in the amount of $12,189,240, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Correctional Service—Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1179The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 10
That Vote 25b, in the amount of $1,832,000, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—National Parole Board—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1180The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 11
That Vote 30b, in the amount of $304,256, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Office of the Correctional Investigator—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1181The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 12
That Vote 45b, in the amount of $35,900, under SOLICITOR GENERAL—Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1182The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 13
That Vote 10b, in the amount of $229,115,500, under AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD—The grants listed in the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1183The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 14
That Vote 15b, in the amount of $1,300,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Labour—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1184The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 15
That Vote 25b, in the amount of $1,350,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Canada Industrial Relations Board—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1185The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 16
That Vote 35b, in the amount of $500,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety—Program expenditures, in supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1186The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 17.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 17
That Vote 5b, in the amount of $5,524,012, under JUSTICE—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the result of the last vote to Motion No. 17.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. government whip, I must have misunderstood.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, my apologies to you and to the entire House. I am asking that you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote taken on Motion No. 16, the last motion. The results would apply to Motion No. 17.
The Speaker: Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the member for Burnaby—Douglas was not here for the last vote.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to point out to you that the member for Beauséjour—Peticodiac should be recorded as having voted.
The Speaker: On Motion No. 17. Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1187The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 18
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $1,200,000, under PARLIAMENT—The Senate—Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1188The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 carried.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 19 to 41.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, for this vote I would like the names of the hon. members for Winnipeg Centre, Yukon and Bras d'Or—Cape Breton added.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the votes be counted as indicated by the whip of the New Democratic Party?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the standing vote which recorded the names but I am present now and I would like to have my name counted in all future votes.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is at a loss. Does the hon. member mean future votes or the ones we just applied?
Jim Gouk: With my party.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could add it to the ones we just applied the last vote to. Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 19
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $15,476,471, under ENVIRONMENT—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1189The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 20
That Vote 5b, in the amount of $13,716,701, under ENVIRONMENT—Capital expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1190The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 21
That Vote 10b, in the amount of $116,503,042, under ENVIRONMENT—The grants listed in the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1191The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 22
That Vote 15b, in the amount of $1,060,250, under ENVIRONMENT—Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1192The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 23
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $176,365,776, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1193The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 23 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 24
That Vote 5b, in the amount of $280,175,622, under NATIONAL DEFENCE—Capital expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1194The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 25
That Vote L11b, in the amount of—$50,000,000, under NATIONAL DEFENCE in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1195The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 25 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 26
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $5,590,280, under INDUSTRY—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1196The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 26 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 27
That Vote 5b, in the amount of $1,013,537,000, under INDUSTRY—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1197The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 27 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 28
That Vote 20b, in the amount of $600,000, under INDUSTRY—Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1198The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 28 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 29
That Vote 25b, in the amount of $4,942,231, under INDUSTRY—Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Contributions, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1199The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 29 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 30
That Vote 45b, in the amount of $160,000, under INDUSTRY—Competition Tribunal—Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1200The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 30 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 31
That Vote 75b, in the amount of $3,387,636, under INDUSTRY—National Research Council of Canada—Capital expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1201The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 31 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 32
That Vote 80b, in the amount of $1, under INDUSTRY—National Research Council of Canada—The grants listed in the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1202The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 32 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 33
That Vote 90b, in the amount of $4,175,000, under INDUSTRY—Natural Science and Engineering Research Council—The grants listed in the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 33, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1203The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 33 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 34
That Vote 95b, in the amount of $160,000, under INDUSTRY—Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—Operating expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1204The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 34 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 35
That Vote 100b, in the amount of $1,915,000, under INDUSTRY—Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—The grants listed in the Estimates, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1205The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 35 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 36
That Vote 1b, in the amount of $20,968,227, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Government Services, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1206The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 36 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 37
That Vote 5b, in the amount of $66,974,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Government Services, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 37, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1207The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 37 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 38
That Vote 6b, in the amount of $1, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services Revolving Fund, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1208The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 38 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 39
That Vote 25b, in the amount of $39,300,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1209The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 39 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 40
That Vote 26b, in the amount of $1, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 40, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1210The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 40 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
Motion No. 41
That Vote 30b, in the amount of $8,000,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Post Corporation, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 41, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1211The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 41 carried.
Lucienne Robillard: moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be concurred in.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to have members who voted on the previous motion recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition present this evening will be recorded as voting nay.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no on this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are opposed to this motion.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be recorded.
Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I missed a few votes and I would like my vote to be recorded.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I was here for the reading of the motion. I would like my vote to be recorded.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Cambridge also said, I want to make sure that my vote is recorded on the government side.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that I am recorded as voting on this one.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1212The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present this evening will be voting nay to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote no on this motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote no to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1213The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On Clause 3)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that this bill is in its usual form?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this bill is similar to that used for the previous supply period, including a separate schedule for agencies with multiyear appropriations.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I think you will find unanimous consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion, and I note the absence of the member for Saint-Maurice, recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition present wish their vote to be recorded as nay to this motion. I would note that the hon. members for Selkirk—Interlake and Vancouver Island North are now absent from the House.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no to this motion.
Yvon Godin: Members of the NDP present are voting no to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members present for the previous division vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1214The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion for concurrence carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could shorten this. Is it agreed that we apply the previous vote to this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Jay Hill: We are in agreement with that, Mr. Speaker, but everyone else is not and that is unfortunate. Therefore I will state that members of the official opposition present this evening wish to be recorded as voting nay to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members vote no on this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1215The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Interim SupplyLucienne Robillard: moved:
That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows: That a sum not exceeding $15,596,117,039.16 being composed of:
(1) three-twelfths ($7,535,074,790.50) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in Schedule 1 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, which were laid upon the Table Tuesday, February 29, 2000, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Vote 15, National Defence Vote 10, Natural Resources Vote L10 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1) of the said Estimates, $1,073,723,823.33;
(3) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Parliament Vote 10 (Schedule 1.2) of the said Estimates, $14,848,500.00;
(4) eight-twelfths of the total of the amount of Indian Affairs and Nothern Development Vote 5 (Schedule 1.3) of the said Estimates, $170,876,666.67;
(5) seven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 65, Finance Vote 15, Human Resources Development Vote 20 and Industry Vote 50 (Schedule 1.4) of the said Estimates, $868,616,583.33;
(6) six-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 15, Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10, and Natural Resources Vote 25 (Schedule 1.5) of the said Estimates, $188,321,500.00;
(7) five-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 60, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 15, Industry Vote 40, Justice Vote 1, Solicitor General Vote 5, Transport Vote 1 and Treasury Board Vote 1 (Schedule 1.6) of the said Estimates, $1,995,339,250.00;
(8) four-twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food Vote 10, Canadian Heritage Votes 20, 35 and 45, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 10, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Votes 25 and 45, Health Vote 1, Human Resources Development Vote 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 25 and 30, Industry Votes 35, 90, 95, 100 and 110, Public Works and Government Services Votes 1, 10 and 25 (Schedule 1.7) of the said Estimates, $3,111,692,675.33;
(9) three-twelfths ($637,623,250.00) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, which were laid upon the Table Tuesday, February 29, 2000;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition who are present wish their vote to be recorded as nay.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to this motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP are voting no to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members present will vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1216The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that Bill C-30, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I have been instructed that this is getting repetitious. Therefore I would like it to be noted that Reform Party members do not like this motion and will vote no.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, with the exception of the member for Laval East, who had to be away, will vote against the motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present are opposed to the motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting against the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1217Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board confirm that this bill is in the usual form?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the presentation of the bill is identical to that used during the previous supply period, including a separate schedule for agencies with multi-year appropriations.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall Clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all my colleagues, the whips of the various parties, for their co-operation tonight. You will find there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, we still do not like it and we will still vote no.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to this motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present will vote no to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members will note nay on the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1218The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 1219The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
It being 7.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as per today's OrderPaper.

Private Members' Business
Act Of Incorporation Of The Board Of Elders Of The Canadian District Of The Moravian Church In AmericaMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): 
moved that Bill S-14, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have been able to bring this item to the House today.
Bill S-14 corrects some technical anomalies in the incorporation of the Moravian Church in America. It seeks to modify the long title of the French version and it gives the board of elders of the Moravian Church a name. It removes restrictions on the board's investment powers as well.
The hour is late and I am only going to take a few minutes for this. For those who are unfamiliar with the Moravian Church, it was founded almost 500 years ago in the area that we know as Czechoslovakia. It is similar to the Mennonite Church in some aspects. The Moravians are renowned for their missionary work. It was to pursue this vocation that they came to Canada and Labrador in the beginning.
In 1909 an act of the Parliament of Canada established the Moravian Church as a legal entity. One of the clauses of incorporation precluded the church from owning property worth no more than $50,000. In 1952 the church approached parliament to have this limit increased to $500,000 and it was done at that time. In 1986 the elders of the Moravian Church started a process to have the clause removed altogether.
We can see that they have been at this for a long time and they have been waiting very patiently for this to come about. They have complied with all of the requirements and advertised their plans in the requisite publications at considerable expense to themselves. It is fairly significant that no objections were ever raised to their intentions to do this.
Since that time they have endured several parliamentary delays, none of which was any fault of their own. As legislation of this nature generally originates in the Senate, the late Walter Twinn, who was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party at the time, took up the cause back in 1992.
Legislative scheduling and other delays in the Senate, not the least of which were the elections in 1993 and 1997, and then of course the sudden passing of Senator Twinn, all played a part in holding up passage of the bill.
Last fall it came to the attention of Alberta Liberal Senator Nick Taylor who successfully piloted the bill through the other place just before the Christmas recess.
Now with Reform sponsoring the bill in the House of Commons it is truly one that is non-partisan. In the spirit of that non-partisan co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I think that you would find that there would be unanimous consent, should you seek it, for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-14, an act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America, be now called for second reading, and that the House do proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages, including committee of the whole.
The members of the Moravian Church have waited a long time for parliament to deal with this simple request. It is a pleasure for me to be here to see it happen today. Thank you for the co-operation of all the people involved.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to debate the Reform motion calling on the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system. However I question the need for an integrated transportation system, considering the tremendous increases in gas prices we have been experiencing lately and I feel that if this continues, the majority of Canadians will have to stay at home.
Already we have witnessed the serious plight of our truck drivers who are struggling to survive in the face of these rising costs.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We are not on transport. We are talking about the bill on the Moravian Church. I wondered whether the hon. member was coming to the point but perhaps he thinks we are on a different debate.
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, yes I thought we were debating something else.
The Deputy Speaker: We are on the motion for second reading of Bill S-14.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House shall now resume debate on the supply motion of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. When the House broke for the divisions, the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre had the floor and he has 16 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue my remarks on this very important motion which condemns the Liberal government for its terrible transportation policies. I want to provide evidence to the effect that my statement is well supported by facts in the country.
Transportation infrastructure is vital to Canada's future economic development. We need an efficient, high quality and safe network of highways, railways, ports and airports to move Canadians and the goods we produce.
Our transportation infrastructure is degrading rapidly under the Liberal government. The problem is that the Liberal government lacks the vision and will to plan and develop a transportation infrastructure for this century.
In my view the Reform Party tends to be hypocritical in criticizing the Liberal government's mismanagement of transportation policy since the Reform Party has supported most of the Liberal government initiatives to deregulate and privatize our transportation infrastructure. Now that we are beginning to feel the disastrous effects of these policies, the Reform Party is flip-flopping. It is saying that it is not true, it did it once but it is okay now.
I contend that only the NDP has consistently fought for an efficient and safe transportation infrastructure to promote jobs and economic development for Canadians.
I want to talk about three important issues of transportation. The first one relates to the failure of the Liberal government to provide an adequate highway system for our country.
Our highways are in rapid decline, particularly in western Canada where the government has eliminated railway transportation subsidies for western grain farmers. We are the only country in the 28 countries in the OECD which does not have a national transportation policy and a national program to support our highways.
What has happened in the degradation of the highways particularly in western Canada where I am from, is that the government has taken away the subsidies for grain from the railroads and the farmers. We are the only country in the world to do that.
The European countries provide about 56 cents on the dollar to farmers in terms of their agriculture subsidies. The United States provides about 36 to 37 cents on the dollar in subsidies. We provide our farmers in western Canada about six cents on the dollar. We have the farthest distance to travel to haul our products from the farm to the port and we are the only country that does not have a decent aid program for our farmers.
Since the subsidies were taken away, there has been more pressure on the highway system in western Canada because it has now become more efficient in many ways to transport grain and other agricultural crops by truck. The highways and byways of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Alberta were never built for the huge grain trucks that are now travelling on them. The highways and the road system are being destroyed.
The rail system would be the most efficient way to transport these goods but it is now being saved for other reasons. It is being abandoned in many ways by the Liberal policies that recommend, encourage and advocate that CNR and CPR abandon the rail lines. There is a very severe attack of heavy equipment on the roads.
We go to the next phase. The highways are falling apart because they have not been built for the heavy vehicles and what does the Government of Canada do? It charges excise taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline which brings in about $5 billion a year. What does it put back into the highways that it has been very instrumental in destroying?
From the money it is taking out of Saskatchewan and the rest of the country, $5 billion a year approximately, what is it putting back into Saskatchewan? Let me put it this way. If we were to stop on a dime on a Saskatchewan highway, we can bet that dime was not a federal dime because not one dime is spent on highways in Saskatchewan. The government takes $200 million out in fuel taxes alone but not one dime goes back to the highway system in the province of Saskatchewan.
The Liberals do not know this but Saskatchewan has more miles of roads than any other province in Canada. Saskatchewan has one million people yet it has more miles of roads than Ontario which has 11 million people.
What did the federal government do in terms of helping our farmers? It took away their transportation subsidies. It forced the farmers to use the roads and therefore to weaken the roads with heavy duty trucks. What does it put back to support the transportation system? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Zippo. It is a shame.
Farmers in that province look at this. Members of the Reform Party sit there cheering the Liberals on saying no more money for the highway system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba because they do not believe in those kinds of what they call subsidies. We feel it is an investment in the economy of western Canada.
The Liberal government is responsible for interprovincial highways. It needs to work in partnership with the provinces to re-establish a national highways program and to rebuild and maintain these crucial links.
The government's neglect of the highways has caused a proliferation of private toll roads in some provinces. Toll roads are a deterrent to trade and economic development. They also burden the taxpayers because the tolls are passed on to the taxpayers whether they use the roads or not.
Bad roads cost lives. I am not sure if the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan has driven through Ontario on Highway 17 from Ottawa to North Way to Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie and over to Wawa, Thunder Bay and Kenora. It is part of the Trans-Canada Highway, the number one highway in the country and I am ashamed to travel on it. The Trans-Canada Highway across northern Ontario is a death trap, not to mention a speed trap. It has to be maintained and improved.
I would like to see the Liberal government put its money where its mouth is and unite our country from coast to coast by building a capable, first class 21st century highway linking the east and west coasts. That would be similar to the big project of Sir John A. Macdonald when he united the country with the railroads. But instead the government starves the provinces in terms of providing any kind of highway subsidies.
The government has totally decimated the rail system. It talks about giving a few subsidies for the railways. If the Liberals had sunk some money into passenger rail service and provided access for Canadians to travel the passenger trains in a reasonable and efficient manner, that would not be so bad. What have they done? They have continued to reduce subsidies to railroads.
As a matter of fact, in the city I come from, Regina, we cannot travel by passenger out of Regina. If Regina was a small community like La Ronge, Preeceville or Sturgis that is one thing, but Regina is the capital city of the province. We have the mainline CPR track running through there but we cannot ride the trains unless we hop a freight, which is illegal and dangerous. I can tell members that it is dangerous because I used to be a railway brakeman for the CNR in one of my previous movies, in one of my previous lives. It was a great job. I loved the railway dearly.
It hurts me and it breaks my heart when I see the Liberal government continuing to abandon the railroads and maintaining an infrastructure which could be very important and helpful in offsetting some of these higher energy costs. We are now faced with record energy costs in the country. Gas prices right now in some places in northern Ontario are 80.9 cents a litre. In Saskatchewan it is 74.9 cents. Oil only hit a record of about $34 a barrel. Now it is down to $28 or $29 a barrel.
In 1991, when the Iraq crisis happened, the price of gasoline was not 80 cents or 74.9 cents or 62 cents. The record price in 1991 was 61.9 cents. We have only had a 1 cent or 2 cent tax increase since that time. We have the oil companies gouging consumers and the economy with the full support of the Liberals opposite.
I would like the Liberals to undertake to have an energy summit. They do not want a summit because they would actually have to come up with some solutions. Liberals do not want to talk about solutions, they just want to talk.
I happen to have a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister. I called on the Prime Minister to put together and chair an energy summit to include the provinces and the major stakeholders in the oil business, particularly the refineries, to come up with some kind of action plan to defend our economy from the OPEC oil cartel. I sent this letter on March 8, and I will quote from it. It says:
Dear Prime Minister,
I am writing to request that you and your government take immediate action to protect Canadian consumers from the OPEC oil cartel. Rising oil prices are having a serious impact on the lives of all Canadians and threaten to endanger the gains Canadians have made in our economy.
Gas prices are at record levels. According to Stats Canada, domestic oil companies are holding back on production in spite of record fuel prices. In fact, excluding taxes, gas prices are lower in the U.S. than in Canada.
It has always been maintained by the oil companies that the prices were the same but, in fact, CBC Marketplace found in November that the price of gasoline in Atlanta, Georgia was 18.4 cents a litre. When we take out all the taxes, 18.4 cents Canadian a litre versus the best price in Canada, which is in Calgary at 33.3 cents, it is almost 12 cents a litre or two-thirds less expensive in the Unites States than it is in Canada. Although the oil companies and the government maintain that our prices are the same as the U.S., when we cross out the taxes and the exchange that is not the truth.
I went on to say:
Confronted with these realities, the U.S. government has taken action to protect and defend its economy and U.S. consumers from the OPEC oil cartel by adopting a 17 point plan.
Sir, Canada needs a Canadian action plan to defend the Canadian economy and Canadian consumers. I urge you to consider developing such a plan to include at least some of the following actions:


Call the provinces and the major oil companies and other stakeholders together as soon as possible for an energy summit to develop such a strategy.


Have your officials examine the taxes on fuel, in particular the GST, to suspend the GST until the prices are more affordable.


Introduce an emergency fund for low income families to ensure that they have affordable home heating fuel to heat their homes.


Consider low interest loans to businesses, such as trucking companies that are especially hard hit by these rising prices and many are now going bankrupt.


I continued on by asking him to examine the regulation of the pricing of fuel costs in this country. Regulation is not a dirty word. The government is obligated in times of tough economy and in times of these kinds of things happening to look at these kinds of actions and these kinds of consequences and responses to potentially and irresponsibly position the marketplace.
I think it is very important that we look at this particular aspect of energy prices. We are not talking about chocolate bars here. If the price of chocolate bars goes up we can buy another chocolate bar or we can choose another dessert. We can buy a piece of pie, a piece of cake, some ice cream or we can choose not to have dessert at all.
However, energy is the linchpin of our economy. Energy impacts on everything we do in this country, whether we transport goods, go to work, come from work, purchase goods that have been transported or heat our buildings and our homes. Energy is the key underpinning of our economy.
That is why I and the NDP are asking for this action. It is not about chocolate bars or other things like that.
I have also asked that any national strategy must, by necessity, include a conservation component. Why can we not have a conservation program in this country that is supported by the government, that is facilitated by the government and that allows Canadians to participate in it so they do not have to continue paying high prices.
Finally, I suggest another option the Prime Minister might have is to review the relevance of the Competition Act. I think the Competition Act has to be toughened if we are going to allow competition.
The reason I sent this letter is not because I think it is something I should do, which I do, but because the president of the the United States of America, the land of capitalism, the birthplace of free enterprise, has undertaken to implement a 17 point program to defend his country from the OPEC cartel. It may not be the greatest plan but at least he has taken some action. The United States, the great land of free enterprise and capitalism, also has the toughest competition laws in the world which forces competition in the economy.
With the competition laws in Canada, we just bend over or get on our knees and that is all we do. We do not worry about ripping people off. I think governments, politicians and parliamentarians must take a role in ensuring that our consumers and our business communities are treated fairly.
I am a former business person. I have been in business for many years in different businesses. I believe that profit is very important. However, there is a fairness in terms of profit making and in terms of the bottom line. With respect to energy, we have to make sure that we have an energy program, an energy policy that makes our economy work well and that helps our consumers to feel like they are part of a country that has a government that is concerned about their needs and their lives. That is why I did this.
I raised a question with the Prime Minister in the House of Commons today to find out what the status was of the action plan. He had his Minister of Natural Resources give a nice flowery quote praising me, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, in the Leader Post for all the great work that I was doing on this issue. I was hoping that he would have another answer which would say, “yes, we are going to do a little more than just conduct a study for six, seven or eight months”.
The NDP is very concerned about these issues: rail, energy and highways. We are also very concerned about the marine issue and what is happening at the ports. The government seems to be abandoning the port of Halifax in many ways. We are also very concerned about the air transportation situation and the deregulation of that industry.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre blaming the government, which I do not disagree with, for trying to put off the reason for the high fuel taxes and the high cost of transportation, but I take exception to him saying that the Reform Party was equally responsible.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre why the Saskatchewan NDP government charges the highest fuel taxes for rail than any other province, and not only the fuel tax, but it charges the highest property tax for the rail companies than any other province in the country. All of these costs add up to higher transportation costs for the farmers and any other companies that use rail to distribute their products. Does the hon. member agree with the province of Saskatchewan's high tax policy on the rail industry?
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Reform Party does raise a very important issue regarding fuel taxes in Saskatchewan.
I can say that the Saskatchewan NDP government spends 85% of the taxes it collects in the province on fuel and transportation. If I compare that to Canada where $5 billion is raised by the federal government in excise tax and GST on fuel, does it spend 85% on transportation? It spends 4% not 85%. The NDP in Saskatchewan is doing a very fine job.
The Reform member who asked this question should have been at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention where I was two weeks ago. It is not the province of Saskatchewan that charges these taxes on the railroads, it is the rural municipalities through which the railroads travel. They use that revenue to build and maintain some of the thousands and thousands of miles of roads.
If we also took the rail taxes that we charge the railroads, one would see that Saskatchewan spends more than 85% of its tax revenue on repairing, maintaining and building infrastructure in the province.
I am very pleased that the member asked me her question. I would hope that we would have some more wonderful questions like that from the Reform Party.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member has made quite a point in the last little while about asking questions and holding the government to task about the high price of fuel in this country and what the government is going to do about it.
The government does collect $4.5 billion in fuel tax and have put back a measly $150 million into the roads. I agree with the member on that.
I also want to get into the realm of environment. It has been suggested by some that in order to meet our Kyoto commitments, which the government agreed to a year or two ago, that we would need to have a carbon tax, a green tax or some kind of tax on the price of gas at the pumps in order to change the habits of people so they would use less.
Would the member explain his party's position. Does his party support meeting the Kyoto protocol? If so, how does it plan to do it? Is a carbon tax at the pumps one of the suggestions that his party is backing?
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It does underline the importance of my letter to the Prime Minister in which I asked him to call for an energy summit and look at a number of options that he might have. One of them was conservation.
My party is the only party in the House of Commons that has been supporting and asking the government to develop a comprehensive energy conservation program for Canadians. We believe that the government should be providing leadership in this regard.
The Kyoto protocol, which is not particularly related to this matter of transportation infrastructure that we are talking about today, is not something that I am totally familiar with. I have not read it from cover to cover but I am familiar with it in general terms. However, I think all Canadians would stand by the objective of making sure that we preserve this planet for our children, our grandchildren and those who follow us.
The environment is a very important element in this world. If we do not have clean air, fresh water and soil that can grow crops we are all dead. We really are custodians of this planet for future generations. I would even suggest that the Reform Party supports that. I would be surprised if they did not. I think the Liberals and the Reform members talk about it but there is really no action.
In Saskatchewan, where I am a little more familiar with the environment, we have undertaken a number of initiatives which protect and enhance our environment. I would ask the Liberal government and the Reform Party to look at some of those initiatives. I know the Reform Party has looked at a lot of the initiatives of the Roy Romanow NDP government and the Allan Blakeney government before. In Saskatchewan the NDP and the CCF have governed for 37 of the last 55 years. Out of 37 years we have had 35 surplus budgets.
The only time the Reform supporters were in power, the Devine Reform-Liberal coalition ran 10 consecutive deficits. For a million people it put the province about $12 billion to $13 billion in the red in 10 years. It is unfortunate that the Reform policies of Mr. Devine will mean that Saskatchewan residents will be paying this mortgage for the next 60 years, whereas before we had no operations debt, none. We had no deficit and no debt either.
The member raises some good questions and I thank him for that. I would ask him to study perhaps again some of the very positive things that the NDP and CCF have undertaken in Saskatchewan so we can benefit our entire country more.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina mentioned we had looked at some of the NDP policies in the past, and we certainly did, and then put them right back down again and proceeded on a very different course.
I would like to go back to an earlier question that was asked and not answered by the member from the NDP. I think we could throw a t in there for tax party as well. The provincial government of British Columbia idea of solving transportation problems was to blow half a billion dollars on some ferries that it is now trying to sell for about $10 million or $20 million each.
Going back to the solution he was offering, he mentioned that the provincial government in Saskatchewan was putting 85% of taxes back into transportation, but he did not answer the question from my colleague from South Surrey as to whether or not he agreed that the level of taxation the provincial government was wringing out of people in Saskatchewan through taxation on fuel was a good or bad policy. I would like him to answer that question.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question as well. The fuel taxes in Saskatchewan on diesel fuel and gasoline are not the highest in the country. The hon. member from Calgary should know that Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec have higher taxes than Saskatchewan. Ontario and British Columbia have the same taxes. Alberta's tax is six cents a litre less because it charges nine cents per litre provincial tax on fuel whereas Saskatchewan charges 15 cents. There is a six cent difference. B.C. is about the same.
With respect to the British Columbia question, if the member looked at the cost of research and development into something like the fast ferry, it was probably a very high amount to spend. I do not know exactly what went wrong, whether the design was inappropriate, but I think he will remember that Premier Ujjal Dosanjh indicated that it was a mistake and apologized. That is all I really know about it. I know that in Saskatchewan we have never had any fast ferries or slow ferries. We have some ferries across the river here and there.
If we had a committed Liberal government that would commit some resources to developing a policy, whether it be with respect to the marine issue or air or rail or highways, Canadians would be happy because they would have some leadership from this government.
We are looking forward to having some leadership from the government on these issues. It keeps passing the buck. It keeps passing the buck on energy costs. It keeps passing the buck on highways. It should rename the party to passing the buck party because it does not seem to have any particular leadership on the issues I have mentioned.
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, as I started to say a bit earlier, I certainly welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to speak on the Reform motion calling for the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system in the country.
However, I question the need for an integrated transportation system considering the tremendous increase in gas prices we have experienced in the last little while. If it continues no one will be able to go out. They will have to stay home and we might not need a transportation system.
On a more serious note, we have witnessed the plight of truck drivers who are basically struggling to survive in the face of rising costs. Most Canadians sense the urgency in the truckers' message as they watched the steady stream of truckers protesting across the country. These hard working Canadians are desperately trying to raise public awareness to the serious problems facing their industry. I think most Canadians now understand the situation.
Perhaps the only Canadians who were not moved by this public display are the members of the Liberal government who continue to turn a blind eye to their problems by refusing to provide them with any kind of tax relief.
In 1995 the minister of finance introduced a one and a half cent per litre tax on gasoline as a deficit reduction measure. The deficit, as we all know, is gone, thanks in large part to the GST and free trade, which by the way the government had promised to eliminate. The question remains. Why will the government not give our truckers a break and remove this unnecessary tax?
Trucking in Canada is a $30 billion industry that is characterized by many small family owned operations across the country. The trucking industry employs 400,000 people, 225,000 of whom are truck drivers, making it the top occupation in Canada according to the 1996 census. Our trucking industry can no longer afford to have the government ignore its serious problems. It needs action and it is needed now.
No one has to tell our truckers about the need for very significant improvements to our national highway system. With 90% of Canadian consumer goods being transported by truck, our truck drivers have seen for themselves the result of the government's total lack of commitment toward improving or even maintaining our national highway system.
Every day $1.5 billion in goods go back and forth between Canada and the U.S., 70% of which is transported by truck. Yet look at the state of our highways. Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has recognized the importance of highways. That government has made a commitment to the highway system. In 1998 the U.S. signed into law the transportation equity act for the 21st century. The act is a firm commitment to improving the nation's highway system.
It is estimated to be worth some $218 billion. That is $218 billion over six years authorizing highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs. Even the federal Liberal representatives from Atlantic Canada recognize the failure of their own government to maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure system. In their reported entitled “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, they said:
Our basic transportation infrastructure needs improvement. This is an issue that must be addressed. Transportation infrastructure is inextricably bound up with the economic development of our region...To transport goods throughout the region, and to provide tourists with quality highways that will encourage travel to small communities, we must have a better road system than now exists.
Some 38% of our national highway system is considered substandard. Poor roads increase gas consumption, damage to vehicles and, even more serious, cause deadly accidents. We need only look at Highway 101 in Nova Scotia as a prime example. Since 1993, 50 people have been killed and countless others injured in motor vehicle accidents, and still the federal government fails to act. We are the only industrialized country at present without a national highways policy.
Why has the government not sat down with the provinces to negotiate such a program? What does it take to get the government to respond to the very serious crises such as we have had on Highway 101? How many more Nova Scotians must we lose to accidents before the Liberal government deems it sufficient and finally takes measures to improve this treacherous stretch of highway?
After all, it did not take the government years to construct a new road to the Prime Minister's cottage in Grand-Mère. It was so anxious it did not even take the time to put it to tender, opting instead to give it to one of the Prime Minister's friends.
We do not want to wait any longer for the government to decide that highway 101 in Nova Scotia is dangerous. Unfortunately, statistics are here to prove it.
The country has more than 9,000 kilometres of public roads, yet the recent budget only provides $2.65 billion for our entire infrastructure program over four years.
The Commons transportation committee suggested that restoring Canada's highway system would cost at least $18 billion which would be funded at a rate of $1.2 billion over 15 years. According to the finance minister's budget the Liberal government is only prepared to fund $150 million per year in his six year projection for highways commencing in three years. This falls far short in its attempt to address Canada's crumbling highway system.
Over the past 10 years, the Department of Transport has collected over $38 billion in fuel tax. Currently, it has a surplus exceeding $3 billion.
The federal government collects $4 billion in fuel tax a year. As my colleague said earlier, only 4% of that is actually returned to the highways. If a higher percentage of fuel taxes were returned to the highways, for example 15%, and this were matched by the province, it would create a substantial amount of financial support for our highways.
I suggest the government should consider following the advice of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and work together with the provinces in order to invest maybe 15% of the fuel tax to upgrade the road system in Canada.
There is no question that Highway 101 needs to be twinned and no doubt that the section between Digby and Weymouth should be completed as soon as possible. The province of Nova Scotia cannot go it alone. It needs the federal government to enter into a partnership so that the citizens using this highway can do it in relative security.
Transportation affects every aspect of our lives. It is an integral necessity in every industry and business across the country, yet the government does not seem to be aware of it. The motion before us is a simple and straightforward request for leadership, a normal quality in a government or one that we would expect; co-operation with other levels of government and local transportation authorities; a long term vision and plan for our infrastructure system; and a commitment to realistic funding. In many areas the government has lacked direction and leadership.
The government had better get involved in helping the shipbuilding industry, especially in Atlantic Canada, which has a long history of building quality vessels. It has the manpower, the knowledge and the ability to build world-class vessels far superior to any others because of the heavy seas we experience in Atlantic Canada. These ships can literally go anywhere, are very strong and last a long time. The government had better get involved in our shipbuilding industry or the expertise we worked long and hard to develop will soon be gone forever.
Shipbuilding is one of Canada's long-standing industries. For instance, in my riding, A.F. Thériault Shipbuilding Limited has been building boats for over 50 years. It is highly respected for the quality of its products. One of the reasons for its success is the skill of its workers. Several of them have been working in this shipyard for over 20 years. They have developed a level of expertise one cannot achieve in school.
Our passenger rail service is another prime example of the government failing to have a vision for the future. What is the future for VIA Rail? Does anyone know?. Does the government intend to keep throwing money at it? Does it intend to privatize it? Has it thought about it?
What about the Canadian National-Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Corporation merger proposal? Has it explained its official position on this issue which has the potential to completely alter the North American rail industry? The United States Surface Board has already held its hearings and released a decision. It realized the magnitude of this proposal and needs additional time to look at the current rail merger rules to ensure they reflect the desired future of the rail industry. Yet our government holds fast to the motto “Let us wait and see”.
What about the airline crisis of last August? The government was fully aware of the difficulties facing the airline industry and refused to take action until there was apparently an extraordinary disruption to effective and continued operation of the national transportation system.
The indecision of the government about the type of role it would play in finding a solution to the airline situation did nothing to help any of the parties involved. Suddenly the Competition Act was suspended and the government adopted a wait and see policy.
Obviously the government does not see transportation as a priority. When will the government accept the responsibility of leadership? The government needs to work in conjunction with other governments to develop viable plans to strengthen all aspects of our transportation infrastructure. We need commitment, we need funding and we need action. We realize that it cannot be done all at once, but we ask the government to do something now while we still have an infrastructure program and a transportation system to salvage.
Stan Dromisky: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to opposition members tonight and hear presentation after presentation regarding their Christmas wish list, not taking into consideration where this country was a very, very short time ago, when we were heavily in debt and the economy was in a mess. We came from the status of a third world country to the wonderful position we are in at the present time.
Yes, we do have a surplus, but we have hundreds and hundreds of organizations, groups and lobbyists and a great number of other needs which have been identified for that money.
Yes, there are a great number of problems in the transportation system because of management processes, the way in which policies have evolved and what has happened in the past 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 years. There is no doubt about it. However, this is the first time in the history of this country that we have had such an open, transparent process in getting lobbyists and all other partners involved; anyone, we might say, who is a partner in the process. Anyone who has some concern related to any aspect of transportation is able to contribute in some way toward the development of a transportation policy.
It is essential that the country continue on this path to develop the vision which the hon. member says we lack. However, we are not dictators. A dictator could come up very, very quickly with a vision; in fact in five minutes. A very true democratic process takes a very long time because we have to get the people of the country involved in identifying the problems, the process for solving the problems and so forth, and not the kind of declarations that we are hearing from a representative of a previous government which helped to create the horrible mess this government inherited.
Mark Muise: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in response to my hon. colleague's comments.
I recognize and I think all Canadians recognize that there had to be some belt tightening and we had to get rid of the deficit. However, I heard the finance minister, in this year and in the year previous, brag that finally we had a zero deficit.
It does not take a rocket scientist—maybe it does if it is a Liberal member of parliament—to understand that the transportation system is one of the most vital systems in this country. It is what makes our economy work.
We can pay taxes in many ways. We can let the system fall to the point where we are saving today, but it will cost three times the amount of money to put it back to where it should have been had we been putting the money in to keep it where it should have been. It has been falling and falling. We pay taxes on the one hand, then we drive on roads that wreck our vehicles, and then we spend money to repair them and we get taxed again.
The money should be spent on the system so that our goods can get to market. That is what drives our economy. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government cannot see that as a priority. It is one of the main engines which drives our economy.
The hon. member said it. We have to consult. The government can consult until the cows come home. It is obvious to everyone that this infrastructure program needs to be put in place. It needs to be put together, maintained and improved. I do not understand where the member is coming from with his comments.
Stan Dromisky: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the highway system in his province is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The hon. member is quite aware of that fact.
The provinces are all operating at their own pace, within their own guidelines and their own agendas. We have now, for the first time, brought together all partners. Some we had to drag to the table. Pressure from a great number of ministers brought all of the premiers and the ministers of transportation together to start working on a national highway policy.
As a 50-50 partner, we are hoping to be able to come forth with a very substantial, sustainable, effective and not too costly—although it is costly—infrastructure system for transportation, especially for highways.
Mark Muise: Madam Speaker, I think all of us in the House recognize the fact that the highway system is the responsibility of the provinces. However, let us face facts. The Liberal government has cut over the past seven years funding for health care and education and has downloaded the cost to the provincial governments to the point where they cannot function any more. The hon. member has the gall to stand in his place and say it is the provinces which neglected the highway system. The provinces neglected the highway system because the government cut, slashed and burned. It left the provinces high and dry.
Provinces such as Nova Scotia are in hard financial times. Our provincial finance minister is telling us this every day. We are anticipating a budget, which should come down very soon, but I do not particularly look forward to it.
It is partly the responsibility of the federal government, which has slashed at every opportunity, without care for our young people in schools who are the future of our country. The government has not thought about the elderly, the people which made this country great. The government has not thought about the sick. Government members ignore our future and turn their backs on those who made this country great.
Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lethbridge.
It is a pleasure to rise to debate the motion put forward by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley on transportation.
I have been listening to the debate with great interest and we have heard all sorts of angles on this issue. It occurs to me that there is one area on which the Liberals have a corner and that would be taxation. Their overriding philosophy seems to be that if it moves we should tax it and if it does not move we should tax it anyway.
In 1941 the federal minister of finance, who at the time was a Liberal, discovered a new method of taxation. He decided to tax gasoline. That gasoline tax remained in effect until 1948, but it was John Turner who resurrected the gas tax in the 1970s. Since then successive Liberal and Tory governments have relied on this lucrative method of raising money to fund their insatiable spending habits.
As the number of motorists increased, the government coffers swelled, and the more wear and tear there was on Canada's highway infrastructure, the more the highways deteriorated. Canada used to be very proud of the Trans-Canada Highway, but those days are gone, along with the 1948 excise gas tax reprieve.
Canada is the only developed country without a national highways program or even a coherent national highways policy. What is the reason for that? It is simply neglect.
In this competitive global economy a well maintained network of highways stretching from coast to coast to coast is absolutely essential, especially in a country the size of Canada. It is our economic lifeline, but the government is content to pay it only lip service, and sometimes not even that.
In 1992 a federal-provincial study identified 25,400 kilometres, including the Trans-Canada Highway and a few major cross-border arteries, as the national highway system. At least it was identified, but nothing has been done in the interim. As a matter of fact, it seems as though it has been completely forgotten. There is no administrative framework and no federal funding for maintaining or upgrading any of the identified system.
Every year the federal government collects about $5 billion in fuel excise taxes, including $4.3 billion specifically from highways. Then it disappears into that abyss known as general revenue. I am quite sure that a good amount of it finds its way into grants and contributions as well.
This year the federal budget allocated $150 million to highways. That is something, but it is only a drop in the bucket, especially when we consider that the Liberals have been trying to explain the $1 billion mishandling of HRDC funds as no big deal. It is only $1 billion.
A recent poll commissioned by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety showed that the cost of bringing the national highway system up to standard increased from $12 billion in 1998 to $17.2 billion in 1999. Those are the last years for which we have figures. If the finance minister still has doubts over why his budget does not meet with widespread accolades, he need not look any further than there. Maybe he should take a long drive. I bet the Prime Minister would give him the time off.
In June 1999 a national poll conducted by the Canadian Automobile Association showed that 78% of CAA members wanted the federal government to allocate funding for roads despite the many other social needs facing Canadians. In 1998 87% of respondents said it was important for the Canadian economy to have a national highway system well paved and free of congestion. Eighty-five per cent of CAA members said that the federal government should play a role in funding our national roadways. This level of support translates into almost 3.3 million CAA members calling on the federal government to address these key routes.
What is the price for government inaction? Canadians pay the price of the government's neglect. Structural deficiencies have resulted in hundreds of deaths and thousands of people being injured. If this were not enough, thanks to the deplorable state of our roads, millions of hours have been lost due to traffic congestion, millions of dollars have been lost in extra fuel consumption, and tonnes of additional pollutants have been needlessly pumped into the atmosphere.
This all contributes to lost productivity and lost trade opportunities. It does nothing to advance the cause of job creation. It deters tourists from other countries from visiting here. It encourages Canadians to holiday elsewhere. If we picked up any newspaper from any part of this country we would find articles about the need for new and expanded highways.
In Nova Scotia a woman who had been seriously injured in a car accident held a vigil by the side of Highway 101 in her wheelchair to draw attention to the need to twin that particular busy roadway.
Closer to my home, the mayor of Edmonton, Bill Smith, came to Ottawa in February with mayors from 21 of the country's major cities to plead for cash for roads. It was not for the streets in their cities but for interprovincial highways. All their lobbying efforts netted was $150 million. That will have to be split between the 10 provinces and the three territories. I do not think that will go very far.
My colleague the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has championed this cause of dedicating gas tax revenues to a national highway system. His private member's motion debated in the House on November 19, 1999 sought to divert one-fifth of federal excise fuel tax to the national highway system, some 20%. I do not think that is asking very much. It is a very reasonable request.
At the very least had his motion passed, we would have been able to repair the worst parts of the system before it deteriorated beyond the point of no return. As the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands stated, if we do nothing and total replacement becomes necessary, tens of billions of dollars will have to be found somewhere or we will all have to revert to Red River carts.
Perhaps my colleague has hit on one of the new government strategies. Perhaps if we all had to go to Red River carts it would cut down on the Kyoto emissions. There might be some increase in methane gas, but it would certainly cut down on carbon dioxide. How else can the Liberal lack of attention be explained on this important transportation link?
The notion of dedicating some portion of federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes to be spent on construction and renovation of highway infrastructure is not just a Reform idea. When the Standing Committee on Transport travelled across the country as part of its study of highway renewal—notice that it has already been studied—witness after witness supported the concept which has been Reform Party policy for some time.
Millions of dollars are spent each year to obtain public input. These exercises in democracy are merely make work projects for the government backbenchers. It seems that if they have too much time on their hands and are hanging around town, they will figure out ways to dump their leader.
In reality, the government rarely listens to anyone or anything that does not happen to be a supporter or contributor to the Liberal Party. The transport committee's majority report, “A National Highway Renewal Strategy”, ignores the wishes and advice of those close to the problem. It concluded the study by indicating that the problem required further study, if you can believe it, Madam Speaker. If that is not the standard Liberal cop-out, I would like to know what is.
Three years later and the report is gathering dust on the library shelves. The highways are continuing to disintegrate and the Minister of Finance allocates just enough money to fill in some of the potholes.
Enough time has been wasted on studies. Canada's highway system is in tatters and it is time for the government to work with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector to plan, implement and fund a national highway infrastructure program.
Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin give us some of the details of a national highway system.
What does the hon. member think about extending the national highway system to include trade corridors to our southern neighbours with whom we trade? I believe 80% of our trade goes to the United States. Does he think the federal government should extend a national highway program to consider some of the trade corridors going north-south?
Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, the national highway infrastructure today is just as important as the national highway system was when the country was being opened up.
The highways are like the arteries of Canada. When we have such a huge and diverse country we should designate the roads that are needed as trade routes. However let us first of all get the roads that are already designated as national highways up to standard and perhaps we can look at more north-south routes later on.
Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wetaskiwin for sharing his time with me. I compliment my colleague the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for bringing this issue forward today as a supply motion from the official opposition.
When talking about transportation, we can talk about a lot of things that affect just about everyone with whom we come into contact on a daily basis. We can talk about rail line abandonment. That is quite an issue in a lot of parts of the country. I am sure my colleague from Cypress—Grasslands will talk about that later. In my neck of the woods the rail line was abandoned and now it is used for storage. It has caused quite a lot of grief.
Railway efficiency is another issue that needs to be looked at. It is a huge concern in Canada. We are still going through the huge restructuring of the air industry. We have some pains there that need to be looked at. There is an airport in my riding which the municipality took over and now the government is going to change the rules and there is fear of what that could do.
We need a continental road system as the member for Wetaskiwin mentioned. We need to be able to trade east and west and north and south in North America to get our products to market. We need new and more efficient border points which are part of the whole scheme of this continental system.
On the infrastructure program that has been talked about, the last time that infrastructure program was implemented I was involved in municipal politics. At that time there was a struggle for municipalities to come up with the 30 cent dollars that were worked out with the province and the federal government in splitting it three ways. Now it is going to be even tougher because some of the downloading that has happened in this country has ended up at the municipal level. The municipalities are not as well equipped to be involved on these programs as they were last time.
I am sure environmental issues will be addressed when it comes to transportation. Public transportation and urban rail transportation are part of the environmental solution. New technologies that are developing are part of the system that needs to be looked at.
I would like to reserve my comments to an issue that has been on the minds of Canadians this winter. It is the high price of fuel.
For the last several months prices have soared by up to 25% per litre in some regions. Consumers are concerned about how these prices will increase their cost of living. Trucking associations are concerned about how this will affect their ability to remain in business. Economists are concerned about the consequences of rising input costs on the entire Canadian economy.
In my own riding of Lethbridge prices have gone up anywhere from 20% to 25%. This has prompted a lot of letters, a lot of angry phone calls and a lot of action on behalf of citizens demanding some action and answers from the government. The spike in fuel prices has hit truckers especially hard. In some areas of the country the price of diesel fuel has surpassed the price of regular gasoline. That is an extremely rare occurrence.
Fuel represents about one-third of a trucking company's costs and is second only to labour. While some truckers are fortunate enough to have fuel cost adjustment clauses in their contracts, many truckers are forced to swallow that cost.
Several weeks ago Canadians woke up to the news that angry truckers had blockaded highways and border crossings in an effort to draw national attention to their plight. Truckers across the continent vented their frustration by slowing down traffic in major cities and organized protest rallies on Parliament Hill and on Capitol Hill. In Ottawa a fleet of 200 trucks shut down Wellington Street for hours demanding relief from the government.
The official opposition supports the trucking association in its call for tax relief. It recognizes the importance of this $30 billion industry in Canada. Trucks move 70% of manufactured goods in Canada and almost all of the food.
As one trucker quite accurately said, the key chain controls the food chain. Every single item on the grocery store shelf that is shipped by truck could increase in price if relief is not found soon.
Through its four cent per litre excise tax on road diesel and the GST, the federal government sucked close to half a billion dollars in fuel tax revenues directly out of the pockets of truck drivers in 1998-99. Indirectly the government siphons out billions more through income taxes and user fees. The provincial governments also take their share of money out of truckers' pockets by levying an additional per litre tax of at least nine cents in addition to user fees. More regulation is not the answer.
Lately the member for Ottawa Centre has fancied himself as somewhat of an activist on gas prices and has proposed a return to what could be easily called the national energy program, words that send fear through western Canada. In the Ottawa Sun a few weeks ago he proposed that all the greedy world oil producers be completely shut out of Canadian markets to give consumers relief from fluctuating gas prices. He said that since Canada produces enough oil to be self-sustaining, the government should turn on the switch and keep the oil in Canada. This is a kind of made in Canada solution I suppose.
What the member has no doubt forgotten is that the national energy program which was aimed at promoting energy self-sufficiency increased Canadian control of the oil industry and generated more federal revenues in the energy sector. This ripped $60 billion out of the Alberta economy alone. That economic program devastated Alberta more than any other catastrophe could. Overnight the province shut down and it was just like a steel wall was put up and the province was paralyzed.
Despite the tremendous gains that we have made in Alberta by diversifying since those dark days of Pierre Trudeau, any attempt to regulate will hit the resource sector hard. The government would do well to remember this as it contemplates meeting its Kyoto commitments.
While truckers have borne the brunt of this problem, no one has escaped the sting of high gas prices. High diesel prices are a concern for farmers who will be spending hundreds of dollars in extra fuel costs to plant their crops this spring. Each year farmers use millions of gallons of fuel to run their farm equipment, work the soil, seed, raise the crops and then harvest them, not to mention the spin-off onto the cost of fertilizer and chemicals.
A report from Statistics Canada shows Canadian farmers in 1998 had net fuel expenses of $325,800,000, almost 6% of their total operating expenses. With fuel costs up 33% since January in Ontario, farmers are looking at a 10% reduction in net cash income unless the government is willing to reduce its level of taxation on fuels. Many farmers are afraid that the increase in fuel costs will completely wipe out any assistance they may receive from other areas.
High fuel prices have hit every sector of the economy. The leap in fuel prices is the largest monthly jump since Statistics Canada started collecting that information 50 years ago. It also led to a spike in inflation which bumped the inflation rate up by 2.7%. That jump was the largest month to month increase in five years. When that happens, as we know, it hurts everybody, especially people who are on fixed incomes, single parents, people who are earning minimum wage. Those are the people who are hurt the hardest. They cannot afford this. Clearly the government must do something to alleviate the pressure of high fuel prices on the economy.
The official opposition believes that the government must immediately reduce fuel taxes. Fuel taxes have increased by 600% since 1985, jumping from 1.5 cents to 10 cents per litre.
The latest increase came in 1995 when the Liberal government was still battling the Tory legacy of billion dollar deficits and the current Minister of Finance introduced a 1.5 cent per litre excise tax to reduce the federal deficit. According to the Canadian Automobile Association, this tax has pumped over $500 million annually into the government's consolidated revenue fund. There is no reason for this tax to still be in place. The government is facing multibillion dollar surpluses which leave ample room for tax relief.
Furthermore the government has collected even more tax revenue as the price of gasoline increases. The GST, another deficit fighting measure still in place, is applied to the total pump price after provincial and federal taxes are included. This compounds the problem. This is a tax on a tax and it is unfair to consumers.
The official opposition has proposed a tax solution that would further lighten the load of the taxpaying public. The 17% solution would provide substantial immediate and direct relief to overtaxed Canadians and would create greater wealth in our economy.
Reductions in corporate and small business taxes would go even further to lighten the tax load for Canadian truckers and farmers, but the government has chosen to ignore this option preferring instead to study the matter a while longer. The government has commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to study gas prices. Why? How many more reports do we need? We have had dozens of investigations into the gasoline retail industry by the Competition Bureau and still we go on.
The government wants to do a study. We know the answer. Fuel prices in the country are too high.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the residents and constituents of Waterloo—Wellington to this very important issue.
I want to begin by pointing out that road collisions kill a lot of Canadians in any given year. That is a real problem. There were 3,000 last year alone. The cost of that is about $10 billion annually, which represents at least $30 million every day. That becomes a real problem obviously in terms of what it means not only from a financial point of view but also from the tragic loss of life and family points of view as well.
In addition more than 200,000 people are injured in road accidents every year. I can remember when I was chairman of the Waterloo regional police. For 10 years I was involved with police issues. It was a terrible tragedy when we had our traffic people come in and tell us of accidents that had occurred. It really was a problem. Certainly Canadians everywhere, wherever they live in this great country of ours, know the tragic circumstances that are part and parcel of that kind of a problem.
At the same time Canada can claim significant progress in road safety especially over the last 25 years. Fatalities have been cut in half while traffic has doubled. That is quite an impressive trend. Our roads are clogged and getting worse often as a result of overuse. Yet we see accidents and traffic fatalities declining.
Road safety in Canada is very much a shared responsibility. Our history of steady road safety progress attests to the high level of commitment on the part of governments in co-operation especially with governments and its partners, people in research, vehicle manufacturers, regulators, police, public safety organizations and individual Canadians.
It is my belief that the genesis of our progress is co-operation. This partnership and this kind of approach are embodied in an initiative known as Road Safety Vision 2001. This is a nation-wide effort. The objective is for Canada to have the safest roads in the world.
Although we have shown steady progress and achieved our vision clearly we have to continue to work hard in this very important area. Achieving the safest roads in the world is a complex and, it could be argued, challenging task for us. Surely no Canadian could disagree with the goal and the objective of this very worthwhile endeavour. It is fair to say that it will take a multi-pronged approach to realize our objective. The whole notion of Road Safety Vision 2001 has four overall safety priorities.
First, we must raise awareness of road safety issues. Second, we must improve communication, co-ordination and collaboration among agencies involved in road safety. Third, we need more effective and efficient enforcement to deal with problem areas such as non-use of seatbelts and impaired driving. I am very pleased to report that I have worked many years on impaired driving. I know it is a very important issue. A number of people have lost young people as a result of that totally unacceptable behaviour. Fourth, we must improve the collection and quality of data to support and assess road safety program efforts.
While these four priorities can be expressed succinctly, it is a more complex exercise to develop the supporting projects for such an ambitious goal. For each priority a number of projects are under way in each jurisdiction.
The first priority is to raise public awareness of specific road safety issues. Over the years education programs and campaigns have played an important role in helping the public develop safer driving habits, in turn leading to decreased injuries and fatalities for which we all hope and pray. Work is now under way to support further initiatives on the national occupant restraint program 2001.
We are focusing particularly on the safety of children in a multifaceted campaign to increase the proper use of child restraints. A video tape called “Car Time 1-2-3-4” uses four stand alone segments to explain the four stages of child safety in motor vehicles from rear facing infant seats to forward facing child seats, booster seats and the use of regular seatbelts. It is important that we develop this kind of educational program especially for our young people to become used to it, to become ingrained with it, and to become part and parcel of how best to be protected. Their parents play an important role in this instance.
The first three segments are targeted at parents and caregivers. The fourth segment is designed for viewing by children eight years and over. Packaged with each of these videos is a supporting facilitator's guide. Additional campaign materials include a set of posters and a website, which is part and parcel of the modern world, with information for parents and a section for children eight years and over. These materials have been distributed widely in Canada through public and private sector networks. This is something we on the government side think is important, and I believe rightfully so.
The second priority is to improve communication, co-ordination and collaboration among road safety agencies. There is good reason for this. It is obvious. It is essential to obtain and maintain the strong co-operation needed among all partners if we are to reach the goals I spoke about a minute ago.
A good example of an initiative in this second priority area is Transport Canada's creation of a stakeholders database. If we consult the Transport Canada website we see that there is already a wealth of road safety information available. Yet the site is still growing because of the additional links that we have included and maintain on an ongoing basis.
Through our website the public can access other road safety programs offered by all levels of government, by the national associations involved in this worthwhile endeavour and by organizations involved in road safety across Canada. There is a total of 70 programs to date in this very important initiative.
The third priority is closely related to the first two as it aims to discourage behaviour that jeopardizes road safety. In this priority area we are working with our partners to develop more efficient enforcement on problems such as impaired driving, non-use of seatbelts and high risk behaviours. Key among these in the third priority is a strategy to reduce impaired driving 2001. Each year until 2001, jurisdictions will conduct combined enforcement and awareness initiatives to reduce the incidence of this major road safety problem.
Apart from the normal support that Transport Canada offers on these activities, recently the department assisted with two specific studies to increase knowledge of the drinking and driving problem, a problem which is implicated in over 40% of driver fatalities every year.
It is no secret to any Canadian that it is important that we act in this area in a consistent and concerted way. It is simply unacceptable that people in this day and age, never mind in any day and age, would embark on drinking and driving. There are national organizations in place. Over the years I have been associated with a number of them, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others involving young people who have been very concerted in trying to do away with the kind of tragedy that comes with drinking and driving.
The fourth priority is to improve the collection and quality of road safety data. Transport Canada and its partners play key roles in collecting, standardizing and sharing common data. Good data are absolutely essential to establishing and conducting road safety programs and standards. All stakeholders agree that road safety data in Canada must be more timely and comprehensive.
In response and as a result, Transport Canada is chairing a national task force to look at this very important issue. It is one in which Canadians expect the government to take a lead role because it is very important. Canadians expect us to act.
The goal of realizing our shared safety vision, particularly the goal of making Canada's roads the world's safest, may seem an awesome task. At the same time the government and I believe it is attainable. We can improve our current standing in the world in this very important area. It is important that we on the government side, and hopefully all members of parliament, share in that vision and its worthwhile and noble objective.
At the same time I should point out that all the partners realize this goal will need to recognize our unique Canadian conditions: our large land mass, for example; our extreme and varied weather; great distances between major urban centres; and our heavy reliance on transportation to move both people and goods in our great and vast land.
At the end of the day I am confident we could begin to reach our shared goal of providing the safest transportation in the world. We could all continue, and hopefully we will, to work diligently to provide a future that is safe and accessible, one in which all Canadians could share.
After all, safety is a shared responsibility. The rewards are inherent in terms of saved lives and reduced injury and suffering as a result of the direction with which we on this side of the House, and hopefully all members of this great Chamber, can agree when it comes to road safety.
I encourage all members of parliament to ensure that we do the right thing in this very important area. We must ensure that we act in a fashion consistent with the values Canadians hold. We must share a common vision when it comes to road safety, knowing that it is the right thing to do and the best thing to do on behalf of Canadians wherever they live in our great country.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time. I would like to begin my remarks with a brief reference to the propensity of the government to pass laws without due regard for the law of unintended consequences. Government members rush out and put together huge omnibus bills like the Canada Transportation Act, and then a few years down the line they say this is not what we really intended at all. By that time it is too late.
When the Canada Transportation Act was passed in 1996 it was actually the death knell for the primary grain collection system in western Canada, for dozens of rural communities, and for a service oriented grain transportation system which is now in the process of being replaced with a grain transportation system designed for the convenience of railways and grain companies. With the new regime under the new CTA the abandonment process was certainly simplified as it was supposed to be. However, it was supposed to encourage the development of short line railways, and the outcome has been quite the opposite.
The problem, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Estey in his report on grain transportation, is that there is absolutely nothing to prevent a class one railway from serving notice of abandonment of part of a branch line while retaining profitable sections, which destroys the economic cohesion and potential viability of the entire unit. Estey called this sort of activity a breach of the spirit of the law. I submit that the CTA must be amended in the public interest to close that loophole.
In this regard I have submitted a private member's bill to prohibit a railway company from actually physically dismantling an abandoned line until three years after its discontinuance. This would thwart the “death by a thousand cuts” principle of abandonment by ensuring the short term preservation of the infrastructure while giving potential operators adequate time to negotiate purchase terms with owners and to arrange for financing.
Unfortunately, although I introduced this bill in the House on September 21, 1998, the chance that it will be debated in this parliament are slim. Meanwhile, the piecemeal abandonment can proceed as the railway companies see fit.
It has to be understood that allowing a shortline railway to operate might not always be in a class one railway's best interest. They are faced with the inconvenience of liaison with the shortline railway coming up to their service, and also there is this big problem that continued movement of grain on a branch line would hamper the plans of grain companies to consolidate their facilities on the main lines.
Rail companies and grain companies have no vested interest in providing customer service because their customers have no choice except to take whatever is presented to them. They are captives.
The original grain collection system on the prairies worked very well. It was designed by practical people and it was used to provide real service to the people who used it. With the appearance on the scene of small farm trucks in the 1930s and 1940s, followed by the appearance of all-weather market roads in the 1960s, the grain companies began to consolidate their operations, so that by the 1980s about half of the grain delivery points in western Canada had been abandoned.
This did not cause great hardship to the producers because they were still generally within 20 or 30 kilometres of a delivery point. It did, however, create problems for other people. Scores of villages disappeared. The village where I attended school used to have a couple of general stores, a couple of restaurants, a couple of service stations and a hotel. Now it is a ghost town. There is not even a 7-Eleven, even though the surrounding land is now more productive than it ever has been. Farmers routinely have to drive 100 kilometres or more for their supplies, and now the pressure is on to shut down the elevators so that they will have to actually deliver their product to anything from 80 to 100 kilometres away.
There is intense pressure to remove these remaining elevators from almost all of the branch lines and tear up the tracks. I would not say that the grain companies and railway companies collude, but they certainly share a common interest.
New high throughput concrete elevators are springing up all along the main lines and both the railways and the grain companies will benefit if the branch line system is shut down and farmers are forced to deliver their grain to distant central points.
Even where local delivery points are still operating, some producers are already taking their product by long haul truck to the main lines, to the big delivery points, because the small country elevators are often plugged for weeks on end and producers who have to have income are forced to bypass them.
The reason for this is fairly clear. If a grain company has already decided to eliminate an elevator, it makes no serious effort to get hopper grain cars. Meanwhile, elevators in neighbouring villages may have cars loaded, but if there are not enough loaded cars available on a subdivision to justify the assembly of a train, nothing moves.
The final result is that less and less grain moves off of the affected branch lines, railway companies lose progressively more money on the service and then this is used to justify line abandonment.
I expect that if branch lines disappear the freight incentives at the large elevators which are now being offered will also disappear. The direct cost to farmers, nevertheless, may remain below the cost of shipping on the branch lines because the trucking industry, unlike railways, is intensely competitive. However, the producers will pay in other ways.
First, they will see their taxes rise to build and maintain market roads able to accommodate a steady stream of 36 to 55 tonne loads. Second, farmers and villages along abandoned rail lines will also see their property taxes increase because the railways and the grain companies will no longer contribute to the tax base. Some small villages will lose up to 30% of their revenue.
Because the government lacks the vision to relate increased road requirements to the deterioration of the railway system, it contributes virtually nothing to roads and highways. For example, in the period 1987 to 1997 the average federal contribution in the province of Saskatchewan to roads was $4.7 million. It is now $30 million from the strategic highways improvement program and the grain transportation adjustment fund, but annual federal taxes suck out of that province $125 million on fuel tax.
Canada urgently needs a program similar to that which is in the United States of America where dedicated fuel revenues are put into a federal fund that cannot be used for anything except road construction. It amounts to $26 billion a year, which on a per capita basis works out to $970 a year. An equivalent annual expenditure would be $2.9 billion in this country. That is far less than the more than $4.3 billion which is siphoned out of the provinces in annual fuel excise taxes.
I see that I have used up my time. This is a subject which I generally speak to for at least an hour and I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your consideration.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we are debating tonight transportation issues in Canada and I would like to deal with the railway issue as it relates to grain transportation in western Canada.
All those involved in the western grain transportation handling system agree that the system is broken and that it needs to be fixed. This includes farmers, grain companies, grain handling terminals and the Canadian Wheat Board, along with the railways which move the grain.
The current system is rigid, unaccountable and does not efficiently serve the needs of these system participants, especially the farmer who pays all of the costs. That is an important part to remember in this debate.
Severe systemic breakdowns in the handling and transportation system which occur every few years are dramatic demonstrations of the need for grain transportation reform. More recently we saw the system fall apart during the winter of 1993-94 and again in the winter of 1996-97. These breakdowns cost millions of dollars in demurrage and operating costs and lost sales. No one in the system, including the grain companies, the railways or the Canadian Wheat Board, can be held accountable for systemic inefficiencies.
The entities are caught up in inefficiencies caused by government legislation, regulation and bureaucracy, including the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
This system does not cost farmers only when problems arise. It costs them money every day that the system remains unchanged. The inefficient use of our grain handling and transportation system means that farmers pay far too much to get their grain from the prairies to port position.
Because of the control which the Canadian Wheat Board exerts over the system, grain companies and railways cannot manage their own facilities and equipment in the most efficient manner.
For example, railways and grain companies have tried to set up regularly scheduled grain trains that would cycle between primary elevators on the prairies and terminal elevators at the ports. These types of dedicated trains would be able to bypass railway switching yards, make more efficient use of railway and grain company staff, allow grain companies to better plan the arrival of ships, and, in effect, save farmers millions of dollars. However, the Canadian Wheat Board, through the car allocation system, would not allow these types of increased efficiencies.
Since the beginning of November the official opposition has held 69 town hall meetings with over 3,000 farmers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Western grain farmers repeatedly pointed out that freight is one of their major costs; approximately one-third of their expenses in most cases. Over and over again farmers asked why they were the only commodity group in which the producer paid the freight and was responsible for the quality and any added costs for the product throughout the total shipping network; that is, the farmer carries virtually all of the risk from the time he puts the seed in the ground until it is loaded onto the export ship at port.
The Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition estimates that the reforms to the current grain handling and transportation system could save farmers over $300 million annually. Put another way, this would result in a cost reduction of over $15,000 per farm.
Paul Orsak, a Manitoba farmer, recently summarized the opinion of a vast majority of western farmers when he stated: “We are firmly convinced that reforming the grain handling and transportation system will lower transportation costs for Canadian farmers, increase competition and make Canada's grain delivery system more effective for our customers”.
How have the Liberals responded to this issue? The government does what it always does when it does not want to make a decision. It commissioned a study. After the debacle in the winter of 1997, former Justice Willard Estey was asked to review the western grain handling and transportation system and recommend changes to the government. Much to the government's surprise, he did exactly what it asked. He recommended changes which would in fact improve the system.
The underlying theme of Justice Estey's 15 different recommendations was the need for a more open, market based grain handling and transportation system.
I would like to point out for the big government socialists in the House who may not understand this commercial contract based system that it provides for penalties and incentives in the contracting out of any commercial contract between businesses and, in effect, brings about the very efficiencies that regulations cannot do by command structure from, for instance, parliament.
Two of the key recommendations from Justice Estey involved the role of the Canadian Wheat Board and a legislative cap on freight rates. First, Estey recommended that the role of the wheat board in the grain handling and transportation system be eliminated. This recommendation would move the Canadian Wheat Board's interest out to the ports.
If this recommendation were implemented, the Canadian Wheat Board would contract the grain companies to move grain to the port through an auction process and the grain companies would be responsible for arranging freight with the railways. Producers would sign contracts with grain companies for delivery of the grain.
This recommendation is required if we are to replace the current centrally planned system with a contract driven accountable system. This would result in improved efficiencies and reduced producer costs. There does not seem to be too many people who do not agree with that position.
Justice Estey also recommended changes to the legislative cap on freight rates. He recommended that the rate cap be replaced with a revenue cap. The revenue cap would set the total revenue each railway could receive for moving grain, but would not set the individual rate at each delivery point, thereby allowing for individual incentive and pricing which would lower the cost overall.
The cap on railway revenues would allow market signals to flow through to railways, grain companies and producers and would reduce system deficiencies such as the under-utilization of the Port of Prince Rupert. The key to this is allowing market signals to have some influence on our grain transportation system.
Mr. Estey's recommendation would also have seen freight rates fall by approximately $6.6 million per year over the next six years. The report recommends that this reduction be guaranteed through legislation and the setting of this cap.
However, the Liberal government did not like the recommendations that would have softened the wheat board's ironclad hold on western grain farmers so it spent millions more on another study. Once again the government was surprised when its next study person, Mr. Kroeger, upheld Estey's conclusions and recommended that the wheat board's control over the grain handling transportation system be eliminated.
When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Mr. Kroeger stated “My conclusion was very much along the line of Justice Estey, that unless you went to a more commercial system you couldn't really achieve major improvements”.
Arthur Kroeger gave the federal government a progressive report that if implemented would be a step toward a more efficient commercially accountable system. He proposed a structure for the revenue cap that would ensure producers' freight costs fall. He went one step further and recommended that the initial rate cap be set at 12% below the revenues earned by the railways in 1998.
Implementation of Mr. Kroeger's recommendation for the rate cap meet the major criteria of the official opposition: farmers will benefit from the changes.
When he appeared before the transport committee on February 29, Mr. Kroeger was quick to point out that any reductions to railway revenues must not be excessive. Mr. Kroeger stated “My initial reaction when I wrote the report was be careful, don't overdo it. You cut too deep, it becomes attractive for investment decisions to be shifted to other commodities. Whether people like it or not, rail transportation has to be related to the rest of the economy of Canada, the United States and the world in that it has to operate on a commercial contract basis, and in fact respond to market signals”.
In spite of these two reports, we still have our Minister of Transport dithering. While he does, farmers in western Canada are suffering through one of the worst farm income crises in years. These savings of up to $300 million are not being achieved.
I will quote a couple of our members of parliament from the west, the member for Winnipeg South and certainly the foreign affairs minister, who are drastically fighting every change that is put forward to the cabinet and the Liberal government and hindering our transport minister who has stated publicly in the press that he recognizes the need to move toward a more accountable commercially based system.
In conclusion, I hope our transport minister hears these words, keeps his backbone strong and fights back against the kind of pressure that is against the best interests of farmers in western Canada.
Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I want to talk primarily about the public sector getting involved in the national transportation system and the concept of public-private partnerships.
In the last parliament I was involved quite heavily in transport. I was transport critic and did quite a bit of work with the transport committee. One of the big things that we were driving on at that time was public-private partnerships. It was a real goal of government to get the private sector involved more with the transportation network in the country and pair with them in order to get a better system going.
It is interesting because there are a lot of things right now in the country where we could be doing that, particularly in the transportation sector. Take, for example, VIA Rail. In the case of VIA Rail, it has always relied on massive government subsidies for its operation. Interestingly, in 1997-98 the subsidies dropped but the losses in VIA Rail actually went up.
Given that the government owns and operates VIA Rail, it is kind of absurd that it claims its subsidies have dropped while at the same time the losses of the operation go up. The government of course has to cover that.
The subsidies in 1997 were $212 million. The government dropped them to $178 million for 1998. Ironically, the losses went from $253 million to $261 million.
Interestingly, we have a really good private sector comparison that we can use. VIA Rail used to run a passenger rail excursion system in British Columbia called the Rocky Mountaineer. It was a concept that VIA said could make lots of money and it really wanted to get into this. VIA ran it for a time and had the ridership up to a little under 5,000 people in a season. It lost money at it, like it did with most other things it operated, but it still said that it was wonderful.
However, the government of the day, in a moment at least of wisdom, decided that VIA would have to cut some of its losses by selling off the Rocky Mountaineer. It put it up for sale, and along came the private sector, which said, “We think that can make money if it is run right without subsidy and we'll buy it”.
The people in the public sector actually paid good money to VIA Rail to purchase this company, to buy the rolling stock and to buy the passenger list, for whatever that was worth. There certainly was not a lot of goodwill, but they paid a lot of money in any case. They bought additional cars. They refurbished the old cars. They hired crews, provided nice, snazzy uniforms for them and trained them the way they felt people needed to be trained in order to provide the service that the public was really looking for.
They then spent a great deal of money advertising. They advertised in Europe and brought tourist dollars to our country. They advertised all over this country, in the United States and brought people up from there. They made arrangements with cruise ships to make it part of a cruise-land package so people could explore the beauty of this country when they landed in Vancouver on one of these passenger ships.
They had a struggle when they started. However, without government subsidy, they now carry over 70,000 passengers. They bring in an incredible amount of tourist dollars. They provide a lot of good, solid, sustainable jobs and they pay taxes. Rather than get subsidies, they pay taxes. It is a success story. It is a success story that could be repeated in the whole passenger rail system.
The owners of the Rocky Mountaineer also decided that they needed to be good corporate citizens, unlike VIA Rail. Wherever the Rocky Mountaineer goes it advertises, it leaves a good impression and it makes great brochures. VIA Rail leaves something too. It leaves raw sewage on the tracks everywhere the train travels. There is no containment whatsoever. It just dumps straight through.
We can imagine the horror of CN and CP Rail workers when they have to work on tracks that VIA Rail has been down. Heaven forbid that people should ever go fishing under a train trestle. They should make sure it is not one that VIA Rail travels on or they may get more than they bargain for when they take the old rod out and head for the water.
The Rocky Mountaineer said “We can't do that. There is no regulation that says we have to change, but we have to be good corporate citizens”. It began converting all the rail cars, and all the new ones that came that way. They came fully contained. One by one it began converting them over, with the most used first, and gradually completing its entire changeover by 1996, which cost a lot of money that it would have liked to have put into shareholders' pockets for profits, that it would have liked to have used for advertising, that it would have liked to have used to buy more rolling stock, that it would have liked to have used even to reward the workers, who made this system work, with better wages.
However, it said “We have a corporate responsibility. This is distasteful what is being done and we have to change it”, and it did. That is the private sector. VIA Rail said “If you want us to change, okay, give us the money. Write us another cheque for this”, because that is how VIA Rail operates.
The private sector can run a transcontinental rail system in this country. It will work.
I know the minister and even some reports that have been in the newspapers and magazines have said that the private sector is not interested because there is no money to be made. I do not believe that. I say that we should give the passenger rail system in this country a chance to enter the golden age without the use of taxpayer funds. It worked in British Columbia and it could work right across this country.
If the minister's answer to this is that there is no profit in passenger rail therefore the private sector will not be interested, then I offer this challenge. I will put together a series of proposals that will offer complete, unsubsidized rail transportation across this country. If I can do this, allow the transport committee to review the proposals and recommend a decision on the future of rail travel in this country. The private sector can do the job. We have to give them the opportunity.
I want to touch on airports because they are also part of our great transportation system, particularly in a country this size. It is the other side of privatization of sorts, community-owned small airports. They are operated like businesses, very much like the private sector would operate.
In 1995 the federal government decided that it was losing so much money on airports, other than a few money-makers like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and a few others like that, that it wanted to get out of the smaller regional airports. It was losing money at virtually every one of them. It therefore went to the local governments and asked them to take over the operation of those airports.
The government said to the local governments “We know these airports are losing a tonne of money, but here is what we are going to do. We are going to make some changes and one of those changes is that we are going to change the requirement for on site airport firefighting equipment and personnel. You provide us with your plans showing how you will have a sufficient reaction time in the event of an emergency declaration and that you will be able to provide service to the airport and we will accept that”. All the communities did just that and the government accepted it.
The communities then agreed to take over the operation of those airports and turned them around. In Castlegar, my home airport, we were losing over $500,000 a year. That is a chunk of change in the grand scheme of things to the federal government, but for a small community like Castlegar that was a lot of money.
The community took on that airport and turned it around. It now makes a small but modest profit that continues to give it a little cushion and a nest egg in case there are some problems down the road. Interestingly, there happens to be some right now with all the airline upheaval that is going on.
The government is now making a move to reintroduce the very thing it cancelled. It is now saying that it will change the requirements on these small airports for the response time and that on site airport firefighting requirements will now be required. This is being done after the arrangement was made that the communities would operate the airports without this expense, and it is a tremendous expense.
I worked at airports for 22 years. Airport firefighters are trained, dedicated personnel. They are good people. However, in the 22 years I worked at an airport, I never saw an opportunity for them to save a single life.
This move by the government jeopardizes the financial sustainability of small airports throughout this country. Canada needs a better transportation network. VIA is financially unsustainable without the massive and ongoing injection of taxpayer money. The government must allow the private sector to do for VIA Rail what it has done for small airports. Ironically, what the government is doing instead is threatening the hard work that make community airports sustainable after decades of needing government subsidies. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the federal government is less and less relevant in everyday life to Canadians except when we pay taxes.
One of the two federal departments that I have had the most frustration with over the past seven years is the Department of Transport. I am appalled at the insensitive behaviour and urban orientation of our Department of Transport gurus. We live in a big country and we need worldclass transportation infrastructure.
I am going to talk about marine ports and air regulations.
Municipal governments across Canada have been asked to co-operate on accepting ownership and responsibility for many federal marine port facilities and local airports since 1995. Now, out of the clear blue sky, the federal bureaucracy wants to impose an incredibly expanding regime on an incredibly dispersed and diversified sector, which is the small airline and float plane industry.
Municipal governments entered into these negotiations in a spirit of co-operation. The goodwill in some negotiations is now completely gone. The insensitivity of the federal government to local needs and rural realities has astounded me and many others who were involved in the process.
As a measure of the good faith and co-operation that was going on, the Department of Transport started off in 1995 with 81 marine port facilities that it did not want anymore. As of March 31, 1999, 24 facilities had been successfully transferred to other authorities and 57 were still in federal hands. There are real problems with this shortened list.
I know what a remote community is. If there is anyone on the B.C. coast who knows what a remote community is, I am the one in this place who knows. I have lived there. I made my living there. The largest community I lived in for most of my 20 years in the forest industry was one with 1,800 people and many were much smaller.
I have had to scratch my head that the federal government was taking no responsibility for one very remote community in my riding on the B.C. coast. It is called Zeballos. When I filed an access to information request, it all became clear. The Ottawa bureaucracy thought there was a road along the coast that connected it to the next community and that is why it was not remote. That road does not exist.
Then there is the ongoing saga of another remote coastal community in my riding, the village of Quatsino, a viable community of 300 people established in the 1880s. Many of the same families are still there. That community relies on boats and dock facilities for health care and to send their children to secondary school. Rather than designate the connecting facility as remote and worthy of federal maintenance in line with federal policy, the government is playing hard ball and telling the community “Too bad, you chose to live there”. What an insult. I am well aware of problems along the same lines in other west coast communities.
Then there is the situation where communities have taken over their local airport authority, relieved the federal government of the responsibility often on the basis of negotiations which occurred in 1994-95, only to be sandbagged by the Department of Transport later. I have an example of irresponsible federal offloading of costs at the airport in my very own community of Campbell River.
Negotiations with Transport Canada were completed in 1995 and the community took over the airport on January 1, 1996. During negotiations the municipality expressly stated that the federal government should not transfer ownership and then mandate new costs which would make it difficult or more expensive for the municipality to manage the operation. Lo and behold, what is happening now? The federal government is trying to mandate new emergency preparedness capabilities which would introduce new costs of $350,000 a year for that facility alone and the feds do not want to pay.
This has been happening across the country. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and others are complaining. Negotiations between the affected stakeholders and the feds have broken down over the issue of costs. The stakeholders in the working group have abandoned talks with the federal government over this issue and the refusal of Transport Canada to talk about these costs.
The department only wants to discuss new standards and talk about costs later. This is impossible for the local authorities and is simply not acceptable. This is highhanded arrogant behaviour leading to an increase in the mistrust of entering into any negotiations with the federal government where downstream legislation or regulatory changes by the feds can increase local liability without compensation and where discussion seems to be a one way street with the Department of Transport driving. This is not fair negotiation.
What is required right now on this emergency response preparedness at all non-designated airports in Canada with commercial passenger service? It is a widespread issue and local authorities are complaining.
As if this is not enough, now the Department of Transport has decided to target the float plane sector.
In the words of one operator asked to respond to the new regulations and standards: “Once again Transport Canada has come up with a make work project that will waste its time and our money. If the cost for implementing and enforcing new regulations is to be borne by the operators at the water aerodrome, you can expect a mass exodus, if there is anyone left to leave. This draft document has been drawn up using a water aerodrome in downtown Toronto or Vancouver as a model. I do not think one regulation or standard can fit all aerodromes”. These are stakeholder comments.
The airlines serving Canada's remote communities do a good job under adverse circumstances and under conditions found nowhere else in the world. That is why we are so respected in the international community in this endeavour. We cannot tie up our entrepreneurs and pilots in red tape. Transport Canada has now proposed NPA 99-147 which deals with aircraft landing approach bands which would do exactly that.
I have some comments from one of the larger operators. The vice-president of Bearskin Airlines wrote:
This new proposed ruling suggests that an approach not be attempted if the reported visibility on a non-precision approach is reported below the published advisory limit.
In my experience of over 23,000 hours of flying in N.W. Ontario, there are many many times when the visibility was reported as 1/2 mile, but on one mile final I could see all of a 6,000 foot runway. In other words, flight visibility was 2 miles.
He went on to say that this new ruling would unnecessarily cancel a large percentage of the company's winter flights for no reason and with no safety advantage. He foresaw that a lot of aircraft would go to their alternates and in some cases would not be able to land legally at their alternate because of unexpected and unforecast weather situations which could lead to flights running short on fuel.
The complaints go on. Nav Canada said, “This is ill-advised from both a flight efficiency and flight safety perspective. Transport Canada should be taken to task to show the statistical connection between this proposed ruling and the safety benefits it contends will result. It is not reasonable to assume that any flight safety benefit will result from this NPA while flight deficiency will be adversely affected because approaches that could have been safely and effectively completed will be aborted or not flown at all”.
That is a list of some of my complaints. Ten minutes is a long time when there is nothing much to say but it is not very much time when there is a lot to say.
What is happening is the federal government is doing all of those things. At the same time it has created a rural dialogue to discuss how the government should prioritize federal tax spending and it wants to do it with rural youth in my riding and other parts of British Columbia. I wrote to the minister and the chair of the local school board to object to this poor priority for taxation spending.
In summary, we cannot let the insulated, comfortable and protective central bureaucracy and minister continue to increase their legislative and regulatory authority at the expense of new cost burdens on local authorities. This is simply not fair.
Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, I just wish to make a couple of comments in regard to ports and rail transportation in Manitoba. The port of Churchill in Manitoba is one of the most direct routes into the heart of the prairies. It is the most efficient and cost effective way of moving grain out of the central prairies.
I would like to point out to the House that when Omnitrax Corporation took over the rail line and the operation of the port, it did things that CN Rail said could not be done. It used regular hopper cars, the new large style, that supposedly could not be used by CN Rail. It also shipped feed peas out and brought copper ore in.
The comments of the member from British Columbia in regard to ports brought this to my mind. I would like to make sure that the transport minister recognizes that in fact commercial contract based business dealings can create greater wealth and move goods more efficiently than the old style command structure. That became evident at the port of Churchill last year through the operation of the private company Omnitrax.
John Duncan: Madam Speaker, the comment from my colleague was a good one.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about an integrated transportation system in the country.
Simply put, this debate is about getting the government to show some necessary leadership. Unfortunately it is not often we see it providing leadership with many issues. We seldom see leadership at all when it comes to transportation issues.
We saw little in the way of leadership from the government when it cancelled the Pearson airport deal which cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Nor did we see much leadership when it merely reacted to the Air Canada and Canadian Airline situation which resulted in a monopoly more or less for Canadian domestic air travel. Consumers will once again be expected to pay significantly through increased fares and limited alternatives when travelling across the country.
The other day I heard that a couple of U.S. airlines were having a price war to compete with each other. Apparently the executives at Air Canada were heard laughing all across North America. It is so sad when Canadians do not know whether that is actually a joke or the truth.
We have not seen much in the way of leadership when the government continues to collect billions in fuel taxes supposedly for the building and maintenance of our highways. It retains the vast majority of this tax to be used for its pet projects, to enable it to brag about balancing the budget and to mismanage through human resources development grant fiascos, or through dozens of other equally dismal government operations.
Speaking of fuel taxes, we certainly see a lack of leadership in this regard. On each and every litre of fuel at the pumps, the federal government has its hand out for its share which last year came to $4.5 billion. But when Canadians face a fuel crisis like we are presently witnessing, the Prime Minister appears to be blind to the fact that his government is part of the problem. He claims that escalating gas prices are outside his jurisdiction. He has refused to even consider reducing his share of the profits. That is leadership. He is quite happy to reap millions of dollars on the backs of consumers and truckers whose prices rise through the roof.
The second part of this motion seeks to encourage the federal government to work in conjunction with other levels of government and the private sector to plan, implement and fund an integrated transportation system. We have not gotten off to a very good start. The federal government will go down in history as being completely unable or unwilling to work in conjunction with other levels of government.
Federal taxes affect the pricing of motor vehicle fuels but the Prime Minister is not even interested in working together with the provinces to address our present difficulties. He merely walks away from the issue saying it is not his problem. He likes a windfall in taxes but he does not want nor will he accept the problems that are created.
Then we have our rail system. The government has been party to the dismantling and the shrinkage of our rail transportation capabilities. At the same time it has been helping the American rail system. We recently learned that our federal government through the Export Development Corporation loaned U.S. government owned Amtrak $1 billion to help build the Boston to Washington bullet train.
That deficit plagued U.S. railroad agency gets Canadian federal government support. At the same time our own rail system is being dramatically reduced. It is a national disgrace to discover that the government is more interested in protecting the more competitive U.S. transportation market while ignoring our own transportation system.
I will not even go into the relationship of Pierre MacDonald who was appointed as a director of EDC by the Prime Minister. Mr. MacDonald, a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister, was also a director of Bombardier which surprise, surprise, is a major beneficiary of the loan to Amtrak. In fact the board of the EDC reads like an old boys club in its connections to the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada but that is a debate for another day.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Rocky Mountaineer Railtours which operates a train service through the Rockies. They bought the tourism service from VIA Rail over 10 years ago and have since turned it into a major success story without one cent of government money. They plan to expand into other parts of Canada.
I mention Rocky Mountaineer Railtours to point out that Canadian entrepreneur possess the skills to meet transportation challenges, but too often the federal government stands in the way or disrupts competition by either protecting one of the participants or creating some sort of monopoly. There is little in the way of leadership to plan for success so that all Canadians may benefit from an effective and efficient transportation system within the country.
After the success of the Rocky Mountaineer Railtours I am led to believe that the federal government is considering allowing VIA Rail to compete directly with it. Once again we will have the federal government interfering by subsidizing VIA Rail to drive out a successful independent private business.
The recent Air Canada-Canadian Airlines merger illustrates how inept the government has become with its lack of an overall plan for transportation. The government and the Minister of Transport only react to what occurred to significantly change our air transportation. There has been no plan in place. There has been no leadership. The federal government merely stood by while Canadian citizens lost any semblance of a competitive market.
These examples illustrate just how the federal government fails to lead and protect Canadians by ensuring an effective transportation system. Far too often the Prime Minister runs around trying to put out one fire after another, merely by throwing money at them. If there is a problem with health care, he puts a couple of billion dollars back into it and says he has looked after it. If there is a problem with national defence he allots a few million dollars and says it is fixed. If there is a problem with organized crime taking over the country, he gives the Mounties a few million and says things are okay.
The only overall plan is to ensure that Canadians are taxed to death so the federal government will have enough surplus funds to put out the fires. Unfortunately this puts out the fires for just a short period of time. Before too long we need more resources for health care. We need more to fund national defence and we need more for our police.
This is the same problem with our transportation industry. For years and years the government has shortchanged Canadians by taxing billions and billions of dollars for road building and maintenance. Our highways have been left to break up and disintegrate. It will now cost many billions of dollars to get them back up to scratch. The government will provide a few million dollars and say everything is fine when it knows it is like a band-aid on a hole in the dike.
Similarly the government wheeled and dealed with Air Canada and worked together to spin a tale that Air Canada would maintain competitive pricing on airfares in the domestic market. In the not too distant future Canadians will witness increased prices. At some point the federal government will react with some sort of band-aid, but the problem will never completely go away because there is no overall plan or leadership. The same goes for rail transportation.
It is interesting to note that the federal government has had difficulty in finding a band-aid for the trucking industry. The government does not know who to pay off to quiet the truckers because truckers operate independently. There is no place to hand out a million dollar grant or subsidy. The government could impose a freeze by eliminating its share of the profits gained from the sale of motor fuel, but there is no guarantee that retailers will pass on the savings to the consumer.
The Prime Minister says that it is not his problem, that it is someone else's. He conveniently forgets that he is a partner in the profits. He conveniently forgets that the federal government has a role in national transportation issues. The only answer to this problem is the tried and true Liberal response that they will study it to death.
To sum up, my constituency of Surrey North is home to the Fraser Surrey docks which handles 200 vessels per year ranging in size up to 50,000 tonnes. It is part of the Fraser River Port Authority. Surrey North is also home to a large rail marshalling yard and an intermodal facility. It is bounded on one side by the Trans-Canada Highway and has two major bridges crossing the Fraser River. A sustainable, integrated national transportation system is important to the economy of my community.
Just as an anecdote, going back to the highways issue, in 1971 my wife and I drove from Toronto to Vancouver when we moved out there in an Austin Mini, a little car with 10 inch wheels. That was in my leaner days. We went out there with everything we owned and two cats. I remember our drive across the prairies. It was just a wonderful drive on the highways. Through the mountains it was a wonderful drive. Through the Fraser Canyon the only thing we feared was looking in the rear view mirror and seeing the licence plate of a semi coming behind.
Last year I drove the Fraser Canyon again, this time in a bigger car, and the condition of the highway was unbelievable. It was washboard and bone rattling. I say this to show the deterioration we have seen our highway system go through in the last 25 to 30 years. It is criminal.
To date the government has demonstrated no vision when it comes to a national transportation strategy and it is about time it started.
Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to speak to the official opposition motion which states in part:
—the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.
I congratulate the chief transportation critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, which is south of my constituency, on her thoughtfulness in tabling the motion on behalf of the official opposition and the excellent speech she delivered earlier in which she raised very important issues.
Other members have spoken in the House, particularly members of the official opposition who have brought forward many issues dealing with different aspects of transportation: fuel prices, air transportation, pollution, road maintenance, ferries and railroad transport.
My constituents care about transportation. I will tell the House about the makeup of my constituency. The constituency of Surrey Central is mostly an urban community. There are certain pockets, which are semi-urban so it is a mixture of urban and semi-urban communities. One of the remarkable features of my constituency is that it is the largest in Canada in terms of population.
The city of Surrey used to be one of the fastest growing cities in Canada before Alberta became more attractive because its Conservative government had lowered taxes. A few months ago about 1,200 people on average moved into Surrey every month. Lots of new development and construction took place to accommodate the influx of people. Due to serious parking problems in downtown Vancouver, many businesses have moved in and are moving into Surrey and other lower mainland communities.
All this has compounded the already existing traffic congestion on highways, freeways and other tributaries. It will get serious in the future if effective and constructive planning is not done in a timely fashion. If the federal government does not show leadership, we will see some serious problems not only in my constituency and the neighbouring riding but in many parts of Canada.
No. 10 highway and 176 Street in my constituency have high levels of traffic with trucks going to and from the Canada-U.S. border. Both these highways pass through many residential areas. Residents are seriously concerned about traffic congestion, safety and pollution.
The motion is asking the federal government to provide leadership in developing a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system by working in conjunction with the other levels of government, namely the municipal and provincial governments, and the private sector to plan, implement and fund such a system. It is very timely and is needed if we want to see a lot of development and progress in the country.
The federal government should not only be playing a leadership role but should also be part of the cost sharing program. Industrial development is important to create and sustain jobs in Canada. We know that small business creates jobs, not the government. Rather the government discourages jobs by increasing taxes. Small business is the backbone of our economy. To facilitate industrial development, the key to enhancing our economy, the government should keep pace with infrastructure and transportation system development in the country.
Road development and maintenance of the roads are important elements in urban planning. I indicate to my constituents and other people who are watching that I am focusing on the urban planning part of the transportation problem because my other colleagues have spoken to all other areas related to transportation. Some efforts have been made by the provincial and municipal governments to develop a ring road, for example, in Surrey but progress has been very slow. There is a need for us to effectively plan transportation in urban and semi-urban areas.
The poorly planned road system and poorly maintained roads create chaos, particularly during rush hour and bad weather. If we look at the bigger picture, this results in thousands and millions of man hours being lost during routine traffic jams, resulting in a loss or waste of national productivity. Traffic jams also adversely affect businesses and add to the costs of production and the delivery of goods and services.
Traffic jams also increase air pollution, affecting the health of Canadians. This may result in huge amounts of money being spent on health care related to pollution when the air is not purified, when air pollution or some other types of pollution occur as a result of traffic congestion.
What do we see being done by any level of government but particularly by the federal government? We see very little with respect to the magnitude of the problem or the forecast of the problems that may occur.
I was in Germany some time ago and I was surprised to see how effective the car pooling system had become in many European countries. In Germany car pooling is so effective people advertise in the newspaper that such and such a person is commuting within such and such an area. People share vehicles which reduces fuel consumption and air pollution and which results in a fewer number of vehicles being on the streets. It is very effective.
Car pooling in Canada, particularly on the lower mainland, is not effective at all. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is not working. Even park and ride is not effective. Crime control is a serious problem with park and ride. Break-in and theft of vehicles happen very frequently.
Also with respect to car pooling, the minimum number of passengers required for a vehicle to be able to use the car pool lanes on the freeways is six. This is very high. On many freeways it does not encourage commuters to use car pools. It should be reduced. In the U.S. two passengers are required in a vehicle for it to be able to use the car pool lanes. I do not see anything being done in Canada in that regard. If the government does not address these problems they become more serious.
Nigeria did not plan like we plan in Canada. Its government did not show any leadership in this area, at least not enough leadership. At one time when I used to live in West Africa its government did not plan. Traffic congestion on the roads became very serious. That government did not know what to do so it had to recall some vehicles from the streets. To do that there was a regulation that on certain days only vehicles with even numbered licence plates were allowed on the streets. On other days vehicles with odd numbered licence plates were allowed to move on the streets. The situation was serious.
If we in Canada do not plan properly there will be some of the disadvantages I mentioned. People feel frustrated and road rage occurs because of traffic congestion and other problems. To avoid all these things we need leadership from the government. Therefore the motion is very important and timely.
I will add for the lonely Liberal member who is listening to this debate that when he reports to his caucus he should urge his Liberal colleagues to do something to address this situation, and not bungle it like they did with the airline fiasco which we saw in the past. The other aspects of transportation are equally important. I am sure they will concede to the motion, take the necessary action and show some leadership.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.
It being 10.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.)