Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be part of the debate today on the matter of great importance for rural Canadians. I congratulate the hon. member for focusing our attention on the state of rural roads in Canada.
With over 90% of the land mass, one third of the population, one fifth of the employed workforce, rural issues demand more attention than they receive.
Primary industries comprise the bulk of rural Canada's economic vitality. This trend comes from industries such as energy, forestry, minerals, agriculture, fisheries and many others.
Without a rural road infrastructure there is no way to get at these resources or to get them to markets around the world. In such a large country with economic prospects flung far and wide, we need good roads or this country will go nowhere.
It is not an exaggeration to say the economic contribution of rural Canada is enormous. Rural Canada produces almost half our exports. Our world trade surplus in 1995 was $73 billion, a staggering success.
The economic output of rural Canada accounts for close to one fifth of the GDP. It is not all fresh air and lemonade. Rural Canadians contribute far more than their share to the economic vitality and to the standard of living of Canadians everywhere.
It is clear to all that rural Canada remains neglected. Services and infrastructures are poor in many areas and government and the private sector have been unable to overcome these difficulties.
I quote from the March 1997 report of the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources, a report entitled “Think Rural”.
After hearing from a great many witnesses on the state of rural Canada, the committee had this to say about rural roads: “Existing deficiencies in transportation and infrastructure, especially roads, were repeatedly brought to our attention. We were informed that the rural infrastructure in place is often poor quality and that there is a complete lack of highways in remote regions. We were told that rail and air transportation is often inadequate and existing rural air transport is prohibitively expensive.
“Federal policy initiatives in transportation have historically been detrimental to maintaining rural transportation infrastructure”.
There we have it, a crisis in the midst of our economic engine.
The Council of Ministers of Transportation has given a name to the rural road network in this era of globalization. It is simply called the strategic economic network. The council recognizes that for Canada to thrive under globalization we must have the ability to access our resources whether they be renewable in the form of fisheries and forestry or untapped deposits of wealth such as mines. Without it, the council says, Canada will suffer under globalization and the living standards of Canadians will deteriorate quickly.
This is not just about a few more bucks for asphalt. Canada needs a strategy for rural roads. Indeed there is need for a comprehensive strategy for all of rural Canada. We need effective strategies to develop exports, high technology, education and medicare. These are all important but we neglect rural Canada at the peril of Canadians everywhere.
Rural Canadians, whether they live in the wide open spaces or in small towns, understand that nature has a balance. When the government tore up the railways in many parts of rural Canada, including Atlantic Canada, the burden previously borne by the rail network fell to the waterways and roads. Now the infrastructure of the waterways is falling into disrepair and naturally then into disuse with no support from government or the private sector.
The rural transportation system is out of balance. Essentially all we have left are roads, or very soon this will likely be the case. The removal of rail from the transportation picture means more trucks and larger trucks. That takes a toll on the road network. Roads in disrepair or roads built cheaply because of scarce public funds being diverted to other priorities mean weight restrictions and delays. This affects economic performance and can be a factor in whether or not investments are made in certain rural areas.
If a business in my constituency is transporting shellfish over roads which cause delays the product takes longer to get to market. Smaller loads are required which are less profitable and losses in product quality are inevitable. Not all the problems are economic. Poor maintenance can result in conditions that make driving dangerous.
Most rural roads are not double lane or twinned highways. Studies have proven that the types of roads which separate oncoming traffic are much safer, but if we do not have enough money for even a proper rural road network then double lanes are a luxury rural Canadians will not see. They will have to continue to face more dangerous driving conditions. This is clearly a problem, so what do we do about it?
The first thing to recognize is that in Canada roads are a provincial responsibility. However the federal government has a tradition of contributing to road building. When we compare the share of federal funding by governments in other countries, we see shares of between 30% and 65%. Our share is about 5%. In countries that share Canada's challenge of overcoming great distances and a style of federal government mixed with state or provincial jurisdiction, the U.S. and Australia have committed their federal governments to funding 100% of the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation costs of national highway systems.
In Canada there have been many calls for many years for a new national highway policy. Such a policy might co-ordinate the road building efforts in this country if for no other reason than to make the business sector more efficient in light of the demise of rail and expensive air transport. Such a national policy could address in a significant way the issues facing the rural road network, but these issues must be embraced by a powerful strategy with the full support of government, much like the deficit fight.
An inadequate infrastructure hampers our ability to compete. It is as simple as that. In February 1997 the Standing Committee on Transport studied the issue of a national highway policy. It stated:
The committee agrees with all those who have said that the only way a National Highway Program can be implemented is if the federal government makes the commitment to provide long term, sustainable and secure funding.
Similarly the Standing Committee on Natural Resources calls on the federal government to enact a national rural development policy with a minister responsible for such a national project. The committee studied the issue of rural roads and concluded that the federal government should enter into a new cost shared agreement with the provinces to implement a national highways upgrade for rural areas.
The committee also suggested that federal tax assistance of limited duration should be provided to businesses willing to operate short haul rail lines, serve as regional air carriers or as rural airport landlords, manage and maintain rural docks and harbours, or construct road infrastucture.
Finally, the committee recommended that the federal government should review its application of cost recovery to services provided in rural Canada to ensure that undue financial burdens are not imposed on industries operating in rural and remote communities.
It is clear that the question of rural roads cannot be considered in isolation from the greater question of rural development. It is my understanding that the government has taken some steps which include that some thought is being given to a national rural development policy.
Recently the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced the rural lens policy. This policy is designed so that government programs and policies are put through the rural lens so that rural issues are given due consideration before the government acts.
However, I believe the government has failed its first test by privatizing the services delivered at the military base at Goose Bay. This policy would seem to be a pilot project to privatize services at military bases across the country and to take control, profits and opportunities out of rural communities. I do not see how this benefits rural Canada whatsoever. I do not see how this rural lens was applied at all in this instance.
In light of this momentum I would like to suggest that applying the fuel tax to the maintenance of rural roads is only one option. The rural transportation network is so important to the entire issue of rural development that one cannot be considered without the other.
It is my understanding that the cabinet is studying a response to the think rural report. Perhaps momentum will develop to solve problems such as rural road maintenance. I am confident that when the challenges of rural development are treated in this manner only then will rural road maintenance and development receive the resources they require.
My hon. colleague is to be congratulated for his concern. This may very well be part of a comprehensive solution to the difficulties in rural Canada and how to tap the enormous potential which exists there. I join him in his concern and hope all members will ensure that the government introduces a proper rural development policy that will solve the problems the hon. member has highlighted today.