Debates of May 8th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in these clauses. I did rise to speak to some of the other motions to try to convey our views and why we are not in favour of Reform's motions to amend Bill C-19 at this late stage.

The motions we are dealing with now, Nos. 9 and 28, deal with successor rights, a fundamental principle that we should be happy to have strengthened and enshrined in our code because it is a matter of basic fairness again.

Like so many of the changes in Bill C-19, it finds its origins in the fact that we are striving for a balanced situation to be put in place that is more fair to all the parties. It deals specifically with airport workers. However, we can take this idea further because with the privatization and more and more frequent sales and mergers of companies, this issue comes up more often in the federally regulated industrial relations climate.

There are recent horrifying examples that have worked out to the detriment of workers. For instance, in the privatization at Goose Bay, non-military people are now being hired back by the private contractor at about half the wages they used to make before. The instances were piling up to the point where it was necessary to take some steps.

I do not think any of these motions are going to really help us to achieve social justice. I do not think one can ever achieve social justice through parliamentary means, frankly, because that is the job of the labour movement. It is the union's job to achieve economic and social justice.

What we can do is try to create the legislative framework within which unions can function, prosper, flourish and do their jobs. Bill C-19 tries to deal with the historic imbalance that exists between employers and employees, the imbalance in the power relationship. We are trying to level those things out so that people have a fighting chance and can deal with each other on a level playing field.

A number of the motions that Reform is trying to advocate here worry me because there is always something just below the surface that is kind of sinister about Reform motions. It is cause for concern. It is not even that far under the surface. It is sometimes quite overt. A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions. It is a well known point in law. The probable and predictable consequences of many of the motions the Reform Party is advocating would be that it would be much more difficult for workers to form a union. It would be much more difficult for workers to negotiate benefits through their union, and all those predictable things.

Really what they are trying to sell here is a worked over version of the right-to-work policy and philosophy. Right to work is the sad state of affairs in 21 of the United States. I do not think it is any coincidence that the Fraser Institute has just released “Right to Work”, the answer for the new millennium for labour relations, which is being flogged around the Hill. In fact, copies were delivered to my office.

Reform is using Bill C-19 as a launching pad to try to kick off its campaign to introduce right-to-work legislation in this country. It failed to do that in the province of Alberta. Even a right winger like Ralph Klein threw the idea out because it is an obsolete, out-dated and divisive concept. It has tried to introduce it into parliament in a back-handed, back-door way.

While we are legitimately trying to make Bill C-19 better, those members are trying to tear down the whole idea with a rather sinister package of motions which really undermines the whole concept of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the legitimate role of unions to try to elevate the standards of wages and working conditions for the people they represent.

There is nothing wrong with fair wages. Fair wages benefit the whole community. In the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, someone would have a hard time arguing why we should be tightening our belts and rolling back when banks and corporations are making record profits. Who will advocate for working people that point of view if unions will not make the argument for them?

I really am worried by the tone and the content of some of the motions put forward by the Reform Party. I think there is an underlying objective here. I used the word “sinister” and I do not think it is overstating things.

Those members seem to have, whether it is stated right up front or coming in the back door in some kind of sleazy way, a secondary objective. I can point out one case certainly. They were arguing that when 35% of the cards are signed, under Bill C-19 a vote will be ordered. The labour board may have a supervised vote so that workers can then choose whether they want a union or not.

The change they made would result in having a vote every time. Even if the workers' representative went to the labour board with 85% of the cards signed, their change states that the labour board shall order a vote. Workers would have to vote even if they demonstrated 100% support. They are making people vote twice. How democratic is that?

Are those members not satisfied that people have voted once? Will people be made to vote until the desired result is achieved? They talk about democracy. That is nothing short of sleazy. It is an abuse of power.

Those members are trying to slip in a secondary objective with something which, on the face of it, might look like a reasonable request.

If they were only asking that the board shall order a vote if 35% of the cards are signed, but if 51% of the cards are signed or 50%-plus certification is automatic, I could then vote in favour of the motion. But that is not what they mean. It is a much bigger package than that.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to point out some of these things before the end of the day. I have a feeling we are going to be up and down a number of times saying that those members are abusing democracy again. Although I should not say that because filibustering is a legitimate tactic that members use in the House of Commons.

However, it makes me wonder how it is in the best interests of the Canadian people. It makes me wonder whether they have really thought about the 100,000 prairie farmers who are very anxious to see Bill C-19 go through so they can ship their crops with the comfort of knowing that things will be handled and there will not be any work stoppages interfering with the movement of their commodity.

Have they talked to the UGG? Have they talked to the pool elevator operators? Have they talked to the prairie farmers and received their okay for dragging this bill to a halt and preventing Canadians from having the advantage of this very worthwhile piece of legislation? I do not think so, because the prairie farmers who those members like to think they represent would give them an earful. I think they would tell them loud and clear that they want passage of Bill C-19 because it has merit and value. It is good for Canadian working people and it will create balance.

In some of their remarks they even had the audacity to suggest that Bill C-19 is going to somehow have an impact on our ability to trade internationally, that it is going to hold us back. They were talking about the guy from Papua, New Guinea. It is completely absurd.

In actual fact the countries that are moving forward, the countries that are making progress, are the countries that deal in a tripartite way, where business, government and labour sit down at the table together to chart a social and economic plan and platform. It is not divisive. These guys are living in the past. They want to smash unions. They want unions out of the way. They do not recognize the legitimacy of unions.

We are not going to move forward if we have that mindset. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières is nodding his head because Quebec's model follows those lines. Labour is a legitimate practitioner in the community. Labour is seen to have a valid opinion and is consulted.

When the Reform Party finally gives up trying to bash unions and trying to be shills for the right to work movement and the Fraser Institute, maybe we can move forward as a country in a truly tripartite fashion. I think that is what Bill C-19 speaks to and that gives me some hope that there is an interest in dealing with issues in that way.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I could do; however, I am going to do only one. My temptation is to get into this tirade of nonsense that we were just subjected to, but I am not going to do that. I am going to talk about the amendments in Group No. 3.

[An hon. member]

You have some support on the other side there, Werner.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

I am so pleased that for a change the government has seen some wisdom coming from the official opposition. That is very good and I commend government members for it. I hope that when it comes to Group No. 2 they will remember that and vote in favour of the motion that the official opposition has presented. It is very significant that they do that because democracy is at the heart of this issue to a large degree. There are a lot of things at the heart of this issue.

I would like to get to the actual amendment that is being proposed by the official opposition. I would like to read that part of the bill which is being deleted by this amendment.

If we look at the bill we see that the connecting word is “or”. We can do this specific thing that is being codified in the legislation that currently exists governing airports, employees and the contracts that exist. Then it says “or”. We want to leave that first part in because to codify that is advisable and a good thing. But after that we find the word “or” and it states:

(b) provided any other service that may be designated by regulation of the Governor in Council,—

That opens the door to anything. It is so wide open we could drive half a dozen trucks through it and we would not know they had gone through. It continues:

—on the recommendation of the Minister, to another employer or a person acting on behalf of that employer in any industry that may be designated by regulation of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.

That is so wide open that it really takes away one of the fundamental considerations in running a business or in negotiating a contract.

By the way, I have to slip at least one point in here to respond to the tirade of remarks that we heard just a moment ago.

The official opposition in no way opposes the organization of labour into groups to negotiate contracts. In fact we encourage that in a way that allows that kind of organization to take place in the most democratic fashion that can be devised. That is at the heart of this issue. Having done that, we need to recognize that if we are going to have contracts like that—and the idea of successor rights deals with those contracts—the one thing we do not want in those contracts is ambiguity.

Paragraph (b), which we are deleting from the proposed bill, makes it totally ambiguous as to who will and who will not be designated by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister, and who should be included or excluded in terms of successor rights. That is precisely what contract negotiations are all about. They take away the ambiguity of salary schedules, they take away the ambiguity of benefits, bonuses, group insurance plans or whatever the employee benefits might be. All of those are written into the contract to take away that ambiguity.

The successor rights that presently exist ensure that the employee who has been employed by a previous contract can continue on through to the next employer when doing the same kind of work as the employee was doing under contract with the federal government. The employee is employed by the minister. However, paragraph (b), which we want to delete, opens it up so wide that nobody knows what in the world is going on. One of the major reasons we oppose this is because of the ambiguity.

Not only do we want definite, specific certification requirements, we want specific recognition of what exists or does not exist in terms of successor rights. We want that for three reasons: it provides stability, predictability and confidence for the contractor, the existing business, the employer and the government. We want to know what it will cost us.

I cannot believe my ears sometimes when the government seems to say only this far and no farther, but in the next instance it seems to have an absolutely open door. For the life of me I cannot understand some of the nonsense we heard yesterday about the absolutely open, unaccountable regional development agencies. They can come forward, make applications, present their budgets, have no measurable objectives, change their mandates every three or four years and the government say this is responsible.

We want to know how much an employment contract will cost. Then we can plan our budgets properly. We also want to be able to predict what the new employer will be involved in with this group of employees. We want to be confident that the contract will not be changed arbitrarily or that if another employer were to take a related contract that somehow another union would come in and change the employer's relationship with the employees. Then we would have a contradiction and a major conflict.

That brings me to the beginning of this bill. This is the number one purpose of the bill:

This enactment implements reforms to the industrial relations provisions of Part I of the Canada Labour Code, to provide a framework for collective bargaining that enhances the ability of labour and management to frame their own agreements and allows workplace disputes to be resolved in a timely and cost effective manner.

That is the underlying principle which is supposed to be governing this legislation. It is a wonderful statement. Who would not agree with that kind of statement? Then we see a provision like this and we ask: What does that do to bring about harmony and stability? What does that do to create planning, consistency and the confidence that this will work?

It is amazing the way in which Liberals can twist logic.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I received notice from the hon. member for London North Centre that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, May 11, 1998.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and government orders will begin at 11.00 a.m.

Rural Road System

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful sunny Friday afternoon in Ottawa. I know the majority of members in the House would much prefer to be in their ridings or with their families. However, I assure them that I will make sure I keep their attention totally rapt on an issue that is extremely important not only for constituents in my riding but for constituents throughout our great country.

The issue I have brought forward is not a terribly romantic one. It is not something that people can stand on soapboxes, make wonderful speeches and get very emotional about. Even though there is no romanticism tied in with the issue, I can assure it is a very vital issue. The issue is one that is the economic lifeline of rural Canada, particularly western rural communities.

The motion as put forward has not been deemed to be votable, which is unfortunate and I mean that very sincerely. I know members of the Liberal government would be more than happy to support an issue of this nature. A number of members on the government side have these issues and problems cropping up in their communities, particularly those in rural Ontario.

This is the economic lifeline of rural Canada. This is the economic lifeline of western Canada wherein the commodities produced in rural western Canada are commodities that have to travel across a transportation system to get to market.

The agricultural industry is a huge industrial sector in Canada. We are known nationally and internationally as the providers of agricultural products second to none. In order to take the product from the farm gate and get it to world markets it requires a transportation system and infrastructure that are in proper condition.

Sir John A. Macdonald saw transportation as a link of this great country. He saw it through the railroads. Now our transportation systems have changed quite dramatically over those years. We now have dramatic changes in air travel. We have dramatic changes in rubber traffic and travel on road systems. In fact, back in Sir John A.'s day he would not have expected the kind of travel we have now on the electronic highway. If the truth be known, it is still the simplistic transportation system of roadways that is so very important to our country.

Rural infrastructure is deteriorating as we speak. The rural infrastructure is in peril. It is in absolute disarray at this point in time, the reason being there are no federal tax dollars going into our national highways.

Because of Liberal policy, the reduction of transfer payments and their impacts on provincial governments, provincial governments have cut back on their own infrastructure. They are also responsible for ensuring our national highways are maintained, upgraded and rehabilitated.

There is no federal money going into the national highways program. The reconstruction and maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway are done on the backs of the provinces. The provinces spend their money. I give them full credit, particularly the western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They have done an exemplary job with perhaps the exception of Saskatchewan which has not put a lot of money into the Trans-Canada Highway. The other three western provinces have put substantial dollars to twin the highway which is the vital transportation link across the country.

They have done it with provincial dollars and without federal dollars. Thus they do not have any provincial dollars to put into secondary roads. I speak today of the secondary roads which are the vital link to our rural communities and to major market areas. That downloading has caused severe problems.

Let us look in our mind's eye at producers in rural Manitoba, rural Saskatchewan or rural Alberta. No longer do have the vital rail links we have talked about, have heard about and have in fact experienced. As a result of CN and CP rail abandonment programs the short lines going into communities have now been abandoned.

The only option for producers in the areas is to transport their commodities—and we are talking huge bulk commodities in most cases—across rural municipal roads that do not have the benefit of tax dollars to the same degree as federal government. These roads unfortunately cannot be maintained by small rural municipalities which have a smaller assessment base today than they had previously.

Producers are taking the commodity and transporting it many more miles than they had to years ago. In their wisdom grain companies, and rightfully so, are developing new and major grain terminals, high throughput terminals. By example, I have four new terminals being built in my constituency.

With four new high throughput terminals also comes the abandonment of the smaller grain elevator which in most cases was located close to the producer. Producers only had to travel perhaps 5, 10 or 15 kilometres to arrive at an elevator. Now they have to travel in some cases up to 100 kilometres on rural roads for which there is no money available for maintenance.

Producers are now using much larger vehicles such as semi-trailers and B-trains or a semi-trailer with a little pup attached. Unfortunately they take a grave and great toll on highways in the rural areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is a great dilemma for the RMs. Because of the downloading from the provinces and no money coming in, obviously the opportunity of getting product to market becomes less and less possible and more and more expensive.

This little preamble explains why I am here, why we are here and why this issue is so very important. The real issue is how to get dollars to the real area of responsibility. The real responsibility lies with the federal government. It lies with the federal government to put in place a national highways program.

I will not talk specifically to that right now, but let us look at the waterfall effect. If there were a national highways program where the federal government put in dollars and provincial governments did not have to spend money on the Trans-Canada Highway or major routes, they could then put their money back into where it is necessary right now in rural municipalities.

Canada remains the only developed country in the world that does not have a national policy for highways. Canada has a national policy for air, marine and rail, but none for the mode that conveys the most people and the most goods. That is deplorable.

I am asking today that dollars be identified simply from a percentage of the excise tax raised on fuel. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand.

The federal government collects from taxpayers billions of dollars a year through taxes on fuel. Virtually none of that money goes into the actual area it should, infrastructure and road improvement. It goes into this big black hole called general revenue and is spent on wonderful projects the Liberals see fit to support such as the backbencher's millennium fund and other areas of responsibility. It certainly has not gone into the compensation package for hepatitis C victims, but I was not to mention that in this speech.

The federal government has said it would allocate 50 cents of every dollar of anticipated surplus for new priorities. It would be my humble opinion to suggest to the government it should start helping rural Canada by endorsing the principle of the motion.

The motion calls on the federal government to make a real commitment to rural Canada. The rural road system is a vital element to Canadians from coast to coast, but in particular my area of responsibility, western Canada, has not been given a fair and equitable consideration in this matter.

That being said, the committee on Private Members' Business did not deem the motion votable. Unfortunately the majority of committee members did not see it as an important enough issue to deem it votable. I think there would be a wide range of support from all members if in fact they had the opportunity to vote on the motion.

Western Canada will receive less than 2% of all federal investment in highways during the next five years. Cash flow projects from Transport Canada suggest that during the next five years the federal government will contribute about $900 million to eastern Canada for highway construction. Western Canada will receive $13 million, of which zero goes to Manitoba, $2 million goes to Saskatchewan, zero to Alberta, $6 million to B.C., $4 million to Yukon and $900,000 to the territories.

It is clear that municipal governments cannot continue to carry the financial burden of the maintenance of these roads without more financial contribution from the federal government.

In Manitoba alone the federal government will collect approximately $140.7 million in road excise tax this year and zero will go back to Manitoba in that same time. The federal government has not committed any funding toward Manitoba's provincial highway system for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

In the years between 1992 and 1996 the federal government allocated on average $6.4 million per year to Manitoba despite collecting in Manitoba an average of $124 million per year.

[An hon. member]

What about the equalization funds?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

The equalization payments have already been cut. The equalization payments have been reduced by some 35% in the meantime. I am trying to concentrate specifically on the excise tax that is being collected, $140 million out and zero back into roads.

In reality the federal government has only put 4.8% of the money it collects from Manitoba road users back into Manitoba roads. That is deplorable.

It should also be noted that of the $27 million the western grain transportation adjustment fund allocated by the federal government to Manitoba in 1997 very little went back to roads. The Liberal government of the day decided it was best to put it into the electronic highway as opposed to the rural infrastructure program.

There are some alternatives. As a matter of fact the president of UGG said that moneys generated from the sale of the hopper cars that will take place, the $250 million to $350 million, should go back into rural road infrastructure. Its president, Mr. Ted Allen, said that investment in road infrastructure at both the federal and provincial level had failed to keep up with the pace of the burgeoning growth in the agriculture sector.

When the hopper cars are sold, the money should not be put back into general revenue for these wonderful programs that are thought up. The money should be put back into the programs that we should have right now such as rural roads.

The president also noted that the federal government collects over $4 billion in fuel tax revenue annually, but last year spent only $270 million nationally in road infrastructure. That being said I would like to say that the federal government in fact does have a mandate. It is a federal responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure in the transportation system in this country is in working order.

The economy that is developed and generated from rural Canada is immense. We have to make sure that the infrastucture stays in place in order for us to enable the economy to further develop. We must further develop that infrastructure.

I do have an opportunity to wrap up in the last five minutes. I will be more than happy to do that.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this motion recommends that the government dedicate all the revenues from fuel taxes to just one purpose, maintaining Canada's rural road system.

First let us make it clear that from day one this government has recognized the importance of Canada's infrastructure to improve our quality of life, unlike the hon. member across the way.

One of the first actions we took upon taking office in 1993 was to launch the $6 billion Canada infrastructure program together with the provinces and municipalities as partners. The program was extended last year with an additional $425 million federal commitment. This joint effort has benefited both urban and rural communities by strengthening their competitiveness with improved infrastructure, including rural roads.

Let us also be very clear about the consequences of supporting the motion we are debating today. In 1996-97 excise taxes on fuel amounted to $4.4 billion. By earmarking these funds for rural road maintenance, the government would then have three options: reduce spending in other areas by the same amount; raise taxes by $4.4 billion; or let the deficit re-emerge, one thing that the hon. member is very familiar with given the fact that he is from the Conservative Party.

Canadians do not want their health spending, education assistance or old age security cut by $4.4 billion. They do not want their taxes increased by $4.4 billion. And they certainly do not want the deficit to reappear after having made so many sacrifices to get rid of it. Clearly none of these options is acceptable.

Equally important, earmarking taxes is an idea that is fundamentally flawed. It would curtail the government's ability to respond to new and emerging priorities. It could result in overfunding of some initiatives and underfunding of others.

To be effective, government has to be flexible so it can adapt quickly to changing priorities. That is why the government's current policy is to direct all revenues into the consolidated revenue fund from which all initiatives are funded. Simply put, earmarking taxes would tie the government's hands by limiting its ability to address important priorities as they arise. It is simply bad policy.

It is clear that the government is in much better fiscal shape than it was even several years ago and that it will have more room to manoeuvre in the years ahead and more resources to address important issues, but we must maintain a realistic perspective in this regard. In an era of limited resources government must be focused. It must work in partnership and it must only act where it can make a difference. It must take a balanced approach to the overriding objective of building a strong economy and a secure society.

The 1998 budget announced a historic fiscal achievement and reconfirmed our balanced approach to building a strong economy and a secure society. It announced that the federal books would be balanced in 1997-98 for the first time since 1970. We will also balance the budget this year and next year. It is the first time in almost 50 years that Canadians will see three consecutive balanced budgets.

Our commitment to fiscal responsibility to put an end to credit card government does not end there. We will reduce Canada's debt burden through a two front strategy of stronger economic growth and a concrete debt repayment plan.

Our government has always recognized that a healthy bottom line is a means to an end and not an end in itself, unlike the Reform Party. The 1998 budget uses our new leverage for strategic investments in areas where government can make a difference.

For example the budget launched the Canadian opportunities strategy. The strategy, including the Canada millennium scholarships, will improve Canadians' access to knowledge and skills, something that the Reform Party is not in favour of.

The budget provides funding to increase the Canada child tax benefit by an additional $850 million in two steps.

Improving Canadian health care is one of the government's core priorities. That is why as our books improve one of our first and most significant initiatives was to introduce legislation to increase the Canada health and social transfer cash floor from $11 billion to $12.5 billion.

Finally the 1998 budget also begins the process of general income tax relief which is a key priority for Canadians and for the government. We all know, as it has been said often in the House, that at the outset tax relief measures would be modest because the financial dividend that makes them possible is modest as well. The budget announced reductions in taxes for those who can least afford to pay them, low and middle income Canadians. These measures will provide close to $1.6 billion in tax relief to 14 million low and middle income Canadians, that being 90% of all income tax filers.

These are the government's priorities. We believe that they reflect what Canadians want.

Our goal is to build a strong economy and a secure society, one that can provide Canadians with the opportunity and the ability to succeed in an ever evolving economy while still ensuring their security and well-being. Our approach is delivering real benefits for Canadians today and a robust outlook for Canada as we look toward the new millennium. We saw the unemployment numbers just the other day.

Governments have to make choices. We have to make choices about what priorities we should pursue as a government and ensure that those priorities reflect what Canadians tell us.

Earmarking over $4 billion in revenues for rural highway maintenance would not be the best choice for Canada or Canadians. That is why I urge all members to reject the motion before the House. It is bad policy. It is a policy that does not reflect Canadian priorities.

I respectfully submit that what the government has done since 1993 does reflect what Canadians have asked for. We see the fruits of our labour. We see that Canadians have made sacrifices. The government is not about to squander the sacrifices Canadians have made by imposing a policy upon them that would not reflect what they want.

The government will not start to earmark money and get into the whole scenario where it is overfunding in one area, underfunding in another area and ultimately having to make choices. To do what the hon. member is asking we would have to raise taxes. We would have to make cuts in other areas in order to fund $4.4 billion to do what the hon. member is asking. That is not what Canadians are asking for. It is certainly not what the government is prepared to do.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the shortage of money the parliamentary secretary refers to could be solved if we gave all the national highways to Bombardier. There is always money for folks like them. Then there would be no argument here today.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary's dissertation and I lost track of the number of times I heard the words “our government, this government, my government”. This is Private Members' Business. I do not think the hon. parliamentary secretary is clear on the concept. In fact he is hardly clear on any concept.

This is the only country in the western world that has no national highway program or even a coherent national highway policy. This country has 900,000 kilometres of public roads, streets and highways. Of them, 202,000 or 22% are in my own little province of Saskatchewan and a minuscule fraction, 15,000 kilometres are federal roads mostly in parks and on Indian reserves. Another 24,400 kilometres are part of the designated national highway system.

The federal government collects a whopping $5 billion annually in fuel taxes of which $4 billion comes specifically from highway fuels.

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the excise tax on fuels was initiated in response to the first fuel shock. It was used to buy up a bunch of private oil companies. It was a portion of the discredited national energy policy. It was a stick with which to beat the Canadian people.

Guess what? We are not using the excise tax for that purpose any longer. But has anyone ever heard of a government ceasing to collect a tax that it does not use for the purpose that it was designed for? Good heavens, we are still collecting the income tax which was brought in as an emergency measure to finance the war effort in World War I. We still have the excise tax that was brought in to help us through the first oil shock.

To cut this down to a little finer geographic limit, on gasoline alone, not diesel, the federal fuel excise tax in the prairie provinces is $650 million. The annual return to those provinces is limited to a few million, very few million as we heard from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. For their excise taxes they get back a little bit of WGTA compensation for roads and a minuscule share of the famous infrastructure program.

Concerning Saskatchewan, I have to disagree with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. Saskatchewan has actually given up on the predatory federal government and has started on its own to go ahead and twin the Trans-Canada Highway. With partners like we have in the federal government there is just no hope.

Saskatchewan actually had all its money on the table four years ago for the twinning program. The feds negotiated but when it came down to the short strokes and discovered that the Saskatchewan government was serious, it ran for the woods. Now we are paying for it ourselves.

I would like to give some numbers. This is the place where numbers should be discussed as it is a technical subject. The U.S. invests 31% of its gas tax revenues in highways. Germany invests 38%. Italy invests 45%. Australia invests 50%. France and Spain invest 65% each. Great Britain invests 100%. Canada invests 4% in highways.

With rail line abandonments we are having a disaster in our transportation system in western Canada. The highways and municipal roads are falling apart. Nevertheless, I do not have exactly the same take on this as the member for Brandon—Souris. I do not think the feds should take dedicated fuel tax revenues and put them directly into municipal or rural roads. I do believe that the government should give a reasonable portion of them to the provinces to use, as they would naturally bring them back into the municipal system.

I also believe the government should meet its obligations and do something about our disgraceful national highway system. We are a laughing stock.

There is one little stretch of the famous Trans-Canada Highway in the western edge of my riding, 108 kilometres, that has killed 39 people in the last 20 years. People call it the death strip. It is one of the places where the Saskatchewan government is now starting to do some twinning. It is in the Maple Creek area. This is only one death strip. There is another one in the Kicking Horse Pass. There is another one not too far out of Revelstoke. They are everywhere and this government will not pony up to its responsibilities.

At one time we had legislation in this country to bring in a national highway system. We actually completed a Trans-Canada Highway of sorts way back in 1961 but since then nothing has happened. We have a federal government that shirks its responsibility.

The Canadian Automobile Association has come with a plan which I and my party have supported now for a number of months. I think it makes eminent sense. They say “We know the federal government is addicted to this excise tax. It cannot just put it all from whence it came into roads where it should go. So give us back a mere 20%, two cents to the litre”. Within six or seven years we would have a national highway system that we would not have to be ashamed of, that would not be killing our citizens, that would not be forcing people driving from eastern to western Canada to divert down through Michigan in order to avoid our national highway.

This is happening right now. It is not just mom and pop on vacation but the commercial trucking industry is picking its way down through the United States in order to avoid the use of the Trans-Canada Highway. That is embarrassing. That is disgraceful.

As a Reformer of course I cannot avoid talking about costs. The hon. parliamentary secretary alluded to it. We would not have money to do surveys on the desirability of sodomy if we were going to spend money on public roads. But if we do not look after our roads they disintegrate.

In the first 12 years the cost of maintaining a paved road is only $500 to $1,000 per annum per kilometre. At that point deterioration accelerates and we have to start resurfacing at a cost of about $80,000 per lane kilometre. After another 12 years pavement break-up begins and full reconstruction has to be done at a cost of about a quarter of a million dollars per lane kilometre.

What is the old saying, a stitch in time saves nine. If we looked after these roads, if we gave them the maintenance they deserve, we would not be getting into the box we are in now.

The Trans-Canada Highway is old by highway standards. The two lane highway we have through most of the country was actually built in 1961-62. It has to be fixed. Nobody except the feds has any money and the feds glom every nickel they can get. It is about time they started to live up to their responsibilities.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion by the member for Brandon—Souris. I will first read the motion, so we can put the debate in context.

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada.

When we first read the motion, we tend to want to support it, because when as members we realize that the rural road system in our riding, in our region, is not necessarily adequate, we feel that something should be done.

Unfortunately, it is like knocking at the wrong door. The federal government should not be looking after the rural road system. We have increasingly of late been looking at the possibly of developing a home care system, which the government would look after across Canada.

The situation is the same in the case of the rural road system. It is under provincial jurisdiction, and if there is one government not equipped to look after it, it is the federal government. We need only look at the past mess in the whole business of federal government transportation policy development.

In my riding, they decided some 15 years ago to close a railway line. That put huge pressure on the road system and resulted in endless numbers of trucks on the road. Now, we are having to repair the road in question.

The province has to pay for the bad choice by the federal government because the regional road system needs to be maintained.

I think we have to put things in perspective. The jurisdiction is provincial and the responsibility, municipal. A whole process already exists to manage this sort of thing.

If there is a model or an approach for the future we might contemplate, it might well be the infrastructure program. The Bloc has already indicated its support for renewal of this program. It earned the congratulations of the President of the Treasury Board, who said to us on April 3, following our request, that he appreciated the Bloc Quebecois' support for the Canada-Quebec infrastructure works program and wanted to assure us that our viewpoint would be given all due consideration when the federal government examined the options for the future of the program.

This might be an approach. If the federal government wants to spend a third of the money in such a program and leave it up to the local level to decide its priorities and how best to improve its regional network, this might be the way to go.

However, this arrangement must not provide for programs that would allow the federal government to intervene directly in the rural network. This would be in contradiction to its recent practice in the transportation sector of divesting itself of ports and airports.

Over the past 30 years of administration, we have seen that costs have skyrocketed. Costs are always higher and things are always more complicated when the government which has the jurisdiction is further removed from the reality and costs are always lower when the closer government assumes responsibility and accountability for the work done.

So, there is perhaps another approach to be considered. In the end, it is always the same consumer who pays. If people want a good rural road system and if they want the appropriate level of government, be it municipal or provincial, to have the money available, the federal government could simply reduce its tax grab and allow the government responsible for developing the rural road system to collect the money.

Unfortunately, the solution proposed will not correct a very real problem. If people decide to let the federal government invest in this project, they will never be able to ensure that it is accountable and that the money collected has actually been spent on the rural road system.

Like the member for Brandon—Souris, I have examples in my riding of manufacturers that could benefit from a better rural road system. In Saint-Joseph-de-Kamouraska, there is a small company located on a rural route that needs a better road system for reasons of improved accessibility. This would help with its economic activity, the development of its markets and the transportation of the goods it produces. In the case of examples such as these, I think that something should obviously be done.

Another example in my riding is highway 185 between Rivière-du-Loup and New Brunswick. This highway has experienced an incredible increase in car traffic because of the improvement in communications and the fact that the Rivière-du-Loup sector, among others, is a regional transportation pole. We would like to see additional money invested in this area.

I think that no one in our region would criticize the federal government for deciding all of a sudden not to go ahead with the purchase of submarines for $750 million but rather to make this amount available to local governments to help improve the highway system.

In Canada, the highway system was developed after the railway system, which had itself been developed along an east-west axis that no longer meets current development priorities.

The road system must be developed on a north-south axis so we can travel from Vancouver to Seattle, from the western provinces to the U.S. Midwest, or from Ontario and Quebec to New England, which would ensure better access to the North American market and promote exportation.

In this respect, the federal government should ask itself whether it is really investing in the right areas.

Let us avoid asking the federal government to intervene in the rural road system in Canada. It lacks the efficiency for this. Besides, this is not its responsibility. It is a provincial responsibility, a municipal responsibility. The proof of this lies in the implementation of the first phase of the infrastructure program.

In my riding, we have spent money on projects in a number of municipalities, and since the municipality was in charge of the project, the work could often be done at half the cost it would have been for a higher level of government to do it.

The local government knows what is required. It knows what is needed, it knows what additional resources are needed to get results. But let us not get federal government money involved. We will lose more in administration costs than we will gain in actual investment in the project.

We have already seen this in the past, systems that cost so much to administer that the funds do not get to those they are intended to help.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I recognize the good intentions of the hon. member behind this motion, but I do not see this as the right solution to a real problem. The real solution lies more in getting the federal government to look after its own affairs a little more, to ensure that it runs its own affairs more efficiently, to agree to decrease the tax burden on Canadians, so that the governments responsible for such projects will be the ones to levy taxes as they are needed.

The road system, whether rural, provincial, or Canada-wide, is an essential tool of economic development, and when the federal government said that it would subject all of its actions to the criterion of rural impact, I trust that this was not with the intent of intervening in areas in which it cannot be efficient.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

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.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of the importance of Private Members' Business. Some of the best ideas that have come to parliament have been through private members. This is absolutely one of the best examples of that.

We have a government that has an insatiable appetite for tax revenue and does not have a clue about what is important to the people of the country. Instead it wastes its money on all sorts of crazy things and the highways of the country are going downhill.

I did a calculation of government taxes when it comes to gasoline which I actually shared in the previous parliament. This being a new parliament it is time to share it again. In the 1994 budget the Minister of Finance announced a 1.5 cent a litre increase in tax on fuel. What he was not telling the people was that there was GST on top of that tax. That tax is added first and the GST is computed when all other taxes are in. Not only are the provincial and the federal taxes taxed with a GST but it is added on at the very end. That made that increase 1.605 cents, not the 1.5 that was actually touted.

I did a little calculation that showed that gasoline is taxed at 177%. Here are my premises. Before the election as well as now, if I begin with an earning of $2.78, with what I earn at the top of my income level I get taxed on 40%. $1.11 goes to income tax. I am now left with a $1.67. I take that $1.67 over to the gasoline station to buy some gasoline. What happens? There are taxes that we pay directly at the pumps in terms of excise taxes plus the taxes oil companies or retailers pay.

So that is money that comes from me, goes to the government in the form of taxation and accounts for very close to another 40%. Forty per cent of $1.67 is 67 cents and I am left with $1.00 to buy gasoline.

When I pay $1.67 in taxes, having purchased $1.00 worth of gasoline, it is a 167% rate of taxation. If the government cannot live with that it is really shameful.

I urge all members to support this bill. It is a very wise and important bill and a very necessary bill.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to sum this up as quickly as possible.

I must, however, refute a couple of the comments by the parliamentary secretary. As usual, there was quite a substantial amount of fearmongering. Not once in the motion does it deal with $4.4 billion per year going into this program.

What it deals with is a portion of the excise tax raised on gasoline to go into an area where it was meant to go in the first place, highways, roads and, in this case, rural road reconstruction.

I am not suggesting for a moment $4.4 billion per year. What I am suggesting, however, is a plan. Is that too much to ask for, a priority that is being set and a plan that is set to deal with the priority? It may well mean $250 million a year over a 20 year period. It may well mean $350 million a year over a 10 year period. However, all I am suggesting is that the government get its head out of the sand and understands that there is a serious problem out there.

The hon. member from the Bloc unfortunately likes to make sure there are distinctions between federal and provincial jurisdiction. I am not getting into provincial jurisdiction. If indeed the plan should be that the provinces ultimately make the decision as to where that money should be spent I would applaud that. Take the money being generated by federal taxes, give it to the provinces and then they can apply it to the priorities on road construction. It is not that difficult a concept.

If provinces are now spending their dollars to fix federal responsibility roads then those dollars cannot be spent for provincial roads. This is not difficult to understand, so please do that.

There was some suggestion that other priorities would be affected substantially such as health care, education and all those wonderful priorities that we all recognize as being very major priorities. I suggest then that perhaps the $500 million that was spent in cancelling the EH-101s could have better been spent on road construction.

I suggest the $800 million blown by this government on the Pearson airport deal could have better been spent on road construction. Let us not confuse the issue with the priorities of health care and education. Let us just suggest there is a problem. A plan should be put in place and the plan dealt with.

We can talk about a national highways program with the next private member's motion I would like to table.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.)