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.