Debates of March 22nd, 2000

Supply

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

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, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

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.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

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.

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

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.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

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.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

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, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the comment from my colleague was a good one.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

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, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

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.)