Debates of March 22nd, 2000

Act Of Incorporation Of The Board Of Elders Of The Canadian District Of The Moravian Church In America

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to debate the Reform motion calling on the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system. However I question the need for an integrated transportation system, considering the tremendous increases in gas prices we have been experiencing lately and I feel that if this continues, the majority of Canadians will have to stay at home.

Already we have witnessed the serious plight of our truck drivers who are struggling to survive in the face of these rising costs.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We are not on transport. We are talking about the bill on the Moravian Church. I wondered whether the hon. member was coming to the point but perhaps he thinks we are on a different debate.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yes I thought we were debating something else.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are on the motion for second reading of Bill S-14.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House shall now resume debate on the supply motion of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. When the House broke for the divisions, the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre had the floor and he has 16 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue my remarks on this very important motion which condemns the Liberal government for its terrible transportation policies. I want to provide evidence to the effect that my statement is well supported by facts in the country.

Transportation infrastructure is vital to Canada's future economic development. We need an efficient, high quality and safe network of highways, railways, ports and airports to move Canadians and the goods we produce.

Our transportation infrastructure is degrading rapidly under the Liberal government. The problem is that the Liberal government lacks the vision and will to plan and develop a transportation infrastructure for this century.

In my view the Reform Party tends to be hypocritical in criticizing the Liberal government's mismanagement of transportation policy since the Reform Party has supported most of the Liberal government initiatives to deregulate and privatize our transportation infrastructure. Now that we are beginning to feel the disastrous effects of these policies, the Reform Party is flip-flopping. It is saying that it is not true, it did it once but it is okay now.

I contend that only the NDP has consistently fought for an efficient and safe transportation infrastructure to promote jobs and economic development for Canadians.

I want to talk about three important issues of transportation. The first one relates to the failure of the Liberal government to provide an adequate highway system for our country.

Our highways are in rapid decline, particularly in western Canada where the government has eliminated railway transportation subsidies for western grain farmers. We are the only country in the 28 countries in the OECD which does not have a national transportation policy and a national program to support our highways.

What has happened in the degradation of the highways particularly in western Canada where I am from, is that the government has taken away the subsidies for grain from the railroads and the farmers. We are the only country in the world to do that.

The European countries provide about 56 cents on the dollar to farmers in terms of their agriculture subsidies. The United States provides about 36 to 37 cents on the dollar in subsidies. We provide our farmers in western Canada about six cents on the dollar. We have the farthest distance to travel to haul our products from the farm to the port and we are the only country that does not have a decent aid program for our farmers.

Since the subsidies were taken away, there has been more pressure on the highway system in western Canada because it has now become more efficient in many ways to transport grain and other agricultural crops by truck. The highways and byways of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Alberta were never built for the huge grain trucks that are now travelling on them. The highways and the road system are being destroyed.

The rail system would be the most efficient way to transport these goods but it is now being saved for other reasons. It is being abandoned in many ways by the Liberal policies that recommend, encourage and advocate that CNR and CPR abandon the rail lines. There is a very severe attack of heavy equipment on the roads.

We go to the next phase. The highways are falling apart because they have not been built for the heavy vehicles and what does the Government of Canada do? It charges excise taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline which brings in about $5 billion a year. What does it put back into the highways that it has been very instrumental in destroying?

From the money it is taking out of Saskatchewan and the rest of the country, $5 billion a year approximately, what is it putting back into Saskatchewan? Let me put it this way. If we were to stop on a dime on a Saskatchewan highway, we can bet that dime was not a federal dime because not one dime is spent on highways in Saskatchewan. The government takes $200 million out in fuel taxes alone but not one dime goes back to the highway system in the province of Saskatchewan.

The Liberals do not know this but Saskatchewan has more miles of roads than any other province in Canada. Saskatchewan has one million people yet it has more miles of roads than Ontario which has 11 million people.

What did the federal government do in terms of helping our farmers? It took away their transportation subsidies. It forced the farmers to use the roads and therefore to weaken the roads with heavy duty trucks. What does it put back to support the transportation system? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Zippo. It is a shame.

Farmers in that province look at this. Members of the Reform Party sit there cheering the Liberals on saying no more money for the highway system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba because they do not believe in those kinds of what they call subsidies. We feel it is an investment in the economy of western Canada.

The Liberal government is responsible for interprovincial highways. It needs to work in partnership with the provinces to re-establish a national highways program and to rebuild and maintain these crucial links.

The government's neglect of the highways has caused a proliferation of private toll roads in some provinces. Toll roads are a deterrent to trade and economic development. They also burden the taxpayers because the tolls are passed on to the taxpayers whether they use the roads or not.

Bad roads cost lives. I am not sure if the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan has driven through Ontario on Highway 17 from Ottawa to North Way to Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie and over to Wawa, Thunder Bay and Kenora. It is part of the Trans-Canada Highway, the number one highway in the country and I am ashamed to travel on it. The Trans-Canada Highway across northern Ontario is a death trap, not to mention a speed trap. It has to be maintained and improved.

I would like to see the Liberal government put its money where its mouth is and unite our country from coast to coast by building a capable, first class 21st century highway linking the east and west coasts. That would be similar to the big project of Sir John A. Macdonald when he united the country with the railroads. But instead the government starves the provinces in terms of providing any kind of highway subsidies.

The government has totally decimated the rail system. It talks about giving a few subsidies for the railways. If the Liberals had sunk some money into passenger rail service and provided access for Canadians to travel the passenger trains in a reasonable and efficient manner, that would not be so bad. What have they done? They have continued to reduce subsidies to railroads.

As a matter of fact, in the city I come from, Regina, we cannot travel by passenger out of Regina. If Regina was a small community like La Ronge, Preeceville or Sturgis that is one thing, but Regina is the capital city of the province. We have the mainline CPR track running through there but we cannot ride the trains unless we hop a freight, which is illegal and dangerous. I can tell members that it is dangerous because I used to be a railway brakeman for the CNR in one of my previous movies, in one of my previous lives. It was a great job. I loved the railway dearly.

It hurts me and it breaks my heart when I see the Liberal government continuing to abandon the railroads and maintaining an infrastructure which could be very important and helpful in offsetting some of these higher energy costs. We are now faced with record energy costs in the country. Gas prices right now in some places in northern Ontario are 80.9 cents a litre. In Saskatchewan it is 74.9 cents. Oil only hit a record of about $34 a barrel. Now it is down to $28 or $29 a barrel.

In 1991, when the Iraq crisis happened, the price of gasoline was not 80 cents or 74.9 cents or 62 cents. The record price in 1991 was 61.9 cents. We have only had a 1 cent or 2 cent tax increase since that time. We have the oil companies gouging consumers and the economy with the full support of the Liberals opposite.

I would like the Liberals to undertake to have an energy summit. They do not want a summit because they would actually have to come up with some solutions. Liberals do not want to talk about solutions, they just want to talk.

I happen to have a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister. I called on the Prime Minister to put together and chair an energy summit to include the provinces and the major stakeholders in the oil business, particularly the refineries, to come up with some kind of action plan to defend our economy from the OPEC oil cartel. I sent this letter on March 8, and I will quote from it. It says:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to request that you and your government take immediate action to protect Canadian consumers from the OPEC oil cartel. Rising oil prices are having a serious impact on the lives of all Canadians and threaten to endanger the gains Canadians have made in our economy.

Gas prices are at record levels. According to Stats Canada, domestic oil companies are holding back on production in spite of record fuel prices. In fact, excluding taxes, gas prices are lower in the U.S. than in Canada.

It has always been maintained by the oil companies that the prices were the same but, in fact, CBC Marketplace found in November that the price of gasoline in Atlanta, Georgia was 18.4 cents a litre. When we take out all the taxes, 18.4 cents Canadian a litre versus the best price in Canada, which is in Calgary at 33.3 cents, it is almost 12 cents a litre or two-thirds less expensive in the Unites States than it is in Canada. Although the oil companies and the government maintain that our prices are the same as the U.S., when we cross out the taxes and the exchange that is not the truth.

I went on to say:

Confronted with these realities, the U.S. government has taken action to protect and defend its economy and U.S. consumers from the OPEC oil cartel by adopting a 17 point plan.

Sir, Canada needs a Canadian action plan to defend the Canadian economy and Canadian consumers. I urge you to consider developing such a plan to include at least some of the following actions:

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

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

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

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

I continued on by asking him to examine the regulation of the pricing of fuel costs in this country. Regulation is not a dirty word. The government is obligated in times of tough economy and in times of these kinds of things happening to look at these kinds of actions and these kinds of consequences and responses to potentially and irresponsibly position the marketplace.

I think it is very important that we look at this particular aspect of energy prices. We are not talking about chocolate bars here. If the price of chocolate bars goes up we can buy another chocolate bar or we can choose another dessert. We can buy a piece of pie, a piece of cake, some ice cream or we can choose not to have dessert at all.

However, energy is the linchpin of our economy. Energy impacts on everything we do in this country, whether we transport goods, go to work, come from work, purchase goods that have been transported or heat our buildings and our homes. Energy is the key underpinning of our economy.

That is why I and the NDP are asking for this action. It is not about chocolate bars or other things like that.

I have also asked that any national strategy must, by necessity, include a conservation component. Why can we not have a conservation program in this country that is supported by the government, that is facilitated by the government and that allows Canadians to participate in it so they do not have to continue paying high prices.

Finally, I suggest another option the Prime Minister might have is to review the relevance of the Competition Act. I think the Competition Act has to be toughened if we are going to allow competition.

The reason I sent this letter is not because I think it is something I should do, which I do, but because the president of the the United States of America, the land of capitalism, the birthplace of free enterprise, has undertaken to implement a 17 point program to defend his country from the OPEC cartel. It may not be the greatest plan but at least he has taken some action. The United States, the great land of free enterprise and capitalism, also has the toughest competition laws in the world which forces competition in the economy.

With the competition laws in Canada, we just bend over or get on our knees and that is all we do. We do not worry about ripping people off. I think governments, politicians and parliamentarians must take a role in ensuring that our consumers and our business communities are treated fairly.

I am a former business person. I have been in business for many years in different businesses. I believe that profit is very important. However, there is a fairness in terms of profit making and in terms of the bottom line. With respect to energy, we have to make sure that we have an energy program, an energy policy that makes our economy work well and that helps our consumers to feel like they are part of a country that has a government that is concerned about their needs and their lives. That is why I did this.

I raised a question with the Prime Minister in the House of Commons today to find out what the status was of the action plan. He had his Minister of Natural Resources give a nice flowery quote praising me, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, in the Leader Post for all the great work that I was doing on this issue. I was hoping that he would have another answer which would say, “yes, we are going to do a little more than just conduct a study for six, seven or eight months”.

The NDP is very concerned about these issues: rail, energy and highways. We are also very concerned about the marine issue and what is happening at the ports. The government seems to be abandoning the port of Halifax in many ways. We are also very concerned about the air transportation situation and the deregulation of that industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre blaming the government, which I do not disagree with, for trying to put off the reason for the high fuel taxes and the high cost of transportation, but I take exception to him saying that the Reform Party was equally responsible.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre why the Saskatchewan NDP government charges the highest fuel taxes for rail than any other province, and not only the fuel tax, but it charges the highest property tax for the rail companies than any other province in the country. All of these costs add up to higher transportation costs for the farmers and any other companies that use rail to distribute their products. Does the hon. member agree with the province of Saskatchewan's high tax policy on the rail industry?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Reform Party does raise a very important issue regarding fuel taxes in Saskatchewan.

I can say that the Saskatchewan NDP government spends 85% of the taxes it collects in the province on fuel and transportation. If I compare that to Canada where $5 billion is raised by the federal government in excise tax and GST on fuel, does it spend 85% on transportation? It spends 4% not 85%. The NDP in Saskatchewan is doing a very fine job.

The Reform member who asked this question should have been at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention where I was two weeks ago. It is not the province of Saskatchewan that charges these taxes on the railroads, it is the rural municipalities through which the railroads travel. They use that revenue to build and maintain some of the thousands and thousands of miles of roads.

If we also took the rail taxes that we charge the railroads, one would see that Saskatchewan spends more than 85% of its tax revenue on repairing, maintaining and building infrastructure in the province.

I am very pleased that the member asked me her question. I would hope that we would have some more wonderful questions like that from the Reform Party.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made quite a point in the last little while about asking questions and holding the government to task about the high price of fuel in this country and what the government is going to do about it.

The government does collect $4.5 billion in fuel tax and have put back a measly $150 million into the roads. I agree with the member on that.

I also want to get into the realm of environment. It has been suggested by some that in order to meet our Kyoto commitments, which the government agreed to a year or two ago, that we would need to have a carbon tax, a green tax or some kind of tax on the price of gas at the pumps in order to change the habits of people so they would use less.

Would the member explain his party's position. Does his party support meeting the Kyoto protocol? If so, how does it plan to do it? Is a carbon tax at the pumps one of the suggestions that his party is backing?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It does underline the importance of my letter to the Prime Minister in which I asked him to call for an energy summit and look at a number of options that he might have. One of them was conservation.

My party is the only party in the House of Commons that has been supporting and asking the government to develop a comprehensive energy conservation program for Canadians. We believe that the government should be providing leadership in this regard.

The Kyoto protocol, which is not particularly related to this matter of transportation infrastructure that we are talking about today, is not something that I am totally familiar with. I have not read it from cover to cover but I am familiar with it in general terms. However, I think all Canadians would stand by the objective of making sure that we preserve this planet for our children, our grandchildren and those who follow us.

The environment is a very important element in this world. If we do not have clean air, fresh water and soil that can grow crops we are all dead. We really are custodians of this planet for future generations. I would even suggest that the Reform Party supports that. I would be surprised if they did not. I think the Liberals and the Reform members talk about it but there is really no action.

In Saskatchewan, where I am a little more familiar with the environment, we have undertaken a number of initiatives which protect and enhance our environment. I would ask the Liberal government and the Reform Party to look at some of those initiatives. I know the Reform Party has looked at a lot of the initiatives of the Roy Romanow NDP government and the Allan Blakeney government before. In Saskatchewan the NDP and the CCF have governed for 37 of the last 55 years. Out of 37 years we have had 35 surplus budgets.

The only time the Reform supporters were in power, the Devine Reform-Liberal coalition ran 10 consecutive deficits. For a million people it put the province about $12 billion to $13 billion in the red in 10 years. It is unfortunate that the Reform policies of Mr. Devine will mean that Saskatchewan residents will be paying this mortgage for the next 60 years, whereas before we had no operations debt, none. We had no deficit and no debt either.

The member raises some good questions and I thank him for that. I would ask him to study perhaps again some of the very positive things that the NDP and CCF have undertaken in Saskatchewan so we can benefit our entire country more.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina mentioned we had looked at some of the NDP policies in the past, and we certainly did, and then put them right back down again and proceeded on a very different course.

I would like to go back to an earlier question that was asked and not answered by the member from the NDP. I think we could throw a t in there for tax party as well. The provincial government of British Columbia idea of solving transportation problems was to blow half a billion dollars on some ferries that it is now trying to sell for about $10 million or $20 million each.

Going back to the solution he was offering, he mentioned that the provincial government in Saskatchewan was putting 85% of taxes back into transportation, but he did not answer the question from my colleague from South Surrey as to whether or not he agreed that the level of taxation the provincial government was wringing out of people in Saskatchewan through taxation on fuel was a good or bad policy. I would like him to answer that question.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question as well. The fuel taxes in Saskatchewan on diesel fuel and gasoline are not the highest in the country. The hon. member from Calgary should know that Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec have higher taxes than Saskatchewan. Ontario and British Columbia have the same taxes. Alberta's tax is six cents a litre less because it charges nine cents per litre provincial tax on fuel whereas Saskatchewan charges 15 cents. There is a six cent difference. B.C. is about the same.

With respect to the British Columbia question, if the member looked at the cost of research and development into something like the fast ferry, it was probably a very high amount to spend. I do not know exactly what went wrong, whether the design was inappropriate, but I think he will remember that Premier Ujjal Dosanjh indicated that it was a mistake and apologized. That is all I really know about it. I know that in Saskatchewan we have never had any fast ferries or slow ferries. We have some ferries across the river here and there.

If we had a committed Liberal government that would commit some resources to developing a policy, whether it be with respect to the marine issue or air or rail or highways, Canadians would be happy because they would have some leadership from this government.

We are looking forward to having some leadership from the government on these issues. It keeps passing the buck. It keeps passing the buck on energy costs. It keeps passing the buck on highways. It should rename the party to passing the buck party because it does not seem to have any particular leadership on the issues I have mentioned.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I started to say a bit earlier, I certainly welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to speak on the Reform motion calling for the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system in the country.

However, I question the need for an integrated transportation system considering the tremendous increase in gas prices we have experienced in the last little while. If it continues no one will be able to go out. They will have to stay home and we might not need a transportation system.

On a more serious note, we have witnessed the plight of truck drivers who are basically struggling to survive in the face of rising costs. Most Canadians sense the urgency in the truckers' message as they watched the steady stream of truckers protesting across the country. These hard working Canadians are desperately trying to raise public awareness to the serious problems facing their industry. I think most Canadians now understand the situation.

Perhaps the only Canadians who were not moved by this public display are the members of the Liberal government who continue to turn a blind eye to their problems by refusing to provide them with any kind of tax relief.

In 1995 the minister of finance introduced a one and a half cent per litre tax on gasoline as a deficit reduction measure. The deficit, as we all know, is gone, thanks in large part to the GST and free trade, which by the way the government had promised to eliminate. The question remains. Why will the government not give our truckers a break and remove this unnecessary tax?

Trucking in Canada is a $30 billion industry that is characterized by many small family owned operations across the country. The trucking industry employs 400,000 people, 225,000 of whom are truck drivers, making it the top occupation in Canada according to the 1996 census. Our trucking industry can no longer afford to have the government ignore its serious problems. It needs action and it is needed now.

No one has to tell our truckers about the need for very significant improvements to our national highway system. With 90% of Canadian consumer goods being transported by truck, our truck drivers have seen for themselves the result of the government's total lack of commitment toward improving or even maintaining our national highway system.

Every day $1.5 billion in goods go back and forth between Canada and the U.S., 70% of which is transported by truck. Yet look at the state of our highways. Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has recognized the importance of highways. That government has made a commitment to the highway system. In 1998 the U.S. signed into law the transportation equity act for the 21st century. The act is a firm commitment to improving the nation's highway system.

It is estimated to be worth some $218 billion. That is $218 billion over six years authorizing highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs. Even the federal Liberal representatives from Atlantic Canada recognize the failure of their own government to maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure system. In their reported entitled “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, they said:

Our basic transportation infrastructure needs improvement. This is an issue that must be addressed. Transportation infrastructure is inextricably bound up with the economic development of our region...To transport goods throughout the region, and to provide tourists with quality highways that will encourage travel to small communities, we must have a better road system than now exists.

Some 38% of our national highway system is considered substandard. Poor roads increase gas consumption, damage to vehicles and, even more serious, cause deadly accidents. We need only look at Highway 101 in Nova Scotia as a prime example. Since 1993, 50 people have been killed and countless others injured in motor vehicle accidents, and still the federal government fails to act. We are the only industrialized country at present without a national highways policy.

Why has the government not sat down with the provinces to negotiate such a program? What does it take to get the government to respond to the very serious crises such as we have had on Highway 101? How many more Nova Scotians must we lose to accidents before the Liberal government deems it sufficient and finally takes measures to improve this treacherous stretch of highway?

After all, it did not take the government years to construct a new road to the Prime Minister's cottage in Grand-Mère. It was so anxious it did not even take the time to put it to tender, opting instead to give it to one of the Prime Minister's friends.

We do not want to wait any longer for the government to decide that highway 101 in Nova Scotia is dangerous. Unfortunately, statistics are here to prove it.

The country has more than 9,000 kilometres of public roads, yet the recent budget only provides $2.65 billion for our entire infrastructure program over four years.

The Commons transportation committee suggested that restoring Canada's highway system would cost at least $18 billion which would be funded at a rate of $1.2 billion over 15 years. According to the finance minister's budget the Liberal government is only prepared to fund $150 million per year in his six year projection for highways commencing in three years. This falls far short in its attempt to address Canada's crumbling highway system.

Over the past 10 years, the Department of Transport has collected over $38 billion in fuel tax. Currently, it has a surplus exceeding $3 billion.

The federal government collects $4 billion in fuel tax a year. As my colleague said earlier, only 4% of that is actually returned to the highways. If a higher percentage of fuel taxes were returned to the highways, for example 15%, and this were matched by the province, it would create a substantial amount of financial support for our highways.

I suggest the government should consider following the advice of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and work together with the provinces in order to invest maybe 15% of the fuel tax to upgrade the road system in Canada.

There is no question that Highway 101 needs to be twinned and no doubt that the section between Digby and Weymouth should be completed as soon as possible. The province of Nova Scotia cannot go it alone. It needs the federal government to enter into a partnership so that the citizens using this highway can do it in relative security.

Transportation affects every aspect of our lives. It is an integral necessity in every industry and business across the country, yet the government does not seem to be aware of it. The motion before us is a simple and straightforward request for leadership, a normal quality in a government or one that we would expect; co-operation with other levels of government and local transportation authorities; a long term vision and plan for our infrastructure system; and a commitment to realistic funding. In many areas the government has lacked direction and leadership.

The government had better get involved in helping the shipbuilding industry, especially in Atlantic Canada, which has a long history of building quality vessels. It has the manpower, the knowledge and the ability to build world-class vessels far superior to any others because of the heavy seas we experience in Atlantic Canada. These ships can literally go anywhere, are very strong and last a long time. The government had better get involved in our shipbuilding industry or the expertise we worked long and hard to develop will soon be gone forever.

Shipbuilding is one of Canada's long-standing industries. For instance, in my riding, A.F. Thériault Shipbuilding Limited has been building boats for over 50 years. It is highly respected for the quality of its products. One of the reasons for its success is the skill of its workers. Several of them have been working in this shipyard for over 20 years. They have developed a level of expertise one cannot achieve in school.

Our passenger rail service is another prime example of the government failing to have a vision for the future. What is the future for VIA Rail? Does anyone know?. Does the government intend to keep throwing money at it? Does it intend to privatize it? Has it thought about it?

What about the Canadian National-Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Corporation merger proposal? Has it explained its official position on this issue which has the potential to completely alter the North American rail industry? The United States Surface Board has already held its hearings and released a decision. It realized the magnitude of this proposal and needs additional time to look at the current rail merger rules to ensure they reflect the desired future of the rail industry. Yet our government holds fast to the motto “Let us wait and see”.

What about the airline crisis of last August? The government was fully aware of the difficulties facing the airline industry and refused to take action until there was apparently an extraordinary disruption to effective and continued operation of the national transportation system.

The indecision of the government about the type of role it would play in finding a solution to the airline situation did nothing to help any of the parties involved. Suddenly the Competition Act was suspended and the government adopted a wait and see policy.

Obviously the government does not see transportation as a priority. When will the government accept the responsibility of leadership? The government needs to work in conjunction with other governments to develop viable plans to strengthen all aspects of our transportation infrastructure. We need commitment, we need funding and we need action. We realize that it cannot be done all at once, but we ask the government to do something now while we still have an infrastructure program and a transportation system to salvage.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to opposition members tonight and hear presentation after presentation regarding their Christmas wish list, not taking into consideration where this country was a very, very short time ago, when we were heavily in debt and the economy was in a mess. We came from the status of a third world country to the wonderful position we are in at the present time.

Yes, we do have a surplus, but we have hundreds and hundreds of organizations, groups and lobbyists and a great number of other needs which have been identified for that money.

Yes, there are a great number of problems in the transportation system because of management processes, the way in which policies have evolved and what has happened in the past 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 years. There is no doubt about it. However, this is the first time in the history of this country that we have had such an open, transparent process in getting lobbyists and all other partners involved; anyone, we might say, who is a partner in the process. Anyone who has some concern related to any aspect of transportation is able to contribute in some way toward the development of a transportation policy.

It is essential that the country continue on this path to develop the vision which the hon. member says we lack. However, we are not dictators. A dictator could come up very, very quickly with a vision; in fact in five minutes. A very true democratic process takes a very long time because we have to get the people of the country involved in identifying the problems, the process for solving the problems and so forth, and not the kind of declarations that we are hearing from a representative of a previous government which helped to create the horrible mess this government inherited.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in response to my hon. colleague's comments.

I recognize and I think all Canadians recognize that there had to be some belt tightening and we had to get rid of the deficit. However, I heard the finance minister, in this year and in the year previous, brag that finally we had a zero deficit.

It does not take a rocket scientist—maybe it does if it is a Liberal member of parliament—to understand that the transportation system is one of the most vital systems in this country. It is what makes our economy work.

We can pay taxes in many ways. We can let the system fall to the point where we are saving today, but it will cost three times the amount of money to put it back to where it should have been had we been putting the money in to keep it where it should have been. It has been falling and falling. We pay taxes on the one hand, then we drive on roads that wreck our vehicles, and then we spend money to repair them and we get taxed again.

The money should be spent on the system so that our goods can get to market. That is what drives our economy. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government cannot see that as a priority. It is one of the main engines which drives our economy.

The hon. member said it. We have to consult. The government can consult until the cows come home. It is obvious to everyone that this infrastructure program needs to be put in place. It needs to be put together, maintained and improved. I do not understand where the member is coming from with his comments.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the highway system in his province is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The hon. member is quite aware of that fact.

The provinces are all operating at their own pace, within their own guidelines and their own agendas. We have now, for the first time, brought together all partners. Some we had to drag to the table. Pressure from a great number of ministers brought all of the premiers and the ministers of transportation together to start working on a national highway policy.

As a 50-50 partner, we are hoping to be able to come forth with a very substantial, sustainable, effective and not too costly—although it is costly—infrastructure system for transportation, especially for highways.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think all of us in the House recognize the fact that the highway system is the responsibility of the provinces. However, let us face facts. The Liberal government has cut over the past seven years funding for health care and education and has downloaded the cost to the provincial governments to the point where they cannot function any more. The hon. member has the gall to stand in his place and say it is the provinces which neglected the highway system. The provinces neglected the highway system because the government cut, slashed and burned. It left the provinces high and dry.

Provinces such as Nova Scotia are in hard financial times. Our provincial finance minister is telling us this every day. We are anticipating a budget, which should come down very soon, but I do not particularly look forward to it.

It is partly the responsibility of the federal government, which has slashed at every opportunity, without care for our young people in schools who are the future of our country. The government has not thought about the elderly, the people which made this country great. The government has not thought about the sick. Government members ignore our future and turn their backs on those who made this country great.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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.