House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transportation.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. Members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-4, in the name of the Hon. member for Brandon—Souris, is acceptable to the government with the reservation stated in the reply, and the documents are tabled immediately.

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before the House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, e-mails, memos and correspondence between the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of International Trade, the United States Trade Representative's Office and the United States Agriculture Secretary concerning agricultural trade irritants and the World Trade Organization complaints, specifically with respect to State Trading Enterprises and supply management.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-4 be deemed to have been adopted?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Notice PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I wish to inform the House that there are some errors in today's Notice Paper under the heading of Business of Supply.

On page IV, Motion No. 2, in the name of Mr. John McKay, Scarborough East under Supplementary Estimates (B), Opposed Votes, should stand in the name of Mr. Peter MacKay, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

On pages XII and XIII, Motions Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 41 which are listed under the name of Mr. Lebel (Chambly) in the English text of Supplementary Estimates (B) should be listed under that name in the French text, and not that of Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue).

A corrigendum to that effect is available at the table. I regret any inconvenience or embarrassment this may have caused hon. members.

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 31, 2000, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practice, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

Notice PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the official opposition to bring this very important motion to the House and to debate it before the Canadian public. It is very apparent to most of us who sat and heard the budget released by the finance minister that the government places very little importance on the transportation system in Canada.

We in the official opposition believe that with a country the size of Canada transportation is critical and crucial. Much of the history of our country relates and has been developed by transportation with the train system from coast to coast. Today our economy depends on a very good seamless transportation system.

I am not just talking about trucks and highways. Nor am I just talking about trains and rail, airplanes and airports, or ships and ports. I am talking about how all these modes of transportation interconnect in a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system.

Canada has done exceptionally well over the last number of years and the government has taken every opportunity to take credit for it. However our international trade has grown at an incredible rate and the United States has been responsible for most of that economic growth, due mainly to the free trade agreement and to the NAFTA.

I remind Liberals across the floor that they were opposed to both these agreements that are responsible for the economic growth the country has faced. Exports to the United States grew by almost 70% between 1994 and 1999. Today, on average, over $1.5 billion worth of goods cross the Canada-U.S. border each and every day. Despite the massive increase in traffic there has been no corresponding increase in transportation infrastructure. In fact the federal government spends far fewer dollars on transportation infrastructure today than it did in 1994.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East and opposition members will be splitting their time throughout the debate.

As I was saying, the government has not made any commitment to supporting transportation infrastructure. Although the federal government has jurisdiction over trade and commerce, the Liberals have completely abandoned the federal government's role in interprovincial and international transportation.

There is a growing and existing need for a safe, seamless, integrated transportation plan, not just a national or a continental strategy. This is one instance where the federal government should be playing a leading role but it has completely removed itself from that discussion and that debate.

We could ask ourselves why there is need for a central plan for a national continental strategy. We need to develop consistent transportation regulations with the provinces and with the United States. I am not just talking about reregulating the industry. That is not what we want. We do not want the federal government to reregulate transportation.

There should be minimal consideration of regulations to ensure safety, to protect environmental concerns and to ensure that there is competition. I want to make very clear that we are not talking about the federal government getting back into massive regulations in transportation, although we recognize there are areas that might require minimal regulation on the part of the federal government.

I emphasize that it is important for the federal government to be acting as a co-ordinator, as a mediator, as a consensus builder. It is important for the federal government to bring the parties together at the table. This is an area that the federal Liberal government of today has reneged on.

While co-operating with other levels of government and the private sector, the federal government must be prepared to put in its share of funding. The federal government must recognize that it plays an important role in developing the infrastructure that is so important for our economy. The economic wealth and well-being of our country depend on a very strong and safe transportation system. The federal government has to play a part in helping to make this a reality.

The federal government has to quit using fuel taxes as a cash cow. Last year the federal government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes, and yet it has put only $150 million back into highway infrastructure. I hear the same complaint from the air industry where the federal government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in lease agreements but putting only tens of millions of dollars back into airport infrastructure.

The federal government must overhaul its tax policies for the transportation industry. In today's economy we find that the transportation industries in Canada are not competitive internationally, largely because of the tax structure in this country. It is important that the government place our industries in a more competitive position by overhauling its tax policies.

Our transportation industry has gone through and is going through some major changes. It is quite apparent to those of us sitting in opposition and to Canadians generally that the government is not able to handle these changes. I speak of the Air Canada acquisition of Canadian Airlines and the fallout. I speak of the CN-BNSF combination. I speak of the crisis in the Canadian trucking industry. My colleagues will talk in greater detail about the particular problems facing each of the various transportation industries in Canada so I will not dwell on them.

There is great need for the federal government to take a leadership role in the strategic development of a future transportation system.

The federal government must play a leading role. It must be prepared to make obvious to the transportation industry that it is a strong player in the discussions that have to take place. It is not that the government should dictate what those policies should be, but the federal government must take a leadership role in bringing the stakeholders to the table and finding a consensus on how to develop our transportation system. This is badly needed and has to be done sooner than later.

With the growth in demands in the transportation industry, with a growth of over 10% of exports and imports over the U.S.-Canada border per year, we cannot afford to continually lag behind the need for developing our transportation infrastructure. We must have more than a national plan. It has to be a continental plan. It has to recognize that the movement of goods and people is north-south as much as it is east-west. We need a continental plan to move goods and people.

What is equally important is that this strategy and the financial commitment to this strategy have to be long term. We have to think long term. We have to look at not only what the growth is today and was yesterday but at what the potential growth will be. It should come as no surprise to those watching the growing trade with the United States that there is an equal growing need to create an infrastructure which can handle that. Canada cannot afford to renege on this responsibility because the gridlock in our transportation system today will only get much worse in the future.

If the federal government will not take the leadership role and will not facilitate the development of a strategic continental transportation system, Canada can look forward to chaos. That will affect our economic well-being. The transportation system is important to economic growth in Canada, which supports health care, the education system, social services and all other things that Canadian feel are important to them.

They depend on the economic well-being of our country and the economic well-being of the our country depends on a good transportation system so that we can move goods and people. Trade agreements will not work if goods cannot be transported markets. I say to the government of the day that it is time to prepare Canada's transportation system for the 21st century.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague across the way. Indeed some of the points she raised have great merit. Canada needs to move forward to the 21st century. We have highways that are in desperate need of repair. I travel the 401 on the way to Windsor. I saw the site where the accident occurred last summer. Construction has been done there and I hope it continues all the way to Toronto.

Could the hon. member enlighten me on how the funding of this infrastructure will be found? Would her party support a Liberal agenda for infrastructure money in the next fiscal year as we did in 1993-94? Would the hon. member be supportive of such an initiative in order for infrastructure money to put into highways and special tasks that could help the national transportation scheme?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to that by saying that the policy of the official opposition is that there be dedicated funds for highways, for transportation, and that those funds would come from fuel taxes. The moneys collected from fuel taxes would go into a dedicated fund for highway infrastructure improvements.

We were very concerned about what would be in the budget for infrastructure programs. The great concern that I have as a member of the opposition is in the setting of priorities. I would suggest there is not a Canadian out there who does not see the fixing of highways as a safety issue. They are afraid for their well-being when they travel our highways because of the poor condition they are in. Canadians would put a priority on that rather than bocce courts, curling arenas and all of these other things that infrastucture money was used for.

In this year's budget there was only $150 million identified for highways. Yes, there was other infrastructure money, but there was only $150 million set aside for highways. I do not find that to be a good priority. I would suggest that other Canadians would agree with me that the priorities of the government are not well placed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question to ask my colleague.

There are small airports—small because of the distances planes have to travel—that have been handed over to the municipalities, among them the airport at Matane. Today, even if the mayor is full of good will, he cannot afford to have the repairs needed done at this airport.

The government is always telling us, basically, that the municipalities have to look after these airports if they agreed to take them over. A city does not necessarily have the funds to look after an airport.

Should the federal government not make a special effort for the airports which formerly belonged to it and which have now been handed over to the municipalities and, even if they have accepted them, should it not still contribute to their maintenance?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right, there are all kinds of issues, such as small regional airports, remote airports, roads. The MacKenzie highway was promised by the government in 1972 under the Right Hon. Prime Minister Trudeau, but the government never followed through. We still do not have that highway. People in those communities are still looking for some way to get out of that remote northern area, other than by ice road in the wintertime.

That is why I think it is extremely important for the government to develop a transportation strategy which would take into consideration all modes of transportation. The government should sit down with all shareholders to come up with a plan that will work.

How will we make sure that the small airports have the facilities they need? How will we make sure that the communities are able to support them? How will we make sure that municipalities and provinces take on their responsibilities as well as the federal government? It can only be done by planning and by addressing all of the issues together. We must understand how they interrelate and how they work together to create a transportation system that will be very competitive for Canada in the 21st century.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the leaders of all the parties in the House, and I believe you would find consent for the adoption of the following motion in relation to the extension of the sitting this evening. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall not adjourn at 6.30 p.m. today, but, at 5.15 p.m., debate on the supply motion by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal of supplementary estimates and of interim supply and the bills based thereon shall be put forthwith and successively without debate or amendment and, immediately all business relating to supplementary estimates and interim supply is disposed of, if it is later than 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, the House shall adjourn or, if it is not yet 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, the House shall take up the Private Members' Business scheduled for today, and, immediately thereafter, the debate interrupted at 5.15 p.m. shall be resumed, provided that, during the resumed debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and provided that no later than three hours after the said debate is resumed or at 11.59 p.m. on March 22, 2000, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to a very important subject which my colleague introduced, dealing with a seamless, integrated transportation system.

Our country is the second largest in the world. A huge country like ours with a small population requires a transportation system that will bring remote communities, small communities and larger centres together.

Forty per cent of our GDP is comprised of exports. We have a huge export market. Therefore our prosperity relies on an excellent transportation system.

Over the years we have had a very good transportation system, but due to the lack of funding and the lack of vision by the government we have seen cuts rapidly developing in our transportation system. With our growing exports and the NAFTA, the need for a faster, reliable transportation system has become very apparent.

I know that in a city such as Calgary the transportation system cannot match the growth that has taken place. There is a crying need for money to be put into the transportation system.

If we look back at the history of Canada, we see that Canada was opened up by the railways. We had a premier transportation system which ran from one end of Canada to the other. Railways played a critical role in bringing Canada together.

The airline industry also played a critical role. Our remote communities in the north were serviced by bush pilots and smaller planes, out of which grew a very viable airline industry. We all remember PWA, Wardair and other airlines which played a vital role in bringing Canada together.

When I say bringing this country together, we must remember that to the south of us is located the largest economy in the world. It is important for Canada to have a transportation system that runs from the east to the west. It is vital to holding the country together and to bringing unity as well.

No one can deny the importance of a seamless, good transportation system. I am speaking of the railways, the airline industry and the shipping industry. All of these have played a major role in Canadian history.

We reached a juncture last year when our airline industry faced a major crisis. One can lay the blame on a lack of vision of the companies involved and the government, as the government tried to control and regulate the industry. Those were the days of regulation. We all remember that Air Canada was a government monopoly and the restrictions which the government placed on Air Canada in its attempts to control the airline industry.

There is still some fallout today if we consider the restrictive ownership of Air Canada. On the other hand, Canadian Airlines was left to the market forces.

As we all know, this culminated in the major air wars that took place last year. The air wars may have taken place in the boardroom, but Canadians became apprehensive because they had come to rely on air transportation as one of the most significant ways of travelling our country. Canadians became apprehensive of what was happening.

There was a serious threat to the competitive environment in the industry and a serious threat of one dominant carrier having a dominant market in the country.

We all know that Air Canada grew from the government, became privatized and had quite a massive infusion of government funds which allowed it to have a better advantage than airlines in the private sector. Nevertheless, Air Canada's past has not been very favourable among its competitors. It has been accused of pirating practices, of trying to run Canadian Airlines out of business and of trying to muscle its way to becoming a dominant force in Canadian air space.

This has caused concern for many who come from western Canada.

Now that Air Canada has taken over Canadian Airlines, the apprehension still exists. We have not seen a plan. We do not know what is Air Canada's vision. Air Canada just walked in, probably smiled and said it had taken over Canadian Airlines. If we ask air travelling consumers, they are already feeling the effects of the merger and the loss of competition. They can already feel it when rescheduling and trying to make accommodations. It is having an impact on western Canada, and that is a cause of concern.

As far as I am concerned, Air Canada has not bothered to ask the travellers what they want. Its officials just went into the boardroom, looked at the bottom line and tried to create a merger within the airlines to remove the overcapacity which we all know existed. It should not have existed in the first place. The situation is creating tension and apprehension.

If this is the way it is going to go, we will have a serious problem. Canadians will demand more competition. We know the government has given Air Canada a two year period in which to integrate and address the needs of Canadians.

The fact remains that there will not be competition. Without competition the Canadian travelling public is going to pay a heavy price. We can already see that. Thousands of consumers have spent millions of dollars on air miles and already that is under a cloud of doubt. Air Canada talks about negotiating this.

We hope that Air Canada will not take advantage of this monopoly situation and use that against the Canadian travelling public. It knows it has a monopoly and it knows that people have no other choice but to use its services. I hope it does not do that. I hope it will be a better corporate citizen and address the needs of Canadians and look at other issues which come with competition.

I stated what I felt about the state of the Canadian airline industry. In the transportation committee the Reform Party proposed solutions in its minority report. I hope the government will look at them and seriously look at the issue of the monopoly situation in our skies today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Thunder Bay—Atikokan Ontario

Liberal

Stan Dromisky LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting listening to the opposition's arguments regarding the transportation system.

I would like to go with the the member's comments pertaining to the air transportation system. The hon. member is aware of the fact that we have an agreement which Air Canada management has committed itself to, regarding pricing, competition, employment and services to communities which had services at the time of the signing of the agreement. He has made some very misleading statements pertaining to the kind of service Air Canada is providing at the present time.

I think the member is referring to maintaining the service at the same level as it was when Canadian and Air Canada were going down the well toward bankruptcy together. Now that adjustments are being made with Air Canada's scheduling and so forth in order to pick itself out of that hole, can the member tell me and the House what plans he has?

The competition is there. He is from western Canada. WestJet and others are emerging on the scene. It takes time. It cannot happen overnight. It will not happen in one week. There are negotiations, investigations and exploratory measures by different organizations and companies going on right now in order to introduce competition in various segments of the aviation industry in this country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's comments, my apprehension keeps increasing. His government's lack of vision while it has been in power and the question he asked me is what Canadians are afraid of. It is the lack of competition. The government has had two years. It knew this situation was arising. The government sat and did nothing. Even now it talks about the committees listening to these things but we do not see much coming from them.

Yes, the government gave Air Canada two years. We are saying to Air Canada right now that there is apprehension out there and that apprehension should be addressed. That applies to the government too.