Debates of May 30th, 2000

Supply

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. He has given us a very passionate and common sense view of this issue. That is what is sometimes absent from the debates. He hit the nail on the head when he said that this is a straightforward issue, one of practicalities and one of priorities. When it comes to an issue such as this one, much like health care, one of the fundamentals has to be that the funding must be there at such a level and standard that the objectives can be achieved.

The hon. member brings that same common sense approach to the committee, as does the member from Cumberland—Colchester, the mover of the motion. They call upon the government in a very straightforward and principled way to address the issue at the very least by restoring funding to a level that will allow the fundamental aspects of transportation to be achieved. Whether it be a national highways program, whether it be a return to some sort of fundamental approach to shipping, or shipbuilding, all of this has to be given at least a base level of support from the government in terms of resources.

This issue is analogous to health care. The pivotal point in the history of the country when deterioration started, whether it be in health care or our national transportation system, was when the government changed in 1993. I do not want to come across as being too partisan, but I ask him to be honest. This is a question of truth and reconciliation. Is it not fair to say that when the government changed in 1993 and the funding was withdrawn, whether it be from health care, social transfers, or transportation, that was the point in our country's history when our transportation policy deteriorated, our roads deteriorated, and the shipbuilding policy started to come apart at the seams? Will the hon. member acknowledge that under a Conservative government things were better?

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly not the political move I would like to get in. I do not want to go back and have those mind-boggling deficits and debt because that does not serve any purpose.

I will say to the hon. member if we are going to have a highway program, we are not going to have it without co-operative funding. The funding must be known ahead of time. For example, if the Canada Health Act and health care across Canada is to be successful, it can only be successful with a promise of 50:50 sharing. Whatever reason the government can give for taking that away is exactly the same reason we are facing a health crisis today. It is exactly the same reason the highways, particularly in western Canada, are depreciating at a rate faster than ever before in our history.

The hon. member is quite right. I will not get into the political part of this issue, but the premise upon which he posed the question is quite correct.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a parallel situation to medicare because this is an instance where the federal government has been asked to spend in an area that is 100% provincial responsibility.

When it comes to the percentage of fuel tax that the federal government is collecting, I remind the member opposite that the federal government under the constitution has an obligation to guarantee supply. Our percentage of the fuel tax goes toward guaranteeing the oil supply from Saudi Arabia, for having the Department of National Defence helicopters, the border customs controls and the trade infrastructure. We have to spend on those areas in order to guarantee supply.

I have a great deal of sympathy for our national highway program. The member is asking the federal government to invest in the national highway program, which is essentially a 100% responsibility of the provinces. Is it not a conflict, especially with his party, when he asks that the federal government cut back in taxes, cut back on the debt, and in the same breath he wants the federal government to spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me make one point clear. I never said that the government should cut back on taxes. It is how it uses the taxes after it gets them. That is the difference.

All I am saying is that if the government wants to keep the federal excise tax on fuel at its present level that is its responsibility. The reason that tax went on in the first place was for highways. There is no question about that. All we are asking for is a mere 25% to go back to highway structure across Canada.

To answer the second part of the member's question, the Canada Health Act was formulated and came into being on the assumption that Canadians would have a universal health system providing that 50% of the funding came from Ottawa. Now we find ourselves in the position where it is not coming from Ottawa. Health care across Canada is in a crisis and the crisis is growing. There is the answer. They cannot have it both ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I probably agree with 80% or 85% of what he had to say.

I am very familiar with Saskatchewan. The member obviously has some firsthand knowledge as to the deplorable state of Saskatchewan highways and roads, particularly municipal roads. He is absolutely correct that 25% of the excise tax raised could go into a long term, well thought out infrastructure plan and program which would be accepted by tripartite municipal, provincial and federal funding.

However, the one point the member mentioned that perhaps he and I would disagree on was VIA Rail. I would like to extend it into public transportation and I would like to hear his views and thoughts. He said that a 40% subsidy is too much money to be putting into any type of transportation. He referred to VIA Rail, but there is other public transportation such as buses, LRTs in Alberta and subways in other major metropolitan areas.

Does the hon. member believe that any type of subsidization for public transportation is certainly not within the parameter of the federal government? Does he wish that public transportation did not exist?

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there is not a passenger rail system anywhere in the world which does not receive some form of subsidization, even the great passenger rail service in Japan or in France. It does not make any sense to provide a service that would break the country and bring it to its knees.

Let us make it clear. If the most profitable route of passenger rail has to be subsidized by some 40%, what would it cost Canada to return VIA Rail service to all places? We would not have enough money in the whole Department of Transport to keep it going. We have to use logic. I am not against subsidizing transportation, but there comes a point in the philosophy of things that we have to say no.

I do not know of any city in Canada that has a public transportation system which makes money. There may be some but they all receive some subsidy. If we have to spend billions and billions of dollars to provide a passenger rail train which people are not using then governments have to make a decision. They should be subsidized but within reason. That is where the federal, provincial and municipal governments come in.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion tabled by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who, like me, sits on the Standing Committee on Transport.

For the benefit of those watching, it might be relevant to reread the motion in order to properly establish the position of the Bloc Quebecois regarding the vote that will be held on this motion.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to coast by all Canadians.

I would point out right off that the Bloc Quebecois members will vote against this motion, and I will explain why.

I will look at parts of the motion. It reads “That the House recognize the urgent need—”. We agree that there is some urgency and that there is an urgent need “to address the serious transportation problems”. Yes, there are serious transportation problems. It goes on “—facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy—”.

This is where the problem arises. It is primarily because nowhere in the motion is there mention of respect for provincial jurisdictions that the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the motion.

I want my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to know that, had the motion contained reference to provincial jurisdictions, the situation would have been quite different. It is primarily for this reason that our party cannot support this motion.

Since they have been in power, the Liberals have shown a total and obvious lack of concern for transportation matters. The last thing that we of the Bloc Quebecois would ask of them is for them to set up national transportation policies in areas that are not under their jurisdiction.

Once again, we have differing visions of Canada. That is why I say this will never work. The Canada of today does not work, and it never will. We in Quebec no longer believe the attempts to revise the federal system, the fine promises the Canadian Alliance candidates are making about redesigning Canada and have a more decentralized country. We have been there, done that, and it will not work.

At present, in the House, we have two visions of Canada. On the one hand, we have the MPs from pro-centralist provinces or parties, those who envision a Canada in which the central government would set national policies and the provinces would be branch plants of this central power, no more and no less.

On the other, we in Quebec are calling for a state of Quebec that is capable of managing itself, taking its own decisions. I do not think that Quebec has to take a back seat to any province of Canada, still less to the central government, in the area of transport. Our lack of faith in the Liberal government makes it hard for us to vote in favour of this motion.

Because of the geography of Quebec and Canada, transportation infrastructures are especially important. The great distances and the difficult winter weather conditions have often isolated regions far from the major urban centres that are economic centres as well. Our metropolis, Montreal, whose economy is on the upswing, will be dynamic if the regions in Quebec are dynamic.

We have seen this happen with air transportation. The airports of Montreal, Dorval or Mirabel, will only develop effectively if passengers from the regions use these airports. If we were compiling statistics, I am not sure that the vast majority of passengers passing through Dorval airport are Montrealers necessarily.

Airports are primarily transit points, we must not forget. People pass through them to take another form of transportation or to get to another destination. A lot of people using the Montreal airports come from Quebec's regions as well, be it from the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean, Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore or Abitibi-Témiscamingue areas.

So, transportation is a factor in regional economic development. This fact has been all too often ignored by the Liberal government since 1993. Whether it is deregulation of airlines, bus companies or railways, divestiture by the federal government of ports and airports that are not cost-effective, icebreaking fees, the present cost of gas, or possible restructuring of the airline industry, the present Liberal government is systematically ignoring the vital importance of effective and accessible means of transportation to the development of regions, such as the North Shore or the Gaspé, which need to be linked more closely to large centres through effective means of transportation, not isolated.

Let us remember how the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the federal government to backtrack on its bill to deregulate bus transportation, Bill C-77. We know that the Liberal government wants to revive this bill in the fall. We are certain that our partners in the bus industry, the members of the Association des propriétaires d'autobus du Québec, will support us in our fight against deregulation of bus transportation.

We also know about the plans there were to cut back Via Rail services in the regions, the plans to franchise Via Rail. There is no guarantee that there will be franchisers fighting over the Montreal-Gaspé line.

The Bloc Quebecois remains vigilant so that these regions, not just the Gaspé, but all outlying regions of Quebec, can have an effective transportation system.

We know that trucking is costly in time, because of distances, but also in money, because of the price of gas. As I have said, bus travel from one region to another would have ceased to exist if the Minister of Transport had been allowed to deregulate it as he intended to.

As well, for many months now, the devolution of regional airports by that same minister has been at a standstill, as he nibbles away at the envelopes designed to support those airports, which are not always cost-effective from a business point of view, but are cost-effective from the point of view of well-thought-out economic development.

As for the ports, the minister has decided to devolve unprofitable ports, once again based on a short-sighted approach. Is the role of a government to administer only cost-effective facilities and to refuse to support infrastructures that are a little less profitable but still an essential instrument of economic development?

Let us not forget that the people of Quebec, who pay $32 billion in taxes every year, are not asking for handouts when they ask for services from the federal government. I trust that no one here in this House and no one in our audience thinks that the government is doing us a favour when it maintains ports, airports or transportation infrastructures such as VIA Rail. I trust no one sees this is a gift. Those are our tax dollars. We in Quebec pay $32 billion in taxes annually.

Let us stop believing that the federal government, in its generosity, in its great goodness, is agreeing to maintain some facilities that are a little less cost-effective. It is quite simply just part of our tax money we are getting back.

Since 1993, the government's general transportation policy, whether land, sea or air transportation, has been one of withdrawal. Naturally, the most distant regions are the ones that suffer most.

In the last throne speech, the government reminded us of our 19th century role as coureurs des bois. It seems that this Liberal government's policy for the 21st century is to revive this tradition in the regions by destroying all other means of transportation.

To remind hon. members of the background, let us recall how this abandonment of the transportation networks in the regions has taken shape since 1993. There was a policy of devolution of ports and airports, which left many a distant community with no transportation infrastructure, or with very little.

There is also the financial abandonment of rail passenger transportation, despite its essential nature for distant regions. We must not forget that the federal government has some responsibility under the Constitution in interprovincial transportation.

There are the icebreaking fees proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who wanted the ships using Quebec ports to pay 80% of the fees, although they use only 33% of the services. With a coalition of shipowners and the various users of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the Liberal government to back down, otherwise the ports of Quebec would have been at a competitive disadvantage compared to the ports of the maritime provinces.

I have already mentioned another example: the minister's desire to put an end to the principle of cross-subsidization in bus transportation.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to vote for this motion by the Progressive Conservative Party for, among other things, one very important reason: nothing in the motion confirms respect for provincial jurisdictions.

Since we do not trust the Liberal government, which has been so slipshod in a number of areas relating to transport, we cannot give it carte blanche to establish national transportation policies as it likes.

As my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party will recall, the Minister of Finance was gloating in his latest budget speech in February over the $95 billion in budget surpluses for the next five years.

Do you think we are going to let this government spend without control and run roughshod over provincial jurisdictions? No way. This is why agreeing with this motion would mean supporting the government's, especially the Liberal government's, desire to steamroller over provincial jurisdictions.

These are the reasons why we will oppose this motion.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the remarks made by the previous speaker from the Bloc. He said that he was not going to support the motion because there was nothing in it that dealt with the jurisdiction of the provinces over the feds. I just wondered if he would elaborate on his view of the subject.

Do we need a policy to correct some of the wide variety of problems, which he has outlined in his speech, on air, sea and land transportation from an economic development perspective, and on the problems with airports, including Montreal?

Aside from the fact that the motion does not acknowledge his concerns about the jurisdiction of the provinces, does he acknowledge that there are problems in our transportation situation?

Does he acknowledge that there is an inconsistent approach to transportation where some provinces may get a highway agreement and some provinces may not, where some may get money for the elimination of the Atlantic freight rate assistance program and some may not?

Does he agree that there are inconsistencies in the applications to privatize the airports, and that the way the government applies its policies are inconsistent and unco-ordinated from one transportation mode to another?

Does he agree that we need an overall policy that should be developed by all of the stakeholders, including the provinces and the provincial ministers of transport?

Would he agree, other than the fact that the motion does not address the provincial jurisdiction, that there are problems and an inconsistent, unco-ordinated system by the Department of Transport?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I share the member's views. There is a problem, and a much more consistent approach needs to be developed. Thought should also perhaps be given to intermodality.

I have no problem with that, but the motion we are debating today does not mention respect for provincial jurisdiction. It does not talk about a role for the provinces.

The member's explanation with respect to consulting the provinces is all very well, but there is nothing in the wording of the motion requiring respect for provincial jurisdiction. I will give him an example.

The Canada-Quebec municipalities infrastructure program should be in place by the end of the year. There were negotiations and agreements with the provinces. The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this program. We agreed that the municipalities should get two-thirds of grants for municipal projects such as water systems, sewage systems, asphalting, the construction of recreation centres or community centres.

Bloc Quebecois members agreed, provided that provincial jurisdiction was respected and that, in the case of Quebec, its department of municipal affairs had the last say in the selection of projects.

If the federal government came back with an infrastructure program that did not include this obligation to consult and that did not respect provincial jurisdiction, the Bloc Quebecois would not be in agreement. The same is true for transportation infrastructures. A $600 million envelope will apparently be set aside for the provinces for transportation infrastructures.

We will have no problem with that, as long as the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces is respected and the provinces are consulted and take part in the decisions, always bearing in mind their jurisdiction.

The key is there, and that is what I wish to say to my colleague. There is nothing in his motion about a consultation process and respect for exclusive jurisdictions, so that the provinces have the final say in their respective areas of responsibility.

That is why we are unable to support the motion as moved.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to the motion from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I will read the motion just so that everybody can hear it. My hon. colleague from the Bloc had some issue with the provinces not being acknowledged. Personally, I do not see anything in the motion that negates the provinces from being involved in this.

However, I think it is extremely important for the government side of the House to hear and think about the motion because the minister said that he could not support it. I am at a loss to understand why he cannot support it because if the government is not doing these things it has a serious problem.

This is what the motion states:

That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to coast by all Canadians.

How on earth can the government not support that motion? If it is not doing that, what the heck is it doing there? If it is not doing that it should not be there.

If the members on the government side vote against this motion, everybody in Canada better be giving their heads a knock in the next election. If the government cannot address this issue and have a transportation policy in place, we have serious problems. It would be like the finance minister not having a plan for what we will do years down the road.

Before I go any further, and before I get too involved in the whole issue of transportation, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from the Yukon.

Without question, my fellow New Democratic MPs and I will be voting yes to this motion. There is also no question that the Liberal government has completely dropped the ball when it comes to transportation, and we will see that clearly tonight for sure.

There is also no question that Canada needs the federal government to show leadership in dealing with national transportation issues. As the New Democratic transportation critic, I have been saying this for a long time, and I am glad to see that the Conservative Party has been listening.

I have to say that it seems very odd that this motion today is coming from the Conservative Party. After all, when that party was in power during the Mulroney years—and the transport minister mentioned this as well—it was just as bad in transportation policy as the Liberal government is today. In a lot of areas, the Liberal government has just continued with the policies put in place by the Mulroney Conservative government.

All of a sudden the Conservatives say that the government has to show leadership on national transportation policy. Where was the leadership when the Conservatives were in power?

Let us look for a moment at the Mulroney Conservative government's record. This is the party that deregulated the airline industry in Canada causing the crisis we have today. Of course the Liberal government continued the deregulation so it is just as much to blame. It can go ahead and blame it on the Tories, and go back and forth, but the bottom line is that it is just as much to blame.

As a result of deregulation, Air Canada drove its only competitor, Canadian Airlines, out of business and now we have a monopoly, making things very tough for Canadians to get around and to fly.

Where was the reform alliance? Where were its members through all these last six or seven years while all this was going on? They were there cheering the Tories and the Liberals on deregulation and privatization and not doing anything to force the government into going against the policy of privatizing. They were doing nothing to force the government to come up with a transportation policy that addressed the social needs of Canadians as well as just making a buck.

The Mulroney Conservatives were also the ones who made the deepest cuts to VIA Rail. Of course the Liberal government continued that policy too which has caused a lot of problems for communities in my riding of Churchill and many others across the country.

When we look closely we see that the Liberal government did not change much of anything when it replaced the Mulroney Conservative government in 1993. It reminds me of a fable Tommy Douglas used to tell, the story of Mouseland. Many New Democrats and people with any kind of social conscience in Canada have heard the story of Mouseland, but I would urge those who have not to take the time to watch it on video or read it. It is fairly easy for people to understand if they are willing to take the time to view it.

The mice in Mouseland always elected cats to parliament. There was one party of white cats and one party of black cats, and we all know who those are, the Tories and the Liberals. But no matter which party the mice elected, the government always made laws that benefited cats instead of mice.

For anybody out there who has not figured it out, all of those ordinary Canadians out there, the everyday people putting in their 8, 10, 16 hours of work every day toiling to make a dollar, and all those people out there fighting to improve things for all Canadians are the mice that are not being represented by those parties and not having policies come forth that benefit all Canadians. What the mice needed to do was elect a government of mice instead of cats. It seems pretty obvious does it not?

The point Tommy Douglas was making is as true today as it was 40 years ago. There really is not much difference between the Liberal government and the Mulroney Conservative government. The Liberals are red, the Conservatives are blue, but they are both cats. That is why no one should be surprised when the Liberal government gets elected and continues Conservative policies.

While we are talking about cats, we now have the green cats, the reform alliance. I mention reform alliance because although the party has changed its name, people still see the Reform Party. The Canadian Alliance tries to get them to not think of reform because a lot of Canadians now realize that what the Reform Party did was to continue to support those policies. Those members will try to fool a few Canadians as to who they are voting for in the next election, but Canadians are a whole lot smarter than that. They will know, and we will make sure they know, that the reform alliance party is still the party that supports Conservative and Liberal policies that do not benefit all Canadians.

The man who set most of the Liberal government's transport policies was none other than Doug Young. Doug Young was a minister in the Liberal government until he lost his seat in the 1997 election. For a lot of that time he was the transport minister.

One of the first things he did as transport minister was to eliminate the Crow rate subsidy for western farmers. There was no question the Mulroney government would have eliminated the Crow subsidy. It would have taken a period of time to eliminate it, but the bottom line is that it would have eliminated it. This was the single biggest blow to the western farmers. It is one of the biggest reasons for the crisis facing so many farm families on the prairies today.

It is pretty obvious that if we do one thing downward, we see the crisis that develops as a result of it. What did members of the Reform Party say when Doug Young and the Liberals got rid of the Crow rate? They supported it. The Reform Party out there fighting for farmers in Canada supported the elimination of the Crow rate. Meanwhile other countries were still receiving subsidies. The party which says it supports the west sided with the Liberal government, the big banks and the rail companies against farm families.

Whatever happened to Doug Young? We all know what happened to Doug Young. He is with the reform alliance. What is extremely interesting is that Doug Young, the former transport minister who set all these policies the Liberal government is following is now with the reform alliance. And the Liberal government continues with the policies he set as transport minister. Is there any difference? Not a bit; Canadian Alliance, Conservative or Liberal, there is no difference. As Tommy Douglas would have said, a cat is a cat whether it is red, blue or green.

I want to talk about the New Democratic Party's transport policy. The most important thing is that our transport policy benefits ordinary Canadians, not corporate special interests. Canadians pay millions each year in fuel taxes and only a tiny fraction of that money goes back into transportation. The roads and highways in many parts of the country are in terrible shape because of federal neglect. This hurts our economy because most trade in goods is conducted by road and it makes the roads less safe for Canadians to drive on. For the amount Canadians pay in fuel taxes, they deserve quality roads.

It also goes beyond that. We heard my hon. colleague from the Bloc talk about it. The people of Quebec have given up hope on the federal government because they have seen that unless there is a federal government which supports all communities and all the provinces, we cannot survive. They have given up hope on Canada. The rest of us have not. We are not going to give up hope. We are going to fight. We are going to keep the federal government honest and make it put some dollars back into all of Canada.

I am going to conclude my remarks by reiterating that the New Democratic Party believes the federal government has a vital role to play in transportation. Federal investment in transport is important for the economy as well as the safety of Canadian travellers. Transportation is vital to linking the communities in our country from coast to coast to coast. It has been falling apart under the Liberal government. Train stations are closing, airlines are shutting down, communities are being cut off and highways are crumbling. The federal government has to make a commitment to ensure that our country has a safe, effective and efficient national transportation system and it has to do it now.

If the government does not agree it has a part in that, it will vote against this motion tonight. But if it truly is a government that is out there to ensure we have a national transportation policy, I cannot see how it could possibly not support this motion.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could have the indulgence of hon. members to get unanimous consent so that we could briefly revert to introduction of bills to permit the introduction and first reading of a bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a draft bill yesterday afternoon at three o'clock. This is the so-called famous grain bill. If we could have first reading right now, we could proceed expeditiously to debate this matter later in the week.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to introduction of government bills at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the NDP for her support even though we have fundamentally different perspectives on how this should work out and how it should be handled. I do take exception to her statement that the Conservative policy is much the same as the Liberal policy.

I would like to refer her to a study done by the University of Manitoba Transport Institute. It is from a very distinguished province with a very distinguished university. I am sure she will agree with me on that. It reports that when the Liberals came into power there was zero revenue surplus in the Department of Transport. Considering all the revenue in and all the expenses out, it pretty much broke even according to the Manitoba study. It projects that by next year the Department of Transport will have a surplus of $3.9 billion based on revenue from gas taxes, fuel oil taxes and all the other sources of revenue and its expenses. That is $3.9 billion that has been taken out of the transportation system since the Liberals came to power.

Does the hon. member think that the $3.9 billion would have had an impact on the roads in Manitoba, perhaps the viability of the airports and the possibility of a mass transit system in the country?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that more dollars should be going from the federal government to the provinces on transportation throughout Canada. That is all the provinces. There is no question those dollars need to go there. Taking dollars from the fuel taxes is what Canadians are indicating they want to see happen.

It is a lot easier for government to go out, spend dollars and have support for spending those dollars if Canadians can see the direct relationship of fuel tax dollars going into roads, infrastructure and also the environment. There is no question that people think that dollars coming in from fuel taxes should be going into the environment as well.

We have seen the Liberal government create one slush fund after another with taxpayer dollars. It is not providing the services such as health care and education. It is not putting enough dollars into the environment and transportation. It is creating its own little slush fund. I do not know about other Canadians, but quite frankly I expect to see a lot of those slush fund dollars pop up in Liberal ridings prior to the next election. The bottom line is, that is not how government should operate. We should not have to wait until prior to an election to see some of our taxpayer dollars benefiting all Canadians. Those services should be provided all the time. That is what we want to see the government do.

Forget about the slush funds, a slush fund for the HRDC minister, another for the justice minister and another for the transport minister. There is nothing for the speakers, but there are slush funds here, there and everywhere. The government is going to get everybody onside prior to an election and then it is just going to give them a good one after the election.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was on my way over to see the member for Cumberland—Colchester when my friend from Churchill finished her speech. I did not have the opportunity to ask him and his party for consent to revert to introduction of bills, which I had asked of the other parties earlier and to which they agreed. We are not trying to put anything on anybody. We are just trying to get the bill read for the first time right now so that we can start debating it. All members have the bill. It was tabled yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to seek unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of bills.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fortunate that we are having this debate on transportation for a few reasons.

A short time ago I listened to the Minister of Transport say before the merger of the two major airlines that we faced a duopoly which was not very good, that it was a terrible situation to have a duopoly and that somehow having a monopoly was going to be a better situation. I have a couple of current examples since the merger has taken place to show quite clearly that it is not a benefit to Canadians.

The first is a letter I received from a constituent. I have to explain that in the Yukon and all of the north we depend on air travel more than any other mode, beside the one road out of the Yukon which is the Alaska Highway. The Yukon has the Frostbite Music Festival, the Sourdough Rendezvous Festival, the Arctic Winter Games and various conventions. The storytelling festival is coming up, as well as the Dawson City Music Festival.

A very able travel agent managed to negotiate a special rate to assist cultural groups to bring people north. Otherwise one positively could not afford any of this to happen. I will quote from her letter.

Since the merger took place, Air Canada has done the following. Individuals who had purchased regular fare tickets and had asked to change their flight dates by a few days were told that their tickets could only be changed if they paid full fare rates, $1,500, as opposed to the $100 to $200 fee that Canadian Air used to charge for such a transaction.

People who have electronic bookings, tickets, now can't get them changed to hard copy regular tickets.

Canadian Air used to have zone fares for arts groups which allowed tickets to be purchased at less than regular fare rates. Zone fares have now been cancelled.

That is the end of cheap fares to the Yukon. She mentioned that it is almost impossible now to get a booking on air mile points out of the north and that there are rumours that the requirements will go up to 25,000 points. It used to be considered a short haul of 15,000 points out of the north.

I have another example. As a member of parliament, I travel extensively. I was heading home from Ottawa last week. We were told that our regularly scheduled flight No. 3139, which was supposed to be direct from Ottawa, leaving at 6.30, would be delayed. It did not have enough gas so we would be stopping in Winnipeg to refuel. When we got to Winnipeg we were informed that the pilots had already exceeded the time they were allowed to work but out of consideration for their passengers they would continue on the flight all the way to Vancouver.

There is no way they would not have known these pilots would be exceeding their allowed working time before they had even left the airport in Ottawa. The fact is we could not get off the plane in Winnipeg. There was no choice of airline to take.

I would like assurances from our Minister of Transport that this is not the regular practice and that this is not what travellers will face. We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens in the air as well as the pilots. What kind of choice did the pilots have? Obviously there were none. They were expected to carry on with the flight. The fact that we were given the impression the pilots had agreed to do it at the last moment was completely unacceptable.

Canada does not have a national highway policy. The motion today is a chance for us to highlight that point. It is also a chance to highlight what we are looking for in transportation policy overall.

It has to be linked to a rational energy policy. It has to be linked to our use of fossil fuels. It has to be linked to our environment and the effect of fuels on our environment and on the ozone layer. Canada is a northern climate and is more susceptible to the ravages of environmental degradation from the use of fossil fuels. We should take all those issues into consideration when it comes to transportation.

Another point I wanted to raise is that as a representative of a northern riding I want to stress that the north depends on air travel. Yukon has one road. There is one road into the Northwest Territories. We have to fly into Nunavut. The rest of transportation depends on either water in the summer or airlines in the winter. It makes living extremely expensive.

I mentioned the effects on cultural travel, but the effects on medical travel can be considered a crisis in some situations. In case anybody does not know the cost of a ticket out of Yukon, it is $1,500 just to Vancouver. If one needs to get anywhere eastward one is looking at $4,000 for a regular ticket to Ottawa. There are no bargains for people who have family crises outside Yukon. They have to pay $4,000. The flights are absolutely, incredibly packed and oversold. If one has an emergency one is lucky to even get out.

Very few people can come up with $4,000 for one person to get out of Yukon if he or she has to go to a funeral, attend a family member during a medical emergency, or accompany a family member who has been Medivaced to either Vancouver or Edmonton. Those are the usual places. They cannot afford to do it. I do not think that is fair. I do not think that is what we should be accepting.

I would like to raise one last point. The last part of the motion indicates that the government needs to demonstrate leadership on this issue and provide solutions to the problems shared from coast to coast. We have a third coast. I would like the Conservative Party to think about that today and for the rest of its tenure. Canada goes from coast to coast to coast. We have an Arctic coastline as well.

Part of being a northerner is being forgotten about. It is like a huge piece of our country somehow does not exist. Often I will get maps from different people which completely cut off all three territories. I do not think a political party that claims to represent the complete country should neglect the north and not recognize the third coastline which belongs to this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the two NDP members and the specific examples they gave regarding the kinds of problems in our transportation network.

We must keep in mind that we are talking about a network that is composed of thousands of components. One of the most crucial components besides the federal government is the provincial governments.

I would like to hear from the NDP representatives the definition of co-operation to which they keep referring, the co-operation of the federal government with the provincial government. How in their policy would they be able to get provincial input into their so-called co-operative model and liaison with provincial governments if the provincial governments have only one track or one goal in mind, would like to have everything their way and no other way is acceptable to them?

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I did not raise co-operation though I think it is critical. The northern highways I have been on are in incredible shape. The last time I drove out I took the B.C. highway. I swore I would never take the Stewart-Cassiar again. It was beat to pieces by the great big trucks travelling on it. It had not been maintained. I drove for hours and hours and hours, 10 hours in some cases, and there is no gas station. I do not think that is acceptable and I have decided that I will not drive on it again.

As far as co-operation goes, we have one road and one airline out of the north. Who are we supposed to be co-operating with? We do not have a choice. Transportation is very limited. The provinces and territories should co-operate federally so that we can have a cohesive transportation network which makes it possible for Canadians to get where they need to go and to be able to afford it. It is a three day drive from Whitehorse to Vancouver or a three day drive from Whitehorse to Edmonton. The distances are immense. The cost of gas is immense. People still have to eat and sleep and need places to go. Yes, we do need to co-operate.

When it comes to safety, I gave an example of flying from Ottawa to Vancouver where for me the issue was safety. I do not want to fly with pilots who have overworked. I know what I feel like when I am tired. I do not want to be in a bus when someone is tired and driving. I certainly do not want to be in an airplane when somebody is flying who should not be flying and has exceeded his or her hours of work.

I do not see safety as something that can be compromised or about which we can say we will have some sort of voluntary safety standards. Safety has to be clear cut. We have to expect a standard of safety. Now that we have a monopoly does not mean we should not expect a level of safety that will keep us all getting from one airport to the next.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in his questions to you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

They were not to me. They were to her.