Debates of May 30th, 2000

Supply

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

—gets two and a half times as much as the entire province of Nova Scotia for highway funding, even though—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are going to give the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest 30 seconds.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get unanimous consent to go on and on because I am sure the government wants to hear more of what I have to say.

The member is right. I believe the Outaouais is the Ottawa area. Obviously the Ottawa area is represented by a Liberal member of parliament. That is probably the difference.

[An hon. member]

Is that what it is?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

I am sure that is what it is, but I could be proven wrong on that.

The province of New Brunswick, under that agreement, is getting about $56 million, which would build about 10 kilometres of highway if we are lucky, not to mention any bridges or infrastructure.

At the end of the year 2050 we would have about half of the province completed under the scheme that the federal Liberal Party is suggesting.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have a chance to participate in this debate. It is an issue that all Canadians, regardless of where they reside in Canada, feel that parliament should have had quite some time ago.

I want to take this particular moment to commend the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for his work as transport critic in actually raising this particular issue and bringing this debate to the floor of the House of Commons today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand this particular issue as I do. When it comes to long range planning, whether it is on transportation issues, environmental issues, climate change, or the development of tax policy or trade policy, the government is absent in terms of actually having a long term vision, regardless of what the actual topic might actually be. Whether it is the need to develop an implementation strategy for the Kyoto climate change, whether it is planning in advance to avoid a pollster strike which we had just a few years ago, or whether it is the same kind of vision that we actually had when we were in government with respect to trade—our trade with the United States was around $90 billion each and every year and today we trade over $260 billion each and every year—it was that kind of long term planning for which this government is absent.

What all the provinces have been advocating for quite some time is to have some federal leadership with respect to a transportation policy for this country. One of the greatest challenges that a country as complex and as large as Canada is, is the geography from coast to coast to coast. The size of this country gives us as a nation an immense amount of challenges that we have to recognize. It was the same kind of challenge and vision that actually built the railroad that we have from coast to coast. Now we need to take that vision that we had for the 19th century and put it into a 21st century context.

The transportation challenges that we have right now in this modern, globalized world is that we need to be able to move our goods and our people from point to point in rapid fashion in order to stay competitive, to be able to function as a modern country and to maintain our place in the global economy.

We know now that the stresses of our cities, which have changed just over the last two or three decades in the population growth, whether it be in Vancouver, Halifax or Toronto, is that from an urban planning and an urban transportation perspective the federal government has a role to help maintain that public transport infrastructure so it does not wear down our roads and wear down our other infrastructure so that we spend so much money in maintenance. More importantly, we need to encourage and have modern up to date transportation policy so that people can commute to and fro from our cities which would actually put less stress on our infrastructure and less environmental pollution with respect to smog or that of climate change.

The government went to Kyoto in 1997 to establish and agree to a target and a timeline without any consultation with the provinces, the municipalities or Canadians in terms of accepting a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2008 to 2012 with no plan on how to do that.

One of the things the government should be doing, and with what I call no regrets, things that we should be doing for many reasons, whether it be human health, smog or just saving money on urban infrastructure, is to develop a sound urban transportation policy. The federal government has a role to work with the provinces and municipalities in that particular fashion.

I also want to comment on some callous remarks that were made by the Minister of Transport earlier today to the member for Cumberland—Colchester and to the member for Saint John. When it comes to an airport perspective in the province of New Brunswick, he said that he would let market forces decide what happens in terms of the principal airports between Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton.

We can let market forces actually make that decision to some degree or we can do what the Progressive Conservative Party wants to do and our transport critic wants, which is for the federal government to demonstrate leadership for the maintenance of those three airports or to actually develop a vision in terms of what air transport policy should be in the province of New Brunswick, but not from a top down perspective by waiting to see what happens or letting the chips fall where they may.

The government should be working in conjunction with the province of New Brunswick, with Premier Bernard Lord and with the municipalities that are serviced by those three cities to determine what the best thing would be to do, as opposed to just ignoring the remarks by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. At a minimum, the government should be stating that all three airports will be maintained in their present fashion unless the federal government provides some vision that the province, the municipalities and all citizens in southern New Brunswick could actually concur with.

We need to upgrade our transportation system because it is deteriorating. We do have challenges today that we did not have a few years ago. The member for Cumberland—Colchester showed me statistics from 1993 and the number of accidents involving dangerous goods was approximately 250. Today, on average, each and every year there are almost 450 accidents involving dangerous goods. I maintain that because of our growing economy, our growing population and the growing stresses in our transportation infrastructure that these kinds of things are bound to happen unless we actually make the investment in our rail systems, our trucking system and our roads, including the Trans-Canada Highway. We are bound to have these kinds of accidents time and time again unless we actually modernize our infrastructure to maintain the record growth that we have had.

The provinces have stated that the government's policy with respect to transport has been inconsistent, unco-ordinated and perhaps, above all, reactionary.

If we look back to the airline merger, everybody knew that Canadian Airlines was in financial trouble and that it was about to unfold but instead, the federal government allowed the market forces to decide the airline's fate. In some communities for a number of months transportation strategies were causing an immense amount of problems with respect to air transport and being able to move people the way that we wanted to do.

I would also maintain that when this government took office in 1993 the revenues for the Department of Transport from fuel taxes and user fees, whether it was leases on airports or whatever, were essentially equal to its expenditures. Right now the Department of Transport takes in $3.9 billion more each and every year from resources, such as fuel taxes and leasing fees. I guarantee that the provinces are not getting anywhere near that kind of return on their highways.

At a minimum, the federal government should be dealing with these four particular issues: first and foremost, working in collaboration with the provinces to develop a national transportation strategy for highways; second, having a clear vision in terms of urban transportation; third, working with the municipality so that we can develop the infrastructure for public transport; and fourth, to recognize that the transportation strategy that it has will assist in its strategy with respect to greenhouse gases and climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the comments from that part of Canada. It is rather interesting to compare the thinking in different areas of Canada.

In my province we have two airports, which is all we have ever had and I guess all we can ever expect. The minister and other members mentioned three airports this morning. I believe they were Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John. I can appreciate that those members have the airports, and I hope that they can keep them, but it is very difficult for me to understand the concept of distance. Where I come from the joke is that if our dog runs away we can see the dog going for two days.

I want to draw a comparison here. I come from a rural constituency. If I really step on it I can get to the airport in an hour and a half to two hours, and I am one of the the lucky ones. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville is two to two and a half hours from the airport. My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands is five hours from the airport. In those terms, I have never heard anyone in my province complain about having only two airports.

In getting to the airport, is it the time restraint the member for Fundy—Royal has or is it the mileage? For instance, when I stayed with my brother in Burlington it sometimes took him two hours to get me to Pearson airport.

I think we have to put things in perspective. I am not trying to criticize the hon. member's position. I am just trying to get a picture in my mind of what the problem is with the airports. Is it the distance or the obstacles in getting to the airport?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand here is that the three towns, Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton, are about the same size. If they were on their own, clearly they would have some kind of an airport. It is paramount for economic development reasons.

I accept the argument that those three airports are within an hour or an hour and a half driving distance. As opposed to taking a hands off approach and saying whatever happens happens between those three airports or whatever happens happens to the economic development in those three towns, the federal government owes it to the citizens in those three towns to step forward and provide leadership in terms of other solutions with respect to air transportation, whether it is one centralized airport or whether it is rebuilding one of the existing airports. That becomes a very difficult issue to manage. It is very parochial in nature regardless of where we live.

The issue is that the federal government at a minimum should maintain those three airports unless it has agreed with its provincial partners and the citizens who reside in those three towns to build a better transportation system.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to my hon. colleague with respect to the motion by the Conservative Party.

Recently in Nova Scotia Premier Hamm announced his government's intentions to privatize a large portion of the department of transportation. From what I understand after talking to individuals, Cumberland—Colchester is going to see about two-thirds of the department of transportation privatized. I heard the member talk about the federal government's obligation for a national transportation policy.

Is he in agreement with the premier of Nova Scotia's intentions to privatize the department of transportation?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud of the initiatives John Hamm is taking for the province of Nova Scotia. Because of the tax and spend liberalism and the socialist individuals who have created the financial crisis in that province, Premier Hamm has had to make some choices.

This is a mere experiment within the government to see how it can deliver some services in a more cost effective manner. My perspective is I support my provincial cousins in their initiatives to deliver services in innovative ways. If it turns out that it was not the best course, it was an experiment.

The Government of Nova Scotia has been forced into making some tough choices. We should give that government the chance to get its fiscal house in order.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know quite where to begin. There is so much to offer on the motion of the day by the Conservative Party, particularly the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

We heard the Tories say it was the Liberal way. Then we heard some Liberals say it was the Tory way. A constituent just called me and said, “You can all take the highway”.

The debate has to centre around whether or not it is the responsibility of government to proceed in the fashion it is proceeding and to gain the support of the public that elects it. So far since 1993 that has happened and as far as I can tell, it may happen again for another four years at least. Why is that? The Canadian public sees that the government does have control of the agenda and that it does have a plan for the many different ministries the opposition are raving about today in the House of Commons.

Let us read again the Tory motion by the member for Cumberland—Colchester:

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.

Establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership. The member for Fundy—Royal kicked off his address by talking about the need for infrastructure in a country this size in order to maintain the transportation links in a safe manner so that we can proceed to build economically in this country and be successful as a country in a globally competitive world, or something to that effect.

Let us start from the premise that Canada's transportation infrastructure extends over some nine million square kilometres, includes almost one million kilometres of road, 50,000 kilometres of rail lines, 646 certified airports, and over 300 commercial ports and harbours. This network involves millions of components and thousands of people all working together to keep the system running smoothly. It is not the member for Hamilton West saying this, that is according to the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report.

Canada's transportation infrastructure is ranked first among the G-7 countries. Why do we suppose that is? Is it because, as the member for Cumberland—Colchester suggests, the government has not established a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership? Nonsense. This is a nonsensical motion that we are debating today quite frankly for many of us in the House, and there are not too many of us probably because the motion is highly partisan and quite ridiculous.

What have we been doing for infrastructure over the years we have been in power? Before I get to that, before we came to power in 1993, I had the privilege of being elected back in 1988. From the first week that I was elected in 1988 I sat on the Standing Committee on Transport. I remember fondly old Pat Nowlan sitting in the committee in 1988. In those days we could smoke in the House of Commons. He would be charged there with a huge cigar and next to me was Les Benjamin. Now there was a guy who knew about trains. And there was Iain Angus. We could always judge how long the transport committee meeting would be by the number of cans of Coke Iain Angus had lined up in front of himself.

We did a lot talking back then. We travelled the world and looked at high speed rail systems. After having been here for 12 years I look back at those five years fondly and as a great experience being in opposition with a Tory government. But then I look back and ask what we accomplished back then.

In the five years that I was there in transport, we accomplished zip as a government. We travelled a lot. We went around the world and saw many countries. We saw ports. We saw harbours and did not do anything with them under the Tories. We studied all kinds of high speed rail in five or six countries. Now the TGV is a huge success in Paris. We did not do anything with it back then. The Conservatives did not want to touch it. Why did we study it if we did not want to touch it?

Then I remember fondly, or maybe not so fondly, Mr. Corbett. I think the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester will remember Mr. Corbett who was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. Now there was a leader among leaders. Imagine, and I do not like to speak disparagingly about people, but we did not have a committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport for nine months. Why? Because the chairman was recreating the sailing adventure of Christopher Columbus from his east coast riding to Europe. For nine months we did not have a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and the Conservative Party has the gall, the unmitigated nerve to stand in the House today and say that the government does not have a plan for transportation.

As I recall it was this government two weeks after we were elected in 1993 that brought forward an infrastructure program. Why did we bring it forward? Because this government recognized that the cities, the municipalities, the provinces, indeed the country, needed help with infrastructure. We did not want to go the way of Pittsburgh or Buffalo where the infrastructure of the city, the very heart of the city, the water, the sewers, the roads, was crumbling underneath their feet. We did not want that to happen. We did not want to go that far.

We had a comprehensive plan and a commitment. We have a commitment to negotiate an agreement by this fall with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector for a multi-year plan to improve provincial highways and municipal infrastructure in cities and rural communities right across Canada.

We also have a plan to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years for municipal infrastructure in cities and rural communities right across Canada, including affordable housing, green infrastructure and up to $150 million for highways. Does that sound like a government that has not established a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership? I do not think so.

We have just invested hundreds of millions of dollars into VIA Rail. We did not do that under the Tories. In fact I remember the member from London and I getting on a train going across Canada and wearing yellow VIA Rail hats trying to convince the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney to spend some money on VIA Rail to keep it alive. It did not happen, but it did under the Liberal government. This government has demonstrated some foresight. It has demonstrated some investment in VIA Rail.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester who moved this nonsensical motion today sat in committee with us. There were 53 meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport that dealt with airline restructuring. The government was not about to put tens of millions of dollars into an airline called Canadian. We tried that. We had promises from it. We tried it and it failed. Why? There was a lot of capacity and not enough people flying. It was a simple business response. Canadian Airlines did not have the passengers and could not compete.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester sat with us in committee day after day. The committee produced a solid report which was unanimously endorsed by members of the standing committee who told the government that it had to address the issues of fair pricing, competition, Canadian ownership and control, service to small communities and fair treatment of employees. We all agreed on that. We had a terrific report which was praised even by the National Post . Imagine that. Everybody thought it was great.

Then we came back with legislation in short order because we realized the circumstances facing the airline industry in Canada. The committee sat again for weeks and came up with legislation. Was it good enough for the committee as it came to us from the government? No. It was the committee that struck nine amendments to the bill. Everybody agreed that it was the right thing to do and the amendments carried and they made the bill stronger.

The member who moved today's motion sat in committee and said that he was going to move a motion because he felt we should have an ombudsman to look after customers' concerns. The committee said it was a good idea. But the government had the foresight and it had a plan. It said, “We do not want to create a new infrastructure for an ombudsman with the staff and all the costs associated with it. We already have something in place”.

The government moved an amendment to have a watchdog. The Canadian flying public and businesses could complain to that individual. This individual was put under the auspices of the CTA because the infrastructure was there already.

The minister had the vision and the foresight to realize that we had to have something in place for the flying public. We were already down the road. The minister had already initiated a venue for the public to make complaints.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester even admitted that it was a lot stronger than even his amount. He pulled his limit and went with that of the government. That is good planning. Then he came to us with the motion today saying that the government is not establishing any kind of comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership.

I had a great speech on intelligent transportation systems which I could give. It is a wonderful speech. It talks about government planning an intelligent transportation system and about how we are planning ahead and dealing with provinces and the private sector. We are dealing as a government to have a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the new way we do transportation.

The transportation system has changed. We no longer depend on the ribbon of steel taking us from coast to coast. People want to get to where they are going yesterday and so they hop on a plane. That is the way it is. If that is what the people want then the people shall receive that.

I look back over my five years in opposition, sitting on the committee day after day and researching everything we had done to try to move transportation ahead. Nothing seemed to come of it, but when we took government in 1993 things sure changed.

Hon. members opposite spoke a bit about Doug Young. Let me tell the House about Doug Young. At least Doug Young had a vision and it certainly has worked out. The first thing the Standing Committee on Transport did when we became government was to privatize CN Rail.

The NDP said it was a terrible thing to do that to the national railroad company. It was the most successful privatization in the country. It has done a magnificent job. Look at the stock exchange. There it is and it is doing well. The government had a vision with respect to a railroad and decided to move ahead, and we did with 51% Canadian ownership.

What did we do next? It was the commercialization of airports across the country. The taxpayer was looking after hundreds upon hundreds of airports. It was incredible. Some of them were landing strips with gravel on them perhaps twice as long as the House of Commons. We were paying money out hand over fist to keep the airports. What did the airports look like? We did not know but we had to give them money to keep them going. Now look at our airport system. It is highly successful. Nav Canada privatized our air navigation services.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

And don't we all feel a lot safer?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Yes, we should feel a lot safer. If the hon. member has a complaint about Nav Canada and its record of safety, I challenge her to walk out the door and say it in public. She knows she would not do that. I do not think she would because she knows that Nav Canada is doing the job and is doing a much better job than I dare say the government did.

Then what did we do? We looked after the airline industry. We came up with something called the Keyes report. I am damned proud of it because the Keyes report was the result of weeks of work by the Standing Committee on Transport and all its members travelling the country from port to harbour to port. We obtained all the information we could from those witnesses on how to make a better port system.

We created a report much like the airline industry report our committee wrote and we submitted it to the government. The government took it in hand, said that it was a damned fine report and built legislation around it. What was the result? The Canada Marine Act. Again more vision and more planning.

The Canada Marine Act today is successful because every port and harbour on that list, save one, is now a Canada port authority. They are all very successful because they are community led. The community is doing with its port what it thinks is right to do with its port.

NDP members laugh. That is typical of the NDP. It drives me crazy. They have no idea how many ports and harbours there were in the country before we brought forward the Canada Marine Act. There were hundreds upon hundreds. Can we imagine a port being no longer than 30 feet off the end of some soil and going out to wherever on the east or west coast with a harbour master being paid to look after it? The taxpayers were supporting it.

We had to look at the whole picture and ask how much the taxpayer could really support. We changed it. Again, does that demonstrate, as the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester stated, that the government has not established a comprehensive national transportation policy and leadership? I do not think so.

I am standing here living proof that for five years under Tory rule we did nothing. From 1993 to this day we have looked after harbours and ports, air navigation, airports, highways, ferry services and many other things. That demonstrates leadership. I would hope the hon. member would now take the opportunity to rise in his place to say that the chairman of the transport committee is absolutely correct and withdraw his motion because it truly is a foolish one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard the last sentence. I think the member said I should stand and say that he is foolish. Is that what he said? It sounded something like that.

Certainly that was nothing less than what we should expect from the chairman of the committee who I certainly acknowledge ran a very tight committee in which we did a lot of good work. However he has certainly taken a lot of licence with the things that have happened and what we did.

I notice both he and the minister focused on the airline merger. It is just part of the transportation infrastructure although an important part of it. They both focused on it, on Bill C-26 and on how they managed to negotiate a wonderful merger which they did not negotiate at all. Mr. Robert Milton negotiated the merger and they are playing catch-up, as we all are. They cannot take credit for establishing an aviation policy because Air Canada did that.

The member also suggested that he had travelled a lot when he was an opposition member. He said he travelled all over on VIA Rail issues. It seems to me he travelled in government on VIA Rail issues looking for options. He went to Europe and the committee went several places. I did not go myself, but I understand committee members travelled a lot.

What did they do? They did not do a thing. They did not come back with any innovative ideas. They did not come back with one new innovative approach. All they did was say that they had to put back in some of the money they had been robbing out of the VIA Rail system for years. It was not to increase capacity or improve the system but to replace the rail cars that had fallen apart and to replace the switches that were failing and things like that.

It was not to increase capacity, availability, routes or anything else. It was just to do some maintenance and repairs and to replace the deficient equipment that expired for all intents and purposes years ago. To say they did something with VIA Rail is just not true. They put some money back in after they reduced it year after year after year.

The member also talked about $150 million for highways over so many years and over 10 provinces. That will not do anything. That is a joke when it comes to highway work.

Almost every provincial transportation minister has written to me. I will just read from a couple of letters. The chairman of the committee keeps talking about how they have leadership. The minister from Alberta wrote that the federal minister expressed his support for the strategy of a highway system and further outlined his views on the essential components of a possible program but that there was no discussion on how the program was to be funded. Is that leadership?

The minister from Newfoundland said that the province would be pushing for a national highways program that addresses the serious concerns. I could quote the minister from the Northwest Territories, and on and on and on.

There is no leadership. There is a complete hodgepodge of highway programs right now. Actually there are very few. I think Newfoundland will get $100 million over the next two years. New Brunswick will get $100 million over the next two years. Nova Scotia will get zip.

Again I ask the chairman of the committee where is the leadership. Where are the programs? Where is the overall comprehensive policy on transportation that ties it all together? There is none.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I always do, I take the hon. member's question very seriously. He said that the minister and I had focused somewhat on the airline industry. Rightly so, I say to the member. Quite frankly the government should take credit for the work it did on the airline industry.

The hon. member opposite who just asked the question, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, should take credit for the hard work he did on the Standing Committee on Transport in order that the government, with his assistance, could save 16,500 jobs in the country.

One week before Christmas last year, that is how many people could have been out on the street without a job. It was the government, with the assistance of the hon. member opposite as a member of the committee, that decided what the criteria would be: fair pricing to look after the consumer; competition to look after the consumer; Canadian ownership and control, a big bugaboo of the NDP; service to small communities, very important to the Conservatives especially on the east coast that they represent; and fair treatment for employees. We answered every call. Every one of those calls were answered thanks in part to the member who moved this motion. We did demonstrate leadership.

In his second question he mentioned that we travelled a lot and he did not see much happen as a result. I was in opposition. If he wants me to, I will supply him with every one of the reports produced by the Standing Committee on Transport and he will see the opposition at the time and its dissenting views of the government in those reports.

His third point was that the commitment to highways is a joke. Only a Mulroney Tory would call $100 million in 2000-01, $350 million in 2001-02 and $550 million per year for the next four years up to 2006 a joke. Only a Mulroney Tory would take all that money and say it is a joke.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very pointed question. He likes to talk about the rating among the international scene of Canada as one of the best in infrastructure. I am sure we can go to countries where the infrastructure is not as good, but we have some large problems in this country.

Even though it is not in my riding, I am thinking of that area in Saskatchewan where my kids live. The roads are being beaten to pieces by huge trucks hauling grain, now that the rail system is being dismantled.

The Trans-Canada Highway is the country's major artery from east to west. In Saskatchewan and I understand in other parts as well including parts of Ontario, it is a narrow two lane road which is so incredibly dangerous it is not acceptable.

We had the occasion to visit Swift Current shortly after a horrendous accident on the Trans-Canada Highway just west of Swift Current. It involved a half-ton with some workers for a siding outfit. Two new buses that were being transported were in that accident. They all were completely destroyed in the fire that ensued. It involved two semi-trailer trucks. If I remember correctly there were three deaths on that one occasion.

My brother took me over to see the wrecks. Our hearts went out to the families whose loved ones had been needlessly killed on a highway that is totally inadequate as the Trans-Canada Highway, the main transportation artery across the country.

Surely the member must feel at least a little tinge of conscience and must admit that our system is just not quite up to where it should be.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel more than a tinge, I tell the hon. member. If we were flush with money and we could put it into changing every road in this country to make it a better road; if we could put up medians in the middle to ensure that cars would not cross over; if we could ensure that every driver knew how to drive properly, wore their seatbelt, did not drive drunk, obeyed all the rules of the road, did not tailgate and did not speed, it would be perfect.

For all the highways across this country that the federal government looks after, we would have to come up with $17 billion to repair them all. It is a lot of money.

We are trying to do it incrementally. We have made commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars. We will attempt to fix each one of these roads. Everything has to be done in balance. Roads and highways are not the only preoccupation of the government. There are many issues that are very important to Canadians. We have to find that balance and we have to stay within our means so that, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, we do not climb back into a deficit situation again.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very eloquent member for Palliser.

I want to comment on some of the comments made by the chairman of the transport committee on a number of issues. He bragged today about the privatization of CN. He bragged today about Nav Canada. He bragged about the privatization of the airports. He bragged today about the privatization of the ports.

He pointed the finger at the NDP. He said that this was the bugaboo of members of the NDP, that they believe the government should be involved to ensure that communities do not face economic devastation. He is right. We do believe that. I thought at one time he might have believed that as well.

I will quote from a book I picked up the other day. “The question is who puts bread on the table when the private markets fail to do so? The long term role of the state will not be determined by the necessity in the short run to solve fiscal problems. There are signs now that the fashion of denying on principle a positive role for the state is losing its grip. The avoidance of social disharmony makes it imperative that those in authority will not lag behind their public in realizing that the state still has a role in keeping bread on the table. The people as a whole will have the final say in determining the future role of government and I am content to rely on their judgment”.

Those are the words of the Hon. Allan MacEachen, a well respected former Liberal. I wonder how he would feel about the comments of the transportation chair about the great, wonderful role of privatization of the transportation industry in this country.

I also think that the chairman and some of the members need a little history lesson. In condemning the Conservatives, he talked about how the Liberal plan has benefited the country. There may be some truth that it benefited parts of the country. Probably Toronto is doing very well. I pick up the Globe and Mail and I read about the economic growth in parts of Ontario. However there is a history here.

There was a time a hundred years ago when the economic centre of growth was Atlantic Canada. The transportation routes to Atlantic Canada were the most travelled in the country. A deal was made. It was called confederation. As part of the deal, some of the transportation routes would be bypassed in order for the country to forge into the west. For a hundred years we developed a transportation policy that allowed that to happen. We enhanced the St. Lawrence Seaway which allowed some of the ships that would normally stop in Atlantic Canada to find their way through the continent to the port of Montreal and the ports of Ontario.

Now Atlantic Canada finds itself in a most difficult situation. As the government of the day decides that privatization and the natural market forces are the way to compete, we find ourselves scratching our heads asking what happened to the concept of confederation where we were going to give a little bit in the interests of building a nation.

Now that the playing field is tipped a little bit in central Canada's favour, all of a sudden that does not matter anymore. All of a sudden we are all supposed to compete. Atlantic Canadians, and when I say this I know I will be supported by my colleagues in the Conservative Party who represent Atlantic Canada, can compete with the best of them when the playing field is level. But it is not and it has not been for some time.

When the member of the government says that there is a transportation policy in place that has created economic growth in this country, I say again maybe for some parts. In the region of the country I represent we are fighting desperately to keep in place a rail system so that when the federal government withdraws from the Cape Breton Development Corporation we have something to attract businesses so they can ship goods out.

They keep telling us in Atlantic Canada to pull ourselves up, to be competitive and to manufacture goods. We agree with all of that, but it is not much good to manufacture goods if we cannot get them to market. We do not have a sufficient population base. We rely on markets to the east where Europe is, to the south where there are huge markets in New England, and to the west, to Ontario. Without substantial investment from the government in the infrastructure of Atlantic Canada, we simply cannot compete and find our way to the same level of prosperity as other parts of the country.

We require a strategy that will invest heavily in those areas of the country that are not benefiting from the current economic growth. Atlantic Canada is one of them. That can be done in a number of ways.

I have advocated for some time the restoration of passenger rail service in my own hometown. We had a passenger rail service until the Conservative government took it out in the 1980s. It was a well used and profitable VIA Rail line. There was no reason to take it away. The city of Saint John found itself in the same situation. It had a rail service that was profitable. Prime Minister Mulroney said if the rail line was used, he would not take it out. We used it. We took him at his word and it was gone.

Consequently the community I represent is faced with an aging population. The major medical centres are in Halifax. People have the choice of driving to Halifax in a minivan at considerable cost or driving themselves on highways which have become incredibly terrifying for senior citizens because of the trucks and increased traffic. It is not like it was 25 or 30 years ago.

One of the things the government could do is re-establish passenger rail service in the communities where it was profitable. That would maintain the rail lines so that as we try to develop some economic growth, the rail line is there and is used and maintained for both passengers and freight on which we could build an economy.

Let me talk a little about the airports. The chairman of the transport committee talked about what a wonderful job Nav Canada was doing, how good it was that it had been privatized out to a private corporation. Let me relate some of the experiences we have had.

There was a period of time about two years ago where Nav Canada decided it would downgrade the airport in Cape Breton. Again, as we are trying to build an economy, trying to take the government at its word and trying to be innovative and entrepreneurial, not only did we have a problem with the rail lines, but we also heard that the flight service centre would be removed from our airport.

Being a member of parliament and a community activist, I got the community involved. I said, let us talk to the people at Nav Canada. Surely they would be reasonable and understand that we need to maintain this service. Their response to me was that this was community consultation but they would make the final decision. They said, “We are a private corporation. What matters to us is the bottom line. It does not matter that you guys are trying to pull yourselves up. It does not matter that you need this airport if you are going to build any kind of economic infrastructure. We are interested in the bottom line and whether you are making money right now”.

Fortunately we are a tough lot in Cape Breton. The community got together. We fought hard enough and we kept the flight service station. Had it been government that was involved in that, it would have at least understood there was a social policy attached to the dismantling of that airport. However, the Liberal government in its move to privatization and its newfound zealot's belief in the private market, decided it would disband that.

That was the consequence for small communities in the country. I know what we face is no different from small communities in the west and in northern Ontario that are trying to build up their economic base.

The chairman of the transport committee, with some wry humour I suppose, talked about the small little ports in the east and the west. Those little ports represent an opportunity for economic growth for many of those communities. Maybe it is because I represent an island that has an inland sea in the centre of it that we are so sensitive to the ports. Those small communities rely on the ports to ship gypsum and lumber in and out. They rely on them as they plan their economic future for tourism and all kinds of activities.

When we got word that the government was divesting itself of the ports, the community was concerned because the economic base is not there for the community to say it can afford to take it over and have a port authority maintain it. Many communities in Atlantic Canada cannot afford that at this point in time, yet the port is essential if they are ever going to get to a point where they can afford to maintain their own ports.

Once again the playing field has been shifted. We have to run uphill and just as we are about to get there the ropes are being pulled away.

I accept the motion moved by the Conservative Party today. It provides important debate in terms of the transportation problems facing the Canadian people.

I want to talk about one other aspect of transportation. It is one which I do not think has been mentioned yet, although it may have been by the newest member of the House of Commons. I am sure he will find some interest in it as will my other colleagues from Newfoundland, and that is Marine Atlantic. It is a vital transportation link for the people of Newfoundland. It is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the province of Newfoundland.

I conclude by saying that those are all vital transportation links to Atlantic Canada. We will fight to maintain them and we will demand from the government the honouring of the contract that was made so long ago.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words today. I share with him many of the views he expressed relative to the malaise in our federal transportation policy, if I could call it that, particularly relative to Atlantic Canada.

I am not certain whether the hon. member was able to hear the member for Mississauga West speak of the highways and roads in Nova Scotia earlier today. The member for Mississauga West went on at great length about how Nova Scotia had excellent highways, that there was nothing to complain about, that the main highways were excellent and that the byroads were terrific.

I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with me that the member for Mississauga West was clearly misinformed. He is one who is sometimes prone to hyperbole and exaggeration and maybe he had fallen into that trap. Would the hon. member agree with me that rural roads in Nova Scotia are in significant disrepair and that the issue has to be addressed from a tourism perspective?

Where I live, in Cheverie, Hants County, it is so bad that I have to go to the dentist every six months to have my fillings replaced.

Secondly, not just from a tourism perspective, but from a safety issue, Highway 101 has been an issue for a number of years. There have been over 40 deaths on the highway since 1993. It has the highest level of traffic in the province of Nova Scotia.

The federal government is now investigating the notion of a cost share program with the provinces. Does the hon. member share with me the concern I have about cost sharing programs? Because of the mess that the current government in Nova Scotia inherited from the government of Russell MacLellan, the province does not really have the ability to match funds. Should the federal government not be more proactive in addressing these safety issues and spend some of the money that it receives by way of fuel taxes, of which only 5% is invested in highways?

In view of the fact that the province of Nova Scotia is clearly not in a financial position at this time to enter into a cost sharing agreement, why is the federal government not recognizing the safety issues, including Highway 101, and spending a greater level of the tax money collected from fuel taxes on highway priorities like Highway 101 instead of simply creating these straw man arguments around cost sharing programs in which clearly the province is not in a position to participate?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. If we wanted to look at what was the growth industry in Atlantic Canada or where we should invest funds, the auto repair industry, the shop industry, is probably the only bright light in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia at the current time.

I share with the member that concern. That is not just my concern. I have received a number of letters from constituents in my riding who talk about that very issue. They say that we are supposed to be developing tourism as an alternate industry in Cape Breton. As the government withdraws from Devco it keeps pointing to tourism as one of the areas of potential economic growth. However, as the member says, for people to get from one place to another with their car intact is no easy feat. We could all participate in some international races because we have learned to weave in and out and around the potholes. I share with him that concern.

I also share the concern that the smaller provinces or the provinces that find themselves economically strapped simply cannot afford the kind of extensive repairs that are needed. If the federal government wants to enter into some kind of agreement, there has to be the recognition that not all provinces have the same resources. That is one of the founding principles of this country and Confederation. I will be getting a sign again, but I would concur with the member and his comments.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for allowing me to share his time.

The member for Hamilton West, who is the chair of the transportation committee, talked a few minutes ago about what has transpired in this country for the last 133 years with governments alternating between the Liberals and the Conservatives. When the Liberals are in everything is great and it is the fault of the other guys. It is a game that is wearing a bit thin. I am sure it is for you too, Mr. Speaker, as it is for those of us in the New Democratic Party caucus.

I want to talk about transportation policy from the point of view of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province. I want to talk a bit about air, rail, highways and roads. There is not much point in talking about shipping unless we want to go canoeing in northern Saskatchewan where there are some terrific canoe routes.

Transportation for the New Democratic Party and for our constituents is absolutely vital to Canada's future economic development. We need an efficient, high quality and safe network of highways, railways, ports and airports to move not only goods, but people as well.

Our transportation infrastructure has deteriorated under this government, as it did under the Mulroney government in the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite the member for Hamilton West, we insist that this government lacks the vision and the will to develop transportation infrastructure worthy of the 21st century.

Let me talk a bit about the airline industry. We feel it has been in a state of perpetual crisis since the late 1980s as a result of unregulated competition. More recently we saw the total demise of Canadian Airlines and the creation of one big airline. On this side of the House we have consistently called for a modern regulation regime to protect the public interest.

I will make a few observations on air travel as it has affected people coming in and going out of Saskatchewan since the merger took place. I do not believe that I have been on a flight recently from Ottawa to Regina—and other members fly the same route—that has not been positively and absolutely booked. Of course, the flight from Ottawa to Regina is not a direct, non-stop flight. It either goes through Winnipeg or Toronto, and occasionally both. Often they try to bribe people with $300, for those who do not need to get there yesterday, as the member for Hamilton West was suggesting. The flights are full, there are fewer seats on the planes and it is very expensive.

Not everybody needs to get there yesterday. Some people would enjoy taking the train. In the southern part of Saskatchewan that is very difficult to achieve. People either have to go to Saskatoon, which is almost a three hour drive from Regina, or perhaps two and a half hours from Moose Jaw, to get a train usually at 2 o'clock in the morning, or they can go to Melville, which would take a couple of hours, to get the train at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning, depending on whether the person is heading east or west. The train station in Regina is now a casino. The train station in Moose Jaw just recently reopened as a state of the art liquor store.

Despite the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars into VIA Rail which the government announced recently, I doubt very much whether VIA passenger train service will ever be restored in southern Saskatchewan, except perhaps for the occasional high priced tourist train that will go through in the summer months between Winnipeg and Vancouver.

We do not all need to get to our destination yesterday. Some of us would like to take the leisurely route, but it makes it very difficult given the logistics of getting to where the train is at these days.

The riding of my colleague for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is situated on the VIA line that goes from east to west. The train that runs through Biggar in the middle of the night requires people to stand outside in summer or winter because the station is not open to allow folks to board the train. People stand at the side of the tracks, which is clearly not an incentive to take the train.

Let me turn to the highway system. I think we are the only country in the world that does not have a national highway transportation system. About three or four years ago the Government of Saskatchewan committed some $1 billion over the next 15 years to be spent on upgrading highways. Work has been undertaken to twin the highways. There is work being done in the area of Gull Lake, on the east side of the province, that the member from the Canadian Alliance spoke about. There is no question that work would be done much faster if some federal money went into the program.

I read recently that the twinning which is scheduled to be completed in about five or eight years could be cut in half if the federal folks would step up to the plate and put some money into our highway infrastructure program to get the death traps cleaned up and turned into four lane highways. It would be safer for the travelling public and a lot more enjoyable.

There is no question that big trucks are a cause for grave concern. That is part and parcel of our grain transportation system. I will not get into that issue because we will be debating it over the next couple of weeks. As farmers have to move their grain farther and farther to inland terminals and other elevators to get to the main lines, it is putting additional pressure on roads that were never intended to carry the kind of weight that the tandem and the Super Bs are putting on our highways. That is part and parcel of the problem.

The $175 million announced by the government a couple of weeks ago as part of the grain transportation bill that is coming forward will be welcome news. However, we need to note that it is $175 million for western Canada, so it will not amount to a heck of a lot. If it were $1.75 billion it would be significant. Nobody is going to turn down $175 million, but nobody is jumping too high about it either.

We in the NDP support the motion presented by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, my well travelled colleague. We support this call for collaboration between all levels of government and the private sector. These groups must work together to make sure that our national transportation infrastructure serves the public interest and meets the needs of all.

The federal government must, in partnership with the provinces, invest in highways to facilitate the movement of people and goods. If the government allows the deterioration of our highways to continue, the economic cost will continue to rise.

The federal government must commit to ensuring that our national transportation system serves all parts of the country. That is a concern of my party. The member for Sydney—Victoria indicated that it is a concern in Cape Breton. I am trying to signal that concern from my part of the world. The government has 101 seats in the province of Ontario. It has very little understanding or recognition of the problems that many constituents in the so-called hinterland of this nation feel, the difficulty we have in getting our products to port and getting our people, goods and services moved from our part of the world to tidewater, to the big smoke of Toronto or wherever.

This is a timely motion. I hope the government takes it very seriously, although I am skeptical that will be the case.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The first question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.