House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transport.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
I thought I had to go through you, Mr. Speaker. I know there was an implication from the parliamentary secretary that the reason the government could not accomplish anything is that it cannot seem to get the provinces onside. My question to you is that I am—
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, this is almost becoming like a trick way to get my question out. Fair enough.
The implication is that the government cannot get the provinces onside. Is the member willing to accept the defeatist attitude by the government that we should give up if we cannot get the provinces to agree with everything? Should we just not bother with anything and say to heck with a national transportation policy?
If the government is doing that, as far as I am concerned it is doing exactly what the Bloc is saying with respect to Quebec. It has given up on the federal government. It will not work so it wants out of here. Is that what she thinks the parliamentary secretary is saying as well, that they will just give up on the provinces?
Louise Hardy NDP Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not what the parliamentary secretary was saying because it just leads into the whole sense that parliament is irrelevant and why are we bothering to be here if we have no role.
We do have a role. We cannot compromise when it comes to safety and issues of national importance. We have to expect, demand and put in place the laws we need to make sure we have what we need and that parliament is worth something.
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint John. I would like to say a few words in the transportation debate. Coming from an island province, transportation is very important to us and is always uppermost in our minds.
Canada is a physically huge country. From the very beginning of its history as a nation, transportation issues have been very prominent on the national stage. At first it was the building of our Transcontinental Railroad. Then came the highways and the airports. It seems we are always talking about transportation in the House of Commons. Well we should be, because it is very important to every province in Canada.
When Newfoundland joined Confederation back in 1949, our transportation link to the mainland was written into our terms of union, which are part of the Constitution of Canada. It meant that we had a constitutional guarantee of passenger and rail ferry service between the island and the mainland of Canada.
In the 1980s, with the railway still losing money and the service being taken over more and more by trucks in the province of Newfoundland, the federal government and the province of Newfoundland signed a deal to give up the railway in exchange for about $1 billion. Those $1 billion were used to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway, to rebuild it.
However we still have a constitutional guarantee of a car-ferry link to the mainland. That link is often in the news, as we are all very much aware. When I say our current ferry service is often in the news, it is not often good news. It is generally bad news with continual complaints of poor scheduling, poor accommodations, long lineups and whatnot.
It is a very costly service for the people of Newfoundland. Let me give an indication of how costly it is. A family of four, travelling in a car from North Sydney to Port aux Basques pays $62 for the car, $20 for each of the two adults and $10 for children under 13, for a total of $122 not including the cost of food and other incidentals.
If the family were travelling by way of Argentia to the mainland of Canada it would cost $124 for the car, $55 for each adult and $27.50 for each child, for a total of $289 to travel that small, narrow body of water between Nova Scotia and the province of Newfoundland. That is cost prohibitive.
It is no wonder that three-quarters of American tourists who head into the maritimes never make it to the province of Newfoundland. The Atlantic Ocean is there. The ferry lineup is there. The cost is there. All these factors serve to deter tourists from coming to the province of Newfoundland.
We in Newfoundland have always made the point that our ferry link with the mainland is part of our Trans-Canada Highway. Therefore, why should it cost a traveller more to travel by ferry than it does to drive a similar distance on the Trans-Canada Highway? There is no reason in God's earthly world why that should happen. Instead the rates keep going up and the service seems to be continually getting worse.
Not long ago I raised in the House of Commons the possibility of freezing these rates for an indefinite period of time. The minister was not very receptive to that idea. The government did freeze the rates for this season only, mainly because of the St. John's West byelection. In order to strengthen our growing tourism industry I feel there is a case to be made now for an extended freeze.
I would prefer that the rates be reduced to reflect the cost of equivalent highway travel. Given the reaction last week when I raised this issue with the minister in the House, I do not think he would agree with that. In any case, there is a case to be made for it. Prince Edward Island has a fixed link. Therefore, I cannot see why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should not have a fixed rate.
Another matter which comes up continually in Newfoundland with respect to the ferry service is the labour relations issue. The workers on the ferry are unionized and have the right to strike. Year after year we are threatened with a strike at the height of the tourism season, about this time each year, just as that very important season is about to begin. That takes its toll on tourists, who do not want to run the risk of being stranded on Newfoundland because of a labour dispute. Sometimes the possibility of a strike is almost as detrimental as the strike itself.
The solution here—and I want to offer the minister a solution instead of a complaint—is to have the ferry service declared an essential service, with workers being given the right to some kind of binding arbitration mechanism. That way both the workers and the travelling public would be protected. However, to date no federal government has come up with a satisfactory answer to that problem.
The majority of the board of directors of the ferry service should be from the province of Newfoundland. Unless it has been changed recently, I do not think the majority of the board of directors is from Newfoundland. After all, the only reason the ferry system exists is to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and people who want to visit the province. The reason the majority of the board of directors should be from Newfoundland is because if we inundate Marine Atlantic's corporate culture with Newfoundlanders we can make service to the Island of Newfoundland its reason for being, instead of a sorrowful duty that it is compelled to perform under the constitution of Canada.
The federal government and Marine Atlantic make the people of Newfoundland feel that they are doing us a favour by providing the service. That attitude seems to permeate the entire operation. That attitude has to change if the service is to be improved.
The importance of improving the ferry service has been made even more important, given the fact that the airline industry has become a monopoly. Air Canada has a virtual monopoly in the outlying areas of the country, making it even more difficult for the travelling public. It is hard to get a flight. Flights are overbooked and flights are cancelled. The service, generally, is not what it used to be. Competition is the best cure. Competition is very important for people who live on an island.
The problem, again, is that Newfoundland is an island province with a very small population. Under these circumstances it is difficult to get a break. Fighting those circumstances was one of the reasons I was sent here to the Parliament of Canada with six other MPs.
I am very disappointed with the Liberal members from Newfoundland. They do not seem to be doing the job of raising the important issues that need to be raised, like Marine Atlantic, like harbour clean-up, like the health issue which is plaguing our province, like Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls and so many more issues that are vital to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Stan Dromisky LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised and shocked by the comments which the member for St. John's East has presented to this House regarding the ferry service. He knows very well that this government has gone full speed ahead, has increased capacity and has leased a larger vessel. We will have a brand new vessel crossing the strait next year. We are dealing with the huge problem of capacity. Millions of dollars have already been devoted to that service.
I want to go back to the comment the member made pertaining to the freezing of the rates, and even the lowering of the rates.
The rates are determined by a multitude of factors, which are cost factors, such as the depreciation of the vessel, labour costs, fringe benefits, maintenance and landing fees. I could go on and on. Collectively, those result in what we call a fee per customer.
What the member is recommending is that this whole host of costs be frozen. I would ask the member if he and his party are recommending cost controls, cost freezes and the freezing of all prices in his province.
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that there should be cost controls on everything in the province, if that is what he is asking. I am not saying, either, that some significant improvements have not been made to the ferry service in Newfoundland.
What I am saying, however, is that there has to be some recognition of the fact that we are an island province. There has to be some recognition of the fact that the distance between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have a rate charged which is equivalent to what it would cost to travel the same distance on the Trans-Canada Highway. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
Yes, I am very much aware that there are heavy costs associated with running the ferry service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. No one can deny that. However, the point has been made continuously to the federal government over the last 15 or 20 years that people should pay an equivalent cost to that which people pay when travelling on the Trans-Canada Highway.
I quoted to him a moment ago the rate if we were travelling from Port-aux-Basques to Argentia. The fee is $124 for the car, $55 for each of the adults and $27.50 for each child, for a total of $289. That is cost-prohibitive. Is it any wonder that people travelling from the United States to Atlantic Canada will very often stop in Nova Scotia? They will not take the time to go across to Newfoundland because it is cost-prohibitive.
We are asking the federal government to recognize that and to say that the costs will be the equivalent rate that travellers would pay on the Trans-Canada Highway for that distance. That is not an unreasonable request.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if the hon. member for St. John's East could help us. It is my understanding that Marine Atlantic had a board of directors that spent about a year travelling around the world looking for alternative craft, alternative ferries, to provide better service.
It is not only money that discourages tourists from travelling to Newfoundland; it is also the service.
This week a lady asked me how to contact Marine Atlantic. She wanted to make a reservation. She was unable to make a reservation for her family to travel to Newfoundland this summer. We are trying to help her. If she and her family are not able to go to Newfoundland, that will mean lost tourism dollars.
Could the hon. member enlighten us as to how Marine Atlantic goes about purchasing new ferries? These are substantial investments of $40 million to $70 million. There was a recent deal on one new ferry, plus a short term fast ferry for the summer. Could the hon. member elaborate on the process?
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made for the purchase of a new ferry. We have been receiving quite a number of complaints from brokers who were supposed to be given an opportunity to bid on the purchase of the ferries. Some of the brokers have been telling us that the system that is currently being used by Marine Atlantic for the purchase of these ferries is not a good system, that it leaves a lot to be desired and that it does not seem to be a transparent system. We have received quite a number of complaints about that.
The making of reservations on the ferry continues to be a nightmare for people who want to travel to the province of Newfoundland.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from St. John's East, Newfoundland for sharing his time with me.
This morning we heard the hon. Minister of Transport state that I was not going to lose my airport in Saint John. I want him to know that I have a few questions and I wish he were in the House. I would like to know why the minister has made a deal whereby I have to pay $800 and only get a muffin when I fly to Ottawa. If I was to fly out of Moncton, I would pay $300 and I would get a full course meal. I have not figured this one out yet. I will speak to the Minister of Transport to see if he can get me a little more than a muffin.
If the government wants the economy to boom, there is a need for all modes of transportation. If the government wants the economy in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland to boom, give us all our modes of transportation, which we had before the Liberal government came into power. We had all modes of transportation. We had VIA Rail. A brand new train station was built. Then, Mr. Young, who was the minister of transport, came to Saint John and closed the brand new train station that was built just six months before the 1993 election.
We have the most modern shipyard there is in Canada. When it comes to the shipbuilding industry, let me say that we would like to have built a ferry for Newfoundland. Why was the government going all around the world looking for a ferry? We could build a ferry. My understanding was that there was some sort of agreement that if the government needed ferries they would be built in Canada.
On October 8, 1999, Frank McKenna, the previous premier of the province of New Brunswick, openly criticized the federal government's lack of vision for Atlantic Canada. He is quoted as saying that the Liberal record is terrible and that the government exhibits total ignorance when it comes to shipbuilding. This is from Frank McKenna, who the government just asked to run as a Liberal in the next election. I have to say that he knew what it was doing was wrong for Atlantic Canada.
My understanding is that a report was presented by the members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus which states that the Atlantic Canadian economy is hitting an all time low and that part of the solution to the problem is to bring the shipbuilding industry back up to its potential and proven strength by adopting a new national shipbuilding policy. This is the Liberal's Atlantic caucus making this statement.
However, the Minister of Industry, with whom I have spoken, has told me that I also have to deal with the Minister of Transport. I want to know what we can do about shipbuilding. As everyone knows, we need ships if we are going out on the water. We are not going to swim across the Bay of Fundy, that is for sure.
We have been asking for a national shipbuilding policy. All we have been asking for is to make us equal with all the other countries around the world. The contents of a shipbuilding policy would be the provision of an improved export financing and loan guarantee program, similar to the title 11 program in the United States.
Here we are with the Jones act. What do we do? The U.S. is allowed to bid on ship repairs throughout Canada. It can also bid on shipbuilding contracts if the ships are needed in Canada. Can we do that down in the United States? No we cannot. It is now time for the government to take the stand it must take to correct this.
There is the exclusion of new construction ships built in Canadian shipyards from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations, and also a provisional refundable tax credit to Canadian shipowners or shipbuilders who contract to build a ship or contract for conversion with change of mission, mid-life refit or major refit in a Canadian shipyard.
We could put our shipyards to work in Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and right out to B.C., right across the country. I am talking about 25,000 people. They have to get the parts and the equipment and it is all produced right here in our own country. Why are we not doing this? Why has the government not done this?
There was an Ernst & Young report that was done in 1993 for the government on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. On page 119 of that report it stated that if the government did nothing to help the industry become more competitive, then an estimated 5,000 jobs would be lost just in the shipyards.
Right now 4,000 jobs have been lost in Saint John, New Brunswick. They came up from Louisiana, U.S.A. and interviewed our people. They said that they were the best shipbuilders they had ever interviewed and they offered them jobs down in the U.S. Why would we train and put our people to work building the best ships in the world and then turn around and see them going to the United States or to other parts of the world building ships because we have not done anything?
Earlier today I mentioned that I had never seen Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, which is mine and which had its 215th anniversary two weeks ago, like this. Our city was booming in 1993. The young people who went to Bishop's University used VIA Rail. When the last VIA Rail passenger service came into my city I went down to meet with the passengers and there were tears in their eyes. They said “Mrs. Wayne, we have to do something”.
We tried. I have to say that if we want to put the people to work, where the men and women can feed their families, if we want to give them dignity, educate them and look after them, we must make sure they can go to work each day and have money in their pockets to do that. The only way this can be done, the only way jobs will be created and the only way industry will move is to provide all modes of transportation. We need to get the politics out of this.
I talked earlier about what has been happening to us back home. I look at our sugar industry. Do members know that our sugar refinery was upgraded by the previous government? What did this government do with Canada's oldest sugar refinery when it came to power? It went to the United States and worked out a deal for it to ship in by truck, by ship and everything, over 100,000 tonnes into Canada and we lowered our quota to 8,000. This put the truckers out of work, the shippers out of work and even the airplanes, everything.
There has not been a good vision for the future. I am really concerned about what will happen to us in the maritime provinces. The Ernst & Young report definitely stated that there was a need for a shipbuilding policy. Of the 68 shipbuilding nations on the planet today, 67 of them have a national shipbuilding policy. We are the only country that does shipbuilding that does not have one.
The issue of IMF money supporting Asian shipyards is cause for concern. The bottom line is that tax dollars from our own shipyard workers are potentially being used to put them out of work by unfairly subsidizing the competition through the IMF.
I want our people to have their dignity. I want our people to be treated fairly. I want the House of Commons to have a better understanding of the Atlantic region, for there has not and it has hurt the people dramatically. I will continue to fight for our people until we get all modes of transportation back where they should be.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, there is no stronger defender of the province of New Brunswick than the member who just spoke.
The member mentioned the shipyard in our home province of New Brunswick, specifically the Saint John shipyard. About 10 years ago the Government of Canada awarded the largest contract ever, I believe, to the private sector to build our frigates. It accomplished a couple of things. Not only did it put our shipbuilders to work—and the member commented on the expertise and the level of proficiency in those shipyards—but it also strengthened our military, something that the present government has not done very much about.
The point I want to make and the question I have for the member is on a national shipbuilding policy. The member mentioned in her speech that there are now 4,000 workers less in the port city of Saint John because of the lack of a shipbuilding policy. In fact, I think we are the only industrialized country in the western world without a national shipbuilding policy. The United States has one, although we never want to admit it and neither does it, but it does have one in terms of tax incentives and whatnot. It is the same for the European countries.
When the province of New Brunswick went out to secure a new ferry for the Grand Manan run in my riding of New Brunswick Southwest I believe that the shipyard that was awarded that contract was from the Netherlands. Again, that is another country that has a shipbuilding policy.
The situation we now have in New Brunswick and the rest of Canada is that when provinces, communities or the private sector go out to secure a vessel they are often underbid by those other countries, those jurisdictions that do have a policy that supports their shipbuilders.
What reason does the government give her as to why we do not have a shipbuilding policy to help those people who need help, and in fact helping Canada and the provinces along the way by doing that?
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have risen 28 times in the House of Commons with regard to shipbuilding and I have received the same reply each time from the Minister of Industry. The reply is “We have a national shipbuilding policy”.
The national shipbuilding policy that we have dates back to the early 1980s when all the countries in the OECD entered into an agreement. However, we are the only country adhering to that agreement.
When we talk about what is required, there are only three or four things that are required in order to make us competitive. We must become competitive. It is estimated that for every shipyard worker's job there are at least two others created in the support industry. It is not just us, it is the industries out there as well.
I had an opportunity to speak to the Canadian Construction Association in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. At the present time the Canadian Construction Association pays out $31 billion in wages. Of the $31 billion, $16 billion in taxes goes back to Ottawa so we can create more jobs in other industries.
We must have a national shipbuilding policy. When we do, we will see what will happen to the people in the maritime provinces. It tugs at my heart when I hear people say that they are sitting there with their hands out. No, they are not sitting there with their hands out. We have been exporting grains from central and western Canada to other countries for centuries. We want to keep our people. We want them and their families to stay, and we can do that if we get a national shipbuilding policy.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I actually wanted to rise to ask a question of the hon. member for Saint John. However, I am sure she is listening carefully and will ponder what I will ask and then get back to me later.
As members know, the member for Saint John is a very passionate person who always defends what she thinks is appropriate, and I quite respect that.
At the recent policy convention that the Progressive Conservative Party held, it seems to me that it wanted to spend $23 billion a year in debt reduction and another $100 billion in tax relief over the next number of years. This would total in excess of $200 billion. This was all before even a cent was allocated for infrastructure in this all important transport area.
The member spoke a minute ago about the early 1980s, which was the time of Mr. Mulroney and high deficits. She knows this better than I, but the hon. member's former colleague, Mr. Crosby, one of those great Mulroneyites, even questioned the wisdom of that. I thought that would be a good question to ask the member for Saint John, but I am sure she will get back to me at another time.
It is a great honour to speak to this particular issue. It is very important in terms of what we on the government side are doing in this area. I am pleased to speak on the many initiatives that are under way that respond directly to the motion that has been raised by the Progressive Conservative Party, misguided as that motion may be.
Transport Canada's top priority is safety. We all know that and we support it because that is a key objective. Our objective in that fashion has always been to ensure high standards for safe transportation systems. Because of these, Canadians can count on one of the safest transportation systems in the world. It is not every country that can say that, so I think we should be grateful for the kinds of benefits that are in place as a result of these initiatives.
The safety and the security of Canada's transportation system continues to lead the federal government's initiatives. This commitment is reflected in all the activities of Transport Canada. I would argue and the people of Waterloo—Wellington, the area that I represent would argue that indeed is a good objective.
The department's focus is on developing practical safety programs, effective regulations and on ensuring that these regulations and standards are followed, in particular, it regulates and co-ordinates safety related matters in several areas. I want to take a moment to outline what they are: Aeronautics at airports, air and marine navigation, marine shipping facilities, commercial shipping, new motor vehicle standards, railways, bridges and canals connecting provinces with each other or with the United States of America.
Responsibility for transportation safety in Canada involves many stakeholders, including the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as industry and non-governmental organizations.
Transport Canada works closely with all stakeholders to ensure high standards in transportation safety, but especially with the Transportation Safety Board and the provincial governments to maintain nationwide system safety. Co-operation with foreign government agencies and organizations on several international safety initiatives is also being carried out. That is important in bilateral and multilateral ways.
As I said earlier, the Canadian transportation system is considered one of the safest in the world. Transportation occurrence statistics published by the Transportation Safety Board for the marine, aviation and rail modes show long term downward trends in accidents, accident rates and fatalities. Similarly, Canada's road safety record has continued to improve steadily over the last decades. That is important because Canadians want that and Canadians expect their systems in place to ensure that.
In 1999 accidents in aviation, marine and rail were down 8%, 16% and 6% respectively, below the previous five years average. Fatalities in aviation were 20% lower, in marine 17% lower, and in rail 6% lower. The aviation sector showed the fewest accidents involving Canadian registered aircraft in the last 25 years. Likewise road collisions also represented the lowest number during this period as well.
Transport Canada has a vision to have the safest transportation system in the world, a vision shared by all of us I would hope, with long term outcomes of protecting life, health and the environment, as well as property and maintaining public confidence in the safety and security of our transportation system. The department continues to strive for this through education, safety awareness, the establishment of effective policies and rules, continuous monitoring of the transportation system, as well as the enforcement of the laws governing transportation safety.
It is recognized that transportation safety is a shared responsibility between the federal and the provincial governments as well as industry stakeholders. And let us not forget of course the travelling public who are all important in this equation.
The government is moving toward a greater emphasis on performance based regulations where demonstrating the achievement of results is key. People want that kind of accountability. Mr. Speaker, you want it, I want it, parliamentarians want it, and all Canadians want it.
Greater emphasis is placed on industry to demonstrate that its practices are safe, that safe practices are reinforced, and safety information is systematically shared among the partners in a meaningful way.
Greater use is being made of the full range of compliance tools available to promote the use of safe practices and to reduce risk. This does not imply that the department's resolve to interfere where necessary is lessened; rather its intention is to rely less on traditional policing and prescriptive approaches.
On another front I want to point out because it is important that the department is pursuing broad strategies to respond to its business environment. For example, it is continuing to build a new safety culture in transportation circles by collaborating with industry and other interested parties in the development of systems and programs to encourage the adoption and reinforcement of safe practices.
Alternatives to regulation are encouraged. Where regulations are required, the focus is on regulatory efforts, on the safety objective to be achieved, rather than on the process by which it is to be achieved. That is an important point to note because it speaks volumes in terms of the department's direction.
In this technological world government organizations need to bring together data that is held in a number of disparate ways and areas. Organizations that put safety as a priority need to be available to selectively access and share that data with partners and stakeholders so that we can serve Canadians more effectively and efficiently. That is important for all of us.
For these reasons Transport Canada undertook to establish a safety data management framework to promote sharing constant access and integrity of safety data. For the same reasons internationally and nationally, Transport Canada is also playing a strong role in modernizing information management systems and focusing on collecting data and safety information that contributes to the measurement of results. The analysis of the resulting policies will also contribute significantly to the safety culture.
Along with partners, Transport Canada is developing common measures of safety performance and broadening systematic and constructive consultation feedback. As I said earlier, safety is not a responsibility of Canada and of Transport Canada alone, we all share collectively in that responsibility. In recognizing this the department is fostering constructive relationships with stakeholders by developing or participating in joint safety promotion and safety awareness programs, continuing to participate in forums and exchange programs, identifying and responding to stakeholder concerns, recognizing and rewarding stakeholders' contributions to transportation safety.
One of the best ways to establish constructive and beneficial relationships with industry, other government identities, transport operators, user associations and the public is to work with and consult extensively with them on important safety programs. Together we are developing new methods of intervening to promote safety and to better serve the public as a result.
Transport Canada intends to enhance its contribution to Canadian transportation safety by looking ahead and ensuring that what we do is linked to clear objectives and outcomes for instance by adopting a more systematic approach to risk management. That will include engaging the public and other stakeholders in an ongoing dialogue about what constitutes an acceptable level of risk, improving data collection, data quality, data sharing and enhancing analytical tools to measure results, identify hazards, identify trends and finally, by assessing the level of risk in adapting its safety programs and resources to respond appropriately to any emerging safety issues.
With the right information and analysis the department can do a better job of identifying safety trends, tracking safety deficiencies and targeting its resources to where they can be most effective.
On the regulatory side I want to take a few moments to talk about tools, practices and techniques that are being improved by identifying alternative policy instruments and compliance tools to promote and reinforce safe practices ensuring that transport policies, rules and standards are accessible and written in plain language and by increasing the use of explanatory material, guides, training and support of departmental policies, regulations and standards. This is done by clearly defining measurable objectives and evaluating policies, regulations and standards against them and by linking the use of policy instruments with safety objectives, those very objectives I spoke about at the outset.
The department is also involved in intervening on the international scene by contributing to the development of international standards and other initiatives that can lead to cost savings for the department and for all Canadians. We should be proud of that in terms of celebrating the good work and vision that Transport Canada has in this very important area.
The department is also participating in national and international transportation safety forums and by using all available opportunities to develop, improve and promote Canadian safety technology and practices. These are complementary aspects of our safe transportation system but they represent important assets for Transport Canada to maintain our high safety standards. What a great goal that is not only for parliamentarians but for all Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours.
By doing this Transport Canada is also opening doors to international markets for safety, environmental practices and technologies for Canadian industries. What an enormous benefit that is to our economic cycle and our businesses as well.
The department at the same occasion takes advantage of the international recognition its safety and security professionals have earned to promote best practices and expertise. Transport Canada is working closely with stakeholders to market Canadian safety transportation and practices internationally.
I have taken some time to present the overall strategies in place to maximize impact on transportation safety. Transport Canada has completed or has under way several initiatives consistent with the strategic directives I have just provided.
To name a few, the department has revised the Railway Safety Act and is in the process of modernizing the Canada Shipping Act. Clear language regulations have been developed in dangerous goods and regulations on safety for railway management systems and they have been recently published in the Canada Gazette part I.
There presently exists well structured consultation mechanisms such as the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council, the Canadian Marine Advisory Committee and the Railway Safety Consultative Committee. These are important to note because they underscore the commitment of the government in this all important area.
Several awareness and educational initiatives are under way such as Direction 2006 in rail and Vision 2001 in road with strong participation from industry and the provinces as well. The department has also developed modal strategic plans such as Flight 2005 in civil aviation and The Way Ahead in marine. These are visionary moves that underscore the commitment of the government in this all important area of transportation.
The department and my speech underscore the established specific strategic objectives that determine Transport Canada's long term vision as well as strategic direction with respect to the safety and the security of the transportation system in Canada. It sets out a vision for proactive measures to maintain our world class safety system, something we should applaud and celebrate knowing that around the world Canada is known as having one of the finest, if not the finest and safest system that exists.
With all the safety initiatives under way, Canadians can have the assurance that we are constantly striving to improve an already very good system and an already very good transportation safety record that we have acquired over the years. We should be proud of that as I know most Canadians are.
In response to the matter raised by the opposition, I can simply state without a doubt that the federal government continues to exercise the leadership Canadians expect in this all important area. I can reinforce and say that not only do the folks in Waterloo—Wellington, my constituents, but most Canadians wherever they live in this great and wonderful country of ours understand that and are proud of the kind of safety initiatives we have put into place.
Canadians are proud of what we have done over time. They have faith and assurance in the government's ability to carry forward into the future, not only with vision and insight, but with the kind of notions in place that underscore our commitment to doing the right thing when it comes to transportation in Canada. We know it is what Canadians want, need, expect and deserve.
Canadians know that we on the government side will continue to provide good government essential to Canadians from coast to coast. I can assure the House that the government will continue to do that in a manner consistent with the values of Canadians. Why do we do that? We do it because it is the right thing to do and it is the right thing Canadians want us to do in this very important area.
Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I come from Nova Scotia, specifically the riding of West Nova. A couple of issues stand out clearly when we talk about transportation, but specifically Highway 101 which has seen some 50 fatalities since 1993. It is a fairly dangerous stretch of road and a couple of concerns come to mind. First, further twinning is required from Halifax toward Yarmouth as much as possible. Second, there is a stretch of highway between Digby and Weymouth in my riding that is not completed and it basically is still the number one highway. This creates a lot of difficulty when it comes to safety, tourism and other issues.
A government that collects over $4 billion in fuel tax every year and returns just a mere 4% of that to the provinces concerns me greatly.
The other issue is that in the estimates for Nova Scotia in 1999-2000, under a Liberal government I might add, a $1.8 million fund was set out for highways. In 2000-01 under a PC government the amount to be transferred is zero.
I have a question for my colleague across the way. What will the federal government, along with the provinces, do to ensure that we have safe highways and that there is a proper amount of funding from the federal government for highways?
Another issue I forgot to mention in my comments is that it is not just the twinning or the completion of the Highway 101. It is also the condition of those roads. They have been left to deteriorate to the point where it is almost dangerous to drive on some highways.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are places across Canada where we continue to do the kind of work necessary to ensure that roads are consistent with what local residents and constituents want. As a government we will continue to do so.
The member is right and I thank him for it. We will work very hard with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as we have done in the past, to ensure that the roads will be fixed in a manner consistent with local needs. It is important that we work with our provincial partners as well as with our territorial ones to do precisely that.
The member spoke about fuel taxes and moving money around for highways. I find those kinds of comments quite disturbing in the sense that there disingenuous, if I might use that term. It was not so very long ago, during the last election to be precise, that Progressive Conservative Party members talked about Transport Canada's budget being cut by $35 million.
They said one thing before and now they are saying something again today. They are masters of the flip-flop as usual. Once again they are sucking and blowing when they should come straight to the heart of the matter and say the right thing.
We on the government side say the right thing. We are consistent in terms of what is needed. We are consistent with the wishes of our constituents. We work very hard. Instead of flipping around as the PCs do, the Minister of Transport and his provincial and territorial counterparts worked very hard to ensure they were consistent in what they do and to ensure that the transportation infrastructure is what Canadians want, need and quite frankly deserve.
We will continue to provide that without the disingenuous nature of the Progressive Conservatives and in a manner consistent with what Canadians want.
Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, it takes a great deal of courage to stand and make a speech like the one of my hon. colleague opposite.
I ask the member to bring forward information on any country in Canada or in Europe that returns to its provinces a mere four cents on the dollar of the excise tax. I can say right now that no country in the world contributes 4% of what is taxed out of motorists and truckers. I would be ashamed to say that the government is marching forward with a vision. That is stealing.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite that there is no country in Canada. We are a country.
When the reformed alliance members were called Reformers, those extremists opposite, they brought out that party's now infamous policy blue book which said that the Reform Party supported removing all measures that insulated businesses, industries, financial institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition. They would strip away every support necessary for transportation and its infrastructure. They would support the stripping away of every kind of subsidy that exists for this all-important area. They would strip away everything that they could to defend the regions of our great country.
Why would they do that? Why, pray tell, would they do that? The reason they would do it is that they are a bunch of flat taxers, 17% flat taxers. All they want to do is strip away good government. They want to strip away effective and safe government. They want to strip away the very things that Canadians depend on. These extremists are outrageous.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled as to the name to be used for the party on this side. It is the Canadian Alliance. This member has frequently today used different terminology. I wonder whether you would call him to account and ask him to be respectful of the ruling of the Chair.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair was being very attentive to what the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington was saying. My recollection of the words was when hon. members opposite were called Reform. He then quoted from a document that apparently had been a Reform document. I sensed he did it for that reason.
I do not believe that he was referring to hon. members in the official opposition currently as Reform members. He said the alliance members when they were Reformers. I believe those are the words he used.
If the hon. member for Elk Island reviews the blues and comes back to the Chair with some other error, the Chair will only be more than happy to look at the matter and enforce the consistent rulings of the Chair on this important point.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the very same policy document of those reformed alliance people went on to say that the Reform Party opposes the use of infrastructure funds for projects which could be better managed by the private sector. Shame on them. Imagine saying that then and today supporting the motion.
Talk about the masters of flip-flop. Talk about people saying one thing when it is convenient and saying quite another when they want to get their point across in another part of the country. They are good at that. They are good at saying one thing in the east and another thing in the west. They are good at saying something in the north and quite the opposite in the south. That is who those people are. It is unfortunate.
I was listening to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. What did she say? She went so far as to say that when it comes to transportation their party wants a central plan for a national continental strategy. Imagine. Imagine them saying that. These people are extremists in the extreme, if that is possible. Imagine what they are saying.
We have to think about where they are going. They are doing the kinds of things that would strip away the very foundation of what it means to be Canadian. They would strip away the very values of our great country.
We on this side of the House, the government, will not allow that nonsense to be brought forward by way of their agenda. We will stand firm, knowing that we have the safest and most secure transport system in the world, bar none. We will continue on that track because that is what Canadians want. They do not want the politics of grievance as those people do.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has used the word extremists in regard to me and other opposition members on this side of the House. He used it in such a derogatory sense that my privileges and my reputation in the House of Commons have been denigrated by the member. As an example of extremism, I think he is providing a good example of Liberal extremism, to the point of being ridiculous.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. member has made a good point in debate perhaps but not on a point of order.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite gives me the opportunity to point out once again the very thin skin of those opposition members. They are very thin skinned. It is interesting in debate to watch them try, and try is the operative word, to dish it out. When it comes to taking it they cannot seem to take it very well. They cannot have it both ways.
My point is that we on the government side continue to provide safety and security for our transportation system. We will provide the resources necessary to have infrastructure in place.
I ask all members to vote accordingly when it comes to this motion. It really is out of place and not in order in that sense. We will continue to work very effectively on behalf of all Canadians, unlike those people opposite who seem to want to rip Canada apart province by province.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the Canadian Alliance to bring this debate back to the intent of parliament to have honest interaction between the parties debating the issue as opposed to the type of extremism being experienced by the House due to the Liberal speakers on this issue.
The Progressive Conservative Party has brought forward its supply day motion with regard to transportation issues in Canada. I have to agree this is an important issue that we should be debating. The reason for that is that the federal government and the provincial governments across the country have not been able to manage their moneys to the point of being able to keep our basic infrastructure, primarily roads and rail, in a condition that our economy can continue to flourish. As a result we find that we are approaching a crisis situation with regard to roads across the country, not only in western Canada.
As I go through my speech I think we will find that what is giving rise to this crisis is not the lack of money. As a result of the taxation of the Liberal government this place is awash in money. It is the problem of how the Liberal government is spending the tax dollars it is taking from Canadians.
Transportation is the fabric and the economic lifeblood of the country. It is of such importance that it should not be let to slide as the government has done through its heavy taxation and not returning taxation dollars to the provinces with regard to road programs, which has caused us to lose a certain level of competitiveness. One good example of that lack of competitiveness is in our international grain trade where some of our major customers like Japan and the Asia-Pacific rim countries have found that we cannot deliver our grain to port on a basis that would give them confidence that we are suppliers that can be totally trusted.
The reason I bring that forward is that it has to do with rail transportation. The government on this very day has the opportunity to fix our rail transportation by bringing in a commercial competitive contract based system of rail transportation. However, what we find is a continuation of the very highly regulated, top down, government driven transportation system which all parties have found to be inefficient, unaccountable and incapable of supplying our customers with the amount of grain they need at the time they need it.
The government bears a lot of the fault for our transportation system being in the state it is and our now having to debate it in the House to try to give the government suggestions as to what can be done.
Besides exports, interprovincial transportation is of vital importance. We consume and sell many product between provinces. We only have to drive from Manitoba to northwest Ontario to see a road that is virtually incapable of carrying with any efficiency the amount of goods that move between Manitoba and Ontario and east to west.
It is obvious that this national highway, which the federal government has responsibility for, has not been upgraded over the course of time.
In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake we have export companies such as Gerdau Steel. Many of our agriculture products have to be exported both by rail and by road to different countries. We also export fresh pork products by air to places such as Russia and Asia.
If road, rail and air transportation are not kept in good shape our economy will continue to suffer because of a lack of direction in spending by the federal government.
People ask: “The government is spending. The Canadian Alliance is advocating more spending on roads. Where would the money come from?” That is one of my favourite questions. With the amount of money that comes into the federal government, there is plenty enough for health care, roads, rail transportation and whatever else is needed with respect to transportation.
The reason there are not sufficient moneys, aside from the patronage appointments and waste and abuse that we see in HRDC, is the spending. I would like to give some examples. I will not belabour the point because these things are disgusting for people to hear. In Manitoba $15,000 was spent to hang dead rabbits in trees as an art exhibit. Our local humane society did not even see fit to condemn this artist or the fact that federal money was being used for the exhibit. That can only be classified as waste. In Paris, foreign affairs was setting up what could only be called a call girl situation in the embassy. People from France could go into the embassy and engage a woman dressed as a prostitute. Once again, federal tax money was spent. I could go on and on with these disgusting examples of government waste, of money that could have gone into our transportation system.
The importance of rail transportation to the economy is important for those of us who are here today. However, as members of the Parliament of Canada, we are supposed to be doing everything with reasonable prudence and forethought for the benefit of our children, our grandchildren and their children. That is not happening because of the high taxation policy of the government, which is being abused. Instead of the money being left in municipal and provincial coffers to be used for roads, it is taken away and used for a lot of useless things.
I would like to give a couple of facts. Federal gas tax increased over 500% between 1985 and 1995, from approximately 1.5 cents to 10 cents per litre. The argument for fuel taxes was that the money would be used to keep our infrastructure and roads up to snuff.
Ottawa spends only 5% of its $5 billion in gas tax revenues on highway renewal. I assume that I can use the word deceptive. The people of Canada have been deceived into believing that if they pay their fuel taxes they will be able to drive on roads that are safe and an efficient mode of transportation.
These billions of dollars flowing to Ottawa, sent by Canadians to be used for our roads, are not being used for our roads, but are going into general revenues.
Ottawa increased the federal gas tax from 8.5 cents to 10 cents per litre in 1995 as a deficit reduction measure. The deficit is gone, but the tax remains, to my knowledge. Once again I ask, is this deception? Is it mismanagement? What is the reason for this? Maybe we will hear it from the government.
The government is also taxing taxes. That is a most vile situation. The GST is charged on the full pump price, gas taxes included. It is a tax on a tax. It looks to me like the government has no intention of spending the fuel tax on roads and in fact is just using it as a tax grab.
Gas prices in Canada are a big issue in all parts of the country. According to facts which were compiled, without provincial and federal taxes our gasoline prices would actually be cheaper in Canada than in the United States.
The problem we are facing has a solution. It is a problem that has been made primarily by the actions of the federal government, which has been in power for two terms, so it cannot say “We would fix it if we had time”. It has had since 1993 to come up with a national road program, to increase funding, to cut waste and to use that money for road and rail transportation.
In essence, all the money for roads and other modes of transportation comes from the public purse. Some people would argue that if we put a toll on a road, that is not a tax. However, I would point out that tolls on roads are a tax the same as any other user fee. Roads are for the use of everyone and when we impose a toll we are in essence imposing a tax.
I once wrote a letter to the revenue minister asking him why fuel taxes could not be dedicated to road construction and repair. He wrote back, clearly stating that the government does not believe in dedicated taxes; that is, identifying a clear problem or issue for spending every year. There should be road spending every year throughout the life of this country. The government refuses to acknowledge that it has a responsibility for the infrastructure of the country, including transportation and, in particular, roads. Until we get the government to admit there is an ongoing need for funding for roads we will be up against the same crisis year after year.
It has been mentioned that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will receive some $175 million as offset compensation for the lack of rail transportation which is due to the abandonment of branch lines by the railways. Farmers are incurring greater costs to haul their grain to the main terminals.
Once again, that money is inadequate. The $175 million will be spread over five years and over three provinces. I do not know how much good that will do in repairing some of the roads. It certainly will not build new ones.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The hon. member still has about six minutes remaining for his speech. It would probably be better to take the full six minutes after question period.