Debates of March 19th, 2003

Transportation Amendment Act

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I have not gone through this transportation bill in the detail that my colleague has, but it seems to me that it fails to have any kind of vision for the future. It does not deal with the Kyoto issue of CO

2

and how transportation and transportation deliverers might deal with that subject. It certainly has not considered farmers and the problems they now have with getting their grain to market because branch lines have closed. It does not deal with the long term problems the airline industry faces. The bill does not deal with the airline industry or the tourist industry, which I had a part of in another life. It also does not deal with policing, security or the tax that we have all been paying for over a year and for which no one has seen much change in terms of real security.

It seems like this is just another little piece of legislation that really is rather meaningless. It does not address those major problems in this huge country we call Canada and which the government always says it is trying to deal with. I would like to have the member's opinion on that.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. If one were to enumerate the things that are not in the bill but could be in the bill, one would have a very long list indeed: no elimination of the air tax; no mandating of gas taxes to roads; the increasing subsidization of Via Rail, which is not sustainable over a long period of time; no scrapping of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which is something that makes complete sense; and no commitment to this Windsor-Quebec City corridor. We keep hearing of that corridor as a proposal or a theory from the Minister of Transport, but he never seems to put meat on the bones so that we can actually debate whether or not this theory has any kind of practical usage whatsoever.

As well, there is no mention whatsoever of Kyoto. In fact, as for the new jet train concept, the train that is built by Bombardier that would be on the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, that train uses the same jet engines that are used in the planes it is supposed to replace, so there is a net no benefit at all to the environment in terms of CO

2

emissions.

There is nothing in Bill C-26 in terms of port security. There is nothing in it in terms of airport management.

I am speculating here, of course, but this could very well be the final transport bill from this transport minister and again, after years of being transport minister, he has completely failed to outline with meat, bones and cash a real transportation infrastructure program for Canada. He has failed again.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 and the importance of this legislation for the country.

Moving people and goods efficiently, safely, securely and in an environmentally respectful way is vital to our economy. As Canada's national passenger rail service, VIA Rail has an important role to play: providing safe, high quality, efficient passenger service to Canadians.

Moving people out of their cars and onto trains is one solution to the problem of congestion, which we see each and every day in and around our cities and on our major highways and was an issue frequently mentioned as we did our work on the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues. Not only is congestion a personal frustration, but it also slows down our business.

Passenger rail also gives Canadians a convenient and economical choice, whether they are travelling for business or pleasure. Many Canadians do not have the means to travel by air.

For many Canadians in northern and remote parts of the country, rail provides an invaluable lifeline, especially where no other transportation options are available.

The Government of Canada is dedicated to passenger rail and its revitalization, not only as a viable transportation option that is central to our identity as Canadians but also as one that makes good economic and environmental sense.

A strong passenger rail system also contributes to building stronger communities. Passenger rail provides a vital link for the movement of people, encouraging business development and growth. VIA Rail connects some 450 communities with services that run across the country.

More Canadians are using the train today than ever before. In 2001, VIA Rail carried 70,000 more passengers than the previous year. In fact, passenger revenues have grown steadily over the past decade while VIA Rail has steadily improved the cost effectiveness of its services. VIA Rail now carries over 400,000 more passengers and operates 153 million more passenger miles than a decade ago. It has reduced government funding from 45.6¢ to 17.2¢ per passenger mile. VIA Rail's operating subsidy is now fixed at $170 million per year compared to $410 million in 1990.

With this demonstrated growth and improved cost effectiveness, we are pleased that we are making a commitment to passenger rail in legislation.

Up to now, VIA Rail has been operating as a crown corporation subject to the Financial Administration Act but governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act. But most crown corporations and other enterprises created by government are governed by special acts of Parliament. That is because they were created for specific purposes. Pilotage authorities are governed by the Pilotage Act. The port authorities are governed by the Canada Marine Act. Canada Post is governed by the Canada Post Corporation Act. It is time for VIA Rail to be governed by its own act of Parliament.

Bill C-26 sets VIA Rail's mandate in legislation, a mandate that calls for VIA to manage and provide a safe and efficient passenger rail service in Canada. This mandate is consistent with VIA's mission statement, which is to offer safe, high quality, efficient passenger rail service. This mandate means that VIA Rail will continue to provide its current passenger rail services across Canada.

From the perspective of the travelling public and taxpayers, there will be no changes to VIA Rail as a result of this new legislation. Trains will continue to run on the corridors and across the continent. VIA Rail will continue to receive appropriations from the government and the Minister of Transport will remain accountable for VIA Rail.

There are many who expected the legislation to specifically allow VIA Rail to finance its capital needs from the private sector so as to reduce government funding. Let me make it very clear that VIA Rail already has and will continue to have the legal power to borrow money to finance its capital needs, so we do not need to give the corporation special powers. However, it is subject to the Financial Administration Act, which sets out the control and accountability regime for crown corporations.

For VIA Rail to borrow money from the private sector, two approvals are needed. The governor in council must approve the corporation's five year strategic plan. This plan must set out the operating and capital budgets and any borrowing plan. The Minister of Finance must also approve the terms and conditions of the borrowing. To date, the government has prudently decided that private sector borrowings are not an appropriate source of funds for VIA Rail.

VIA Rail is an appropriation-dependent crown corporation. This means that VIA Rail relies on government funding for its operations as well as its capital needs. Also, the government is liable for VIA Rail's debts. As such, it makes more sense for the government to provide the capital funds as well as the operating funds.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of studies considering the privatization of VIA Rail or other public-private partnerships. There are some who expected that this legislation would allow for more private sector participation in the provision of inner city passenger services currently provided by VIA Rail.

The earlier studies confirmed that the timing was not right for such direction. The results of the last study show that passenger rail needed to be revitalized so that the private sector investment would be more attractive. To this end, the government announced in April 2002 that it would provide VIA Rail with an additional $401 million in capital funding over the next five years to allow the company to address urgent capital requirements and to undertake a modest expansion.

Once the revitalization initiative launched in 2000 has been implemented fully, I expect the government will consider the next steps, but as members might expect, capital improvements to take some time to bear fruit.

VIA has already made improvements as a result of this funding. The company purchased 139 new passenger cars and began operating 21 new high speed locomotives in December 2001. It has also completed the refurbishment of several stations across the country and equipped the corridor fleet with waste retention systems.

However, the government recognizes that major investments are still required to maintain the integrity of Canada's rail passenger network and to ensure its viability in the long run.

VIA has been directed to review its long term capital requirements and to develop a capital investment plan for the government's consideration. This plan is to address the need to replace existing equipment and make additional track upgrades to improve rail services that are key to the corporation's future viability. In this context, it may be some years before the government can consider privatizing VIA Rail.

This legislation does not materially change anything for passengers, taxpayers or the corporation.

So what does this legislation do? It demonstrates the government's commitment to passenger rail in Canada. It sets out the government's objectives by requiring that VIA Rail provide safe and efficient passenger rail services. However, it recognizes that VIA operates in a commercial environment and therefore provides VIA with the flexibility to deal with the demands of the marketplace. It means that VIA can add capacity if there is sufficient demand or reduce capacity if there is insufficient demand.

This legislation would also allow VIA to use its excess capacity for purposes other than its mandate so as to reduce the need for government funding.

In setting the mandate for VIA Rail, the government also makes a commitment to ensure that VIA Rail has the resources to fulfill its mandate. The government made an initial commitment in 2000 by guaranteeing stable, annual operating funding of $170 million and investing $401 million to begin the revitalization of passenger rail.

With this new legislation, we make a commitment to continue improving passenger rail service to meet the needs of Canada across the country.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from York West was here for the latter part of my talk at which time I raised some points that I had in a letter. Perhaps she can respond to that.

The singular biggest criticism that I have of this bill and, in fact, the blueprint itself was that it was tabled a week after the federal budget. A responsible, more effective approach by the transport minister, if he was really interested in doing something about transport--as there is going to be a really big push in mid-term between two election campaigns--was to have tabled his blueprint earlier. We know it was ready. He could have tabled the blueprint three months ago and then travelled around the country, talked to stakeholders, mayors, MPs, MLAs, and talked to everyone he could talk to. He could have talked to all the stakeholders across Canada and gathered support for some specific initiatives in that blueprint, then he could have taken it to cabinet and won some fights in the federal budget in order to obtain money for some specific proposals.

That is the way one moves the transportation ball forward. Instead, he delivered it a week after the budget when, even if he won some policy fights, it was only going to be regulatory stuff and there was not going to be any money, particularly when one thinks about things like the air tax, the gas tax, financing highways and ports, and so on. I think it is a failure on the part of the Minister of Transport that he did not table this before the budget to gather support and obtain a commitment in the budget for some of the ideas in the blueprint because as it stands now there is nothing in the blueprint that is going to get done.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to perhaps defend the approach of doing this because it seems to me, and to virtually every stakeholder I have seen, to be a completely ineffective way of getting the transportation interests of this country moved forward.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the recommendations that we made in our task force report to the Prime Minister was that Canada needed to have a national transportation transit strategy. The blueprint that the Minister of Transport laid out clearly starts us in that direction. There is much consultation and work to be done to ensure that the strategy that we want to see in the future will be the one that Canadians want to see and that we do a proper job. I think over the next nine months to a year of consultation we will attempt to move forward on this issue with something that all Canadians will support.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the railway operation in this country. The federal government spent millions of dollars on a study regarding rail transportation as it pertains to the grain industry, particularly in western Canada. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware of the Estey and Kroeger reports.

In the request from industry and in the best interests of the grain industry of western Canada the issue of getting rates for grain transportation as low as possible was the purpose of those studies. There was a strong recommendation that the grain transportation industry in western Canada should be based on commercial contract based systems.

There are two points I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on. First, the legislation does not seem to advance that in any way. In fact, it probably goes the other way in causing more regulation instead of less. Second, I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary has to say about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to be contracting 50% of its grain movement now. I would ask her to address those two points.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out the very issues that we are looking at in this legislation in ensuring that we meet the needs of those in the west, that we ensure we have a viable industry and that the Canadian Wheat Board and others utilize the rail lines for the efficient services that we want to see continue, as is currently the case.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary.

First, does the parliamentary secretary agree with the minister's idea of tolls being charged in the major cities to alleviate congestion? The minister made this statement on February 25. I wonder if the municipalities of Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, and other big cities where there is a lot of congestion have been consulted, and whether they are for this? Will the money go directly to those cities so that they can improve infrastructure? Obviously, it has been done in London, England, but I am not sure how successfully.

My second question is this. It is interesting that she talks about how we are going to use more rail, how important rail is, and how we will increase it. We have just spent the last 20 years in western Canada removing rail lines. In my own city we do not have rail lines downtown any more. They are out somewhere else. Yet now we are talking about increasing the use of passenger rail. Are we going to reverse everything we have been doing for 20 years?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think often things go around in a circle. There is a recognition of the importance that rail lines play in our country to help us meet a variety of targets environmentally and to ensure that the air quality and all the environmental issues are looked up. There are many places where rail lines have been removed. I suggest that they may be revisiting some of those decisions that were made as we move forward with the whole issue ensuring that we have safe, fast, and efficient rail systems working.

The member's other question was regarding tolls. It is up to the municipalities to decide whether they want to use toll roads. Certainly, to deal with the congestion that is happening in all our major cities it is going to take a variety of innovative ways of looking at how we can decrease that congestion in the cities. We will have to look at improving the transit system and working with our partners, the provinces and cities, to find ways of reducing the gridlock in a variety of ways. As far as tolls are concerned, it will be up to municipalities to make those decisions.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, concerning the rail line abandonment process, in my riding of Selkirk--Interlake there is the Winnipeg Beach line that runs from Winnipeg up to the town of Gimli and that line was slated for abandonment. It was to have been transferred to Cando Contracting Ltd. in Brandon which is a short line operator of which Gordon Peters is the owner. The company is quite willing and happy to take it over from Canadian Pacific Railway but that is not happening.

The problem is that the provincial government has successor right labour legislation that it is insisting must go along with the transfer and sale of the line. However, the private company, which is mostly run by the owners and the operators themselves, will be as uneconomical as CP Rail is if they have to have that same labour legislation applied when it takes it over as a short line operator.

My riding cannot do without that railway. I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about having to revisit and look again at the rail lines that have been pulled out. There have been hundreds and hundreds of miles pulled out of my riding and the roadbed has even been torn up. Therefore I do not think any government is going to put those rail lines back in to haul freight and so on.

I would like to know if the federal government is contacting the provincial government to influence the provincial government to ensure that our rail line is not abandoned. It services farmers, the distillery bringing corn in and liquor out, and there is a major tourism effort in that area. That rail line is important to us and I am concerned that it is going to go.

Is the parliamentary secretary and the government able to influence in any way the retention of that rail line?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member bring this specific issue to the attention of the Minister of Transport and get his comments directly back from him.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois and himself a former mayor, told me that Bill C-26 changed the role and mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency, I was extremely curious to know whether the bill in question could in any way improve things for my fellow citizens.

I became interested in this bill because in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve—which I have been representing here since 1993—there is a railroad track near Moreau Street in the east end of Montreal and a shunting yard. For many years I have frequently and periodically received representations from people who live near the track and who obviously find it a nightmare.

I will have an opportunity to explain this later, but I think that CN/CP rail is a very bad corporate citizen. It is truly unbelievable. The management style and corporate behaviour at CN/CP rail should be looked at by us as legislators. It is high time to call them to order.

CN/CP rail acts as though economic development should be the only consideration, quality of life is not important and it does not matter where railroad tracks are located.

When my constituents made representations to me, I suggested to them that they form a citizen's committee. We know how governments react to these sorts of disputes. Sometimes they are blind, but they are never deaf. They go where there is noise. I soon realized that to make any headway in a case like this, it was important to form a citizen's committee.

This was done. There are a dozen or so people who are active members of this committee. I would like to thank them for their involvement. I will mention their names so that if you ever happen to meet them, you will know who they are. They are: Léopol Bourjoi, Gaétane Couture, Maurice Lahaie, Michel Languedoc, Victor Berthelot, Lina Gauthier, Guy Walman, Robert Dalpé and his wife Olga Berseneff, and Martin Mercier.

They live in the east end of Montreal near a railway track and it is sheer hell.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Railway track, as in “voie de chemin de fer”.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

People back home call it “une traque” in French, but they are not as erudite as the Minister for International Trade. They say “une traque”, but it is true that the proper term in French is “une voie ferrée”.

These people are experiencing a veritable nightmare, a veritable hell. When cities were being planned in the last century, people were not always as concerned about having separate residential and industrial areas. It was believed that people should be able to live near their place of work and be able to get there on foot.

Obviously this type of urban planning no longer has any currency. Nobody today would accept having big, polluting companies in their residential neighbourhood, nor would they accept having a railway line.

The railway is closely linked to the port of Montreal. Economic development is at stake, and this cannot be ignored. I can understand this. East Montreal needs to have some prosperity. It was a manufacturing district from the 19th century until the 1960s and now services, such as Vidéotron, Mediacom and other companies, are setting up there.

However, we must not sacrifice quality of life in the name of economic development.

The advantage of Bill C-26 is that it will allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to hear complaints about railway companies that are guilty of making too much noise.

Allow me to explain the situation of the people I referred to a moment ago. First, there are five trains per day that leave at all hours. That means that there may be a train entering or leaving the rail yard at 3 a.m. Obviously, it is hard not to hear it when a train stops or starts. The average train has three or four engines and any number of railway cars. It affects the quality of life of people, and we need to be concerned with this.

When I met with CN-CP representatives, they were intransigent and told me that one of the factors of economic development—and I believe I have heard the Minister for International Trade say this—is just in time delivery. It means that deliveries have to arrive when requested.

[An hon. member]

It's “juste à temps” in French.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Right, it is “juste à temps”, but they said it in English. Perhaps they thought it demonstrated their superiority in some way, but I was not impressed. However, I wanted to quote them properly.

Therefore, I met with the officials of this railway, a private company that is not, I might add, subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. I would have liked to see Bill C-26 make CN-CP subject to this legislation so that we could look into their actions and network expansions and, naturally, monitor pollution.

That said, there are five trains passing or entering the station and going to the shunting yard. There are maintenance problems; proper braking is a problem; schedules are not adhered to. As a result, there is noise pollution for local residents, who have raised their families in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and who, for generations, have been living with this major inconvenience.

Obviously, we could ask why the municipality allowed a housing development near a railway facility. Obviously, the question arises. It happened under the Doré administration.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

What party did he support?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I do not know what the Minister for International Trade thinks about the Doré administration; some people thought it did a good job, others did not. But the fact is that we do not accept, nor will we accept in the future that, under the pretext of economic development, some of our fellow citizens should be deprived of quality of life.

Equipment is defective and schedules are not being adhered to. When the residents and I went to meet with railway officials—I repeat, a community committee was established—we tried to reach some solutions. Perhaps an anti-noise barrier or a wall could help? Should the railway not set aside some funds for measures aimed at noise reduction?

Do not think, Madam Speaker, that we met with a good corporate citizen who expressed the desire to help his fellow man. I sensed an authoritative attitude, authoritative-sounding legal language. I told them. I even indicated that if I did not sense an openness on their part, I would mobilize the population to file a class action suit, as permitted under Quebec's Civil Code.

They answered me in a haughty, self-important and even disdainful manner. However, I stayed calm, as usual, and said that if we had to take it as far as a class action, they did not stand a chance of winning. In their smug way, they replied that they had good lawyers, that they could defend themselves, and that they could afford to go to court. We know what that means: months and months of stress for the plaintiff.

We will not be swayed by this kind of talk. I too know lawyers. We are going to mobilize people, and then make sure that reason prevails. It is not true that we have to deprived of our quality of life because we live in a large urban centre like Montreal. It is not true that the development of Montreal harbour will require disregarding the demands of our fellow citizens.

This does not mean that we do not want industries on the east side of Montreal. Many factors can contribute to the development of that area, as the Minister for International Trade knows; we have four subway stations, qualified labour, community groups very dedicated to the people, public schools providing good service, Ontario street. There are many reasons for business people to want to have their offices in our area.

Vidéotron is an example. Bas Iris, a company which received grants under HRDC's program, is another.

But as I said, we will not accept that businesses be allowed to operate 24 hours a day. There has to be a limit. They must realize that they cannot operate all day and all night long. People might not object to operations starting at 7 a.m., but would it not be reasonable to expect them to end by 9:30 or 10 p.m.?

When we are at home, we do not expect to receive telephone calls at 10 p.m. We expect to get some rest after a hard day's work. It is the same for our fellow citizens. They do not want to be disturbed by noise coming from trains. This is a legitimate demand.

The government took too long to introduce this bill. But at least it did so, and I think this is a positive thing.

I do not own a car. I am a person that has a green side. To some, I have a pink side, but to others I have a green side. I do not own a car, which means that I always rely on public transit. I take the train to come to Ottawa.

I do not know whether there are other members of this House who travel by train, but when we travel on Via Rail's trains, whether it is in the winter, summer, spring or fall, there are significant delays. This happens frequently and it is unfair, because when we are on the train and expect to arrive in Ottawa at 10 a.m., but only get here at 2 p.m., we may miss oral question period. As we all know, a person cannot plan his schedule based on a service that is so bad that he reaches his destination three or four hours late.

What do the people at Via Rail tell us when we ask them about this? They tell us that they are not responsible for this situation, because the rails that they use belong to CN-CP. However, CN-CP does not want to make the necessary investments to make these rails functional and to ensure that the signal system allows trains to arrive “just in time” at their destination.

Therefore, we must call back to order the very bad corporate citizen that CN-CP is. I will ask the Bloc Quebecois critic on transport issues, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, to call the residents of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who are creating the anti-noise committee, as witnesses. I will ask the committee to obtain explanations for the government's refusal to provide the quality of life that people are entitled to.

Do not think that such things happen just in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I have been contacted by the residents of Côte-Saint-Luc. CN-CP is also a very poor corporate citizen in other provinces as well, believing that anything is allowed in the name of economic development.

I am told that residential areas have the same problems in the lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspé, Matapédia and Mont-Joli, and this has gone on far too long already.

Bill C-26 will, therefore, provide a mechanism for handling complaints and I feel that it is a very good thing that is it being proposed to us, and that the people will be able to make their views heard.

The bill includes changes relating specifically to rail transportation. Among these, it provides for the creation of a mechanism for dealing with complaintsconcerning noise resulting from the construction or operation ofrailways. This is vitally important to the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

This is not a problem that has just popped up out of nowhere.

I saw correspondence from the late Jean-Claude Malépart, former member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Since the late 1970s, regardless of party affiliation, all members elected to represent the east end of Montreal here, in the House of Commons, made representations to CN-CP. Unfortunately, they got no results. The problems were always the same: no respect for quality of life, excessive noise and the pursuit of economic development without any consideration for the legitimate aspirations of people.

We will not miss this opportunity to apprise the Minister of Transport of the current situation in the east end of Montreal. I am eager to see how this complaint mechanism will work.

I can assure the House that those people from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve whom I mentioned earlier will follow the work of the parliamentary committee very closely. They will make a request to appear before the committee. I hope that we will be able to bring a corporate citizen like CN-CP to its senses.

The world has changed since the days of Émile Zola. We are no longer in the 19th century, in the era of industrial capitalism where corporate citizens were granted every privilege for the sake of economic development. This situation no longer exists.

Today, when we think about urban development, we want to make a distinction between economic development and quality of life. If we have a choice to make between the two, as legislators, we must choose quality of life. We have only one life to live and there is no reason that we should agree to live it in appalling conditions.

We will attend the committee meetings. Gone are the days when the anarchy of economic development took precedence over the rights of residents of the east end of Montreal.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to address this issue today. First let me say that from some of the questions asked earlier, that lack of vision comes through over and over again. We have a government that really does not have its act together. The government jumps from pillar to post. It never thinks long term.

I will give some examples of what I see in the transportation bill and why I feel the way I do. First, when it comes to dealing with the Kyoto issue, as our member mentioned, there is no mention of Kyoto at all yet we are talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the use of carbon based fuels, by 20% per individual across this whole country, man, woman and child.

Transportation is one of the major producers. About 37% of the carbon dioxide released comes from transportation. With this key issue facing our country, facing our industries, we have a government that does not deal with it in its transportation legislation. The bill is a total failure.

Kyoto is not in effect yet. Right now about 100 countries represent 43% of the emissions. The protocol does not come into effect until we hit 55% of the emissions, representing of course enough countries.

There is also a stipulation in section 3 of the Kyoto accord that by January 2005 we must show substantial reductions in CO

2

. In Canada we have a real problem, because in 1999 we were 15% over the 1990 levels. We have agreed to get to 6% below the 1990 levels between 2008-12. In 1999 we were 15% over. By 2000 we were 20% over. Now, in 2003, we are 23% over. By 2008 when this comes into effect, we are going to be about 30% over. We are going in the wrong direction.

What the government fails to understand is that once it is ratified, and that is all dependent on Russia, the Kyoto accord says that within six months there must be a meeting of all those countries. They then have six months to decide on what the penalties will be. Since the European Union is dominating this because nobody else really is a part of it, it is saying it will introduce, through the WTO, sanctions on those countries that have not shown a reduction in CO

2

A person does not have to be very bright to figure out that this means us. Our emissions going up and Kyoto says that by 2005 a country's emissions must be going down and countries must show that they are doing things to bring emissions down. This is so the IPCC bureaucrats in New York can say, “Yes, they have a plan”.

With transportation being the biggest producer of CO

2

, would we not think that the government would be starting to think that 2005 is not very far away and we had better have a plan? Yet there is no mention of it at all. The government totally ignores this very major item. I have to assume, then, that the government has no intention of living up to its Kyoto commitments, that it was just a political move to make the Prime Minister feel good in Johannesburg in saying, “Yes, count us in, we are one of the guys, but we are not going to live up to it”.

The Auditor General said that we have had 200 other international agreements on the environment that we have not lived up to, so why should this one be any different? However, there will be penalties. How is the government going to deal with that and what will Canadians think when that happens?

The way we are going to deal with it is that we will be forced to buy emissions credits. We will buy those credits from all the countries that have them. The government has guaranteed a cap of $15 per tonne. Where will the money come from to buy these emissions credits?

Obviously there is only one source. If the government is guaranteeing that price, the only source, then, is the taxpayer and that comes in the form of a carbon tax. We will have to tax the carbon used to make electricity and heat our homes and used for transportation. Would we not think that the government would have dealt with that issue in a transportation bill? If the government had any kind of foresight at all, it should have been there. Either one department does not know what the other department is doing or, as I say, the government has no intention of living up to Kyoto.

What should we be doing? Let me repeat that obviously we should do something. We should have a plan. We should be looking at conservation, transitional fuels and alternate energy. To develop all of those things we need leadership to work with industry, with the provinces and with the world. What are we doing? We are frigging around with a bill that has nothing to do with it, that does not even deal with the issue. I do not think that says very much for the government and its real commitment to the environment and certainly to dealing with the issue of transportation.

I would like to deal with a couple of other areas of the bill. Let me start by looking at VIA Rail. The members who have spoken are more aware of what the committee has done in looking at this whole issue, but I found it very interesting when the parliamentary secretary said that we will just put the railways back in. We have spent 20 years taking them out, but now we will just put them back in.

I can only speak from the example in my own city, where we now have a freeway and major business development where the railway used to be. The government encouraged and promoted getting rid of the railway. Now the member across the way says we are going to have to put the railway back in. I question whether any of the landlords who own that land are going to be that enthused about knocking down the buildings, removing the freeways and infrastructure and putting the railway back into downtown, nor will they be wherever in Canada. I think it was pretty flippant of her to answer in that way.

Second, when we talk about creating a crown corporation out of VIA Rail, that is going backward. That is again a belief that government-run anything will work more efficiently than private enterprise. This also means that VIA Rail is going to start competing with private enterprise like the Rocky Mountaineer, for instance, where VIA is planning to run a rail line across Vancouver, and with WestJet, which this rail line will supposedly replace. For any members who care about jobs and the environment, it would seem to me logical that they would want the free enterprise system to operate and not depend upon taxpayers to keep it alive. I cannot believe that having VIA Rail as a crown corporation is going to help anyone, except to eliminate the competition and thus encourage inefficiency and all we see with that sort of ownership.

Again the bill simply fails bitterly when it looks at solutions like crown corporations for something like VIA Rail. If VIA Rail cannot make it, I think we should ask why. We certainly should not be supporting it so it can compete with other industry.

Next I will look at grain transportation. Certainly our critic for agriculture would have a lot more to say about this than I do, but I will say that the farmers in my constituency are certainly not happy with the way grain is being moved.

First, the rail lines have been removed and they now have to truck their grain sometimes long distances. They have to pay for that. Sometimes it is on roads that have not been repaired for many years and which were not designed for the heavy duty equipment that is now being used to haul grain.

As well, the government has done nothing to get the Vancouver port open. The grain is piling up on farms. There are many farms where the grain has been sitting for months now, unable to move because the port of Vancouver has been closed and it must go through Prince Rupert.

It is fine that some say that is okay because they had a very small crop and they should be able to get it all gone by July. A lot of farmers have told me that they do not want to borrow money to get them through the next few months. They do not want to borrow money to seed their crops and take their chances. They want to sell that grain. They want it transported and they want their storage facilities empty. That is what they want. The government has done nothing to address or to help solve that problem.

As I said our critic for agriculture, who has said an awful lot about it already, would have a lot more to say about the plight of the farmers in western Canada.

Let me talk about the roads. There we have a real big problem. Right across the country our infrastructure is in big trouble. Our highways are in big trouble. They are full of potholes.

A group of truckers came to my office a year or so ago and said, “Our equipment has increased in size dramatically, the weight of the equipment and the loads being carried have increased. Do you know what kind of bridges we are driving over? We are driving over bridges that were built in 1950 and 1955”. The next time members go on a bridge on one of our highways, they should look at the plaque on it and see when it was built. The truckers said that the infrastructure is becoming dangerous. It seems to me this is a definite transportation problem that the government should be dealing with.

What has happened? The concept of taxing for the repair of roads was a good idea, but what has happened to that money? If we look at it, in the budget the government has collected $4.8 billion in federal fuel excise taxes. It has also collected tax on tax because it charges GST on the full price of gasoline or diesel fuel. The GST collected amounts to $2.2 billion. That is $7 billion that has been collected in tax by the federal government. The surprising part is that $300 million annually is put back into road infrastructure. The government collects $7 billion and it puts $300 million back into the infrastructure.

A lot of people do not really understand, and I certainly do not either, what $1 billion is. I had it described best for me at a conference I attended: $1 million is like 21 days in time and $1 billion is like 31 years in time. If $1 million is 21 days and $1 billion is 31 years, and we are talking about $7 billion being collected and $300 million being spent, where did the rest of the money go? If the government has spent only 4% on infrastructure, then 96% has gone into general revenue so the government can brag that it has a balanced budget, that it has a surplus and so on. There is something very wrong with that.

Let us look at what the provinces do with their taxes on transportation, gas and diesel fuel. We will find that 91% of the money collected by the provinces is put back into transportation.

The federal government puts in 4% and provincial governments put in 91%. There is a real problem here and it is one Canadians should be really annoyed about. If Canadians want any kind of a break in terms of taxes, obviously they would rather have the money go into infrastructure if it actually went there, but it does not. It does not go to help that infrastructure.

It was interesting too that when I asked the question about toll roads, on February 25, the minister said he thought it would be a good idea to reduce congestion in our big cities by charging tolls to keep cars off the roads and out of the downtowns of our major cities. The answer I got to my question was that it was a municipal issue. Why is the minister commenting on it if it is a municipal issue? Obviously people should communicate with each other. My next question would be, did they talk to the cities and the provinces, or was that just something that came out of the blue? It appears the minister probably has not put much thought into a lot of what the bill is about.

In terms of roads and transportation facilities in our country, it is embarrassing that they are in the state they are in and that they are being mismanaged the way that they are.

As well, many constituents have talked to me about air security and the airline business. Those of us from western Canada get to ride a plane a lot more than members from Ontario or Quebec do. We get to fly at least four hours each way every week. Many people change planes a few times.

In the airports there is a concern about security. Obviously the Americans are concerned and the British are concerned, as are the French, but we do not seem to be all that concerned. We have collected $24 on tickets, which is now down to $14. I am still worried about security, not so much when the passenger goes through, but what about all those people who clean and supply the planes? I have not noticed much change in that security. People want us to make sure that we guarantee that sort of security.

In conclusion, the government has failed in the bill. It has failed to deal with the very real prospects of Kyoto and what it might mean to the transportation industry. It has failed in its plan to deal with VIA Rail and to make it a crown corporation and compete with other private enterprise businesses. It has failed the farmers in terms of getting their grain to market. It has failed the citizens who drive our roads and the truck drivers who are forced to drive them every day with their potholes and cracks. It has failed to put the 96% it collects for roads back into the infrastructure. It would rather use it somewhere else. I believe it has also failed in air safety.

The government has failed. For the first time since I have been here, since 1993, I have really been embarrassed to be here. That is largely because of what has happened in the last little while and what is probably going to happen tonight. I am a pretty proud Canadian. I am glad to be a Canadian, but I am really disappointed.

It is interesting because I wanted to know where my constituents actually stood on the issue. I asked them in a professional questionnaire, if Iraq fails to disarm and if the United Nations fails to act to enforce disarmament, should Canada join with our traditional allies, Australia, Great Britain and the United States, in military action against Iraq to ensure disarmament or not? This was a scientific poll. The answer was that 59% said yes and 38% said no. My constituents want me to represent them on that issue. They want a government that has a vision and that cares. I do not believe this government does and I am embarrassed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, The Environment; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Taxation.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's remarks. I am having a very hard time trying to understand the Canadian Alliance's position.

On the one hand, they are asking that the government invest in grain transportation in western Canada. They are asking it to take action with respect to air transportation. On the other hand, a member of the Canadian Alliance Party confirmed to me this afternoon that they are totally against regulating transportation.

I gave my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance the example of bus transportation in my region, which is regulated. We get great service at an affordable price. Our bus transportation system is regulated, which means that paying routes are earmarked for the Orléans Express company, enabling it to provide in my region services which are important to our community.

As I said earlier, this is pretty much all we have left in our region for transportation. We know that there are currently companies calling for the deregulation of bus transportation, even in our region. Deregulation would simply spell the end of this mode of transportation for us.

At present, there is hardly any rail transportation in our region, and air transportation is not doing any better, with Air Canada being in difficulty and abandoning regional airports, lines which, incidentally, are said not to be profitable, when the planes are consistently full and airfares cost a fortune. I fly between Mont-Joli and Ottawa, and it costs me more than $1,000 just in airfare.

I would like the hon. member to clarify the Canadian Alliance's position. Does the Canadian Alliance want the federal government to take action to help, as he said among other things, western producers ship their grain? This would require the government to invest in transportation. Would the hon. member agree to the federal government investing not only in the transport of goods in his region, but also in the transport of passengers in a region like mine?

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not the person to answer all of the detailed questions, but let me give the hon. member the answer I would like to give.

The major point is that 96% of the money taken in taxation does not go back into transportation. It should all go back there. That is what it is collected for. I believe we need intelligent regulation. That means there are isolated areas that do need assistance to be serviced if they are not competitive otherwise. That sort of help is needed. I have areas like that. They are all over the country. With no regulation we obviously would have great service from Vancouver to Toronto but not much to the smaller parts of the country. We have to be reasonable about that.

The big thing we need is intelligence, understanding and recognition of what the problems are and to deal with them in that way.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from the Bloc, I was a little at a loss to hear the comments from the member, but I will target a slightly different area.

My colleague from Red Deer indicated that transportation is the biggest producer of CO

2

and that the government was nowhere on the Kyoto issue in addressing it. Yet for months, if not years on end since I have been here, I have listened to Alliance member after Alliance member go on about how CO

2

emissions are not the issue related to greenhouse gas, that they are not the problem and that all the work everybody was supporting on the Kyoto issue was not really necessary.

Quite frankly, when the hon. member talks about the need for intelligent legislation, I agree. We also have the need for intelligent discussion. For the first time, I have to say, I heard some extremely intelligent comments related to CO

2

emissions, Kyoto and transportation from an Alliance member and it is deeply appreciated.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I could suggest to the member that she might want to get Hansard from November. There are enough pages there that she should be able to find our position fairly clearly.

Our position is clearly that transportation is one of the major producers of CO

2

, and that is a fact. I am saying that the bill does not deal with that. It does not deal with anything about Kyoto or CO

2

. What it should deal with is how we can encourage the transportation system to deal with the CO

2

Kyoto problem. We have committed to something and we should deal with conservation, if that is possible, in transportation, transitional fuels and alternate energy.

The government should have a long term vision for that. That is what it is all about and that is our position on it. I cannot make that clearer.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor of the City of Saint John, I had an opportunity to go to Germany and we went from one location to another by train. That was quite a few years ago. Germany knew then that people should go by train. The problem we have and what we are trying to deal with through Kyoto, Germany was dealing with it then. I found that in other countries as well.

What happened to us back in 1993? We had VIA Rail which took our people to Quebec and then they would change over to another train to bring them either to Toronto or Ottawa. The train was taken away from us yet Saint John had the largest ridership of any of the train stations in all New Brunswick. However it was taken away because of politics. It was a shame.

Does the hon. member think the government honestly understands the need to put the train in every part of Canada like Germany has?