Bev Desjarlais

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester on his motion. Numerous members have talked today about the substandard highways we are dealing with and about the disrepair of our highways, that it is going to take $17 billion to bring them back to where they should be. For example, there should be four lanes when the traffic warrants so we do not have the killer highway that is just outside of Ottawa.

There is no question that people nationwide realize there is a problem. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been pushing to have dollars go into a national highway policy as well as into assistance with other infrastructure and highways throughout the country. The government has failed to do that.

This is another area in which the government lacks any vision whatsoever. It lacks any sound vision as to where Canada should be going. It is literally letting the nation fall apart in front of us with the underfunding of health care, the underfunding of education, with the EI surplus where dollars have been taken away from the EI fund and from the unemployed, those not able to get enough work. Money has been taken from the Canada pension plan. The government sings its praises on a wonderful surplus but fails to put anything back into the country.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester indicates it would be done with the partnership of the provinces. I do not think there is any question that if we are going to have a nation where the people can go from one end to the other, whether it be north, south, east, west, in any direction they choose to go, they need to feel comfortable and safe when they are travelling our highway system. They want to know that when they go through Saskatchewan there will be safe roads, that when they hit Manitoba they can continue on the same. They do not want to hit that provincial boundary and say, “Now we are going through New Brunswick, we are going to hit a toll highway, we are going to have to pay for it and my taxpayer dollars have already done that”.

They want to know that highway is safe. In order to not pay to go on that highway they will have to go on an unsafe road.

Canadians deserve to feel safe throughout the country, and they have in the past, but over the last 10 or 15 years it has gradually deteriorated. The point I want to make in that regard is it started during the time that the party of the member for Cumberland—Colchester was the government of the country. It failed to put funding in place as well. I do not want him to feel that it is all hunky-dory and rosy on his side over there and just blame it on the other side because they are both at fault.

Both those parties have failed when they had the opportunity to ensure that funding was there. If they want to use the gas taxes, by all means let them do it. In the past my party and I have not supported dedicated taxes. However, government time and time again does not put dollars into services and infrastructure. Then we start to think that we need legislation which says the government has to put money there. It will have to do that. It has failed to show Canadian people a true commitment to providing for the country, to ensuring that the dollars are going where they should be going.

Canadians do not argue about paying taxes. I do not know about the people here, but if I pay my taxes and education is there, health care is there, and we have decent roads and decent services, we will not hear Canadians complaining. They do not mind paying for what they get.

We all work hard and we do not want everything for nothing. We will pay our taxes but we want services in return. When our money goes to the federal government and we do not get it back in any kind of service that is when we get disgruntled. That is when we get parties like the Reform Party saying “Scrap the taxes. Scrap everything”.

What did the hon. member from the Reform Party say? No money is to go into recreational facilities. Can hon. members imagine putting no money into recreational facilities? It is common knowledge that every dollar spent in recreational facilities for youth in our communities will save $7 in the future on problems that may result from children not having somewhere to go and getting into lives of crime because they do not have things to do. When they become adults a good number of them will end up in jail because they did not have enough things to do when they were younger. This blanket statement of no funding for recreational facilities is wrong.

We need a cohesive country where we have dollars supporting all these different programs: infrastructure, recreational facilities, highways and post-secondary education. We need funding in all those areas.

Although I commend the hon. member and support his motion, I wanted to make those points. We had a much similar debate just a few weeks ago with the suggestion of dedicated taxes. As I said, the problems are there. There is probably about a $17 billion cost to improve our national highway structure. We certainly need a national highway policy and we need a national transportation policy. There is no question. We heard it all here today. With all of us knowing it, surely some good can come out of the discussion we have had over and over again and we will see the government make a real commitment to the country.

[Trade, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, nobody contests that trade with different countries is good, but we also know that labour standards are good as well and they have to be enforceable. Canada used to fight for social justice. Now we lag behind the Americans. The member has to quote President Clinton because he cannot quote this government.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, why is Canada's trade minister choosing to fight for sweatshop owners instead of fighting for children and adults who are trying to survive in the global economy?

[Trade, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. President Clinton is pushing for enforceable core labour standards at the World Trade Organization. Core labour standards are the most basic rights: the right of workers to organize, no slave labour, no child labour. The Americans support core labour standards in trade agreements but Canada opposes them.

The trade minister even said that the American move calls for damage control. Why has the trade minister become the new poster boy for sweatshop labour?

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table on behalf of my constituents 43 petitions calling on the government to keep the reference to God in the Constitution of Canada.

These petitions come from a broad cross-section of the Churchill riding: Pine Falls, Churchill, God's Lake Narrows, Flin Flon, The Pas, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, Norway House, Snow Lake, St. Theresa Point, Cranberry Portage, Pukatawagen, Oxford House, Thompson, Wabowden, Gillam, Cormorant, Lac Brochet, Wanless and Grand Rapids.

The constitution reflects our shared values in the charter of rights and freedoms, as well as the reference to God in the preamble. The fact that Canadians from so many different faiths and cultures find a common meaning in the reference to God symbolizes the wonderful diversity of our nation.

[National Highway System, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party transportation critic, it is an honour to speak in support of this motion.

I begin by thanking the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for bringing this motion before the House. I put in a very similar motion about a year ago. I know the hon. member submitted this motion when he was still his party's transportation critic and I am glad to see he decided to follow through in this area even though he is no longer the transportation critic.

As any Canadian driver will tell us, the highways in our country are in terrible shape. The Liberal government has abandoned its duty to maintain safe and adequate roads. It has abandoned our highways just as it has abandoned health care, education, homeless children, first nations, farmers, the RCMP and so many other vital areas.

We all know the finance minister said that he would balance the budget come hell or high water. In my home province of Manitoba we have seen high water in two disastrous floods and thanks to the Liberal government, driving on our roads is hell.

Canada is the only country in the developed world that does not have a national highway program. It is truly pathetic. When it comes to highways, Canada is dead last. Not only are we last, but we are not even close to most other countries we need to compete with for investment.

The United States spends six times as much per kilometre as Canada on maintaining and expanding its national highway system. Britain spends four times as much per kilometre. Our G-7 competitors like Germany, France and Italy all spend five to ten times as much as Canada does on their national highways systems.

It is important to point out exactly what we mean by the national highway system. We are not talking about every road in the country. The national highway system makes up 3% of Canada's roads. This 3% of our highways carries over 25% of all highway traffic in the country.

The national highway system has been a federal responsibility ever since the Canadian Highways Act was passed in 1919. The provinces are responsible for the other 97% of our roads. Is it too much to ask that this Liberal government do its job and maintain that measly 3% it is responsible for?

Because of the Liberal government's abandonment of highways, the provinces have had to pick up the slack as best they can. Unfortunately the provinces have also had to pick up the slack for all the other Liberal government cuts, cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to housing, cuts to policing. The Liberal government has cut so much, the provinces have not been able to keep up.

It should not be a shock but the regions that are getting ripped off the most by the Liberal government are, as usual, the west and the north. Between now and 2001 the four western provinces and the three territories combined will only see $13 million in Transport Canada money for highways, with $6 million going to B.C., $5 million to the territories, and $2 million to Saskatchewan. Manitoba and Alberta are not getting one red cent. If we drive down the road in Manitoba and we have to stop on a dime, we know for sure that it is a provincial dime because the federal transport department invests not one red cent.

Why do we need good highways? Why is the national system something the government needs to make a priority? There are three main reasons: safety, the environment and the economy.

First I will talk about safety because it is the most important reason. At a bare minimum Canadians should be able to drive safely but many of our roads simply are not safe enough. Thirty-eight per cent of the national highway system is substandard. Right now over 1,100 bridges on the national highway system need repair.

I am reminded of two summers ago during our summer recess. There was an article in which a beaver was being blamed for the breakdown of part of the Trans-Canada Highway. A beaver had made a dam which had damaged the road. I thought, one would think someone was out there maintaining that road, but no, the beaver was blamed for the breakdown of the highway. It is like blaming the cow for the spilled milk.

It is true that overall the number of deaths on Canadian roads has been decreasing since the seventies, and that is a good thing. The Liberal government points to this statistic and says, “See, the roads are getting safer”. We know that is simply not true. The government is misrepresenting the numbers.

The reason the number of deaths on the roads has been dropping since the seventies is because the rate of seatbelt use has gone up and the rate of drunk driving has dropped.

If the Liberal government would bring the national highway system up to a minimum standard, the number of accidents this would prevent would save an average of 247 lives and 16,000 injuries every year. Even one preventable death or injury is too many.

It is appalling that the Liberal government is continuing to neglect our highways when Canadians are dying on our substandard roads.

The second reason to improve highways is to help the environment. Transportation fuel is responsible for over half of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. We have to bring this down to meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement and stop global warming.

Bringing the national highway system up to minimum standards would save over 230 million litres of fuel each year. This alone would not be enough to meet our commitments to stop global warming, but it would be an important start.

We also need to switch to greener forms of transportation, such as rail and mass transit, particularly in big cities. But many Canadians, particularly in rural and northern areas like my riding of Churchill, absolutely need to drive, so the Liberal government has a responsibility to invest in highways.

The third reason to fix the national highway system is that of economics. I do not expect the Liberal government to listen to my arguments about the need to save Canadians' lives. If the government really cared about saving Canadians' lives it would not have cut health care by $25 billion since 1995. I also do not expect it to listen to my arguments about saving the environment because the Liberal government's record on the environment is terrible. But I do know that the Liberal government listens to the bottom-line economic arguments, so here they are.

First, highways are good for business. Most of Canada's manufactured goods are transported by road. Companies setting up plants look for access to good roads. That is one of the reasons the economy is now booming in the U.S., while many hundreds of thousands of Canadians are still out of work.

The U.S. knows the benefits of investing in highways. Bad roads also discourage tourism, which is an important industry in many parts of our country. Many truckers and other travellers going across Canada prefer to go south, cut across the U.S. and then come back up to Canada. This means that on their trip they buy U.S. gas, stay in U.S. motels, eat in U.S. restaurants and pay taxes to the U.S. government instead of to the Canadian government.

It would cost about $13 billion to bring the national highway system to minimum standards. That is a lot of money, but if we spread it out over a number of years it is something the government could well afford within the budget surplus. Not only that, in the long run improving our highways would save money, not cost money. Preventable accidents cost more than $25 billion each year in emergency health care for victims, long term health care and other costs, such as property damage and lost productivity.

The health care savings alone would pay for the cost of fixing the national highway system, not to mention the benefits of the increased economic activity that better roads would lead to, particularly job creation, something Canadians badly need.

I conclude my remarks by repeating my support for the motion. The Liberal government has abandoned its responsibility for national highways. By doing so it has put the lives and health of Canadians at risk. It has also squandered the many economic benefits that come from having good highways.

The motion calls for dedicating a modest 20% of income from fuel taxes to highway improvements. Normally I would not support dedicated taxation. However, as we have seen with the way the Liberal government has misused Canadians' employment insurance money, we cannot trust the Liberal government to use Canadians' money for what it is intended. Twenty per cent of fuel taxes is a reasonable base line and the Liberal government has no excuse not to invest at least that much in our highways.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the comments by my hon. colleague.

I do not know if other members of the House get lists of the new citizens of Canada. We get a list of the new citizens in our ridings. I am always pleased when there is someone on it who I have known for a number of years. I have a couple of friends who have lived in Canada for 25 and 30 years. The other day I was going through my list while I was sitting here listening to the really important debates we have. I noticed that a couple of my friends were on that list and I automatically thought great, two more votes next election.

In spite of the fact that these friends had lived and worked in Canada for 25 or 30 years and had paid taxes, they were not able to vote on electing federal members. Why is that? Because we recognize that until people become citizens of our country, we do not allow them to vote for the governments.

Does he think it is fair that people move to Canada and are not able to vote for a federal member of parliament unless they become citizens? I think it is reasonable. Does he not think it is reasonable as well, or does he think people should not have to become citizens and be part of a community before they vote?

[National Highways, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, right now 38% of the national highway system does not meet minimum standards. These bad roads cause avoidable accidents that kill over 200 Canadians a year. The national highway system has been a federal responsibility since 1919 and the Liberal government cannot blame the provinces for this.

Fixing the national highway system would cost 26 cents for every dollar the Liberal government collects in gas taxes. Will it commit in the next budget to invest at least this much in the national highway system so that Canadians can drive home safely?

[International Circumpolar Community, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Churchill River and I share the Churchill name. We certainly share ridings that are very similar and ridings from the 50th parallel to the 60th which do not have an opportunity to be part of circumpolar discussions internationally because of the way Canada recognizes our communities north of the 55th parallel.

I thank my colleague from Churchill River for bringing forward Motion No. 237 which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.

It is not something that is way out of line, considering that all other countries recognize it. One has only to wonder why Canada would choose not to recognize the 55th to 60th parallels as part of the same circumpolar area.

I would hope that it is not simply because we have already put boundaries in place, as my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party mentioned when he said that we have these boundaries in place and it becomes really hard or impossible to do things.

Might I suggest we are a country that just recognized a new territory. We took one entire territory, put another line in place, and recognized a new one because we recognized that people in that area had specific concerns and felt they should be represented in a certain way.

I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the people and communities that fall within the 55th to 60th parallels should have the opportunity to have their wishes expressed as part of the circumpolar global community. As I said, the rest of the world acknowledges the 55th and one has only to wonder why Canada chooses not to.

Let me assure the House that those of us who live north of the 55th parallel consider ourselves northerners. We understand what happens in the country north of us because we have very great similarities. I might add that once we reach a certain point in the northern community such as the 53rd or 54th parallel, it becomes a very specific part of our life.

We acknowledge that. We identify our communities by that. My home community of Thompson, Manitoba, identifies itself as north of the 55th. The community of Snow Lake identifies itself as north of the 54th. It becomes very important to each of us because we know the differences that happen when we reach that point. There are differences geographically, demographically and climatologically. There are grave differences within our country.

I do not have a lot of time but I want to get in a couple of key points. I guess the member of the Reform Party as well as the member of the Progressive Conservative Party are united in a lot of ways. They are united when it comes to voicing that this is all wonderful and that we should do this, this and this. However, they do not want to put anything in action and they do not really believe people should have a say.

The hon. member of the Conservative Party indicated that if most Quebecers were asked they would not want to live in the north. Quite frankly maybe that is the case but because most Quebecers do not want to live in the north why do we deny those persons and communities north of the 55th parallel the opportunity to have a say? Is it just because most Quebecers do not want to live in the north?

In northern Manitoba we do not have the majority of the population, but the people who are there strongly believe in the north. We are committed to the north. A good number of the people have lived there for 25, 30, 40 and 50 years because they believe in the north. We believe in northern Canada. We are not willing to go in there, reap the resources from the north and leave nothing in return. We are there committed to our communities and we deserve to have the same right for representation internationally within the circumpolar community as have people everywhere else. I find it disappointing anyone would suggest that just because others do not want to live there those in the north should not have a say.

Since I probably do not have a whole lot of time to get into a lot, I will comment that it was also indicated that the provinces would not necessarily be supportive of lowering the parallel from the 60th to the 55th. I will comment on a report that the foreign affairs committee presented last year which commented on how the provinces felt:

Generally, however, the provincial dimensions have not been very prominent in analyzing Arctic affairs affecting Canada; the exception being Quebec which is clearly the most advanced in terms of examining its distinctive “nordicité” within a domestic and international context.

I suggest that is the case because Quebec has been a part of the circumpolar conference and the other provinces have not. By including them in the circumpolar grouping they would be very much more involved in the north and what happens there.

[Highways, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want more than words from the Liberal government. Even when the government says it will do something, it never follows through. It has not come through with enough emergency aid for farmers. It has not come through for homeless Canadians or children in poverty. It has not come through on cutting the GST.

The Liberal government has neglected the national highway system for so long it will now cost $13 billion to bring it up to standard. Will the Minister of Transport commit today to invest at least that much? Surely the lives of Canadians are worth it.

[Highways, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal red book promised to invest in highways but western Canada has hardly seen a cent of federal money. Some 38% of the national highway system is substandard, mostly in the west. Bringing it up to standard would save 247 lives and prevent 16,000 injuries each year.

Every dollar spent fixing the national highway system would save $2 in health care costs. Surely the Liberal government has a moral obligation to invest in highways so Canadians can drive home safely. Will it commit now to a serious investment in the national highway system?