Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my illustrious colleague from Cumberland—Colchester who without doubt is the best and certainly the most informed member of the transportation committee and a critic par excellence. Other members of the other opposition parties could take some lessons from the illustrious member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Let me indicate exactly where I was heading. I would feel much more confident in the national transportation policy and where the country would be heading in the future if my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester were sitting in the minister's seat. He could put into place at least some of his understanding with respect to national transportation and some of his vision with respect to where the country could and should go with those types of policies put into place.
Let me talk about the motion before us today. We had some difficulty as a party trying to figure out which of the ministries was the most mismanaged because there was a smorgasbord of mismanaged departments.
We could talk about health care, which was put on the agenda previously by the NDP. We could talk about mismanagement of HRDC, which has been in the House continuously. We could talk about agriculture, which this party put forward as a topic of debate in a supply motion. That department is totally mismanaged to the point where there is no vision as to where agriculture in the country will go. However we came upon national transportation. When we started looking at a national transportation policy we discovered very quickly that there was none and that the government was heading in an ad hoc direction.
Transportation breaks down into a number of areas. I will speak to one on which I have a bit of understanding. Obviously that is grain transportation. I will not talk at length about it because there are other deficiencies in other areas of transportation and the non-transportation policy of the government.
Let us first open debate with respect to the grain transportation. Back in September of last year Arthur Kroeger tabled a report on grain transportation. Grain transportation is not something that just fell out of the sky. We have been talking about grain transportation in western Canada since the first kernel of wheat was planted in the western prairies. The fact is that the government did away with the crow rate benefit back in 1995. Since that point in time there has been absolutely nothing in place to help serve the farmers of our great country, particularly those in western Canada.
The problem is that one-third of the total value now being achieved through commodities that are grown is going to transportation costs. Unfortunately farmers cannot survive on two-thirds of the commodity price, pay their costs or make any type of a profit so they can continue on in the business. This should have been dealt with a long time ago.
What will happen today, tomorrow, this week or early next week is that the Minister of Transport will be tabling a bill. That bill could have been tabled two months ago when we could have debated that piece of legislation logically, openly and transparently. We will have to push the bill through before we rise in three weeks so that the government can put forward the legislation and it is effective by August 1, the new crop year.
I will have opportunity to tell the country why it is that the government has failed in its responsibility to put forward possibly the best legislation for producers and farmers.
Let us talk about other transportation issues which the hon. member talked about in his dissertation. One of them is highways. The country was built, developed and started on transportation. Does anyone remember the last spike? Does anyone remember bringing our country together from coast to coast with a transportation web, a rail web?
Our country still depends on transportation. The majority of what we produce is exported. It is either exported by sea, by land or by air. We depend on export commodities. We depend on international markets. Our transportation infrastructure is coming to the point now where it is deteriorating beyond that of a third world country.
Let us talk about those three areas. Let us talk about highways on which I have some knowledge. In a previous life I was a chartered member of an organization called the Highway No. 1 West Association. Our major land link, our number one highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, is absolutely deplorable. In areas of western Canada the number one highway is to the point now where truckers and people moving commodities and goods will no longer use it. They now go through the United States of America bypassing Canadian highways, come back up into Canada and deliver their goods. That is deplorable.
The government takes a gasoline excise tax every year in excess of $4.4 billion. The same government puts back less than 4.4% of that into our great highway system throughout Canada. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the provinces. The provinces have a road network. They have to deal with provincial roads and municipal roads. Now they have to deal with national roads.
As my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester asked, why is it that we cannot work with the provincial governments? We tried to work with the provincial governments when we were in power and were getting to a point of putting together a national highways program.
Unfortunately this government does not wish to deal with a national highways program. When I talked with the minister of transportation and highways in the province of Manitoba, he too came forward and said that the best thing we could do now is to have a long term national highways program.
What does that mean? That means stable funding over a period of years that will be distributed equally, honestly and fairly between all provinces to put in a national highways program.
Right now we have ad hoc programs that come forward from the government whenever there is an election. What a wonderful way to run our infrastructure, particularly our national highways program. Whenever there is an election the government will drib and drab a few dollars.
We have $175 million now for rural roads in the grain transportation strategy the government put forward. We have an infrastructure program of $100 million for this coming year for all of Canada. I believe that works out to $3.5 million for the province of Manitoba for its infrastructure program next budget year. Whoop-de-do, $3.5 million will do three kilometres of highway. It is not a sufficient program.
Let us talk about air service. My hon. colleague certainly understands air service better than the government side does. There is no vision. There is no policy. There is no understanding which is necessary so that we can continue to compete internationally and nationally with our competitors. No strategy has been put forward on transportation.
Another issue is sea transportation. Being from Brandon—Souris, I can honestly say that I do not speak with a lot of experience on open sea transportation, but the hon. member for St. John's East will speak to it a little later because he understands marine transportation.
The issue we are talking about now is the ideology or psychology that has escaped the government. It is an ideology or psychology on what we have to put into place so Canadians can compete in the international market for years to come.
We have heard that the majority of our future will be with knowledge based industries. I do not dispute that, but there has to be a balance. Not only are our knowledge based industries very important for us so that we can sell that knowledge throughout the world, which, by the way, the government does not really have a grasp of. We can talk about the numbers of knowledge based industries personnel leaving the country in the brain drain. At least we recognize there is a real advantage. We also have to recognize that the country was built on manufacturing, processing and commodities that have to be transported.
In western Canada the major transportation requirements are for potash, grain and fertilizers. We need rail transportation that is of a proper standard. We need infrastructure that can be continued into the future. We have nothing put forward by the government which indicates that it is prepared to invest in that infrastructure.
I ask the Minister of Transport to put before the House a well thought out, long term strategy and plan for a national highways program for rural roads throughout the country, as a well as a rail transportation policy not only for passengers but also for commodities. There is nothing I can put my hands on that will show me where those issues will be within the next two, five or ten years. I find it deplorable that the government has no vision for transportation. I would like to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “to” the word “immediately”.
