Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly not the political move I would like to get in. I do not want to go back and have those mind-boggling deficits and debt because that does not serve any purpose.

I will say to the hon. member if we are going to have a highway program, we are not going to have it without co-operative funding. The funding must be known ahead of time. For example, if the Canada Health Act and health care across Canada is to be successful, it can only be successful with a promise of 50:50 sharing. Whatever reason the government can give for taking that away is exactly the same reason we are facing a health crisis today. It is exactly the same reason the highways, particularly in western Canada, are depreciating at a rate faster than ever before in our history.

The hon. member is quite right. I will not get into the political part of this issue, but the premise upon which he posed the question is quite correct.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that transportation in the history of this great place has been a hot topic. It probably will not be the last time. It is probably the reason that the transport committee room is the largest and at one time was considered the most important committee as the country developed.

It is interesting to note the sparring between the Progressive Conservatives and the government. This is May 2000. We have to look at what we have now and we have to look to the future. Trying to score political points on the past does not solve any transportation problems across Canada.

I congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester who serves on the transport committee. He is indeed a good member. His colleague inferred that he was the best member of the transport committee. I have been on the committee for three years. All parties are represented. No one on that committee behaves in a manner superior to somebody else. I find that a great insult to a committee that has worked on issues very co-operatively over the last three years. We may disagree on philosophy at points, but we have turned out a lot of work for the House. I take exception. I know the hon. member from the PC Party is on that committee.

It goes without saying that we cannot talk about Canada without talking about transportation. I do not suppose we ever will. In the first class on Canada at university one of the statements heard is that the very existence of Canada is a sin against geography, and it still is.

There are members sitting to my right from Churchill and from Yukon. What is their big problem? Transportation. What is the big problem in the prairie provinces, particularly in my province? Oh, boy, it is transportation. Members from the maritimes today raised their unique problem. Transportation.

It has always been a Canadian problem. It will always be a Canadian problem because the existence of Canada came about in a contradiction to geography. We are here and we are proud of it, but in the year 2000 we are facing some very difficult times in transportation.

From time to time Canadians have overcome many of their transportation problems. Let us look at the history of our country and the promises made. British Columbia came into Confederation because of a promise. What was that promise? It was the promise of a railway.

It is not possible to provide transportation to the scattered areas of Canada without transportation being expensive. Let us make no mistake about that. I happen to come from a province that has 240,000 kilometres of roads and one million people. With the railways disappearing, we have a serious problem. Is this the first time we have ever had a serious transportation problem? No. Is the problem today as serious as it has ever been? The answer to that question is yes.

This motion is asking the Government of Canada to pull together with its counterparts in the provincial and municipal governments to develop a strategy so that we do look ahead into planning for the future. Some bad things have happened in the last two decades. Let us take a look at them.

The west has lost thousands of miles of railways. For the most part of the prairies we have basically lost VIA Rail service. It is gone from most areas. I can catch an Amtrak train at a point south in the United States with fewer miles to travel than if I drive to Saskatoon. We have those problems, but those problems will not be fixed without a politically unbiased move to bring the country together to take a look at what has happened. I want to mention just one or two points.

It is obvious that today's Minister of Transport of Canada does not carry the same clout in federal financing as his predecessors once did. I could not believe it when I looked at past budgets. At one time the transport file was the big spender. That is not so today.

In many provinces including my own at one time 100% of everything taken in by Saskatchewan in fuel tax was spent on roads. Some provinces spent 110% or more than what was taken in. I believe the province of Manitoba was in that general area. To have that happen in Saskatchewan at the present time may not be possible.

Today our economy depends on a very good seamless transportation system. Earlier this morning I had the privilege of having breakfast with the Canadian Trucking Association. It desperately needs this policy to be in place. It desperately needs a sound transportation policy from the government in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities. We must interconnect all modes of transportation and we cannot do it on an ad hoc basis.

What must happen is that the federal government has to quit using fuel taxes as a cash cow. Therein lies the problem. Last year the federal government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes, I repeat $4.5 billion, and it has put back only $150 million. That is a national disgrace.

No one on this side of the House and I am sure no one on the government side would even come up with the idea that 100% has to be put back. The Canadian Automobile Association has stood by a figure of 20%. If 20% of the fuel tax collected by the government were to go back to the provinces, we would be in good shape.

A study by the University of Manitoba Transport Institute shows that the government collects a disproportionate share of fuel tax from the prairie provinces. I know we all guard our own little areas, the maritimes and so on. I want to point out very clearly that in the fiscal year 1998-99, the federal government collected $4.4 billion. The same year, according to the study by the University of Manitoba, the federal expenditures on road infrastructure were $198 million, less than a nickel out of every dollar collected.

Whether we are in the maritimes, on the coast, in the north or in the prairie provinces we cannot maintain our transportation road network on a mere five cents on the dollar being returned. It cannot be done. I cannot even travel my constituency now and use all of the highways. I have to go on gravel country roads because the highways are unsafe to travel. We could blame it on heavy trucking, we could blame it on many things but it is simply a fact. If Saskatchewan were to get 60% of the money that has been allocated through the grain transportation bill and if I could somehow persuade that it would all go to my constituency, it would not bring Highway 13 up to standard, it would not bring all of Highway 18 up to standard, it would not bring Highway 47 up to standard and it would not bring Highway 8 up to standard.

We are at a point in our history where the money has to be refunded. If we do not move up the scale to 25%, there are parts of Canada, including Saskatchewan, which will have to take away what pavement is left and return the roads to gravel. That is a conclusion which most people could draw.

There is no national highway program. There was when the Trans-Canada Highway was built. Some 25,400 kilometres was identified in 1992, eight years ago, by a joint federal-provincial highway policy study. There has been no administrative framework for maintaining or upgrading that highway and no national program since that time, for eight years, in a country that is totally dependent on its highway network.

Again, in the United States when I cross the border into North Dakota and get gas I see on the bowser the federal input, the state input and how much taxes are being paid.

In the United States transportation equity act, $26,174,381,000 in federal funding is going to be invested over the next five years. That is a tremendous amount of money. Almost 50% and in some cases 80% of what they collect goes back and we send 5% back. It just will not work. There are areas of Canada which just will not be able to do it. I believe if the House takes a look at our policy and the motion by the member, the need is very important.

Politics in fuel tax is a recent thing in our history. If we go back 25 years, a tax on fuel was used for that purpose. Now, in particular in this House and in some provinces the motor vehicle fuel tax is not being directed to roads. I suppose one could say politics is the art of the impossible and the federal government is severely addicted to tax revenue. That addiction is killing transportation in Canada. I wonder if the government would consider a proposal like that of the Canadian Automobile Association, that 20% of the funds be returned to the provinces.

My parents asked me to drive them to Ontario. Anyone who leaves my province and drives to Ontario, what route do they do? Those people who live in the southern part get on Highway 39 and get to U.S. 2 and come all the way through the United States. Why? Because of the roads and because of the cost factor. The trucks are doing it as well. It is because we have not had the ability or the common sense to put back into our transportation system the money that has been taken out. Is the money there? Absolutely.

When my colleagues and I on the transport committee discussed the airline bill, Bill C-26, I was amazed at the entrepreneurship out there to bring good air travel to Canada. I am amazed at the number of private entrepreneurs like WestJet and there are many more. As a result we are going to be well served in the future. I am not even questioning it.

However we should not expect a return in Canada to the VIA Rail service we once had. There is not enough money in the country to support that service as we have in the past. There is no passenger rail link anywhere in the world that does not have to be subsidized. When we in Canada have to subsidize up to 40% of what is called the most lucrative runs in Canada, we can readily understand why Canadians cannot expect to have the passenger rail service they once had. Would I like to see it? Yes I would like to see it. Does it sound good? Yes it sounds good. But let us deal with reality.

Let us look at these problems in the light of what we are facing in the year 2000. Never mind the bickering of the past and the political points to be scored. Let us go forward here. My colleague's motion is a good one. It does not deal with ideology. It does not deal with privatization against crown ownership, knowledge, regulatory features and so on. It is a good motion. The motion simply says that we should on a non-political non-partisan basis get together and establish a framework whereby we can look at the various transportation issues facing Canada.

I support that motion simply because Canadians need it. Canadians look forward to having some concrete body in place. The provinces are looking for it. The municipalities are looking for it. The lead has to come from the government. I will brag a little and say we certainly have a good transport committee to deal with it and to feed that information out to our counterparts in the municipalities.

In conclusion, it is 2000. Let us go on. We cannot forget the past, but let us not let the past dictate what we are going to have in the future. We must look ahead and we must do it co-operatively. When it comes to transportation, Canadians really do not care too much about the political debate in the House. They want to see something concrete.

[Mining, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Yukon Chamber of Mines:

—in the designation of Special Management Areas under land claims agreements, DIAND has created a legislative and regulatory quagmire for mining in particular, and business in general.

The collapse of the economic activity is a direct result of the interference and mismanagement of the government.

Is it this department's policy to drive out business and make Yukon totally dependent on government handouts?

[Mining, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, economic activity by the mining industry in Yukon has declined by nearly 70% over the last four years, down from $316 million to only $90 million a year. In contrast, Alaska right next door is booming.

Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development mismanagement is largely to blame. On average it takes four years to get a mining project approved in Yukon, while in contrast it takes only three to six months in Manitoba. Why is the minister supervising the destruction of the mining industry in Yukon?

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to agree with the hon. gentleman. I was not aware that we were clear cut in this regard. I had a five minute point that I wanted to make. However, if it is the wish of the House, that does not bother me at all and I will agree not to speak.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I was not too well informed in that regard. If indeed that is the case, I will not submit to speak.

[Grain Transportation, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers received the news of the government's intention to introduce grain transportation reform with mixed emotions. Certainly farmers are pleased, as I am, with the freight rate reduction, but there are unanswered questions.

Why did the government take so long to make this announcement? Why is there still no legislation before the House? Why will the bill look so different than the recommendations of the Estey and Kroeger reports, which asked for a complete commercialization of the grain transportation industry? Why is the government delaying commercialization of grain transportation?

Farmers, grain companies and the railways all agree that a commercialized system of grain transportation would result in lower freight rates. Why would the government want to withhold further freight rate reductions by paying lip service to the commercialization of grain transportation in the west?

[Job Creation, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought forth some good ideas with his private member's motion. If we could use employment insurance, as the hon. member has decided, it would in fact not be used in a political way.

I want to draw members' attention to what the hon. member had to say about the headquartering of the gun registration in New Brunswick. There was nothing wrong with that in in itself. It outlined the principles of the hon. member's motion. However, the moment the government changed in New Brunswick there was some sort of threat that the office of registration should move. That clearly indicated to this controversy all across Canada, that EI is indeed being used for political purposes, which it should not be, simply because people from across Canada pay into this and there is nothing wrong in supporting regions of low unemployment with government offices.

In the province that I come from many things were moved out of the city of Regina into the smaller cities where it could be handled. Crop insurance is in Melville, and so on and so forth. Retirement is out of the city. It provides employment in the smaller areas of Saskatchewan. That point is good.

I want to mention what he had to say about having the road paved three times in front of his office. When I first came here a chap of a French dialect said to me “Monsieur Bailey, I want to tell you that in Ottawa we have two seasons.” I said “Oh, what are they?” He said “Winter and construction.” That stuck, and is quite true; we do spend a lot of money here. I would disagree with the hon. member, however, on the site of the national war museum. Aside from that, his points were very well taken.

The other day I briefly mentioned the fact that when young people in my constituency get the chance they jump to get on oil rigs. They work 12 hour shifts until the rig goes down and then they have to come home. Most of them qualify for EI benefits. However, if they are living with their mother and dad on a farm, if they do not have a permit book and are not registered as farmers, they do not qualify. That is an injustice. Everybody in here knows that. It is a misuse of funds. We should take advantage of this time in the House to tell the people in charge of EI that this is not a tax and should not be used as a tax. We need to make sure that everybody can qualify.

My hon. colleague, in speaking about his own constituency, said that he was well aware of the high employment rate and so on. I want to describe to the House a case that is before me at the present time of a terrible injustice for which no one is willing to lend support to correct.

I am aware of a 24 year old young man who has spent all his working time on the oil rigs. He had a very bad accident and can never return to the work he was doing. EI and Human Resources Development very promptly and very correctly provided funds to this intelligent young man to upgrade his skills in order to find work in the future and be able to earn enough money to pay child support which he had always paid.

Human Resources Development through EI got this man into training and he was doing well. However, another branch of government took away the funding for his training and sent it off for child support. He is now not only broke and desperate but, quite frankly, I think he is suicidal.

There is something wrong with government agencies working against one another. This is but one case. I know of several other cases. This issue should be examined. Many different departments have been approached, as well as the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and provincial officials. No response has ever been received on this huge problem.

The member talked about new job creation. I do not think anybody would argue with that if this was totally without political interference. I have no argument whatsoever that we could move many institutions from Ottawa to other parts of Canada and EI would be one of them. I do not think we should ever be found guilty of using this money as a political tool.

I do have trouble knowing the tremendous profit that goes into general revenue from this. I have no hesitation to agree with the government when it says that it needs a surplus in case of a shortfall but how much of a surplus does it need? The workers out there now consider this to be a tax and not an insurance.

The final point I want to raise relates to students.

I remember the first paying job I ever had. There was no EI around at that time. Young people may get their first job at Dairy Queen or McDonald's. When they get their first paycheque they see two big deductions. One is income tax and the other is EI. Income tax is taken off even though they are students, and they can never reclaim the EI deduction. We encourage our young people to find work, but there should be a declaration of some type which would limit the amount of the EI premiums they have to pay. It is a little disappointing for the 14, 15 or 16 year old who gets that first paycheque to see the amount of the deductions. After all, we have $27 billion sitting in Ottawa. We need to look at this in a big way because it is unfair.

I would like to commend the hon. member for his job creation motion. I would like to believe that this money would not be used for political purposes, but somehow I do not have any firm belief that would happen.

This is a non-votable motion. It is Monday morning and this is a private member's motion. Who cares. However, before we dismiss it totally I would say that there is meat in this motion which should be considered by both sides of the House.

I hope hon. members opposite and on this side of the House realize that corrections can be made to Canada's employment insurance system. They should listen and pay heed to the private member's motion and to some of the serious problems that I have brought forward this morning. I would hope that anyone watching today would pay heed as well.

[Grain Transportation, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's independent third party to monitor the overall efficiency of grain transportation will no doubt come up with the same recommendations as Mr. Estey and Mr. Kroeger.

Everyone knows that this Liberal caucus has been fighting over this issue for months. Why has the Minister of Transportation allowed government infighting to overrule the wishes of the stakeholders in the grain transportation?

[Grain Transportation, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the winter of 1996-97 accentuated a huge problem in grain transportation in western Canada. The Estey report, followed by the Kroeger report, made several recommendations, one of which was to put grain transportation on a totally commercial basis.

These reports recommended that grain companies and the railways should enter into contractual agreements for moving the grain to port. Why has the government decided virtually to ignore the major recommendations made by both Estey and Kroeger?