MERITS of the decision aside, last week’s announcement that the Farmer Rail Car Coalition will get the government hopper cars stands as the latest glaring example of Paul Martin’s failure to live up to a promise that he would make Parliament and parliamentarians more relevant to government decision making.
It does not diminish the FRCC victory or the strength of its case to say that.
The decision by transport minister Jean Lapierre, announced March 9 but likely made close to a month before that, ignores the recommendation of the House of Commons transport committee that the decision be delayed until accurate maintenance cost information is known.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
In fact, Lapierre did not even acknowledge the committee recommendation or explain why it was ignored, other than to say that after nine years it is time to move. He implied he was acting in accordance with principles endorsed by the transport committee, which is a stretch.
Lord knows, the almost nine years it took to finally get a government decision would suggest more delay was the last thing this file needed.
Still, the committee made a sensible point. Transport Canada has not completed a study on exactly how much it costs to maintain the cars nor on how much upgrade will be necessary in the fleet.
Those are crucial issues.
One of the main selling points for the FRCC is a promise to maintain the cars for no more than $1,500 annually, compared to a maintenance cost of more than $4,300 built into the revenue cap formula now used by the railways. It would be a saving for farmers, said FRCC promoters.
The transport committee merely said the practicality of that FRCC promise should be verified before a final decision was made.
“These figures must be ascertained and made public prior to any decision regarding disposal of the hopper car fleet,” said the committee report issued Feb. 21. All party representatives agreed on that point.
Committee chair and sometime-renegade Ontario Liberal MP Roger Gallaway said later the transport minister would ignore committee advice at his political peril.
The irony in all this is that when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership, Martin promised to elevate the importance of parliamentary committees and the power of MP voices.
He said it was his way of repairing the “democratic deficit” that presumably grew during a decade of Liberal majority government under Jean ChrŽtien.
In fact, the Martin government is going about democratizing the system in a very strange way. It systematically ignores the voice of Parliament and in particular, opposition MPs who represent 63 percent of Canadian voters.
Since it is a minority Parliament, the government routinely loses votes and ignores them. Last week, for example, the Commons agriculture committee voted to demand the government increase agriculture spending in the budget. Yawn.
The most amazing example is the government insistence it will continue the process of separating the trade bureaucracy from foreign affairs even though the House of Commons defeated the legislation meant to authorize the split.
It is a strange way to promote the power and relevance of Parliament. The FRCC decision may have been a good one but the way it was done didn’t do much for the democratic deficit.
