Madam Speaker, last Friday, I asked the transport minister the following question:
Is the minister aware that the new radar facility of Bernières. . . does not work between the 241st and the 247th degrees, although all of the air traffic between Quebec City and Montreal uses that corridor?
What was the minister's answer? The decision was made a while ago, and other cities have lost their radar control terminal and safety was the basic criterion.
My question had nothing to do with the timing of the decision, nor the name of other cities that might be subjected to the same fate, or even the criteria that led to this decision.
I know for a fact that on November 27, 28 and 29, 1993 calibration flights were undertaken to test the Bernières radar facility. I do not have the report in hand, but I am aware of some of the conclusions: first, the area between 241 and 247 degrees does not come under primary coverage; second, the primary north-east coverage of the airport is poor.
Clearly, what it means is that between 241 and 247 degrees, the Bernières radar, which will take over after the Quebec airport radar control terminal has moved, at the latest on September 1st, will automatically be disconnected to avoid ground interference. Planes between Quebec City and Montreal all use this corridor. That means that for a few minutes these planes disappear. How can the minister believe that I can be satisfied with his answer when he says, and I quote:
There is no doubt in my mind that the transfer of the control terminal from Quebec City to Montreal will not jeopardize safety.
The fact that he did not answer my question, even though it dealt with public safety, gives rise to all kind of speculations, including the notion that this could be revenge against French-speaking air controllers who fought for language rights 15 years ago.
My supplementary related to the fact that, in his letter to the Official Opposition critic for Transport, the minister claimed that his civil servants' decision was based on a recommendation of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. In my supplementary, I reminded the minister that a report prepared for his department by an American group of experts, the Sypher-Mueller group, recommended not only that the Quebec City and North Bay facilities remain open, but that they be expanded.
Again, the question is quite simple: Which American experts are we to believe? Those from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration whom the minister vaguely alluded to, totally out of context, or those hired by his department to carry out a specific study on the specific project to centralize the terminal control units of Regina, Halifax, Saskatoon, Quebec City, North Bay and Thunder Bay. The latter group unanimously recommended that the facilities in Quebec City and North Bay not be closed.
I am not satisfied with the minister's answer when he keeps arguing that the same criteria apply to all units and emphasizing the fair and equitable way in which all decisions are made.
My question was an important one. It questioned the very basis of the Department of Transport's decision to close down the control terminal in Quebec City.
I deduce from the answers to these two questions that the minister cannot give the people of Quebec, the Association des gens de l'air, the aircrews, the flight attendants and the members of this House the assurance that the new radar facility in Bernières is capable of taking over from the unit in Quebec City. The minister also failed to demonstrate to the people of the Quebec region that the decision to close this unit is based on hard facts provided by the experts. This leaves the door open for all manner of interpretation.