Debates of March 22nd, 2000

Supply

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Reform Party member and I have a question for him.

I would like to know what he thinks of the cost-effectiveness of air carriers, whether it is Air Canada or Canadian. I have no doubt that air carriers are making money between Quebec City and Montreal, because the flights are full and reservations are required. The same goes for the Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Vancouver flights. There is no problem there, there is free competition and people must make reservations at least a few days in advance.

The problem is in the regions. My question to the Reform Party member is this: If a regional airport is not making money, if an air carrier keeps accumulating deficits in providing service between a region and a major centre, would the member and the Reform Party close the airport in that region?

I would like the hon. member to confirm to me that, regardless of how remote or sparsely populated the region is, it is the federal government's responsibility to keep these airports open and to maintain air transportation in these regions. This is my own point of view, but I believe the Reform Party's view is that if it is not profitable, then it should be closed. I would like the hon. member to confirm this to me.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our country is vast and has remote areas and many of these areas are accessible by airlines. At the end of the day, when we look at the whole issue, if there is no demand in many of those airports, the airports are underutilized. If there is nobody to use those airports, keeping them open does not become a feasible proposition.

Airports are part of the infrastructure and if one airline does not use them, others will. It all comes down to the fact that the airlines have been granted two years to provide these new services in order to create a network and methods for the efficient use of aircraft or the use of smaller aircraft so that the cost factor can be taken into account. There is no point in using big aircraft when there are no passengers. Smaller aircraft can be used. A fleet change can take place. These are the issues which need to be addressed.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will share my block of time with the Minister of National Revenue.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the opposition's motion that the government provide necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system and that it do so by working in conjunction with other levels of government and the private sector to plan, implement and fund such a system.

I will demonstrate that the government is already addressing this motion. I will use its leadership in promoting sustainable transportation as an example.

Sustainable transportation goes above and beyond the motion put forth by the opposition party. Sustainable transportation is all about providing Canadians from coast to coast with access to transportation which is not just safe, seamless and integrated but also is efficient and environmentally responsible.

As we all know, a strong transportation sector is the backbone of a competitive economy. However by its nature, transportation does have an impact on the environment. We see its effects every day from air and noise pollution to greenhouse gas emissions and the use of land and other natural resources. For example, the transportation sector is responsible for approximately 40% to 50% of some of Canada's emissions of smog-forming pollutants. It is also the single largest source of our greenhouse gas emissions.

Achieving sustainable transportation is a long term goal. There are no magic solutions. That is because transportation is vital to our economy. It supports Canada's trade and tourism and underpins our competitiveness as a nation. Transportation will always play an important role in bringing Canadians together and in uniting this great country. Yet as transportation grows, we cannot ignore issues of congestion, air quality and climate change if we are to continue to improve the quality of life for all Canadians.

Making our transportation system more sustainable is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. It is a responsibility shared among all levels of government and all segments of our society. The federal government's approach is to tackle sustainable transportation head on but in partnership with those who can offer solutions and with those who will be most affected.

A good example of this approach is illustrated by the leadership provided by this government in tackling the challenge of climate change. Transportation is the single largest source of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions accounting for 25% of the total and it is growing quickly. If we continue on our present path, emissions will be 32% above 1990 levels by 2010 and 50% higher by 2020. I should point out that we are not alone in this. Climate change is a key issue facing transportation in all developed countries of the world.

What is causing this growth? A large part is due to road vehicles which account for 70% of all transportation emissions. This also means that the actions of individual Canadians, and that includes all of us in this House who drive, can make a difference.

Despite continued improvements in technology which reduce emissions and make vehicles more efficient, the numbers of cars and trucks on the road and the distances we drive are growing rapidly. In the freight sector shipments by air and truck are expected to double in the next 20 years while freight shipped by more efficient means such as rail and marine will likely grow very slowly.

The issues and solutions are complex. In freight, shippers must balance costs, time and service needs which vary depending on the product and the distance involved. For consumers, how we choose to travel depends on factors such as time, accessibility, cost, convenience and personal preference. Thus moving to a more integrated and efficient transportation system, one that maintains public safety and mobility and supports our growing economy but is also polluting, requires both leadership and partnership, the kind of leadership the government has shown.

In 1998 the Minister of Transport along with his provincial and territorial colleagues created the transportation climate change table to identify and evaluate options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The table comprised 25 diverse stakeholders including: local, provincial and federal governments; domestic and foreign vehicle manufacturers; petroleum and alternative fuel producers; carriers, including truckers, railways, airlines and shipping; environmentalists; and consumers. This very diverse group of interests came together because they recognized they have a real role to play in finding practical solutions.

This unique initiative provided a comprehensive and holistic look at our transportation system. Few countries in the world have undertaken such an exercise involving such a diverse range of interests. This group of stakeholders recently produced its final report which identified over 100 possible options to improve transportation. From their work it is clear that there is no single solution.

Canada's urban centres are important as they account for over half of our transportation emissions and face some of the greatest congestion pressures. The table studied over 30 different strategies to improve the efficiency of the urban transportation system.

A key strategy in many cities involves expanding the role of public transit. Improving transit infrastructure and services and expanding facilities to link transit and other options such as cars, rail and air are important.

Strategies need to be co-ordinated across municipalities in a region and integrated with land use plans at the local level. A leading example of this approach is the greater Vancouver regional district which co-ordinates transportation planning and services across a number of municipalities. The new liveable region strategic plan integrates land use and transportation planning over the next 20 years. The province is providing a portion of the taxes from fuel sales in the city to fund transportation improvements. This is one example of the kinds of action taking place in urban centres across Canada.

The table considered options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the movement of goods. New technologies and operating practices offer potential. For example, new trucking technologies using satellites, electronic speed monitors and advanced tires along with better driver training can reduce fuel use by 15% to 20%, cutting costs and pollution.

The table explored opportunities for improving the seamlessness of the movement of goods throughout the system. For example, the railways and trucking industry are now moving from being competitors to being partners in providing shippers with better choices. Both Canadian Pacific's Iron Highway and Canadian National's Roadrailer are integrating truck and rail, offering lower costs and less pollution.

Canada is leading in the development of many new technologies to reduce emissions from road vehicles. New fuels such as natural gas, ethanol from grain, wood biomass and eventually fuel cells, in which Canada is a world leader, hold great promise. New vehicle designs using lightweight materials will improve vehicle efficiency. The challenge will be to encourage consumers to purchase these new technologies as they become available over the next 10 years.

Because the North American automotive market is so highly integrated we will need to work with vehicle manufacturers, fuel providers and the United States to harmonize our standards. For example, the table studied a target of a 25% improvement in fuel economy by 2010 from new cars and light trucks harmonized with the United States.

This is just a snapshot of some of the options examined. More work is needed and the table's work is being reviewed by federal and provincial governments as part of the process launched by first ministers to develop a national climate change strategy.

In conclusion, the federal government has been acting on the opposition party's motion. We have been busy giving Canadians strong leadership and finding practical solutions to make our transportation system better. In the recent budget the government announced up to $2.6 billion for a new infrastructure program in partnership with the provinces and municipalities. Improvements to the national highway system and green infrastructure projects such as urban transit are potential areas for investment.

In addition, the budget announced over $500 million to invest in climate change solutions such as the development of new technologies. Canadian technology such as our past support for Canadian successes like the Ballard fuel cell and Iogen's new ethanol process will play a key role in helping not just Canada but all countries to achieve more sustainable transportation.

All countries of the world are grappling with these important but complex issues, but the government is determined to provide leadership and to work with the provinces, local governments, industry and all Canadians to find common solutions.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I must admit I am a bit confused as to the concern of the government that transportation is strictly an environmental issue.

I suggest to the government representative that transportation is much more than worrying about the environment. That is a component. That is a concern, but there is much more to an integrated, seamless transportation system than how it affects the environment. How much of the $2.6 billion over four years will be going for highway infrastructure?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I used one component of the entire holistic transportation system to give the House an example of what we are doing as a government. We are working feverishly with a great number of partners in this country as well as in other countries on many areas to improve our system for this century. However I cannot take the time in 10 minutes to explain every one of them.

We were talking about $2.6 billion. The hon. member must realize that we are talking about partners. When it comes to infrastructure programs we are hoping that the provincial government and the municipalities involved will help to make the decision, but in many cases it will really be the municipality that will make the decision. We are hoping that the provincial government will also play a major role.

Three partners will be involved. Who knows? Maybe in some areas the private sector might even become involved and there will be four partners working on improving our present system. Basically this is how I hope most of the money will be utilized.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the government member. There are two points to this question coming from Atlantic Canada.

In the 1980s and early 1990s the Conservative government withdrew and cut passenger rail service in many important centres in the Atlantic region, notably Saint John, New Brunswick, and the rail line from my own community of Sydney to Halifax. The prime minister of the day challenged us to show that they were profit making and indeed they were. They were cut anyway.

Today there are many seniors who live in my community who have to make the route from Sydney to Halifax for medical treatment. They are afraid to drive on the twinned highways. They are afraid of the big trucks on these roads, which leaves them with one option, a monopolistic bus route.

My question is twofold. First, in the $2.6 billion is there a plan to return passenger rail service to these communities? Transport 2000 has recognized the importance of that. Petitions have been filed on behalf of those communities recognizing its importance.

Second, the current private rail system which exists to ship goods from Sydney to Halifax is in real danger now that the federal government has decided to close down the coal mines in Cape Breton. There is essentially very little product now since coal is not there to be transported. Yet we recognize the importance of that infrastructure if we are to build a new economy. It may require some government subsidization until the new economy is built. Will the government commit to that?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the east coast of Canada has introduced a concern of mine. I come from Thunder Bay. My riding is Thunder Bay—Atikokan. Many of the highways in our part of the country are in deplorable condition and not very safe. Many people from the city of Thunder Bay drive an extra 200 miles and cut across the United States in order to come to eastern Canada because of the condition of the highways. We in the government are concerned about this.

[An hon. member]

What about the Trans-Canada Highway?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

The Trans-Canada Highway is involved. The member talked about railways. He will hear very shortly a presentation being made by the Minister of Transport regarding a plan offered by the Government of Canada concerning the revitalization our rail passenger service.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the official opposition, the Reform Party, on the question of road infrastructure in Canada.

We all remember that back in 1993 we were involved in an electoral campaign. As a party we spoke at that time about the question of a global economy. We also spoke about the question of knowledge based industry and the transition Canada was going through to set the foundation for a brand new economy and to make sure that as a society we would be able to compete in the global marketplace.

As early as 1993 our party talked about the reasons why it was important for an industrialized country such as Canada to have a very good infrastructure. We spoke about an infrastructure program and the importance of such a move bearing in mind and knowing that when we talked about infrastructure we talked first and foremost about quality of life. We also talked about the competition faced by our industry in the national marketplace and in the international marketplace. We talked as well about economic development.

We all remember that back in 1993 the Liberal Party was talking about such a reality. Even though we spoke about a global economy and a brand new economy, we recognized at that time that the question of a good Canadian transportation system was not only key but a cornerstone to good economic growth.

Shortly after we formed the government we went ahead with the Canadian infrastructure program. I know a lot was done for roads at that time but we also did a lot for the infrastructure of the country as a whole. Then came a program review which was led by one of my colleagues at the transport department. Following that we came out with a brand new Canadian policy of which we are very proud to position the Canadian transportation system for the new era and to ensure that it would help our corporations to compete better in the international marketplace.

Following the program review we came forward with a policy called the national transportation policy which enabled the grassroots people in all communities across Canada to be responsible for the infrastructures in their communities. They are well positioned to know their needs and what exactly to do to have efficient infrastructures that work in favour of the corporations and enterprises in their local communities.

The issue raised by the official opposition party is a fundamental one. It is directly related to economic growth as well as tourism.

It is fundamental because of the size of Canada's public road system, which takes in 900,000 kilometres. The national system alone accounts for 25,000 kilometres. These 25,000 kilometres—the national highway system—represent 3% of all Canada's roads and carry 30% of all traffic in the country.

As members know, maintenance of the highway system is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Of the national highway system, 1,137 kilometres are the exclusive responsibility of the Government of Canada.

In recent years, there has been much talk about not just what we should do to improve the quality of roads in the system but also how to make the system more competitive. The Standing Committee on Transport was given a mandate in this regard in June of 1997. The conclusions were fairly positive. There was talk of renewing the highway system in order to promote the economy and trade and, in keeping with our philosophy, tourism.

The committee's final report in February 1998 recommended that the Canadian government provide special funding for this purpose.

It will also be remembered that, in addition to all these activities, which showed very definite leadership on the part of the Canadian government, all provincial and territorial premiers called on the Canadian government to become involved in the national highway system.

All this was followed by the October 1999 throne speech, which said, and I quote:

The Government will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach—by the end of the year 2000—agreement on a five-year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country.

Already, in the throne speech, which is really the government's program and vision for the years to come, there was a willingness to move forward in ensuring that the competitiveness of what happens to be a crucial element of any self-respecting country, particularly an industrialized country that belongs to the G-7 and G-8, is restored and maintained.

We know what happened. Members opposite talk about leadership, and I think we have definitely show leadership, we have taken concrete measures. First with the 1993 infrastructure works program and the various consultations that took place, with the throne speech and, finally, with the 2000 budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

In budget 2000, we announced that we were going ahead with an infrastructure program, a new one of course. The details of this program have yet to be negotiated and discussed with the provinces by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who, as members know, is responsible for that program.

We already know that an interesting and important part of the program will deal with physical infrastructures, including road and municipal infrastructures.

Another important element when talking about developing, fixing and upgrading these infrastructures—I stressed how important this was for trade and tourism—is to target certain corridors. We know there are specific trade and transportation corridors.

I am proud to announce today that the Canadian government has again played a leadership role. As we know, it has established an interdepartmental working group to ensure that these various corridors could be specifically analyzed and that, together with our various partners and not all by ourselves, we can develop a strategic framework promoting a better relationship with our main partner, the United States. In this respect, the Canadian government has once again demonstrated vision.

Shortly before Christmas I had the opportunity to replace my colleague in transport at a worldwide congress that took place in Kuala Lumpur. The people there were discussing the future and the financing of roads because we are all facing exactly the same situation. We want to make sure we have a good infrastructure in order to better compete in the global marketplace. From what I saw there, Canada is one of the leaders in the world.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the Minister of National Revenue's comments about trade corridors, which happens to be a pet project of mine.

Canada has accommodated preclearance to ease the traffic flow of people to the United States and through Canada to the United States. What commitment is his department prepared to make to ensure that there is the ease of flow of people who come to Canada through preclearance in the United States, not only by air but by rail and road as well?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is so interesting I am tempted to ask you how many hours I have to answer.

When we talk about customs, which is what my colleague is referring to, we are talking about risk management. When we refer to the shared border with the United States, it is the longest shared border of any two countries in the world. We need a very good risk management but, at the same time, as the member pointed out, we need to make sure that corporations will be able to do business as easily as possible in each country. However, at the same time Canada customs needs to ensure that it applies the customs legislation.

I am proud to say that not too long ago we went ahead with some pilot projects in that field. I refer members to the CANPASS program, which they probably know about. The CANPASS in Windsor, Ontario is a pilot project and works very well.

I am pleased to report that we are working on a joint CANPASS with the United States at Sarnia, Ontario. The philosophy that we are proceeding with is good management with the experience of human resources in customs who, by the way, are doing marvellous work for Canadian society. We are using the human resources of the department and we are also using technology. CANPASS is a soft technology, as we say, so we want to make sure in the near future to proceed with such a philosophy.

I am pleased to report to the House we will soon be moving ahead with the blueprint initiative, the plan to modernize Canadian customs.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the minister.

No matter how much money we pour into roads, because of our weather and all kinds of other things, they constantly have to be fixed; also truck traffic is so heavy, it ruins the roads. Why not focus more on rail transportation and shipping?

In Quebec, we have the St. Lawrence River, which is hardly used. We have train going by all the time, but hardly used. It is fine to invest in roads, but why not consider a different approach to transportation, one that would be a lot less expensive and much more adequate?

I have one more question. The minister is familiar with the riding of Matapédia—Matane. He knows that the Matane airport was turned over to the municipality. Business people say about the airport “It does not make sense. It is closed. It is hopeless”.

Since the municipality cannot bear all the airport maintenance and repair costs on its own, could the government provide some assistance to regional airports?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of the Seaway, in fact the St. Lawrence River, as well as the railway system, I think the member is essentially referring to intermodal transport.

I believe that, across Canada, intermodal transport is well established. I am proud to say that several years ago, Economic Development Canada, of which I am responsible for the regions of Quebec, took part in an intermodal transport pilot project using both the railway system and trailer trucks on the roads. The results were quite positive.

I would like to stress that the railway system and the waterways are used a lot for commercial traffic. The folks in the Port of Montreal would not be very happy to hear what the hon. member is saying because right now it is one of the largest container traffic centres in eastern Canada, and perhaps the whole of the country. It is extremely competitive. Naturally, it is very strategically located. It handles an enormous volume.

As for the question about airports, because of my role in regional development, I was involved in implementing the national airport policy. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the objective of the policy—an objective which was commendable and supported by the public—was to ensure that communities could take back control and ownership of their own infrastructures, because they are better placed than governments to manage them and develop them with an eye to real needs.

I am happy to report today that the national airport policy was well implemented. The transfer went smoothly and I think that today the regions are proud to be able to work in partnership with the Canadian government.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say that, even if today is an opposition day for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion.

Essentially, the motion states that, in the opinion of the House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.

This motion is not votable. If it were, we would vote against it.

The federal government does not have jurisdiction over all transportation infrastructures; it has jurisdiction solely over the interprovincial system. The federal government does not have to implement such a system everywhere for everyone. It would be far better off financing an infrastructure program to be implemented by the provinces. I shall have the opportunity to come back to each of these points later in my speech.

In the area of transportation, the federal government has totally abandoned the regions since it came into power. Urging it to play a lead role in this area is ensuring that the regions will be left out. That is the Bloc Quebecois position as far as this Reform Party motion is concerned.

There are different types of transportation: land, marine and air. When we speak of land transportation, there is the highway system and the rail system, VIA Rail included. When we think of the marine system, we think of Fisheries and Oceans, the Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence River, the St. Lawrence Seaway. When we think of air transportation, there is the entire Canadian aviation system.

In the 20 minutes allocated to me, I am going to try to develop each of these themes. Yes, land transportation is a federal responsibility; it has the responsibility to be directly involved in the maintenance of interprovincial highways.

In my riding, the riding of Charlevoix, Highway 389 links Baie-Comeau and Labrador. It dates back to the time of the construction of the hydroelectric facilities, Manic 2 and 3, Outardes 3 and 4, and Manic 5. After Manic 5, this highway was extended toward Labrador.

This means that, in the region of Fermont and Farley, a person can come back from Labrador right to Baie-Comeau. Labrador and Quebec's highway 138 are linked by an interprovincial highway.

I made a number of representations as the member for Charlevoix and the one responsible for that part of the road network. I made representations to the Minister of Transport and to the transport commission, with the support of the mayor of the Manicouagan RCM and of the Baie-Comeau chamber of commerce.

The minister replied that, unfortunately, he did not have any money left, that a financial restructuring was going on and that the objective was to achieve a zero deficit. This is why the SHIP program was abolished. That program had been established under the Conservatives. Its objective was to maintain and improve our road network, but it was eliminated by the Liberals.

I was listening to the minister. He has done all kinds of acrobatics to extol the virtues of his government, a government that axed all the programs. Whether it is VIA Rail, the interprovincial road network, the maritime or air transportation network, the results have been catastrophic for programs in the transportation sector.

Highway 138 is the only road linking Quebec City to the Lower North Shore region. Highway 138 stops in Baie-Sainte-Catherine, where it intersects with the Saguenay River, and vehicles must board a ferry owned by the Société des traversiers du Québec.

Recently, the Quebec Minister of Transport Jacques Baril commissioned a study, which showed that it a bridge could be built between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac for the modest sum of $370 million. I emphasize the word modest, because the federal government spent $2 billion to build a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It spent $2 billion on a population smaller than that of the North Shore, with less development than the North Shore. The North Shore has all the natural resources, both forestry and mining resources. In short, everything comes in and out of our area by truck.

I believe that this matter needs to be a priority for the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, in Ottawa. Every time the federal government injects one dollar—I am again using the same example—if the federal government spent $2 billion to build the bridge between New Brunswick and PEI, 25 cents out of every dollar invested came from Quebec.

This means that $500 million of Quebecers' taxes went into the Prince Edward Island bridge. Since we have continued to pay our taxes to Ottawa, and will do so as long as we are not a sovereign country, it would therefore be a good thing if the federal government were to help the Province of Quebec with the project to build the bridge between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac. There is unanimity on this project in the Charlevoix region.

The minister of revenue spoke of the road infrastructure program. This is a desired program, of course, and one that should continue to exist. Unfortunately, what the minister has neglected to mention—and we know there are always two sides to a coin—is that he has put $2.5 billion into this budget over 6 years, which is $100 million for the year 2000. Yet, for three three or four years running they have been announcing that there would be an infrastructure program for this year, and this created expectations among the provincial premiers.

The premiers met in Quebec City to tell the federal government that it should put money into the highway infrastructure program. The government provides the funding for highway infrastructure and the premier of each province is responsible for administration of the program. The provinces should be running this program. Here too, we can imagnie what the expectations of municipalities were.

There are 52 municipalities and two Indian reserves between Petite-Rivière-Saint-François and Baie-Comeau in the riding of Charlevoix. If I take all the expectations and requests of the municipalities and RCMs from Petite-Rivière-Saint-François to Baie-Comeau, it adds up to more than $100 million worth of federal government assistance under the infrastructure program.

The $100 million approved for this year is for all of Canada. It is a drop in the bucket. It will create expectations and disappointment. There are mayors who have been given responsibilities by the federal and provincial governments; furthermore, some municipalities were asked to contribute financially to achieving a zero deficit.

Unfortunately, it is always the individual citizen, the individual voter and taxpayer who, year after year, watches his tax bill grow with no corresponding increase in services. It is the same for school boards. The provincial government cut their allowable expenses. The provincial government had to make cuts because Quebec had lost billions of dollars in transfer payments.

It wanted to transfer responsibilities to municipalities and school boards. The school boards, whose expenses did not qualify, were forced to levy a school tax.

I tell anyone who earns $65,000 a year and claims to net only $30,000 that he or she is mistaken. To determine what my net income is, when I do my income tax, I look at how much I earned, then I take my bank book and check how much I have left, because I pay not only income tax, but also federal, provincial, municipal and school taxes, not to mention the GST and the TVQ.

Over 60% of my salary is gone in taxes. I have a right to expect the federal government to give me something in return.

Why does Quebec want to separate? Why does Quebec want to achieve independence? Because it wants to control its own destiny, manage its own money and look after its own services.

Let us talk about VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois has a position regarding VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois is demanding that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport be complied with. The government must not act precipitously. It must start with a franchising pilot project.

Once that has been done, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the Montreal-Jonquière, Montreal-Senneterre and Montreal-Gaspé lines be fully maintained and that their maintenance be guaranteed for the future. To that end, the Bloc Quebecois demands that $170 million in government subsidies be allocated as a priority to the franchisees who make a commitment to operate the lines that are not very profitable.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the allocation of lines be made in a balanced fashion, so that lines with a high potential for profits are not the only ones allocated, since it would leave those lines that are unappealing. The Bloc Quebecois will make sure that this government does not download its responsibilities onto the municipalities by overlapping on the basis of a partnership. It ought not, for instance, trying to hand railway stations over to municipalities against their wishes.

The Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the fate of these 120 VIA Rail employees from Quebec and, considering their expertise, demands that they be hired on a priority basis by the new franchisees.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the head office of a new VIA Rail remain in Montreal and that the Montreal maintenance centre remain opened and keep its staff. That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to VIA Rail.

I would also like to talk about the marine transportation system. Some mentioned the fact that we have such a system. The projects of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for the coast guard, fell through for the most part. I am referring to the Minister of Transport's policy regarding the privatization of ports. I am also referring to the privatization of the ports of Baie-Comeau, Matane, Rimouski and Rivière-du-Loup.

These ports are not profitable for the federal government and it wants to transfer these infrastructures to municipalities and RCMs. Municipal or regional taxes are not supposed to be used to maintain an airport or a port. The federal government brought these infrastructures into this world and maintaining them should be its responsibility. Now it wants to hand them over to municipalities. This makes absolutely no sense.

I think the federal government should retain ownership of these infrastructures, that is airports and ports, and ask local authorities to manage them.

When we say that the federal government's plans with regard to marine transportation fell through, let us not forget the infamous icebreaking project where the federal government tried to charge $68,400 in fees to ferry operators, shipowners, industries and the Société des traversiers du Québec.

In this case, we are inclined to think the minister was floating a trial balloon. Faced with opposition from the Bloc Quebecois, the shipowners and the industry, the minister caved in.

In a riding like mine, there are six ferries: the Île-aux-Coudres-to-Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive ferry, the Rivière-du-Loup-to-Saint-Siméon ferry, the Tadoussac-to-Baie-Sainte-Catherine ferry, the Escoumins-to-Trois-Pistoles ferry, the Forestville-to-Rimouski ferry, and the Baie-Comeau-to-Matane-and-Godbout ferry. Everything is dependent on these ferries and tourism development.

Now moving to the air transport structure, I could spend several hours on this topic. Air service in Canada is in a shambles. When the minister decided, last summer, to strike a deal with Gérald Schwartz, the president of Onex—who is a well known contributor to the Liberal Party—people in Quebec and Canada got worried. The minister said the goal was to reorganize the air industry. The deal with Onex smacked of influence peddling.

We went through a period of turbulence. The minister jumped without a parachute. How he was going to land was everybody's guess. This whole matter caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in the personnel at both Air Canada and Canadian. Inter-Canadian went bankrupt; it is no longer in operation. Faced with the uncertainty created among regional carriers, Inter-Canadian was grounded by a lack of passengers.

Airport privatization is a kind of Trojan horse, or a white elephant. It is not the regional administration's job to administer such an infrastructure. I have nothing against the management itself, but it ought not to own it. This is the case for the airports of Baie-Comeau, Forestville and Saint-Irénée. Let the responsibility be given to a local company, the municipalities or the RCMs, but it is the federal government that is responsible for these infrastructures and for transportation safety.

Hon. members will also recall that the federal government has given Nav Canada the responsibility to administer the airports and deal with their deficits. The Baie-Comeau airport had an annual deficit of $1.2 million. According to Nav Canada, it was going to deal with this, that it was a deficit problem. It closed down the control tower, and did away with air controller positions, as well as the fire protection service. This service was handed over to the Pointe-Lebel municipality's volunteer firefighters.

Today we can see that the Nav Canada cuts were to the detriment of the passengers. Last year, Nav Canada had a surplus of $65 million, which was turned over to Air Canada and to Canadian, the major carriers. Why was this extra $65 million not reinvested into airline safety? If they do not want to reopen the Baie-Comeau control tower and give us air controllers, let them at least give us FIS, flight information service.

Airport safety is of great concern to us, with the Air Satellite crash at Baie-Comeau, with Nordair at Sept-Iles, with another crash at Gaspé. There have been three plane crashes in eastern Quebec within eight months.

There is much I could say on this. I will perhaps have the opportunity to get back to it for questions and answers.

In my opinion, things are always done better if we do them ourselves. The federal government should remain the owner of the infrastructures, that is the airports and ports. The federal government would remain responsible for all of these buildings, these infrastructures, and the local administration would look after administering them.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member's intervention. He spoke of a coin and said that every coin has two sides to it. Then he went on with his remarks about that coin.

What the hon. member failed to mention is that coin belongs to the Canadian taxpayer. That coin is held in trust by the federal government and when we have enough coins in the pot, then and only then has the federal government time and time again issued a promise through subsequent budgets to the Canadian taxpayer that 50 cents of every dollar would go to social programs and that 50 cents would go to tax cuts and reducing our national debt.

First, I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that coin does belong to the Canadian taxpayer and that the great province of Quebec has the opportunity and enjoys every advantage with every region in this country to be a part of our country and to have all the coins necessary, equally so with every province in the country, to the benefit of each and every one of the member's constituents and every Quebecer.

Second, the hon. member spoke of the debacle in the airline industry. I am certain that the hon. member understands and will apologize. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Transport of which I have the privilege of being the chair. He was a member of the committee when we went through six weeks of intense hearings to produce, if you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, a report on the restructuring of the airline industry that was endorsed by every party in the House. That report and study was so successful—

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

And the NDP?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, the NDP had reservations. I stand corrected. The NDP has reservations about many things.

What is important with that study is that we came together as a committee with all members of the House. We produced a study that was praised for recognizing the importance of protecting the consumer, ensuring that not only were we protecting the consumer but ensuring that regional services would be maintained, ensuring that the customer would benefit from what we like to refer to as competition in the airline industry, that those who work for the airlines, the pilots and people who labour each and every day to make sure that those airlines fly and fly safely, are protected against any kind of monopolization of the industry.

The hon. member knows we worked very hard and we produced a good report. It was accepted, praised and then adopted by a minister who, to the chagrin of the hon. member opposite who knows, had great pride in the work we did as a committee. He has produced legislation which we hope next week we will be able to put forward at second reading in the House and then send it back to the committee for even further study to ensure that the airline industry in this country is serving our country well.

I wonder if the hon. member would stand and say that the member for Hamilton West, the chair of the committee, is right in that the study was important and it did produce the results that were expected by our constituents in either one of our ridings.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for his question, which has two components.

Both sides talked about the two sides of a coin. I was alluding, of course, to the Minister of National Revenue, a “little guy from Charlevoix”, a “little guy from the Malbaie”, who gave his version, which is a Canadian version.

It is hard to keep track of what is going on in Charlevoix. What my constituents want to know is: what will happen to the Pointe-au-Pic wharf, the Saint-Irénée airport, and to Baie-Comeau? This is what they want to know. They are not interested in long speeches on international issues, in all that rhetoric by people who do not know what to say. They want to know what is going on in the federal government. We pay taxes and get nothing in return.

The unemployed pay taxes and contribute to the employment insurance program, but they are not even covered. We pay taxes, but what do we get in return from the federal government? This is what people want to know. We pay taxes to the Quebec government, but in return we have a road network, a health system, an education system. These are concrete things.

Back home, we have only one airport and one wharf left, and now the federal government is about to privatize them. What will the government do with our taxes? This is the first component.

I also congratulate the hon. member because, as chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, he does an excellent job and listens to all political parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, which stated its position. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who is our transport critic, did an excellent job with me in proposing recommendations. Some of our recommendations are found in the committee report, and the Bloc Quebecois also tabled a minority report.

Of course, the Standing Committee on Transport is there to hear witnesses, to improve Canada's transportation system. However, things must not be done only behind closed doors and in committee. The minister must now implement the report's recommendations, so that things will work.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Charlevoix, who when he spoke in defense of his voters was almost seething with rage. I understand that.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

There was love too.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

There was love too. People who live in isolated areas like his and mine have the impression that the government wants to deprive us of all means of communication. Communications are airports and also wharves.

The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Does he have the impression, like me, that the government does not care about isolated areas? It takes good care of big cities like Toronto, Calgary and, above all, Shawinigan, but it is as if it wanted to cut people off. And the best way to do that is to cut off their communications, closing their airports and their seaports.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Matapédia—Matane for his question. The member for Chicoutimi agreed with his question.

The member for Chicoutimi is not a Montrealer, he is a fellow who knows the people in the regions well. Someone who is in shape can bicycle from Montreal to Ottawa. In Montreal, they have means of transportation, such as buses, trains, airplanes, taxis and cars.

In the regions, it is ten hours by car to travel the 950 kilometres from my place to Ottawa. There is a port and airport infrastructure in Baie-Comeau. There is an airport, which we must keep. It is very expensive to travel from Baie-Comeau to Montreal. Right now, we are worried about whether we will have one regional carrier or two.

Recently, I was speaking with the representative of a regional carrier and he told me that it was hard to make any money because there were not enough passengers. But there are not enough passengers because of the cost. It is the chicken and the egg. When it is necessary to fly from Baie-Comeau to Quebec City for professional services or health care, it costs a fortune, but there is no alternative because it is 450 kilometres by car. There are many so-called captive passengers who have to fly from Baie-Comeau to Quebec City, and they do not even get same day service.

We will never agree to the federal government closing our airports and we demand that it provide the regions with the same services major centres get.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks, I ask members for unanimous consent to delay the bells for the vote until I finish my 10 minute speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to allow for an extension?