I listened to the Liberal member for Algoma—Manitoulin and he was very receptive to the idea. It is nice to see this kind of attitude from members on the other side of the House from time to time. He probably saw the benefit of such a policy with regard to ports.
I also have a third reason for taking an interest in this debate. Even though I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I was born in the riding of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. Specifically, I was in the Rivière-du-Loup section of the riding. When I was young, although I am still not all that old, a number of election campaigns were waged over the future of the port of Cacouna, what we locally call Gros-Cacouna.
I remember one Liberal MP at that time, now deceased, and also, it must be said, the former mayor of Rivière-du-Loup. The people must have been behind him because he was elected seven times in all. Something really interesting occurred, however. In just about every election, he promised he would get the port. He was a model of perseverance. After he finally got the port, he lost the next election.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has learned a lesson from this, and feels it is better to make promises than to follow through on them. I hope that is not the case. This was a typical situation, and one known to everyone in eastern Quebec.
I do not want to downplay the importance of the other gulf ports, but this was and still is, the most important south shore port, next to Quebec. For the region this is a port with a really important infrastructure. My honourable colleague's proposed solution is an appropriate one, because such an infrastructure cannot stand alone overnight the way things are at present.
The port is still the property of the federal government, which wanted to see it taken over by the local community. The bill presented by my colleague is a kind of compromise; it is like applying the principle of the community taking over an infrastructure of this size, while at the same time saying “Hold on, let us be realistic. This cannot be done so soon, just like that”.
It is therefore a matter of amending the Canada Marine Act to enable this community, which really wants to take over this port, but which also lacks the ability as things stand at the moment to develop it as it would.
Of course, I support my colleague's bill, but there is a project even longer in the developing than the port of Cacouna. It took even more elections. I am talking of the famous merchant marine policy.
The government has talked of it as long as I can remember, and I became interested in the policy very early on. This has been discussed since the second world war. During the war, Canada had one of the largest merchant marine and warfare fleets.
With three oceans, the longest seaway in the world and the presence of the largest market in the world, the United States, how is it that we still have to plead for a merchant marine policy, a transportation development policy?
Maritime transportation is the most advantageous, the most economical in economic terms, the least dangerous in ecological terms and the form of transportation that carries 80% of goods the world over.
Let us have a quick historical overview. A retired general spoke to me about the veterans. He gave me his point of view as to what had made Canada change direction after the war. There were thousands of people working in the shipping industry, in ports. Cabotage was booming. What happened?
I will briefly describe what happened. Tax havens began to appear in the marine sector. People legally use all sorts of ways to pay less for people working on ships, to avoid paying corporate taxes and so on.
Originally this was a result of unionization. At the time people did not want that. The government co-operated in that regard. This is old stuff. This led to unionization by an American group. In the end it turned into a big mess.
We have been talking about this issue for years. If we had had one more week last year my bill on shipbuilding would have been passed. So far, I have not introduced a new bill on shipbuilding because there has been a coalition.
The minister agreed to set up a committee bringing together union officials, employers and his own representative, with a mandate to report back to him. The minister has had this report for close to two months and he promised he would do something, but it takes time. Had my bill been passed the problems in shipyards would already have been solved.
Fortunately the government of Quebec is concerned about this issue, perhaps because of the associate minister of transport, Jacques Baril. He will soon be presenting a shipping policy within the framework of Quebec's jurisdictions.
This will revive the issue of coastal shipping on the St. Lawrence River. In this context the future is even brighter for the port of Cacouna, an important infrastructure that is solid, well designed and very well located. Shipping activity between ports on the St. Lawrence River in Quebec is one more argument in favour of this bill, in favour of an integrated federal policy.
Interprovincial and international trade comes under federal jurisdiction. Again, I was impressed this week to see all the people who are interested in this issue: pilots, exporters, carriers, shipowners, builders. One of the problems that cannot be overemphasized is that we need an integrated approach because, as far as I know, at least 12 departments are involved.
I appreciated the comments made by our colleague opposite and by members of the other parties on this issue. I can see that the debate is moving ahead. I remember Rosaire Gendron, who represented the riding of my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques some time ago. With patience and perseverance, he succeeded in having the port of Cacouna built.
I hope the bill introduced by my colleague will lead to a true policy for the development of small ports in Canada, and in Quebec, of course.
