Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise as transport critic for the Bloc Québécois to speak on Motion M-242 put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. I shall read the motion again because it is important to understand its scope:
—That, in the opinion of the house, the government should, in cooperation with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, examine all measures to improve transportation between the island of Newfoundland and mainland Canada, including a fixed link and renewal of the Marine Atlantic ferry service.
We must also look back in history a little. I heard members refer to what Canada's constitutional law provided in connection with Newfoundland's entry into Confederation. Let us look at this together. It will help the people of Quebec and Canada who are watching to understand.
In 1949, when Newfoundland, now Newfoundland and Labrador, joined Confederation, it was granted special status under the Constitution, more specifically term 32(1) of the Terms of Union, which states that “Canada will maintain in accordance with the traffic offering a freight and passenger steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, which, on completion of a motor highway between Corner Brook and Port aux Basques, will include suitable provision for the carriage of motor vehicles”. That is what constitutional law provided.
Where do matters stand today? At present, Newfoundlanders travel to mainland Canada on Marine Atlantic ferries. Having been made a crown corporation in 1986, Marine Atlantic works in cooperation with Transport Canada under the terms of an agreement. Its 2005 annual report and 2005-09 business plan show that this crown corporation provides quality service and is cost-effective.
I would like to point out a few figures. There was a net profit in 2004-05. The corporation is doing well financially and has been posting gains since 2004-05. But good financial performance does not necessarily mean a company offers the best services. That is why, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, an advisory committee was created in 2004 to improve things. In March 2005, the committee submitted a report containing 41 recommendations to the federal Minister of Transport. I agree with some of my colleagues. Today, the member for St. John's East tabled a motion for more studies. I am sure that since I have a copy of the conclusions in the advisory committee's report, the member must also have a copy.
I would like to read the main recommendations submitted to the Minister of Transport in 2005: recognizing the essential nature of Marine Atlantic’s services; renewing Marine Atlantic’s governance structure; investing in Marine Atlantic’s fleet and phasing in three larger vessels between 2006 and 2011; improving Marine Atlantic’s efficiency by eliminating the drop-trailer service; improving the quality, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness of the service; improving relations with users and stakeholders through partnerships; passing savings and efficiencies on to users with a 15% rate reduction; stabilizing and predicting future rates based on inflation; stabilizing Marine Atlantic’s annual subsidy; and relocating Marine Atlantic’s head office to Port aux Basques.
I have quoted only a few of the 41 recommendations made by that advisory committee, which submitted its report to the Minister of Transport in 2005. That was not 20 years ago. This is 2007, so it has not even been two years since that report was submitted to the Minister of Transport. Today, the member for St. John's East says that the new Minister of Transport would agree to having studies done again. This is a matter of direct concern to me. Newfoundland and Labrador is a province, and an island, as we know. In Quebec, we have the Magdalen Islands. I quite understand that Newfoundlanders are having transportation problems. Earlier, my colleague from St. John's East said that air transportation is not what it used to be. There are problems with ferry service, and that is why a committee was created and recommendations were made directly to the Minister of Transport.
The people of the Magdalen Islands are in the same situation. They have transportation problems, especially in winter. Ferry service is not always as effective as they would like, and the air transportation companies do not provide the service that they would like to see.
So yes, the Bloc Québécois is aware of the problems that people who live on islands have. We agree.
The first recommendation that must be made, however, is to establish an effective ferry service. That is what they would like to see. That is what the people of the Magdalen Islands are asking for, to solve the transportation problem in the Magdalen Islands: increase the number of ferries, ensure that there are ferries in winter, and all of that. These are justified requests.
One of the main recommendations made in the report submitted to the Minister of Transport in 2005 was to invest in the Marine Atlantic fleet, to move gradually to a fleet with three larger vessels between 2006 and 2011. No one could oppose this.
Once again, what the member is proposing in his motion is that more studies be done. You will understand that we cannot support this. It has been barely two years since a committee made those same recommendations. I am not talking about the number of ships, I am talking about what the people of the Magdalen Islands are asking for when they tell us about their ineffective transportation services between the islands and the mainland.
Magdalen Islanders are experiencing the same problems as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am glad that a study was done there and that a committee made recommendations to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. What the Conservative member is saying in his motion today is that the studies are going to be redone. I have a real problem with that. He should have made specific demands in Parliament. We could have supported them to reinstate an effective service or establish a more effective ferry service, as provided for in the Canadian Constitution.
As I often say, it is all well and good to debate and talk here in this House, but maybe it is time to take action.
Understand that if the Bloc Québécois votes against this motion it is not because it is against the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who have a transportation problem. I am telling you: the Magdalen Islands are in the same situation. It is time to invest money and establish effective services.
We are pleased that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a committee made specific recommendations to increase the number of ships and improve quality of service and on-time performance. The committee also recommended that the governance structure of Marine Atlantic be renewed; that its efficiency be improved by no longer providing a drop-trailer service; that savings and profits be passed on to users through fare reductions; that future fares be stabilized and anticipated. We already know all these things.
Again, today's motion proposes to conduct new studies, but this is difficult to accept, because such studies have already been made. We would love to see the government commission a study for Magdalen Islanders, to review their transportation problems. Moreover, after looking at the findings of that study, we could ask that investments be made.
Today, the Conservative member, who witnessed these studies—even though they were conducted under the former Liberal government—is again asking that more studies be done. Instead, he should have asked that the recommendations of the committee that submitted its report to the Minister of Transport in 2005 be implemented. Today, we could be voting on a monetary request to settle the maritime transportation issue that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of course, hon. members must realize that the objective pursued by the Bloc Québécois is that of efficiency. We have to put a stop to all the talking. Enough is enough. It is time to act. We thought that this is what the Conservative government had in mind. But the motion presented by the member for St. John's East is asking for studies that have already been made. Today, he should have tabled a motion asking for investments. Then would have been pleased to support it. We would support a motion asking for studies if it was for the Magdalen Islands, which have not had the benefit of such studies. Again, we would have supported a government motion asking for money. However, we cannot support a new motion asking for more studies.