Debates of Feb. 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Transportation between the Island of Newfoundland and Mainland Canada

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put forward this motion on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are very anxious to improve the transportation system in our province.

Everyone will notice that the motion makes reference to the examination of all measures to improve transportation links. It stands to reason that if we, as an island province, are to realize our social and economic potential, then we need to examine the air, the water and the land transportation. Lately, of course, we are even examining under the land, which is very novel, indeed.

At one time, Newfoundland was strategically located with respect to air travel. Geographically, of course, we were a stepping stone for air travel between North America and Europe. People in places like Gander, Stephenville and Goose Bay earned their livelihoods on Newfoundland's strategic location. However, that is not the case today because modern jet aircraft no longer need these locations for service and, therefore, bypass these communities.

Combined with that reality is the fact that Air Canada is no longer truly a national carrier. These days Air Canada is just another commercial airline that happens to carry the country's name. It only goes where it will make money and very often it will go only where it can make an awful lot of money.

Air Canada also plays a large role on the world stage and, in competition between domestic and international air travel, our province is generally the loser. However, that is enough on Air Canada, which is an ongoing battle, and I will now talk about the gulf ferry service.

The gulf ferry service is our constitutionally guaranteed sea connection with the rest of Canada. For us, the gulf ferry service is an essential part of the Trans-Canada Highway, linking our section of the Trans-Canada to other sections crossing the nation. It is essential for getting fresh produce from all over North America to the supermarket shelves.

The complaints about the service are legion. It is usually crowded and messy, it is hard to get good sleeping accommodations and often it is unpredictable as well. Needless to say, numerous studies have pointed out the inadequacies of that system and there is hardly a Newfoundlander or a tourist in the country who cannot give chapter and verse about the shortcomings of that service. Therefore, an improved and upgraded system is very much in order, which is why this motion has been presented today.

We have all heard about the fixed link, which is mentioned in the motion, the fixed link between the island and southern Labrador connecting to Quebec's North Shore Highway and on to central Canada. That is an excellent project to pursue in the long term but we need to look at the fact that it costs $1.7 billion to even talk about a fixed link. In the long term, it is a very good project to talk about but even if the project were started today, that kind of a project would take approximately 11 years to finish. However, in the short term, we need a vastly improved gulf ferry service.

I have raised the issue with my colleagues in caucus and I have received a very encouraging response. I am very pleased that the minister of transport is committed to improvements in that service and judging from the conversations that I have had with the minister, I feel confident that these improvements are on the way to being initiated.

The minister of transport should be commended. I am so pleased that he has an intense interest in my motion, that he was very quick on the draw to say that he supported the motion, and I want to thank him for it.

I am encouraged by the fact that the minister is going to bring forward a long term strategy on the future of Marine Atlantic, which would allow for input from people all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am told, as well, that a fleet renewal would be part of that strategy. Given the fact that we now have a new chair of Marine Atlantic and five new directors with business experience, I believe that there is hope for that.

I want to congratulate Mr. Robert Crosbie on his appointment. He is one of my constituents and I feel confident that, given his background, we are going to make some progress in improving that service.

I know I could mention other modes of transportation in the province; however, I only have 15 minutes. So, Marine Atlantic is my main focus.

I believe the province of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot become the tourist mecca that it is capable of becoming if we do not have a top notch marine Atlantic ferry service. We have only begun to scratch the surface of the tourism potential in our province. However, what we have to remember, when the tourist travelling by car arrives in North Sydney, is that we have to give that tourist every good reason to get on a ferryboat to cross that 90-mile expanse of water and come to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important that we have a good service.

By coming to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, let me tell the people of Canada, they are going to have a great experience. The people are second to none in our country, in terms of friendliness and wanting to welcome the tourists. When we look at the province itself, in terms of scenery, it is second to none anywhere in the world. We have to encourage the tourists to come to Newfoundland.

We are somewhat disadvantaged in that regard if the tourists are hearing that the ferry service is not what it should be for the modern day tourist. It must not be messy. It must not be crowded. Sleeping accommodations have to be excellent. When they get on board the ferryboat, it has to be a good experience for them. That has not been the case in the past. I think, and I hope, and I know, that is going to change. I am confident it will change under this government and I am confident that the minister is on the right track.

Another very important area of concern to me and to, I am sure, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to any new policy that might be developed for Marine Atlantic, is the stabilization of rates. We need a stable rate regime to ensure that the service does not become cost prohibitive, not only for the tourists, however important the tourists might be, but for the consumer as well.

Today the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel that the ferry rate should be approximately equivalent to the cost that would be incurred travelling the same distance by road. I heard that roughly 15 years ago when I was the provincial minister of transportation. I am looking across at my colleague from the Burin Peninsula who is smiling, but people would say to me that the rate has to be equivalent to what it would cost if we drove a car on that 90-mile stretch of road.

It was less important 15 years ago, I suppose, rates were down somewhat. However, today we have to look at rates and we have to make sure it is not going to become cost prohibitive because rates tend to sneak up and it becomes cost prohibitive for the consumer generally as well as tourists. After all, it is an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway, I agree, and it is a constitutionally guaranteed service. It was part of our Terms of Union in 1949, so it is reasonable given that we are an island province, that we should not be discriminated against in that regard.

Our tourism industry is dependent upon a reasonably stable rate. A reasonably stable rate is also very important for the average consumer because in a supermarket the price of virtually every item on the supermarket shelf is reflected by the cost of crossing the gulf and trucking produce to the supermarket shelf. Generally speaking, the price is going to be higher than what it would cost on the mainland.

No one is saying for a moment that it should not be higher. That is expected when we have to use two modes of transportation to get produce to the supermarket shelf. However, if rates do not remain stable and if we were subject to the vagaries of rate increases to reflect the cost of the service, then the price of shipping goods to the supermarket shelf and to our province generally would certainly be out of control. I am told that virtually 90% of our produce comes in by truck. Therefore, that gulf service is an absolute must for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another very sore point I hear quite often in our province is the lack of freshness in fruits and vegetables. I know that is unavoidable in some instances. However, the reliability and speed of the service is important. The turnaround time is important. Good maintenance is very important as well to ensure a minimum of breakdowns. All these things enter into making the service a top notch, 21st century transportation system. As I said before, I know the minister is aware of all these points and I am confident he is going to address them.

I only have a couple of minutes left and I will devote that to our roads system. About 15 years ago we let our railway go in exchange for a deal from the federal government of approximately $1.2 billion called “roads for rails agreement”. I was minister of transportation at the time who signed that agreement which allowed for an awful lot of road improvements. It allowed for the twinning of our Trans-Canada Highway and of course it allowed for a lot of infrastructure to be put into the city of St. John's and the neighbouring communities.

As important as that is, we have to remember as well that we have to have a good ongoing maintenance system in the province so it is imperative that we have an ongoing Trans-Canada Highway federal-provincial upgrading agreement. There are over 900 kilometres of road between St. John's and Port-aux-Basques where the ferry from Nova Scotia docks. In the winter and in rainy conditions that can be quite a nightmare.

My time is up and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my long time friend from St. John's East. I was wondering what motivated him to bring this private member's motion before the House. I think he has explained that for us.

He is very right in that this is a constitutionally protected service under the Terms of Union between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the great country of Canada. He alluded to the impact that the Marine Atlantic service has on goods and services coming to our province. He also talked about some indications that he has obtained from his colleague, the minister of transport.

I have a couple of things I would like to ask him. Does he have any guarantee from his colleague, the minister of transport, that the users of Marine Atlantic will not be facing any increase in user fees? The previous minister of transport and the previous government froze those fees for a number of years. We were then interrupted by the last election.

We froze the rates because we did not want the cost to the user and to the consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador to escalate. Therefore, I ask the member: does he have an undertaking from the minister of transport that those fees will not increase?

I am sure the member is very much aware that the former minister of transport also appointed a committee that did a total analysis and assessment on the Marine Atlantic services, and the requirements to make Marine Atlantic more effective and more efficient. That was chaired by none other than a former chairman and CEO of Marine Atlantic, Captain Sid Hynes.

Does the member think the minister has enough information now without undertaking another consultative process to make the decisions that are necessary for Marine Atlantic and give it the money to purchase purpose built vessels for the service?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the minister quite extensively on this particular issue. While we do not have anything that I can report to the hon. member at this point, I am encouraged by the fact that the minister is going to bring forward a long term strategy on the future of Marine Atlantic and it will allow input from the people.

I am told as well that something very important is going to happen. We are going to be looking at fleet renewal which is part of that strategy and heaven knows we need some of our ferries replaced.

I have spoken to the minister on a whole range of topics as it relates to Marine Atlantic. Rates will be very important and rates will be very much a part of it.

I have a guarantee from the minister that he will look at rates. He will look at fleet renewal in consultation with the people and the new directors, and the new chair of Marine Atlantic. Quite frankly, I am very confidence that at the end of the day, when the minister is finished looking at all matter pertaining to Marine Atlantic and to transportation generally as it relates to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will all be very pleased.

I am confident that he has a very intense interest in this issue and no sooner had I presented the motion, the minister contacted me to say he was very much in favour of it. Therefore, I am hoping that we will see some great improvements.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore will want to know that there is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite simple. I was just in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador meeting with the minister of everything, Mr. Tom Rideout. We talked about the possibilities of shipbuilding. As the hon. member for St. John's East knows, many of the ferries eventually will need to be replaced and I would like to get his views. Does he believe that many of these ships can be built in Canada including the shipyard at Marystown?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

That is a very good question, Mr. Speaker, and one which has been a sore point with many people. When we look at the needs for shipbuilding in the country, especially for Marystown Shipyard, I think that is the goal for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Any ferries that might be built will have to hopefully utilize Marystown Shipyard as much as possible.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank my hon. colleague on the other side for bringing Motion 242 before the House of Commons. I would also like to thank the opposition leader for having appointed me the official critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA. It is a great pleasure for me to deliver my first speech.

As we know and as the hon. member said, what we need to do is look at all the measures that are possible and relate them to land, marine and other kinds of transportation. That being said, I clearly understood the hon. member's message.

As was very well explained and as all Canadians and people from Newfoundland and Labrador certainly know, the Canadian government has a constitutional obligation to provide ferry service. This ship link runs between North Sidney and Port aux Basques, Marine Atlantic, a crown corporation of the Government of Canada, fulfills this obligation of the Canadian government to provide a ferry service between Newfoundland and Labrador and the mainland.

Let us look at the situation with respect to this obligation. It is truly important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have a link with the mainland, especially for the transportation of goods and people. In order for a region to be properly developed, an adequate infrastructure must be provided.

That being said, with regard to the obligation to provide transportation and the importance of it, the entire question of economic development is dependent on a number of things—as I said earlier—such as transportation of goods. This makes it possible to supply the factories of Newfoundland and Labrador with the equipment they need to develop and provide good jobs for their workers. It also enables the province to continue to progress.

There is also the whole issue of tourist diversification. If we want to identify the problems and provide assistance, we also have to be able to offer different options and solutions. One of these solutions is to ensure that tourists can get to Newfoundland and Labrador, because they are necessary for the province's development.

We need to understand each other here this evening. I respect the hon. member’s motion, because I believe that it is very important to look at the different options in order to ensure that we are able to provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with the tools they need.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions about the motion. A report was commissioned by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2004. The purpose of that study, requested by the province and carried out by a university in that province, was to evaluate the situation in this regard. What is somewhat ironic, as far as the motion is concerned, is that this study cost the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador— the taxpayers of that province—over $281,000 of money from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA.

This study was designed to evaluate the possibility of a fixed link between the island and the mainland. If this study was requested in 2004 and just completed in 2005—that is not so long ago—then why would the process have to start over? This question is very important and I think that during the next hour of debate the member for St. John's-East, who presented this motion, will have the opportunity to answer us.

What is even more worrying is that the member who is presenting the motion is also talking to us about ferries and says we should make sure that the Marine Atlantic ferries are providing the necessary tools to the people of his province.

In 2004, Marine Atlantic carried out an evaluation and did a study of the condition of the various ferries, the current situation and what it should do to secure the future.

I am going to mention what the study said. It is a special study from 2004, which included a recommendation that “The Corporation should develop a comprehensive vessel replacement plan based on operating needs and full life-cycle costs”. This is exactly what has been done. It is a part of the motion by my colleague opposite.

When we look at the situation, we realize that Marine Atlantic went even further by saying, in the management response to this recommendation, “The plan has been developed and the first stage is in place”.

So right now we are have with two reports: one commissioned and carried out in 2004 and another commissioned in 2004 and completed in early 2005, which cover the situation which the hon. member included in Motion M-242.

One certainly has to wonder what is the reason for carrying out another study. The idea is superb and really should be considered. The only thing that I wonder about is this: Do we have to re-do what has already been done? Do we have to start over with what has just been presented? Must we take public funds from the people who have contributed their tax dollars in order to pay for such studies? Do we again have to take money from our citizens and do these studies one more time?

A politician told me the best way to do nothing is to carry out repeated studies. I believe that is the reality. By conducting studies and more studies, we end up not moving forward. Meanwhile, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador require the necessary tools.

The concern that I have in dealing with the motion is that if we again undertake the same process that has already been completed, we will not advance. If there is no progress, what will happen to the people who now need renewal of their ferry service? Marine Atlantic must meet certain obligations. We know that it has to fulfill its responsibilities. The question must be asked: where is this headed?

The bottom line is does the member want to stand still or does he really want to be proactive and continue to help his constituents? I believe we can always examine Motion 242 in that light. We might also ask if the member would be ready to take the two studies that have already been paid for out of the public purse and implement them.

In my view, the member should certainly consider that. Once again, I wonder why my Conservative colleague wants to spend more public money. There certainly must be a reason. However, I am not convinced that we will get answers tonight.

The priority is to provide the tools to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a priority for the Liberal party and for the Liberal members from this province. They want to make sure that their constituents have the tools they need to make progress. For that reason, can we not go forward immediately? Can we take the studies that we now have, which were requested and largely paid for by ACOA and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to move forward and do more for the residents of that province? If we really want to help them, we must give them the tools to develop economically and improve their quality of life.

I am certain that before very long we will able to get these answers. I hope that the member for Saint John Eastcan give us some explanations about this motion that he has tabled in the House.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the federal NDP's critic for issues facing the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a buddy sense of a way, I was recently in Newfoundland and Labrador and I had the opportunity to speak to Minister Tom Rideout, for whom I have great respect. We discussed various issues affecting the province. One of them, of course, was marine and transportation services to the province. He indicated to me that the fees being charged for Marine Atlantic services were anywhere from 50% to 60% of the fees themselves. In many cases, it is quite formidable and costly for people to access goods and services on and off the island.

My hon. colleague for Random—Burin—St. George's was correct when he said that the previous government froze the fees. We were hoping that there would be a complete analysis of the transportation costs to the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador so that there could be a thorough discussion, not only in the House of Commons but in the House of Assembly, to discuss where we go from here in assisting that province and developing its economy, not just through transportation routes but in other aspects as well.

One of the concerns we also discussed was the aspect that some of the ferries are getting quite old and need to be replaced. In the Halifax shipyard, we see the Joseph and Clara Smallwood vessel most of the time being repaired. It is about time that a fair number of these vessels be replaced.

We believe that with modern efficiencies and with Atlantic know-how, we could have those ships built right in Atlantic Canada. I will be biased and say at the Halifax shipyards but also in the Marystown yards or Lévis, Quebec, Port Welland or out in B.C. We believe that if the government really had a procurement process that was fair and that used Canadian tax dollars to assist in the building of Canadian vessels, sort of like the ferries and other vessels that we require for our services, then the so-called fiscal imbalance that everyone keeps talking about could be addressed through what I call fiscal development.

If we were to develop these yards and give them the new equipment to make proper sound investments, then the people of Atlantic Canada would not only have good, high-paying and highly-skilled jobs but Newfoundland and Labrador and Cape Breton would be able to get the vessels that they require.

My hon. colleague was absolutely correct when he said that one of the tragedies in a way but, obviously, agreed to, was the demise a while ago of the Newfie Bullet which was the rail service in Newfoundland and Labrador. As the hon. member said, it was exchanged for money to build up the infrastructure of the road system there.

I know anybody who has been there knows that there are many songs and many stories about many of the people who worked along the railway or the Newfie Bullet as they called it. It is absolutely wonderful that the people can retain stories of that very magnificent form of transport that they had for so long. Unfortunately, however, modern times dictated that we would put everything on the roads.

As my hon. colleague for St. John's East knows well, with that amount of truck traffic on the road and with the weather systems they have, the roads soon fall into disrepair. They need sound investments to ensure that the main transportation routes are not only safe but also efficient to allow goods and services to travel efficiently.

There were discussions before. If I am not mistaken I believe the premier of the province once discussed a fixed link between Labrador and that of the great northern peninsula in northern Newfoundland. That is a discussion that we have always said is worthy of further discussion, not just in the House of Commons but in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well because that would be a very expensive type of operation. Of course, it would need to connect to a road that goes down through Quebec and then onward into central Canada. I believe that would be a worthy discussion. I do not think it is right to say that we should forget the idea because it costs too much money.

As, hopefully, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador grow and as that region of Atlantic grows, we think that it has great benefits for all of Atlantic Canada, including northern Quebec. We do need discussions regarding transportation services for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador but when we discuss that we are also talking about other provinces in the Atlantic and maritime regions.

We believe this is a good motion and we welcome the debate. However, we want to make sure that the hon. member knows quite well, as my hon. colleague from the Bloc said, if we are going to have further discussion, we would like to see results a lot sooner than we are seeing now. If that is definitely the intention of my hon. friend, then we would support that initiative wholeheartedly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to speak to Motion No. M-242, a motion to examine measures that would improve transportation between the island of Newfoundland and mainland Canada. I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his hard work on this particular file and for his hard work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland.

I thank the Minister of Transport as well, because I am happy to report to this House that this government will be voting yes on this motion. I am proud of this government because this will help many of my constituents. As members know, I am from the third largest Newfoundland city in the world, and I am very proud of that fact, the northern Alberta city of Fort McMurray.

This government believes in, is working toward and is helping to build a world-class transportation system that serves all Canadians, along with the required infrastructure to support it. In fact, this Conservative government has made substantial investments in Canada's infrastructure that will benefit all Canadians, not just a select few. It will benefit all regions of Canada.

I have heard some comments by other members on this particular subject and I can assure all members in this House that this new Conservative government of Canada is improving transportation. We have looked at the studies that were done and the minister will act decisively. He is a decisive minister and this is a government of action that will get results for Canadians.

Look no further than budget 2006 where we committed $16.5 billion in unprecedented federal support for infrastructure over the next four years. That unprecedented amount includes $900 million in new funding for public transit. It also maintains the current funding under existing infrastructure agreements, such as the gas tax funding worth $5 billion over the next five years. It also includes $591 million in new funding for the all important Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative that will help our trade and transportation routes all the way through Canada. It also includes funding for new infrastructure programs for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure.

Members in this House, especially the members opposite, should hold their breath until budget 2007 because they are in for even more surprises.

Since the last budget, we have consulted with the provinces and territories, the municipal sector and key stakeholders involved in the transportation initiatives across this great country. We have looked at more effective ways to use our infrastructure investments to promote a more competitive, productive economy, to improve the quality of life of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to achieve tangible improvements in the environment, and most important, to ensure accountability and transparency for all Canadians, for all taxpayers.

We are acting on what we heard. In fact, advantage Canada, released at the same time as the economic and fiscal update, is an economic plan that is designed to make Canada a world leader for today and for future generations of Canadians.

A key element of this plan is the Conservative government's commitment to work toward a comprehensive plan to make up for the 13 years of bad management of our infrastructure that took place before this Conservative government was in office.

It includes long term, sustainable, predictable funding and a fair and transparent provincial allocation for program envelopes to support improvements to the core national highway system which is so important to every Canadian family; to move toward large scale provincial, territorial and municipal projects, such as public transit and waste water management, which has been falling apart for some period of time, especially in my constituency in northern Alberta and across Quebec; and also for small scale municipal projects.

Over the next while and within the context of our commitment to restore Canada's fiscal balance, we will set out how we intend to work with all our partners, after listening to stakeholders, to put our infrastructure money to work for Canadians.

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility, and we heard that from the member, to maintain transportation services between the island of Newfoundland and the mainland. We will continue to fulfill that responsibility, but in order to do so and as this motion clearly states, we must examine specific areas to determine the best way forward.

Currently the south coast of Labrador is isolated from the rest of the North American road network. This cannot continue. This is pending, of course, the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Therefore, completing this highway is a top priority for the province.

Prime Minister Harper indicated that the government would support this cost shared agreement, and we will.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows already that we do not refer to other members by their names but by their titles.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good opportunity to make sure that all Canadians know that the Prime Minister and this government will support this cost shared agreement.

It should also be noted that to ensure accountability to all Canadians, this funding is contingent upon a detailed business case. As always, the government moves toward items on the basis of transparency and accountability to Canadian taxpayers.

The province is also constructing a 250 kilometre route from Happy Valley easterly to Cartwright Junction. The project is half completed and scheduled to be finished in the fall of 2009. Completion of this route will mean that the Trans-Labrador Highway will no longer end at Happy Valley and will connect to Newfoundland via the ferry at the Strait of Bell Isle.

The issue of the establishment of a fixed link between the island of Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada has also been raised and has been studied. The Newfoundland and Labrador fixed link refers to various proposals for constructing either a bridge, a tunnel or a causeway across the Strait of Belle Isle, connecting Labrador's mainland with the island of Newfoundland, a very important issue to the people of Canada.

A pre-feasibility study looked at these three concepts. Road and rail modes for transport of vehicles through a tunnel were also assessed. It concluded that one of the tunnel options, a bored tunnel under Belle Isle at its narrowest point, is the most technically and economically attractive alternative.

The province has stated publicly that, in its opinion, the fixed link is a long term proposition and a national project that will need a significant infusion of financing from the federal government. It has also been mentioned that it is not a priority for the provincial government. As the member for St. John's East has mentioned, it is a long term solution that must be kept in consideration and seriously looked at in the future.

While it is not a viable option in the short term to improve transportation to the mainland, we can examine if there is a scope for additional work on the Trans-Canada Highway that would improve connections with the province's airport and ferry terminals, as has also been mentioned by the member.

Turning now to Marine Atlantic Incorporated, Canada's new government is committed to stabilizing Marine Atlantic and ensuring that the important services that it provides remains safe, efficient and affordable for Canadians. After all, Marine Atlantic fulfills Canada's constitutional obligation to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide a year round freight and passenger service. As many members in the House know, the corporation carries 27% of all passengers, 50% of all freight and 90% of all perishables entering the province, clearly a very important transportation link. The minister will announce a long term strategy on Marine Atlantic in the next coming weeks.

I will to turn finally to air transportation. The air industry continues to meet the needs of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Air Canada and WestJet both operate extensive services to other regions of Canada and both have recently expanded their capacity to serve Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, three other airlines based in Newfoundland offer extensive regional service within the province. At present, air carriers provide scheduled service to a total of 21 airports in Newfoundland and Labrador, carrying 1.5 million passengers in 2006. St. John's International Airport has recorded four years of consecutive growth as has Deer Lake, which has nearly doubled over the last five years as far as passenger growth.

As I have outlined, the Prime Minister and the minister are committed to ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong transportation system backed by investment in public infrastructure, not just talk as was so frequent for the 13 years of the prior government. This is a government of action that will get things done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This commitment has been demonstrated in a number of investments in both transportation and infrastructure, but we cannot rest on our laurels. That is why the government will move ahead to support this important motion.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I want to thank him today for all the announcements that he has made on behalf of his government for improved transportation services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was very interesting when the member stood up and talked about Newfoundland's third largest city being Fort McMurray. This comes from a member who not too long ago said that those unemployed in Atlantic Canada should go to Alberta to look for employment. He said he would be supporting this motion put forward by my friend from St. John's East.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is supporting the motion to make Marine Atlantic services more effective in order to get more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to go to Fort McMurray, or is he sincere about improving the transportation services to the people of our province which are so badly needed?

The parliamentary secretary speaks about the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government has been in office for a year. We do not see too many results in transportation services by water, road or by air for Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, our services have decreased and the levels have gone down.

I say to the parliamentary secretary that if he is going to stand in his place representing the minister and the government, he has to be sincere about what he is saying. He has to understand the issues. He has to understand our province. Obviously he does not. It is obvious that he does not understand a Marine Atlantic issue as would the member for St. John's East and my colleague from Gander and myself. I say that out of respect.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that we are not proud about the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that had to go to Fort McMurray to work. We want them to work in our province. That is why we want to improve this service, to get employment opportunities within our province. We do not want to improve it so that more of them go to the area he represents. If the member gets us worked up enough, in the next election we may have to get a good Newfoundlander or Labradorian elected in his riding. There are enough of them out there that they could probably defeat the member if we went out there and put on a campaign.

We are not proud of that. That is not what we are here for. We are here because we are sincere about seeing this constitutionally protected service improved. The government is sitting on enough reports, paid for in part by agencies of the federal government, by Marine Atlantic and stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador, that make concrete recommendations to the minister and to the government on how to improve the service.

The people want purpose built vessels. The service has changed over time. Transportation methods and modes have changed over time. The department has enough information now to make the decisions that the parliamentary secretary talks about without talking about further consultations for other strategies.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary and the member for St. John's East. In the member's motion he references consultations with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am wondering if there have been any discussions between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The parliamentary secretary has been on his feet a number of times talking about a cost-shared agreement. What is he talking about? Has the province of Newfoundland and Labrador now agreed to cost-share some transportation initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador? Is this a total surprise to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as it is for me and my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador? I would not be surprised if my colleague for St. John's East is just as surprised with that information as I am.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When Motion No. 242 returns to the House for consideration, the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's will have six minutes left to speak.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of citizenship, which has very much been in the news in the last number of weeks. It is an issue that we have been discussing in the House for over 10 years. It truly is unfortunate that we are still discussing it instead of actually taking action.

I said earlier this week to the minister:

Mr. Speaker, the current fiasco could have been avoided. In the last Parliament all parties recognized the urgency to update the current, archaic and discriminatory Citizenship Act that does not recognize people married in religious ceremonies abroad and considers their children illegitimate. Had it not been for the defeat of the previous government, Canadians would now have a new Citizenship Act.

Will the Conservatives keep their promise to update the Citizenship Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as they promised when they were in opposition?

That question was fairly straightforward and called on the government not to discriminate against religious marriages. That is exactly what is happening and it is having quite an impact on quite a few Canadians. I find it passing strange that a party, which supposedly promotes religious freedoms, would discriminate against them.

The minister responded to me by saying:

Mr. Speaker, the interim policy on same sex marriage has been annulled and Parliament voted on that issue. That is the law of the land and we believe it should apply equally to everyone.

I am pleased that the Conservatives have recognized same sex marriage, finally, but I am left wondering if they also recognize common law marriage. Why would we discriminate by taking citizenship away from people who were married in a religious ceremony?

What is even more disturbing is that we are talking about a young man 27 years old who lived in this country since he was a few months old and because his great-grandparents were married in a religious ceremony and did not have a civil ceremony, he had his citizenship denied because he was born out of wedlock. How ridiculous can we get?

I find it incredible that this allegation would be made in particular against the Mennonite community that has the highest of morals and is very much traditionalist on this.

We can fix this and we can fix this if the Conservatives keep their promise, in the last government and previous governments, that they would bring in a citizenship act that was in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In closing, I want to commend the work of CBC Radio on this issue. I encourage Canadians to engage in the debate because it is a critical debate. It impacts on hundreds of thousands of people, or even millions of people, who are Canadian citizens.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of anomalies under the Citizenship Act and also raises the issue of amending the act. These issues surrounding the member's questions are not new. In fact, with respect to the Liberal government, Liberal minister after Liberal minister was aware of the issues surrounding citizenship anomalies and did nothing to help citizens caught up in this matter.

The Liberals had 13 years to do it and could not get it done. They had 11 years of majority governments and did nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix these problems. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Liberal Party and that member to claim the moral high ground on this issue.

While our Conservative government did not create the problem, we will fix the problem for the benefit of all Canadians in all categories. Recently the minister issued a statement to address some of these concerns. At this time, for the benefit of all, I wish to read from the minister's statement:

With the recent need to have a passport to fly to the United States, some people have questions about proving their citizenship, and some erroneous reports in the media have heightened people's concerns. I wish to address those concerns.

In almost all cases, anyone who was born in Canada is a Canadian citizen.

Some people are discovering that, after having lived in Canada most of their lives, they do not have citizenship. These cases deserve immediate attention and so I am making these individual cases a priority. I will use the powers available to me as Minister under the Citizenship Act to resolve these cases as quickly as possible. I have directed my department to deploy the resources necessary to do so.

While these steps are being taken, we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that these individuals will not experience any interruption in government benefits such as health care coverage or OAS payments.

While these cases are being reviewed, these individuals can rest assured that they can remain in Canada.

This government finds it unacceptable that law-abiding individuals who have been led to believe they were always Canadian citizens are not now having their citizenship affirmed.

This is precisely why the minister has instructed department officials that if an individual falls in one of the areas in question and has been recently notified that he or she is no longer a citizen while showing a significant attachment to Canada, our government will do everything necessary to make sure that citizen's status is made clear as quickly as possible.

In fact, the minister's recent actions have received support from stakeholders.

Let me quote from the January 26 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, which said that the immigration minister's “decision was welcomed by Bill Janzen, head of the Mennonite Central Committee”, to which the member was referring, “who has been trying for several years to help an accumulating number of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Mennonites who have lost their citizenship, even though they were raised in Canada”. Mr. Janzen stated, “We are really happy now that the government is committed officially and clearly to act quickly on these cases”.

That is action when we have seen 13 years of inaction. We will see that we stand behind these citizens and make sure that they are recognized, as they ought to be.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of hypocrisy, when I was faced with an act that did not conform to the charter, I resigned as parliamentary secretary because I believed the Citizenship Act should conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My friend over there who is now a parliamentary secretary perhaps could learn a lesson from that.

We are going to be holding hearings on this issue. I want the country to know. They will take place on Monday, February 12, Monday, February 19, and Monday, February 26, from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock. They are going to be televised. I encourage people to be engaged with this.

The hypocrisy of the government's position happened just yesterday when it told Mr. Joe Taylor that it will go all the way to the Supreme Court to deny him his citizenship. This man is the son of a Canadian veteran who fought for democracy and freedom. The government eliminated the court challenges program and is trying to bankrupt Mr. Taylor before he can get his citizenship.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this problem did not arise overnight. This problem has existed for a number of years. It existed while the hon. member was the chair of the citizenship committee and it was not addressed. We are addressing it in the short term and will do so on a long term basis as well.

We have taken steps to add additional staff to the case processing centre in Sydney, in headquarters and in the call centre. We have implemented a dedicated referral line at the call centre for clients who wish to speak to an agent about their urgent situations. We will address it.

We have increased coordination among Passport Canada, Service Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. This coordination is helping to fast track proof of citizenship for passports, assure continued benefits, and ensure safeguards against removal while cases are being examined.

We will continue to take steps to screen all incoming applications in order to identify cases that require urgent processing and cases that fall into the anomaly category. We will deal with them. We will take steps to ensure an expedited process.

We are taking steps. We are ensuring that something is being done. When that government--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It being 6:27 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.)