Mr. Speaker, it is not childish to defend the interests of one's constituents, to appeal to the common sense of the members of this House, and to state the facts. All this did not come out of the blue. I do not believe that the setbacks at CN and VIA Rail necessarily started when the new government came to power. I think we must consider what happened in the past, if we want to find a reasonable explanation for the current situation.
I may add that I was very upset back in 1989, when I wanted to take the train to go to the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and found that, instead of every day, the train only ran three days a week. I found this very upsetting as did many of my constituents, and my point is that VIA Rail services had been cut by the previous government. These cuts were not made by the Liberals but by the Conservatives. The point I want to make is that a number of opposition members were part of the government at the time. I was not and, believe me, I would have objected strenuously to the ill-advised policy and position on the future of VIA Rail and CN which we saw in 1989.
There is a lot of talk about transparency. The opposition critic mentioned transparency. In fact, I commend the opposition for emphasizing the need for government transparency in this respect. However, when they talk about transparency, they should not refer exclusively to the present Minister of Transport, who was not a minister at the time. When they talk about transparency, they should consider all aspects of the situation. That is all I ask of the opposition.
I do support transparency, despite the criticism aimed at me personally and at my efforts concerning VIA Rail and CN services in the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and I would like to know how many opposition members bothered to take the train during the past year. I wonder how many opposition and government members who have access to railway services in their communities and in their ridings have taken the train to come to Ottawa.
And if any of their members fit that category, I challenge the opposition to tell me how many times they took the train to travel between Ottawa and their respective ridings. Personally, I always try to take the train. Not to the Magdalen Islands, of course, where I have to fly if I want to get there within a reasonable time frame. But when I go to Bonaventure county, three evenings a week I can get directly to New Richmond, where I live. It takes thirteen hours by train from Montreal. I leave by train at two or three o'clock in the afternoon from Ottawa, arrive in Montreal at five, wait for two hours, and then take the train to Bonaventure county. However, on some evenings there is no service to the Gaspé. Sometimes I arrive in Campbellton, New Brunswick, at 4.30 a.m. This means that a member who takes his work seriously and who really wants to do his share has to be prepared to get off the train at 4.30 a.m.
If we want to keep our trains, we have to use them. Of course, as we all know, very few people travel by train. A lot more must be done in the way of marketing and advertising to convince the public and urge opposition members and all members of this House to show their support by taking the train as often as possible. Many members think it is much easier to fly between Montreal and Ottawa, when they travel back and forth between their ridings and their work here in the House. Nevertheless, I would like to reassure opposition members and particularly my constituents that their member of Parliament travels by train and is going to travel by train for a long time, believe me.
We were just talking about transparency. Obviously, we have not heard any practical solution from the opposition as is the case most of the time, and the federal government is put on trial as always. Canada is always to be blamed. Generally speaking, they say that nothing is working in Quebec. Yet, we struck a committee and asked opposition members to submit concrete solutions. I have never heard the word "intermodal", for example. I have never heard new ideas to make VIA Rail, the CN
or the transportation services in Canada profitable. All we hear, and it is unfortunate, is that the whole transportation policy in Canada is a complete failure. Yet, Canada was built on those links.
The ties that bind.
In 1867 when we first began as a small British colony we had that national dream. We had that national policy in which Canadians came together and said we would go toward the west, we would reach the shores of the Pacific and unite Canada as we know it today, despite the efforts and pressures to maintain and increase our ties with the Americans at the time. We were just coming out of a revolutionary war, I should add. There were visionaries in Canada at the time. These visionaries were sent out to set up that track to cross Canada, to make sure Canada would become the country it is today.
We all know what position Canada occupies. I do not have to remind members. I think the United Nations repeats year after year that Canada is the number one country.
Of course when it comes to rail policy it is not an easy one. Canada is a country that was forged. It was not a country born out of revolution and strife. It was a country forged by immigrants, minorities of all kinds who came to Canada to make a better life for themselves. Thank God it was the train that initially brought them here. Today we have air travel, all different modes of transportation across this great nation.
Maybe it is time because of the financial restraints we are now faced with to look into these services and make sure that Canadians are getting their money's worth. This is what we have been hearing from the opposition all this time.
However, we have to find new solutions. Of course we could look to Europe. We look at what is happening in France, Japan, Asia, Germany and Great Britain. The populations on the European continent are much more concentrated than they are in Canada. There are approximately 350 people per square kilometre in Belgium and there are only three in Canada. It is about 250 in France and still France can operate quite a service.
After all, if I am not mistaken, Canada is 18 times the size of Great Britain, it is more than six times the size of France. Canada is a huge country with a population of 30 million. The train service we are willing to offer in this country is not necessarily the one that is always on par with that of Europe or Japan when we think of the Shinkansen and the TGV in Europe. The Canadian context is quite different.
However, the opposition is probably right in saying that we have to look at the TGV. I have heard the Bloc say this a few times. However, I should also remind the hon. member that the whole TGV concept was first introduced by the federal Liberals. There was an initial committee that looked into the question. It said there is potential between Quebec and Windsor. From what I am told there is currently a study taking place.
Finally, a task force including the government of Quebec, the government of Ontario and, of course, the government of Canada is reviewing this issue.
We are told that this is a comprehensive study, a study that will reassess the situation and the potential for putting in place a high-speed train between Quebec and Windsor. However, I see the opposition members, especially those from the Reform Party, asking: "Well, what does this mean for western Canada?"
What does this mean for western Canada? What does this mean for rural areas of the country? Should we allow all our moneys and all of our expenditures to go into the creation of a TGV between Quebec and Windsor? What happens to the have not areas of Canada, the maritimes, western Canada, the Gaspé Peninsula? I do not think the opposition Bloc members give a hoot about having a TGV going all the way to the Gaspé because it is not feasible.
However, we must make sure that whatever service is in place in Canada and despite the allegations of the opposition that nothing is being done, we have to provide certain essential services in this country. We have to service the rural areas of Canada. We have to service the heartland of the nation. I think this is the role that all parliamentarians are called to play.
Having said this, I am surprised to hear the opposition tell us that they want a high speed train which will serve Quebec, Ontario, Windsor, but unfortunately, these people are still proposing to us the end of the Canadian federation. They are proposing the dismantling of Canada, the separation of Quebec. How could we build a railway link between Quebec and Windsor with a border between Quebec and Ontario?
I hear the opposition laugh, but that is the hard and sad reality. We must learn to work together. We must build a railway system that will respond to the desires of Quebecers, of Ontarians and all other Canadians. And surely, as member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I have an obligation and a duty to ensure
that service is maintained in my remote rural riding in the province of Quebec.
It is obvious that the opposition often speaks for the urban people, with very little consideration for the remote areas. I think that the opposition leader demonstrated that brilliantly in 1989, when he was among those in favour of the decision to cut 50 per cent of the railway service in Quebec and all across Canada. I think that we should not be afraid to tell these facts, and I believe that being in a free country, being a member of Parliament-after all, being a member of the House of Commons is a privilege-I am fully entitled, despite the slanders, the opposition, the allegations from the opposition that I am not fulfilling my role as a member of Parliament, to denounce what took place in 1989.
I believe it is important to take the opportunity to develop a Canadian vision and I believe that the dream we had in 1867 is still alive. I think that many people in the opposition have benefited from the freedom and privileges that were given to them as Canadians and one of those privileges, one of those links that unite the country is, of course, the Canadian railway service as we know it. However, we must get ready for the next century.
I will end my speech on that point because I wish to give the opposition the opportunity to ask questions, questions that would not be partisan in nature and would take into account first of all the genuine interests of Quebecers and Canadians, that is to maintain a service and to help us find solutions. Instead of talking of dividing and separating, and accusing federalists, instead of saying that Canada is a failure, I invite them to find common solutions with us. The official opposition must recognize that it does not represent the majority of Quebecers. They got 48 per cent of the votes and a majority of seats in the Quebec assembly but there are still 52 per cent of Quebecers who did not support the Bloc.
One thing is sure, when they start participating in the debate, those people will have to state clearly that they may speak for a certain number of Quebecers but not for Quebec as a whole. I invite them to take part in the debate, to examine and propose constructive solutions for the future of VIA Rail and, of course, for the whole of Canada.
