Mario Laframboise

[Road Infrastructure, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, the Quebec Minister of Transport wrote to his federal counterpart as follows:

During the last election campaign, your government announced investments in excess of $3 billion for Quebec highway infrastructures. There was not even a mention of completing Highway 50.

Can the minister make a commitment on Highway 50 and can he tell us how much money he is prepared to put into it, given the importance this project holds for the people of the Outaouais?

[Marine Industry, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not understand the question.

Is it true that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is planning a substantial increase in the recovery of coast guard fees, thus penalizing the marine industry working in the St. Lawrence River, which would have the effect of driving shippers to other ports?

[Marine Industry, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, marine transportation is the safest mode of transportation there is, the one which uses the least fuel and produces the fewest air pollutants. The government should therefore help the marine industry to maintain its competitive position.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that the competitiveness of Quebec and of Canada is threatened by his decisions with respect to recovering the costs to the coast guard of ice breaking and dredging operations and that this is detrimental to the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes marine transportation system?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill before us, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Being opposed to Bill C-19 is in line with the position traditionally taken by representatives from Quebec.

Since 1992 and even before that, the federal government has been trying to get involved in environmental assessment, an area that falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and in which the province is doing very well.

Quebec has the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which does environmental assessments based on criteria that were accepted and approved by successive legislatures in Quebec.

Once again, we must speak up in the House. It is not an easy task, but it is not easy either for all those who are watching us, particularly Quebecers, who do not often have the chance to see the kind of duplication that a bill dealing with environmental assessment can create.

Quebec has always been and still is at the forefront in the area of environmental assessment. What the bill before us says is that, whenever the federal government invests money in the form of loans, loan guarantees or direct grants, or whenever it leads a project, an environmental assessment will necessarily be done.

All that in spite of the fact that Quebec has its own Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, a concept that is totally independent from political decision makers. We saw the BAPE in action recently with regard to major projects by Hydro-Québec. The BAPE went against the major orientations of the agency. This is a system that works well in Quebec.

Once again, here we have federal duplication. If there was no representation by Quebec at the public hearings that were held, there was a good reason for it. There has been none since 1992 purely and simply because, that year, the government of Robert Bourassa had passed a unanimous resolution in the National Assembly, stating as follows, and I quote:

That the National Assembly strongly disapproves of the federal government bill—

I have dropped the number.

—, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process—

This was an act identical to the one introduced today. The resolution continued:

—, because it is contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, and that the National Assembly opposes its passage by the federal Parliament.

This was a resolution unanimously passed by the Quebec National Assembly in 1992, under the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa.

It is, therefore, a matter of integrity and honesty for all Quebecers in this House, to defend the interests of their constituents.

The federal government is too quick to interfere in provincial jurisdictions for all kinds of political reasons.

The only thing that should guide a government when adopting a legislation is the protection of the interests of the citizens. In this case, the interests of the citizens are well protected by the Quebec government's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement which, I repeat, is a non political, arm's length organization. Historically, it has had a very good record and rendered very good decisions.

It is difficult to understand how Liberals representing Quebec can defend a bill which constitutes a direct interference into Quebec's jurisdiction.

The federal government has so much money that it could invest to help develop road infrastructure. We have an infrastructure program in which the federal government, the Quebec government and municipal governments pay one third each. This program was announced with great pump by the federal government, and received the support of the provinces, the Quebec government and the municipalities.

Once again, that infrastructure program will cover projects in this area.

Since the federal government is contributing one third, through subsidies, to several of these projects, environmental assessments will be made by it, even though Quebec has its own environmental assessment service, namely the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. This is a striking example of duplication that is extremely costly to Quebec taxpayers because we already have a good service.

As I said, in 1992, the National Assembly, under the leadership of Robert Bourassa, unanimously adopted a motion rejecting a similar bill, which was to be passed in the House of Commons at the time. That motion was adopted unanimously.

During the public hearings on this bill, no one came to represent Quebec, for the simple reason that we have our own environmental assessment service.

It is because of examples like this one that an increasing number of Quebecers are fed up with the federal government. It interferes in jurisdictions in which it has no business. The federal government should let Quebecers do their own thing, since they have an environmental assessment system that reflects their needs and that has proven successful. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, is very helpful because it conducts environmental assessments for many projects. It is a Quebec agency that works well and that Canada is trying to copy for the benefit of the other Canadian provinces. That is fine with us, but leave Quebec alone with its own resources and structures.

We have something that works well, namely the BAPE. Why impose a new level of assessments that will generate additional costs? Instead, the government should put that money in the tripartite infrastructure programs involving the municipalities, the Quebec government and the federal government. Or let them invest more than the mere $600 million they said they would invest in highways throughout Canada. In the election campaign, this Liberal government promised Quebec alone over $3 billion in investment, when there is only $600 million in the federal budget. We have just looked at the votes in the Standing Committee on Transport, and only $600 million is available for the next five years.

Rather than waste energy and money and spend resources on adding another service to the one that is very well operated in Quebec, the government should keep this money, invest it in municipal infrastructure projects, and government highway infrastructure projects in Quebec and Canada. It should leave the organizations and institutions that work well in Quebec. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement is one Quebec institution that works well.

It is hard for the public, for Quebecers watching us, to hear us discuss a bill that has a pleasing title, the act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, except that it pleases the Canadian provinces that do not have environmental assessment procedures in place.

We in Quebec do have one. We are proud of it. I repeat, in 1992, the government of Robert Bourassa, unanimously called on the federal government to withdraw from this area of jurisdiction, environmental assessment, because it is a provincial jurisdiction.

There is good reason no Quebec organization appeared before the various committees studying this bill. The Bloc Quebecois cannot support this bill, which is a blatant example of interference. It is because of measures like this one that an increasing number of Quebecers no longer believe in this Canada. The federal government is only investing in an attempt to gain political popularity. It is trying to achieve that by duplicating services that are already provided by Quebec agencies. This is unacceptable.

I cannot understand why Liberal members in this House, who are aware of the problems associated with infrastructure programs and the constant needs of municipalities and of Quebec's road network, support a bill that will create a new level of environmental assessments.

Whenever the federal government will invest, lend or guarantee even the smallest amount, it will be in a position to set up an environmental assessment program that will be in addition to the one that already exists and that works so well in Quebec. There are such aberrations in this Canada. I hope people will remember that, and the sooner the better.

[Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since I became the transport critic, at the beginning of the session, the Bloc Quebecois has supported with reservation the bills dealing with transport put forward by the government, because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This time, however, the Bloc will oppose Bill S-3.

This bill concerns the safety of motor vehicle transport. Theoretically, that is a bill designed to say it all, which ends up saying nothing. Why? Simply because the government is basing the whole bill on the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers, which is already in force. For many years, the provinces have been trying to harmonize a series of measures to ensure that road safety standards are enforced.

It is all very well for the government to put on kid gloves and say “Today we are tabling a bill on road safety”, go on about the number of road accidents and claim to be this great advocate of safety in this country, but there remains a harsh reality.

Safety is not only a matter of quality of the work done by truckers. It is also a matter of road conditions. We do not see federal money getting into provincial treasuries to help the provinces put in place an effective highway network in Canada, a network safe not only for trucking users but also for all those who share the road with these huge vehicles.

This safety component, which was intended as a true highway renovation program across Canada, does not originate with this government. I was present at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport when the President of the Treasury Board presented the allocation figures. There is still the same good old figure of $600 million hanging around in the federal government's coffers for the next five years for all highway projects throughout Canada. In the last election campaign, in Quebec alone, the federal government promised $3.220 billion in investments, whereas the total figure allocated for the next five years is a mere $600 million.

A true policy, a true bill on highway safety could have involved the industry but needed to involve government as well, in order to ensure significant investment in the quality of the highways across Canada and, of course and above all, across Quebec. A true highway safety program, a true highway safety bill, should have included a whole chapter, a whole component, on highway renovations.

Returning to this bill, there must also be an understanding of the desire for a Canadian highway safety code, saying “We will harmonize our efforts with the provinces”. A little realism is required about all the work the provinces are trying to do to harmonize their legislation. We are not telling all those listening to us, all the people of Quebec, anything new.

There must be an understanding of the provinces, who have the responsibility for highway safety. Besides, the bill states that safety is a provincial jurisdiction, and declares that all highway safety legislation in each of the provinces is valid.

We have to understand that the provinces are working together to harmonize their extraprovincial transportation standards. As we speak, they still have not managed to agree on a procedure, a modus operandi, that would satisfy all stakeholders.

The government introduces Bill S-3 and says “Here, we are dealing with road safety throughout Canada”. It says in this bill that safety is a provincial responsibility. What it fails to say is that, as we speak, there is still no harmonization between the provinces, between the governments, with respect to a safety system.

Before we, in the Bloc Quebecois, can support such a bill, efforts will have to be made in the field. Mere wishful thinking, introducing legislation and claiming to be the champion of road and highway safety throughout Canada is not enough. The government must at least be sensible and realistic about the implementation problems in the territories and about the will to have a Canadian-wide safety standard.

Of course, what we have to consider, before such a bill is voted on, is harmonizing the definition of basic jurisdiction using as models—and these are only suggestions—the International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Registration Plan, to state that the basic jurisdiction must be the Canadian place of residence of the carrier or the place where he carries out the most part of his activities.

Thus a base of operations must be designated if carriers are to be held accountable under some legislation. To begin with, we must agree on a definition, which we do not at the moment. In none of the provinces throughout Canada is there agreement on a base of operations for which each administration could be held responsible.

We must also establish, in each administration, rating systems with compatible ratings. It is all very well to say that throughout Canada we have a road safety system. But, to some extent, we must be able to monitor the trucker, the extraprovincial trucker.

We must have an rating system to monitor him in order to rate his behaviour, and this system must be consistent throughout Canada.

So, in this regard, the federal government does not have the authority to implement a road safety regime. This authority rests with each of the provinces. So we must have an acceptable rating system approved by each province before introducing a bill on road safety and saying to good Quebecers and Canadians that we are dealing with road safety.

We must be able to rate the drivers, those who make a living from the system and the industry. We must be able to rate them to ensure that they perform adequately and, ultimately, to make them accountable, and to rate them through a system that is consistent throughout Canada, which is not the case now.

Today, the government is saying to citizens of Quebec “Look, the federal government is dealing with road safety”. The problem is that there is no rating system, no way to find out if a driver is really reliable. There is no process in place by which we could track him, monitor his activities in each of the provinces and set standards that would make it possible for the industry to know what is going on.

It is not enough for the industry to be accountable. The industry must also be able to know what is going on in each of the provinces where some extraprovincial activity is occurring, and that is not the case at this time.

We must develop a tool to assess each and all of the behaviour elements referred to in standard No. 14. They implement a standard, standard No. 14, which the government member praised earlier, but that standard is based on the national safety code for motor carriers and we should be in a position to assess it, at least to some extent.

One must check all the regulations adopted by each of the provincial administrations to be able to follow the carriers and the industries, to be able to rate them, to reprimand them if needed, with some consistency, and that is not provided for in this legislation.

At the present time, there is still no agreement among the provinces, which are responsible for road safety. They are doing a very good job within their territorial limits, but what they have to do is harmonize with each other, which is plainly admitted in this bill. Each province is being given authority for enforcement. This bill gives official recognition to the road safety standards of each of the provinces.

The problem is that, before introducing this bill and telling the Canadians and Quebecers who are listening that there will be one trucking safety code, the government did not look into whether it would be feasible and whether it would be possible to monitor the industry throughout Canada, so that carriers are given the fines they deserve and, if things go well, good behaviour is recognized.

The bill provides for comparable monitoring from one administration to another. Our goal is to have standards that are similar to within about 5%, and to monitor carriers and administrations Canada-wide. In this country, we should always be able to monitor between point A and point B, or between one ocean and the other. We should be able to monitor effectively and have standards that are understandable and understood by the industry in each of the provinces, which is not now the case.

The government is introducing a bill and telling the public “After this bill is passed, there will be one Canadian safety code enforced across Canada”. The problem is that, when it comes right down to it, this is still wishful thinking. This bill will not be enforceable, because this is an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction and the provinces have not yet managed to reach an agreement.

It is not for lack of trying. On the contrary. But there are important industry lobbies in each of the provinces and they are trying to maintain the existing systems. We should give provincial and territorial authorities, and agencies in charge of road safety a chance to set up standards, have discussions and reach an agreement.

The government should have called a meeting of all relevant provincial agencies before introducing such an important bill and stating “We now have a safety code in effect throughout Canada; do not worry, we are taking care of you”. The problem is we do not know how this code will be working in each jurisdiction, for the simple reason that harmonization is lacking.

We also need to develop in each jurisdiction a penalty system setting out the action that will be taken against carriers who do not comply, and keep reducing ratings until their permits are eventually cancelled. We need a process to do this. If we want to have a follow up and to ensure the safety of the transport network, we must be able to monitor the industry and the carriers, record their offences and deduct merit points and eventually revoke their permit. That is the way to get a national safety code that will work in all the provinces.

We must find a way to evaluate the efficiency of the assessment mechanism based on the results. If we are to have a national code in effect throughout Canada, we should make sure the provincial agencies in charge have a common harmonized standard, a follow-up plan to monitor the carriers, a penalty system that is complementary and easily accessible for all agencies through electronic means or otherwise, and an evaluation plan.

It is not good enough to say “We are putting a plan in place”. We must do a follow up, determine whether the carriers did something wrong, list these wrongdoings and even cancel licences, if need be. And all the provincial authorities must have easy access to the registry of cancelled licences, because, as I said, they have to enforce the Canadian code, under the terms of the bill. The provinces have the responsibility ,but they do not have a common rating system.

Right now, it will be very difficult for the industry to organize, because the provinces do not yet have a common system to follow up on the carrier and enforce safety standards.

We could use a conformity registry, a negative points system or another similar system that would make the carrier understand that, over a certain number of infractions, he could lose his licence. There is no such system and it is not the federal government's responsibility to implement one. It is the provinces' jurisdiction.

Right now, there is no harmonization. The Quebec government did not harmonize its standards, but it is holding very serious discussions with the neighbouring provinces. There are almost daily exchanges between governments on the harmonization of road safety standards, to protect the public. The industry must understand these laws, there must be a carryover from one province to another.

At the moment, the provincial governments have no objection. They all agree on the need for a uniform standard across Canada that each of them may apply.

The problem is that they have not managed to select a standard and to agree on a way to harmonize it between provinces. The systems must be effective so statistics may be compiled on the carriers, their progress followed, infractions revealed, potentially resulting in the cancellation of their extraprovincial licences. Once again, these licences are given by the provinces and followed by them. So the whole system of harmonization must be in place before such a bill is voted on.

I repeat, this bill was meant to provide for everything, but, in the end, it provides for nothing. This is another example of a government trying to make political hay over highway transport safety. This is a very complex area, and all the provinces daily face the problems that highway transport on the roads of Quebec and Canada can cause. In Quebec, this is a daily concern.

Everyone wants greater safety. It takes a modicum of ability to get it to happen, to ensure it is respected, to ensure it is applied uniformly across Canada, something that is not the case at the moment. Once again, our Liberal federal government has decided to introduce prematurely a bill intended to say it all and, in the end, says nothing. We oppose this bill.

A harmonization table between the provincial governments should have been created, so that the result of its work could have been communicated before the introduction of this bill, whose purpose is to tell Quebecers and Canadians “Look, we have a Canadian road transportation safety code. We just passed an act giving it effect”.

Finally, it will not be possible to implement this code, because there is no harmonization between the provincial administrations responsible for road safety, which is a provincial jurisdiction. The only positive thing about this bill is that it states that road safety is a provincial jurisdiction. If it is a provincial jurisdiction, then the government should wait until the provinces harmonize their systems to be able to closely follow a carrier who does not comply with the standards or breaks the law and, if possible, cancel his licence if he is responsible for too many accidents, or if he commits too many offences under that safety program.

This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois wants to convey. I will conclude by saying that Quebecers, and surely all Canadians, would have appreciated finding in this bill a part dealing with the upgrading of Canada's highways. This infrastructure deserves a lot more than the $600 million the federal government has earmarked for the next five years.

An amount of $600 million to be spent through partnerships across Canada, on a 50-50 basis with the provinces, means that if we only relied on federal investments for highway transportation across Canada, a mere $1.2 billion would be spent over the next five years on a very extensive highway system that deserves a lot more funds.

I repeat that Liberal members knew this very well because, during the election campaign, they promised to invest $3.2 billion in Quebec alone. These investments were to made rapidly. They promised bridges and roads. Finally, they promised to improve the whole system throughout Quebec. Imagine, an election promise of $3.2 billion for Quebec.

However, in terms of appropriations, the federal government only set aside $600 million for 50/50 agreements with some provinces, agreements totalling $1.2 billion of work throughout Canada, despite promises of $3.2 billion in Quebec alone.

This means once again that the government can still fool some of the people to win an election. But with this bill, the Bloc Quebecois will not be fooled.

The government cannot introduce a bill that purports to be the champion of people's safety, when it knows full well that this bill is not applicable in any of the administrations at this time.

[Canada Shipping Act, 2001, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-14, because the development of the Canadian shipping industry should have been reviewed decades ago. This legislation has been long awaited by the public, shippers and receivers of goods and also part of the industry.

Again, we will never say it often enough, this bill should have been passed in the last parliament. It did not happen because the government called an election for no better reason than to please some politicians. Because of that early election, bills like Bill C-14 are once again before the House.

Was the wait worth it? That is the big question that we and the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada who are listening should be asking ourselves. As I was saying, Bill C-14 was introduced in that last parliament but was not passed because the government called an early election. Did the government use the delay to go over the bill and ensure that the industry would be totally happy with the proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act? I am afraid not.

In a press release dated March 1, 2000, the Minister of Transport stated that this legislation, as introduced, was aimed at promoting the economic growth of the shipping industry. That is what the Minister of Transport said on March 1 regarding the introduction of Bill C-14. All those who are concerned about the future of shipping in Quebec and in Canada expected the government to seize the opportunity, being just a few months into its mandate, to introduce a stronger bill that would have really helped the shipping industry, as mentioned by the minister in his statement.

I repeat that he said in that statement that the bill's intent was to promote the economic growth of the shipping industry. It so happens that the Bloc Quebecois had mentioned on several occasions that the only way to promote the economic growth of the shipping industry was to establish a real federal shipbuilding policy.

We had no choice but to recognize that the bill that was introduced at the beginning of this parliament is a carbon copy of the previous one, except for some 27 amendments dealing mostly with periods, commas and legal technicalities. We sadly realized that the government had not taken this opportunity to establish, through this shipping bill, a true federal shipbuilding policy.

Even though the minister received a report in early April from the committee, the national partnership project committee on shipbuilding, he has still not announced what he plans to do about it.

Advantage could have been taken of it to introduce a real change, not just piecemeal amendments. This was a new bill, even if it was drafted already for passage during the last parliament. Since a committee was struck, as I have said, the national partnership committee on shipbuilding, which has submitted its report to the minister, we could have taken advantage of it as a good responsible government to introduce a whole new chapter on shipbuilding in Canada, but as hon. members will have realized, this was not done.

The Bloc Quebecois, and myself in particular, want to see the entire matter of shipbuilding revisited. As we speak, the shipyards are only at about 25% capacity. In Quebec there is an obvious decline, when total job numbers are looked at, in Lévis, Île aux Coudres and Les Méchins, and the situation is the same everywhere, in Vancouver and in Halifax. In the past it has given work to some 12,000 people, but as we speak the figure is scarcely 2,750.

This is hard to understand. We MPs wage battles for our constituents. The Bloc Quebecois has fought for them on shipbuilding, on the number of jobs in this sector. We began the battle. The government struck an independent special committee, which was to produce a report.

When the bill that preceded Bill C-14 was introduced in the previous parliament, the government could argue that it could not add a chapter on shipbuilding because it was waiting for the committee to table its report. The committee has now submitted its report, but the minister has yet to decide what he will do with it.

In order to promote the industry's economic growth, it might have been very interesting, as the minister said, to add a whole new chapter on the recovery of Canada's shipbuilding industry. Why? Because the Canadian workforce is qualified and it costs less than that of most of our competitors. We have an edge on all the other countries.

The majority of Canadian shipyards use very modern equipment and advanced technology. Two of them hold ISO 9001 quality certification, while four have ISO 9002. Shipyard managers and other stakeholders in the marine industry feel that they were abandoned by the federal government at least ten years ago. They feel left out compared to other industries such as, to name but one, the aerospace industry. The shipbuilding industry deserved to be listened to in a serious and independent fashion.

With direct access to three oceans and to the world's longest inland waterway, shipbuilders and shipowners wonder why Canada chose to let their industry down.

These are issues that were raised by the Bloc Quebecois and that the government decided to deal with by setting up a special committee. However, it did not see fit to include a whole chapter in the new Bill C-14 to deal with the industry.

Shipping is the most economical means of transportation and the one that is most respectful of the environment. A number of shipyards are surviving at the present time because of provincial government intervention, although this is an area of federal jurisdiction.

We talk about all kinds of jurisdictions. Today or yesterday the Prime Minister announced the creation of a task force on urban issues that will be travelling across Canada. That is an area of provincial jurisdiction, one that is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. The government should leave it to the provinces, but it is apparently very hard to understand.

Quebec has tax measures, including a tax credit. Nova Scotia has a specific program of financial guarantees. British Columbia has encouraged the acceleration of its aluminum ferry program. Canada's shipbuilding industry is at a disadvantage compared to its Asian competitors, who receive government subsidies of up to 30% of the amount of their contracts, the Europeans, who receive about 9%, and the Americans, who benefit from protectionist measures. Yet Canada has neither subsidies nor protectionist measures. We have missed the boat.

I would like to commend my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, who introduced, on October 14, 1999, a private member's bill, Bill C-213, on shipbuilding. His bill was intended to promote shipbuilding in Canada and to enhance the competitive capacity of Canadian shipyards.

Obviously our fine Liberal government decided to not make this bill a votable item. Still, I congratulate my colleague on his effort, because he had three very ingenious and significant ideas arising from the discussions he had with the industry. That is why there were three parts to his bill.

The first part concerned the establishment of a program of loans and guarantees to indicate to the shipbuilding industry in Canada that there was a program providing that 87.5% of the amount of a loan for the purchase of a ship could be guaranteed by the federal government.

There was therefore, initially, a loan guarantee, and then a rate of interest comparable to that available for loans from financial institutions to large and financially strong corporations.

It would have been possible to provide a loan guarantee with competitive interest rates and a repayment schedule comparable to that offered by financial institutions to large corporations. The method of repayment would suit obligations and be appropriate for a business that could become very prosperous.

The second part concerned the exclusion of new vessels from the application of the lend lease regulations. Because of their complexity, lend leases effectively eliminated the purchase of ships in Canada by lend lease. The new lend leases include repayment conditions, which harm the industry. New ships were excluded from the lend lease regulations.

The third innovation was to establish a refundable tax credit. In 1997 the government of Quebec announced tax incentives to stimulate the shipping industry. These incentives were based on a tax credit. The Quebec government raised the refundable tax credit for shipbuilding from 40% to 50%. The federal government could have offered the same kind of tax credits to businesses in the shipbuilding industry to breathe new life into this industry.

It did not happen. Once again, the Liberal government missed a golden opportunity in a very interesting bill that was supposed to be a life saving measure for the shipping industry, according to the minister himself. I repeat that he said in a statement on March 1 that the bill's intent was to promote the economic growth of the shipping industry.

Why did he not heed the recommendations presented to him in April by the committee that he himself established? Why did he not take advantage of this new expertise and these new recommendations to include in the very interesting shipping bill a whole chapter on shipbuilding in Canada?

It would have solved the problem and would have given momentum to an industry which, I repeat, is only operating at 25% of its capacity today.

The present number of workers is 2,750. It used to be 12,000. These men and women, these Quebecers and Canadians, expect that when the time comes to bring in a bill the government will table one that they want. I repeat, we had one that was votable at the end of the last parliament, which was interrupted when the government decided to call an election to satisfy the wishes of certain politicians.

However, the government again brings in an identical bill, when it would have had a great opportunity after being presented with a most interesting committee report to bring in a real bill that would have got the shipping industry back on its feet, with a whole chapter devoted to shipbuilding and to getting this important industry back on its feet, since it is operating at only 25% capacity. We have the brains and the skills necessary, and we are capable of competing with all other industries in the world.

Once again the Liberal government, the Government of Canada, has not listened to the recommendations by taxpayers, by representatives of the industry, and by the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois has staunchly defended, not for partisan reasons but for human ones, the skilled men and women who are getting on in years but would still like to use their experience for this fine country. They cannot, because there is no work at this time.

The government has again missed a golden opportunity to include in this Bill C-14 a whole chapter on shipbuilding, which could have revived the industry in a number of our regions that are experiencing major blips. We could have had an opportunity to revive this entire industrial sector, which involves a number of regions on the coasts of both Quebec and Canada. This would have been an excellent opportunity, one once again missed out on by a government that is too arrogant, that governs alone without heeding good recommendations from those who are anxious to pass them on.

[St. Lawrence Seaway, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, Coroner Laberge recommended that the number of lock workers at the St. Catharines locks be increased from three to four, in order to avoid regrettable accidents such as the one on June 1, 2000, in which a woman in her seventies lost her life.

Will the Minister of Transport confirm in the House that he will require the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, as he is allowed to do under the management agreement, to review its downsizing and safety policy, the goal of which is to reduce from three to two the number of staff performing control and tying down activities at the 13 locks it operates in Quebec and in Ontario, including the ones in St. Catharines?

[Marine Liability Act, May 9th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that the Bloc supports Bill S-2 as modified, tampered with and fixed up by the government to finally improve marine liability, while at the same time ensuring that the needs and wishes of taxpayers, waterway users and those who are major or occasional users of maritime transport are not met.

What I am saying is important and it is important that those listening understand how, because of the government's arrogance and pressure from political lobbies, a good bill can be turned into a mere improvement on the existing system, which I feel was rotten to the core to begin with. For decades, people have been asking that the legislation be changed to make sea carriers responsible, and that is what the people wanted.

Of course, part 2 of the bill in its premisses, deals with the “Apportionment of Liability”, which has to do with personal injuries and fatalities. What the bill states in clauses 4 to 14 is that this allows the dependants of a person injured or killed in a marine accident to claim damages. This is a situation that exists in Quebec at least. The legislation was changed and the civil code was changed accordingly. Laws are made in such a way that people responsible for damage must compensate for it.

Part 2 of the bill says that in the apportionment of liability, once it has been established that the person causing the damage is liable, there is the principle—which is still a principle of common law in the other provinces, but a principle of civil law in Quebec—that if several persons or ships were liable, the liability of each one would be proportionate to the degree of fault. But if the degree of fault could not be established their liability would be equal.

These are principles of law which are well understood now. In law, the standard is always the reasonable person standard, that is, how a reasonable person would manage as a prudent administrator and ensure that equity and common sense prevail in any situation.

Obviously, if someone causes damages, logically that person is liable and if two ships or pieces of equipment are damaged, their liability, when it can be established, is proportionate to the degree to which they are respectively at fault. When it is not possible to establish who is at fault they are jointly and severally liable for the damages they caused.

Under part 4, liability is defined as “liability for carriage of passengers by water”. Therefore, a whole part of the bill deals with the public. It would be normal for someone travelling by ship, if that person were to suffer personal injuries—which would be rather unpleasant for that person—but also loss of luggage—which is a rather regular occurrence—to be compensated for the damages suffered.

Part 4 of the bill sets as a principle that persons using carriage by water will be compensated for personal damages and for lost luggage.

Unfortunately under clause 39 of this fine bill, the governor in council may require those responsible to get insurance. This is where the rub is; this is where we see the arrogance of the government yielding to the pressures of political lobbies, big shipping companies, and those who would have to get insurance to cover liability for damages caused.

Yesterday in the House we saw the party in power defeat amendments whereby parties were asking that those involved in the carriage by water of passengers be required to carry insurance to cover liability for damages caused.

It is only too easy these days to set up a numbered company and register a ship under it, thus avoiding getting insurance. When one is responsible for damages one is sued. Those who could have collected damages will get nothing because the company is insolvent or bankrupt.

We tried to make this point in committee. One must realize that the shipowner lobby is very powerful and is a main contributor to the campaign funds of several members of parliament. This big lobby was successful in conveying the message that the time had not yet come to impose an obligation to carry liability insurance on all those whose business it is is to carry passengers.

This is difficult to understand all the more so when officials from the Department of Transport appeared before the committee and told us that the insurance industry would not be able to support—if the industry ever had to do it—the whole new economic burden, all the new demands there could be and all the obligations that passenger carriers could have. Apparently it was too big a job. They are not able to integrate into their insurance system the supplementary demands that that legislative amendment would entail.

What did the committee do as a good manager of public interests? We asked that some insurance industry representatives appear before the committee. All the industry representatives had a good laugh at the officials' answer that the insurance industry was unable to accommodate the supplementary volume of business that arises as a result of the obligation for those who carry passengers and their luggage to get insurance and provide compensation for damages. For the insurance industry this can be done very easily. That can be integrated very quickly. The industry already insures much of shipowners' fleet that carries passengers and there would be no problem.

This explains why amendments have been moved by the Canadian Alliance and the New Democratic Party. Believe it or not, all these amendments have been rejected by the government party. One of these amendments went as far as to say, in essence “Listen, if we think the industry, which says today it can integrate this, does not want to do it, let us delay implementation until 2003 so that starting on January 1, 2003 insurance will be compulsory”. Well, this has also been rejected by the government party.

Some things are hard to understand. This is a very good example of a bill that purports to be perfectly logical so that all the users, all our good citizens who pay taxes and travel by ship for leisure or for work, can be insured, just like they are when they travel by plane, bus, coach, city bus, metro, train, and so on.

There was no insurance for carriage of passengers by water. The government has introduced a bill that could have been excellent. Admittedly, it is an improvement. Previously marine carriers were not liable. The government decided to put them on an equal footing with other passenger transport industries and said “From the date this bill takes effect marine carriers will be liable for injuries to individuals, users and passengers and for luggage lost”.

However, I want to warn all Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, that before they get on board a ship they should ensure that the carrier has insurance coverage, because in its wisdom the federal government has decided not to force marine carriers to take insurance. If they do business with a carrier that does not have any insurance, that started its operation as a numbered company and that goes bankrupt, then their families will get no compensation at all if they should happen to die in an accident. If they are injured or if their luggage is lost, they will get no compensation under this great piece of legislation.

Again, this started as an interesting bill, but lobbyists managed to put so much pressure on this arrogant government that it finally brought forward amendments that make it very difficult to get any compensation for losses suffered in an accident.

This is not the only change and the only interpretation made to please the lobbyists and to show how arrogant the government can be.

The sixth part of this bill deals with liability for pollution.

This bill is indeed an improvement. As I said before, the Bloc Quebecois will support it since, in our opinion, half a loaf is better than no loaf. The fact is that with regard to pollution this bill is based on the principle that all those who cause damages will be held responsible and will have to compensate those who incur such damages.

It must be understood that the government had the sense to include in the bill a list of those who could incur damages other than environmental damages.

I am thinking, for instance, of those who earn a living from fishing, from fish farming or from water plant growing, owners of fishing vessels and fish processing plant workers in Canada who suffer a loss of current or future income or a loss of supply as the result of a discharge of oil from a ship. They may now be compensated by a special fund.

Members understand that the government had to act because of pressures coming from all those who wanted something done in terms of liability and compensation for pollution. There were pressures from the industry, from those who rely on sea products to earn a living, from all those people who could or did incur damages. If they incurred damages in the past, they are asking, as would be the case in any industry, that the party responsible be required to provide compensation.

For compensation, a fund is being established and managed by the Government of Canada. For each metric ton of oil carried by ship, a certain amount is paid into this compensation fund, which is managed by the Government of Canada. Believe it or not, these amounts are the same as those that were negotiated in the 1990 international agreements.

Once again, following pressure by shipowners, the influential members of our society, primarily politically influential by means of the campaign funds of our colleagues opposite, they managed to say to them “Now that you are requiring us to compensate people who were not compensated before and are clarifying the law, what we need to know now is the extent of the damages”. The shipowners did not need to be made too liable. They did not want costs to rise.

The money paid into this compensation fund is the same as in 1990 and is indexed. The indexing is expected but does not include the increase in the cost of energy. Finally, most of the text on liability and compensation in the case of pollution covers primarily oil pollution, according to what is in the bill. Imagine, an industry in the business of carrying oil and oil carriers pay into the compensation fund. The money is contributed according to a formula dating from 1990.

These are the same amounts as were contributed in 1990. They are indexed according to the cost of living but not the cost of energy. These people live from energy, and we know very well that the increase in the cost of living over the past three years was due primarily to the increase in the cost of energy.

They managed to convince the government that it would be a good idea to index the 1990 amounts but to ignore the main factor in the increase in the cost of living, that is energy costs. Once energy costs are excluded there is almost no increase. The cost of living has practically not gone up since 1990, if energy costs are not taken into account.

It is once again a perfect example of a very interesting bill aimed at compensating people who depend on sea products for their livelihood, who could sustain damages as the result of an oil spill caused by oil carriers. Compensation will now be provided through a special fund to which corporations and shipowners contribute. The amount they contribute, however, is the same amount they were paying into a similar fund in 1990.

This fund had been adopted in many parts of the hemisphere to provide compensation to people sustaining damages. Shipowners have been paying the same amount since 1990. The amounts are the same, but the liabilities have increased.

Our main question, the one I have asked the government representatives is this: Will there be enough money to compensate everyone? The answer was “Yes, there is no problem. We are talking about $100 million, which is enough”. In an ecological disaster $100 million is nothing, particularly if all the industries and sea products in one part of the country are affected. This amount is nothing. It is a drop of fresh water in an ocean of salted water. This is what this may represent.

Once again we are getting lip service from the government, a nice bill that is an improvement. The industry is being made liable for damages it might cause but the industry does not want to suffer too much economically; we have to be careful, it does not make enough money as it is. Canadian shipowners are allowed to do business in foreign countries. For example, in Barbados, they can manage businesses and through agreements signed by the Government of Canada they pay only 1% in taxes on all the income they may earn.

This is allowed; it is in agreements. The Bloc Quebecois has asked the government in this House to deal with this now ironic situation of businesses moving to the islands. This example is a concrete one. This is an agreement the Government of Canada has signed with the Government of Barbados, allowing for capital transfers, allowing Canadian businesses to have ships registered in Barbados and to pay only 1% in taxes on their profits. This is the reality.

Moreover, in a bill to make them responsible for damages resulting from an accident, a failure or an environmental oil disaster, they are told “Not only are you responsible, but you are to compensate all those who make a living in the fishing industry. The only thing is that there is a limit on compensations that may be paid by businesses”. They contribute to a fund. They pay a given amount for each metric ton carried by sea. They use barrels. The amount has been the same since 1990. As I said earlier, there is a cost of living adjustment that does not include the energy costs when we all know that these companies rely on energy in fact.

What we have here is another example of a very interesting bill designed to protect the interests of all Quebecers and all Canadians, but with this arrogant government and its huge majority that always sides with the shipowners' lobby, I am sure members will agree with me that this will probably just be wishful thinking. I do not wish for an ecological disaster that will make it blatantly clear that the compensation fund is underfunded. That is not what I wish for.

Part 7 of the bill validates among other things the Pilotage Act and the 1992 Laurentian pilotage tariff regulations.

When Canadian or foreign ships enter the waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway system they are taken care of by expert pilots who are members of various organizations and associations. In this case, it is the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. We also have the St. Lawrence Pilotage Authority and the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. There are about 400 to 500 pilots, men and women, who take care of the ships plying the St. Lawrence Seaway, to avoid any natural disaster.

For several years now lobbyists for shipowners have been trying to decimate these pilotage authorities by systematically urging the government to review the legislation and allow their own pilots to take over from these specialists in the St. Lawrence Seaway system.

With this bill, the government had a wonderful opportunity to finally put an end to all the hesitation and discussions on the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway pilots, who are members of various associations. It was a wonderful opportunity for the government to resolve this endless debate, which has led these people, these men and women, to live in a constant state of insecurity.

They call us and they call members of the opposition to say that once again the shipowners and the government are exchanging letters and documents because of the additional costs.

If the government can refuse to make a cost of living adjustment to the sums invested since 1990 in the compensation fund, it can easily decide to abolish all the associations and the very principle of having St. Lawrence Seaway pilots, people who protect us from serious disasters such as a fuel spill in the St. Lawrence, that estuary which flows into the Great Lakes. One must be careful about this, because some people have been wrong about which way the water in our rivers and lakes flows.

Nevertheless, it was a wonderful opportunity for the government to put an end, once and for all, to all the shilly-shallying about the usefulness of pilots, those experts on the St. Lawrence Seaway. I repeat that these pilots take charge of ships as soon as they enter the St. Lawrence Seaway. They take charge of them and take them to the Great Lakes, to their destination. This is still our best safety measure.

We are not the only country in the world that uses expert pilots. They do it in the United States on the Mississippi. They also do it in Europe. In fact, in all countries where there are large estuaries, tributaries or rivers with very specific characteristics, there is a system of expert pilots.

We are being told today that there are all kinds of technological inventions that can be used to pilot these ships without human involvement. However, the reality is very different. No machine can replace humans. If that had been possible, machines would have replaced humans long ago in the House. That is not the case. Machines have still not invaded this place and I do not foresee the day where they will, the way things are going now.

This is the hard reality facing a government that, once more, is seeking to improve legislation but has failed to give what they want to stakeholders who depend on shipping for their livelihood, for leisure or spare time activities. This is what is so difficult.

We realize how arrogant the government is when, because of its strong majority, it will not even listen to interesting advice given by the opposition, to interesting questions it asked in committee. For example, when we asked questions of representatives of the insurance industry, they said “There is no problem”. Tomorrow, if we make the system mandatory, that is not a problem. It does not raise the premiums and the cost will be less than a person pays for home insurance.

They gave us an example of an 85 passenger ship for which the premium would be $1,600. That is the cost of the insurance. That is the reality. That is what the insurance industry spokespersons told us.

Tomorrow morning, if the decision is made to make insurance mandatory for all those who carry passengers, this will not increase premiums across Canada. The industry is very much capable of handling it. It has already done some market analyses and the actuarial studies are all ready as well. It already has part of this market, since it provides coverage to part of the industry. That is not a problem.

Once again the government decided, in response to pressures from various lobby groups, to take a step backward. In dealing with a bill, especially one in the shipping sector and entitled an act respecting marine liability and to validate certain bylaws and regulations, the orientation must be to make people liable for certain things. In addition to imposing responsibility upon them, they must be required to adhere to certain standards.

I will close my remarks with the comment that this would have been a very good opportunity to settle the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, which has been operating the 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway for some years.

It has therefore been operated by an independent authority, in connection with which there has been a transfer agreement indicating that all five year plans must be reported to the government, through Transport Canada. From the security aspect, it is also required to administer the locks and marine traffic on the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is also required to ensure its safety.

On June 1, 2000, in St. Catharines, a 70 year old woman lost her life simply because she decided to cross a bridge that was being raised to give way to marine traffic. She did not have time to cross, panicked, fell into the mechanism and died. That was on June 1, 2000.

On July 28, 2000, without waiting for the coroner's report, because obviously such a violent death calls for a coroner's inquest, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation decided unilaterally, apparently for financial and safety reasons, to tell its employees working at its 13 locks in Canada that starting with the 2001 season, which is now under way, it would reduce staff at all locks. The number of employees would be reduced from three to two.

This was a directive from the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation to its employees. Some permanent employees and some temporary employees were affected. Termination notices were sent to them to say that their contract would not be renewed.

The coroner's report was released on October 17, 2000. Of course it criticized certain facilities at the St.Catharines lock but also made the comment that there should be four employees, not three, on every shift at that location.

People who work at a lock are mostly involved in tying down and control activities. Control is necessary because there are many tourists.

There are those like recreational boaters who use the locks. There are also all those who go for a walk and watch the boats. They should be monitored. To prevent accidents like the one that happened to this lady in her 70s, people should be kept at a fair distance from the facilities.

If there is a problem with a ship it has to be moored. There are cables and mooring bitts. This is done manually. The machine to do this automatically has not been invented yet. There has to be people alongside of the locks to moor ships, especially in case one would break down. Navigation locks are not used only by small recreational crafts. There are also huge oil tankers that share the seaway with these crafts. If one of them were to break down, experienced people are needed on shore to hold and move the others.

That is the reason why the coroner made this recommendation. Obviously the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation was not pleased. At first it said this was a bad report by the coroner, as if it were possible to have good and bad coroner reports. When there is an accident a report is written. The coroner examines the occurrence from the point of view of security and tries to find ways to prevent it from happening again.

One of the recommendations was to have four people instead of three at the locks in St. Catherines. I am raising this because it has an impact, because of the guideline issued by the management corporation. If affects the safety of all 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Since it deals with liability, compensation and definitely safety and since making people accountable forces them to act more safely, this bill would have been a good opportunity to deal once and for all with the need to have the required staff at the locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to avoid a repeat of the situation experienced on June 1 of last year by this lady in her 70s.

We tabled a letter in committee but that letter was not received by government officials for all sorts of reasons. Nothing that comes from the opposition is ever good, apparently, but the government should realize that when we take initiatives in the interest of our constituents, of Quebecers and Canadians, it is always good. This is the logic that should guide this House, not political interests and lobbies.

We recommended that the Standing Committee on Transport hear officials from the management corporation, the officials from Transport Canada who were involved in the inquiry, and workers' representatives. They tried to make us backtrack by saying that this was a labour relations issue. I must say that none of the employees who were notified lost his or her job; they were all relocated elsewhere.

The issue is not workers' interests but the safety of the public, of the boaters and tourists who use the 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Bloc Quebecois cares about these people. Each member of each party in this House should care about these people, not about shipowners.

The problem with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is that it charges a fee to ships entering the locks. Of course costs are increasing and shipowners do not want to pay more. These shipowners are asking the management corporation they are part of that fees be reduced, that staff be cut back. Instead of listening to the coroner, who says that the staff should be increased from three to four at the St. Catharines locks, and it would be the same at the 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway, the corporation says it will cut back because there are costs involved. The concern is not safety but fees.

Incidentally, fees have doubled for pleasure craft owners while they have been reduced by 40% for shipowners. This is the reality. The shipowners' lobby is taking control of political organizations. Finally, they know how this works; they know where the campaign funds are and how parliament works.

For us, the representatives of the community, it is hard to see situations such as these and to be prevented in committee to hear at least the seaway management corporation and to ask it: “How did you decide to cut back on staff? Why was the staff cut back when we have a coroner's report saying this is dangerous, this is not safe and the staff should be increased and not cut back?”

I repeat that this is not a problem of labour relations. The permanent employees have all been relocated. This is not the problem. The problem is discussing safety. This bill could have been a wonderful opportunity to do so.

This bill purports to be a bill on marine liability. I repeat, responsibility means that if one is responsible safety must be improved so that damage and accidents do not happen.

In the presentation I made on this particular issue there was a letter from a pilot dated November 11, 2000. This pilot entered the lock at St. Catharines; he had engine trouble and could no longer stop because he could not reverse. He had to warn the stevedores “I am without power. I am drifting toward you. You must stop me. Bring the equipment”. They managed to stop him, but if they had not the ship would have destroyed everything in its path. As he says in the letter he wrote to his union, “If there had been only two of them there, I would have destroyed everything in front of me”.

That is the reality of the situation. This happened in November and it will perhaps happen in the middle of July. I for one, as an MP, would have made the House aware that such situations could have been avoided if parliament had assumed its responsibilities and included in bills such as the one on marine liability provisions making the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation liable for lock safety. If that had been done, they would certainly have taken less draconian measures than they have.

This is a business decision to reduce costs for shipowners, for whom the lives of lock workers or those watching boats or pleasure craft do not matter anyway. What matters is the money they make and put into their pocket and on which they pay only 1% in taxes, because they are registered to Barbados; they are part of a company flying the flag of Barbados.

That is the reality of the situation in Canada. This is why many citizens, many Quebecers, no longer believe in the Canadian system.

We have lost the credibility we had probably earned over the last 100 years. Why? It is because for the past 15 years political lobbies have taken over this parliament.

[St. John's Harbour, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion by the hon. member for St. John's East.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois, and mine by the same token, is based on the opportunities cities had in the past and which they lost over the last few years. They are slowly getting them back, but they are far from meeting all the needs of Canadian municipalities in infrastructure, and waste and water treatment.

In a not too distant previous incarnation, just last year, I quit as president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. I can say that Canadian cities have been hard hit by the deep cuts in federal transfers to the provinces made in 1992.

In 1998 alone, Quebec municipalities have contributed $730 million to the Quebec government to help erase the deficit and meet the needs in health care and education. Since 1992, with a government of the Liberal Party in 1992 and of the Parti Quebecois in 1998, Quebec municipalities have had to make a more significant contribution. In Quebec, this was a bill that was paid in part to the government of Quebec, but the municipalities saw their budgets cut by $730 million.

I am sure that a similar situation exists right across Canada, with the federal government's cuts in health and education. Let us not forget that in 2001 federal transfers to the provinces for health care will only he as high as they were in 1993. No miracles are made with the taxpayer money and we all know that people do not want more tax increases.

What did the provincial governments do? They reduced in turn their transfer payments to the lower levels, basically the transfers and support they were providing to the cities for various programs, including the water purification program.

I am not surprised to see that in 2001 the City of St. John's, Newfoundland is faced with a sewage problem, which it has not yet found a way to solve, and a horrendous $30 million bill. The problem is simple. The level of government funding for the tripartite infrastructure program is insufficient.

The speech that the government member just gave proves it. What he said was that there was not enough money to respond to the 400 demands in the province of Newfoundland alone.

The problem is much larger amounts need to be earmarked for infrastructure programs. Since 1992, cities have had to contribute to the higher levels of governments' deficit reduction efforts. The federal government started things off by shifting the deficit burden to the provinces and provinces then dumped their problems partly on the municipalities and partly on various other health and education institutions.

We are just coming out of a large operation to put public finances back in order, but let us not forget that municipalities provide frontline services to the population. We tend very easily to think that this costs nothing, but when we get up in the morning and flush the toilet or turn on the faucet, we must never forget that the quality of life we enjoy in our beautiful provinces and also in Canada is largely due to the municipalities that take care of water treatment, wastewater treatment and garbage collection.

Those are things we often forget. People too often forget that there are costs involved and that the municipalities have to meet them.

I sympathize with the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland. That city should have the resources needed to treat its wastewater. It should have, in the year 2001, the amounts required to deal with what is now one of life's necessities, wastewater treatment.

In this regard, we could recommend that the government be receptive to all municipal applications regarding the needs identified as a result of studies. A major study had to be conducted by municipalities across Canada before they could submit their applications under the tripartite program.

In Quebec municipalities need $10 billion to deal with infrastructure problems of all kinds. The $10 billion will only be spread over the next ten years. They need $10 billion dollars to maintain their water systems, sewage treatment systems and transportation systems in reasonably good shape.

The tripartite infrastructure program announced in its last budgets by the federal government will only give Quebec $1.5 billion over the next five years, which is 15% of what Quebec municipalities need. I am sure the situation is the same across Canada. It is too little, and in the case of St. John's, Newfoundland, it is too late, because considerable damage is being caused to the environment by not dealing with such a serious problem as water purification. We are always waiting for the federal government because that is how we are able to calculate investments made by the provinces and municipalities.

I would even go as far as to say that, on top of that, all municipalities along the St. Lawrence River, along the St. Lawrence Seaway and along Canada's entire coastline need a specific envelope for decontamination and cleanup to repair the damage caused by nature and man in the last few years.

These municipalities need special assistance. There should be a special envelope for municipalities along the coasts of Quebec and Canada, including along the St. Lawrence Seaway, in order to meet this urgent need to fight pollution and to be environmentally correct, if we want our country to be at the forefront of the fight against pollution.

The Bloc Quebecois will support all municipalities and cities that try to take charge of their own destiny and need money to compensate the big revenue loss caused indirectly by the federal government since 1992. Cities had to part with billions of dollars to help provincial governments and Quebec deal with health care and education problems.

It is inconceivable that in 2001 federal transfers to the provinces are at the 1993 level. When health care was implemented in Canada, the federal share of the costs was 50%. It stands now at 25%, while costs keep rising for the provinces. In Quebec health costs will double over the next five years. Obviously, federal transfers will not increase at the same rate, even if we are told that agreements have been signed. True enough, the provinces have signed agreements on infrastructure programs.

We are supposed to be glad with everything that is being signed. Of course, half a loaf is better than no loaf. Premiers sign agreements with the federal government because it is better than nothing and because it will help their communities and citizens. However we should not forget that Canadian cities need much more.

I will say it again, St. John's deserves this federal investment. It deserves to have the federal government pay one third, and the provincial government and the municipal government will also each pay one third.

[National Airports, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a member from Toronto, that does not surprise me.

While we are at it, could the Minister of Transport tell us if he also ascribes to the sovereignty project the fact that the region of Montreal is the world's main producer of civilian helicopters, second only to Seattle in providing jobs in aeronautics, the third largest producer worldwide of biopharmaceuticals and fourth in the world in developing information technologies?

Do these successes also reflect this discomfort created by the sovereignty project?