House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 41% of the vote.
Mirabel Region March 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, history will bear witness to the total and absolute disaster the federal Liberal government wrought at Mirabel for Quebeckers.
Given that the fiasco at Mirabel is the result of this government's errors, does the Prime Minister intend to seize the opportunity offered him by Bernard Landry to save the Mirabel region and turn it into an international free trade zone?
Contributions To Political Parties March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, so, I ask the minister to consult his party's list of contributions.
Our figures show that a given Canadian's chances of being awarded a contract by the Canada information office are 125 times greater if he has contributed to the Liberal Party coffers. Businesses' chances of being awarded a contract by the CIO are 40 times greater if they have contributed to the Liberal Party.
Does the minister not think that this situation, even though he may not be aware of it, undermines public confidence in public institutions?
Contributions To Political Parties March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
In 1995-96, Atomic Energy Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Canada Post, the latter now headed by a former Liberal minister, contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada campaign fund.
Does the minister think it appropriate for these organizations to contribute public money to his party's election fund?
Pharmaceutical Industry March 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and tell the House some very important news for the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and in Quebec. Technilab Pharma has bought out AltiMed Pharmaceutical, an Ontario company.
Technilab Pharma, a company that was founded in 1974 and has its headquarters in Mirabel in my riding, will now be the third-ranking generic drug manufacturer in terms of revenues and the fourth-ranking pharmaceutical company in terms of number of prescriptions filled by pharmacists across Canada.
Technilab Pharma expects to more than double its annual revenues to $160 million and currently employs 350 people in its three plants.
Congratulations to this leader of the pharmaceutical industry for its contribution, on the economic level, to the health of all Canadians.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls, to whom I had the pleasure of paying a visit last summer. I must say that he has a wonderful vineyard and that he makes excellent wines.
Now, after the good wine, the sour grapes. Does he not find it unfortunate that the Minister of Finance did not put a single penny in employment insurance?
I realize that Ontario is a privileged province. Unemployment has always been lower there than in Quebec. In fact, it is a richer province.
Does he not believe that the Minister of Finance should have invested in employment insurance, which we still refer to as unemployment insurance?
Aerospace Research Centre February 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in December, the Montreal chamber of commerce expressed the hope that the future aerospace research centre would be built in the Mirabel region, given the location there of the airport, Bell helicopters, Bombardier and a number of other related businesses.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Is he prepared to choose Mirabel as the site for the new aerospace research centre?
International Year Of Older Persons February 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the UN has designated 1999 as the International Year of Older Persons in order to draw attention to their achievements and their contribution to communities in all countries.
The United Nations believes the proportion of persons aged 60 years and over in the population will change from a ratio of 1/14 to 1/4 in the coming years. Seniors, now representing 12% of Canada's total population, will represent 23% of it by 2041. This major democratic change will alter the economic, social and cultural structures of Quebec and Canada.
Canada's theme for the International Year of Older Persons, “Canada, a society for all ages”, was developed by representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in consultation with seniors. It underscores the importance of the role—
National Home Care Program December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, when the minister does not have the right answers, that is the kind of responses we get.
If he wants to show some consistency, ought the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not to start by convincing the Prime Minister to negotiate the agreement on social union, and to address the home care issue with the premiers within the framework of the social union only after that?
National Home Care Program December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on July 10, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs declared to the Canadian press that “In the case of the home care program, we are hoping for an agreement but we will not proceed without the provinces' agreement. We cannot do it without them; it would not be a good program”.
In light of this statement, what does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have to say to his Prime Minister who has, from all appearances, prepared his home care program already, on his own, and announced the details to Mr. Klein while in Alberta yesterday?
Railway Safety Act December 4th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 12 the following:
“(3) Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.”
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to outline my reservations about Bill C-58 introduced by the government to optimize rail transportation safety.
Anything that has to do with the rail system is of interest to the inhabitants of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau. In 1994, we prepared a brief opposing CP's request to abandon its operations in the subdivision of Lachute between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso in the province of Quebec .
Fortunately, through the intervention of Jacques Léonard, the then provincial transport minister, we obtained a moratorium so the line would not be abandoned. Because of this moratorium, the trains are again running between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso.
While the Bloc Quebecois welcomes this bill, it deplores the circumstances that led up to it. In September 1997, a VIA rail passenger train left the tracks near Biggar in Saskatchewan with tragic results. This is what it took to get the minister's office to introduce the substantial amendments to the 1989 Railway Safety Act that were needed.
We have carefully examined the bill, which is a series of very technical amendments to the present legislation and, with some reservations, are in favour of Bill C-58.
First, we see it as positive that steps have been taken to enhance the government's ability to get the railways to remedy nuisances and hazards relating to safety and to the environment. Thus the government is assuming more of one of its fundamental responsibilities, to ensure people's safety.
It is also obvious that the government is taking advantage of this opportunity to encourage collaboration between the various parties involved in railway transportation in the process of creating and implementing safety measures for rail users and employees, and the population in general.
Finally, this bill gives the Minister of Transport the necessary authority in cases not covered by the legislation to step in promptly, overstepping the regulations, in the interests of the safety of those affected by rail transportation. We acknowledge the justification of this provision. It is a valuable tool in the hands of a Minister of Transport with concerns for public safety.
As I have said, one of the provisions in the bill strikes us as unacceptable in its present wording. This is clause 19, which gives the governor in council authority “respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations”.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the construction and maintenance of roads is a provincial and municipal responsibility. Railway safety is, and we do not dispute this, under federal jurisdiction. We nonetheless believe that steps must be taken to prevent Ottawa from using this responsibility as an excuse to once again invade provincial jurisdictions and letting the province or municipality foot the bill, when they cannot afford the road work required, especially in the case of small municipalities.
Clause 19 is sufficiently vague and its scope sufficiently broad that the governor in council could, under this provision, force a municipality to build a bridge to carry the road over the rail line on the pretext that it will mean greater safety for road and rail passengers.
This is totally unacceptable, hence our amendment, which reads as follows:
Section 24 of the same Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.
I am delighted to have the member for Jonquière seconding this amendment.
Indeed, it is desirable and normal that the measures decided by a round table headed by the federal Minister of Transport and designed to improve safety conditions relating to a railway line are not a financial burden unfairly imposed by the federal government on the province, city or municipality concerned. Clearly, the safety of a railway line is the responsibility of the operator of that line.
We realize that imposing fees on the railway companies concerned may be a deterrent to the implementation of projects designed to improve the safety of the facilities. This is why it is important to include in the act provisions specifying that even though the cost of such work must be borne by line operators, it must in no way adversely affect the implementation and the timetable of such projects.
In conclusion, while the Bloc Quebecois supports this purely technical bill, it insists that the proposed amendments be taken into consideration, in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Our party remains firm in its determination to protect the interests of Quebeckers and to oppose potential or actual federal interference in jurisdictions that come under the provinces, which this government has no business doing. That being said, we think this is basically a good bill.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that once the necessary adjustments have been made, everything should be done to ensure the bill's quick implementation. As for us, we are prepared to work to that end.