André Caron

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak on the amendment of the Reform Party and that of my party and denounce the Liberal government for continuing the Conservative government's policy of ending what I would call the open collective bargaining in the Public Service.

In the past, I lived through two situations where the government changed the rules of the game and imposed its will. I assure you that that had serious consequences, not on the motivation, but on the morale of the workers affected. Of course, people who work for the government and provide a public service continue to do so. On the two occasions when such laws were passed in Quebec, I observed that the people around me. The public servants continued to do their work well but something had changed in their attitude. It seemed that the workers had become more suspicious or distrustful of their employer, which is the government in this case.

So I think that the government should interfere in open collective bargaining only in extreme situations and I do not think that we are in such a situation at this time. But what kind of a situation are we in right now? We see governments that have lost control over their spending. They must therefore make political decisions to show that, at least, they care for the interests of their people.

What is the first decision? They find a scapegoat and public servants, the government's employees, are the perfect scapegoat. The government will say: "Public service employees cost a lot of money, so we will cut their salaries". When you look at those salary cuts compared to our national debt, it really is not much, but it still allows politicians to say: "Yes, we do spend a lot of money, but remember that we have cut public service employees' salaries". I think that it has simply become an excuse for a government that has lost control of its spending.

There is another point that I would like to raise, and it has to do with the fact that we live in a country where the rule of law prevails. The government can make all the laws it wants to make, but they have to be considered fair and adequate by the people. And when a law is considered questionable and inadequate by all the people, I think that we find ourselves in a situation where the rule of law does not prevail any more. In fact, we find ourselves in a situation where the state wants to impose its will, where arbitrary considerations take precedence. People are willing to negotiate an agreement, to take part in a collective bargaining process, but there is always somebody somewhere that can say no. The contract that was signed in good faith by people who took the time to think about it and who voted during union general assemblies has now been unilaterally and arbitrarily repudiated.

I am in favour of the amendment proposed by my party. However, if it is rejected, the amendment of the Reform Party advocating a return to open bargaining seems more acceptable to me than what we find in this bill. In this instance, the government, wanting to show the people that it is ready to make tough decisions in managing our country's affairs, finds a scapegoat and hits its workers in order to avoid having to look elsewhere.

After spending six months in Ottawa, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, know that there are cuts to be made elsewhere. There are things that need to be examined. That is exactly what my party wanted to do at the very beginning of the session when it proposed the establishment of a special committee to review all government spending.

When I say all government spending, this includes wages, but this also refers to all things that are bought, things that are sold, things that often seem, even for the layman, ill planned and that entail expenditures much more substantial than those related to cuts that could be done by a freeze in public servants wages.

I will vote for the amendment proposed by my party and against the main amendment presented by the Liberal government that is putting an end to what I call open collective bargaining in the public service.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague from Athabasca and I think that it was made with sincerity and honesty.

I note, however, that the examples given concern specific cases, and the member asked what would be the reaction of Bloc members or Government members if their child had to experience particularly painful situations caused by young offenders.

No doubt the reaction would be one of outrage and it would be a strong reaction concentrating on punishment and resentment. It must be noted, however, that as members of the Parliament of Canada, we have the responsibility to look at things in perspective and a little more coldly, perhaps.

I note with interest that the member for Athabasca pointed out that it is necessary to attack the roots of the problem, which are poverty and the problems of drugs and poor schooling. There is no doubt that the often excessive reactions or the crimes committed by young offenders can be explained by a particular sociological context. But I particularly liked what the member for Athabasca said at the start of his speech.

He implied that the problem may not be the Act, but the administration of the Act. It is indeed my impression in looking at the Act and, frequently, in looking at what judges do, it is my impression that it might, in some cases, be applied with more severity.

For example, unless I am mistaken, young offenders may be brought before adult courts under the current Act. So, I would like to ask the member for Athabasca this question: Does he not think that if judges, those who apply the Act, and also the people who apply it in the prisons, those who are concerned with issues of parole, if these people paid a little more attention to the concerns of some and applied the Act with more severity, perhaps we would not be obliged to amend the present Act?

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the privatization of Pearson Airport, in Toronto, from the perspective of a resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean. What does a resident of Jonquière or Saint-Félicien see when he watches TV and hears about this project? He sees that the privatization of Pearson Airport was quickly and hastily decided during the last election campaign. Pearson Airport is not a lame duck; it is not a venture in deficit. It is profitable airport; in fact, it is one of the most profitable airports in Canada. Some civil servants in Ontario claimed that this privatization would cost somewhere between $140 million and $240 million annually.

The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean who is watching sees hundreds of millions go by. However, behind the scenes he also sees lobbyists who are friends of the government. He sees Conservatives, Liberals, former deputy ministers and senior civil servants hired by lobbies, and businesspeople used to getting lucrative government contracts and attending Conservative and Liberal fund raising dinners at $1,000 a plate.

The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean then compares this situation to the needs of his region, which are important needs. The history of our region goes back 150 years. It is a region with a glorious industrial past. Our region's development was based on natural resources: our forests provided paper, while lumber and hydro-electricity were used for primary aluminum.

In my riding, Alcan's Arvida plant was at one time the world's largest aluminum plant. Back in 1943, the Shipshaw hydro station in my riding generated the most hydroelectric power in the world. That is what I mean when I refer to our glorious past.

As for the present, the region is still fairing relatively well. It is home to seven pulp and paper plants and to four primary aluminium plants. However, it is also experiencing major economic problems. In the past few months, the official unemployment rate-not the unofficial, but the official rate-in the greater Chicoutimi-Jonquière region was the highest in Canada. The rate is unbelievably high. For a region that lived through the golden age of industry, this situation raises a number of questions.

We all know the reasons for this situation and we have analyzed them on different occasions in the region. One reason cited is technological conversion, the fact that our major industries have modernized their operations. That is quite normal. Another reason is globalization. A company like Alcan is investing around the world. Finally, the region's economic woes can also be attributed to the fact that more money is flowing out of, instead of into, the region. The Health and Social Services Board produced a study which found that our region experienced an annual shortfall of more than $100 million. Imagine what could be accomplished with an extra $100 million in a region such as the Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean, considering its needs and its population of roughly 300,000 people.

Regional development policies have also been ill-conceived. Both the federal and the provincial governments have resorted to the old trick of divide and conquer. Year after year, the region is given several million dollars and left to decide how to allocate the funds. It is somewhat like throwing a bone to a pack of dogs and watching them fight over it.

Meanwhile, no new regional development policies specifically geared to a region such as ours have been formulated. This too raises some questions.

Despite everything, the region's future still seems bright. I can say this because residents are resisting the exodus of young people, the loss of jobs in our major industries and the rise in unemployment. At the Abitibi-Price and Alcan plants, the unions have taken steps, in co-operation with the different companies, to increase production and performance levels. Their actions are supported by the politicians.

At the Vaudreuil plant, in Arvida, a plant providing employment to about 1,200 people, the union asked Alcan to make investments in order to make that plant even more profitable than it is now. The 54 Bloc Quebecois even supported in a petition the Vaudreuil plant workers who are asking for investments.

Politicians then, particularly in the sphere of influence of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, are doing all they can to get new investments for the region.

As people from the region, we are also asking for multinationals to re-invest locally some of the profits they derive from the development of our natural resources. Natural resources have been leased to big companies, whether it be Alcan or Price. Since these companies have been granted access to our resources, people ask that more substantial spin-offs benefit the region.

This happened last year, when Alcan sold to Hydro-Quebec tens of millions of dollars in surplus electricity. This money was probably invested abroad or went to shareholders. If Alcan was allowed to develop our rivers, it is because it promoted job creation and not dividends to its shareholders.

We ask that these funds be reinvested in the region. I would even go so far, Mr. Speaker, as to ask that an investment funds be set up with the money generated from these surpluses in order to promote the development of small and medium-sized business in that area.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what we really need are the tools for our development: a radical decentralization and the powers required to make our decisions. In the same way that Quebec wants to acquire these powers by becoming a sovereign State, at the regional level, we want to have a say in the decision-making process.

[Sexual Orientation, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree then that it is urgent to legislate on this in order to prevent the legal battle which seems to be starting on this question?

[Sexual Orientation, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Government of Alberta appealed a decision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation and an Ontario court refused to recognize the rights of same-sex couples, invoking the definitions of marital and spousal status contained in the Ontario's Charter of Human Rights.

What is the government waiting for to present in this House a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the last days of its second mandate and in the middle of an election campaign, the previous government privatized Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport in Toronto by signing an agreement with a company called T1 T2 Limited Partnership. After defeating the Conservatives on October 25, the Liberal Party came to power planning to cancel this deal, as promised during the election campaign.

On October 28, the Prime Minister commissioned Mr. Robert Nixon, former treasurer of a Liberal Ontario government, to investigate this controversial agreement. The bill before us today gives effect to Mr. Nixon's recommendation to cancel the privatization agreement made between the government of Canada and the T1 T2 Limited Partnership consortium.

Let me remind you that the principal shareholders of this company are the fabulously wealthy Charles Bronfman and Mr. Don Mathews, Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign manager and former fund-raising campaign president for the Conservative Party.

In light of the exceptional circumstances under which this agreement was made and the many disquieting facts surrounding it, and also in light of the findings of the Nixon Report, simply cancelling the contract will do very little to clarify matters for the public, which is expecting more from the government.

The public wants light to be shed on the role played by lobby groups in this whole business. According to the Nixon Report, lobbyists had put a great deal of pressure on the Conservative political staff as well as on senior government officials.

Mr. Nixon says that lobbyists, by their actions, led the government to make dubious decisions. He said, and I quote: It is clear that the lobbyists played a prominent part in attempting to affect the decisions that were reached, going far beyond the concept of "consulting". With regards to lobbyists' influence on government officials, he added: "When senior bureaucrats involved in the negotiation for the government of Canada feel that their actions and decisions are being heavily affected by lobbyists, as occurred here, the role of the latter has in my view,

exceeded permissible norms". Permissible norms were exceeded in the Pearson airport affair. Such statements cannot remain unanswered.

Obviously, excessive lobbying was used with Conservative politicians and federal officials in order to influence their decisions. It seems evident that the public service integrity and impartiality are being questioned by the findings of Mr. Nixon's inquiry. In view of these circumstances, the government cannot turn a blind eye on this affair and just cancel the Pearson airport privatization deal, by secretly compensating people who may have lost money, as it intends to do with this bill before us.

A royal commission of inquiry must be established to shed light on this dubious transaction which looks increasingly like a political and financial scandal as the facts come out. Quebecers and Canadiens must be told the truth about the role attributed by the media to Bill Box, Pat MacAdam, Fred Doucet, Harry Near, Hugh Riopelle, and Garry Ouellette, all lobbyists linked to the Conservative Party, former senior officials or members of Mr. Mulroney's party political staff. One could add to that list Ramsey Withers, a Liberal lobbyist and former deputy minister of Transport, and Ray Hession, former deputy minister of Industry and senior official of the Department of Supply and Services under Trudeau.

A royal commission of inquiry will be able to throw some light on this whole affair and on the role played by these persons. If nothing reprehensible is found, great, we will be pleased to know it. This is not all. The government has to learn a lesson from all this and to take this opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the legislation governing lobbying in Canada.

In a free and democratic society as ours, where citizens have the right to express their views, lobbying is part of the decision-making process. Citizens as well as organized groups may influence the government decisions if they feel it is in the public interest. In the United States, lobbying is institutionalized, part of the political scene and well regulated. In order to prevent undue influence of lobbyists on the government, it is essential that their activities be governed by stricter legislation than what we presently have in Canada, which has been totally inefficient as far as the Pearson airport issue is concerned.

The present Lobbyists Registration Act identifies two categories of lobbyist groups. These are: professional lobbyists who have contracts with third parties and approach politicians and civil servants in order to influence them; and the other lobbyists who, because of their functions, may have to approach federal civil servants or politicians to defend their interests; those are, for instance, unions or professional associations seeking the support of the government on a specific piece of legislation.

As for disclosure of their activities, professional lobbyists must give the name of their employer, the name and address of their clients and the purpose of their approach. Those of the second group are required to give only their name and the name of the organisation for which they are working.

Like the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations in its report, I think that interest groups of all categories should be required to follow the same rules of disclosure. Since the purpose of interest groups is essentially to influence the decision-making process of the government, it seems normal that they all be subjected to the same rules.

In brief, time has come for lobbyists to be required to disclose the nature and object of their activities with governmental authorities, as well as the financial benefits they receive for their services.

Moreover, we must protect senior public servants against the schemes of interest groups.

As a matter of fact, the Nixon report reveals that many senior public servants were exposed to considerable pressure by lobbyists who were trying to influence their decisions regarding the privatization of the airport. It even points out that, and I quote: "Indeed this element of pressure resulted in several civil servants being re-assigned or requesting transfer from the project".

The investigator found that some government officials involved in the privatization of Pearson airport had to quit working on that matter because the pressures from lobbyists were too strong and their integrity was in jeopardy.

Given those disclosures, which are very disturbing-to say the least-and in order to avoid any recurrence of such things, Mr. Speaker, all public office holders must be required by law to disclose all contacts they have with lobbyists. Canadians and Quebecers have a right to know who is trying to influence government officials, and why.

In conclusion, at a time when our fellow citizens are asking governments to be more open, we have no other choice than to demand that a royal commission of inquiry be established to clarify the strange events that surrounded the privatization of Pearson airport.

The government must also clean up lobbying in Canada. It has to, because of the scandal that surrounded the privatization of Pearson airport. We have to put an end to the maneuvering by friends of the government and to influence peddling, which tarnish the reputation of our democratic institutions and that of the people working in those institutions.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the people of Quebec and Canada have agreed to send troops to the former Yugoslavia to keep the peace. Our troops are part of a 23,000 member UN force which has been making commendable efforts for months to restore peace to that European country. With dignity, courage and efficiency, our soldiers have carried out their mandate, a narrow and demanding mandate that they have managed to carry out effectively.

Our troops have saved lives. They have provided medical treatment. They have helped people escape the combat zone.

After many months of hard work, an agreement was finally reached just recently, under which Bosnian Serbs accepted that six safe areas be defined. Sarajevo and Gorazde were among these areas.

We are forced to recognize that the Bosnian Serbs did not live up to their word, as this has been the case all too often over the past few months, and hostilities resumed. The city of Gorazde is currently under Bosnian Serb fire, its unarmed and defenceless population subjected to mortar shelling day in and day out. Blind fire is killing civilians, women and children. Just today, 28 people were killed in the shelling of a hospital.

We are facing a difficult situation. Will we look on helplessly, as brutal force, ill intent and duplicity triumph? Will we keep on worrying about what happens to our troops in the field? On the other hand, should we not help those who are proposing concerted, effective actions to force Bosnian Serbs to abide by the agreements concluded, to stop shelling and remove their guns from around guaranteed safe areas? I think we should. I think that the nations involved in the operations must send a clear message, an ultimatum, to the people who are shelling defenceless people, shelling civilians and children, shelling hospitals.

The ultimatum must be clear and have a short deadline. It seems that is the only language which the soldiers operating under the colours of the Bosnian Serbs understand.

We must issue this ultimatum and if they do not comply, we must, as suggested, strike effectively and rapidly so that the weapons shooting civilians and defenceless people are destroyed and that the troops in the field are no longer subject to the bad faith of the Bosnian Serbs, who as we have seen believe that they do not have to keep their word.

We must issue this ultimatum and use the necessary force if the Bosnian Serbs do not comply, because it is a humanitarian duty. We are witnessing barbaric acts. We are witnessing frightful things. For a long time, we had not seen people in Europe being subjected to mortar fire, random shooting and bombing.

Canadians do not accept violence in their own country. Increasingly, they call for action, and I believe that they have the same attitude to situations of violence abroad directed against defenceless people.

Therefore it is a humanitarian duty to intervene. It also takes the lessons of history into account.

If the League of Nations, a few years prior to 1939, had taken the necessary steps to stop Hitlerian madness in Germany, many millions of people might not have died in World War II.

History teaches us that if we do not do anything to stop massacres, injustice and unspeakable violence against civilians, against defenceless populations-if we witness all these horrible scenes without reacting-we will pay dearly for our inaction several years later. That is also what the news teaches us.

Staggering events are now occurring in Rwanda, Africa. We see people being slaughtered and ask ourselves whether we could have done something in the first hours of the crisis. I think the answer is yes. So I think we should intervene. We have a duty to intervene in the face of growing violence, of the return to Europe of barbarities it had not seen in 50 years.

It is with regret but also with a sense of duty that I think Canada should agree to implement the program proposed by the UN to NATO and, if the ultimatum is rejected by the Bosnian Serbs, to launch the air strikes required to make them live up to their word. In all honesty, I think it is our duty to show solidarity with our fellow human beings.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on March 18, after the tabling of the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Mr. Max Yalden, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, whose reply was unsatisfactory.

In his report, the Human Rights Commissioner was very critical of the way native people were treated by the Government of Canada under the Indian Act.

I do not think one has to be an expert on Amerindian issues to realize that aboriginal people in Canada often suffer job discrimination, that they live in a state of forced dependency on the federal government as a result of the Indian Act and face a number of social problems that merely reinforce the prejudice against native people. We do not need learned studies to realize that significant changes are urgently needed to improve their living conditions.

In response to my question in about the strategy and concrete measures the government had in mind to correct a situation that was both deplorable and well known, the Deputy Prime Minister merely replied that her government was negotiating agreements with aboriginal peoples aimed at granting them a form of self-government, and that as a result of this process the department of Indian affairs could ultimately disappear.

Aboriginal nations, Quebecers and Canadians expect more specific answers from the government when discussing issues that are so important to the future of these communities. Although it has plans to conclude an agreement with aboriginal peoples involving their inherent right to self-government, the Government of Canada, through its minister of Indian affairs, is dragging its feet, avoids answering the questions and refuses to be specific about the form aboriginal governments will take.

Will these governments be constituted along ethnic lines? Will they have specific and exclusive territories? Will they have legal and fiscal powers? Will they be able to sign agreements with other governments? There is complete confusion and uncertainty about these issues which are extremely important to the country, and that is because the government just keeps repeating that negotiations are under way with various aboriginal nations.

We want to be informed about the negotiating process. We want to know about the Government of Canada's definition of native self-government.

Finally, considering the recommendations of the Human Rights Commissioner who indicated in his report that the Indian Act encourages the dependency and marginalization of aboriginal peoples, could the Minister tell the House what specific measures he has in mind to put an end to the social and economic problems created by this paternalistic legislation?

[Canadian National Railways, April 15th, 1994]

It is not the answer of someone interested in regional development.

Last Wednesday I took part in a symposium organized in Chicoutimi by people who want to plan their regional development. They want to draw up a strategic development plan for their area. Today, they will be told to forget about including Chibougamau-Chapais in their plan because there are people in the Department of Transport and at the CN who say that if the rail line is not profitable, it must be closed. At this rate, all the roads to Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are going to be closed. What highway pays for itself? What is the government's duty?

The duty of the government is to provide services, it is not to calculate their cost-effectiveness to the penny. Is the Jonquière Hospital cost effective? Of course not. Is the CEGEP in Jonquière cost effective? People will say that we spend millions of dollars, we train people and some of these young people are unemployed, because of the economic policies of past and present governments. It is not profitable, so close it down. At that rate, let us close Canada down. Is Canada profitable? Canada is running a $40-billion deficit, so close Canada down.

That is why I support the previous speaker's thinking, not on shutting down Canada, but on closing down railways in outlying regions. They are extremely important, they are our arteries, our lifeblood, our economic development depends on them. If we start closing them, we will be paralysed. That is how paralysis occurs in the human body; blood stops circulating. If you close our railways and our highways, if you do not give us the infrastructure we need to develop, we will be paralysed and die.

I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Roberval and I am sure that hon. members will support it too.

[Canadian National Railways, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, hearing the member for Carleton-Gloucester on the profitability of the trunk line, which my colleague from Roberval wants to save from destruction, from being scrapped, I was reminded that some people have never travelled to the regions. Some people have never seen what an isolated region of Canada is.

I am from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region where the Chibougamau-Chapais area is located and I can tell you that this region is 150 years old. The first settlers used axes and two-handed saws to clear the land in the hope of finding some future north of Quebec City. These people worked like slaves and never stopped fighting to open up the area to the rest of the world and to get means of transportation. They fought to obtain a road from Charlevoix to Chicoutimi. They fought for a rail line from Quebec City to Chicoutimi and Roberval. They fought for the Chibougamau road and for a road from Chicoutimi to Sacré-Coeur on the North Shore. More recently, they fought for the road to the Far North which gives us access to the development of the great dams being built in northern Quebec.

Today, they tell us they will close part of a rail line in the Chibougamau region. Of course that line is not being used at the moment. There is a recession, our mines are closed, our miners are unemployed and they are cutting their benefits so these people will now have to resort to welfare. They are closing the doors to the future for these people; they tell them their railroad is worthless, it is not profitable it will be closed and that they will make $5 million by selling the metal. It is the answer of a scrap dealer.