Bernard St-Laurent

[Excise Tax Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 contains a deliberate glitch involving clauses 2, 3, and 4, dealing with the increase in the air transportation fee schedule for remote areas. Once again, the Liberal government has decided to pick on people who can ill afford to pay, having had the guts to be true pioneers in remote and less populated areas.

This comes after Bill C-17 and the attack on regions with a very high unemployment rate, such as my riding of Manicouagan, after the fishery adjustment program which, although it is very generous, does not take into account regional characteristics, especially regarding sports fishing which attracts a lot of tourists and is vitally important to us. And now, the Liberal government picks on these same people, striking at the key component of this region's economic development, namely air transportation.

However, the objective, which is to lessen the tax burden on short-haul flights to small communities, has not been met. As a matter of fact, deregulation has had a negative impact on air transportation to remote areas. These areas have had to assume the entire cost of transportation, and fares to these destinations have significantly increased over the past few years. As an example, let me give you a few statistics which might help us draw some comparisons. These examples will help us better understand what the problem is with the transportation system on the North Shore.

First, before getting to the statistics, let us review some basic geographical information. Let us talk about the east side of Manicouagan, a riding so huge it seems to me like a whole continent. To give you an idea, it is 46 per cent of the size of Ontario. The coast is 1,200 kilometres long. For comparison's sake, travelling 1,200 kilometres from Ottawa in a north-west direction will get you near Thunder Bay, and in a north-east direction to Sept-Îles. That is awesome. Out of these 1,200 kilometres between Franklin and Blanc-Sablon, which is only a part of my riding, 500 kilometres are connected to the national highway system, hence to the Quebec system, but the other 700 kilometres along the coast are not linked to the Quebec highway

system. You might see some sections of roadway linking together a few villages along the coast, but nothing connecting these villages to the Quebec system.

I will divide my speech in two. I will start with the communities accessible by road and then deal with the communities which are not accessible by road. In a riding like Manicouagan, where regional economic development is concerned, air transportation is very important, because it usually facilitates the first contacts between an investor and the territory he or she wishes to develop. Once they have flown to the targeted area, investors look at the various facilities they and their employees could benefit from. Of course, air services are a big consideration when advantages and disadvantages are reviewed.

That is why this issue cannot be treated lightly. For the people in my riding of Manicouagan, flying is not a luxury, it is a crucial service not only to ensure regional and economic development, but to maintain the quality of life they are entitled to as taxpayers. More that 85 per cent of small and medium sized communities are located within 150 kilometres of a major urban area.

A major urban centre is a built-up area where you can find all the important health and government services. In Quebec, we are talking about Montreal, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke. So, in those areas where there is significant population density, they are not usually lacking for much of anything to meet the basic needs to achieve a decent standard of living in 1994.

But what is the decent standard of living that the Manicouagan taxpayers have a right to expect in 1994? The bill talks about equity in relation to cost distribution. So, for analysis purposes, I did some brief calculations where equity must represent the same rate, must means that we should pay the same price for an air kilometre, no matter where.

That gives us some really interesting data. For example, between Quebec City and Montreal, which is undoubtedly the busiest corridor, some percentage of variation could be acceptable. We could agree with that, but to go from simple to double, as I will show you, is an aberration. It is not only an exaggeration, but an aberration. For Quebec City-Montreal, we arrive at more or less $1.10 per air kilometre; for Sept-Îles-Natashquan-as people cannot get to that area by road, they must take a plane for emergencies or whatever-$1.34 per kilometre; for Sept-Îles-Blanc-Sablon, $1.82. We should not forget that the rate for Montreal-Quebec City is still $1.10. The equity must be somewhere. We will talk about Natasquan-Montreal, which is $2.29 per kilometre; that is more than double the rate. Another one which is more than double: Saint-Augustin-Montreal, $2.32; for Blanc-Sablon-Montreal, $2.40. This is an aberration. But, according to the minister, there is equity somewhere in there. It does not make any sense.

Those people who are not linked to a road system, those living in communities that are not located within the road network of Quebec, have the same basic needs as those I mentioned earlier, but of course they also have particularities.

Let us take for instance health clinics. Suppose we have an emergency where a child is involved, or any other person, and needs special care. Since these clinics cannot provide the treatments, a sanitary plane of the Government of Quebec will be used to take the patient to a centre, Quebec or Montreal, as required. However, people who accompany the patients have to disburse considerable amounts of money to go with them.

Let us take Blanc-Sablon, for instance. A mother who is morally obligated to accompany her child to a Quebec hospital will have to pay almost $1,500 in transport, whereas if she resided in Baie-Saint-Paul, she would not have to bear such costs since that community is linked to the road system.

Air transport is not a luxury in the riding of Manicouagan.

That fact is mentioned in a resolution of the city council of Natashquan which I have here. The city council naturally sent a letter to the provincial minister and I would like to quote a few lines of that resolution which refer to the various preambles dealing with the specificity of those regions.

"Given the geographic difficulties", and this is not trivial, because the North Shore is not flat and you do not play golf every day in that area. "Given the health and education problems linked to transportation", teachers, doctors, people travelling to every corner of the North Shore go by plane because they have no other choice. Air travel is so outrageously expensive that the city council mentions it in its resolution. Although every city council could say the same thing but I mentioned only that of Natashquan.

They also explain how this affects supplies. I would like to tell you a short story dealing with food commodities. Here, a T-bone steak is expensive, and a tomato is certainly a lot cheaper, but if you go to Natashquan or Chevery, like I did in February, a tomato costs almost more than a T-bone because to buy a tomato in February, it has to be shipped there practically by November, so imagine what it will cost in February if it is still good to eat. This is of course an extreme example, but we have to consider these regional differences. Air transportation is a major factor here. And that is part of the reason why we are rising in the House today.

When the government thinks that its policy to charge less tax on cheap tickets will benefit air transportation to remote areas, it is wrong. Its policy will benefit the short haul, high volume flights between Montreal and Toronto, for instance. These destinations will benefit, but at what price? The price will be paid by people in remote areas, as if they were not paying enough already.

Montreal-Toronto flights have a high volume of business people, and business charter operations will benefit as well.

Bill C-32 will merely increase the burden on the regions and further isolate remote areas. And this is a measure that has absolutely no connection with the other measures in this bill. It should not even be in Bill C-32. The government put this measure in to make things difficult for everyone. Summer is coming, and they want to sneak this through the House.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that regional transportation services should benefit. The government had a chance to set up a rate system that would have benefited regional transportation. It was a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal government to prove, just for once, that it has the regions' best interests in mind. But of course, they failed to rise to the occasion.

The regions have suffered enough as a result of deregulation. It is time to turn the situation around and let the burden of regional transportation costs be shared by remote regions and urban regions. That would be fair.

In conclusion, today the regions are at a tremendous disadvantage as far as transportation costs are concerned, a fact that is adversely affecting their development and has made them second class citizens.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from Rimouski-Témiscouata, Matapédia-Matane, Gaspé and Charlevoix, I am presenting a petition for restoring Radio-Canada as it was before 1990. A great many losses have been caused by these closures, financial losses, of course, job losses and maybe most important, information losses. As politicians, we have a duty to promote our regions, but when the flow of information keeps getting cut off, how do you expect us to sell a region when we do not have the means to

talk about it? It is important and this situation must be corrected.

On behalf of more than 1,000 people who signed the petition that I am tabling today, we ask that it be restored, as it should be anyway.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday, we saw how the federalist refrain is sung differently on the two sides of the Ottawa River. While the Prime Minister of Canada is denying the right of Quebecers to determine which country they wish to belong to, Daniel Johnson is acknowledging Quebec's right to self-determination.

Cautiously embracing the position of Mr. Jacques Parizeau, the Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly, Premier Johnson stated that the first ones who must acknowledge Quebec sovereignty and independence are Quebecers themselves.

Mr. Johnson was merely repeating what all of Quebec's political leaders have been saying since the Quiet Revolution, namely that Quebecers are free to make their own choices. That is something on which all of Quebec agrees, Mr. Speaker.

[Contracting Out, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from a press release issued by the Public Service Alliance of Canada that the federal government has considerably increased its spending in several departments by using the services of outside contractors. Between 1984 and 1992, contracting out increased by 207 per cent for National Health, 247 per cent for Supply and Services and a full 628 per cent for Customs and Excise Canada.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How can the minister justify freezes and cuts in the public service, when contracting out has increased so phenomenally in recent years?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois refuses to support second reading of Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, in Toronto. The principle behind the bill is flawed, because it does not include whatever measures need to be taken to make the work done by lobbyists more transparent.

What we have to expose here is the questionable ways some of the political parties are financed. Except for the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, all individuals and corporations can currently support political parties.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are proud, because we are the only ones who can claim that all of our financial supporters are individuals. By relying on $5, $10, $20 or sometimes higher donations, when we got lucky, we collected the money we needed to be elected to this House. You have to understand that it is not illegal to get financial support from big corporations and even mega-corporations, it is just dangerous. It is so dangerous in fact that, since April 26, this is all we have been dealing with, this contract for the privatization of the Pearson Airport in Toronto. This is a fine example of the secret power lobbyists have. Thanks to what? Mainly the financing of old political parties. As the old saying, which still holds true after all these years, goes: "Never bite the hand that feeds you".

That saying applies to all members of this House, including members of the Bloc. However, with a funding arrangement like the one our party has, we could never propose transactions such as the Pearson deal. Why? Because the hand that feeds us is not the hand of businesses seeking ever higher financial summits, fearing neither clouds nor turbulence. The hand that feeds us is that of people who work hard to earn their salary, of unemployed people who are constantly looking for jobs, of senior citizens who want to be sure that their old age pension will not be cut and also of people who stay at home to take care of their children.

The Toronto Pearson airport privatization project puts the government in what I would call a dangerous position. When I talk about political party financing, I relate that to Pearson Airport and also to the Moisie military base in my riding. Six years ago, in the riding I represent, we experienced a similar situation which caused quite a stir in this normally quiet area. Of course, it was on a smaller scale, but we can see that nothing has changed.

To give you a brief history of what happened then, I will take you back to 1985, when the government of the day had to close the military base in Moisie. That closure was very hard on the

local economy because it meant the loss of over 200 military jobs and of over 40 civilian jobs.

The town of Moisie, a small community near Sept-Îles, with about 1,200 residents at the time, saw its budget cut by 30 per cent, which is enormous for a small community. That represented a loss of several millions of dollars for the regional economy.

In early 1986, the Department of Public Works called for tenders to dispose of the CFB Moisie as well as seven or eight other bases at the same time. So representatives of the town of Moisie and of Public Works Canada sat down together to set certain criteria. I will list a few of them that had priority, in the opinion of the town of Moisie.

Job creation was important for us. It was also important to make sure that the company was financially sound, since a military base is more or less like a small town. It has absolutely everything that one could find in any town: bowling alleys, swimming pools, streets, water and sewer systems, churches, schools, everything. So it takes a lot of money to buy it and a lot of money for maintenance. For us, it was important to have a local developer. And it was important that the project help offset a long-term loss of earnings for the regional economy.

In the winter of 1987, we finally got down to two developers who were bidding more or less the same amounts of money, but it was important for us that the spin-offs in the region be as interesting as possible. So, the town of Moisie was naturally in favour of a local developer, whereas the government was in favour of a developer from elsewhere, described by the office of the then Prime Minister, who happened to be the member of Parliament for the riding, as a good friend of the party. Therefore there was a small struggle about that.

Of course, the town of Moisie did not wield as much power as the office of the Prime Minister. In the spring of 1987, negotiations came to a standstill. In the summer of 1987, the good friend of the party was forced upon the town of Moisie. That developer promised 35 permanent jobs and 15 seasonal jobs. What is the situation today, six years later? No permanent jobs and no seasonal jobs. However, 50 houses were sold for a net profit of more than one million dollars.

When we go through the data to find out why, at the time, the Prime Minister's Office and the government insisted so much for that person to acquire the military base site, we realize that, during the 1984 election, the developer had provided to the party's fund $1,500 directly and heaven knows how much indirectly. That is awful. That has to stop.

Quebec and Canada's taxpayers can no longer afford to favour to excess good friends of the party at the expense of regional economic development. With examples such as the Pearson contract in Toronto and the Moisie military base, it is easy to imagine how many such dubious transactions there must be, transactions which, instead of serving those who pay their taxes, shamefully favour those who, on the contrary, constantly try to avoid paying them.

Yes, the Pearson transaction must be denounced, but it is not enough for the government to pass a bill such as Bill C-22 to pretend that it is doing its job. Pontius Pilate also washed his hands of the matter. Mature and responsible people will see to it that a mechanism is put in place to ensure that the real leaders of the country are those who are democratically elected by the population, and not those who pull the strings of some elected officials that are too well placed.

The Bloc Quebecois says no. We want a royal commission to get to the bottom of this obscure matter. The Canadian people have the right to know all about the hidden side of that affair and the role that lobbyists played and continue to play with the government.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my question would probably be for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Development of Human resources.

Since February 20, 400 employees of the QNS & L of Sept-Îles in my riding of Manicouagan are locked out. Federal law does not forbid the employer, the IOC mining company, to hire scabs, which naturally makes the situation extremely tense and even ready to explode.

Since nothing hinders its activities, the company refuses to negotiate with its employees even if they want to work.

I would like to ask the Liberal government if they agree that the absence of a federal anti-scab law is the reason for the deterioration of negotiations between QNS & L and local 9344 of the steel workers' union. I would also ask the government if they intend to intervene in that labour dispute and thus help the workers?

[Volunteers, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in my speeches, I often compare volunteers to the blood running through our veins: they are everywhere, and they are needed in any well-organized society.

The contribution of these men and women to our society is invaluable. From the most sensitive gestures in the most tragic moments to fanatically determined support in highly committed organizations, volunteers have their place everywhere.

As far back in time as we can go, we see that all major mass movements resulted from the actions of volunteers. Whether we are talking about political action, consumers' associations or humanitarian organizations, we find volunteerism in the background.

Congratulations to all volunteers. What would our world be without you? I wish all volunteers an enjoyable week.

[Labour Relations, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would still like to ask a supplementary since I did not get a full answer. Will the government and the Prime Minister pledge to see what can be done to help these workers, given the fact that no anti-scab legislation exists?

[Labour Relations, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 400 employees of Q.N.S. & L., in Sept-îles, have now been in lockout for two months. The federal legislation does not prevent the employer, a mining company, to hire scabs. Since nothing keeps the company from carrying on its operations, it refuses to negotiate with the employees, who want to negotiate and to go back to work.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the lack of federal anti-scab legislation is responsible for the deterioration of the negotiations between Q.N.S. & L. and the steelworkers union?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, Manicouagan, the riding that I represent, is one of the regions most affected by the lack of jobs. Its geography is quite particular. It is so special that to meet all my constituents in the towns and villages where they live, I must often use four different modes of transport-plane, boat, car, of course, and often snowmobile.

Unemployment is particularly high because of the demographics of the constituency. The latest unemployment rate recorded by Statistics Canada, for March, I believe, was 17.8 per cent in my region, compared to 10.6 per cent nationally.

The eastern part of the riding is quite specific, made up mainly of fishermen and/or people who depend on that natural resource; unemployment insurance is a considerable source of income for them. Between 80 and 85 per cent of the people east of Natashquan depend directly on income from fishing. Now it seems that the measures in Bill C-17 will especially affect eastern Canada, including Quebec, and particularly eastern Quebec, including my riding.

That is why I strongly denounce Bill C-17, especially clause 28. This clause will be disastrous for those, like many of my constituents, who depend on fishing.

This is what might happen if Bill C-17 is implemented. For one thing, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is reducing fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence so that the stocks can recover. That is most commendable and useful too, up to a point. But at the same time, and there is the rub, Bill C-17 will raise the minimum number of weeks of work required from 10 to 12.

So on the one hand people are prevented from accumulating weeks of work and on the other, the number required is increased from 10 to 12. These two measures pull in opposite directions instead of converging.

In March, after the Minister of Finance presented the federal budget, three teachers in the Department of Economics at the Université du Québec à Montréal, UQAM, openly described what they thought of this in the provincial media. They expressed surprise and concern at learning that nearly 60 per cent of the announced federal deficit reduction, namely $2.4 billion out of $4.1 billion, will be supported by unemployed Canadians. Their statement speaks volumes.

It means that, once again, the government goes after the most disadvantaged in our society and asks them to tighten their belts, as if there was fat to be trimmed in the unemployment sector of the economy. It is absolutely unthinkable. The Minister of Human Resources Development himself said some time ago that they wanted to force recipients to work for longer periods to continue to qualify for the same number of weeks of benefits.

I will repeat only the first part of what he said, which is revealing, namely that they want to force recipients to work. To say something like that, they must be a little out of touch with reality.

In Quebec, some 90 per cent of unemployed workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own due to lay-offs, illness or retirement. Most have no control over the duration of their employment and, if they take casual or seasonal jobs, it is not because they do not feel like holding a stable, well-paid job but because they have no choice.

This bill appears to want to protect the country against an attack or an invasion by the nasty hoards of unemployed whose goal is to remain unemployed until they die. And this is not the case at all. No one wants to remain unemployed. In 1987, the Human Resources Directorate announced a competition to staff positions at the Port-Cartier penitentiary in our riding. Many people are familiar with this facility because it made the headlines when it opened.

A total of 250 openings were announced-openings for correctional services officers and for administrative officers. The directorate received no less than 23,000 applications for these 250 positions. Despite the unique aspects of working in a correctional facility, because this is no easy job. There is a certain amount of risk involved. Yet, 23,000 people discounted the risks and applied because they wanted to work. That is what we were told.

It is not that people do not want to work. Rather, the current state of the economy is not conducive to hiring people. Why then take it out on the unemployed?

Pursuant to clause 22 of Bill C-17, certain unemployment insurance claimants will see their benefits increase from 57 per cent to 60 per cent, while others will have their benefit rate reduced from 57 per cent to 55 per cent. By the finance minister's own admission, only 15 per cent of claimants will see their benefits increase, while the remaining 85 per cent will see their benefit rate drop from 57 per cent to 55 per cent. Perhaps we did not say enough about this particular provision when it was announced, but as Official Opposition, we are doing so now. This government is merely cementing the policy of the previous government. Furthermore, it now says that its priority is to reduce the benefit rate, not to reform social programs.

Incredibly, I have only a minute remaining. I was coming to the best part, Madam Speaker. In conclusion, let me just say that in the riding of Manicouagan, just as in other ridings in Quebec and Canada, people want to work. They are tired of being accused of not wanting to work. They want nothing more than to work, Madam Speaker.

I am opposed to this bill because I do not believe for one moment that legislation like this will help to turn the economy around. At best, it will lower the unemployment figures and merely mask the true state of this country's economy.