Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out a common error made by partisan members who get carried away by their enthusiasm. With all due respect for the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, I want to tell the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans that the city of Campbellton, in New Brunswick, is not in my riding. I know that, as soon as he can, he will rise in this House and apologize for his allegations concerning employees being transferred in Campbellton, New Brunswick.
The member probably does not know the difference and has not checked the facts, because he would know that Campbellton, which is in the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, is a CN centre where some 1,000 employees used to work. The Minister of Transport represents the constituents of Acadie-Bathurst. I am convinced the hon. member will do what is expected of him in this House and rise and apologize.
Sometimes, when a member makes a speech on a very emotional issue, like the future of the rail system, VIA Rail, and so on, he or she can mislead the House, albeit inadvertently. The member is not doing so out of spite, but simply because of a lack of knowledge. This is why I am pretty sure the hon. member will recognize that his statements about the CN transferring jobs to my riding are totally untrue.
Naturally, when there is a debate and the transport critic for the Opposition gets involved, it is very difficult. Often times, either he does not remember the facts or he has not done his homework adequately, which makes things very difficult for us because we have to discuss the facts once in a while.
Today's motion refers to a lack of transparency. As you know, Mr. Speaker, ten days ago, I was in Winnipeg where we talked of transparency, integrity and clearness and, concerning the vast debate surrounding the referendum to be held in Quebec, we wondered, for example, if the Bloc Quebecois is representing the independence or separation option, and again an hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois who was there tried to ram the sovereignty issue down our throat.
In speaking of transparency, integrity and honesty, one has to refer to the facts, use the proper words and make statements that one is ready to stand up for. One cannot rise in this House and use a debate like this one to make up all kinds of stories based on nothing at all.
That is why I thought we could hold a debate on the national vision of Canada which is supported by the Bloc Quebecois concerning the rail system, be it for CN, CP or VIA Rail. It would have been interesting to hear our friend, the critic for the Bloc Quebecois, explain what kind of integrated system across Canada, what kind of national system for all Canadians from sea to sea to sea they contemplate for this country. It would have been very interesting for Quebecers and Canadians to have an opportunity to see exactly what kind of system these people want for Canada, not only in the context of today's debate, but five, ten or 15 years down the road.
One of the tragic things about this kind of debate is that for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with an efficient and an effective transportation system, the hon. member and members of the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, enter into a debate on national institutions, on the national transportation system as it relates to rail, but with one objective. That objective is to sow as much discord as they can and to misrepresent what is actually taking place for example in the restructuring of CN.
As I have said, it is abhorrent that a member would come to the House in a debate that they put forward in terms of their motion, make an allegation and not correct it when I gave him the opportunity to do so as he was sitting in his place. The hon. member did not avail himself of the opportunity to stand and apologize for having misled the House by suggesting that CN had moved employees to Campbellton, New Brunswick, which he alleged was in my riding. That is absolutely false. This is not something that slipped out. It was a prepared debate; he was speaking from a prepared text.
The kinds of things we face day in and day out in the House are misrepresentation, distortion of fact, inappropriate behaviour and then not even the capacity to do the honourable thing and stand in one's place to withdraw.
With respect to what we are doing in the railroad industry, let me point out to my hon. friend, the transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois, that since the government came to power on November 4, 1993 there has not been a single request from VIA Rail to abandon any service in Canada, with the sole exception of the VIA service between Montreal and Saint John. It did not announce its decision to change that service because it wanted to. It had to because of the abandonment of that service by CP that owns the railbed and must maintain it in a condition satisfactory for passenger service.
To listen to the opposition one would believe that all across the country we are faced with serious service cuts to VIA. The fact is, and I know it is difficult for the opposition to deal with facts when they do not suit its particular needs, that not a single service abandonment anywhere in the country has been requested by VIA. The only one that took place was because of reasons beyond its control.
Canadian Pacific and Canadian National entered into merger talks that took place from the end of 1993 until the summer of 1994. There were serious discussions with a focus on merging the operations of CN and CP east of Winnipeg. In the early summer the responsible people at both companies advised us that the merger talks had not produced any definitive, positive results.
Within days Canadian Pacific tendered an unsolicited bid to purchase the assets of CN east of Winnipeg. The government is analysing that business proposal and looking at it from a policy point of view. Canadian National and its board of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to analyse the offer and make recommendations to the government. We have said that we will respond in due course.
Did we hear anything today from the spokesperson for the opposition with respect to party's position on the unsolicited bid from CP? Have we heard anything about the merger in terms of whether they are for it or against it? What are the other alternatives? What kind of policies do they have except to say it is another example that the separation of Quebec is a better option than staying as a member of the federation.
We have appointed a committee to look at the commercialization of CN. We felt it was appropriate, given the fact that there is an unsolicited bid from CP to purchase CN east of Winnipeg. That would result in the privatization of all rail operations east of Winnipeg to the Atlantic coast. It would also have the result of eliminating for all intents and purposes competition on rail in eastern Canada east of Winnipeg. We could not allow that to happen.
What did we do? We checked with the transport committee. We asked what its fall schedule was. It indicated it was going to be dealing with other issues. As a result we asked members of the government to sit on a special task force to look at the potential for commercializing CN operations across Canada, hopefully with employee participation.
We asked the member for Kenora-Rainy River to chair the task force. He was an employee of Canadian Pacific before he became a member of the House, a man who worked as a railroad man, a train conductor, and as a leading representative of unions that dealt with railroads in western Canada. We asked people from across the country who exhibited an interest in rail activities to sit on the panel. They are going to hold extensive meetings across the country. We hope people will come forward. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have expressed some support, some concerns and some opinions. We want to hear what the Bloc Quebecois thinks about the commercialization of CN. Does it believe the employees at CN would have a better chance of protecting their jobs if some of them were owners of shares in a commercialized CN operation across the country?
We want to know what the options are if the CP bid is accepted. What does it do to competition? What does it do to service in eastern Canada? What becomes of CN west? What happens with commercialization of CN across the country with or without employee participation? What are the benefits? What are the downsides?
What happens if we maintain the status quo on an ad hoc basis and keep finding applications before the NTA for rail line abandonment in provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia where it is very difficult to get to short line operations? What is the position of the Bloc Quebecois on short line operations? We know it wants to maintain railroads across the country. It does not want to maintain the country but it wants to maintain railroads across the country. It is a typical position. As we say in French, ils ne savent pas sur quel pied danser.
It will be interesting at some point to hear concrete suggestions rather than hearing: "We want to maintain everything we have in rail but destroy the country". Let us see what we can find out from the Bloc Quebecois about what it really thinks would be important in terms of the future of rail in the country.
The government believes the time has come. Canadians in Quebec, in Ontario, in British Columbia, on the prairies and in Atlantic Canada want decisions to be made that provide some degree of certainty and certainly provide for an alleviation of the burden on the Canadian taxpayer.
That is why we constantly ask Canadians interested in the issue to express their opinion. We have begun consultations all across the country. There are people in Transport Canada with a mandate to consult people and interested parties in all parts of Canada in order to find out their concerns and especially what solutions they have to suggest and what they can propose to protect a railway system which meets the needs of its users.
It is always the same story with the Bloc Quebecois. They want to keep the whole rail system in this country intact, be it CN or CP, they want to maintain all the services provided by VIA, but they want to destroy the country, they want to separate. They want to maintain all rail services, but they want to cut Quebec off from the system that runs east, west and North.
At some point, we can ask people to react and give us their opinion, but in the end, the opposition must act responsibly and put forward concrete proposals and tell us exactly how it sees the future. Let us not dream about other countries like France or Germany where a system works more or less well. Let us talk about Canada. We want to know what solutions the Bloc proposes to the railway problems that have existed for a very long time. These problems did not start twelve or fourteen months ago.
The status quo is unacceptable because it led to the complete elimination of rail service in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. As of January 1, 1995, Canadian Pacific will cease all its activities east of Sherbrooke. That is a direct result of the status quo and, in this debate, it is a non-solution because we have to live with the proposed changes every day. For our part, we want to assure Canadians that we will propose changes which we hope will reflect Canadian reality.
In that context I would ask members of the House on all sides, with all points of view, not to continue to recite the litany of woes and ills that we faced in the railroad industry over the last couple of decades but to address in a serious way what kinds of solutions we should be considering. What alternatives are out there in the Canadian Pacific situation for shareholders, shippers and employees; in Canadian National for the shareholder, which is the Canadian taxpayer, shippers and employees; and in VIA where subsidy levels have been reduced but are still very tangible?
I look forward as the debate continues through the day to hearing concrete solutions, real suggestions that can be taken into account in a pragmatic way by members on all sides of the House. If we are to achieve in rail the kind of stability we need to underpin a rebuilding economy, we will need the co-operation of the management of the railroads, the people who work on the railroads and the people who ship and use the services provided by railroads. We will also have to convince Canadians we are doing the right thing.
Coming to the House, misrepresenting what has been said or what has been done and making allegations that are known to be incorrect does not make much of a contribution to the debate I think Canadians believe should be taking place with respect to the future of rail in Canada.
In closing I commend members of the task force who have taken on the very difficult chore of going across the country, listening to people in every part of Canada who have a real interest in the future of rail, and asking them specifically what they think about the commercialization of Canadian National.
What do they think about moving this company into the private sector with employee participation, if at all possible? What do they believe is important for the future of rail in Canada? Is it a service from Halifax to Vancouver? Is it a national railroad that provides a core service? Are they convinced it is an alternative that should be looked at? Do they believe the Government of Canada, in assessing the unsolicited bid from CP, should not only be dealing with it on the basis of accepting or rejecting but on the basis of the status quo which I think all of us in the House agree is unacceptable? Or, are there other solutions beyond the CP bid and beyond the commercialization of CN?
Members of the House of Commons representing the government will be going across the country. We have asked them to bring that report forward as soon as they can. People will know that when the CP bid was presented it had a time frame calling for the government to respond in 90 days. We have said we do not feel bound by that restriction, but the government and Canadian National are actively pursuing a business case analysis of the proposal.
The government has a duty to look at it from a policy point of view because of the implications of accepting the bid. I hope the Nault task force, with members of Parliament who have a very keen interest in the matter, will be able to get the views of Canadians in every part of the country. Decisions will have to be made very soon to deal with the real problems that have dragged on and on through the last five, ten, fifteen and twenty years.
I look forward to hearing from the Reform Party and from other members of the Bloc Quebecois. I am sure they will do far better than the transport critic who obviously had a difficult time in getting his facts straight as he began the debate. As the day progresses I am sure we will be hearing some constructive suggestions from members of the official opposition, from the Reform Party and from other members on both sides of the House. Everyone in Canada knows how important a strong national railroad system is to the economy and to the future of the country.