Debates of Nov. 15th, 1994

Supply

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made VIA Rail and the need to maintain this service the focus of my election campaign. I urge the opposition to carefully look over what was said during that campaign. I can assure you that I consulted the workers and all the people in my community well before the Bloc Quebecois came up with the idea that it should hold an information session in the Gaspé area. If you read the letters sent to the Minister of Transport and the local newspapers' reports about the involvement of the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the attention he pays to this issue, you will see that I was several months ahead of the opposition.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to inform the Minister of Transport that, according to our traditions, the remarks I made do not require an apology. However, since I consider myself an honest person, I would like you to tell the minister that my office is currently doing some research to determine if indeed the city of Campbellton is located in the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, as the minister said. If so, you may tell the Minister of Transport that I will make the necessary corrections today at the appropriate time. But I do not think that I need to apologize. In any event, with the kind of remarks he makes on a regular basis, the Minister of Transport himself is the one who has had many opportunities to apologize in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, who assures us that he is transparent, has admitted the fact that the commercialization task force chaired by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is made up of Liberals only. He mentioned the busy schedule of the transport committee. I would like to inform the Minister of Transport that around February 18, 1994, when the transport committee was set up, I, as official opposition critic representing the Bloc Quebecois, asked that rail transportation be examined as a priority.

At that time, I made reference to the Liberal task force report on VIA Rail cuts made in 1989, a report that was signed by the Minister of Transport himself. I said that before going any further in the abandonment of rail lines, we should consult the users and the regions. That is why I asked that rail transportation be put on the committee's agenda on February 18. The Liberal majority on the transport committee said that such a study could jeopardize the CN-CP merger project that was being considered at the time. The Liberals asked that the study be postponed. The report was to be presented at the end of June.

We adjourned in June. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to inform the Minister of Transport that on September 19, when the session resumed, I asked again if we were going to examine rail transportation as a priority since the merger project was at a standstill. I was told that airports were higher on the priority list and that such a study could hinder the negotiation process.

I argued in committee that we could agree not to hear any representative of the employees or the management of the companies concerned, but that we could hear regional representatives who would come and explain to us the importance of rail transportation to the economic development of a region. Once again, my proposal was defeated by the Liberal majority on the committee.

On September 29, the minister announced the establishment of a Liberal partisan task force to study the issue. If the minister is transparent, why did he not include a representative of the official opposition and a representative of the third party on this task force?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a well-established tradition in this House that when committees are organized, the majority has its say. That is a long-standing tradition.

As to working groups mandated to do certain things by political parties, they are a fairly common occurrence. There have been many examples in the past. When either the government or the opposition wants to study any given matter, they ask for advice on a politically-oriented base. Some members of the committee like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who chairs the committee, are undoubtedly on the government's side. They have been assigned a certain job, so they are in a position to give useful and important advice to the government, which has to make a decision on the CP proposal, but also has to prepare other alternatives.

Several means are available to members of Parliament, for instance as members of House committees. If, as the hon. member just said, the transport committee was not able to examine this issue or if a majority had determined for any reason that the committe did not want or did not have time to do so, we had no choice but to proceed because we had to respond to the CP proposal.

I do not know whether the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party would have been willing to be part of a committee set up with a mandate from the transport minister, but it is not a kind of precedent I am ready to create because the House has its own mechanisms for examining issues that are deemed important. But political parties in this House also have the right to ask their colleagues to look into different matters in order to give advice that they consider relevant.

There is no duplicity in all of this. It is one way of doing things, and it has been around for a long time. I hope we will see in this exercise that Mr. Nault has already created an opportunity for all those concerned, members of Parliament included, to have an input.

One thing is clear. Opposition members have a golden opportunity today to express their views on the CP proposal, on the potential commercialization of CN, and on the status quo. They would be well-advised to use it to tell us what they think instead of reciting problems we have all been aware of for a long time and which we are attempting to solve.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as promised, I was given, while the minister was answering, the electoral map for New Brunswick. Since the minister was right, I promise never to mention again that the city of Campbellton is located in the riding of Acadie-Bathurst. It is located in the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur,

which is represented by one of the members of the partisan committee.

I do not consider it as an excuse; it is as if I asked the minister whether the town of St-Tite-des-Caps is located in my riding or in the riding of Charlevoix. In any case, it is in the riding next to the minister's, in the area he comes from, and that does not change anything to what I said a moment ago.

I want to tell the minister that the whole question of this party's position on short-line railways and on the unsolicited CP buyout proposal will be discussed today by the other speakers. You will understand that, in 20 minutes, I could not possibly deal with all these topics, but I shall do so in due course.

We have heard about the comments he made in early October in Winnipeg when he referred to "railway workers with a grade 8 or 9 education" and so on, and his answer to me on this subject in this House, an answer that might turn out slightly different from reality. If it is true that he made these remarks in the context he referred to in his answer to me, I would like the minister to explain why people left the room and why WESTAC had to apologize for comments that were insulting to the 62,000 railway workers in Canada.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is suggesting when he talks about WESTAC having to make an apology, but I can explain what happened at this meeting in Winnipeg which was attended by 150 persons. As far as I know, three of them stood up and left because they had interpreted what I said as being unacceptable.

Before the meeting, people formed a picket line in front of the hotel to protest against the appointment of Mr. Nault as chairman of the task force responsible for reviewing the commercialization of CN. These people protested because they found it unacceptable that Mr. Nault had previously worked for CP. That was the kind of atmosphere prevailing, and I want to read an extract of the speech I made in Winnipeg before the members of WESTAC because it is perhaps the best way to clarify the situation. My words were as follows:

Some of the problems obviously were created by governments through excessive regulation and taxation but also by railway management, top heavy structures and by labour which are involved in agreements that contribute to low productivity and complicated archaic work rules.

What I want to say today about the labour situation in the railways is that I have never blamed people with grade eight and nine educations who worked for railways over the last 40 to 50 years who were able to negotiate these kinds of agreements with people who were paid a lot of money to manage our railway.

I am not going to point a gun at the heads of the people who got the very best deal they could at a time when they were in a position to do that. I expressed in this House my dismay that anyone would ever misinterpret those remarks as not being a total compliment to people who worked hard under difficult circumstances to protect their rights and the rights of their brothers in the railroad labour movement.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion dealing with rail in Canada has three parts, one being inaction on the part of the government, one being a lack of transparency and one being no vision on high speed rail.

I am not going to offer a lot of solutions as the minister has suggested we do because we are going to deal with the specific points raised by the Bloc in its motion. I am however going to put out several challenges to the minister which I hope he will respond to under questions or comments. If he does not I have to accept that he probably reluctantly agrees with the points I make.

Dealing first with the question of inaction, in some way I support the concept the Bloc is suggesting, that there is inaction on the part of the government. I have to ask why it is surprised at this. The reality is inaction is prevalent throughout all of the departments in the government.

With regard to transport, first we have to look at such things as the Pearson contract and the legislation cancelling it. We asked the minister for a public hearing. We did not say that it was a good deal or a bad deal but simply how can you condemn something that has never been given its proper hearing.

First he refuses to do it and then we get word through the media the minister said that he is strongly considering having a public hearing. Then we have yet another minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, saying there will be no hearing. Lo, there was no hearing.

That was a case where there was a series of actions which produced an inaction and questions of who is really running the transport department.

Then we get into things like the Churchill port and the minutes from Ports Canada that said it is closing down Churchill. That magically disappeared out of the minutes of the meeting that decided that.

It was raised in the House. Was the minister responsible or was it the head of Ports Canada, who was of course a Liberal patronage appointment? The reality is that it was not the minister. It was yet another minister who sits nearby who has more of a concern about this because of his home province and he caused a magic marker to appear over top of those minutes. Again I have to wonder who is running the transport department

and is that some of the reason why we have no real action in that department.

Then we have human resources. Again this is a new concept that the Liberals are raising to a mastery where they produce a series of actions which results in no action at all. In the case of human resources, right at the beginning of the year they raised the unemployment insurance rates. Then through another mastery they reduced their own raise, thus cancelling their own action to say look at the wonderful saving they have made for people. I suggested if they raised the amount 10 times as high and then reduced it, they could have had even greater saving. Obviously the bottom line is no action at all.

Then we have the justice department. The justice department talks of reforms to the criminal justice system but there is nothing forthcoming. There are no concrete proposals. The problems still continue on.

We have the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health has not only taken no action but has penalized provinces for trying to implement these actions. It has penalized my own province of British Columbia for one for trying to implement some cost cutting changes that would make the health system healthier and more effective in that province. Instead it gets the transfer payments reduced because it did not march to the beat of the Liberal government.

Then we have the immigration department and the so-called consultations that are going on. I say so-called because people are demanding action and they are making very clear what kind of action they are looking for. They are going out and selling a preconceived government agenda.

Then we have the minister of fisheries, the fisheries department. Again, here is where we are having another study whose only purpose is to provide a scapegoat for the inaction on the part of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, soon to be the minister of oceans because the fisheries will be destroyed.

We have the finance department with no workable plan, no indication that the goals it has set are obtainable, goals that are too low even if it should somehow magically manage to attain them with its current plan of so-called action.

This is the general level of action of a government that loves to preface many of its statements by calling them action plans. It takes more than hollow words to create real action.

What action has the government taken on rail line abandonment? What changes have taken place? There has been no action whatsoever to resolve the overtrackage problem in the east.

Interestingly enough when CN and CP were talking about rationalization and merging the two rail lines to form the company referred to as Newco, the minister seemed to think that was a wonderful idea. However now that one company wishes to buy out the other that is not a good idea even though it would produce the same general result. In fact it would produce better results because there would still be a vestige of competition under this new proposal.

There is no action to deal with rail line inequitable taxation problems. That is certainly a very large problem and a very large component of the rail industry's problems.

There is no action to deal with the provincial problems concerning such things as labour legislation and property taxation. Not only are they harming the rail lines as they exist right now but they are also among the large impediments in the way of attracting private short line operators to take over these abandoned lines when the big rail companies can no longer make money running them.

There is also no action to deal with harmonizing capital depreciation rules so that they can compete effectively with their American competitors.

The next thing I would like to look at is the lack of transparency on the part of the government with regard to the rail industry. Once again this is something that is prevalent throughout all of the departments.

Of course we have in transport such things as the Pearson contract. When Bill C-22 was brought in we tried to introduce an aspect of transparency. Had the government agreed to do that we would have supported that bill. All we wanted was the claims and the resultant payments going out to flow through the all-party transport committee. In that way the claims and the resulting payments would be known and transparent and there could be no under the table deals. It was refused as an amendment at the committee stage and was refused as an amendment at third reading.

Then there was the wonderful deal that was cut behind closed doors by the Minister of Transport with Air Canada dealing with the route to Osaka. The minister rose in this House and denied directly to me that there was any private backroom deal. He continued to deny that for two days after which he admitted that in fact he had cut a deal with Air Canada. Transparency? Not a chance.

In the human resources department again patronage appointments are absolutely rampant, even in my little rural riding in southeastern British Columbia. There was a one year delay in getting anyone to sit as chairman of the board of referees because the government attempted to put in someone totally unqualified by way of a patronage appointment. When that was exposed the government sat on the real appointment for over a

year. It was a tremendous hardship for people in my riding having problems with UIC. It is another example of lack of transparency on the part of the government.

The health department is currently undergoing a $12 million study. This is not to learn but rather to sell preconceived government notions and agenda. This is not transparent and it is not acceptable.

The immigration department has its own hidden agenda in its review board. On the Vancouver immigration and refugee review board a member who was appointed by the previous government has had a 38 per cent acceptance rate of those who appealed through him. In the last four years there have been only three appeals to his decisions, two of which were heard. Only one was overturned and that was because of a mistake made in the translation of the information supplied to him from the appellant. It changed the meaning of what he was told. That one single case was reversed, no others.

Now the minister has implemented a priority goal of a 75 per cent acceptance rate. Why is there a goal? There should only be acceptance of those who are proper and true immigrants to this country. If that is 10 per cent, it is 10 per cent. If it is 90 per cent, it is 90 per cent. How can there possibly be a goal if there is not some hidden agenda? The other side of it again brings into question the transparency of what the government is doing.

It is the very fact in this case that if one of the two people viewing these appeals accepts the application, it is accepted. If it is accepted no report has to be written, but if it is rejected a lengthy report has to be written. It places a tremendous emphasis on accepting, whether or not it is for the good of Canada.

The fisheries department transparency. It is studying a serious, perhaps catastrophic problem of the salmon fisheries on the west coast in house instead of holding a public inquiry. The problem was created in house by the minister. How can he study himself and come up with an objective answer?

In the finance department again we are looking for transparency. There is an absolute refusal to make a commitment on the question of a carbon tax or taxation of RRSPs.

Justice department is an interesting case where there is the opposite of transparency. There is excruciating transparency when dealing with such things as the proposed firearms legislation. The minister has publicly stated he will not make legislation based on head count, but he will in fact do what is good for the people, which can be translated into: "I do not care what the people want, I know better than they do".

Now we deal with transport and the transparency there. Well, the CN task force has already been mentioned. Do we have a problem with that? Is that a transparent, viable thing? Of course it is not. There is absolutely no reason that the questions being raised by the CN task force could not have flown through the transport committee, have had a vestige of all-party input and then it would have had some credibility. It certainly would have had some transparency.

We know that on a recent task force struck under transport dealing with the seaway there was a dissenting report. It could not do to have somebody offering a different opinion. Even though my party did not happen to agree with that dissenting opinion it was nonetheless the right of the people in this House to make it. This is what an all Liberal CN task force manages to block.

When looking at what is happening with CN and the offer from CP there are three scenarios that could come up, but I believe the report they are to make is already written.

First, they could come back and say the CP offer is good. That releases the minister from responsibility. He can now claim that his people went out across the country and they got this endorsed and so away they go. It comes back to what we talked about previously on other bills where the government consults and that is supposed to mean the solution it comes up with is okay. The very fact that there is consultation does not mean there was anything whatsoever in the final report that had anything to do with what people said during the consultation. It does no good to have consultations if you do not listen to what people say.

The second scenario is that they could come back to CP and say: "We like the idea of you offering to buy out a portion of CN except we want you to increase the offer and buy out the whole thing". That is unacceptable because it will remove the vestige of competition that still remains under the current CP offer.

The final thing they could do is come back and say: "No, we do not want to sell part of it. We want to privatize the entire thing and sell it as a total unit". That also is unacceptable because it does absolutely nothing to deal with the problem of overtrackage in eastern Canada.

I suppose in one respect there is a fourth option which is to do absolutely nothing at all. This seems to be a very popular option on the part of the Liberals, but I would hope that at least they realize it is not a workable solution in this case.

We could go on just on the vestige of the CP rail offer alone, but I would say one thing to this House. I believe the concept of the CP rail offer to CN is a good one. I remind the minister it is not considerably different from the concept that he has already endorsed which is that of the two companies merging together, only in that case there would be an absolute loss of competition. In the case of this offer there is not.

I would like to touch on VIA Rail because that was mentioned in the hon. member's motion. VIA Rail in a word should be privatized. An example of an operation that was run by VIA Rail in British Columbia and into Alberta is the Rocky Mountain Rail Tours. VIA ran this with huge subsidies for a number of years and still managed to lose money.

Rocky Mountaineer Railtours was sold to the Great Canadian Railtour Company which ran it in virtually the same context as it was being run by VIA, but of course with the aspect of private enterprise introduced to it. It must get a return on the investment made to VIA. Great Canadian Railtour has fought considerable roadblocks put up by the very company that sold it this line and has had to fight in court. In spite of all that it has made an unsubsidized profit.

Can the private sector do better than crown corporations? You bet it can. We believe the only subsidies that should take place for rail transportation in terms of passenger transportation are for remote operations only and only then when there is a demonstrated need.

It is all well and good to be nostalgic and remember back to the days when the rail linked and tied this country together. We have to recognize that for all the improvements in technology the locomotives may pull more weight than they pulled in the old days, they may pull it a bit faster and certainly they may be safer, but the general concept of moving people by rail has not changed dramatically in terms of the years that have gone by.

If we think back to when rail transportation was originally introduced alternative methods were not available. Rail started before there was any widespread concept of any alternative transportation except by horse. There were no aeroplanes, there were no buses, there were no passenger cars. As technology has moved in other areas the genuine need for rail transportation has to be modified.

Many of the areas can be handled by private enterprise, making a profit without government subsidies where there are sufficient passengers to move. That will also resolve traffic problems. In remote areas where there are alternatives they are probably going to have to look at those alternatives. If there are no alternatives that is the only situation in which we should be looking at government subsidies.

Finally I would like to touch on high speed rail. This has been brought up before. The answer now is exactly the same as it was then. A $7 billion or $8 billion high speed rail system is not in our foreseeable future, not if half of the money is going to come from empty federal tax coffers. We have no money for the things that are here now.

The other side of the House is talking about the need for cuts and we endorse that. We know there have to be cuts. Why at a time when we are talking about the need for cuts are we talking about spending $7 billion or $8 billion on a high speed rail system? It is not a national high speed rail system, it is only for one single corridor.

It has been suggested that half of that money must come out of the government tax coffers. If it is a profitable venture as the people proposing this would have us believe, why would they want the government, which has a history of losing money at everything it turns its hand to, as a partner? On the other hand if it is in fact a loser, why would the government associate itself with another tax drain?

There are solutions. The government will not find them if it does not start taking some action on the known solutions. It will not find them if it hides everything behind hidden agendas, if there is no transparency, if it does not openly and honestly involve others and then use solutions provided by these people instead of trying to use them to create a justification for its own agenda.

There will be many opportunities for the minister to hear our proposals. Unfortunately in the past whenever the government takes a Reform policy proposal, which we are happy to see it do, it only takes it piecemeal. It manages to mess it up so bad that we are almost reluctant to help the government, unless it lets us guide it all the way. I might add we are totally prepared to do that.

I leave it to the government. If it wishes to refute anything I have said, I would be happy to hear it. Failing that I would ask the government to become more transparent and start taking action to consult with those of us on this side of the House who do have solutions. There is no point in our throwing them out if the government intends not to use them.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was late arriving this morning and I did not hear the hon. member's entire speech. I would like to compliment the member on his broad approach to many of our national problems.

Does he not agree that there needs to be some time when any department needs to research issues without being transparent at the initial time of investigation? Surely in transportation, surely in justice, surely in agriculture some research requirements need to be addressed.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that we are not talking about the government's right to do its homework. In my opinion the CN task force is not homework. It is a study to determine whether the CP offer is good, whether there are alternatives, and what should be the policies as a result of it.

That is the kind of thing done by the Standing Committee on Transport and is why we have committees, so we can study various proposals. CP has made an offer to buy a section of a government business. It is something that government should not be doing of course, being in business.

We have had a legitimate outside offer to buy a portion of a government service. If that is not justification for it to be studied in the committee concept, which is all-party, then I do not know when there ever will be a case.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it deplorable to see only one member of the opposition when such an important question proposed by the opposition is before us. Frankly, this shows how unimportant the Bloc Quebecois considers this urgent matter. I see a few of them coming in. All right. That is good. But there are only two of them, Mr. Speaker.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member should not mention the absence of members; otherwise, we would spend out time deploring the absence of ministers across the way. My young friend probably does not know the Standing Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I think that members on both sides of the House are rather familiar with the Standing Orders. But some distinctions are still hard to make. I accept the point of order raised by the hon. opposition whip provided he does not mention a member in particular. I thank him for his remarks and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to please continue.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important debate, but members who contributed to these decisions a few years ago, in 1989, including the Minister of the Environment of the day who is now Leader of the Opposition, are not here to address the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. We must understand, particularly as it concerns the demands on members of this House, that members as well as ministers and parliamentary secretaries have many duties to perform and that their availability is limited by the many committees and meetings they have to attend.

But I still think that the parliamentary secretary knows the Standing Orders very well and that he has become proficient since he first arrived here on the hill. So I would ask him to respect the Standing Orders and refrain from mentioning the presence or absence of any member on either side of the House.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his comment. Otherwise, all we have to do is, as he did, to apologize afterwards without in fact withdrawing our remarks.

Therefore, I would ask him to withdraw his comment concerning the absence of an hon. member. He should withdraw that remark or apologize, since otherwise members on this side of the House will take it that they can do the same for the rest of the day with respect to ministers who might be absent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am not in a position to ask any member to withdraw a comment which has not really been made in the usual context of non-parliamentary language or which could have an impact on a member's integrity or honesty.

This is not a point of order, but I nonetheless appreciate the representation made by the whip of the official opposition in this matter. I hope all hon. members on both sides of this House will show a greater understanding of our rules.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would still like to thank the opposition for proposing to participate in a debate on that subject. It gives us the opportunity to clarify some points and allegations made by opposition members.

First, I feel we should look at the fundamentals of this debate. Canada's railroad industry is facing many pressing questions and is undoubtedly at the crossroads as far as its future is concerned.

We must recognize that Canadian taxpayers will pay more than $1.6 billion in direct grants to support the transportation network this year. Of this total, $331 million will take the form of direct grants to railroad passengers service. We feel, and everyone agrees, that the role and the structure of Crown corporations like VIA Rail should be reviewed from time to time. We must remain practical and concentrate on feasible solutions because VIA Rail passengers should have access to a multimodal, secure, reliable and, of course, affordable transportation network.

Before moving on to the future of VIA Rail, I believe it would be useful for me to give you a brief description of the background of the corporation and of its present situation. I mentioned earlier that in 1989, the leader of the opposition was part of a government which cut VIA Rail services by 50 per cent and eliminated nearly 2,500 jobs. Given that the minister who was part of such a government is now leader of the opposition, I think the onus really is upon the opposition to explain why VIA and CN were cut by 50 per cent in 1989. Why did they cut more than 2,500 jobs?

This is unfortunate. As a matter of fact, the workers, the families, Montrealers, good Quebecers and Canadians are the real victims of these cuts which were never justified by the opposition.

I am going to pursue this. Today, everybody wants to put the government of Canada on trial. But as everyone knows, we were not in power back then and I was not even a member of Parliament. Therefore, I would ask opposition members to jump at this opportunity to explain to Canadians and to hon. members of this House why they have moved for a debate on this subject matter.

We want answers. We are entitled to ask why we have as the Leader of the Opposition a member of the previous government which has substantially, we might say, changed the picture of VIA Rail and CN in Canada.

I would also like to point out to this House that there were several other opposition members who were part of the previous Conservative government and who, in my opinion, also had some responsibility in this matter. They are not here today to explain their actions. Nevertheless, they took part in the streamlining of CN and were accountable for this 50 per cent cutback. We must ask them questions.

There is nonetheless the Opposition House Leader who-

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously, the hon. member either fails to understand or wants to give the impression he does not understand what you said about what constitutes proper behaviour in this House. He is doing it again.

I think that aside from the civilized debate we should be having instead of this childish attitude taken by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I have no objection to his criticizing certain decisions that were made in the past, but-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member was interrupted on a point of order, which followed a previous point of order, but now it seems we are involved in a debate. Again, I would ask the parliamentary secretary who has the floor to please avoid any references to the presence or absence of a member during his speech.

I would like to say to my colleague, the Official Opposition Whip, with all due respect, that this is not a point of order as such, and we will resume debate with the parliamentary secretary.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not childish to defend the interests of one's constituents, to appeal to the common sense of the members of this House, and to state the facts. All this did not come out of the blue. I do not believe that the setbacks at CN and VIA Rail necessarily started when the new government came to power. I think we must consider what happened in the past, if we want to find a reasonable explanation for the current situation.

I may add that I was very upset back in 1989, when I wanted to take the train to go to the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and found that, instead of every day, the train only ran three days a week. I found this very upsetting as did many of my constituents, and my point is that VIA Rail services had been cut by the previous government. These cuts were not made by the Liberals but by the Conservatives. The point I want to make is that a number of opposition members were part of the government at the time. I was not and, believe me, I would have objected strenuously to the ill-advised policy and position on the future of VIA Rail and CN which we saw in 1989.

There is a lot of talk about transparency. The opposition critic mentioned transparency. In fact, I commend the opposition for emphasizing the need for government transparency in this respect. However, when they talk about transparency, they should not refer exclusively to the present Minister of Transport, who was not a minister at the time. When they talk about transparency, they should consider all aspects of the situation. That is all I ask of the opposition.

I do support transparency, despite the criticism aimed at me personally and at my efforts concerning VIA Rail and CN services in the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and I would like to know how many opposition members bothered to take the train during the past year. I wonder how many opposition and government members who have access to railway services in their communities and in their ridings have taken the train to come to Ottawa.

And if any of their members fit that category, I challenge the opposition to tell me how many times they took the train to travel between Ottawa and their respective ridings. Personally, I always try to take the train. Not to the Magdalen Islands, of course, where I have to fly if I want to get there within a reasonable time frame. But when I go to Bonaventure county, three evenings a week I can get directly to New Richmond, where I live. It takes thirteen hours by train from Montreal. I leave by train at two or three o'clock in the afternoon from Ottawa, arrive in Montreal at five, wait for two hours, and then take the train to Bonaventure county. However, on some evenings there is no service to the Gaspé. Sometimes I arrive in Campbellton, New Brunswick, at 4.30 a.m. This means that a member who takes his work seriously and who really wants to do his share has to be prepared to get off the train at 4.30 a.m.

If we want to keep our trains, we have to use them. Of course, as we all know, very few people travel by train. A lot more must be done in the way of marketing and advertising to convince the public and urge opposition members and all members of this House to show their support by taking the train as often as possible. Many members think it is much easier to fly between Montreal and Ottawa, when they travel back and forth between their ridings and their work here in the House. Nevertheless, I would like to reassure opposition members and particularly my constituents that their member of Parliament travels by train and is going to travel by train for a long time, believe me.

We were just talking about transparency. Obviously, we have not heard any practical solution from the opposition as is the case most of the time, and the federal government is put on trial as always. Canada is always to be blamed. Generally speaking, they say that nothing is working in Quebec. Yet, we struck a committee and asked opposition members to submit concrete solutions. I have never heard the word "intermodal", for example. I have never heard new ideas to make VIA Rail, the CN

or the transportation services in Canada profitable. All we hear, and it is unfortunate, is that the whole transportation policy in Canada is a complete failure. Yet, Canada was built on those links.

The ties that bind.

In 1867 when we first began as a small British colony we had that national dream. We had that national policy in which Canadians came together and said we would go toward the west, we would reach the shores of the Pacific and unite Canada as we know it today, despite the efforts and pressures to maintain and increase our ties with the Americans at the time. We were just coming out of a revolutionary war, I should add. There were visionaries in Canada at the time. These visionaries were sent out to set up that track to cross Canada, to make sure Canada would become the country it is today.

We all know what position Canada occupies. I do not have to remind members. I think the United Nations repeats year after year that Canada is the number one country.

Of course when it comes to rail policy it is not an easy one. Canada is a country that was forged. It was not a country born out of revolution and strife. It was a country forged by immigrants, minorities of all kinds who came to Canada to make a better life for themselves. Thank God it was the train that initially brought them here. Today we have air travel, all different modes of transportation across this great nation.

Maybe it is time because of the financial restraints we are now faced with to look into these services and make sure that Canadians are getting their money's worth. This is what we have been hearing from the opposition all this time.

However, we have to find new solutions. Of course we could look to Europe. We look at what is happening in France, Japan, Asia, Germany and Great Britain. The populations on the European continent are much more concentrated than they are in Canada. There are approximately 350 people per square kilometre in Belgium and there are only three in Canada. It is about 250 in France and still France can operate quite a service.

After all, if I am not mistaken, Canada is 18 times the size of Great Britain, it is more than six times the size of France. Canada is a huge country with a population of 30 million. The train service we are willing to offer in this country is not necessarily the one that is always on par with that of Europe or Japan when we think of the Shinkansen and the TGV in Europe. The Canadian context is quite different.

However, the opposition is probably right in saying that we have to look at the TGV. I have heard the Bloc say this a few times. However, I should also remind the hon. member that the whole TGV concept was first introduced by the federal Liberals. There was an initial committee that looked into the question. It said there is potential between Quebec and Windsor. From what I am told there is currently a study taking place.

Finally, a task force including the government of Quebec, the government of Ontario and, of course, the government of Canada is reviewing this issue.

We are told that this is a comprehensive study, a study that will reassess the situation and the potential for putting in place a high-speed train between Quebec and Windsor. However, I see the opposition members, especially those from the Reform Party, asking: "Well, what does this mean for western Canada?"

What does this mean for western Canada? What does this mean for rural areas of the country? Should we allow all our moneys and all of our expenditures to go into the creation of a TGV between Quebec and Windsor? What happens to the have not areas of Canada, the maritimes, western Canada, the Gaspé Peninsula? I do not think the opposition Bloc members give a hoot about having a TGV going all the way to the Gaspé because it is not feasible.

However, we must make sure that whatever service is in place in Canada and despite the allegations of the opposition that nothing is being done, we have to provide certain essential services in this country. We have to service the rural areas of Canada. We have to service the heartland of the nation. I think this is the role that all parliamentarians are called to play.

Having said this, I am surprised to hear the opposition tell us that they want a high speed train which will serve Quebec, Ontario, Windsor, but unfortunately, these people are still proposing to us the end of the Canadian federation. They are proposing the dismantling of Canada, the separation of Quebec. How could we build a railway link between Quebec and Windsor with a border between Quebec and Ontario?

I hear the opposition laugh, but that is the hard and sad reality. We must learn to work together. We must build a railway system that will respond to the desires of Quebecers, of Ontarians and all other Canadians. And surely, as member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I have an obligation and a duty to ensure

that service is maintained in my remote rural riding in the province of Quebec.

It is obvious that the opposition often speaks for the urban people, with very little consideration for the remote areas. I think that the opposition leader demonstrated that brilliantly in 1989, when he was among those in favour of the decision to cut 50 per cent of the railway service in Quebec and all across Canada. I think that we should not be afraid to tell these facts, and I believe that being in a free country, being a member of Parliament-after all, being a member of the House of Commons is a privilege-I am fully entitled, despite the slanders, the opposition, the allegations from the opposition that I am not fulfilling my role as a member of Parliament, to denounce what took place in 1989.

I believe it is important to take the opportunity to develop a Canadian vision and I believe that the dream we had in 1867 is still alive. I think that many people in the opposition have benefited from the freedom and privileges that were given to them as Canadians and one of those privileges, one of those links that unite the country is, of course, the Canadian railway service as we know it. However, we must get ready for the next century.

I will end my speech on that point because I wish to give the opposition the opportunity to ask questions, questions that would not be partisan in nature and would take into account first of all the genuine interests of Quebecers and Canadians, that is to maintain a service and to help us find solutions. Instead of talking of dividing and separating, and accusing federalists, instead of saying that Canada is a failure, I invite them to find common solutions with us. The official opposition must recognize that it does not represent the majority of Quebecers. They got 48 per cent of the votes and a majority of seats in the Quebec assembly but there are still 52 per cent of Quebecers who did not support the Bloc.

One thing is sure, when they start participating in the debate, those people will have to state clearly that they may speak for a certain number of Quebecers but not for Quebec as a whole. I invite them to take part in the debate, to examine and propose constructive solutions for the future of VIA Rail and, of course, for the whole of Canada.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine appreciated the fact that he was not interrupted during his speech. For his part, he can always be heard yapping in the background when someone else has the floor in the House of Commons. It makes you lose your concentration, besides being impolite.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To say that a member is yapping and trying to interfere with the House proceedings is quite offensive. I am a democrat, a parliamentarian and, as the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I have the right to express my opinion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Once again, with all due respect to members on both sides of the House, this is not a point of order. The member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made my point. The member invited us to put questions to him and to be constructive in this debate. I am going to ask him some serious questions and I will ask that he give me clear answers.

First, I would like the member to indicate why, in April 1994, he refused to take part in hearings on the future of the Chaleur, in the Gaspé Peninsula, in his own riding, which were organized by Mrs. Cynthia Paterson, a member of Rural Dignity of the Gaspé Peninsula? Could he indicate why he refused to hear some 50 individuals and groups from the Gaspé Peninsula, most of them from his own riding, present their briefs? Could he answer this question?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be digressing, but I will gladly answer that. I met the workers and Mrs. Paterson in February, I believe that was a few months before the Bloc decided to organize a consultation of the people.

You know, I, too, could invite opposition members to work on sustainable developments in the Gaspé Peninsula or elsewhere. For example, I worked hard on the Eastern Plan. I really worked hard and I think I fulfilled my mandate as an elected representative. Nothing is finalized yet. However, speaking of railways, I dealt with that in February. Talk to the workers in New Carlisle, those of VIA Rail and CN. When there were problems, Patrick Gagnon was there. Patrick Gagnon even held a press conference with Mrs. Paterson, and that was a long time before the public hearings for propaganda, held by the opposition.

I did my job, and as a member of this House I am proud of the result we now have. Because of my efforts, because also of the understanding and commitment to VIA Rail shown by the Minister of Transport, the service is now guaranteed. I believe I did my duty, and do not forget that this was part of my platform. I am, first and foremost, a representative of the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I met with the workers long before the opposition realized the importance of a railway line. It seems that the opposition wants to redeem itself, because its leader was party to a government decision to cut VIA Rail service by 50 per cent, back in 1989.

This is not a question for me to answer. The Leader of the Opposition should come before me, before Canadians, before the people of Quebec and of the Gaspé Peninsula, in order to explain why he agreed to cut the service by 50 per cent, so that, now, the train goes into the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la--

Madeleine only three days a week instead of seven as it did until 1989.

Where were you, Lucien Bouchard?