Debates of April 15th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act, 1994

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on this bill and I will vote against it. This bill is a good example of why Canada does not work.

Look at this morning's figures. I think that, instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs," their party's election slogan should have been "welfare, welfare, welfare." In Newfoundland, the higher eligibility standards will throw 1,635 more people on welfare, while the reduced maximum number of weeks of benefits will increase welfare rolls by 1,370. In New Brunswick, welfare rolls will grow by 1,165 because of the higher eligibility requirements and by 1,335 because of the reduced maximum period of benefits.

I would have expected government members representing ridings in these two provinces to rise and tell us that it does not make sense, that this is totally at odds with what their party said during the election campaign. This would have allowed the government to come to its senses and stop sending misleading messages.

We are telling people that the economy is stalled, to be even more cautious, to avoid consuming more, to be careful. We act in a way that will make more people go on welfare, consume less, and contribute less to the economy. We kill off the weak recovery our society may be experiencing. It is a strange message to give to Quebec and Canada, to Quebecers and Canadians.

In their previous speeches, government members told us there was a free debate on the budget, that opposition parties could make suggestions. Good, I think that is the purpose of the House of Commons! That is not the problem, the problem is that our suggestions are not acted on. Every time we propose job creation programs to kick-start the economy and make people proud to earn a living, they come up with measures such as this legislation; it will only put more people on unemployment insurance.

When I say that this bill is an example of why Canada does not work, it is because the people cut off from UI benefits will no longer have access to training programs linked to unemployment insurance. In that sense, it is linked to one of the fundamental problems with this system, namely its inefficiency when the federal government lacks the will to co-operate with the provinces.

The minister of Human Resources Development told us that youth employment was the priority. Now he is surprised that the opposition raises the need to respect the wishes of the provinces in that area. The minister should be the first to know-I would say this is a very important quality in a minister-that, if you want to get somewhere, the co-operation of the people you are working with is essential. The only indication he has given was to the effect that he wanted to bulldoze the issue. The reform he had in mind was one that would override the wishes of Quebec in the area of manpower.

What he did not bargain for, though-and it must have taught him a good lesson-was to see the governing federalists in Quebec, who can hardly be called "big bad separatists", pass a unanimous motion in the National Assembly yesterday. Here is what it said:

That the National Assembly of Quebec ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus among all concerned in Quebec on the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training.

It does not sound like a whim to me, yet it is said to be so in the case of the Parliament representing the only majority French-speaking nation in North America. It seems to me that some attention should be paid to that kind of thing.

In a way, the bill before us reflects this government's problem in that it sends a double message: on the one hand, promote economic recovery, but oddly enough on the other hand, do it on the backs of the least fortunate in our society.

Ontario will not be affected as much as other provinces by this reform, with 30 people or so not meeting the new eligibility requirements. That gives some idea of the influence the Ontario caucus has over this government, but I hope members who represent other provinces will make sure they have their say and convince the government to show a little more compassion for regional economies which do not necessarily keep going year-round. In that sense, I think it is important for the government to act quickly.

I would have preferred to vote today on a bill setting up real job creation programs. This bill touches on several issues; in fact, we might even say that someone tried to smother the unemployment insurance issue in this great omnibus bill, but no one was fooled. We realize that the reform before the House today is the same reform the Conservatives introduced last year and which the Liberals have re-established and will continue to apply.

That reminds me of the question Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec, still a true federalist, put to this government. He asked: "Look, who is in charge in Ottawa, the bureaucrats or the government?" That is what we have come to realize with this bill. The machinery of government kept working after October 25, and no one bothered to stop it. That is why these things are still going on.

When you live in the lovely Ottawa region, it is very easy to forget that some people are stuck with unemployment rates of 20 or 25 per cent and to conclude that UI beneficiaries are people who do not want to work. It is not true. If the unemployed were happy, they would not have the highest rates of suicide and prescription drug use. They would not have to put up with high crime rates and other social problems.

Some ridings and regions are more dependent on the econo-mic situation; in those regions, we need new ways of coping with structural change. But this government lacks imagination and awareness and takes no action.

As a matter of fact, I am very happy to be part of the Official Opposition because it gives me the opportunity to speak for those who have no voice here. The two provinces most affected are Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Quebec, too, is hard hit. We have been taking the floor for three days in an attempt to convince members opposite to change their mind. Government members should be rising to demand that this bill or at least the clauses on unemployment insurance be withdrawn.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-17.

What I want to do in these 10 minutes is summarize the arguments of my colleagues in the last three days of debate. We have looked at this omnibus legislation and in all omnibus legislation we have a difficult time in deciding whether we vote for it or against it because involved in that type of legislation are often some good ideas and often ideas that are partly acceptable and some that are not acceptable at all. That is the choice we have to make in the final analysis, whether in an overall sense there is enough on the pro side to move one to a position of a vote of yes rather than a vote of no.

That is the way the bill has been presented. The ruling of the Speaker was that is the way the debate will carry on and we intend to do that. We want to put the government on notice, however, that at committee stage and at report stage it is our intention to be very aggressive in some of the areas before us.

I would like to touch on each of the important principles in the bill.

First of all, with regard to public sector compensation, we support the government's freezing of salaries as it has at the present time and also the freezing of the increments. There may be some abnormal circumstances or anomalies arising during the next period of time and I hope the government will be considerate and compassionate. I hope it will be able to deal with any of the circumstances that may in an adverse way affect some employee in government who, in terms of their responsibility, may have a right to an increase or fair pay for the work that they present and the responsibilities that they take in the public service.

I think of the Government of New Brunswick, I think of the government of Alberta when an issue such as this arises and the government either freezes a salary or reduces it. I have heard this from government and I have heard people in the public sector say they are being treated unfairly, governments are trying to balance their budgets on the back of the public service. We have to assess that statement and look at the framework in which it is being made.

As I walk through my constituency-I am sure it would be consistent no matter what community I visited in Canada, whether it be a major urban centre or a small community-I find people supporting themselves through some entrepreneurial endeavour. I find that their incomes have been reduced in the last four to five years in a significant way. They have also reduced the number of their employees. In the majority of cases it is 20 per cent to 25 per cent.

Their expectations have been lowered. They have made an adjustment in the business community. I visited 800 businesses in Lethbridge in the latter part of 1993 and again in 1994. They saw they were under economic pressure. The only way they could continue their businesses was to have a balanced book in which the revenues would somewhat equal the expenditures. They could not go out and borrow more to maintain their staff levels, their expenditure levels or the standard of living that they and their families were enjoying. They had to make adjustments.

They made those adjustments. They quietly made them. Many of them maintained their businesses. They are in place looking for growth in the economy. Certainly they have placed their confidence in us as members of Parliament to assure and to work toward factors that will bring about that growth.

They have made a significant adjustment, more than the 5 per cent that is being requested in the province of Alberta, more than the 7.5 per cent that is being requested in the province of British Columbia. On that basis we support this first move of the government in terms of freezing not only the levels of income but the increments that usually follow from year to year to the public service.

The second area is the reductions to the Canada assistance plan and the Public Utilities Transfers Act. Again we recognize the need for that. The government must consider the fairness with which it is done. In 1991 a cap was put on the amount of money that was transferred to three of the provinces of Canada. The other seven provinces did not have that cap. Now the cap is being put on all of them. Supposedly there is equity in the distribution of funds so that each Canadian, in no matter which province, is treated fairly in terms of those programs. As members of Parliament we must examine the concept of equalization. I spoke on an earlier bill in this House that brought about the equalization formula. I made the point that if the equalization formula is right and fair and is doing its job, it will mean the equalization of funding across Canada for a variety of programs. If that is correct, every other program that redistributes income or dollars to the provinces or a transfer of dollars to individuals in Canada should be done on an equal basis because we have created equality. I hope when the government implements this program it keeps that principle in mind.

The third area in this bill is with regard to transportation subsidies. We would support these reductions in terms of our economic conditions because we have to make those kinds of decisions. We feel that western Canada in terms of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the maritimes should be involved in the decision-making and the government should consult those respective parties as these programs are delivered and the shared responsibility for them is taken.

The other area in this bill is the borrowing authority that we are giving to the Canada Broadcasting Corporation. We do not support that because we feel this is only another avenue by which funding is going to the CBC in order to pick up its deficit. In the last fiscal year I believe its deficit was between $40 million and $60 million.

We do not believe this is the right thing to do and we certainly are going to be speaking about it in subsequent debate. We do not believe that the capital projects the CBC has in mind can be repaid in a period of two to three years as it stated to us in our briefing on this part of the bill. We do not believe that can happen.

We believe that another means is being established by which the CBC is able to secure funds by borrowing. We must recognize that the Government of Canada, this Parliament, in the end result has the responsibility of picking up the deficit. If this plan of the CBC does not work, we are on the hook. It is just another way that public funds are put into the broadcasting system of this nation. We think this authority is opening up a valve that cannot be controlled by this Parliament, even though there is a lid of $25 million on the amount that can be borrowed.

The last area is the area of unemployment insurance changes. I know that has received a lot of debate in the House, both the pros and cons, the good and the bad. We believe that this program should be put on an insurance basis so that if someone loses his or her job, he or she has income during the interim period between jobs. It should not be an income program as it has been. It has changed from its original objective to an income program in many instances.

I know presumably responsible people who have highly paid jobs for three or four months who after that automatically go on unemployment insurance and take advantage of this government income. It is in every business community that we can think of. It is up to us as legislators to stop that in any way that we can.

In conclusion, and I realize I only have a few seconds left, I will make these two points.

First, we are going to vote against this because of the mixture of principles that are in the bill. Our position is weighted on the side to say nay to the bill.

Second, we are opposed to some of the measures that are contained in the bill and we are concerned that the reforms do not go far enough. They could be extended and be better for Canadians.

On that basis, and I summarize this for my colleagues in the Reform Party, it is our intent to vote nay on this second reading of the bill.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the two-week Easter break, I am sure many members, particularly those representing eastern regions, have had the opportunity to find out what their constituents and Canadians in general think about the conclusions and consequences of the last budget.

In my riding, right in the middle of income tax time, people called by the dozen to complain and say how mad they were about the government digging again into their pockets to take more than what was planned. With the implementation of the new regulations on unemployment insurance, ordinary workers will again be the ones to foot the bill for the cuts imposed by the budget.

Before the election, the Prime Minister said to people in his riding that he was still the "little guy from Shawinigan" and promised, in clear enough words as we all heard on TV, a shower of contracts that would create jobs in his region where the rate of unemployment is quite disastrous. A few weeks only after his election, he strikes; he goes after all the unemployed in his riding. We should not be surprised that the Prime Minister of Canada has to be surrounded by bodyguards when he visits his riding.

Madam Speaker, I represent a riding in east-end Montreal, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. This district has been suffering the ill effects of the recession for longer than the rest of Canada. As for back as 1987, the government recognized the very serious case of chronic unemployment in that riding. That is why I want to talk about Bill C-17 today.

According to the document tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development at the time of the budget, and I quote: "The proposed changes to the UI program are designed to promote job creation, adequacy and fairness". The minister is therefore telling us that the fundamental reasons for changing the unemployment insurance program are adequacy and fairness. We will see that it is not so. When you look at the bill before us, you realize that the Liberals have simply dug up a bill that was being prepared by the Conservatives, as others have already pointed out.

As three researchers at the Université du Québéc à Montréal said in a study on the federal budget and the unemployed: "The federal budget of February 22 forecasts a net reduction in the deficit of $8 billion for 1995-96" but they say that only half of that, about $4.1 billion, will come from new measures announced by Finance Minister Martin. The other half comes from a continuation of the measures announced in the Mazankowski budget. Since Canadians and Quebecers have chosen to get rid of all but two of the members of the former government, one can safely assume that they were not exactly pleased with these ineffective measures to create jobs.

As a matter of fact, in the study we just mentioned, the UQAM researchers dealt at some length with the inefficiency of these measures. They had this to say: "We fear that reducing the length of the benefit period will be quite ineffective and will not bring about the desired results, namely, as to Mr. Axworthy himself said, to oblige recipients to work for a longer period of time in order to qualify for benefits for the same number of weeks. Current research does not allow us to draw conclusions on how the length of the benefit period affects job tenure and the length of unemployment in Canada". They conclude on this note: "It certainly does not support the minister's position".

And yet, the Minister of Human Resources Development had at his disposal the tools necessary to evaluate the inefficiency of the measures he was about to propose since, as early as the fall of 1993, the National Council of Welfare-a body created in 1969 by the Liberal government of the time-said the following in its report: "Changes to unemployment insurance which would exclude certain workers could lead to an increase in welfare rolls."

Ironically, this would add to the financial burden of the federal and provincial governments, which are already worried about their huge deficits. That is what we see happening in fact, although unemployment is supposed to have gone down a few points, in Quebec or the Maritimes or elsewhere.

What is actually happening is that people are leaving unemployment insurance to go on welfare. There is no employment recovery, then; that is nonsense. The authors of this report continue: "Before thinking of reducing unemployment insurance further, governments should do more research on the connections between unemployment insurance and social assistance." We can reasonably believe that, if the measures concerning unemployment insurance contained in this bill are adopted, any resulting decrease in the number of unemployed people will just add to the number on welfare.

The government, for its part, estimates that the impact on provincial welfare programs will total $65 to $135 million. The study that we are quoting today speaks of $1 billion, of which $280 million would be borne by Quebec. As we clearly see, this government is just passing its deficit on to the provinces again. Meanwhile, our pseudo-premier of Quebec says nothing about it, but the voters are not fools. They well know that when the federal government transfers its deficit to the provinces, wheth-

er it is in Quebec City or in Ottawa, they always end up paying the bill.

So what other issues or reasons could have motivated the minister to present this bill or have it passed? It is simply to lower the deficit. Once again, the poorest people in society are being made to bear the burden of the blunders committed previously by all levels of government.

We all know that the government could have tried to save money quite differently. The three economists of the Université du Québec à Montréal mention one way, which I will quote here: "There was no shortage of ways to reduce federal spending besides the budget for unemployment insurance." The government could simply have opened the last few annual reports of the Auditor General of Canada-I should have brought them with me, they are very thick-in fact, any report at any page. It would have found enough cuts to make without once again going after the unemployed.

Under the circumstances, we have no choice but to say that the government did not do its job properly. In fact, I should rephrase that comment because it is not strong enough. Once again, the Liberals merely pursued the previous government's policy, a policy which they vehemently criticized when they sat on this side and which allows the rich to get richer, while penalizing the poor.

The report released by the National Council of Welfare clearly showed the way to go. Our priority should be to develop tax and economic policies which will lead to a reduction in the number of unemployed people. The best way to reduce dependency on welfare or unemployment insurance is to ensure full employment. But this is clearly not being done.

People in my riding are fed up, and so are ordinary citizens in Quebec and in Canada. They are fed up with seeing their purchasing power being eroded day after day. They are fed up with seeing the deficit still growing after being told for years that it will diminish. Our only perspective is a disastrous deficit of $500 billion. And we are told that, for sure, it will climb to $600 billion in the next three years. People are fed up with seeing successive governments resort to the same old solutions which have already proven to be costly, ineffective and illogical.

Last October, voters in Quebec realized of course that they should not support those who resort to these old solutions which have the direct effect of ruining the country. Soon, when the next provincial election is held, Quebecers will again display the same wisdom. It may be that, in the not too distant future, we will achieve the ultimate goal of this process and find the true solutions for us Quebecers by becoming a sovereign state which will eliminate the useless spending, wasting of public money and overlapping of systems which our governments have been tolerating for too long and which they ironically refer to as profitable federalism.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 1.30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion of Mr. Milliken.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day the recorded division on the motion will take place on Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canadian National Railways

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

moved

That in the opinion of this House, the government should approach Canadian National Railways and have it authorize the privatization of the Franquet-Chapais trunk line for a nominal sum and ensure the maintenance and consolidation of the CRAN subdivision in the riding of Roberval, in order to promote mining and forestry development in the region.

Madam Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to put this motion before the House so that it can be debated by members of Parliament, because in my riding of Roberval, and especially in the Chibougamau-Chapais area where mining development is vitally important, rail service is to be abandoned pretty soon.

I know that the region of Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau-Chapais is not the only one in Quebec, and indeed in Canada, where rail services are being shut down. I know that Crown corporations need to rationalize their expenses. I know the various services provided to Canadian taxpayers are expensive. But I also know that infrastructure is needed to further the economic development of a region.

Some people will say that, of course, we must shut down trunk lines, especially those that are not really profitable. However, as far as the region of Lac-Saint-Jean is concerned, and especially the Chibougamau area, we are talking about a crucial infrastructure for mining development throughout the region.

I know that members of this House are in the habit of using such expressions as "it is vital for the development of my region" and we "cannot do without it".

In this instance, we should realize that a railway is frequently the only viable alternative for moving the output of mining companies from a remote region like Chibougamau-Chapais or even Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, both of which are quite far from Quebec City or Montreal. Infrastructure is needed to offset geographical disadvantages.

I would not raise this issue in the House if the CN did not turn a deaf ear to repeated pleas by people in my riding. I would not make representations in the House if the Minister of Transport proved more sensitive to this problem.

Yes, we can all agree on reducing rail service in many regions o Canada. We are ready to look at the problem responsibly as elected representatives who want to spend public money sparingly. My colleagues responsible for regional development and transport tried to make the Minister of Transport more aware of the problem and get regional public hearings before unfortunate decisions are made that could jeopardize the future of a whole industry.

Unfortunately, I was not able to convince the Minister of Transport that he should review these decisions. I have found and read reports dating from the days when those who are now government members or ministers were in opposition. In a paper those people, including the present Minister of Transport, wrote and signed, we read that the Conservatives set out to dismantle our railway network, especially in Quebec. They called for an end to that strategy, which was being implemented irresponsibly, and demanded public hearings in affected areas to allow people there to at least have a say and voice their concerns.

One cannot make cuts in a railway system, in an infrastructure essential to the development of an area, and get away with it, if one has not previously taken the trouble to go to listen to local people and determine the risks involved in dismantling it.

It has to be understood that there are two important rail lines in northern Quebec, namely the Franquet-Chapais line, which is the object of my presentation today, and the CRAN line.

In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line, Canadian National Railways, when it submitted a request for abandonment, was authorized to dismantle this rail line in June. You can understand, Madam Speaker, how important it is to deal with this issue today because, starting in June, CN will be at liberty to dismantle the Franquet-Chapais rail line, the line between Franquet in the Abitibi and Chapais in the Chibougamau-Chapais region.

Canadian National Railways has also indicated that it intended to ask the Transport Commission for authorization to abandon its operations on the CRAN line. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the local geography, the Franquet-Chapais trunk line is presently not in use, operations having been stopped for some time already. The mining companies are using the CRAN line for their operations.

Just imagine the vicious circle the people of Chibougamau-Chapais are caught in; they need rail service to carry their ore, but the Franquet-Chapais trunk line was closed down some months ago and is about to be dismantled, and now CN is announcing that in an effort to streamline, it has decided to drop rail service through the Lac-Saint-Jean region that allowed the companies to carry on their operations.

It is absolutely unthinkable to use trucks for transportation in the mining sector. Yet, that is what the people of Chibougamau-Chapais are being told to do, use trucks to transport the ore to where the concentrators and the necessary facilities are. However, this would mean a 50-per-cent increase in transportation costs. Given the state of the economy today, what business could absorb a 50-per-cent increase in operating costs? In some respects, this decision jeopardizes the development of the Chibougamau-Chapais region.

The Franquet-Chapais line is located along a geological fault where new deposits are discovered nearly every day. New hopes arise each day along the geological fault, from the Chibougamau-Chapais sector all the way to Abitibi. Ore deposits are being discovered every day and every day, new projects are on the verge of being launched. However, a decision such as the one Canadian National is preparing to make will snuff out any hope that the Chibougamau-Chapais region may have. This is a region in desperate need of hope, given its remote location in

northern Quebec, a region which relies on the discovery of new mines and new deposits for its development.

The people of Chibougamau-Chapais are proud. They depend neither on the Quebec government nor on the federal government for their livelihood. They are involved in mining operations, make good money and contribute to the economy of this country, of Quebec, of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region and of Abitibi as a whole.

What you have here is an entire region not begging for hand-outs or asking the government to go out of its way to create temporary jobs, an entire region capable of creating real, productive employment to help increase Canada's gross domestic product. You have people willing to contribute to our collective wealth. Are jobs not scarce these days? When any initiative should be welcome and every effort should be made to support economic development and job development instead of investing in social programs, temporary programs and even infrastructure programs?

Here is a suggestion. The hon. members and ministers opposite are out of ideas and are wondering how to pull the country out of this recession. They are looking for ways to regain the considerable number of jobs lost in Quebec since the beginning of the recession. Figures published this week revealed that-if these timid actions are all this government has to propose-it will take three years to restore the level of employment enjoyed in Quebec before the recession. But when the people of Chibougamau-Chapais find new mineral deposits, propose economic development solutions, try to increase the wealth of this country, they see their initiatives jeopardized because the Minister of Transport disowns his signature.

The Minister of Transport refuses to be sensitive to the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, of Chibougamau-Chapais. The Minister of Transport is no longer the man of the situation and the government refuses. The people responsible for setting up the economic team which it lacks flatly refuse to see the light.

The unemployment problem is caused by people who refuse to seize opportunities. However, the people of Chibougamau-Chapais, in desperation, decided to take matters into their own hands, to make up for this government's inefficiency, to thwart CN's plans and they called for the privatization of this trunk line. Let the champions of private enterprise stand up in this House, if there are any among the members across the way. They wanted to privatize the network, to have CN transfer the Franquet-Chapais line to the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-Chibougamau-Chapais for the nominal sum of one dollar so that they could keep this section in operation until such time as it will become absolutely indispensable, with new mining discoveries. Let these people hang on to this life buoy, this line which CN wants to dismantle.

The request was made. Our people did their job. They asked CN and they got this answer: "We would get $5 million for the line's old steel-the railway being made of steel-, so we are going to sell the line to you, the people of Chapais, for $5 million." Big deal! CN is acting as if it had not stayed in business because of the taxpayers' money, as if it was the railway's sole owner and had paid for it without the help of taxpayers. It is forgetting that the Franquet-Chapais line, like all other rail lines in Canada, was paid for by the hard work of generations and generations of Canadian workers.

Why should we deprive people of the opportunity to take charge of their own lives? Could someone across the way explain to me in a sensible way, without partisanship, trying only to think that we must help people, that we were elected to support our people, to defend them, to help them earn a living, could anyone explain to me why we should refuse the request of people who are not asking for anything, but only to buy for a nominal sum a rail line which was closed down by CN? Why refuse that? Is it impossible to respond to these demands? I appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I appeal to the Minister of Transport. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development. I appeal to all my colleagues on this side of the House and my colleagues in the Opposition. Why should the government not reexamine such an issue and allow people to take control of their lives and ensure their development? What else does it want? Did it ever receive a more attractive proposal from a group of citizens who want to live, who want to survive, who want to ensure their development without asking anything from the government? I am proposing to the government a job creation program that will cost only one dollar, but will bring in lots of money to the government and will allow people from our region to use that infrastructure. While the government is putting millions and billions of dollars into the development of infrastructure that does not exist, it keeps citizens from acquiring, for one dollar, something which already exists and which is necessary. Explain that to me, Madam Speaker.

Finally, I would like to tell you that this issue is very serious for my region and for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. There are so many raiy lines in western Canada. And we agree that they are needed.

We understand that for the sake of the economy in that region, it is necessary to use rail lines as links between urban and rural centres, in order to transport grain and various commodities. We understand that. There is no one on this side who has asked to

dismantle those lines. Everyone agrees that they are important for the economic development of that part of the country.

But we ask that the same sensitivity been shown towards the East. Why should that not be the case in the East also? What makes Chibougameau-Chapais less remote than any other area in the West, say northern Manitoba or Saskatchewan? Where is the difference? Lines are maintained when they are important to development in western Canada, and we agree with that. But we cannot agree to the dismantling of rail lines that belong to us in our area.

Moreover, we want to buy that line and keep it open. We simply want Canadian National to give us back the taxes we paid to finance the construction of those trunk lines. As I see it, the Canadian National is a one-way organization. They pull the plug to drain away the savings of Canadians but when the time comes to open the tap at the other end, there is nothing left. I think this is the way things are done.

We would ask the government to take action on that issue in a non-partisan way and without using the schemes that some would want to see implemented in that case. There is no concept as reasonable and as cheap as the one that has been submitted to this House to guarantee the development of a region.

Some businesses will inevitably close down if that trunk line is abandoned. With a 50 per cent increase in transportation costs, it will not be possible to ensure the economic development of Chibougamau-Chapais. Annual wages of $50,000, $60,000 and $70,000 are paid in the mining sector. Our people are proud of those wages, but they work very hard to earn them. However, we need help. Is there anyone in this House who would refuse to support a motion that gives one dollar to the government, that ensures the development and the pride of a region, that ensures people that their livelihood will not be taken away from them?

I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker, but I would ask the members of this House to show solidarity. We have to save the Franquet-Chapais trunk line. We have to hold public hearings on the dismantling of the rail network in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on Motion M-194, presented by the member for Roberval. The motion asks the government to call on Canadian National Railways to sell the Chapais line for a nominal sum and to ensure that CN maintains the neighbouring CRAN subdivision.

Concerning the first part of the motion, let me first give a brief summary of the present situation of the Chapais subdivision and to explain how it got that way.

Parliament delegated to the National Transportation Agency the powers necessary to enforce the provisions of the National Transportation Act, 1987, on the abandonment of rail lines.

In 1987 CN asked the Agency for the authorization to abandon a 90-mile section of the Chapais subdivision, between Franquet and Chapais, because it was losing money on it.

After reviewing the case presented by CN and the testimony gathered at public hearings held in 1989 across northern Quebec, the Agency agreed that the line was not cost-efficient but that there was a reasonable probability of it becoming so in the foreseeable future and that its operation should be maintained in the public interest.

Consequently, on January 31, 1990, the Agency rendered a decision ordering CN to keep operating the line.

As provided for in the law, three years later, the agency reviewed CN's application for abandonment and ruled that, with the exception of a six-mile section, the line was not profitable and there was no reason to believe it could eventually turn a profit.

On July 12, 1993, the agency ordered CN to continue operating the six-mile section between Franquet and a site near Grevet and allowed CN to stop operating the 91-mile Grevet-Chapais section as of August 12, 1993.

I must stress that, in the last five years, the line was only used in November 1992 to transport Hydro-Quebec transformers.

We must realize that the operation of this line costs CN over $600,000 in annual losses. Since the NTA order requires CN to keep the line in service, CN receives compensation for its losses from the federal government, or rather from taxpayers. So the Chapais subdivision is operational but does not handle any traffic.

It is quite understandable that local communities, fearing the impact losing the line would have on their economic development, lobbied the former government, which issued an order delaying abandonment until May 31, 1994. The purpose of this nine-month delay was to allow interested parties to review various options to maintain the line.

CN is ready to sell the line. However, nothing is happening and CN should be allowed to go ahead. But the matter is not necessarily closed. Once the abandonment order is in effect, CN can sell its right of way and facilities without any kind of federal regulatory approval, which it cannot do at the present time. Currently any interested buyer can negotiate a selling price for the line with CN.

Which brings us to a very interesting aspect of this motion, the expression "nominal sum". As a commercial Crown corporation, CN received from Parliament the mandate to operate like a business in order to remain viable. I fear that a business cannot

remain viable if it sells land and salvageable steel rails for what is commonly called a "nominal sum." Too often, we associate the concept of "nominal sum" with the amount of $1, instead of at least considering net salvage value which can amount to millions of dollars.

It is therefore not necessary for the government to authorize CN to sell the Chapais subdivision. CN is ready to sell the line at a price equivalent to the value of the land and the net salvage value of the track facilities. It has all the necessary authority for this.

Madam Speaker, if I may, I will briefly talk about the second part of the motion, that is to obtain a guarantee that CN will maintain the neighbouring CRAN subdivision, and make sure that it is integrated in such way as to promote mining and logging in the region.

Maybe I should apologize, but I do not understand the meaning of the word "integration" in this context, and neither do the officials of Transport Canada. The CRAN subdivision is a side track to and from transfer points to lines with much heavier traffic. In order to be operated properly and safely, the track and the related infrastructure must be properly integrated.

As for the maintenance of the CRAN subdivision, CN is seeing to it. CN also uses this track for rail traffic within the region. Railway activities and maintenance work done by CN in the CRAN subdivision are regulated by the government and supervised by railway safety inspectors designated by the minister.

In conclusion, I want to insist on the fact that existing statutory provisions and policies allow for the purchase of the CN's Chapais subdivision. CN wants to sell the line. As for the CRAN subdivision, it is operated by CN according to operation and maintenance standards approved by the federal government under the Railway Safety Act.

For all these reasons, I cannot support the motion.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed by the answer from the government member to the motion of the hon. member for Roberval asking for the maintenance of some railroad lines in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. When you listen to the government member, we would almost think we were hearing CN officials. I imagine that the member's reply was prepared by CN officials, because what we just heard is almost exactly the same as the letters sent in recent years by CN to all concerned, regarding this line.

The problem with this government is its lack of sensitivity to regional development and its lack of vision when it comes to public policies. This comment has been made before, but this is yet another prime example of this shortcoming. The Liberals are merely repeating the mistakes of the previous Conservative government which they so vehemently criticized for years in the House and elsewhere, insisting all along that it be more compassionate and more sensitive to the regions.

This is a good example where residents of a region, in this particular case Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau, are not asking for subsidies. They are not begging to get money from the government in order to maintain and preserve their economic development. If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands gives me a few moments, I will convince him of the merits of this motion.

People from Chibougamau-Chapais and from Lac-Saint-Jean are merely asking that we respect their desire to look after their own economic development in the years to come.

In his reply, the Liberal member used CN figures when he said that, in recent years, the line had been used once by Hydro-Quebec to transport transformers.

The hon. member for Roberval spent 20 minutes explaining why rail service must be maintained in this region, and he pointed out that, nowadays, given the crisis in the mining industry, the rail line is not being used as much as it would be if there were a boom in mining development. Who knows, in a week, a year or two years from now, the mining industry may enjoy an incredible boom. What would happen then, Madam Speaker, if we decide now to dismantle the rail lines and get rid of this infrastructure? The taxpayers will have to reach into their pockets once again to rebuild roads or rail lines in order to further the economic development of their region.

In his speech, the hon. member for Roberval raised another important issue to which I want to come back, and that is the ownership of this rail line.

This rail line does not belong to the private sector but to a public institution called Canadian National. As my colleague has mentioned, for many decades, in fact for more than a century, Quebecers and all Canadians as well were involved in financing and maintaining this service in all regions of Canada. Therefore, they are the real owners. This rail line does not belong to the President of Canadian National or to officials in the Department of Transport. It belongs to the citizens who paid for it over and over again.

If we had to keep in mind only this criterion, which is the immediate cost effectiveness of a rail line, what would happen to the rail lines in western Canada which get hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for grain transportation? As my colleague pointed out, we, in the Bloc, are not opposed to

subsidizing grain transportation in the West. We want fair treatment.

In this case, we are not asking for subsidies. I repeat, what we want is to allow the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau-Chapais, who have always shown considerable dynamism in their economic development, to allow these people, who are simply asking their government to show some sensitivity, to acquire this segment of the railway, which they will manage to make profitable.

Does this mean, and are we to conclude from what was said by the Liberal member, that the only way the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau will be able to save this rail line and obtain ownership will be when we have a sovereign Quebec and own a railway network that has been paid for many times over? That is when the people of this region will really be able to take control of the development of their area.

We are always being accused in this House of bringing up Quebec's sovereignty, but the technocratic and unfeeling response of the member from Ottawa leaves us no alternative.

In concluding, I would like to return to this government's lack of vision on the issue of railways. To paraphrase a common expression, one could well ask: Who is minding the Department of Transport?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Is there anyone who is capable of making decisions? In the next few months, there will be some important changes in the railway sector in eastern Canada, and I am referring to the CN-CP merger. The government is waiting for a decision from senior officials to find out whether or not to recommend the merger.

A number of decisions must be made now, including whether or not to proceed with the CN-CP merger, and to conduct studies on the viability of the rail lines, and finally to help the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and of Chibougamau-Chapais take control of the development of their economy by letting them develop this rail line.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a few points and some issues with regard to the motion by the hon. member for Roberval.

I am going to be as frank and straightforward as I can possibly be with him. Hopefully by doing so I will be able to get closer to the heart of what he is proposing.

I would welcome the opportunity to have the various doubts I have about the member's motion cleared up. First I should spell out some of the issues as I see them. To begin with let us take a good look at the Franquet-Chapais line that the member is in favour of privatizing. Let us examine the history of this trunk line so that we can better understand what it is that is being requested.

The line in question, which is 97 miles long, is located in northern Quebec. This is a rather short line but it would make no difference to Canadian National which controls the line if this route were considered a profitable one. However, it is not. Let me make myself very clear about that because CN officials have stated unequivocally to me that the Franquet-Chapais line is not profitable and has not been for quite some time.

CN Rail first applied to the National Transportation Agency for abandonment of the line in 1989. At that point, to quote the railroad, there was no traffic at all on the line in question.

The NTA ruled that the line was not economical to maintain and operate and stated that there was no near term possibility for that line to become profitable. At that time the NTA also pointed out there was a reasonable possibility the line could be economically valuable at some point down the road.

As a result of this CN Rail was told to continue operating the line for a period of three more years to determine beyond a doubt whether the line had any economic potential. As it turned out, it did not.

The Franquet-Chapais line has been a drain on CN's resources ever since and traffic on that line has continued to be next to non-existent.

In 1992 the NTA reviewed the case again and ruled that all but six miles of the entire 97-mile route were uneconomical with "no possibility that it could become feasible to operate".

Since that time the line has existed in a sort of railway hinterland. It has not been abandoned outright but this is due to occur on May 31, 1994, unless a private buyer can be found for the line.

What should we make of this? I presume the hon. member for Roberval raised this motion in order to head off the unhappy destiny this trunk line is about to meet. I think that is both an honourable and just thing for him to do. After all CN has stated quite flatly it has no use for that line and no desire to keep it in service any longer.

The member has nothing to lose by putting forward his privatization motion and everything to gain.

I would like to point out a few minor things, however, which may run against what the member is trying to accomplish with his motion. Number one, allow me to say to this House that although the Franquet-Chapais line has been on the CN auction block for a good number of years not a single private or public

body has ever expressed a concrete interest to CN officials in purchasing the line, not one, Madam Speaker.

Where then would the hon. member suggest a a real buyer be found for this trunk line? It may be accurate for him to say that such a line would allow mining and forestry development in the northern region of Quebec but such potential did not transpire overnight.

Even when the Canadian economy was booming and prices were high for mineral and wood products, there was not one proposal put forward to CN which called for the 97-mile route to be taken off the railroad's hands.

With this in mind at a time when the natural resource industry remained depressed I sincerely do not know how the member hopes to find a saviour, a white knight who will rescue the Franquet-Chapais line from its ultimate fate.

Let us not be mistaken. CN Rail has not been jealously guarding its many trunk and feeder lines in the hope of preventing potential buyers from taking them away and making better use of them. Quite the contrary, in fact.

For a number of years Canadian National has been making a strong concerted effort to sell off its smaller lines to private interests in hopes of concentrating more fully on the primary areas of operation and reducing its staff and maintenance costs. The sell-off has been even more actively promoted in eastern Canada. In fact, CN even went so far as to produce a line of all trunk lines that it felt had a real potential for interested buyers. Unfortunately the Franquet-Chapais line did not make that list. I believe the reason for this was simple. It has been a consistent money loser for years while many of CN's other trunk lines were managing to turn a profit.

What is one to make of this predicament? CN Rail went even further to do away with lines like the one in question. It actively pursued sales offers not only from the private industry but also from other public entities such as municipalities and even the Quebec government. Not one of these bodies expressed an interest in taking on the Franquet-Chapais line.

Simply put, CN Rail would love someone to take the line off its hands but no one has approached the railroad about it and time is running out for anyone to do so. Therefore, what am I to make of the hon. member's motion? It is certainly well intentioned and I commend him for that but I honestly do not know if it is feasible. This is where my concern lies.

That is not the end of the confusion surrounding this motion. Officials I have spoken with at CN expressed some concern about the vague terminology of the member's motion, especially the phrase that calls for the line to be offered to a bidder for a nominal sum. What is exactly meant by this unclear choice of words? He has cleared that up a bit today.

In terms of what CN Rail would actually be willing to see the Franquet-Chapais line sold for, federal transportation policy is very explicit and, I might add, quite reasonable. If a company wishes to take over unwanted rail line from its owner at any point during the abandonment process and is willing to pay the basic salvage value of the rail line as determined by the National Transportation Agency then the railroad must sell the line in question.

In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line this abandonment process has been dragging on for a period of five years but no potential buyers have forced CN to divest itself of this asset. I may point out that the concept of salvage value is important here because it shows that CN could not possibly be holding on to a money losing line because it is not getting top dollar offers from outside sources.

In actual truth the railway simply has not received any purchase offers for the Franquet-Chapais line, period. It could be that in this case the total salvage value of the 97-mile route would turn out to be nothing more than a nominal sum. Is this what the hon. member is actually driving at?

My impression is that he would be satisfied to turn the trunk line over to private interests for the sum of $1. Certainly this would accomplish his goal but it would not be a benefit to CN. It would open every line in its system to takeover for $1. In fact, CN Rail would never agree to such a proposal and this is the hard fact of the situation. The Franquet-Chapais line is worth more to CN sitting idle than it would be as a gift to private investors.

Let me express my sincere sympathy for the member for Roberval because I understand very well what he is trying to accomplish with his motion. My riding is also facing rail problems similar to those that have plagued the Franquet-Chapais trunk line.

In British Columbia's Slocan Valley, a rail line is being threatened with closure because of a variety of negative economic factors. I understand what the member is driving at. I am now trying to get abandonment proceedings delayed in my own riding just as has been done in the past in the hon. member's own area.

If a delay in Slocan Valley is successful as it was in his own area with the Franquet-Chapais line, then it should be up to that specific area to promote rail business through local economic development if the people of that area want to keep the rail line in the long term.

In the case of the Franquet-Chapais line the citizens of the region had the chance of stretching it over a five-year period to bring about the renewal and redevelopment of the line. Unfortunately, it appears that nothing was done with this opportunity. This suggests that there simply was no business to promote on the line to begin with.

Hopefully the Slocan valley rail line that is now on the chopping block will be given the same chance for renewal the Franquet-Chapais line has already had. Hopefully we will be

able to accomplish more with our opportunity and save our line by making it more economically viable for private industry.

However, I do not know how much more can be done in the case of the rail line advocated by motion 194. Private and public investors have had since 1989 to revamp and reinvest in the line and return it to profitability. This has not been done.

I do sympathize with the hon. member's motion but unfortunately I simply do not believe there are any simple solutions to be gained from motion 194.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address this House in French. After only six weeks of French classes, I know I still make mistakes. I agree with the member for Roberval.

CNR, CPR and VIA serve Canada.

It is easy for the member for Kootenay West to get up and reject outright the thesis of the member for Roberval when he is harboured by the Western Grain Transportation Act. They get underwriting which is a subsidy that is not able to be taken by the member for Roberval's CNR track. There is also the Crows Nest Pass and I can go on and on.

This whole thing is why I support the member for Roberval. CNR, CPR and VIA pick off whatever line they like each year until all they have left are very few Canadians who have access to public transportation which has been enormously supported since Confederation; billions and billions of dollars have gone into CPR and CNR, particularly in the west.

Please, enough of throwing mud at each other. Let us work together for a national rail strategy that will serve Canada in the 21st century and not leave one section out to the benefit of another.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to take part in this debate today and support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Roberval since my riding of Cochrane-Superior, like many other rural ridings across Canada, is experiencing the very same problems.

First of all, we have to remind CN that its primary mandate is to promote regional development by ensuring the operation of rail lines across the country so that remote areas in particular can develop economically and have access to urban communities in Canada.

I find it extremely unfortunate that CN has adopted such a policy over the last few years. We who live in rural areas of this country are beginning to feel abandoned. We are seeing our chances of becoming self-sufficient diminish.

Even though CN wants to abandon rail lines, the National Transportation Agency could intervene to save them, if only it to ensure the future development of our regions.

A few moments ago, I talked about people feeling isolated. Once rail is gone, what are you going to replace it with? Whether we use a bus, a truck or anything else, it will still cost money.

I repeat and maintain that CN has responsibilities to isolated areas and to its employees; it has a moral duty to ensure that all regions of the country have a chance to develop. Dismantling unprofitable branch lines is no way for CN to fulfil its mandate. Absolutely not.

I strongly disagree with what my colleague from Carleton-Gloucester was saying a while ago. At this stage I would like to make a very important digression.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

I am astounded, to say the least, when I see members from urban areas, who have probably never seen a rural rail line, rise in this House to denounce or deny support for the concerns of their rural colleagues.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this opportunity to voice my concern.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

You still have some time left.