Debates of June 15th, 1995

Cn Commercialization Act

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motions stands deferred.

[The Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

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

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-89 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-89, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 8, with the following:

"15.(1) The Official Languages Act continues to apply to CN as if it continued to be a federal institution within the meaning of that Act.

(2) Subsection (1) ceases to be in effect five years after the coming into force of this Act."

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be consent for the purpose of debate to putting Groups Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.

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

I agree, Mr. Speaker, provided that we will be able to vote on each of the four motions individually.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed that we are going to put Groups Nos. 4, 5, and 6 together for debate and we will vote on the motions separately?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 8, the following new Clause:

"15.1 The Minister shall, no later than January 1, 1996 conclude an agreement with CN providing for CN to repair, renovate and maintain the Pont de Québec in Quebec City and to commence work under the agreement no later than May 1, 1996."

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-89, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 15, on page 8, the following:

"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ) any activity of CN within a province that operates under an agreement that subjects the activity to the jurisdiction of that province, or b ) any work, subsidiary or corporation owned by CN that is situated or operates only within one province.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I will touch on my own motions by way of introduction. My colleague will deal further with those.

I would just like to point out two things. First of all the Official Languages Act is not the subject of the motion. The subject is a restriction to a private company contrary to what the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for London East said earlier with regard to the headquarters. He suggested that because it is in Montreal and it has always been in Montreal it probably always will be. That may be. If the company follows the official languages policy of the federal government and it works for it, I am sure it will continue to but if it does not work for the company, then it should not have a gun held to its head.

I guess I should not use that expression. That would offend the Minister of Justice who is taking all those away. Instead I would say that we should not twist the company's arm and require it to remain there subject to this policy. Of course even twisting its arm now is a little dangerous because the thought police will first have to determine whether we are twisting its arm because we want it to use a particular language or because of race, religion or sexual orientation. I guess I will have to start to be more careful in the House.

I would like to speak just briefly to Groups Nos. 5 and 6. Group No. 5 deals with the Bloc motion with the Pont de Québec. I listened to the group which came to committee on this matter. They were a very passionate and dedicated group. They obviously feel very strongly about their project to preserve the bridge and have a lot of commitment to this. I am sympathetic to their case. It was their explanation that there is a legal obligation on the part of CN. If that is true, and I have no reason to believe that they would be incorrect given how conscientious they seem to be about this, then it will not matter whether CN is still held by the government or privatized.

That legal obligation, if it exists, will go with the company and should be dealt with and enforced. I have suggested to them that I, among others I am sure, because I know the Bloc is very concerned about this, would be prepared to take this up if they are prepared to bring forward the evidence that this is a legal obligation.

With regard to Group No. 6, in principle I have some support for what the Bloc is talking of. However, this is the wrong forum in which to do this. The government has already put me on notice that it will be introducing legislation next week dealing with regulatory reform for the entire rail industry. It would be inappropriate to take a small segment of that and try to deal with it under privatization when we have the regulatory legislation coming forward that will deal with all of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I am not familiar with the procedure, I would like to ask a question. I would like to know whether I will have more than ten minutes to speak to each group. Since the motions have been grouped, I know I will need more than ten minutes. How does this work?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You ask for unanimous consent.

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

I should ask for unanimous consent? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.