Michel Gauthier

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am willing not to mention the absence of the member but I would like to know if someone opposite can answer the questions that we are asking.

If the issue is worth debating, it would be important to have a valid speaker to respond to these concerns. Let me remind you that the role of Parliament is really to allow members of Parliament to express opinions on projects.

I think that the motion before us today is aimed at seeking the co-operation of the opposition parties. A number of speeches that were made until now are asking for that support. That support is being given, but-and this is important-the people responsible should at least try and respond to our concerns.

I agree not to mention the absence or presence of a member, but I certainly wish, and I know I am complying with the Standing Orders, that someone could give us an answer and listen to us in order to be able to give details and explanations on this matter.

Therefore, I will go back to the financing issue. It would not be the first time in this country that a project costs more than expected. How does the government intend to finance cost overruns, if any? I suppose that a responsible government has thought of something. If this is the case, I would like to know about it and we would like to know who will take over the responsibilities if the project is a disaster in terms of construction. It is important for us to know that.

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that there was a time when the financial situation of the government was sound and perhaps those questions were less important. But when the government is preparing to cut social programs and health care programs, or any other program for that matter, because money is tight, because our deficit is over $40 billion a year, we have reasons to be concerned with this issue at this point. Surely the government has thought of some way to overcome cost overruns, if any, and they have to explain what their intentions are.

We are also concerned with maintenance. I did not come across any estimates in the documents made available to us. They probably exist, but I did not find them. I would like the government to answer the following: What are the estimated costs for the maintenance of this structure each year? Would the costs be paid for by the consortium that will be in charge of bridge management? Have any maximum costs been established? If the maintenance costs are higher than expected or if there are major problems, who will pay the tab? Will the government take some responsibility then or will the promoters deal with the unexpected costs and other potential risks? It would be important to know about that.

Although it is not the same type of structure, one knows that a bridge built over salt water is likely to be subjected to more damage than elsewhere. Therefore, the maintenance costs are likely to be proportionate to the location of this bridge, to the fact that it is an extremely long bridge located, one has to admit, in an area with a very harsh climate, in the heart of the gulf of St. Lawrence and subject to significant weather and climatic variations. It would therefore be useful to be given all the information regarding the responsibility of the government with respect to maintenance costs or in case of possible major structural failure.

These are matters which require some clarification. This project economically is so very important for this region. We must therefore ensure that it is a success in terms of both its construction and its operation.

I know that my colleagues opposite agree that it must be a success. But it is not enough to say it. It is not enough to say that we want it to be a success in terms of its construction and its maintenance, to be a success in social an economic terms, to be a success for the company that will be in charge of its operation, also for the government which is going to be watching people coming and going and which, with this structure, is going to link an isolated province with the continent. We all want that project to be a success in all those respects, but again, it is not enough to just say so.

The government must act in a responsible manner. It must give all the necessary explanations. It must look for every aspect, even the smallest one, which may be a problem or about which people may have concerns in order not to embark, once again, on an unending adventure which finally will result in all Canadian taxpayers paying for something which does not even work properly.

A lot of questions have been left unanswered. I think it is for the House, during this debate, to answer them.

In conclusion, I would like the people mandated by the minister to answer all those questions. Like my colleague from Bourassa, I would like to express my concern over the possible job losses-nearly 400 jobs, roughly 350 jobs-that this project entails, since the bridge's operation will not require as many employees as a ferry service.

I can understand why so many discussions were held with so many people. Before a company closes shop, there are always a lot of discussions between manpower centres, economic development corporations and other stakeholders, in order to find alternatives, retrain employees, etc. Such a situation results in a significant reduction of net employment in the area, where needs are great.

There is no assurance that the people will easily adapt to the necessary social reorganization because of job losses following this negative change. Will the bridge create a positive spin-off in terms of job creation for the residents of the Island and of New Brunswick? Maybe. We hope for the best but it is far from sure and I see a lot of ill defined areas in the whole employment issue. The government would do well to look more closely into it in order to come up with better answers than it did up to now.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, even though we basically agree with the government, our comments in this House prove that its approach differs vastly from the one members on this side would use.

Regardless of whether we support this project or not, we are concerned by its potential impact on the environment. It seems to me, at first glance anyway, that the government is not very well equipped at this point to answer the many questions and solve the numerous problems which might arise from the project in front of us.

First of all, I must say that after listening this morning to the minister, I was rather shocked to hear that he had assumed, even before being aware of our position on the matter, that the Official Opposition would oppose this project, at least, that is the impression he gave in his argument. It is rather odd. I wonder how he came to the conclusion, even before we had a chance to express our views on the topic, even before the beginning of this debate, that we would oppose this project.

He may have forgotten, or perhaps he never listened to the Official Opposition when we pledged to Canadians that equity and fairness in distribution would be the yardsticks by which we would measure proposals submitted to this House. The minister might have forgotten that, unless he just never was aware of it. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, but let it be a lesson for him in the future. The minister should never again presume to think for the Official Opposition, especially given the fact that he seems to have enough trouble trying to understand the issues he is presenting to this House. He does not have all the answers, he has to do more work on these issues, and he should get on with it. The opposition will do its job, and the minister should do his.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I heard our friends opposite say they have the greatest respect for the results of a referendum held in Prince Edward Island that revealed that the citizens of this province were very interested in the project, were very much in favour of it and considered it a major step forward. I think respect for the will of the people as expressed in a referendum is very important, and I would remind our hon. friends opposite that this should apply to all referendums that may be held in this country and that may have important consequences for the future of its communities.

My own major concern is for the environment. I understand the reasons for the project, and I support it, and I understand what it means to the people of Prince Edward Island, but I have some very real reservations, especially in connection with the issue of ice formation. I am not an expert, but I am told that a major accumulation of ice near the bridge at certain times of the year might alter the ecology of the area and possibly have a major impact on the fisheries. I believe the government has recognized this by providing, if I am not mistaken, a $10 million relief plan to help fishermen who work in the area make the transition to other work. This means the government is aware of a significant impact on the fisheries.

I am one of those who are very concerned about this kind of situation, and I would have liked to see the environmental issues researched more thoroughly. I am concerned. I know that one case has already been brought before the courts. A number of rulings have been handed down, and the court has had a second chance to rule on the quality of the environmental studies. But I must say that a project of this scope, which may have a very significant impact-and one does not have to be an environmental expert to understand this-it seems to me that the whole environmental question should have been researched more carefully in order to get more answers and more clarification. I still have a number of questions about this project. There are definitely negative sides that will affect the future of a number of fishermen. There may be a negative impact on climate and

perhaps on certain social aspects as well, as a result of these major changes.

In any case, I think that instead of hurrying things along, the government should dig a little deeper and be in a position to give us better assurances that these issues have been given the attention they deserve. If there are any problems with this bridge, it will not be the people from Ontario or Ottawa, or Montreal or Vancouver who are affected, but local people, in an area that is economically fragile and has a low population density. Yes, a megaproject in this sector may have some very positive effects if the project is a good one, but it might also have a negative impact if we do not bother to look at all sides of the problem because we are in too much of a hurry to get this on the road.

As for the environmental issues, I think they were disposed of a bit quickly. I have a feeling that we tried to meet this deadline by putting some pressure on the stakeholders. For the time being, what I want to do is register my concern in this respect.

Financing is the biggest concern for this project. The cost of this bridge-which is clearly a megaproject-is estimated at $850 million. It would not be the first time that on a project of this magnitude, and for which we have no precedents, there would be cost overruns.

Already, according to my information, a study by Wood-Gordon revealed, last year, that the cost could be about $1.3 billion. Today-faced with a rather innovative project for which experts have already said that the cost could be at least 50 per cent higher-how can we say with any degree of certainty that the cost will be $850 million?

I do not want to use this argument to block the project, but I am trying to point out to this House, the government and the hon. members on the other side, that it would not be the first time in this country that the cost of a megaproject balloons way beyond the government's initial estimates, and that the government is stuck with the deal and forced to pay, at taxpayers' expense, millions of dollars more to finish the project.

I do not think that we can conclude this debate without the minister being present, and he is not in the House right now.

[Kahnawake Reserve, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us whether or not it is true that the RCMP has been compiling evidence for months on people involved in cocaine trafficking, and especially on an Indian chief?

[Kahnawake Reserve, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In the same article, we are told that conversations taped by the RCMP reveal that organized crime knows very well that supplies go through an Indian reserve since, and I quote, one would have said: "We have a place there, where we know that nothing will happen".

My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he not agree that, contrary to what he told us in this House, there are places in Canada where neither the RCMP, nor the army, nor even MPs can go freely?

[Points Of Order, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for taking the trouble to consider this matter. I am sure that we will reach an understanding and that we agree on the principles involved.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask another question, on another matter, this time speaking as the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I would like to ask what happened in the process of selecting questions for Question Period? What is the Chair's procedure? I noticed that contrary to custom, the Official Opposition was deprived of a number of questions and that this week, a number of independent members linked to one political group in particular were entitled to more questions than would normally be the case.

I want to ask the Chair whether this was dictated by the circumstances this week or did the Chair decide to change the rules of the game, or will we get back to normal next week?

[Points Of Order, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, my colleague for Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. After the question had been answered, Mr. Speaker, you rose to say that the opposition should choose the wording of its questions carefully. I will tell you very frankly that I do not understand the meaning of this statement for the following reasons: First, the official opposition is very aware of its responsibilities, we know that questions should use the right words and be respectful of the persons involved.

The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies had chosen his words particularly well to avoid implicating a person who, from what we know, is not, at this stage, accused of any criminal act or other wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to you that my colleague only talked of using public funds for purposes other that the ones originally stated. My colleague never used words like fraud, theft, embezzlement or anything like that. He simply asked what was happening to publics funds used in a way not originally intended. If it had not been so, clearly the hon. member would not have to repay. So we must conclude that the wording of the question was quite proper.

I would not want, Mr. Speaker, translation problems or things like that to lead you to believe that the opposition is using unparliamentary language or improper terms. I believe our rules protect the questions as well as the answers. The choice of words or expressions is ours. We are used to abide by that and we are very responsible in our choice of words. This is what I wanted to point out to you, Mr. Speaker.

[Cigarette Taxes, February 11th, 1994]

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to us how she believes that the RCMP will be able to dismantle the smuggling rings, when the Prime Minister of Canada himself is sending the smugglers a signal that they will just have a year off and then business will resume next year?

[Cigarette Taxes, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister say whether the Prime Minister did such an about-face to appease the anti-smoking lobby or to preserve the already-damaged credibility of his health minister?

[Cigarette Taxes, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview with La Presse yesterday, the Prime Minister followed the lead of his health minister in announcing the end of the plan to lower cigarette taxes for next year, barely 48 hours after making his action plan public.

My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: How can she explain the Prime Minister's doing such an about-face 48 hours after he announced his plan? Does she not believe that it is sending the wrong signal to the smuggling rings?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on January 21, I repeated the question on cigarette smuggling I had already asked I do not know how many times. I never found the answer satisfactory, but we finally have an explanation in the admission made by the leader of the government this week.

The important thing about this cigarette smuggling affair must not escape us-and I was the first to ask the Prime Minister questions about the possibility of reducing taxes to help Quebec solve its cigarette smuggling problem.

First, the Minister of Finance answered for the Prime Minister and said: "There is no way we are going to lower taxes". Then, the Prime Minister told me: "Maybe we will lower taxes. We are discussing it with the provinces". Later on, I was told: "We probably will lower taxes". Finally, the government did lower taxes as requested by the Premier of Quebec.

On the same issue, when I explained to the Prime Minister how serious the cigarette smuggling problem was in Quebec, he first told me: "Oh! cigarette smuggling is not such a serious problem in Quebec. The RCMP is taking care of it". Then, I was told: "Yes, there is smuggling, but everything is under control. Shipments are being intercepted by the RCMP and maybe the problem will eventually disappear". Later on, I was told: "Yes, there is smuggling, but the hon. member will not convince us that it is the native people who are engaged in this kind of activity. There is smuggling, the RCMP are doing their job, but it is not necessarily the Indians that are doing the smuggling, as the hon. member for Roberval says". And finally, they came to recognize that "yes, there is smuggling. Yes, it is being done mostly through the Akwesasne reserve".

They also finally admitted, when the Solicitor General answered a question I asked, that the RCMP were recovering 80,000 boxes of cigarettes. Just imagine what that represents. A quick tally showed that this amounted to a tiny percentage of the cigarettes smuggled into Canada.

This week, when the Prime minister announced the plan, the RCMP finally recognized that it was able to control barely 1 per cent of all cigarette smuggling throughout Canada.

The Minister of Environment was talking earlier to my colleague about transparency. The cigarette smuggling issue is a fine example of smoke screens. This is an example of an issue on which we, the opposition, with our little means, have had to try and get information every day, every minute, every moment this House has given us to finally uncover the truth, to shed some light on a serious problem which was really disturbing Quebecers.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that there are two other problems concerning the smuggling of cigarettes which have not been solved by the Prime minister. He has not done all his homework yet. He has not succeeded in convincing premiers of other provinces to join in the plan, which would have been essential. Now that he is only halfway there, Ontario will become the linchpin of smuggling activities in Canada.

And then he has not succeeded in meeting with the Indian reserve leaders to prevent any sad incidents which could take place. We are now being told that the Solicitor General has done his job.

It is disturbing to see such openness. It is disturbing to see that one has to wring scarce information out of this Parliament.