Nick Discepola

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I am proud to take part in this debate, but, unfortunately, such is not the case.

It is always preferable in this sort of dispute for the employer and the union to attempt to resolve their differences on their own. But, as we speak, after months and months of talks, the dispute drags on. Despite this government's efforts to resolve the conflict as quickly as possible, there is still one political party that prefers grandstanding to finding a solution to the crisis facing Canadians across this country.

Millions of workers are affected daily by this dispute. In the Montreal and Toronto areas alone, 70,000 workers who must get to their place of work every day are affected by this strike.

It affects not just large companies, but also small and medium size businesses, who depend on the railways for their survival.

As we speak, Canadian Pacific is paralyzed and Canadian National and VIA are for all practical purposes completely shut down. There are also automobile manufacturing plants in the Windsor area that have had to lay off 3,000 employees temporarily. The manufacturing sector is losing close to $500 million daily. In other words, if the strike drags on, the loss to our economy, according to their estimates, will be somewhere between $3 and $5 billion dollars.

The Reform Party suggested that the Bloc Quebecois was not worried about the dispute at the Port of Vancouver because it did not concern them. I would like to point out to them the economic effect of this dispute on Trois-Rivières, in Quebec.

In Trois-Rivières, the Kruger paper company is losing a million dollars a day. Five hundred employees are affected. Also affected are Stone Consolidated in Port-Alfred, Pétromont in the Verchères region, the Shell refineries in the east end of Montreal, the entire Port of Vancouver, Alcan, ADI, Reynolds, and I could go on.

I ask myself if there are other brave souls like the member for Longueuil, who told his own party that what they are accusing us of doing is not true. The Bloc Quebecois is accusing us of flexing our muscles. On the contrary, if anyone is being heavy

handed, it is the Leader of the Opposition, who always takes this approach when someone, including the member for Longueuil, does not agree with him. He told his own member that he would have to live with the political consequences of his action.

I would like to quote the member for Longueuil, who said: "I do not see why my constituents would take it out on me. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening. We have a major problem when the transportation system breaks down. People must return to work". This is why this dispute must be resolved as quickly as possible.

We have to ask why the Bloc Quebecois has taken this position. It claims to be the defender of workers in Quebec. This is not quite the case, because I myself have had calls from CN and CP railway workers in Coteau and Kirkland who are not happy that this dispute has still not been settled.

The economy, workers, everyone is affected, but still the Bloc Quebecois persists. It persists, in my opinion, for purely partisan reasons. They have said that we could have resolved this dispute as early as Monday. Again, this is not the case, because another 60 days would have gone by before the dispute was settled. Why does the Bloc see itself as the defender of workers? The main reason is because under Quebec law unions represent workers. It is no accident that the CNTU, the FTQ, in fact all the unions, support the separatist position. This is the sole reason for the Bloc's partisan politics today.

Thus far, at least the Reform Party is supporting us and even the NDP has seen the light. We have the support of the member for Longueuil and also of other members not brave enough to rise and vote against their party. Even the Quebec Minister of Transport has told us that this dispute must be resolved as quickly as possible.

But not the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc wants to stall the process; it is not in its best interests to see things improve, because it does not want to show that federalism works. It really does not care about those affected by this conflict, including the small businesses that cannot get their raw materials or imports.

So, here we are today. We could have settled this conflict a long time ago. But no, we have to sit on a Saturday. I am told this is the fourth time, and it has not happened in years.

[Rail Transport, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today, the Bloc Quebecois refused to co-operate with our government in order to quickly legislate rail workers back to work.

The official opposition does not seem to understand the scope of the negative impact of this work stoppage on the Canadian and Quebec economy. Allow me to quote the Quebec transport minister who recently said: "There is nothing quaint about trains. Their role is critical for the economy and the industry".

I will also quote its colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans who was recently pleading for the survival of rail services in these terms: "We cannot afford to lose the railroad. It would only weaken our economy further".

I urge the Bloc Quebecois to abandon partisan politics and to support the government's initiative without delay.

[Business Of The House, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Reform Party members who have already indicated they would further support this bill. I would ask the Bloc Quebecois members to think a bit before maintaining the position they have taken.

I could talk to you today of the disastrous effects this crisis is having on large businesses such as General Motors, Hoechst Canada, Canadian Celanese, Ford and others, but who in this House is speaking on behalf of all Canadians, not just those in my own riding, who have no means of defence?

As we talk, Canadian National is, to all intents and purposes, closed down; so is VIA. Canadian Pacific is operating at barely 85 per cent capacity.

With each hour we waste, the impact grows more serious. Certain grain exports have frozen. Last week, the minister tabled a bill for a return to work in the port of Vancouver. It seems to me that the political stand taken by the Bloc Quebecois members will hamper the settlement of this dispute and an eventual return to work.

With the tabling of the budget, last week, I got barely one phone call in my riding. With this dispute, however, which has gone on for months already, I have received calls from all sorts of people, including ordinary businessmen and businesswomen who are unable to go and collect the raw materials they need and whose business, therefore, could well close tomorrow, because the production line is stopped. It seems to me the problem is serious, serious enough for us to give thought to it and to put an end to the dispute.

Bloc Quebecois members accuse us of robbing these people of the right to negotiate. The bill that we are introducing today does not, as they claim, violate their freedom to resolve this dispute, when we consider that they have been trying to work their problems out for fifteen months now. It is true that they were

unsuccessful, however, this bill does not rob the various parties concerned of their freedom to go back to the bargaining table.

The minister herself made many personal attempts. Last night, she met with the three unions. Last night, the three parties admitted themselves to the media that they have come to a dead end. Is it advisable to wait another day or two? Is it advisable, as the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois advocate, to vote against this bill simply in order to forestall the inevitable?

I would like to speak for the average Canadian who is affected, whether as a commuter on the Rigaud line or the Deux Montagnes line to Montreal, who relies on the rail service to get to work every day and who does not have the benefit of a second or a third car. Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the small entrepreneurs who are trying to get their imported goods off the docks in Montreal?

It is very easy to convene a press conference when you are General Motors or Ford Motor company. It is for those small business people that I feel we have to solve this problem.

It is true this has a tremendous economic impact, not only for the large rail companies but for the local economy in the Montreal area for which I speak with great vigour. The port of Montreal has paralysed shipments and the railway has paralysed shipments across Canada. I take my hat off to the Minister of Labour who has only been here a short while but has certainly been indoctrinated very quickly. She has done an excellent job and has introduced two very difficult measures.

As the minister said in her preamble, as a government we would have preferred not to introduce back to work legislation. It is always more desirable when both parties can agree. But both parties have not been able to agree. They have been trying for almost 15 months.

I would like to quote a report in this morning's Gazette by the federal conciliator, Mr. Allan Hope, who is quoted as saying: All three railways have tabled extremely controversial and provocative demands that they see essential to their financial health and viability''. He wrote in February:It would be difficult to conceive of an bargaining initiative more likely to provoke an impasse''. The parties have tried. Right now we are at a standstill. It is not going to get any better.

From talking to various people and watching television reports yesterday with stranded commuters about the threat of the possible shutdown of suburban railways, people will have more difficulty getting to work. I would ask all members on both sides of the House to support legislation so we can adopt it as quickly as possible.

It may not solve the deep rooted, underlying problems in the railway industry which we have discussed before. But I hope that despite this return to work legislation that all parties on both sides will continue to try to solve the long lasting dispute, put aside their differences for the betterment of the country, for the establishment of a reliable service that Canadians, importers and exporters, that small as well as large businesses can rely on. We do not have a law-

-like we have in Quebec, an act on essential services. It would be ideal if the federal government had similar legislation, but it does not.

For example, when there are municipal disputes, basic services still have to be provided.

In this case we cannot provide a reliable service where there is ongoing, continual labour conflicts. It puts in jeopardy not only the economic viability of the country but the local economy as well. The local economy in Montreal has suffered enormously.

In closing, I would like to ask my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois to reconsider the impact which this dispute has already had and will continue to have on the province of Quebec and on the Montreal region especially and perhaps decide to vote in favour of this bill.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech he made on June 3 at the annual meeting of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said, and I quote: "The agenda proposed by the Bloc Quebecois for today and for the future includes the active solidarity of your communities with francophones in Quebec, within the space we share".

This statement was noteworthy for its understanding and openness, unlike the statement made yesterday by the Bloc's official critic in response to the position taken by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. After accusing them of interfering, the Bloc member continued her attack with the following statement, and I quote: "Our message to francophones outside Quebec is clear: Mind your own business".

Once again, the Bloc Quebecois has shown it is determined to muzzle anyone who would challenge its separatist plans.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member, because he started by saying that he did not think this was a courageous budget. He gave three examples which, I suppose, are his three major concerns, namely the GST, the pension plans and personal income tax. The last point raised by the member was the impact of the cuts to agricultural subsidies.

I am convinced that in the riding of Vaudreuil, and elsewhere in Quebec and in Canada, the three points raised by the hon. member are not unanimously perceived as the three major issues. The main concern is government spending and the lack of flexibility resulting from a debt accumulated over many years and which is very costly in terms of its financing.

As you can see in the budget, in spite of cuts of $29 billion over a three-year period, the interest on the debt will increase by roughly $7 billion. This is a courageous budget because, for the first time, a Minister of Finance meets his own objectives in terms of the debt reduction. This is a first in the history of our country.

For the second year in a row, the government has not increased personal income tax. The hon. member forgot to mention that point. As for the pension plan, the member is well aware that we introduced a bill which will be voted on in April.

When it comes to agricultural subsidies, the Bloc Quebecois always tries to compare the East to the West for political expediency. It must be mentioned that, in the West, the subsidy was completely eliminated. The farmers were deprived, without notice, of subsidies amounting to $560 million. This is why a transition period and a compensation are provided. In Quebec and in the East, we are only talking about an annual reduction of 15 per cent, over a two-year period. It is better to get 70 per cent than nothing at all.

In reply to the hon. member's question, I think this is a courageous budget because we tried to be fair. We did not ask more from the provinces than we were prepared to give. We did not ask the small and medium size businesses to do more. We tried to be fair and this is why the budget was well received across Canada, and even in Quebec.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, for delivering a courageous and innovative budget, which, most importantly, takes on the deficit yet respects the red book commitments. This was no easy task and the minister did agreat job.

Having had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance, I am very happy to see that the minister incorporated 80 per cent of the committee's recommendations into his budget. This means that the minister took into account the suggestions and concerns that Canadians expressed during the public hearings held nationwide.

This budget takes the steps needed to control the deficit. These budgetary measures are the most rigorous undertaken by a federal government in 50 years. They will permit us to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product by 1996-97.

This budget also allows us to meet our goals without increasing personal income taxes for the second consecutive year. The government refuses to reduce the deficit by offloading it onto Canadian taxpayers. Like Canadians as a whole, we believe that we must strive to balance the budget. We will achieve this in a responsible and realistic way without jeopardizing the strides we have taken regarding the economy and on the job front over the past 16 months and without discarding the values and priorities of Canadians.

We use forecasts that are more prudent than the private sector average. The budget anticipates the debt charges in 1995-96 alone will be $7.5 billion above last year's estimates.

This is why we must act now or risk missing our deficit target altogether. The budget takes some tough actions to prevent the probability of failure. To hit our targets we are implementing cumulative savings of some $29 billion over the next three years. This is the largest single set of actions in any budget since World War II. These actions mean changing the size and the shape of government. By 1996-97 program spending will fall from $120 billion to just under $108 billion.

The structural changes we are making will assure that significant deficit reduction continues in 1997-98 and, more important, beyond. The bottom line benefit will be dramatic. By 1996-97 the deficit will be lower than that of any G-7 country.

We have taken measures that will have far-reaching effects and are result oriented.

We have substantially cut spending while at the same time preserving principles that Canadians hold dear, namely economic recovery, protection of the disadvantaged and government streamlining.

If we want our efforts to put our fiscal house in order to be efficient and sustainable, it is imperative that we reconsider the role and structure of government and focus government activities on the priorities set by Canadians.

In this budget, government is brought down to a size we can afford. Cuts were not made blindly, contrary to what the opposition says. The measures announced by the Minister of Finance flow from the comprehensive review of departmental programs and activities we had announced in the 1994 budget and they will continue to pay dividends in the years to come.

Expenditures will be cut by half in some departments. After these measures have been implemented, the public service, including DND, will be reduced by 45,000 positions, or 14 per cent.

The budget reduces the deficit in a way that is consistent with the strong Liberal commitment to social programs. We remain absolutely committed to a fair and sustainable system of protection for seniors who have given so much to the country.

The budget states the basic principles of the so-called hidden agenda the hon. member for Sherbrooke alluded to before. There will be the following: undiminished protection for all seniors who are less well off, including those receiving the guaranteed income supplement; continuation of full indexation to protect seniors from the effects of inflation; provision of old age security benefits on the basis of family income, as is currently the case with the guaranteed income supplement; greater progressivity of the benefits by income level; and, more important, control of program costs.

The role of the state is to do only what it does best. Therefore, some activities should be transferred to other public administrations or entrusted to the private sector. If the federal government does not have to do something, it should not do it. And in the future, this government will not do it.

True, this budget is tough, but it is fair. The Minister of Finance strove to distribute budget cuts fairly among all regions.

We will not reduce the deficit without also reducing provincial transfers. Nonetheless, the cuts we are asking the provinces to absorb are not as deep as the cuts we are facing ourselves, that is, 3 cents for every dollar of provincial revenue.

This budget constitutes additional proof that federalism is dynamic, flexible and not stuck in the status quo. The federal-provincial transfer payments will be replaced with a new consolidated subsidy called the Canada Social Transfer, which will alleviate the constraints that the government may impose in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

By giving the provinces two years' notice before introducing the Canada Social Transfer, we honoured a red book commitment to "achieve the maximum degree of predictability and stability for each level of government". It is the Quebec government that is deferring all important decisions because of the referendum.

The Leader of the Opposition alleges that this budget is unfair to Quebec. No region suffered more cuts than any other. Under the Canada Social Transfer, transfers to Quebec in 1996-97 will decline by only $350 million. That is a 3 per cent cut compared with 1994-95.

Over that same period, we will reduce federal spending by 7.3 per cent, which is almost double the cuts affecting transfer payments to the provinces. It goes without saying that those who support separation cannot react positively to a budget which demonstrates that Canadian federalism works.

Bloc members oppose the reduction of the subsidy to industrial milk producers. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition himself said that, in an independent Quebec, he would willingly abolish that subsidy. Financial markets did not endorse the claims made by the Quebec Minister of Finance to the effect that the federal budget generates uncertainty. Indeed, all are unanimous in saying that the budget measures will help fiscal consolidation.

Even the editorialists from Quebec recognize that this budget paves the way to a federalism respectful of the provincial fields of jurisdiction. The budget was designed with the best interests of Canada and Canadians in mind, not those of Wall Street. Still, we managed to reassure the financial markets. It is now up to the Quebec government to put an end to the uncertainty by holding its referendum as soon as possible.

[International Women's Day, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this year, International Women's Day falls during our week off. That is why I rise today to pay tribute to all Canadian women from coast to coast.

Let us look around us. There are now 54 women sitting in the House of Commons. We have come a long way since Agnes McPhail became the first woman elected to the House of Commons in 1921; since the judiciary committee of the Privy Council finally recognized, in 1929, that women were persons in the eyes of the law; since Carine Wilson became the first woman appointed to the Senate in 1930.

Women have left their mark in all their fields of activity despite the obstacles that keep springing up in their way, simply because our society is still tainted by widespread and offensive sexism.

To our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, colleagues and friends, to all women in Canada, I say thank you.

[Referendum Debate, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a sovereign Quebec would be a country of intolerance, where democracy would be trampled on and ideological dissidence could be equated with treason, depending on the outcome.

When someone like Bourgault brands as racist the anglophones who would democratically vote against their proposal, that is one thing. When someone like Landry says that there is no place for multiculturalism in Quebec society, that is another, but when a democratically elected member of the House maintains that newly arrived Quebecers should not have the right to express their views or vote on such a vital question as the future of their country, that is unacceptable.

On behalf of all English-speaking and newly arrived Quebecers who have chosen to settle, to live and to raise their children in Canada and in Quebec, I demand an apology from the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

I want to remind the Bourgaults and the Parés of this world that they also come from-

[Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act, February 24th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to provide for the resumption of operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a bill regarding the resumption of operations of the company ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. As was already said, the employees of this company have been negotiating their collective agreement since it expired on January 31, 1992. The employees have been on strike now for eight months.

Despite the efforts of conciliators and mediators to put an end to this strike, it has dragged on and the employer has kept operations running by hiring outside help. Therefore, I am tabling this bill, which provides for a mediator-arbitrator to settle the conflict and which provides that employees will go back to work under the terms of a memorandum of agreement, drafted by the mediator-arbitrator.

The bill contains provisions obliging the two parties to respect the memorandum of agreement and to try to settle the current conflict. It also contains sanctions in the form of fines, if the legislation is not respected.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Hon. Lucien Bouchard, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to greet Lucien Bouchard on his return. We are delighted to have him in our midst again, pleased to see that he has pulled through his terrible ordeal and is resuming his place in the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that nothing is certain in this life. And yet he maintains that the referendum should not be launched unless the sovereignist option is sure to win. This, he says, is in the interest of Quebecers.

It is indeed in the interest of the entire country that a referendum be held, and as soon as possible, not to see one side or the other win, but instead to learn the position of Quebecers and resolve the issue once and for all. That is democracy. Anything else is shameful manipulation. Quebecers deserve better than that after all.

For my part, I say yes to one clear question. I say yes to a strong Quebec, I say yes to a unified Canada.