Ronald J. Duhamel

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

If he buys a second piece of land.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments and ask a few questions. You will remember that, earlier today, I pointed out to one of my colleagues from the same political party that he had made a mistake and I would like to quote the exact clause we were talking about. Then, I will tie up my comment to what my colleague just said and which is unfair and incorrect.

Clause 102 reads as follows:

102.If an owner's land is divided as a result of the construction of a railway line, the railway company shall, at the owner's request, construct a suitable crossing for the owner's enjoyment of the land.

And then in clause 103, it says:

103.(1) If a railway company and an owner of land adjoining the company's railway do not agree on the construction of a crossing across the railway, the Agency, on the application of the owner, may order the company to construct a suitable crossing if the Agency considers-

I made the same comment this morning, because the hon. member's colleague who spoke before said something else. I do not mean to say that he did not tell the truth, since he may have made a mistake, but what he said in the exact opposite of what I just said.

Having said that, I now worry about the Bloc members, because my colleague talks about a court which would not be unbiased. I find this shocking.

Then he says that Parliament gives it directions it must abide by, but then he argues that the court is not free, or rather that it is free, I do not know what his argument was all about. It is all very conflicting.

For my colleague's information, I would like to quote the following: "A direction issued under subsection (1) shall not affect a matter that is before the Agency on the date of the direction and that relates to a particular person". And then: "A direction issued under section 43 is not binding on the Agency until the expiration of the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after the direction has been laid before both Houses-"

This is a clear indication that there is a process in place, that the process is open and public, that it will be referred to Parliament, to a committee for further debate, etc.

If I had listened to every member of his party, I would have found similar mistakes. This morning, when I quoted from the document, why did his colleague not mention this mistake, why does he not recognize that we have an unbiased court and an open process, that what we are doing is both honest and right? Why are they always so negative when they do not need to?

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I also asked two specific questions of my colleague who suggested that there was no need for an environmental assessment. He is wrong. But, of course, he does not want to talk about that, he wants-

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and to ask two questions in particular. My colleague spoke of inequity. It seemed to me that this bill involving many key players is trying to strike some balance. Maybe my colleague would like to comment on this.

I would like to add that the byelection results last night, not only in Ontario and in Newfoundland but also in Quebec, show that Canadians think that the government of Jean Chrétien is quite equitable, fair and responsive.

I believe my colleague was not too "chrétien" on two aspects. For example, he said that this bill did not require an environmental study of its impacts and so on. As far as I know, he is mistaken. Such a study is mandatory under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. An environmental study is required before any approval, and this is the case here.

The second thing I want to say is this. If I understand correctly, it is not true, for example, that the damage caused to a land when a railway company proceeds with some construction project is the responsibility of the owner of the land. It is the responsibility of the railway company, not of the owner of the land.

I would like to know whether the member would comment on that. Did I misunderstand what he said? Maybe he thought he should exaggerate things. I would like him to clarify what he said.

[Petitions, March 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, a group of seniors in my riding call on the government to ensure that reforms of seniors' benefits be consistent with the historic commitment of the Liberal Party to elderly Canadians.

The petitioners want adequate income, appropriate health care and affordable housing. I believe they reflect the opinion of most seniors in Canada.

[Racism, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the International day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I invite Canadians, including my colleagues, of all races, colours, ideologies and religions to take part in this event.

It is in everyone's best interests to build a country free of racism. We must eliminate racism. We must take the responsibility for creating for our children communities that are sound and free of bias.

Canada has a reputation for being a tolerant and compassionate country. We are privileged to live in an environment where various cultures coexist. More important still is the fact that these cultures celebrate, share, communicate and work together to promote peace.

Let us work together to eliminate racism and racial discrimination. The various languages, peoples, cultures and religions are what make this country so very special. Let us all make a personal commitment to improving this superb country.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a few questions. I wonder if he would give me his reaction to the comments in the media regarding the government's budget.

Constituents in my riding, for example, are happy to hear that there is no increase in taxes, that there will be additional cuts within government, that funds have been earmarked for the purpose of doubling the amounts spent on creating summer jobs, that there will be this new initiative to create entry level jobs for young people in order to give them experience. They have praised the government because it continues to target the deficit and make progress. Despite the cuts, it will be able to increase transfers to the provinces for health, education, training and social assistance.

I therefore wonder if he has any comments to make. I find it surprising that the comments he is reporting from his riding seem to be very different from those I have been hearing in mine.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Talk about pensions.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Fewer than 15 per cent.