Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I want to inform you that it will only be 10 minutes long, to allow my colleague from Argenteuil to speak.

The motion put forward today by the Official Opposition asks this House to condemn the government's lack of action and transparency with respect to the proposed restructuring of Canada's rail system, and especially its lack of vision with respect to high-speed trains.

We cannot help but conclude that the government is dragging its feet badly, as far as the high-speed train is concerned, so much so that we have to wonder whether it is not just watching the trains go by.

At a time when the government is concerned with meeting the challenge of the information highway, it is neglecting to meet the high-speed train challenge, a train which would give Canadians and Quebecers access to a modern, efficient and economical transportation system.

The high-speed train is a true revolution in the area of surface transportation. It is in some ways a revolution as significant as that of the information highway. The Europeans have understood that. While the French, the German and the Swedish have all opted for the high-speed train, the Canadian government has yet to move with the times. Introduction of a high-speed train service in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor would provide an ultra-rapid means of transportation to some 10 million people.

Fifteen million trips a year require an efficient means of transportation. At the dawn of the third millennium, Canada and Quebec must develop a means of transport for the future. The HST technology is the necessary and logical solution.

Initially developed in France, this technology is characterized by its profitability, its security, its convenience, its comfort and, above all, its speed performances. Based on a revolutionary technological concept, environmentally safe, the HST causes less noise pollution and greatly reduces energy consumption. With its successful performance, it has won a large share of the European market for medium and long-distance travel. By reaching commercial speeds of 300 km/h, it has become a very competitive means of transport compared with more traditional ones. The HST is faster, more comfortable, safer and more economical than cars. It stands in sharp distinction to air transport because it channels the movement of people over the entire territory. It helps to make downtown areas more accessible. Using existent rail lines, it enters the heart of cities.

The HST technology combines three essential conditions for the success of modern means of transport: connectedness, connectivity and nodality. Given these features, an HST for the Quebec-Windsor corridor is not a project which should stay on the shelf, but a necessity.

Rémi Bujold, the president of one of the consulting firms which worked on the HST project, said that this project would be profitable if it captured 40 per cent of the market for the Toronto-Montreal corridor, which now accounts for only 13 per cent of all transport needs.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup said last May, the cost-effectiveness of that system rests on its efficiency: "It can link Quebec and Montreal in 85 minutes, Montreal and Ottawa in 45 minutes and Toronto and Montreal in 140 minutes, at 50 per cent of the cost of a plane ticket. That is a real dream".

Given the inaction of the government, my colleague was wondering if Ottawa was not more concerned with defending the interests of the airline lobby than it was willing to participate in a job creating project, one very innovative project from a technological point of view and one which would be a driving force for the economy of our own businesses.

The HST has the support of many groups and public and private organizations in Canada and in Quebec. The Bombardier multinational, an unquestionable leader in the area of transportation, is ready to meet the challenge here in our country. That corporation, founded in Quebec, is very successful in selling its know-how, its technology and its products all over the world. Team Canada just got back from its tour and the federal government takes pride in the success and the accomplishments of our businesses abroad. But what does it do to encourage their development here in Canada and in Quebec?

The Prime Minister is going nowhere and evidently his government is marking time.

Several studies have shown that the HST would create approximately 127,000 work-years of employment. During the construction, with the technological and economical spin-offs of such a project, nearly 40,000 additional work-years would be created in various sectors. The management and maintenance of the network would create another 1,200 permanent jobs. The costs of funds for the HST project in the Quebec-Windsor corridor are estimated at approximately $7.5 billion over a ten-year period. The private sector would assume 70 per cent of start-up costs, while the remaining costs would be shared by the governments of Quebec, Ontario and Canada.

On April 26, Marc LeFrançois, president of the board of directors of VIA Rail, made an eloquent speech in support of this project. According to Mr. LeFrançois, the survival of passenger railway services in Canada will depend on the high-speed train project. According to the president of VIA Rail, the United States is an accessible market worth many billions of dollars. The high-speed train would give our businesses broad access to the North American market, where the high-speed concept has yet to make its mark.

At a time when draconian budget cutbacks have put what is left of Canada's and Quebec's railway industry at risk, at a time when our major railway companies are becoming less and less viable and thousands of workers in this sector are losing their jobs, I think it is high time the government showed some political and economic leadership by supporting a project that would stimulate and generate employment. The government should realize that this project is not only possible but necessary. As the government keeps pouring millions and millions of dollars into the Hibernia project, whose technology is not very exportable and, from the looks of it, not very profitable and unlikely to generate as many economic spin-offs as the high-speed train project, is it surprising that people get upset about the Liberal government's failure to act?

The government cannot afford to hesitate any longer. History has shown that Canada's present geopolitical entity was shaped by the railway that connected the Atlantic to the Pacific. This episode in Canada's history goes back more than a century. Considering the deterioration of Canada's railway network, a legacy of the negligence of many successive governments in Ottawa, one wonders what the Fathers of Confederation would have had to say. They would undoubtedly condemn this government's apathy. The government must make a decision now about the high-speed train, to prevent inertia from turning into inept policy making. The high-speed train project must be kept on track. Otherwise, the Fathers of Confederation would never forgive them.

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responsible for the Montreal region.

Could the minister for once defend the interests of the Montreal region and formally commit himself in front of this House to defend Bill C-91 in Cabinet and against all comers?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 protects pharmaceutical manufacturers who invest in research and development; they have major investments in the Montreal area.

In most industrialized countries, these manufacturers benefit from legislation that protects the results of their research for at least 20 years. Now, manufacturers of generic products, most of whom are in Ontario, have put tremendous pressure on the government to eliminate these same guarantees in Canada.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the importance of the brand-name drug industry in the Montreal area and the concern raised in this industry by the attitude of some Liberal members, can the Deputy Prime Minister rule out any threat to amend Bill C-91 and its regulations?

[National Forum On Health, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the Prime Minister's commendable efforts but since he claims that this is not a decision making forum and that the real decisions will be made at health ministers' conferences, why does he stubbornly insist on wasting $12 million taken directly from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers?

[National Forum On Health, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister said yesterday in the opening speech of the Canadian Forum on Health, and I quote: "Unless we take a broad view of health, we will not succeed in reducing costs".

How can the Prime Minister make such a statement, when those with health-care planning expertise and responsibility, that is, the provinces, were not invited to participate fully in the discussions at the Forum on Health?

[Television Violence, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events in Norway, where a five-year-old girl was killed by two six-year-olds, the public is entitled to wonder if television violence does not lead to violent behaviour in young people.

Many are convinced that it does: 1.5 million people have signed Virginie Larivière's petition calling for an end to violence on television.

There is increasing agreement among medical experts as to the harmful influence of television violence on the behaviour of children.

In the face of the CRTC's inertia on this issue, what is the federal government waiting for to propose concrete and effective measures that address this serious problem, which is detrimental to the development of our children?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on October 3, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata tabled an amendment to Bill C-53. This bill is ambitious, because the purpose of this big shake-up is to shamelessly take control of what is called Canadian culture in this country. It is not surprising that, with this amendment, the Bloc Quebecois seeks to return this bill to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In other words, what the Official Opposition is saying to the House is this: Members of Parliament, show political maturity and demand that the government do its homework again. In his speech on October 3, the minister gave us the following definition to think over: "Heritage is the set of signs that enable us to recognize ourselves as individuals who belong to a group or

even a country. Heritage is closely linked to questions of individual and national identity, which is why it can have such far-reaching and important influence".

While the traditional definitions of heritage as found in the dictionary refer essentially to a specific past which we recognize as our roots, the minister speaks of the set of signs by which Canadians would define themselves as belonging to the same reality. Some questions come spontaneously to mind. What do you think Quebecers, even federalists, will choose as the sign of what they are and what they want to be: the maple leaf or the fleur-de-lis?

Who can say out loud that our national anthem, which was written by Basile Routhier, generates the same sense of belonging from sea to sea as La Marseillaise in France or God save the Queen in England? And what about the Rockies, the Mounted Police and our coins bearing the effigy of the Queen?

The minister's plan, you will readily admit it, goes way beyond these heritage symbols. Suffice to quote here very briefly the minister: "We hope to rally the mighty forces of multiculturalism behind a cultural identity that is uniquely Canadian".

Since he only referred in his speech to the French Canadian culture when he talked about the official languages and the TV5 network, how could we not infer that we must absolutely bring back not only the Quebec culture but the aboriginal culture as well in the ideal and so-called safe melting pot of multiculturalism, in this world where the American culture is prevailing everywhere?

Madam Speaker, you will easily understand that, given all of this, it would be suicidal for the Official Opposition to support Bill C-53.

In spite of the minister's noble intentions, how can the Canadian Parliament not be concerned that today's culture, our writers, our artists, what I call our heritage in the making, are considered to be an industry in the same way as steel, shoes and chickens?

As for the review of the Copyright Act, for example, who will eventually have the last word? The Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian Heritage? We can safely assume that the Department of Industry, which already has this power, will retain it, since nothing in Bill C-53 clearly allocates responsibilities to either department.

Here is another example which should be cause for alarm in this House. With the emergence of the information highway, the speed of communication is approaching Mach 2. Is it reasonable to limit the stakes to marketing fibre optics? This is however, the conclusion we must reach since once again the Minister of Industry will be the project manager. But it also means that we are refusing to recognize that the major revolution brought about by the information highway is bound to rapidly and profoundly change the global culture.

It is often said that war is too serious a matter to be left up to generals; could it be that culture is too serious a matter to be left up to businessmen? Quebec culture is too precious to be left up to the goodwill of the federal government. The State of Quebec must have exclusive jurisdiction over Quebec culture.

For the past 30 years, the federal government, using its powerful spending authority, has shamelessly interfered with Quebec culture. Its objective was clearly to weaken Quebec culture. It has resulted in overlapping and duplication and created a dependence on the federal manna on the part of our creative minds.

In 1991, the total budget of the Quebec government for cultural institutions amounted to $426 million whereas that of Ottawa was $2.8 billion.

I wonder whether I understood what the minister meant when he said that both official languages "are inextricably linked to Canadian identity and culture. For this reason it is vital to promote them and broaden their sphere of influence". Am I naive in thinking that Radio-Canada's budget is sizeable enough to make a major contribution to the survival of francophone communities? Is it naive to think that when a number of the French network's stations were closed down recently in the regions, this was a clear indication of the strong position of French in these regions, a position so strong that these stations were no longer needed?

I am not naive, and few Quebecers are, as we can see in the following extract from the conclusion of the Arpin report: "Harmonizing action by both levels of government has never been easy". The federal government has always refused to recognize Quebec's leading role in cultural matters.

In 1992, Mrs. Frulla-Hébert, at the time Minister of Culture in the Bourassa government, went even further, saying there was little or no consultation on programs by the federal government with Quebec. Genuine co-operation was practically nonexistent, and when it did occur it was often at Quebec's request.

Recently, UQAM president Claude Corbo criticized the tendency of federal policies to downplay and ignore Quebec's identity. I hardly think Bill C-53 would change his mind.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage referred to Bill C-53 as the flag ship of Canadian identity. Metaphors are often not very apt, and this one is no exception. The cargo does not seem to be

properly stowed, and the ship may not be able to weather the storms ahead.

Any admiral worth his salt does not go out to sea with a ship that is poorly equipped. In concluding, I would therefore like to offer the Minister of Canadian Heritage some thoughts by Marcel Rioux, whom he must have met, considering his abiding interest in things cultural: "Why, at the slightest spark of life, do we go on hoping and manage to resist the pessimism and cynicism that lies at the root of so many foolish and unthinking decisions? To me, it is an act of faith in all those who built this country, and that is why I keep on hoping against hope".

[Reproductive Technologies, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that because of the party-like atmosphere in the House for the past two days, everyone in this cabinet feels like getting up. I must point out to the Minister of Health that my question was directed to the Minister of Justice. I will put my second question to him, as I imagine he still remembers the first one and should be able to respond.

Would the Minister of Justice agree that, as pointed out by Dr. Baird, action is urgently needed to prohibit the marketing of human embryos and thus preclude the possibility of research activities that are not ethically sound?

[Reproductive Technologies, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it may surprise you that my question is not directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. In fact, it is my privilege to direct my question to the Minister of Justice.

At a recent international gathering of gynaecologists and obstetricians, Dr. Patricia Baird, formerly chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on New Reproductive Technologies, once again emphasized the need for Canada to regulate this field.

When does the Minister of Justice intend to table in the House a bill to regulate practices connected with new reproductive technologies?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I cannot resist such an invitation.

I listened carefully to the part of the hon. member's speech where he alluded to the fact that if we are all here in this House, it is particularly for our children, and it is very true for me. I will remind you of something which concerns me. My hon. colleague gave personal details, so I can do it too.

Last year, on November 15, when I took my oath in this House, I did it with my grand-daughter. It is quite clear that I sit as a member in this House because I have faith in young people and children and because I believe Quebec will give them the society they deserve.

If my colleagues discussed this reform proposal today, it is precisely because they have faith in young people, and feel a responsibility towards them.

I guess I am closing the debate or almost. This is amazing.