Ghislain Fournier

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am told I will be the last speaker in the House for 1997. If so, I am very proud and honoured to end the proceedings for 1997. As my mother used to say, “the important thing is not to always talk, but to have the last word”.

On December 4, I asked the minister of Transport a clear question on the transportation by train of goods to northern cities such as Fermont and Shefferville. To my surprise, the reply was, to say the least, off track.

I asked about rail transportation and the Minister of Transport told me about the condition of Canada's highways. Of course, the rest of his reply did not make sense. The minister said the provincial government was responsible for setting priorities to meet the collective needs of remote communities. Yet, I was addressing the proper level of government, since I was asking about rail transportation.

Finally, when I asked the minister about what measures he intended to take in the future, he told me that the federal government has been involved in assisting the provinces since 1919 in highway construction, which is utterly useless and irrelevant. All this shows that the minister never took an interest in the claims made by the chamber of commerce of Sept-Îles, which were communicated to him personally more than a month ago. This is a flagrant lack of interest in helping the people of Manicouagan and getting things back to normal.

Admittedly, the Minister of Transport realized his error. In a letter dated December 9, he apologized for not replying to my question and for having given an inaccurate answer. He assures me that officials from his department will look into my allegations and report back.

I could understand that he gave the wrong answer to my question, but I cannot forgive him, on behalf of the North Shore Quebeckers I represent, for not replying promptly to representatives of the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce. I will therefore reiterate the facts, in the interests of advancing our cause.

On November 5, in other words a little more than a month ago, the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce requested the assistance of the Minister of Transport in its efforts to ensure the survival of the merchants in the region. It condemned the increase in rail freight charges.

It was shown, for instance, that it will now cost $154 to ship 35 cases of milk from Sept-Îles to Schefferville, rather than $52.

Since the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway handed the freight monopoly over to the private sector, rates have more than doubled. The federal government has an obligation to ensure that companies receiving subsidies meet their obligations. How can the government tolerate this, and not act when it knows that IOC is pocketing money for passenger traffic while allowing freight charges to skyrocket.

As the member for Manicouagan, I demand that the government step in to re-establish fair freight rates on the Sept-Îles—Labrador City route.

I would like to reassure people, whether they are from Fermont or Schefferville, that they will be able to obtain food as economically as possible.

To the people in my riding of Manicouagan, and to all Quebeckers, my warmest wishes for 1998. We will be boarding a train headed for the year 2000. It is normal for a self-respecting people to have a country.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

[Rail Transportation, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5, the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce complained to the Minister of Transport about the attitude of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway company, which had decided to privatize its depot for goods destined for northern cities. This decision will cost Sept-Îles merchants several million dollars.

What does the Minister of Transport intend to do to restore the business of transporting goods to northern cities such as Fermont and Shefferville to normal?

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague from Mississauga West. Frankly, I did not find much comfort in his remarks.

What we are doing here is putting postal workers on trial. I have never seen greater contempt for postal workers. This government is portraying the workers and their union as the bad guys and accusing them of being the only ones responsible for the current situation. These people apparently have no sense of responsibility and they are not negotiating in good faith, unlike the government. The government is the good guy, while the workers have no sense of responsibility.

Why then did the government pretend to give them the right to strike? At the time this right was granted, it was argued that this was a sacred right because, as citizens of this country, workers had every right to fight for better working conditions, to fight for their families.>

Today, they supposedly have the right to strike. Why bother giving them this right only to take it away? If you think they should not have the right to strike, you should take it away altogether. Do you have the will and the courage to do that? You are taking this right away from them. That is unacceptable.

You are putting postal workers on trial without giving them a chance to defend themselves. You are here blaming them for everything. What a fine scenario. As my colleague, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois, indicated this morning, if we were to identify one single culprit, it would have to be the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. And I agree with him.

Everything was arranged ahead of time by this government, including the Prime Minister. Now the government is trying to sound and look good. It says: “Look, the workers are the bad guys. We are introducing legislation to make them go back to work. We are good enough to send them back to work. We are restoring peace with the workers.”

Why did you give them the right to strike after numerous discussions if, as soon as they want to use it, you take it away from them?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-2 and to tell you why my party supports this legislation, thus acting in a responsible way, as it always does. Indeed, when a bill is good, we are prepared to support it.

First, I would like to briefly discuss Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22. I am very disappointed by the behaviour of the Reformers, the Conservatives and the New Democrats. It has always been said that the opposition's role is to make constructive criticism. Again, I am disappointed by the Reformers, the Conservatives and the New Democrats as regards this bill.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to Motion No. 11? The purpose of this amendment is to delete the clause allowing for an increase in the contribution rate. We are opposed to this amendment partly because we will partially restore intergenerational fairness through a faster rate increase.

Present workers and babyboomers will pay more than expected, and this increase will ensure the viability of the plan in the coming years.

The increase in the contribution rate, as amended, is the result of an agreement between the majority of the provinces and is identical to the one proposed in the debate on the Quebec pension plan.

Motion No. 13 put forward by the NDP provides for the deletion of the basic exemption limitation provision. Contributors to both plans benefit from an exemption on the first portion. The basic exemption will be fixed and premiums on total pensionable earnings will continue to increase based on salaries. That means that the more you earn, the more you pay.

The Bloc will vote against this motion. This cap on the exemption will have the effect of reducing the gap between the amounts used for calculating premiums and benefits paid. This cap represents in fact an increase in premiums for everybody, but this increase will be proportionally higher for low income people.

The viability of the program for future generations and the need to maintain contribution rates at an acceptable level require that some concessions be made with regard to benefits.

Motion No. 14 put forward by the Conservatives calls for the same thing and we will vote against it essentially for the same reasons as those for which we will vote against Motions Nos. 13 and 15 put forward by the NDP. It makes no sense at all. I think even they do not understand. How can we understand this total mess? It makes no sense from beginning to end.

Motion No. 16, put forward by the NDP, also calls for the deletion of a provision that sets new rules for calculating benefits.

I will not read through the motion. For the same reasons as Motion No. 13, we will vote against this motion because we must make concessions to ensure the long term viability of the plan.

Motion No. 17 is the same as Motion No. 14. As I was saying, we did not understand what it was about and we will vote against it for the same reasons.

Regarding Motion No. 18, if the amount is to go from $35,000 to $70,000, we are against the motion.

As for Motion No. 19 proposed by the NDP, we will vote against it motion for the same reasons as Motion No. 13.

Finally, we will be voting against Motion No. 22 put forward by the NPD, because the lack of concern about the negotiations and the urgent need for action about the pension plan are costing us enough money without having to repeat the same errors.

Earlier, I said that I wanted to tell the House why I, as the hon. member for Manicouagan, and my political party will be voting for Bill C-2. I was elected four times to the Sept-Îles city council and during the last term I was responsible for the senior citizens and the pensioners. There were two associations with a total number of 3,000 members.

Some of these senior citizens came to me and said “We worked awfully hard, we gave everything we had to take care of our children and to get a good pension plan”. They explained their concerns and sent me and my party a message. They wanted us to protect their rights and to think about young people too.

If we want to preserve the pension plan for our children, for the next generation—and may I point out that I am a father of two and a soon-to-be grand-father—we have to be extra careful.

This is why our political party will vote against the amendments I mentioned, but for Bill C-2.

[Bc Mine Workers, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development showed unacceptable contempt for the BC Mine workers.

It is unacceptable to keep saying that these workers should take advantage of employment programs because, as the minister knows, having met with their representative, 82% are over 50 years old of age 36% are 55 and over.

After working 20, 25 and even 30 years in the mine, workers need a program that will guarantee a reasonable minimum income before they become eligible for a pension.

The federal government will be judged on its sensitivity to the situations experienced by these workers and their families. So far, its behaviour has been dangerously similar to what the Reform Party advocates in its ideology.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my speech today is in response to the motion moved on September 24 by the hon. member for Bras d'Or, requesting that a crown corporation be established to develop the Donkin mine in the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia.

I want to express my strongest opposition to this request, which, in my opinion, is totally groundless, especially for all Quebeckers, who are not concerned in any way by this so-called mine.

In fact, with all due respect to some hon. members, I would like to make an important correction. Donkin is not a mine per se, but rather vein, or lead, indicating development could take place on that site during some time.

Establishing a crown corporation is unacceptable mainly because mines are a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter. Natural resources, including mines, forests and energy, belong to the provinces.

I think it shows a lack of respect for the taxpayers to mix the internal affairs of a province with the public funds of another province. If that is what the renewal of the federation or the constitution is all about, this is not very convincing to me. And if the federal government brings up Quebec's special status one more time, I will have to wonder what its word is worth. One cannot talk about respect for Quebec the same way as for any other province, mixing all the provincial cards together. It should be up to a province's government to manage regional matters like mines.

Let us now look at the particular issue of Donkin. To this day, absolutely no one has been able to prove that this coal mining project could be a profitable venture. Only one private firm seems to be interested in finding out what the situation is and in conducting a study at a cost of $400,000, 75 % of which would be paid by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, the study would only determine the reserve's potential and would not clearly establish whether it is possible to develop the Donkin coal mine without sinking more public funds into it.

In its 1996-97 estimates, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is accountable to the federal government and which is currently developing the Phalen and Prince mines in Nova Scotia, anticipated losses of $35 million.

The development of a coal mine in Donkin could cost at least $100 million to $125 million. The federal government has already invested $80 million, and it also holds the lease for that reserve. As for the Nova Scotia government, it owns the resource and would therefore collect royalties should the mine be exploited.

How could a government justify spending between $100 million and $125 million on a project that offers absolutely no guarantee of success?

In my riding of Manicouagan, as in several other regions, there are major potential mining opportunities. Since last year, when a geologist from the Quebec government discovered the Lac Vollant indicator, close to Sept-Îles, there has truly been a “Lac Vollant rush”. Some people are going so far as to say that it could be the richest deposit every discovered.

Never has the federal government gotten involved in or contributed to the exploration and long term development of such a large and promising deposit. And yet, ask the hundreds of prospectors who rushed right out and staked their claims and they will tell you that they think this is an exceptional opportunity to discover minerals and then sell them to promoters who want to mine them. The federal government never took any action.

A mining opportunity the federal government should have gotten involved in was the Natashquan mineralized sands. Tiomin Ressource, the company that wants to mine these sands, suspended operations because of a breakdown in communications with the native community. The company arrived at the site a year ago, but has not yet reached agreement with the native community. What the federal government should have done, through the Department of Indian Affairs, was to appoint a conciliator at the very least. If this had not resolved the problem, mediation would have had to be the next resort.

Why did the federal government do nothing to help work out an agreement in Natashquan, and thus prevent the loss of several millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs? We are not asking for a crown corporation, just for the federal government to assume its responsibilities. We cannot afford to lose investments like these in the tens of millions of dollars. No riding can afford to lose millions of dollars in economic spinoffs from the private sector.

It is time for the federal government to get to work and resolve the disputes that are hindering development of our regions, rather than devote its energy to creating government organizations with no real and attainable financial objectives.

I would like to mention an interesting episode in this connection. During the last election campaign this past May, my Liberal opponent made a promise on behalf of the Liberal Party to settle this matter. According to him, the Liberal government would be in a position to settle it for once and for all. Campaign promise made—end of story, nothing more heard of it.

I have been speaking of my riding for the past few minutes, but I am sure that a number of my colleagues here recognize the same realities in their regions. That is what happens when an overly centralized government is at the helm and the regions do not get their fair share.

As we are already aware, like a number of other fields of activity, mining must come under provincial jurisdiction. Take the example of the Société québecoise d'exploration minière. As you now, this is a government corporation which administers mining titles, such as the famous 800 square kilometres staked out by a Quebec government geologist last year near Lac Vollant.

In such a context, the Government of Quebec administers titles within its territory, using the funds of its own taxpayers if required. However in the case of the Donkin mine, I am wondering how our friends in the other provinces will react when they learn that the federal government has invested between $100 and $125 million to develop a Nova Scotia mine with an uncertain future, not to mention the cost of setting up a fat Crown corporation.

It does not make any sense whatsoever to create a crown corporation to develop a mine such as the Donkin mine. In politics, you cannot afford to take a gamble when $100 to $125 million are at stake. This is inadmissible. If developing this so-called mine was a sure bet, many private corporations would already have approached the Cape Breton Development Corporation. But it is not the case.

The government does not have the right to invest public funds in a more than hazardous venture which comes under provincial jurisdiction anyway.

This is the reason why the federal government should not set up a crown corporation to do exploration or to develop the Donkin “gold mine”. For these obvious reasons, I urge the Liberal government not to create a corporation to develop mines.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite shows a lack of respect. He should know that we are legitimately elected representatives of Quebeckers. We have 60% of all members from Quebec. We represent a majority in Quebec.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac who, unlike Liberal members opposite, has impressed me a great deal with her respectful, intelligent and heartfelt remarks. She spoke with great humanity. She is bringing to this House an attitude of great respect and she raises the level of our debates, whereas Liberal members keep attacking and belittling Quebec. She speaks about citizens in general and she does it respectfully.

I congratulate her.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was offended by the remarks of the member opposite, who thinks Quebec is a welfare case that does not pull its own weight and that we should not be asking for what is owed us. As if we were asking for money that did not belong to us. This shows a lack of respect for Quebeckers. The money we are asking for, the $2 billion, is money we paid for. It is ours. We do not come here with our heads hanging. We paid this money.

You cannot speak that way, sir. It is an offence to Quebeckers. I would be ashamed to speak that way, to speak such words in this House.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, some hon. members do not make it their duty to be in the House.