Pierre Brien

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act.

I will take a moment, of course, to state the purpose of Bill C-44 and discuss some concerns the Bloc Quebecois has regarding this bill as well as amendments that will need to be made at a later stage, when the bill comes up for further consideration at committee.

Bill C-44 implements the national marine policy the federal government had announced back in December 1995. Naturally, it will apply to the whole marine industry in Canada and Quebec. The four main areas affected are ports operated by Transport Canada, law enforcement in Canadian ports, pilotage and, finally, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Let us now look at each of these areas individually. As far as the ports are concerned, this bill provides for the establishment of the Canada Port Authority to replace the Canada Ports Corporation.

There are questions and concerns about law enforcement in Canadian ports, as we remain in the dark about the government's true intentions as to what is to happen to the police force which is currently comprised of about 100 constables and 30 civilians. Maintaining this force cost approximately $9.6 million in 1995. Further explanations are required concerning the future of law enforcement in these ports.

As for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, the government intends, of course, to pursue the commercialization of operations, and the bill provides the authority to do so.

The fourth element concerns the issue of pilotage. From now on, operations will be much more efficient, since public funding will no longer be available. The bill provides that Transport Canada will have to report to Parliament before December 31, 1998, regarding the review of the following issues: compulsory pilotage area designations, cost reduction measures, pilot certification process for masters and officers, and licensing requirements for pilots.

This is, in short, what is to be found in the bill. As for us, Bloc Quebecois members, we feel that the title of the bill somewhat exceeds its content. The bill is called the Canada Marine Act, but it is silent on shipbuilding, shipyards, and the merchant navy. It is not as complete as it could be.

It would have been interesting to find out about the government's intentions regarding these issues and to see them included in the Canada Marine Act, so as to have a global picture. This is only wishful thinking, but who knows, perhaps the government will provide more details in the subsequent stages of the review of the bill.

We also have to conclude that the government failed, when we look at the shipping policy of the past 20 years. Over the years, some $7 billion, in current dollars, were invested in the St. Lawrence Seaway, while annual revenues generated by the seaway are of the order of $70 million. Since that was not a huge success, they are now dismantling the whole thing, privatizing it, etc.

This is due mainly to the financial situation of the government who now realizes that, these last few years, it did not play such an efficient role as a promoter in this field, as in, might I add, many other transportation areas. Just consider the trend in the Department of Transportation these last few years. It was the same thing with the deregulation of air transportation, the dismantling of the rail industry and now, it is the shipping industry.

It is somewhat amazing that a country-made out of two countries-such as Canada, which covers a huge territory has not been able to better define all of its transportation policies. It is also disappointing to see that a such a vast country, where there is road, rail, sea and air transportation, could not become a leader or a role model in efficiency.

I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois has always supported a disposition policy and the commercialization of harbours and ports. We did mention it in the minority report of the Bloc Quebecois concerning the maritime strategy tabled in May 1995.

The commercialization of harbours and ports raised some concerns in every region, but maybe more so in areas like mine, where there are recreation harbours. The same question always comes back: "In what shape will they be handed over to the local authorities? In what shape are they now? In what condition will they be handed over?" We are told of a $125 million fund, which should be used to refurbish the ports and, in some cases, the cost could be negotiated differently depending on the port's condition.

This is not a very clear policy. We know that when criteria are rather fuzzy funds are often allocated to the ones who press harder. Often decisions are political and not necessarily based on considerations of efficiency when there are no clear, definite and well understood criteria.

Thus, there are concerns because many sites have not been properly maintained throughout the years. All regional and local disparities must also be taken into account. We must show respect and make sure that we have a system of ports that is adequate as a whole. When the amounts will be affected or negotiated for the management transfer to local organizations or companies, we must ensure that the system remains adequate as a whole.

I find it rather disturbing that at the beginning this process will be somewhat haphazard as was the case for the commercialization of airports. There will be a problem because obviously things will not proceed as fast in one place at it will in another. This is not the model to apply to sea transportation. We have reasons to worry, since the same department is involved.

There is a factor which is surprising from the logical point of view but not from the political one. In the last few years, as everybody knows, the federal government has come to realize that it can no longer afford to provide the same level of service, but it nevertheless tries to keep the same level of control.

This is why paragraphs a ) and e ) of clause 12(1) provide that the federal government has one representative on each of the boards. Pursuant to this clause, the federal government can also appoint other individuals in consultation with the users.

But the government, in consulting, does not have to follow up on the recommendations of the stakeholders. Obviously, an exception is made for directors representing the municipalities or the provinces, but we can see that the federal government will have one direct representative and will appoint other representatives. As is usually the case, these people will certainly have views that are compatible with the government's. Thus, the government is keeping a high level of control.

It is always somewhat surprising and somewhat irritating to see a government investing less and less money but keeping the same level of control.

If the government wants to decentralize and to have local management because it is more efficient, etc., why does it impose, on a board of directors, people that are appointed through a political process? Often these people are local friends of the government who are there to ensure that the government's views will prevail on these boards of directors.

We have seen this in several other cases, and it is very disturbing and disappointing for the people in the regions who realize that this decentralization is sort of artificial. The government is decentralizing the financial problems but is keeping control over the decision-making process.

There is a last point I want to mention. The members of the Bloc Quebecois have suggestions and recommendations to make with regard to the Pilotage Act. I cannot elaborate on that at this moment since my time is running out, but I am sure the members who represent us on the transport committee will do it adequately.

In general, this bill contains some interesting elements, but it needs a lot of improvements. We need to have complete and effective decentralization, which means, among other things, that situations as the one described in section 12 must be avoided.

Corrections will have to be made to this bill and, once this is done, we will be able to judge if it is a good or a bad piece of legislation.

[Veteran Benefits, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when it gets complicated like that, something must be wrong. Morale is at its lowest ebb, and this is mostly due to a lack of leadership.

Will the Prime Minister wake up and realize that the army does not need an ombudsman but a chief of staff who is respected and a minister who is credible?

[Veteran Benefits, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence made fun of several generals when he said that their criticism had as much weight as a plumber's. I may remind the Prime Minister that when something is wrong with the plumbing, you call a good plumber, but when something is wrong in the army, you are better off with a good general and especially a good minister.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the situation has deteriorated to the point that the land force commanding officer has just appointed an ombudsman to deal with the leadership problem?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, according to General MacKenzie, they are so proud they are afraid to wear their headgear when driving. That is the situation.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the government continue to play down what is going on, when never in the history of the armed forces have we seen so much questioning of and dissatisfaction with a chief of staff, whom the minister keeps defending?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, the Prime Minister attempted to make light of what General Clive Addy had to say by describing it as the words of a frustrated individual, who was not pleased at having been forced to leave the Army and was therefore criticizing the Armed Forces. Now it is General Lewis Mackenzie's turn to question the leadership of the Armed Forces, and even the loyalty of the Prime Minister, by saying: "He is very

loyal to his staff, which I find admirable, but he ought to be equally loyal to the Army."

How can the Deputy Prime Minister again ignore the extremely harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister being made by other retired generals?

[The Somalia Commission, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the present context, could the Prime Minister tell us how much time General Boyle can spend on leading the army, carrying out his tasks and playing his leadership role, considering that for more than 12 months he has been busy managing the mess he himself helped to create?

[The Somalia Commission, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the army was at a standstill. Obviously, its chief of staff is busy defending himself, preparing his testimony and trying to get out of the mess he is now in.

Are we to conclude from what the Prime Minister said that he admits the army is paralysed because he refused to suspend his chief of staff at a time when the latter's credibility is being questioned? In other words, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that if he had suspended the general, the army would not be at a standstill?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as caucus chairman, I might have told the hon. member that he was out of order, but I can understand that great tolerance is shown.

I find that somewhat regrettable. Reform members always talk about members' pensions. This issue seems to bother them quite a lot; it seems to be their main concern. I do not know if it is because they have financial worries, but there are many other problems which have to be examined. It is somewhat regrettable that their analysis is so simplistic.

I would like to come back to a comment made by the hon. member, in particular with regard to respect for the law. Of course, he toed the same line as the Minister of Justice, saying that sovereignists have no respect for the law, that they would not abide by the law or the Constitution.

What I want to point out is that, as one involved in politics, my primary concern is respecting the will of the people, respecting the democratic will. That is what democracy is all about. As well, when that opinion is voiced in a consultation like a referendum, I think that respecting democratic will ought to be the primary concern. And so it was. In the last referendum, 49.5 per cent of people said they wanted sovereignty. Yet no one said: "Let us go ahead anyway, because 49.5 per cent is enough". Everyone said: "No, we did not succeed and will have to work harder to try to win next time". Not only will we try, but we will win next time.

That is what respecting the democratic will of the people is all about. I am pleased to see that we even seem to be gaining supporters from the other side.

As politicians, our first concern must be to respect the will of the people. As for abolition of the Senate, that we will not do, because it is impossible, the law does not allow it. Since the law does not allow it, let us not change the situation. If the law does not allow it, and the will of the people is something different, let us change the laws to reflect the will of the people, particularly if that will is expressed in democratic consultations held within the rules. That is what we sovereignists are doing.

I would like to tell the hon. Reform member that he should be consistent. He is so concerned by public finances that, instead of wanting to bolster the Senate, improve its powers, he should instead rally around a position that is far closer to current reality and to what people want, which is to demand, and what is more to ensure, that the government will be forced to vote for the disappearance of an institution that is useless, out of date, and very costly.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the outrageous symbol the Senate has become, given our current political and economic situation.

There is obviously something repugnant in the fact that senators refuse to appear to justify their budgetary votes. These people are not elected, they are not accountable to anybody except their friends who have appointed them, and they refuse to appear before the elected representatives to justify their operating expenditures and the total budget allocated to them.

When we talk about the Senate as a whole, the expenditures we are talking about today are only the vote of $43 million allocated to the Senate, but there is more. We know other costs are paid in part by the House or result from the presence of senators here. So, the actual costs are much higher. We are talking here of an average of at least $500,000 for each senator.

Do you think that, in the current context, we can really afford to waste tens of millions of dollars year in and year out? Just imagine what that adds up to over a period of 20 years. It is more than a billion for these people.

We can conclude that, after 25 years of constant deficits, the amount that has been spent on senators and their operating expenditures tops a billion dollars. We figure that a few billion dollars of the debt are due to this political institution, which has totally outlived its purpose and which has no tie to any serious political process that could yield some concrete results.

What do they do? That is the question the people in my region keep asking me. What do they do? Not much. They come here for a few days of rest, they get their pay cheque and then go back where they came from. I recently read in a newspaper: "We contacted the senator at his home"-in Fort Lauderdale, I think it was. Fort Lauderdale. Indeed, they had contacted him at his home. It is really something else to live outside the country when you sit in the Senate of Canada.

I would like these people to account for their actions and to explain why we should set aside some budgetary votes to pay for their operating expenditures. I hope their travel expenses do not include their trips between Canada and the United States.

Do they have any legitimacy? I said earlier that these people are appointed by the Prime Minister or his office and that sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the appointment can be seen as some kind of reward. Anyone can be appointed, a minister we want to get rid of, someone we want to keep out of the way, or a friend who did us a few favours. These people are being rewarded for services rendered.

When you do a Prime Minister or someone who could some day become Prime Minister a favour, it is like buying a 6-49 ticket: if you are lucky, some day, you could win a seat in the Senate. If you are young, you can hit the jackpot, because you get appointed until you reach 75 years of age. And at 75, you are not left in the lurch, there is a pension plan for senators. Do not worry, you are entitled to a gold-plated pension, a nice little cushion.

We can laugh about it, but at some point it no longer makes any sense and somebody has to put a stop to it. I know that a votable motion concerning the abolition of the Senate will be put before the House in the near future. I cannot wait to see it. I look at my colleagues in this House, especially the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who will vote on this issue and will surely support our position. He will not have any choice. I know his constituents. Some of my relatives live in his riding. These people want to sign the petition which is being circulated in my riding to have the Senate abolished. I am asking him to circulate the same petition in

his riding. While he is getting people to sign it, he will get to know his constituents better and try to convince them. I wish him good luck.

In short, my colleague talked about a poll where 68 per cent of the respondents said, in 1993, that they were in favour of the abolition of the Senate. Just think about what that percentage is today when cuts are made in social programs, in unemployment insurance, when the economic situation is very bad. Listen, the number of people in favour of the Senate's abolition cannot double because it would exceed 100 per cent, but I am convinced it is higher now.

In my riding, I started a petition with my colleague of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup no more than a week ago. We sent it to a number of organizations, and answers have started to come in. I am even thinking of hiring another staff member in my office to handle the petitions because there are so many of them. We got close to one thousand signatures in a few days. Think about it. To get so many signatures in just a few days is significant. Most members who tried it in their riding found out readily that the people are spontaneously in favour of the Senate's abolition.

And there is something else I would like to add. Not only the senators do not do much here, but they do not do much either in their region. Normally, most senators are appointed for an area or represent a region.

In the three years I have been a member of Parliament and have followed various matters very closely, I do not recall having worked with a senator who represents us. In fact, there is one who comes from our region, but he does not represent a specific area, just the province of Quebec. When there was heated debate in the Senate on such things as the GST and free trade, Prime Minister Mulroney, a Conservative, who did not have the support of the majority in the Senate, used his power to appoint additional senators. The senator from our region is one of those new senators. There is probably another senator on the list who is supposed to represent us; our region must be grouped together with other regions, but nobody knows who the senators are. We do not see them. They are not working on any issues. They are not there, they are not active, they are nothing but ghosts. They are not even there.

I am sure there are people from Abitibi-Témiscamingue watching us. If somebody somewhere remembers a matter about which a senator actually did something, call and tell us. We would really like to know. However, I am sure the phone is not about to start ringing because we have not seen any senators regularly.

By the way, if you want to sign the petition and you do not know where to find it, you can call our office at 1-800-567-6433 and we will be happy to send it to you. You can then circulate it in your area.

Some of my colleagues talked about the process. Not only is it outrageous to waste money, but look at how inflexible our political system is. Despite the obvious will of the people, particularly in Quebec, to see the Senate abolished, and even if the House of Commons were to vote in favour of abolishing the Senate, which I hope it will soon, the senators themselves would also have to say yes for the Senate to be abolished.

We are therefore giving them a veto, as it were, over their future, and do you think that in the end they will agree to disappear of their own accord? The only way that will happen is if there is so much pressure that they are forced to resign, because it is embarrassing to be a senator and they can no longer show their face. They will have the option of joining our other colleague in Fort Lauderdale. That is one possibility, but, that aside, for those of them who want to live in Quebec and in Canada, it will be difficult explaining to people that they are taking money from the federal government to sit in the Senate.

This shows clearly how far they have gone to protect themselves. It proves one thing, which is that these people were probably worried about being criticized one day and having their future hang in the balance.

This being the case, what we can hope for is more support. I urge people, particularly those in my riding, in my region, to add their voices and their signatures to the petition that is circulating and that will be tabled here in the House, particularly around the third hour of debate that remains on a motion by the Bloc Quebecois to have the Senate abolished. That is one thing we can do, something concrete. The more signatures we get, the more it will show that we have the support of the public.

Now, there are people who would like to reform the Senate, make a few adjustments, fix it up. That, too, has serious limitations, because I am not sure that the public wants to see another political level added. Take the case of Quebec, where people are already voting in municipal, provincial and federal elections. And school boards are elected as well, I almost forgot about that. More and more, people are talking about decentralization, but we do not know exactly what is going to happen. Probably, when decentralization comes, there will be some accountability. We can therefore assume people will exercise their franchise at a more local level, but in any case above the municipal level.

Are we going to add, on top of all that, a level of elected representatives in Ottawa who will monitor other elected representatives? Our best monitors are the public. When these people get sick and tired of having us around, after four years they can wield their pencils and turf us out.

In fact, if we look at the last election, they exercised that right brilliantly and quickly changed the colour and perspective of Parliament. So I think they are capable of looking after their own

interests. Citizens are informed and follow the debates and the major issues. The media are there to pass the information on.

The concept of having a committee of elders, even if they were to be elected, is something I am not sure the public would accept. In fact, we are working very hard to get rid of a whole political level. And we certainly would not want to add another one with the Senate.

That being said, I am personally not very keen on this debate. It is also a fact that some provinces would like to take advantage of this debate to make all provinces equal in Canada. However, Quebec will never tolerate having only one-tenth of the representation in a Canadian parliamentary forum, when it has one quarter of the population. In Quebec, that would not get much support.

When there were discussions on proposals by western Canada for Senate reform, Quebec Liberals did not support those proposals.

As I said earlier, it would be interesting to see in the weeks to come-because this fall, this will be a much discussed issue-what the attitude will be of members opposite. Liberal members who tell us about the need for efficient and effective management, for cutting waste and unnecessary spending, and I see some members here in the House who have said so many times, who do so in committee and who attack all fiscal expenditures and the rest, they will have to prove they mean what they say.

Now, those people may mean what they say about making an effort and tightening their belts, but they are not even called to account. Sure, they will make cuts in places where they have friends, friends they appointed, and it may hurt them a little. We call that cutting the fat. That will not hurt anyone.

Besides, these people are not penniless. They are paid for services rendered. I do not think this will dramatically affect the financial situation of the people who are there. It will not cause a major social tragedy. There will be no need to set up committees of therapists or psychologists to help people cope with the shock of losing a job with the Senate. So there will no serious damage.

Consider that between now and the year 2000, between 250 and 300 million dollars will be wasted. Will this be stopped? We say yes. We say it must stop. I hope members opposite will have the courage to act accordingly, including the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I want to congratulate my colleague from Frontenac for his speech and for giving his voters a chance to express themselves through the petition which is being circulated in his riding.

I would like to ask him a double question. He talked about the senators' involvement in regional issues. On the asbestos issue particularly, the hon. member, like the people from the industry, must have a lot of work to do, and, normally, there should be a senator from the area to help them in their efforts.

During the three years he has been here, did the hon. member see the senator for his area work on an issue of direct regional interest? We do not see those people very often around here. Maybe things are different in his riding. I would like to have his opinion on the subject.

You know, we do not see the senators very often. Of course, there are the two or three we regularly meet in the corridors, like Senator Rivest and Senator Prud'homme. As for the others, we do not see them very often.

The second part of my question is this: Since there is currently a debate on the question in his riding, is it true that his voters think that the Senate should be reformed? What do the people he talked to about Senate reform think? I would also hear his views on that.