Yves Rocheleau

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Richelieu for his speech delivered with his usual dynamism, which provided a very insightful look at our institutions.

As you heard, he very aptly described the other House, which is called the Senate and which should not be called the Senate—a collection of dinosaurs that costs Canadians millions of dollars, an undemocratic institution, as my colleague from Richelieu so ably pointed out.

I would like to ask him, more specifically, what logic he sees in the operation of the Senate and in the head of Senator Beaudouin. I hope we can name him, for I want to make sure we understand one another. What kind of logic does he detect in the head of the ineffable constitutionalist Beaudouin, who is now a richly rewarded and oh-so-objective senator, who continues to appear as an expert on the CBC with all of its objectivity, who covered himself in shame the other day in the face of the alleged consensus, as he put it, in Quebec on the amendments to be made to the Constitution in order to set up a system of education based on language rather than religion, and who said that a referendum was required? There is no consensus in Quebec, a referendum is required.

In Newfoundland they had a referendum and the government is once again stepping in to slow the democratic process and set up a joint committee to study the problem. I do not understand the logic of these people. I would like to know whether my colleague from Richelieu understands it. They want us to hold a referendum and when we have one, it is still not enough.

Where is democracy in Parliament, in this government, in Canadian institutions, which are becoming increasingly spineless and which are increasingly branding Canada as a country with no ethics?

[Petitions, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by some 600 Quebeckers who are calling upon Parliament to take action so that part II of the Canada Labour Code can be amended to make it mandatory to reassign any pregnant worker if her health or the health of her unborn child is threatened and, in such cases, to provide for preventive withdrawal from work with pay.

This petition is signed by people from almost all of Quebec's regions.

[Marine Atlantic, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to act as a last minute replacement for my colleague from Beaufort—Montmorency—Orléans, the erstwhile Bloc Quebecois transport critic. He would no doubt have been as pleased as I to comment on this motion by our colleague from Sydney—Victoria, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking into account safety concerns and local economic spin-offs before proceeding with any further privatization of Marine Atlantic services between Cape Breton and Newfoundland.

I am, moreover, pleased that fate has given me the opportunity to speak on this subject this morning, since I had the pleasure as a tourist this summer to use the services of Marine Atlantic with my family. Its services are highly appropriate, highly competent, and very secure. This motion uses three terms which draw my attention: “safety”, “local economic spin-offs” and “privatization”, and I would like to speak a little on them.

When it comes to privatization, which I shall return to at the end of my speech, this must be handled with kid gloves, for if there must be privatization it must not mean a change for the worse.

When we are talking about a ferry that can accommodate over 1,300 persons, if I remember correctly, and 400 motor vehicles, an imposing ship, safety measures are self-evident. It was very very well maintained.

Failure to keep it so can lead to drama. There was such a drama in the North Sea, in the Mediterranean, with a similar ship. It was doubtless not properly maintained. There was negligence, whereas here in the maritimes the ships are well maintained.

So, from a safety standpoint, before we start talking about privatization, we should ensure that today's standards are maintained.

There is another area where caution should be exercised. I am speaking of benefits to the local economy. We can imagine that the government has taken care for some one hundred years—it was in 1889 that it took over the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney run, and I have taken the trip between Port-aux-Basques and North Sydney and North Sydney and Argentia, a comfortable 14 hour trip—to do two things at once: provide a safe and adequate service to users and to promote regional economic development by encouraging local economic development.

If we put this service into the hands of private enterprise, we will have no guarantee in economic terms of the same interest, the same care and the same concerns or of any desire on the part of the new management to develop the local economy, which, as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria pointed out, is facing difficulties in the fishing and coal industries. As we all know, the maritimes are facing a very difficult period.

This is not the time to question a winning formula. The service is a good reliable one that provides obvious local benefits. More attention should be paid to it. When the government privatizes or jettisons a public asset, there is no guarantee that the resource will be better utilized or the service better provided.

As our transport critic told me on the phone this morning with regard to the motion, he hears more and more comments to the effect that services, maintenance or safety at the Quebec airports that were privatized—particularly in Mont-Joli, Sept-Îles and Rouyn-Noranda—may not be at the level they used to be before privatization.

We must not become dogmatic. The current thinking in the western world is that the state must delegate more and more of its traditional responsibilities to all sorts of stakeholders. Yet, common sense dictates that responsibilities in the air, marine and railway transportation sectors should be those of the state, of the community.

There is currently a belief in the western world—and the Canadian government helps promote it—that the state no longer has any business providing these services. A debate is urgently needed to challenge the idea that the private sector is the solution to all our problems. Quite the contrary.

One can see that poverty is on the rise, that there is a globalization of misery. Instead of having increasingly civilized societies, we now have two-tier societies where the very rich make up 15% of the population. As I was recently told, in Chile, for example, and in Argentina, which have public health services on a par with those in Quebec and Canada, following all these free trade policies, all these pressures to promote globalization and freer trade, if one gets sick who does not belong to the select 15% club, it seems—and I hope I am wrong—one better bring his or her own sheets to the hospital. If you are hospitalized in Chile, the more family members you have to come and feed you the better. From what I hear, the health care systems in Argentina and Chile were as good as ours until they were undermined to a point that is a disgrace to countries that call themselves civilized.

So I am very pleased to be speaking to this issue this morning, because when you have a winning formula such as Marine Atlantic ferry services, which runs perfectly well, on time and safely, why mess around? Why run the risk of turning this over to any old Tom, Dick or Harry, who will, in all likelihood, think it is alright to maximize his profit and who will perhaps take chances with government inspectors, as we see too often, and possibly endanger the lives and safety of tourists visiting this lovely area of the maritimes, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?

We therefore readily agree with this motion. We congratulate the minister from Sydney—Victoria for presenting it and, as the member for Trois-Rivières, I can say that I view it as part of a much larger movement that we must increasingly oppose because, the official rhetoric notwithstanding, this movement is not synonymous with real progress, but rather with an erosion of quality and all too frequently a maximization of profits, which is what we are seeing too much of right now throughout the world.

When we know, and this can never be said often enough, that 358 billionaires, according to a UN—not a Social Credit, but a UN—report, control 45% of the world's wealth, we have a problem that should be debated by all parliaments without delay, and perhaps by a rejuvenated United Nations, which could arrange a true debate on the development of our economies in general.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, at this late hour, to speak to Bill C-5, which however dry it may be, is still very important for both Canada's and Quebec's economies, even though the co-operative movement, which comes under federal law in Quebec, is not a strong presence under a federal charter.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill and will act as spokesperson for the co-operative movement in Canada and Quebec, which, after consultation, supports the bill in its entirety.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the management and staff of the Caisse populaire Sainte-Madeleine, of which I am a member. I became the thousandth member in the early 1950s, and my father, Raoul Rocheleau, was a founding member in the 1940s.

I would also like to acknowledge the management and staff of the Fédération des caisses populaires de la région de la Mauricie, who do an extraordinary job in regional development, and to the management and staff of each of the caisses populaires in the riding of Trois-Rivières, which do a most effective job in their areas. In fact, I would say they make our constituents throughout the area feel more secure.

The caisses populaires and the Mouvement Desjardins form one of our major institutions, along with other major co-operatives, such as Agropur or the Coopérative fédérée de Québec, which are booming and continually growing both at home and abroad.

There are of course other kinds of co-operatives—housing, consumer protection and worker co-operatives—with new ones being developed all the time, particularly in the area of the new economy where Quebeckers are in the forefront technologically through their co-operative movement.

The Mouvement Desjardins is a jewel in Quebec's economic crown. We might well ask where Quebec would be economically if there were no Mouvement Desjardins. As proof, I have two accounts, which recently came to my attention, one personal and the other more a collective experience. The collective one is contained in the account of Mr. Ricardo Petrella, who spoke recently at a conference in Quebec City on social democracy.

As a European academic, a humanist, a thinker, a renowned philosopher and president of the club of Lisbon, he expressed the hope that the Mouvement Desjardins would not only continue to grow but that the Quebec co-operative movement, which is exemplary, would also continue to grow. However, he encouraged the management of the Mouvement Desjardins—and I urge them to heed his advice—to retain its truly co-operative quality in the face of the current trend to focus more on business.

These are the words of a credible individual, who is looking at the Mouvement Desjardins from outside and considers Quebeckers to be in an enviable position.

Another person who had good things to say was the British consul posted to Montreal, whom I recently had the honour to host in my riding. As he was going past the building of the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins, which I mentioned earlier, he interrupted me to say: “Yes, I know the Mouvement Desjardins. It is one of the very fine achievements of the Quebec people and is known internationally”. The consul, Mr. Rawlinson, praised it highly, and without prompting.

The Mouvement Desjardins has an international presence, particularly in developing countries in Africa, where, as in Quebec, the co-operative approach has helped give people more control over their destinies. One might well wonder what would have become of these people in Africa, and in Quebec, if they had not had the good sense, and the backing of the Mouvement Desjardins and its human resources, to take charge of their destiny by means of co-operatives.

I would, however, like to draw your attention to some reservations that the Bloc Quebecois has about certain clauses, particularly clause 3 regarding the purpose of the co-operative, which could have been confusing. I will read it rapidly:

1. (1) The purposes of this Act are (a) to set out the law applicable to the business endeavours of persons who have associated themselves in a democratic manner to carry on a common purpose; and (b) to advance the cause of uniformity of co-operative business law in Canada.

(2) No co-operative may be incorporated under this Act unless (a) it will carry on its undertaking in two or more provinces;

This represents a victory by the co-operative movement, because the government initially intended to drop this clause, present in the earlier bill, which could have resulted in confusion in communities faced with both federally and provincially incorporated co-operatives for the same product.

In Quebec, in any case, it appears that this way was not desirable, and fortunately it appears that the government understood the message sent it.

Nevertheless, there is a word in clause 3 that poses a threat, in our opinion, and that word is “uniformity”. Uniformity, in the mouth of the federal government, means a lot of things. It can mean hegemony and centralization as we saw in the case of the securities commission and in the case of health care, where the government withdrew in financial terms but wanted to maintain national standards. We also saw it with the rumours of the federal government wanting to set up income collection agencies for the country as a whole, eliminating departments of revenue, including that of Quebec. Therefore, when a word like “uniformity” is used, it is cause for concern or at least for finding out the political will behind its use.

Clause 122 on distribution at dissolution contains a broad principle, which provides that the remaining property of a co-operative is to be distributed among the members. There are, however, two exceptions to this. One appears in clause 354 on housing co-operatives and the other appears in clause 361 on worker co-operatives.

In the case of housing co-operatives, without any explanation, the clause provides that any remaining property is to be distributed to other housing co-operatives rather than to members. There is no explanation. Perhaps this could be explained in committee soon.

Clause 361 on worker co-operatives provides that, rather than apply the general principle, at least 20% of the remaining property is to be distributed to another co-operative or a charitable entity before any distribution is made to members. Here again things seem a bit arbitrary.

There is no explanation for the double standards, where two types of major co-operatives, housing and worker co-operatives, are treated differently from what is provided for in the general principle applied to co-operatives on distribution at dissolution.

I conclude on this point by saying that the co-operative movement serves as a sort of insurance for people against the neo-liberal current in which people are increasingly divided, singled out and where individualism counts most, where governments are subjugated and where the social safety net is increasingly in jeopardy. The co-operative approach is doubtless the way to the future for people, who will learn to work together to develop solidarity from day one in their own community recognizing that mutual support and not the need to dominate is the way to success and to greater social justice.

[The Ursulines, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 1997 marks the 300th anniversary of the arrival in Trois-Rivières of the Ursulines, a religious order, answering a call from Providence and France to develop New France.

As they got off the ship on the morning of October 10, 1697, with the mission of teaching young women and looking after the disinherited, the handicapped and the sick, it was a moment of great excitement for the settlement of Trois-Rivières, which had been founded 63 years earlier and which had neither school nor hospital.

The people were full of hope as they welcomed the Ursulines, who went on with generosity, self-denial and devotion to fulfil their vocation first in Trois-Rivières and then throughout Quebec.

As the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to express, today, October 21, the feast day of Saint Ursula, patron saint of this community, our deepest gratitude and our sincerest respect to the Ursuline nuns for their exceptional contribution to the history of Quebec.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and secondly, to ask him how he sees the situation of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. We know about the increasingly numerous and complex eligibility criteria that must be met by those who have the misfortune to lose their jobs.

Under the old scheme, up to 65% of those who lost their jobs could collect unemployment insurance benefits. Today, it seems this figure has dropped to about 35%, the obvious result being a surplus of around $10 to $12 billion in the unemployment, or, as it is now called, employment insurance fund.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on what should be done with this large amount of money, which comes solely from taxpayers and companies, and not from the government. If he were the Minister of Finance, how would he go about using this $10 to $12 billion to revitalize the economy?

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to make my maiden speech in this 36th Parliament.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of the riding of Trois-Rivières for once again placing their trust in me, and in particular the people of the new area in the Trois- Rivières riding that takes in Louiseville, Maskinongé and Saint-Léon-le-Grand, who placed their trust in me for the first time. I intend to keep doing a good job, as Mr. Duplessis once said, and to try to represent my constituents to the best of my ability by taking to heart their hopes and their problems, and by devoting a good part of my energy, for this is also fundamental for me, to promoting, in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois' mandate, the sovereignist proposal, which we feel is the best status for the people of Quebec in the international community.

I am also happy to speak to Bill C-10. If I may, I will read the purpose of this bill, an act to implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986 and the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984.

The main purpose of this bill is to prevent tax evasion. Its fair and equitable purpose is to prevent double taxation when a company pays taxes in a country with which Canada has signed a treaty. This is, therefore, a measure aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation for residents and non-residents, as well as at encouraging trade and investments between countries.

These treaties must not, however, open the door to abusive tax evasion. It must be kept in mind, moreover, that the purpose of tax conventions is to eliminate double taxation; in other words, profits and income earned in one country covered by the convention will be taxed in that country alone. A Canadian company earning 50% of its profits in the United States will be able, under certain conditions, to bring those profits back to Canada without being taxed once again by Revenue Canada.

This is more or less what the bill is all about. It will define financial and trade relations between corporations.

There are some things that bear repeating on the operation of our taxation system, and I will address it by using the May 1996 auditor general report as my main inspiration. First of all, however, I would like to make you aware that in Canada we have a bad example, coming from our No. 2 man in politics, the finance minister who, as a businessman, has a major interest in Canada Steamship Lines.

We were given some valuable information in Le Soleil on April 24, 1997 on the actions of that company, no doubt carried out by the agents of the Minister of Finance. Canada Steamship Line, until 1981, oddly enough, operated exclusively in Canada; since then, it has diversified, with globalization, and now deals, strangely enough, with countries that have very little taxation, countries known as tax havens.

As we saw earlier, tax treaties should be signed by economies which are more or less on a par, with the understanding that some gains and losses will result, thus the consequent dealings on tax issues. However, there are countries in this world where one can make profits, pretend to pay taxes and come back to Canada saying I paid my dues over there«, just like in well-structured countries where people really pay taxes. Such countries are called tax havens.

So, Canada Steamship Lines expanded its operations to three countries that are tax havens and banana republics, namely Bermuda, Liberia and Barbados. In Bermuda, there is no tax on revenues, with a possible exemption until the year 2016. Canada Steamship Lines does business there.

In Liberia, there is no tax on ship operations. There is only an annual tax of $350 U.S., but no tax on ship operations.

In Barbados, a decreasing tax is imposed. Believe it or not, the rate goes from 2.5% down to 1%. Canada Steamship Lines pretends to pay taxes in these countries and then tells Revenue Canada that it indeed paid taxes, but this is against the spirit of the law.

It is very unfortunate. There are probably not too many countries in the world where a finance minister, albeit very honourable, can behave in such fashion. People in certain circles have been saying for quite a while that this situation should be addressed and it has not been addressed. A kind of conflict of interest therefore exists which we have a right to denounce.

I would now like to quote extensively from the auditor general's report of May 1996, an entire chapter of which deals with tax avoidance. The very fact that an entire chapter deals with this issue shows that there is a deep uneasiness with the way revenue collection is managed in the Prime Minister's great big Canada.

On page 11-9 of his report, the auditor general prefaces the chapter by stating that “Amending tax law is crucial”. Paragraph 11.12 reads as follows:

—Problems in the application of the law need to be noted and corrected as soon as possible.

Paragraph 11.13 states, and I quote:

11.13 We noted that Revenue Canada has brought to the attention of the Department of Finance—

Because there are discussions between these people; information flows between them. The finance department we mentioned earlier is at the heart of the whole process.

11.13 We noted that Revenue Canada has brought to the attention of the Department of Finance many situations suggesting that the law needed to be strengthened. When this is the case, it is customary for both departments to exchange views on the best way to modify the tax legislation.

He goes on to give examples of delays. The auditor general criticizes among other things the fact that action is slow in coming despite the urgency of the situation with regard to the tax base, which he himself referred to.

We can see the practical repercussions on the tax base. This is why there were so many cuts and why, on the back of the provinces and the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable in our society, and I'll get back to this in a few minutes, the deficit was cut.

The auditor general said:

—For example, in 1989, changes to the rules dealing with non-resident corporations were requested by tax avoidance officials. The changes are still under consideration.

That was in 1989: “The changes are still under consideration”.

In 1990, changes to rules dealing with forgiveness of debt were requested; the change was introduced in 1994 and became effective in 1995.

In 1991, changes to the rules dealing with tax shelters were requested. These have not been finalized.

Paragraph 11.15 is very interesting, and I quote:

11.15 Our 1990 report à this was written in 1996—noted that the law enables a private foundation to loan back to a non-arm's-length donor all funds donated. Interest payments on the loan may also be loaned back to the donor. Revenue Canada has reassessed some cases where donations were loaned back, and is pursuing other cases, no legislative action has been taken yet to stop these abusive schemes.

This is tax evasion. It deprives the tax system of funds it is entitled to and obliges the government to penalize those who have no money. Thus the auditor general tried as well to look at the government's political intention to really collect the funds due it to ensure greater fiscal justice. He went to the offices of Revenue Canada in Toronto.

In paragraph 11.25, the report states:

—the Department's large business tax auditors referred only 27 cases to the tax avoidance unit in 1994-95. Only one referral was made by its large business tax auditors in Toronto—

Only one referral was made by the large business tax auditors in Toronto, where many large businesses are located.

Finally, the West is not left out where money is concerned. The Reform Party ought to be thrilled to hear that. The auditor has a kind thought for the westerners in paragraph 11.30 of his document, where he states, this time about Calgary:

11.30 Calgary tax avoidance auditors have identified avoidance schemes in the oil and gas sector involving the inappropriate use of losses totalling $826 million.

This time it is a matter of tax evasion compromising the tax base. This is nothing but talk, at a time when the decision has been made to put our fiscal house in order, a time when the decision has been made that the welfare state is no more, at a time when it is announced that there will be no more money paid out unless we know where it is going, at a time when systematic cuts are being made in services which would, normally, be useful, unemployment insurance primarily.

There was no hesitation here, as in the rest of the western world, to cut unemployment insurance, which they have blithely renamed employment insurance. Now fewer than 50% of unemployed people can get unemployment insurance. This is scandalous in itself, that people pay in and criteria after criteria after criteria are created with the result that, when people do get into the vulnerable position of losing their jobs, they are deprived of something they have paid into for so many years. The result of this is that today fewer, far fewer, than 50% of those who end up unemployed are entitled to unemployment insurance.

We know the shameful cuts that have been made in all provinces, cuts that have put the provinces in difficulty and that have forced them to make cuts to health care throughout Canada. Provincial governments have been forced to make cuts in education and in sectors fundamental to a civilized society. And for what reason? But the tax base is being destroyed, as we have just shown, through evasion.

Yet, we know about the many women who are single parents in Canada right now and about the rampant poverty. We know about the staggering growth in food banks—they are almost doing more business than any of Canada's other banks. We know about the crushing level of individual debt—and if there were a new increase in interest rates, you know what would happen. We know about the terrible situations in which people find themselves, and which drive too many of our fellow citizens to take their own lives. We know about the number of people burning out in our society today. We know that the ranks of the poor have swelled by 300,000 since the Liberals came to power in 1993. We know that 1.5 million people are unemployed in this wonderful country called Canada, and that the Prime Minister makes disgraceful claims here in the House and abroad, as though there were no problems, as though he were uninformed. We know about the record number of personal bankruptcies being declared in our economy right now, which undermines both individuals and their families.

Things are not going well in this country. Why? Because the government is too lax and too soft with those who hold financial power, those who can develop schemes such as the ones condemned by the auditor general because they deprive our tax base of its ability to better redistribute wealth. This scandal is a daily occurrence and, even though it was condemned by the auditor general, it has yet to be corrected.

There is the issue of tax avoidance. There is the issue of family trusts, which is another major scandal. What emerged was probably the tip of the iceberg, once again thanks to the auditor general's work. We know that, on December 23, 1991, a series of discussions secretly took place between Finance and Revenue officials, with Revenue Canada almost refusing to comply with the finance department's order to practically amend its Income Tax Act regarding the transfer of assets from the Canadian economy to the American economy, because this is exactly what happened.

The Canadian tax legislation is very clear. There are two times when each and everyone of us must normally à and I mean normally à pay our dues to the Canadian tax man: when we die or when we leave the country.

Following this undue pressure from the Department of Finance, once again, one very big, or perhaps two à it is all very nebulous à family trusts were able to take assets worth $1 billion Can. each and transfer them to the United States without paying taxes. This is a very serious action, whose implications are unfortunately yet unknown because everything is so nebulous and kept secret at the expense of low income earners.

This has led to the cuts that we know about, depriving the government of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, anything between $350 million and $700 million depending on the interpretation. That is how, in this great big country, we have come to make cuts at the expense of the less fortunate and at the expense of the provinces, which, in turn, have to make more cuts at the expense of the less fortunate.

What this means is that an in-depth tax reform is required in Canada to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair and equitable share of taxes according to their means, their individual wealth, in a spirit of social justice, this social justice about which we have heard so much rhetoric by the likes of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as the members across the way know very well. In a fair society, wealth is distributed equitably instead of being increasingly concentrated, because wealth that is not distributed does not evaporate, it is concentrated.

It is safe to say that wealth is increasingly concentrated in Canada, as well as throughout the western hemisphere, where, unfortunately, approximately 200 boards of directors or families are gaining more and more control over the planet, subjugating government more and more everywhere, in the western hemisphere and around the world.

According to a UN report—and I will conclude on this—if I remember correctly, there are 358 billionaires controlling 45% of the global wealth. We have problems in Canada, Quebec and the western hemisphere. It is high time that governments freely generated revenue and communicated more so that we can have, around the world, in this country and in the new state that Quebec will be, a fairer and more equitable society where everyone contributes according to his means.

[Radio-Marine Vcn, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

During the weekend, hundreds of residents of the Magdalen Islands expressed their opposition to the closure of the Magdalen Islands marine radio station, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is about to announce.

Is the minister aware of the security risks the closure of Radio-Marine VCN on the Magdalen Islands could create?

[Canada Marine Act, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I rise at third reading to address Bill C-44, which deals with the implementation of the Canadian marine policy, and which is called an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports.

It is as the member representing the riding of Trois-Rivières that I am proud to take the floor today. As you know, Trois-Rivières is not only a port city, but also a maritime location where, for two years now, the Festival de Trois-Rivières has been expanding so as to better reflect that reality. I am also proud to salute Commodore Phil Goyette for his excellent work-in co-operation with the SDAC of the Trois-Rivières centre town-in staging a wonderful event that keeps growing every year.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his excellent work on this issue. My colleague moved many amendments designed to improve the bill and better protect the public interest. I thank him particularly because of his zeal, vigilance and hard work, and also his ability to listen.

As the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to thank him, because when I say "ability to listen" it is because he listened to the representations I constantly made to him, as he himself was saying earlier, on behalf of the community of Trois-Rivières. I represented the views of that city which, having made up its mind on this issue, wanted very much to see the port of Trois-Rivières granted the status of Canadian port authority, as Quebec City, Montreal and Sept-Îles had been by the first bill. Saguenay and Trois-Rivières having been granted this status following representations by the Bloc Quebecois, in particular the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the community of Trois-Rivières owes him a big thank you.

Yes, there was a consensus on this issue in Trois-Rivières, but it did not come about easily. It is perhaps a good idea, on the eve of an election, to give a brief historical overview to refresh people's memories.

There was the scheming of the member for Saint-Maurice, the present Prime Minister, who was a party to the whole thing, in league with a tiny group of four, five or six Liberals who had their eye on the port at Trois-Rivières, and whose great distinction was to be known to be Liberals. Coincidentally as well, they had the backing of the Prime Minister, which he blurted out at some point, in their vague wish to eventually take over the port at Trois-Rivières.

Fortunately, the community apparently reacted, and the necessary representations were made. We were heard in fact by the government on February 12, 1997, after the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup moved Motion No. 127, which reads as follows:

That Bill C-44, in the Schedule, be amended by adding in alphabetical order the following: "Trois-Rivières Port Authority".

This was, therefore, a victory by the community which had brought the necessary pressures to bear on the federal government, and I am proud to have played a role in this local victory.

In the same vein, where there is the possibility of action that may or may not be desirable, sometimes prompted by motives that may or may not be praiseworthy themselves, I have concerns about the minister's discretionary power over the board of directors of the Trois-Rivières port authority. I have philosophical concerns, because we all have first hand knowledge of what the Liberals are like. You know them, too. We know that the Liberals have their own way of looking at the federal government, as their property. This is a view that is very much peculiar to the Liberals. We have had an example of this just recently, late last week in fact. A delegation of Liberals was literally besieging the Canadian Parliament for partisan activities on the eve of the announcement of an election campaign.

Imagine a similar thing happening in Quebec, with the members of the Parti Quebecois holding meetings within the Quebec legislature. That would make the headlines everywhere, in all of the newspapers and all of the broadcast media as well, decrying the attitude of the leaders of the Parti Quebecois government, if ever such a thing were to happen. Yet we have just seen it here, a few days ago. And again when the returning officers for the next electoral campaign were recently appointed. This causes us to fear-knowing as we do the Liberals and their style, their glibness, their intellectual laziness-the possible, perhaps too systematic appointment of people whose greatest attribute, rather than their ability, is their membership in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Further to the introduction of this bill, I would like to draw your attention to the ill-defined mandates given out to manage one thing or another. This is a situation in which the government is divesting itself of assets, including harbours and small ports, and Canada's marine policy, as far as Quebec is concerned, involves theSt. Lawrence and the Ottawa River.

My attention has been drawn to the fact that the small docks and the ports along the Saint-Maurice River in my region are not covered. No one knows who to approach, who has jurisdiction. Is it the Department of Transport or Fisheries and Oceans? It is not easy. I have made the appropriate representations to the Department of Transport, which accorded me considerable time, confiding that it was an administrative mishmash. If they have a hard time figuring things out in the minister's office, think about the ordinary citizen and the mayor, often a community volunteer, working part time.

This leads me to speak of the introduction into our beautiful Quebec of the Canadian coast guard, which now has control over the St. Lawrence Seaway and which wants to charge its users. It will soon be involved in the management of lakes and rivers as it may issue permits for pedal boat and rowboat owners.

Nothing says that the Canadian Coast Guard, whose mandate it is to work from coast to coast, will not be the one interfering with the operation of the largest seaway in the world, a complex inland seaway. The task of marine pilots is a complex one, and I want to commend the work done by the St. Lawrence River pilots' association, whose members saw their jobs threatened by government pressure.

Here again, we must thank the Bloc Quebecois, and our colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who made sure that common sense prevails, given the safety risks involved, the fact that the river is used by huge oil tankers and ore-carrying ships, and the difficulty of manoeuvring on the St. Lawrence River, with a narrow and sometimes shallow channel.

I think this was an irresponsible attempt on the part of the government. I do hope the St. Lawrence River pilots' association will continue to prevail and survive, to ensure the protection of the public and the riparian community. Although technology can be very useful, it must never replace humans, as was the intention in this case.

I would have liked to say more. I thought I would have more time. That is unfortunate, because coast guard activities is a very important issue. Just yesterday, I was attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The committee just tabled a disgraceful report with obvious methodology problems. The committee had a very narrow mandate, and no effort was made to try and take a close look at the concerns expressed and

allegations made by users of the St. Lawrence, even though they are quite reasonable.

I am thinking in particular of the SODES and Mr. Gaudreault, who gave an excellent presentation yesterday, showing the very serious threat facing Quebec's economy if the Government of Canada does not turn around and make an effort to get to the bottom of this and see the light.

In closing, since a criticism of this recent report shows that, under the new policy, the Quebec Cartier Mining company may have to shut down its operations two and a half years earlier, I think further consideration is required.

[Military Spending, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the invitation of the Comité de solidarité tiers-monde de Trois-Rivières, some 9,000 people made clear to the Prime Minister of Canada their desire to have the federal government cut its military spending and use the money to keep social programs and fight poverty.

The campaign was supported by many well known individuals from the Mauricie, including the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Mgr. Martin Veillette, and by some 30 boards of directors of popular groups in the Mauricie.

So, while Quebec and Canada have been hit broadside by increased poverty and the number of people who have been left out of the labour market, including young people, is rising alarmingly, these people and organizations have decided to take the Prime Minister to task and have asked me to pass on to him directly these 9,000 signatures and 30 resolutions-which I did last week.

Your move, Mr. Prime Minister.