Yves Rocheleau

[Employment Centres, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I would have liked to get an answer from someone who is familiar with this matter.

Will the Prime Minister dare deny the fact that it is a highly partisan, arbitrary and illogical decision that the office of the Minister for Human Resources Development got directly from the Prime Minister's office?

[Employment Centres, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last July, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a major restructuring of his employment centre network and decided that the regional management centre for the Mauricie would be located in Shawinigan, in the riding of Saint-Maurice, instead of Trois-Rivières, the regional capital.

Since then, 25,000 people have signed a petition condemning the government's decision and 40 municipal councils in that region have adopted resolutions to that effect.

In this context, what is the rationale for establishing this regional centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières when the public wants exactly the opposite?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address once again Bill C-96, this time at second reading. This act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development has an extremely negative impact in my riding, since it involves, among other things, a restructuring of the employment centre network across Canada, including in Quebec.

Following that restructuring, there will be 28 regional management centres in Quebec, as well as 78 local centres or suboffices. What is disturbing for Trois-Rivières and its surrounding region is that the government, in its wisdom, has decided to establish the regional operation centre in Shawinigan, instead of Trois-Rivières.

From now on, Trois-Rivières will be served by a suboffice of the regional centre in Shawinigan. You can understand that this decision is unpopular and also illogical. We strongly hope this is just an idea, but there is every indication that a final decision has been made at the departmental level. That decision is unpopular. Indeed, already, more than 25,000 residents from the Trois-Rivières region have signed a petition, in which they express their disagreement and their discontent. Moreover, all the major stakeholders, including MPs and MPPs, the mayor of Trois-Rivières, various community groups, as well as 70 organizations, including some 40 municipalities, have also expressed, in writing or through resolutions, their opposition to the government's intention.

In addition to the employees' union, which is being disregarded in this process, two other organizations, the Fédération de l'âge d'or and the Fédération des caisses populaires of the Mauricie region, co-operated to ensure the success of that petition.

Not only is that decision unpopular, it is also illogical. It is so illogical and it makes so little sense that it even contradicts the criteria defined by the department regarding the selection and the location of these regional management centres. The main criteria, which were based on plain common sense, took into account the number of people concerned, including UI beneficiaries, income security recipients and seniors, because they are greatly affected by this project. These criteria also took into consideration the number of companies and employers hiring people who are UI beneficiaries, at least we hope this is the case, and which are concerned by such a decision and by the current role of the employment centres.

Given the numbers for these groups in the Shawinigan and Trois-Rivières regions, that decision does not make sense and goes against established criteria. Indeed, in terms of numbers, the ratio is two to one in favour of Trois-Rivières for just about every group,

whether it is the overall population, the number of companies, the number of UI beneficiaries, etc.

This shows just how illogical that decision is. It is a decision which goes against the department's own criteria.

That operation is upsetting for Trois-Rivières residents, because it has to do with the establishment of regional centres. Yet, the government wants to go to Shawinigan and just keep a local centre in Trois-Rivières, in spite of the fact that the latter is recognized as the main centre in the region. This is totally unacceptable and we will continue, along with the other stakeholders, to denounce that situation.

We have to know what it will mean in the ordinary run of things. People will come to apply in Trois-Rivières, since the role of sub-offices, like the one intended for Trois-Rivières, is to receive applications for benefits, only recording facts without making any analysis nor any ruling, and then pass on that information to the regional management centre, which will from then on keep the actual file of the claimant's application. When the application will need, as is the case in three out of four applications, a supplementary, subsequent operation and a special analysis, that will mean that the whole operation, any action, any movement will come from Shawinigan, in a ratio of two to one because of the population pool.

At present, for unemployment insurance, the department's investigations, which are routine in some cases, are made in Trois-Rivières, as are complaints made to the board of referees, since the actual file is in Trois-Rivières. In answer to the letter we wrote to make the appropriate representations about the intended move, the minister indicated that services will not be altered in any way for the people of Trois-Rivières. However, from now on, contrary to what the minister said in his letter, the department's investigations and the appeals to the board of referees will be made in Shawinigan and from Shawinigan, which substantially alters, to use the minister's word, operations as they now stand.

We therefore question the good faith of the minister who, in our opinion, is trying to fool the population when he says such things.

You have to be aware that this project has been developed, or this decision made, without any consultation. It was announced just before the House recessed, or just before the change of rhythm that occurs in our society at the beginning of the summer holidays, since the announcement was made on June 22 and later confirmed in late July or early August, at a time when it is practically impossible to mobilize the population. What a nice approach, somewhat in keeping with the minister's image.

I remind you that this was done without any consultation, both locally and regionally, and regardless of the regional dialogue that goes on in our area, the Mauricie.

I remind you also, as was confirmed to me yesterday by reliable sources, that there has been no comparative analysis of the impact of keeping that centre in Trois-Rivières, which used to be the focal point, instead of moving it to Shawinigan. They did not study the impact on the population, users or costs. I will deal with that later on.

One of the impacts is that Bécancour, a community traditionally and naturally linked with Trois-Rivières, particularly as regards the manpower operations at the regional office in Trois-Rivières, will now have to deal with Drummondville, a choice that is arbitrary and inconsistent with the practices in our region, and makes no sense.

Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with this area would know things do not work that way. That is one of the reasons why my colleagues for Richelieu and Champlain and I agreed to a joint position and condemned that move, because our ridings are affected in various ways. This is a good example of the kind of co-operation that can come about when people want to co-operate.

Another aspect, which is just as revolting, is that this move will be detrimental to those most in need, people who have just lost their job and find themselves in a state of vulnerability they had not experienced before.

These people will feel increasingly uncomfortable in dealing with a system decreasingly at their service. Besides, what we have here is technological change of a type that will dehumanize relations between the department and people in need like the unemployed, seniors-who will feel the impact of that move-, people on welfare and community organizations which, as we know, rely heavily on volunteers and government assistance. Things have been made more difficult for them, and that is why this move should be condemned.

The government can choose one of three solutions if it wants to mend its ways. First, it could maintain the status quo, deal with existing circumstances, respect the wishes of the local population and users, and keep the centre in Trois-Rivières. Everybody would be happy.

A second alternative would be to have a regional office in Trois-Rivières for the whole area, including Bécancour, and give Shawinigan the status of a regional centre for the north shore, including Saint-Tite. The situation would be similar to that of Gaspé or Sept-Îles, something that could make sense. It would be up to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice to demonstrate that such an alternative makes sense.

Third, the most absurd alternative would be to set up a regional management centre in Shawinigan to serve the whole region, a decision we will always condemn.

[Assistance To Research, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

There will be serious budget cuts in 1995-96 and 1996-97 for the research funding councils. For instance, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council budget for that period will be cut by $142.3 million.

Is the minister aware that cutting assistance to research carried out outside federal laboratories will penalize Quebec most heavily, because this is the type of federal merit-based research funding in which Quebec receives a fair share?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate today on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

Over the next ten minutes, I intend to look at the issue of employment centres restructuring, from the particular point of view of Quebec, where, from now on, we will have 78 suboffices coming under 28 offices called regional management centres.

I will also address this issue as it relates to a case of particular concern to me, namely the CEC of Trois-Rivières, because we were stunned and outraged to learn, on June 22, 1995, that the department planned to establish the regional management centre in Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières.

This announcement immediately gave rise to a general outcry. Yours truly was the first one to denounce such plans, soon to be followed by the mayor of Trois-Rivières, the Chamber of Commerce and 70 organizations of the greater Trois-Rivières area, including 40 municipalities, all of which passed resolutions denouncing the federal government's plans in this respect.

This eventually resulted in a petition being circulated over the summer by the EIC employees' union, with the full support of the Federation of Senior Citizens, because this bill is a direct attack on senior citizens, and of the local branches of the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins, which helped circulate the petition. As a result, upwards of 25,000 citizens have signed the petition and expressed in writing their opposition to these plans the federal government has regarding our region.

As you can see, in addition to being very unpopular in the Trois-Rivières region, this decision actually contradicts the department's own criteria for determining the most sensible location for these offices.

In fact, the criteria were based first of all on the total population; second, on the number of people on unemployment insurance; third, on the number of people receiving income security benefits; fourth, on the number of senior citizens concerned; and finally, on

the number of businesses and employers affected by the activities of the employment centres. The department, preferring to ignore its own criteria, concluded for obvious reasons that it was better to locate the regional centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières, although there is twice as much economic activity in the Trois-Rivières region as in Shawinigan.

The same ratio applies to the total population, the number of senior citizens and the number of businesses. This is one more example that shows why it makes no sense to locate in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières. The practical implications are all explained in a document we happened to receive not long ago. This is an internal management document entitled: "Preliminary Report on Centralization of Claims Processing".

This document was released less than a month ago on October 23, 1995, and prepared by a committee of 11 department officials, including several senior officials. The report more or less describes the future role of the sub-offices, including Trois-Rivières. The sub-offices will receive benefit claims, transmit the claims and collect the facts from the client. According to a note in the document, this will only consist in taking down information provided by the client.

So they will take this information down in Trois-Rivières and routinely send it on to Shawinigan, where more than half of the files will come from Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region. Trois-Rivières in this case includes Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Trois-Rivières West. And what about Bécancour, which will have to deal with Drummondville? It does not make sense. There is no administrative or historic link between the residents of Bécancour and Drummondville, which is another absurd aspect of this plan.

We, that is my colleagues for Champlain and Richelieu and myself, wrote to the minister to make the appropriate representations. People in our regions, especially the unemployed, will have a hard time as a result of this plan. Six weeks later on November 10-as soon as possible, as usual-we received a written reply from the minister who, by the way, was too busy to meet three members of Parliament. He referred us to an assistant deputy minister in Montreal, Mr. Gladu. We will let somebody else go and meet him.

In his letter, the minister explained why Shawinigan had been chosen instead of Trois-Rivières, and I quote: "The government decided to centralize Human Resources Development Canada's internal services for the Mauricie region at the Shawinigan centre because it felt it would be useful to bring together a certain number of services and departments, including Revenue Canada and Human Resources Development Canada".

Which means it was a matter of accommodation, office space would appear to be available at the Taxation Data Centre in Shawinigan. The reason is therefore simply a physical one, despite the decision's unpopularity and unreasonableness. It is a matter of premises that has led to preparations to move it to Shawinigan-South and yet, in the present building, there are premises available. Even more will be coming available soon, because the network will disappear in the restructuring, and this will free up a whole floor and another one, two floors leased until 1999 which will be available and could accommodate all the personnel required for a regional management centre in Trois-Rivières.

So this reason does not hold. What is more, the minister says that the future centre in Shawinigan, in addition to offering the same programs and services as in Trois-Rivières, will manage internal services relating to the administration and processing of unemployment insurance claims. This tells us about the particular role of the Shawinigan centre rather than the one in Trois-Rivières.

Here again, according to this document, not only will the actual files of people from Trois-Rivières be in Shawinigan, but departmental investigations will be done from Shawinigan, appeals to the board of referees will be made there and complaints about unemployment insurance will be lodged there. According to the same document, three claims out of four will be reviewed, as they call it, and will be given special follow-up because of some complexity or other. Therefore three claims out of four arriving in Trois-Rivières will be transferred to Shawinigan and given special treatment.

And yet, here is what the minister says in his missive. He tells us that he has no intention of making any changes to the way the department is serving the people of Trois-Rivières. Well, at this time, the physical files of UI claimants are in Trois-Rivières; departmental investigations are conducted in Trois-Rivières; appeals to the UI arbitration board are heard in Trois-Rivières; and relatively complex files are processed in Trois-Rivières. Therefore, we cannot trust the minister when he tells us that the services provided to the people of Trois-Rivières will not be affected in any way. This cannot be true in my opinion.

How can we trust the minister? What guarantee does he give in this letter that there will be no changes? There is no guarantee. The more we look at this, the more we realize that the decision to move and almost dismantle the Trois-Rivières manpower centre-whose staff, according to our information, will be reduced from around 100 one or two years ago to 12-is purely political.

This is a purely political decision. If the hon. member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister wants to show his constituents that electing him was not a mistake, that they did the right thing for the riding of Saint-Maurice by electing him, he may have the right to take measures, but he has no right to do so at the expense of the people of Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region and to look down on them. He has no right to do that, and I take this opportunity to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and to tell this House that we will not give up. We do not accept this decision and we never will.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could we have answers that come not from an armchair quarterback but from someone who is well briefed on the issue?

How can the Prime Minister let Operation Unity take 680 SNC-IT employees hostage by linking the awarding of a defence contract for the manufacture of ammunition to the referendum position of SNC bosses?

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

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

A secret document prepared by Industry Canada for Operation Unity says that, without the federal defence contract for the manufacture of ammunition, SNC-Lavalin subsidiary SNC-IT will have to close its doors.

Will the Prime Minister admit that linking the survival of a business to the awarding of a federal contract in an effort to put pressure on its leader amounts to blackmail?

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-101 to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987. As the member representing Trois-Rivières, I would just like to point out that our region, Trois-Rivières in particular, makes extensive use of the railway system, with the northern part of the Mauricie using the CN, and the southern part, including the city of Trois-Rivières, mainly using CP.

It is obvious that the government is trying to harmonize this legislation to draw attention to the bill to privatize CN and make its acquisition more appealing to potential buyers.

Many of the amendments in connection with the National Transportation Agency are designed to remedy regulatory deficiencies which hinder CN and CP's profitability and cause operating deficits that these companies have to absorb in order to maintain existing lines.

It may seem commendable to strive to improve on the National Transportation Agency so that both companies can become profitable, but at the same time it is dangerous to try both to achieve these objectives through more flexible regulations for operators like CN and CP and preserve the intent of the law, which is to protect public transportation. It is dangerous to change the

perspective of the legislation which is intended to foster the use of public transportation, and particularly rail transportation, for the development of people and businesses.

The role of the National Transportation Agency should be to ensure proper balance between the CN and CP monopolies, commercial users and passengers. Since this bill is only at first stage, we can assume that heated discussions will take place when it is reviewed by the transport committee, which will hear many witnesses who will debate these amendments, including railway unions, commercial users and railway companies. These groups will not all agree with the new mandate that this bill proposes for the National Transportation Agency.

In that respect, I want to mention some of the concerns that will surely be raised by various stakeholders during the hearings which will be held regarding this legislation.

First, there is the ability for shippers to call upon the National Transportation Agency to block a rail monopoly. I am referring here to the approach used by Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, but the same could apply to all shippers of raw materials, such as the mining and forest industries which, by nature, ship enormous quantities of materials, usually from remote areas located far from the main industrial centres.

The 1987 act allowed commercial users of railway companies to call upon the agency to circumvent CN and CP's excessive monopoly power. These provisions are maintained, but new hurdles will limit the ability of shipping companies to use them.

Indeed, the shipper will now have to prove that he will suffer a serious prejudice in order to convince the agency to keep CN or CP from unduly raising its prices. We are not saying that the industry should not pay its fair share for the transportation of its products. The problem is that the notion of serious prejudice is not defined in Bill C-101, thus leaving open the possibility that a shipper may resort to political or court action to win his case before the National Transportation Agency.

It is difficult for the industry to prove the degree to which an increase in rates would be harmful to it, and more difficult still to prove that there would be serious prejudice or material injury.

It is vital to discuss what is meant by serious prejudice; otherwise it can be anticipated that too often the decision will have to be made in the courts, after time-consuming discussions have failed.

I would also like to discuss the issue of competitiveness in remote regions. It is essential that all regions have access to a competitive and affordable rail system in Canada that will permit them to compete in the export market.

How will the new changes to the National Transportation Act allowing rail carriers to raise charges or simply discontinue unprofitable branch lines take regional economic realities into consideration by spreading operating costs over the entire system instead of dividing it up into more profitable and less profitable branch lines?

For too long now, the cost of developing remote regions has been calculated without taking into account on the positive side of the ledger the development natural resources confer to the more urbanized regions.

Here again, the concept of serious prejudice might be sustained provided it is given a fairly precise definition in order to prevent rail rates from being raised, thus cancelling out the profitability of industries dependent on this mode of transportation, without any consideration of the wages earned by workers in these industries.

Another provision, which will probably raise questions, deals with agency membership. The bill proposes to cut from nine to three the number of members of the National Transportation Agency. This reduction could lead to a lack of understanding of regional issues across Canada and, in turn, to a misappreciation of any significant risk that shippers may be at a disadvantage because of the monopoly enjoyed by CN and CP.

It will be more difficult for shippers to draw attention to their needs and their regions if the agency is composed of three members instead of nine. Listening to witnesses at the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Transport will surely help us strike a balance between a reduced agency of three members and an expanded agency of nine members.

My comments will also deal with the establishment of short-line railways. The financial difficulties experienced by CN and CP in recent years have led to the recent establishment of short-line railways.

Since these small organizations enjoy higher profits, smaller management and fewer constraints in the distribution of work through their collective agreements, we will see more and more of them. Unfortunately, the phrase "short-line railway" is not defined anywhere in this bill. Furthermore, in many clauses of this bill, it is unclear whether short-line railway operators should be regarded as railway operators or simply as shippers.

Clauses 130 through 137 of this bill concern the identification of competitive lines. In the past, railway operators had their own systems and, already, the two antagonists do not like the idea of using the lines of their competition in return for fair compensation.

Public interest requires better co-operation in the management of CN and CP. For example, CP could pay a price to use CN's tracks,

and vice versa, without the tracks' owners being able to prevent such an arrangement.

This would promote free competition, while also giving a more accurate idea of the actual costs of transportation in a particular region.

Since my time is running out, I will immediately move on to the issue of regional development. In the past, under the act governing the agency, railway companies wanting to close or abandon a line had to comply with an elaborate process. Now, these companies will only have to announce their intention to dispose of a line.

The new process to transfer and discontinue the operation of railway lines will be very quick: a 60 day notice, a 15 day period for each level of authority, for a maximum of 105 days. This time frame will allow railway companies to dispose of their lines very quickly, without having to justify their decision on either economic grounds or grounds of public interest.

However, this new transfer and discontinuation process hardly encourages the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a potential buyer in just 60 days. Quebec, and the same goes for any other province, will only have 15 days to decide whether or not to buy a line and continue to provide the existing service to the public.

In conclusion, I can only hope that, this time, the government will have the vision that it has been lacking so far, and think in terms of the future, including as regards the interests of Quebec. In this case, as in others, we find no reasons to vote No, but many reasons to vote Yes, and I hope that Quebecers realize this.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about this bill at third reading, in slightly peculiar circumstances. I would like to state right now that it is only in the interest of Quebecers that we are going along with the government today.

What we would have preferred was for the Federal Business Development Bank to continue as it was before, with a mandate to simply stimulate economic development. We do not want to fundamentally change the rules of the game and create a new small business bank in Canada, as this bill proposes.

There is a fallacy in its very title, because the title does not match its contents, the scope of the bill. The first thing, of course, is the name change: from the Federal Business Development Bank to the Business Development Bank of Canada. That is a little pretentious, a little too pretentious, presumptuous. This was not reflected anywhere in the committee's discussions and debates. In addition, changing the name will be a frivolous waste of time and money.

More serious still, it would change the Federal Business Development Bank's mandate which, up to now, was well appreciated by Quebecers. It would go from being the economic development bank that it was, the last resort bank for a specific clientele, for a very specific market, to a bank which offers complementary financing. We are fundamentally changing what defined it, what gave it its character as a last resort bank.

The bank's role will be changed. There will be changes in the culture of a bank whose primary mandate was to promote the creation and expansion of small business, the culture of economic development. The changes will be subtle, as the new Business Development Bank of Canada seeks financing from the private sector and-this is of major concern to the Bloc Quebecois-will have to be profit-oriented, considering the rates of interest it will have to pay private investors, who will now be invited to invest in the bank. This will bring about a thorough change in the philosophy of the Business Development Bank of Canada, a bank that in our opinion is set to become a commercial bank with a culture that will be more concerned about making profits than just breaking even, as was formerly the case.

Furthermore, and this is probably the most negative development from our point of view, this bill ushers in an unprecedented offensive by the federal government in the sector of regional development, a sector where Quebec has excellent resources and a reputation for its expertise. The federal government, without consulting with Quebec or the other provinces, has the gall to indicate in the bill that it will deal directly with provincial agencies, which are creatures of the provinces, including in Quebec, although Quebec has legislation that regulates relations between provincial agencies-creatures of the Government of Quebec-and the federal government. This is supposed to be done through the Government of Quebec, and now the federal

government comes barging in, tracking mud all over the floor as it were. We deplore this attitude and we condemn it.

Well, let us go on to something else. The bill is full of terms that can be interpreted in a number of ways because they are so vague that bank directors, and especially political leaders, can use them any way they like.

When they are referring to programs, when the qualifier entrepreneurship is used, no definition is given of an entrepreneurship program or indeed of entrepreneurship itself, which opens the door to every possible intrusion by the federal government in the area of regional development, which in Quebec, at least, is considered to be the prerogative and responsibility of the Government of Quebec.

Finally, we seem to be looking at one of the centrepieces of post-referendum Canada which is being put together here in Ottawa, in a very low-key way, and which will make Canada a centralized country, a unitary country, something Pierre Elliott Trudeau never quite managed to do, but now it is being done very subtly, without debate, without any speeches and without anyone being brave enough to come out and say so. It is being done little by little, and the concept that prevails throughout is that Quebec is a province like the others and that for these people, Quebec as a nation does not exist.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take the floor on Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.

My motion deals more specifically with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, and reads as follows:

That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 1, with the following:

"recommendations of the Minister, following consultation with the Lieutenant Governor of each province in Atlantic Canada and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons, that normally considers matters relating to industry, to hold of-"

The goal of this motion is both simple and two fold. We would like that the government of each of the Atlantic provinces, as well as all the members normally interested in such matters, that is the members of the industry committee, be involved in the appointments.

This would make for a better climate in government and fulfil a need. We know that it is rewarding to be a Liberal, as the Globe and Mail showed, but our amendment would avoid situations like the one we are experiencing, where the minister responsible for ACOA recently nominated political organizers to the board of a federal agency based in his riding.

This is the kind of thing we want to correct or at the very least avoid.