Gilbert Fillion

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, let me go back to what the hon. parliamentary secretary said at the beginning of his speech, namely that it must be recognized that the reform under way is aimed at reducing the debt and the deficit. I do not want to repeat the figures, but he admitted that this reform was a total package in relation to the existing economic situation.

He confirmed that the debt and the deficit will be reduced at the expense of the less fortunate, that is, the seasonally unemployed, students-some of whom we saw last week on Parliament Hill-, single mothers, high school drop-outs, to whom he also referred in his undoubtedly accurate figures. It is true that over 33 per cent of our students drop out of school. We must of course put our fiscal house in order before it goes bankrupt, but not at the expense of the less fortunate.

I wish he had mentioned other ways to reduce the deficit. There are other ways such as family trusts, to name just one. What is keeping them from taking action on this front? What is keeping them from going after the millions of dollars we are losing because the GST is poorly administered? We could then achieve the same goal, that is, reducing the debt and the deficit, but not at the expense of the less fortunate.

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am also glad to see you again. We did not forget you while you were away.

I listened very carefully to what my colleague had to say. Of course, in 15 or 20 minutes, he could not touch on all the various aspects. Given the examples he used concerning the family, the underprivileged women and all the problems he mentioned, I would have liked to hear his views on education.

Unemployment is the big problem. It is an economic problem and we have to pay for it. Unemployment causes other problems to develop. For example, our youth are faced with problems like dropping out of school, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on. In the reform currently under review, we are being asked to reconsider student loans. I, for one, say that education is the cornerstone of the whole system.

If we do not invest in areas like human sciences, where we should inject a lot of money into research and development when, in fact, we are cutting research, if, as I said, we do not give education all the tools needed to catch up in this area and to undertake important research projects, we are heading not only for bankruptcy, but for real chaos.

I would like my colleague to comment on these cuts in education and research and development, which the government wants Canadians to swallow.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-53, an Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

It is a very interesting bill, except it comes at a time when the Minister of Finance has just realized, a year too late, that Canada's economic situation is unbearable, at a time when the Minister of Finance has just declared we should cut expenditures and at a time when interest on the debt has exceeded the GDP.

This is the moment when the Liberal government chooses to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and increase duplication and overlap, thus increasing expenses. Indeed, the Liberal government stubbornly insists on making unilateral moves in the cultural area in Quebec.

This has been going on far too long. Enough with the unilateral approach of the federal government. There is a reality here, there is a francophone nation in Canada, with its own cultural values and its own language, a nation that has been claiming its own rights for too long.

This House must remember all the representations Quebec has made over the last thirty years in the cultural sector. Since 1966, all of Quebec's premiers have asked that the cultural policy and related budgets be repatriated to Quebec. All were unanimous in stating that the social, economic and cultural development of the Quebec people should be under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Should I go over it again? In 1966, Mr. Johnson demanded decision-making authority in the area of cultural development. In 1969, Mr. Bertrand claimed that cultural affairs were under Quebec jurisdiction. In 1971, Mr. Bourassa asked for a review of constitutional powers in the area of culture. In 1973, he requested a transfer of cultural policies and budgets. In 1975, Quebec asked for exclusive law-making rights. In 1978, Quebec requested the opening of negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec. In 1985, Quebec was still raising the need for a constitutional agreement. In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission stressed the need to give Quebec exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility over its social, economic and cultural development, as well as over linguistic matters.

Successive federal governments systematically ignored those requests. The present government is no different. Incapable of recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness, it tends to oppose its development.

In 1994, the federal government introduced a bill, the sole objective of which was to deny the distinctiveness of our society. Yet, our society is distinct! The government is rejecting a series of claims.

Liberal members must lift the veil covering our cultural reality. The bill mentions the Canadian identity, something based on the primary characteristics of Canada: bilingualism and multiculturalism.

First of all, we have to wonder whether there is a Canadian culture. Is there really such a thing? I ask you! Such a definition of Canadian culture negates the existence of the other culture, the Quebec culture.

Instead, the Liberal government should be working at balancing the CBC's budgets. To share the budgets fairly between the French and the English networks, fifty-fifty, is a must derived from bilingualism. Before we can believe in the subject-matter of this bill and in its implementation, there is still a long way to go.

The sharing of responsibilities between the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage is simply incoherent, a fact we have been witness to in this very House. Both ministers have authority in the same areas, but have different visions. Moreover, there is no consultation whatsoever between the two of them. We were given the opportunity to come to that conclusion on several occasions, particularly with respect to the information highway advisory committee.

The Liberal government must get its priorities straight; the interests of the industry and those of a people, a language, a culture, are not the same and cannot be dealt with from the same perspective.

It is inhuman to keep writers, creators, performers waiting for over six years for a reform of copyright and intellectual property. It is crazy to want to turn these creations into an industrial market. I say an industrial market, because the Minister of Industry prefers the American copyright system to our copyright and neighbouring rights system; there is no clear choice yet, even though the Minister of Canadian Heritage must favour the latter since it is the only one which recognizes creators' efforts and highlights culture.

All these considerations and a lot of others, which could be debated for months and months, make it only more apparent that the bill, as tabled, does not give the Department of Canadian Heritage the mandate it should have. Given this fact, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 18th, 1994]

Will the post offices in the riding of Chicoutimi be reorganized and if so, how and what effect will this have on employment and the quality of customer service?

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 18th, 1994]

Is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans planning to rebuild the wharf in L'Anse Saint-Jean in the riding of Chicoutimi, to re-evaluate this project in fiscal year 1995-96 and to begin negotiations with the municipality of L'Anse Saint-Jean?

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply comment on the last part of the hon. member's remarks. I have just been told that Montreal is the linchpin. Yes, but the linchpin is being moved elsewhere, as a result of cuts that were never queried, as a result of closing and abandoning certain lines, because when they did the calculations to close the lines, they added repair costs, although repairs were often done in other centres.

This means that the figures we have today do not show the true picture. I am sorry, but once again, I have to say that Canadian federalism does not serve the interests of Quebecers, although you may think otherwise.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone were to ask who is the greatest demagogue here, I really could not say. According to the facts and figures that were just quoted to us, a certain amount of employment is provided.

However, what the figures do not show is how many jobs disappear as certain lines come up for review or are phased out. How many ephemeral jobs will come in the place of these jobs that are very well-paying? That is the question.

As for the Canadian federation, we had a chance to see what is was worth during the past century. The federation is like a sinking ship. Just look at the deficit, the debt and the rest. I think Quebecers already know the answer when they consider the real figures, not figures that try to cover up certain facts. Jobs will be lost if these railway lines are abandoned, and they will be replaced by very ephemeral jobs.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question which deserves a straightforward answer. Surely, Quebec is ready to sit with the other governments to discuss a complete and integrated policy for rail transportation as was done in the EEC countries that were just mentioned. These are sovereign countries that agreed on a policy, contrary to Canada,

which has not succeeded yet to come to an agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions.

Therefore, Quebec is certainly ready to take part in the decision making process and a sovereign Quebec will not isolate itself from the rest of Canada. Thus, I think it is important that Quebec has its say and that a consultation and discussion process is implemented to get a picture of rail transportation and to make the appropriate decisions.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the floor today concerning the rail system, all the more so because the Bloc Quebecois is able to speak today despite the government's efforts to exclude the official opposition from its study on the privatization of the CN as well as from major decisions concerning the rail industry. That is why the Bloc decided to devote an allotted day to railway transportation. Otherwise, the government would again have acted secretly.

Today's debate is very important because of the National Transportation Act of 1987. As of January 1st, 1993, this act allows railway companies to close down as many lines as they wish. Of course, such abandonments must meet the National Transportation Agency's criteria in order to be approved, but these criteria are established according to accounting standards instead of socio-economic ones, as they should be. I will come back to that in a moment.

We are told the goal of such abandonments is to streamline the rail system in order to increase the companies' cost-effectiveness and competitiveness. However, we must realize that the idea of cost- effectiveness for a railway line does not take into account any notion of regional economic development. Of the utmost importance is the fact that the criteria applied by the government to allow the abandonments are very narrow-minded and reveal its lack of vision in transportation matters.

The National Transportation Agency examines abandonment proposals according to criteria which do not take into account the economic benefits that can ensue from the operation of a railway line. According to one of these criteria, the National Transportation Agency orders the abandonment of non profitable lines, when there is no way the situation could improve in the future. This type of reasoning is based only on the railway company's cost-effectiveness and does not consider the socio-economic benefits that bring about regional development. The other criterion provides for the maintenance of a line that is or may become unprofitable.

The agency takes public interest into account before deciding whether a line should be abandoned or maintained. However, the law is not clear on the public interest criterion for lines that have no chance of becoming viable in the future. So far, in practice these lines are simply abandoned.

Moreover, the agency is required to review line abandonment documentation only if abandonment was opposed so that, in the absence of opposition, lines can be abandoned without the agency having to justify the application. This is directly related to regional economic development, which is closely linked to the operation of these rail lines.

By abandoning some of these lines, Canada loses economic benefits that exceed carriers' operating losses on these lines. It is imperative that the government consider the total economic impact of line abandonment applications, and not only the financial data on carriers' profits and losses.

The Chibougamau-Chapais-Chambord railway line gives us a concrete example of economic spin-offs. The Lac-Saint-Jean rail system serves among others 16 businesses employing a total of 4,095 people. Abandoning rail lines with or without transfers to a railhead in Lac-Saint-Jean would affect nine businesses out of 16, which would be faced with imminent closure involving the loss of 2,200 jobs. This would directly affect three businesses, which would become unprofitable and face eventual closure. Only two businesses out of 16 would not be affected at all. This would be the concrete economic impact of abandoning these lines. Many people would join the already crowded ranks of Canada's unemployed.

It is unacceptable for a region like mine which already has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Rail line abandonment, a kind of Trojan horse given to Quebec by the Liberal government, will have major consequences on the road system. Roads, need I remind you, are a provincial responsibility. Clearly, the decision to abandon lines will have a direct impact on provincial finances.

Line abandonment will significantly increase road traffic, which will lead to major cost hikes. In some cases, new roads will have to be built to accommodate additional traffic. Maintenance costs will also rise. The life-cycle will be reduced in proportion to the increase in road traffic, while the risk of road accidents will rise.

Who will foot the bill and suffer the consequences on the economic activity level in these regions? The provinces. Of course, the road system will deteriorate more quickly and will have to be maintained to ensure its safety and quality.

The Liberal government should not try to contradict these figures. Studies prove beyond any doubt that this is exactly what will happen to the road system. Transferring this traffic from the railways to the highways will increase annual maintenance costs by about 30 to 40 per cent, due to the weight of traffic and the carrying capacity of the roads. This means additional maintenance costs for the transportation department of about $2 million a year for just 800 km, which is approximately the cost of another 2,200 km a year.

As for the exact number of trucks on the road, the Department of Transport estimated that the phasing out of rail service between Lac-Frontière and Vallée-Jonction since 1982 meant that 4,000 to 7,000 more trucks a day used highway 204 in 1989. In the Abitibi region, traffic on highway 117 would increase by 360 trucks a day with the loss of rail service.

Two other major studies were done for the Lac Saint-Jean and Abitibi regions, to assess the impact of abandoning rail service on the public purse. The first study describes various scenarios for abandoning rail service in the Lac Saint-Jean region. One of these is the complete elimination of rail service north of Chambord and the creation of an efficient intermodal end-of-line interface in Chambord. It is estimated that this would cost the Government of Quebec nearly $700,000 more a year. Although very large, this figure does not take into account the cost of building the roads which would be needed to increase the capacity of this highway system. Neither does it reflect the decreased life expectancy of the roads due to the increase in heavy vehicle traffic.

The second study considers the abandonment of rail service in Abitibi. It is estimated that total abandonment would cost the Government of Quebec $3.9 million more a year, even with additional revenue from fuel taxes and trucking licence fees included.

Clearly, abandoning rail lines has a considerable impact on the finances of the federal and provincial governments. The government should therefore consider developing a comprehensive rail-highway policy. Decisions should be made in co-operation with the concerned provincial governments, since provinces are responsible for the road network and also have to bear the consequences of rail abandonment.

Beyond the financial considerations, there is also a human factor which must be taken into account. Traffic increase has a major environmental impact, in terms of pollutant emissions and noise, for communities located along highways. This increase also raises the risks of traffic accidents. The Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec reports a 41 per cent increase in the number of people seriously injured in trucks, between 1988 and 1989. By comparison, the number of people injured in privately-owned vehicles dropped 12.9 per cent over the same period.

Another study allows us to conclude that an increase in the number of trucks on the road can only result in a proportionally much greater increase in the number of injuries and deaths.

According to the department's submission regarding the proposed construction of a railroad for the Laterrière plant of Alcan, trains are much safer than trucks. That document indicates that, while heavy road vehicles account for eight to nine per cent of registered vehicles, they are involved in about 23 per cent of all accidents. In 1987, there were 1,206 accidents involving trucks, compared to only three involving trains, for every million tons transported by these two types of carriers.

What is of more interest to us is the fact that freeways are four times safer than other roads for heavy vehicles. The problem is that there are freeways in central areas, but not in remote regions. These regions will be more affected by the higher risk of accident, on top of also being more directly affected from an economic point of view.

Railway transport is very important. It will face tremendous challenges in the years to come; competition is fierce and our society is on the wane. The federal government can no longer afford to subsidize unprofitable lines. It must find other ways to keep these lines in operation, because what is at stake here is the development of our regions.

Quebec does not want to see these essential railroads disappear and it does not want to foot the bill either. Quebec does not want to see its remote regions experience economic decline. It wants Ottawa to implement a co-ordinated transport policy. Quebec wants to have a say in the decisions affecting railway transportation. It wants policies designed to keep carriers financially sound and technically advanced, while preserving the existing network to the greatest extent possible.

Through the voice of the Bloc, Quebec will make sure it does not get taken. The consequences of the Liberal vision on railway transport are too dangerous for Quebec's future. This government should provide financial support to the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, Quebec does not want to see more of these lines disappear, since they are essential to its economy.

The federal government must include the provinces in the decision-making process, because they are in the best position to take action on this issue. The government must give provinces every means to allow them to set up an intermodal rail-highway system.

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I put a question to the Minister of National Defence and did not receive a satisfactory answer. This evening, speaking on behalf of the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, I would appreciate a reply to this question.

The Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy submitted its report last Monday. The publication of this report has caused some concern among many people, especially in my riding, and not without reason, I believe.

The importance of the base in Bagotville for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is ample justification for questioning the minister, to find out what his intentions are. The future of the base is closely linked to the development of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, since several hundred people are employed on the base.

Should the representative for this area not have the right to demand a clear answer from the minister? One can hardly expect a whole region to wait indefinitely, without knowing what will happen.

Recent cuts in defence spending have led to the closing of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. Will this happen in the Saguenay as well? That is what we would like to know.

The Bloc Quebecois dissociated itself from the report on Canada's defence policy on several points; one of the major points raised was of course the cuts which could further affect Quebec.

Yesterday, in my question, I stressed Quebec's neglected status. Quebec is one of the most disadvantaged regions when it comes to economic spin-offs from the Department of Defence. It is important to emphasize that only 13 per cent of Canadian defence infrastructure is located in Quebec compared to 34 per cent in western Canada, 27 per cent in the Maritimes, and 25.8 per cent in Ontario. And yet, Quebecers account for approximately 25 per cent of the defence budget.

In a brief presented on May 9 to the Joint Committee on Defence by the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean consultation and development regional council, people from my area stated their position as follows: "We believe that efforts must be made to bring some degree of fairness with respect to defence spending, infrastructure location, and personnel distribution in Quebec. The national defence policy review gives us the opportunity to take corrective action in favour of Quebec".

The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to redefine its role within NORAD without delay.

The future of the four F-18 squadrons depends on Canada's willingness to participate in the protection of the North-American territory in full partnership with the United States.

Choices have to be made, significant cuts are required because of our economic situation and we think we have given the minister interesting suggestions on ways to save money, in line with a real redefinition of what our defence policy should be.

Government members have come up with proposals which are basically cosmetic, while our mandate was to do an in-depth review of our policy.

A fact remains, the government must answer to the people from my area and Quebec who are concerned with the future of Bagotville and the place it will have in the military infrastruc-

ture, since we get far less in military spin-offs than the 25 per cent we contribute.

The people from the riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are proud of Bagotville and they intend to keep it.