Maurice Bernier

[Occupational Training, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the fifth anniversary of the Forum pour l'emploi du Québec has been an opportunity to stress the importance of occupational training and the integration of young people in the labour market. That occupational training should be patriated to Quebec has been agreed for some time by all political, economic and social partners. Only the federal government is still turning a deaf ear to these demands.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will have to admit that local initiatives will achieve their objectives once the federal government has given the provinces full responsibility for manpower training.

Why does the minister keep interfering with this sector, when he cannot even get good results with the measures he dictates from Ottawa?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, whose purpose is to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the mandate of the future Department of Canadian Heritage, especially its wording reveals something very disturbing about the future of Canada. It says: the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and I will read the entire text. My source is a document released by the Liberal government, which means that we can hardly question its authority. It says: the mandate of the future department is to create and promote among Canadians a profound sense of identity and belonging, based on bilingualism and biculturalism. It also says a little further on that the department's objective is to develop and implement programs that support a very clear sense of identity among Canadians.

The first two words of this mandate raise some questions about the purpose of, or even the need for this department, since "susciter" implies there is no sense of identity or belonging, according to the text.

Before my speech, I checked the Petit Robert , a dictionary whose authority one would also hesitate to question, and its definition of the verb susciter is to give rise to a feeling or idea. This is exactly the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage. To give rise to something implies that it does not exist.

It is rather odd that after 125 years, we have a government that creates a department of Canadian Heritage and admits in the department's mandate that a sense of identity or belonging does not exist. They are right, because what does exist in Canada is two identities. We have the existence of a very special and very obvious identity in Quebec, the francophone identity, which is open to all communities and provides that everyone who so wishes has an opportunity to develop his potential and live in harmony with everyone else.

There is also the anglophone identity, which is found mostly outside Quebec and which also is open to people of all nationalities, respecting their own cultural identity, while giving them an opportunity to grow in this country called Canada.

So it is entirely correct that this mandate should say and admit that a Canadian culture as such, of which all Canadians would be a part, including Quebecers, does not exist.

During this debate, I would like to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us which values are shared throughout Canada, that is in Quebec as in the rest of the country. This is my first comment.

On the face of it, I say that the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage is in fact to promote the values of this government, as opposed to the values of Canadians and Quebecers. In my view, that makes it a department of propaganda. We have known for decades that the federal government views culture in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, only in terms of bilingualism and multiculturalism.

Yet, there are dozens of countries where people are bilingual but still preserve their own identity. If you ask French people who can speak several languages such as English and Spanish what is their primary culture, they will spontaneously say that it is the French one. As well, I have yet to meet an American who would question his identity. It is a clear and simple reality which helps respect those who do not think like us and who do not share the same cultural background.

I also want to say that, traditionally, the federal government and other institutions such as the Supreme Court have always reduced, if not eliminated, Quebec's power over its own culture. Let me just mention communications, which is a vital sector for culture. Over the years, three decisions have been made by the Supreme Court which, as everyone knows and as former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis used to say, "always leans on the same side". The first decision, in the late thirties, confirmed that broadcasting fell under federal jurisdiction. The second one, in 1974, had to do with cable television, while the most recent one, in 1994, concerned telephony. The end result is that Quebec is excluded from the communications sector, which is an essential and strategic tool for Quebecers' future.

I think I have one minute remaining on my speaking time. I would like to conclude by taking a look at the people who head these institutions, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular, the hon. member for Laval West who, I think everyone will agree, is a very nice guy, but does not hesitate to impose his views on organizations under his jurisdiction. Just think back to recent events; these past few weeks, in fact during two weeks, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party have been asking for the resignation of the heritage minister for having interceded with the CRTC on behalf of his constituents.

During two whole weeks, during question period, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party raised repeatedly with the Prime Minister the need for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to resign for having interfered with a quasi-judicial organization which is in fact the equivalent of a tribunal. One can wonder what this minister will be able to do, in Quebec in particular, with his propaganda department come the day when the people of Quebec will decide their future.

One last point. This minister will find strong support within his caucus. Let me name two supporters. First, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is remembered in Quebec in particular for the statement he made in 1977 about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, to my mind, is certainly one of the most prominent cultural diffusion vehicles in Quebec. With the prospect of the 1980 referendum in mind, he said he did not want to see the French network of the CBC take a neutral stand in presenting both sides of the issue, adding that at the time of the referendum, CBC employees would be expected to be unequivocally on the pro-Canada side.

Recently, the Prime Minister himself said that the operation of the CBC was governed by an act under which it was required to make the benefits of living in Canada known. That is what the CBC was established for, he said.

The message is clear, and we are perfectly justified in being concerned about the establishment of this department.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on what the hon. member just said. Basically, his point was, and I mentioned this earlier, that we should look at all the options or at least keep all our options open in the railway transportation sector as in all other sectors.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine asked some of my colleagues what position the Government of Quebec would take on this matter and what the position of the municipalities would be on taxation. He was referring to the fuel tax.

I would like to comment briefly in this respect, since during the past year, I was very involved in working with people in my community to raise public awareness of the future of railway transportation. I think that important progress was made during the past few weeks, and I am delighted to see that.

I also had an opportunity to talk to municipal authorities, who told me they had no objection to reviewing their right to raise property taxes and to business people who expressed an interest in investing in short-line railway companies. In fact, the only ingredient still lacking is a clear-cut decision by the government and the Minister of Transport to include the public or its representatives in this debate.

So far, and we see this in the so-called task force set up by the Minister of Transport, there is no room for the opposition, not for the Official Opposition and not for the Reform Party. As far as consultations with the industry are concerned, there are a monumental farce, and that is why we are telling our stakeholders to boycott these consultations, since their only purpose is to let the government hear what it wants to hear. What we need is genuine consultations across Canada, and I am prepared to co-operate with the government and let our intervenors come and say what they think of railway transportation and what they are prepared to do to ensure its future.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Do I have any time left?

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member representing Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I realize that he does not know anything about the railroad issue and I would hope that, in the few hours of debate left, the government will be represented by people who have some basic knowledge of the issue.

When Bloc Quebecois members, and certainly myself, talk about the future of the railway system in Quebec, it is of course in the context of a larger network which would include surrounding provincial or federal states, including the United States. I remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that, during the debate on free trade, sovereignists were the strongest and most vocal supporters of that option. In fact, Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney paid tribute to the current deputy premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, who travelled across Quebec, and even Canada, in support of the free trade accord with the United States, back in 1988.

Sovereignists are not afraid of economic challenges. We have no problem whatsoever with competing. We are well aware that we live in North America and we want to develop economic, cultural and social links as much with Canada as with the United States. In that respect, the railway system is a tool among others. My colleague, who has experienced railway systems in Europe, made it very clear a few minutes ago. In Europe, railways cross borders almost every 600 or 700 kilometres and there is no problem. Nobody ever said: "We will have a network in France, but no connection with Belgium, Italy or Spain".

Obviously, when my colleagues and I think about railway development, what we have in mind is a network linked to all of Canada, as well as the United States. In fact, the railroad in my riding is an international line, since it goes across Quebec and Maine, on to New Brunswick. It goes without saying that we must think in terms of the whole continent when we look at the railway system. We hope to save our domestic network so as to be able to connect with American networks as well as Canada.

As regards the use of electricity, it is one of many options, and as good as many others. My colleague was simply trying to show that, with a bit of imagination, there are solutions which could ensure a promising future for the railways.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. I have been asking for weeks that an opposition day be devoted to railways. That is why I am pleased to enter this debate.

Before dealing with my main topic, I would like to respond briefly to comments the transport minister made in the House today.

First of all, the minister accused the official opposition of standing for the status quo as far as rail transport is concerned. In other words, the Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of the status quo in transportation, and more particularly in railways.

Let me emphasize that such is not the position of the Bloc Quebecois, and the minister knows it. His comments are sheer grand standing for the benefit of his constituency, and they do not relate in any way to the subject matter. Those comments demonstrate that this Liberal government does not take rail

transportation seriously. One clue to that is the comments by the Minister of Transport; another is that the government seems to rely only on the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to respond to remarks by Bloc Quebecois members. He often seems to lead us off into debates that have nothing to do with the debate at hand. Clearly, the government does not take rail transportation seriously.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans pointed out this morning, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for almost a year that the Standing Committee on Transport examine the whole issue of rail transportation. This has been denied us for all kinds of reasons, each one shakier than the other, and this means that after a year of Liberal government we are in a worse situation than before.

I can tell the Minister of Transport right off the bat that what the Bloc Quebecois wants is to know where the government is going in the area of rail transportation. His responsibility is to tell us what direction he is taking, what he intends to do after a year in his portfolio. We want the government to protect the interests of all Canadians, but more precisely, as far as I am concerned, the interests of Quebecers and particularly the interests of my constituents, severely affected by the decisions the government is taking in the area of rail transportation. I will come back to that.

We want a real public debate on the future of rail transportation. We want real solutions. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, refuse to identify as the only scapegoats employees of CN and CP and their so-called golden collective agreements. When you consider the perks given to the president of CN, which were mentioned by my colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, and the outrageous benefit that a house represents, I think it is rather foolish on the part of the government to single out unionized workers for the lack of profitability of rail transportation in Canada, especially east of Winnipeg.

The reasons why I insisted for so long for a debate on this subject led me to wonder about the future of a rail network in Quebec.

And I will say right away for the benefit of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that my comments arise primarily from a concern about the future of the rail system in Quebec, linked of course, with North America as a whole.

I have been looking at the rail question for several months now, and have seen the threat of the slow but systematic destruction of its rail network looming over Quebec.

My riding, Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, provides the perfect example of the sort of hypocritical manoeuvre the federal government is planning to carry out in Quebec. The abandonment of the line linking Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships, and Saint John in New Brunswick, is being threatened for January 1, 1995. This abandonment was ordered by the National Transportation Agency under the former government. I mention this again so that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will not have to rise in the House and blame the leader of the opposition for all the decisions taken since the beginning of Confederation.

This abandonment would be a real economic disaster for the Eastern Townships, with potentially devastating consequences for the entire area, and I would go so far as to say for the whole of the Eastern Townships.

And yet, while we are experiencing a crisis of major changes and drastic cuts in the rail industry in Quebec and in Canada, the Standing Committee on Transport-and I point this out again-has always systematically refused to look at the rail question, despite the repeated requests of the official opposition representative.

We are told that the committee must focus on the future of the aviation industry, the future of airports, and that there is therefore no time for the future of rail, an industry that in 1993 employed close to 50,000 people across the country. No time! The committee has no time! Realizing the ridiculousness of the situation, the Minister of Transport announced, last September 29, the creation of a task force to examine the possible privatization of CN.

But to make sure it would not interfere with schemes to dismantle the Quebec railway system, the minister took the trouble of appointing an all Liberal task force, with only one member from Quebec sitting on it. The minister need not worry; this task force is not likely to make much noise.

The question we must ask ourselves at this point is: why is the government so afraid of having Bloc members on this task force? Why have such a suspicious behaviour that resembles a conspiracy? Upon analyzing the whole issue, the federal government's sinister intentions in the railway system become clear.

I would now like to review briefly the events of the past year regarding the rail issue. The minister referred to it this morning.

First, there was the statement made by the CN chairman, Mr. Paul Tellier, in December 1992, who apparently wanted to merge the CN and CP railway systems. This period of a few months was referred to as the CN-CP operations consolidation period. For reasons unknown to us, since all was done in secret, this plan fell through sometime around June 1994.

Then, and it is still on the table, CP Rail presented a bid to purchase CN assets for $1.4 billion.

A few weeks ago, Bloc Quebecois members have met with senior CP executives to clarify the contents of the proposal put before CN management and government authorities. We came out from this meeting with more questions than answers.

As I said earlier, we are particularly concerned about the fact that the federal government seems to want to divest itself of assets that belong to the people of Quebec and Canada as a whole. Regarding the CN railway system, we must bear in mind that this is a public company. Therefore, CN facilities across the country belong to the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada.

We are very concerned that a private company like CP could buy this system and then do whatever it feels like with it. This is the main criticism we, the Official Opposition, are directing at the government.

As we said in our motion, which refers to the government's lack of transparency on this issue, we find it unconscionable that the government is making decisions on the future of the public rail system, at least the part belonging to CN, without the people-or at least the socio-economic stakeholders-, the Official Opposition and the Reform Party being consulted on and participating in the upcoming decision on the future of the rail system.

Regarding the sale of facilities to CP, we will need much more information and many more assurances from the government if it wants us to approve this deal.

Most of the Quebec portion of the CP line from Saint John, New Brunswick, to Sherbrooke goes through my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. This line belongs to CP. For several years now, we have witnessed CP's "demarketing effort" to discourage potential industrial clients from using their services, as well as the difficulties experienced by local people. Their attitude seems slightly different today since CP needs people's support to buy CN-But when we see how difficult it was in the past to obtain information from CP, we are entitled to ask ourselves what will happen when this company takes over the whole network in Eastern Canada, and especially in Quebec. It would take compelling arguments to convince me that this is a good deal.

I would like to say a word about the federal government's criteria for assessing the networks to be abandoned or sold off.

Everyone agrees that the two main criteria are profitability and the public interest. Everyone also agrees that east of Winnipeg-and this is not partisan separatist talk, because it affects Ontario and the Maritimes as well as Quebec-profitability is the criterion used by the National Transportation Agency to decide on the future of a railway or branch line.

How can local people show that a rail line is profitable? I would say that they almost have to prove it foot by foot and not for the whole line. I will just give an example to illustrate what I am saying. The rail line which concerns me, the one from Saint John to Sherbrooke, has a client about 10 km west of Sherbrooke called Eka Nobel. This company alone does over $3.5 million of business with CP every year to move its merchandise.

When the time came to consider the profitability of the railway east of Sherbrooke, this customer located 15 km west of Sherbrooke was not taken into account. This shows the ridiculousness of such a situation where figures are made to say what one wants them to say.

For the future of railways in western Canada, public interest is the criterion used. To prove this point, and no one can challenge this, I take the subsidies for shipping western wheat; for the current year, about $600 million of our tax money will be used to pay for the transportation of wheat in the West. There is no equivalent in eastern Canada. This policy is a double standard which obviously puts rail service in eastern Canada at a disadvantage.

To conclude, I would like to say a word about the future of rail transport, since this morning, the minister-as I said and repeated earlier-accused the Official Opposition of wanting to maintain the status quo. When my colleague who spoke just before me talked about a moratorium on abandoning rail lines throughout Canada, and especially in Quebec, the reason we are asking for a moratorium is not to maintain the status quo but to let the local and regional stakeholders and the Government of Quebec meet with representatives of the federal government to discuss alternatives. Alternatives exist. Later today, some of my other colleagues will talk about short lines, which Quebec law encourages and permits. To establish a short line, the local community must take charge.

One of the problems the railway system has to face is the loss of interest of the population these last few years. There are several reasons for this change of attitude, including the fact that the railway companies, the CN and the CP, have chosen to keep their operations secret. Because of the way the CP handled things in my area, potential users no longer want to do business with this railway company, and our people lost interest.

So, we need to hold a real debate. This is why I hope the speeches made today in this House will not close the debate on the railway system, but rather launch a truly public debate on the issue, a debate in which the government and the opposition should take part and make their position known, to reassure the population that the railway system will be maintained and expanded throughout Canada.

On a more specific note, I want to say that in Quebec and in my riding, there can be no economic future without a profitable railway system, and such a railway system can obviously ensure economic development and also be financially viable. To do so, we need the co-operation of all the people involved. This is what we, in the Bloc, are trying to do and we can only hope that the government join us in our efforts.

[Human Rights, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is really against his will that the Prime Minister finally agreed to raise the issue of human rights during his trip to China, but not officially, quietly, in private, above all, not in broad daylight. To do more, he tells us, would be "unrealistic".

In fact, if we did more than that, according to him, a small country like Canada would become a laughing stock. How many more prisoners of conscience will have their basic rights violated during the Prime Minister's trip? That, he would rather not know.

Some of Canada's prime ministers managed to convey the people's values; they showed vision and dignity by embracing universal values; they gave a soul to our foreign policy. Then, Mr. Speaker, there are the others.

[Appointment Of Sharon Carstairs To The Senate, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just shown once again his lack of understanding and respect for Quebec. The appointment of Mrs. Sharon Carstairs to the Senate reinforces the idea that the government of Canada knows how to reward those who publicly attack Quebec.

Making no secret of her anti-Quebec feelings, Mrs. Carstairs has worked relentlessly to sink the Meech Lake Accord. She tried to put Quebec in its place, and for her trouble, she is rewarded with a seat in the Senate. She who used to enthusiastically support Senate reform now considers this institution necessary because its members are better educated than those of the House of Commons.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to this bill presented by my colleague, the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. First, I listened carefully to her presentation and I would like to briefly comment on it.

She spent a good three quarters of her time describing fully, some details being more lurid than others, events which occurred during the last few years in Canada, and she particularly brought back to mind the tragic case of the young Stephenson boy; finally, during five minutes, at the very end of her speech, she talked about her bill.

I mention this because I personally wonder what kind of consequences might result from this constant rehashing, day after day, of such sordid cases which, in my view, give rise to heated debates and appeal to our most primal instincts. I respect my colleague's opinion of course, but I wonder. As a member of Parliament, I think it is quite proper to question our method of debating such important subjects which have an impact on the daily life of our fellow Canadians.

I want to stress that the Official Opposition believes that we must send a clear message to all Canadians saying that it is absolutely necessary for the government and Parliament to ensure the security of our children and our families and, of course, the protection of society as a whole. All necessary measures must be taken in order to reach that goal.

I also want to stress that the Official Opposition certainly does not want to leave itself open to criticism that its attitude towards cases like the one mentioned by our colleague from the Reform Party is too lenient.

No parliamentarian in this House would ever endorse such actions. The bill before us is identical to a bill introduced last year by the solicitor general of the previous government, Doug Lewis, the first objective of which was to permit the revision of the sentence, while it was being served, imposed on an individual found guilty of a violent crime, to allow for an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

Such a provision already exists in our Criminal Code, as mentioned by the hon. member for Témiscamingue a short while ago. There is, in the Criminal Code, a provision that allows the court to find an offender to be a dangerous offender and thereupon impose a sentence of imprisonment for an indetermi-

nate period, which means until we are convinced that the person is no longer a threat to society.

The difference is that the individual must be found to be a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, whereas the bill before us would permit that at any time, even a few days before the end of the sentence, so that the individual could stay in jail all his life.

It seems to me that such a provision is contrary to fundamental principles of Canadian law, in particular the one according to which you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. In other words, case heard case tried, meaning that once you have been brought before the court for a given offence, found guilty and sentenced, you cannot be charged again with the same offence.

To act in accordance with this bill would depart from this principle. Moreover, clause 26 of the bill provides, and I quote: "The evidence relied on by the court in making a finding under subsection (2) must include evidence that could not reasonably have been presented to the court that sentenced the offender for the serious personal injury offence".

In my view, this provision departs from another principle, namely that of reasonable doubt, which is fundamental, especially in criminal law. In every court case, to be on the safe side, the judge reminds the jury that a decision must be rendered based on the fact that, if there is any doubt left in their minds, they must let the accused go free.

What this means is that, if years down the road it turns out that some evidence had not been presented to the court because the Crown had not done its job or had botched it, it would be possible to reopen the case to have the sentence extended and the offender retried on the same charges.

The Parole Board would also be given powers of investigation in that respect. The bill's sponsor would want the Parole Board not only to be permitted but required to investigate to find out if, in fact, there are further developments that warrant reopening the case.

We already know the huge workload of the parole board. I think that adding this mandate would further hinder or impede the work of the parole board and, besides, the parole board is not an investigating body. Its mandate is to rehabilitate people, criminals who for one reason or another are behind bars.

I think that this provision significantly changes the Parole Board's responsibilities.

I conclude by repeating-and this is the crux of my remarks-that we must question the approach we are now taking. It is not that the goal in itself is unacceptable or unworthy of our support. We fully agree that criminals who commit such heinous crimes should remain behind bars as long as possible or until society is assured that these people will not commit such crimes again. But I think that the current laws can now provide such assurances and properly protect society.

One final comment, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me. Such an approach must be part of a total strategy and not just an attempt to give the impression that we parliamentarians or members of this House want to act out of vengeance. It must be part of an overall strategy. That is what the former Solicitor General wanted to do when he put forward a series of measures. During these debates, I would like us to refer to this total strategy as well.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

I can see why the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may have some doubts. This is exactly what we said during the election campaign, last October, and what we are repeating day after day in this House. For over 125 years now, Quebecers have been elected to represent their fellow citizens in this House and to talk to the rest of Canada. This time, there are, in this House, people who do not want to be appointed to the Senate under any consideration. We simply want to tell our friends from English Canada what Quebecers want. And what they want is to have their own country; they want to set up their own institutions, and this is why I say once again that Quebecers in general are not only in favour of abolishing the Senate, but are even in favour of abolishing their own representation in this House.