Maurice Bernier

[Canadian National Railways, April 15th, 1994]

Is there anyone who is capable of making decisions? In the next few months, there will be some important changes in the railway sector in eastern Canada, and I am referring to the CN-CP merger. The government is waiting for a decision from senior officials to find out whether or not to recommend the merger.

A number of decisions must be made now, including whether or not to proceed with the CN-CP merger, and to conduct studies on the viability of the rail lines, and finally to help the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and of Chibougamau-Chapais take control of the development of their economy by letting them develop this rail line.

[Canadian National Railways, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed by the answer from the government member to the motion of the hon. member for Roberval asking for the maintenance of some railroad lines in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. When you listen to the government member, we would almost think we were hearing CN officials. I imagine that the member's reply was prepared by CN officials, because what we just heard is almost exactly the same as the letters sent in recent years by CN to all concerned, regarding this line.

The problem with this government is its lack of sensitivity to regional development and its lack of vision when it comes to public policies. This comment has been made before, but this is yet another prime example of this shortcoming. The Liberals are merely repeating the mistakes of the previous Conservative government which they so vehemently criticized for years in the House and elsewhere, insisting all along that it be more compassionate and more sensitive to the regions.

This is a good example where residents of a region, in this particular case Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau, are not asking for subsidies. They are not begging to get money from the government in order to maintain and preserve their economic development. If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands gives me a few moments, I will convince him of the merits of this motion.

People from Chibougamau-Chapais and from Lac-Saint-Jean are merely asking that we respect their desire to look after their own economic development in the years to come.

In his reply, the Liberal member used CN figures when he said that, in recent years, the line had been used once by Hydro-Quebec to transport transformers.

The hon. member for Roberval spent 20 minutes explaining why rail service must be maintained in this region, and he pointed out that, nowadays, given the crisis in the mining industry, the rail line is not being used as much as it would be if there were a boom in mining development. Who knows, in a week, a year or two years from now, the mining industry may enjoy an incredible boom. What would happen then, Madam Speaker, if we decide now to dismantle the rail lines and get rid of this infrastructure? The taxpayers will have to reach into their pockets once again to rebuild roads or rail lines in order to further the economic development of their region.

In his speech, the hon. member for Roberval raised another important issue to which I want to come back, and that is the ownership of this rail line.

This rail line does not belong to the private sector but to a public institution called Canadian National. As my colleague has mentioned, for many decades, in fact for more than a century, Quebecers and all Canadians as well were involved in financing and maintaining this service in all regions of Canada. Therefore, they are the real owners. This rail line does not belong to the President of Canadian National or to officials in the Department of Transport. It belongs to the citizens who paid for it over and over again.

If we had to keep in mind only this criterion, which is the immediate cost effectiveness of a rail line, what would happen to the rail lines in western Canada which get hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for grain transportation? As my colleague pointed out, we, in the Bloc, are not opposed to

subsidizing grain transportation in the West. We want fair treatment.

In this case, we are not asking for subsidies. I repeat, what we want is to allow the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau-Chapais, who have always shown considerable dynamism in their economic development, to allow these people, who are simply asking their government to show some sensitivity, to acquire this segment of the railway, which they will manage to make profitable.

Does this mean, and are we to conclude from what was said by the Liberal member, that the only way the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and Chibougamau will be able to save this rail line and obtain ownership will be when we have a sovereign Quebec and own a railway network that has been paid for many times over? That is when the people of this region will really be able to take control of the development of their area.

We are always being accused in this House of bringing up Quebec's sovereignty, but the technocratic and unfeeling response of the member from Ottawa leaves us no alternative.

In concluding, I would like to return to this government's lack of vision on the issue of railways. To paraphrase a common expression, one could well ask: Who is minding the Department of Transport?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following up on what my hon. colleague from Richelieu just said, I would like to participate in this debate and speak about institutions. Not the kind of institution he referred to, namely the other House, the Senate, or the House of Commons, but existing institutions that ensure the development of our local communities. I am referring here to the riding, an institution in itself.

I would also like to say a few words about RCMs, an institution which took root in Quebec in the mid seventies, and about economic development institutions which have a considerable impact on each of our ridings. Of course, I will tie all of this in with the electoral boundaries reform process.

In principle, everyone agree that the objective must be greater equity in the allocation of the number of voters by riding so as to ensure that one riding does not carry more weight than another. Obviously, everyone works toward the attainment of this objective. When the time comes to undertake the process, specific guidelines and criteria must be followed. Above all, demographic measurements must not be the sole consideration. The criteria must reflect the makeup of our communities and respect the will of the people.

Over the past 20 or 25 years in Quebec, a sense of attachment has emerged as a result of a process which was and still is known as joint action. I recall taking part in the early 1970s in the Lac Mégantic region in consultations carried out by the regional development council of the eastern townships. This was the start of the process of pooling the needs of the entire population of the eastern townships. This sense of regional attachment which I alluded to earlier developed over a period of many years and led to tremendous economic and social development over a period of some years.

The process was further cemented by the establishment of regional county municipalities in the mid seventies, as I mentioned. The first task undertaken by the RCMs was to put on the table a development plan to be voted on by all elected officials in a given region or sub-region. In the development plan, the municipalities in each sub-region specified what kind of com-

munity facility they needed and where these facilities would be located.

Subsequently, a complete network of economic institutions and industrial commissions was developed. These operated in various fields, not just in the industrial sector, but in the business and community sectors as well. As a result, our various regions, and I refer more specifically to the eastern townships, developed their own personality and were at last in a position to convince the authorities that economic and social development should be adapted to their needs and the needs of people who live there. When the time comes to readjust the boundaries of electoral districts, these boundaries must take into account a process that has evolved during the past twenty or so years.

The proposed changes, as I said earlier, will have a disastrous impact on much of my riding, especially on the Granit RCM located in the beautiful Lake Mégantic area, which I am sure you will visit one of these days, Mr. Speaker, since I understand you are a fan of Quebec.

The Granit RCM has always been part of the Eastern Townships. In fact, as I said earlier, about 25 years ago I was involved in the consultation process to set up regional development councils. The Lake Mégantic region was part of the economic and social development process in the eastern townships and established contacts with most of the authorities involved, including not only local and regional authorities but also authorities at the provincial and federal levels. Mr. Speaker, you have been in government for a number of years, as I have, and you know it is not easy for the average citizen to find his way through the maze of institutions and governments.

When people have had a development model for a number of years, they are very concerned about the consequences of getting rid of this model overnight. And that is exactly what will happen as a result of boundary changes in this particular part of my riding. The Lake Mégantic region would be added to the riding that includes the Thetford mines region, the centre for asbestos, and thus included in the economic region of Quebec City, which is a very nice area, I will grant you that. Just because we want to stay in the Eastern Townships does not mean we have anything against people in another riding.

I think it should be obvious to anyone who is the least bit involved in this process that people should be consulted on any changes being planned.

I heard the hon. member for the Reform Party say earlier that it was necessary for the electoral boundaries readjustment process to be politically neutral. I disagree. Since we are elected representatives and the people have given us a mandate, it is our responsibility and in fact our duty to be involved in any process that would affect the future of our constituents. If I am not mistaken, two-thirds of the members of this House-more than 200 came here for the first time five or six months ago. My point is that most members of this House are serving their first term. This means that during the past few months they attended many meetings and read all kinds of documentation to get to know their riding, their region, their constituents and the needs of these constituents. They must be involved in these consultations. And we cannot do this in a hurry. We need enough time.

In my own riding, I have started consulting the municipalities, and I can say that with 67 municipalities-yes, 67-it takes weeks before we can get a clear picture of what people want. We need time to consult our constituents and ensure that any changes that are made will reflect the institutions in place.

[Unemployment Insurance, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the recent Liberal budget cut unemployment insurance benefits by $2.4 billion, $630 million of which comes directly from the Maritimes.

Demonstrators took to the streets to protest these inordinate cuts in a region hard hit by unemployment. Three large demon-

strations were held in Shippagan, in Bathurst and, just yesterday, in Sydney where over 1,500 protesters burned the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport in effigy.

Meanwhile, none of the 31 Liberal members from the Maritimes had the courage to denounce this situation. Did they forget those who elected them? Did they forget their first duty is to be loyal to their constituents? This new version of the Silence of the Lambs must be denounced.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seemed important to participate in this debate on a legislation which would postpone for 24 months the process initiated by the federal electoral boundaries commission. It seemed important to do so since the redistribution of electoral boundaries is not an operation one does for statistical purposes; it is not an exercise for an apprentice geographer who would like to practice his trade and increase his skill and knowledge. Redistributing could change the habits of the citizens and of the decision-makers in a given living environment.

In my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, if the proposed reform were to be implemented, it would have disastrous effects. That is why, before we proceed with such a redistribution of boundaries, we must determine the basic criteria for changes which might be necessary under certain circumstances.

In the present legislation, one of the main criteria is equal representation for each and every constituent. This is basically commendable since in a democracy, we must ensure that no group of individuals has more power or better representation than others. But we must also consider other principles; I am thinking here more specifically of respect for the living environment, in other words communities of interests, as mentioned in the documents presented to us.

When one undertakes such an exercise, one has to take into account the sense of belonging of the people, instead of separating them and creating a situation where it will be many years before this feeling emerges again. That is why I would like to take the next few minutes to explain in graphic details the impact the proposed changes would have in my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

I will first remind the members that, for the time being, as we speak, the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding has a population of 75 000. It is nearly entirely located in administrative district No. 5, that is to say in the Eastern Townships, in Quebec. In this riding, there are two regional county municipalities, structures that were created about 20 years ago now with a view to planning the social and economic development of some communities. Presently, the riding is made up of two whole RCMs and part of four others. I am talking about the RCM of Granit, which includes the Lac-Mégantic area, of which nearly all of the municipalities are in the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding.

There is also the RCM of Sherbrooke, two out of eight municipalities of which are in my riding, as well as the RCM of Memphrémagog, of which more than half the municipalities are now part of my riding, and some municipalities of which are part of the provincial riding of Beauce, next to Lac-Mégantic.

According to the proposed reform, the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding would be split into two new ridings, one called Mégantic-Frontenac and the other one, Compton-Stanstead. As for the district of Mégantic-Frontenac, this new district would be primarily comprised of the municipalities of Lac-Mégantic and the vicinity as well as municipalities around Thetford Mines.

This would effectively jeopardize what I mentioned a minute ago, that is to say this sense of belonging developed over the years within the Lac-Mégantic area and the Eastern Townships as a whole.

Let me give you a very concrete example. Recently, two RCMs from my district, namely the RCM of Haut-Saint-François, which encompasses East Angus, Cookshire and La Patrie, and the RCM of Granit which, as I said earlier, includes the Lac-Mégantic area, have agreed on a major economic development plan based on tourist activites around Mount Mégantic which straddles the two regional municipalities.

It took years of discussions to get these people to see their economic development as a common venture and come up with a joint action plan to develop this fabulous tourist site, thus contributing to economic growth in that area. If boundaries were to be readjusted as planned, Lac-Mégantic would end up in the same district as Thetford Mines and would be split between two administrative regions: on the one hand, the Quebec administrative region and, on the other hand, the Eastern Township administrative region, which includes Sherbrooke and Lac-Mégantic.

This would make the political channels that much more complicated, with more members having to meet to promote issues and more officials having to learn to work together, and that, as I said earlier, is very important and takes years.

This concrete example illustrates the effects a decision to make two new districts out of this one could have. Decisions made by electoral boundaries commissions do affect people in their everyday life.

This kind of decision should never be made without proper consideration and not by officials alone. Time should be allowed to consult the people involved, the general public, to ensure that the result of the readjustment will truly be in the interests of these people.

I spoke more specifically about the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, but as chairman of the Bloc's Eastern Townships regional caucus, I must mention that the same exercise would considerably modify the ridings of Brome-Missisquoi, Richmond-Wolfe and Frontenac.

I come back to what I said at the beginning: what is the main reason for making this change? It is to ensure that the number of people represented in each riding is more nearly the same.

I would like to give you some eloquent figures in this regard. If you compare the present situation to the one proposed in the reform, the riding of Frontenac now has 61,000 people; the new riding of Mégantic-Frontenac would have a population of about 72,000, so a balance is being restored here.

In the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, the difference is barely 8,000 and in Richmond-Wolfe, it is 10,000 at most. In the riding I represent, the change would be scarcely 2,000, so this argument does not hold for ridings in the Eastern Townships.

That is why I will support Bill C-18, which would delay this process and provide for time to consult the people and involve the representatives and elected members of each of the ridings so that the change we finally come up with will benefit all the people we represent.

[Federal Deficit, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question has nothing to do with month-to-month accounting, but I would still like the government spokesman to tell me if he can make a commitment, on behalf of his

government, that specific expenditure reduction measures will keep the deficit from exceeding the record level of $45.7 billion forecast for the current fiscal year?

[Federal Deficit, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and is along the same line as the one asked by the hon. member who spoke before me. I hope that she will not mind if I ask her a question that would normally be for the Minister of Finance.

We are told this morning that the federal deficit for 1993-94 will reach a new record level. As a result of upward pressures on the deficit at the end of the fiscal year, it could top $45.7 billion at some point during the last two months of the current fiscal year.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the federal deficit could exceed the record level of $45.7 billion forecast in the budget?

[Via Rail, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that successive cuts to VIA Rail's budget mean a slow death for this crown corporation, as well as the loss of more than 23,000 permanent jobs in Canada and in Quebec?

[Via Rail, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the Liberal government is about to once again cut VIA Rail's budget. The Minister of Transport went so far as to say that the dream of a major intercontinental carrier is a thing of the past, when he announced yesterday that VIA Rail services would again be reduced.

How can the Minister of Transport explain this latest about-face by the Liberals, considering that they opposed every cut made to VIA Rail's budget by the previous Conservative government?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a brief comment on my colleague from Rosedale, with whom I had an opportunity to travel to Vancouver a few weeks ago. I got to know him better and I believe that he is someone who can be called a gentleman, as the term was understood in the Middle Ages, that is, a man who is sincerely open-minded towards all his colleagues in the House. I do not at all doubt his sincerity when he speaks or when he expresses the wish that Quebecers feel at home in the Canadian federation.

I also want to tell him that should Quebecers in the near future choose to take charge of their own affairs and thus make Quebec a sovereign country, Quebecers will still be happy and interested to maintain ties with neighbours who show this open-mindedness, like the hon. member for Rosedale.

I commend him for what he said and I hope that we can indeed maintain such a relationship, whatever the future holds for us.