Marcel Massé

[Ice Storm, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, although it is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide the first line of defence in case of emergencies, the federal government has obviously used all its resources, including the department of defence with the army, the departments of health and national revenue in order to help.

The Department of Natural Resources has provided $45 million. I have already indicated that we were ready to contribute by giving a cheque of $50 million to minister Brassard in Quebec.

The minister of defence has done the same thing in Ontario. We will continue to do that.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

And in yours; sitting in the helicopter, I was stunned by the extent of the damage. For the first time ever, I saw woods, over 2 or 3 kilometres, where 80% of the trees had snapped, broken, splintered.

We could see that most sugar bushes were devastated, almost a write-off for a great many owners and maple syrup producers.

When we arrived in the southern region, we saw the huge transmission towers that had collapsed one after the other. At one point, we could see 76 of them in a row, twisted on the ground like spaghetti; the impression of a post-war disaster was very strong and I was moved as never before.

We saw how vulnerable we have become. Our energy infrastructure and more particularly our reliance on electricity make us vulnerable. Electricity has created a lifestyle to which we have become so accustomed that, when the power goes out, we realize that we are almost unable to live like our grandparents and our great-grandparents did. Perhaps one of the lessons this storm has taught us is that we have to learn how to use alternate forms of energy so we can at least heat our homes and feed ourselves during a power outage. It is certainly one of the lessons we have to learn from this crisis.

I want to take this opportunity to say how impressed I was with the good work that was done by the armed forces. Everywhere we went, people told us that they felt safe when our troops showed up. They felt the presence of a well-run organization, an organization that can set priorities, take action and solve problems. I think everybody in the affected areas, regardless of their political preferences, was happy to see our soldiers come to help people in need, whether these soldiers were from New Brunswick, Alberta, Ontario or Quebec.

Finally, I also wish to mention the role played by the media. Maybe it is something that was not emphasized enough during the crisis, but there was an enormous amount of information available on the radio and on television, information which allowed people in the areas affected by the storm to know exactly when they could expect power to be restored and when units from our armed forces would arrive to help them, and which kept people elsewhere aware of what was going on.

Before I conclude, which I must do since I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, let me repeat, as a Quebecker from a region that has also been without power, that I was pleased to see that I could rely on fellow Canadians, that in a time of crisis and hardship, I could stand by those around me, and that I could also rely on my fellow Canadians to help me, regardless of political party, language or province of origin.

I will end my remarks with a quote from one of the Prime Minister's statements. He said: “We know that our communities stand together as steadfastly as ever. In times of hardship, thousands of people are capable of a great deal of kindness and generosity between friends or neighbours, and between Canadians from coast to coast.” I think that when this crisis is over, this is what we will recall, that all Canadians are friends and stand together.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that these crises give us the opportunity to see what a true country is about and what the notion of solidarity means within a country.

I remember that, when the crisis began, during the first week, it did not look like such a significant event, given the damages that could be seen. It is only when Thursday came around that we realized that, with the precipitation being forecast for Friday in particular, we were facing a major catastrophe the likes of which we had not seen in a long while.

On that Thursday, the cabinet was in retreat. Mr. Chrétien called Mr. Bouchard to offer him the co-operation of the federal government, and even at that point, the premier of Quebec was unsure of the scale of the disaster. However, the Prime Minister and the premier both came to an agreement so that the armed forces could send out some troops by six o'clock that night. It is only after Friday that we came to realize that 200 or 300 soldiers, or even 2,000 or 3,000 would not be enough, given the extent of damages in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, and that we had to deploy up to 15,000 troops. This was for the army the largest ever deployment in peace time for reasons of disaster.

Besides the solidarity issue, I believe it should be noted that disasters are increasing in number. We must now draw a few lessons from this latest one. Among these is the fact that we now know we can and must rely more on co-operation, mutual support and solidarity.

During the disaster, we thought for a while we would have to evacuate large areas of Montreal.

I think what we have realized is that in fact in peacetime it may be much more important to count on the support of a lot of people. Perhaps a majority of people will not want to leave their houses even when there is no power and it is extremely cold. We have to have systems which will permit people either to spend time in their houses and then go to a shelter or which will permit people to have alternative sources of energy so they can stay in their houses.

In a catastrophe people must count on their neighbours and their relatives, on the citizens around them in their municipality, their locality or their city, or they must count on citizens from other provinces. That is one of the important lessons of this crisis. We have seen that in a number of small instances.

For instance, there was a train which travelled from Halifax with firewood. The train stopped at a number of places all the way from Halifax to the blackout triangle in Quebec. It carried wood to give to people at every stop, so that the citizens of the country could give it to their friends, relatives and fellow Canadians who needed it. That is when we realized the fact that we all feel we are citizens of the same country.

This was one of the main lessons we learned from the crisis.

Besides the issue of solidarity and the importance of support from neighbours, I believe we also learned that, as parliamentarians, in times such as these, we must be present in such a way that we show we are there not only to learn about people's problems and to help them deal with them, but also to bring them the comfort of knowing they are not alone in difficult times.

On the first Saturday, I flew in a helicopter with the prime minister to survey the situation, especially in Ontario, in your area, Mr. Speaker—

[Ice Storm, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during the crisis in the Saguenay we faced the same problem and we set up a program, where the costs were shared with the province of Quebec, to enable business to get back on its feet.

In my negotiations with Mr. Brassard to date, during which I gave him an initial cheque for $50 million, I wanted to address the question of assistance to business. He has indicated to me that we could discuss this matter later on. Groups have already been established for negotiations on the subject.

[Pay Equity, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was sorry to see that the union has more than doubled the amount of its pay equity demands; it has gone from the $2 billion they first mentioned to $5.3 billion. I think this is clear evidence of the union's bad faith.

It is clear they do not want to negotiate and I think that, unfortunately, for the good of employees, it would be much better if the offer were submitted to them directly. I have challenged the union to put our offer to their employees so that they could vote on it.

[Pay Equity, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yes, today I made a statement that we have now evaluated the counter-offer which was made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They had previously indicated that their claim was $2 billion and they had indicated that they wanted to negotiate.

The valuation indicates that the counter-offer which was offered by PSAC is equivalent not to $2 billion, not to $3 billion, not $4 billion but $5.3 billion dollars. This is a figure that is so clearly out of the realistic proportion that it indicates that the syndicate is acting in bad faith.

[Alternative Fuels Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at present we already assist departments in analysing their fleet to determine when it is cost effective to purchase and operate alternatively fueled vehicles.

In April 1996 we established a demonstration project of 120 vehicles to showcase the capabilities of alternative fuels.

In general, we provide better fleet management now, focusing on greater efficiency, in order to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

[Pay Equity, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how much more do they want? We proclaimed pay equity in 1978. We have paid about $1 billion in the last few years to attain it. There is clearly at present equal pay for equal work.

The problem is one of methodology on which clearly the union does not want to negotiate. We are ready to offer a settlement which makes sense, but it takes two to tango.

[Pay Equity, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will of course not comment on the question relating to the Senate.

With respect to the question relating to pay equity, I am glad to have the occasion to reaffirm once more that this longstanding dispute with employees is one which we would like to settle through negotiations.

We offered $842 million in April. We have increased that number to $1.3 billion. That is equivalent to between $15,000 and $20,000 per employee.

The government has done the correct thing. It is offering pay equity. Now it is a question of the union being—

[Federal Public Servants, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, freedom to practice one's religion means, for our employees as well, the right to be able to observe one's religious practices in the prescribed places and at the prescribed times.

Government administration requires that we all make an effort to facilitate the practice of all religions and make it possible for individuals to observe the required religious practices.