René Canuel

[Rail Transportation, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we always get partial answers. We are told that no decision has been made, and that it will come eventually. In the meantime, people in the Gaspé peninsula are still waiting.

Last summer, when she visited the eastern part of Quebec, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested on behalf of her government that a transition fund be provided, the same way it has been for ports and wharfs, in order to maintain the Chandler-Gaspé line.

When is the minister going to follow up on his colleague's suggestion?

[Rail Transportation, October 11th, 1996]

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

Since CN has announced it plans to sell or abandon the line between Chandler and Gaspé, no buyer has been found, and this line may disappear altogether. On October 4, the minister told this House that his department was looking into the matter and that the government had not made a decision yet.

Can the minister tell us today whether this decision has now been made and what the government's involvement, if any, will be?

[International Day For Natural Disaster Reduction, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proclaimed the second Wednesday in October as International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction.

Under the theme "cities in danger", this day brings to our attention the extremely perilous situation of giant urban centres. According to some estimates, by the year 2000, 17 out of the 20 largest cities in the world will be in developing countries; this represents a significant challenge.

The "cities in danger" campaign provides an opportunity to take action before disaster strikes. Much more than a mere 24-hour period, this day is the culmination of all the efforts invested in emergency preparedness throughout the year.

Closer to home, the flooding in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region showed the importance of prevention and the need for solidarity.

This day underlines our responsibility toward all of humankind.

[Competition Act, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite who introduced Bill C-267, because when Liberal members and the government introduce something worthwhile, you may rest assured we intend to support them.

It is true there is a serious problem, and we must have the ability to defend the weakest against the multinationals. The price of gas must be regulated. I would have thought that the big oil companies would allow fair competition with independent gas retailers. In the past few months, especially this summer, I noticed that this competition is entirely unfair.

What do the big oil companies want? They simply want to get rid of the independents, and this is a tragedy for Quebec and the Maritimes. In the past few months they have been intent on closing down independents and possibly getting rid of them altogether. They have already caused many to disappear this way, and they would like to get rid of them altogether.

Of course the consumer may think this is wonderful. If I go to the gas station and I can pay 20 cents less for a litre of gas, I most certainly will take advantage of this. However, we know perfectly well that in a matter of months or years, the multinationals, since

they want to control everything, will strangle the consumer as they strangled the independents.

Well there must be some kind of control. This attempt to knock out the independents is another illustration of the harmonious concert of converging interests, practices and prices that unites the big oil companies: Ultramar, Shell, Petro-Canada, Esso, and Imperial Oil in Quebec. They are refiners, wholesalers and retailers. The big oil companies have broken the unspoken rules of a market in which the big oil companies were prepared to live with competition from the independents.

Formerly, the system worked. Independents could, from time to time, sell gas a little cheaper and provide better service. When the big oil companies saw this happening, they wondered what they should do, and they said: "O.K., let us get rid of them." This summer, Ultramar was particularly ferocious in the ensuing price war.

The independents, who were losing enormous amounts of money, could not keep up, and some with fairly high mortgages had to close their doors. I call that disgusting, unfair, and monstrous when they want to get rid of the little guy in order to control the market.

Over the years, independents, as they are usually referred to, gradually increased their market share from 20 or 25 per cent, and for us, especially in rural areas, in my riding of Matapédia-Matane, it was wonderful. They were not just selling gas but provided all the other services you can get at a gas station, never mind those people who believe that capitalism and a free market are each other's corollary. Personally, I do not think that is true at all.

The government must protect those independent retailers. The presence of efficient independent companies alone assures Quebec consumers a fair and equitable price for petroleum products. If they disappear, if the large oil companies take over, then consumers must beware. These large corporations will set the prices according to their fancy and we will have to pay or walk.

The issue is even worse for the independents. There are 300 distributors in Quebec selling gasoline and heating fuel and 2,423 retailers established mainly in the regions and serving their respective communities. When a community has no more gasoline, no more school, it might as well shut down.

Moreover, it accounts for 10,000 semi skilled or non skilled jobs. This means that many young people with no education or very little education can find jobs, and good ones at that. It accounts for $200 million in salary, 82 per cent of which in the areas around Montreal and Quebec City. The commercial spinoffs-convenience stores, machine shops, etc-throughout Quebec are on the order of $164 million.

The disappearance of healthy competition and the resultant increase in prices are jeopardizing consumers' protection. Again, the goal of multinationals is not only to recover the portion of the market they have lost over the past decade to more efficient independent distributors-and we know they are more efficient because of the many services they render-but mostly to eliminate them altogether so as to have maximum control over the retail market.

In Quebec, we have a situation where for more than a decade regional development and local entrepreneurship are at the heart of economic development. When independents disappear, life becomes very difficult in small communities. The performance and efficiency of some 2,423 gasoline and heating oil independent distributors in Quebec are the living proof of that. The independents must be able to earn a decent living without necessarily turning into multinationals. I say, "Good for them", as they can still earn a decent living.

In addition to increasing their market share from 15 per cent in 1984 to 31 per cent in 1993, they saw the average number of litres sold per station rise by 31 per cent between 1991 and 1995, thus confirming their economic presence in rural communities.

Yet, after five years of price wars against the multinationals, which unfairly control the profit margins of all gas station operators in Quebec, that province's independent businesses find themselves economically vulnerable. They are powerless to stop the fair market value of their businesses from eroding.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, the multinationals more than compensate for the losses arising from this planned retail price war by increasing their consolidated profit margins through their integrated refining and petrochemical operations.

In their case, they can absorb losses through their refineries, since they are not mere retailers. Because they have more options, they can do a lot better than others.

This situation allows them to fix prices, high prices, knowing full well that, even if they incur losses for a year or two, they will make up for these during years, even decades, and that, in the end, they will be richer.

Independent retailers are quite willing to face competition, because they know they can provide additional services. They know it and they have demonstrated it by cornering a very respectable share of the market. In fact, their share of the market was increasing and this is what hurt the multinationals, which then decided to eliminate independent retailers, who were surviving because they could provide more services while still making adequate, albeit lower profits.

The government must indeed introduce a piece of legislation that will enable everyone to operate in a free market, where the competition is fair, unlike what we have seen for a while now.

[Rail Transportation, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the same everywhere. In the Gaspé, Radio-Canada has practically been taken off the airwaves. And now the government also wants to make cuts in transportation. It is not the same everywhere.

Could the Minister of Transport at least give us a guarantee today in the House that he will take the necessary action to have the passenger train service maintained along the entire Matapédia-Gaspé line?

[Rail Transportation, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

In early July, Canadian National announced its plans to sell or abandon the Matapédia-Gaspé line. So far, the section between Chandler and Gaspé has not found a buyer and may disappear altogether.

Does the minister realize that this railway network in the Gaspé is in danger of disappearing altogether and that especially in the winter, local communities will be deprived of the only safe means of transportation in this region?

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the Reform Party. He presented a very strong argument, that I think may get many people thinking.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada. In order to fully understand this bill, you need to know that the federal government divides radioactive waste into three broad administrative categories: high level waste, HLW; low level waste, LLW; and uranium tailings.

HLW remains highly radioactive for at least 500 years and its handling requires appropriate measures to ensure the protection of human beings and, obviously, the environment.

What my Reform Party colleague was saying earlier is true. People say this waste must be got rid of, somehow eliminated, but not in their back yard, of course. I can understand people's fear. I have seen children in my riding from East Bloc countries and, after so many years, probably because certain nuclear power plants lacked protective controls, these children are handicapped for the rest of their lives.

We took in several in our riding, and we will host others this summer, and we can see that there can never be enough precautions to protect the environment, and especially the health of human beings.

There are two kinds of LLW: historic waste and operational waste. The bulk of LLW consists of historic waste. Unfortunately, Canada does not have, at this time, any permanent storage facility for radioactive waste, either HLW or LLW.

Since 1978, the Government of Canada has been trying to find a solution to the disposal of HLW through a research and development program, but I think that the people doing this research are taking an awfully long time to find safe and effective solutions.

In May 1995, the Auditor General of Canada tabled an entire chapter on the management of radioactive waste by the federal government. He said that "Natural Resources Canada should work toward establishing an agreement among the major stakeholders on their respective roles and responsibilities and the approaches and plans for implementing solutions".

The federal government has jurisdiction over and regulatory authority for nuclear energy, including radioactive waste. Yesterday, the natural resources committee heard from some very specialized people from Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power. I asked them the following question: "Is there some way, on the international level, of having some sort of regulation?" As we are well aware, there are nuclear plants just about everywhere in the world, and Canada is proud of ours, but some countries that have built plants do not necessarily have the same environmental standards. A rather cavalier neglect of these plants sometimes ensues in certain countries, because environmental protection is not a concern.

Questions would therefore have to be asked, and I would propose that this be the occasion for creating international regulations which would govern all countries.

We also know that Ontario produces the most waste. As at December 31, 1992, the total number of spent fuel bundles was estimated at 900,000. One bundle is about the size of a fire log, and the 900,000 would fit into one and one-half Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Approximately 87 per cent of this fuel came from Ontario Hydro, 6 per cent from NB Power, 4 per cent from Hydro-Quebec, and 3 per cent from Atomic Energy Canada Limited.

By the year 2033, the volume of spent fuel would be the equivalent of 17 Olympic pools-full, or four million bundles. An enormous figure, and a potentially very scary one as well.

Recently, Canada lifted its ban on shipping PCBs to the United States. The purpose of doing so was to have them destroyed in the U.S., not stored. Why then would Canada import radioactive waste for storage? If we woke up tomorrow to find metric tons of radioactive waste lined up at our borders ready for storage, there would be some questions asked. If this waste entered Quebec freely, there would be still more questions. We would not be thrilled in the least. I trust that we do not wish Canada and Quebec to become a giant dump site.

This bill is a very worthwhile one, and I congratulate my colleague for introducing it, thus giving us the opportunity to ask ourselves some very serious questions. Shortly, we shall be making additions to the bill which will increase its value.

[Lobster Fishery, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada just authorized 2,000 members of the community to catch 300 pounds of lobster each. That is 600,000 pounds of lobster in Chaleur Bay. That is a lot of lobster.

How can the minister ensure the conservation of the resource, in concrete terms, in the subarea located between New Richmond and Pointe-à-la-Garde, where the Micmacs are currently fishing?

[Lobster Fishery, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

More than three weeks ago, Restigouche Micmacs started fishing lobster illegally, out of season. On Monday, after tolerating the situation for more than three weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to issue the Micmacs a communal fishing licence they never asked for, aggrieving local fishermen.

In light of the fact that the Micmacs have the clearly stated their intention of developing a commercial lobster fishery and do not recognize the authority of Fisheries and Oceans in that area, how does the minister justify issuing this permit?

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party is citing such individual cases that we might perhaps accept, but then they flood us with stories of this person or that in their questions, they seem to want to go for guilty and the death penalty. I find that despicable.

I think that a bill whose goal is to protect society is very worthwhile. However, I would like to add something. I have worked in secondary schools almost all my life, and when a young person was a delinquent when he came to us, we had to wonder. When a young girl had already been involved in serious misdemeanours before coming to us, we had to wonder. Was it the fault of this 13, 14 or 17 year old, or was it something in their background?

As for myself, I would like to see this bill include something about helping to protect seven, eight, nine and ten year olds in primary school. We must give young people a great deal of help, and if we put out the money needed to protect them, they would not turn up in prison at 18, 20 or 30 years of age, and we would not be having the sort of discussions we are having today about how to keep them in prison, essentially rehabilitate them. It is no easy thing to spend 20 or 25 years in prison. We have to think about that too.

Society must, of course, be protected, and when someone has committed a crime, he must be punished. I would like to put the following question to my colleague. Instead of spending hours talking about how to punish people, should we not be looking harder at prevention?