Paul Mercier

[Canadian International Airlines, December 9th, 1996]

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

The Canadian International issue shows once again the government's inability to make rational decisions in order to solve problems. Indeed, whether it be deregulation or assistance measures for Canadian International, the government is completely lost.

How can the minister say that he set up a committee on the return to regulation in transportation when he has always preached deregulation? Are we to understand that the only solution found by the government was to set up an inefficiency and mismanagement bonus through its selective reduction of taxes applicable in reality only to those who intend to stay non cost-effective?

[Kenworth Plant Workers, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the days to come, workers from the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse, which closed last April, will stop receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

The Quebec government has been negotiating for several months with the owner, PACCAR, to have the plant reopen. As for the federal government, it remains silent on this issue. I am asking the government to review, with diligence and compassion, the plight of these 800 workers, whose future depends, in many cases, on their being retrained. Current negotiations would also be easier if Ottawa showed some openness and specified how Kenworth can pay the back taxes it still owes the federal treasury.

If we include the families of these workers, the fate of 2,000 people is at stake, and, in turn, hundreds of local jobs.

[Jean-Louis Roux, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, from 1940 to 1944, Belgium, where I was living at the time, suffered under the brutality and pillaging of the Germans. When I was 18, I went underground for more than a year to avoid being arrested by the Gestapo, because I had refused to go to work in a company that worked for the enemy.

I then worked as a volunteer in operations conducted in Germany to crush nazism and bring about its fall.

I mention these facts to illustrate my astonishment when I heard yesterday that the lieutenant-governor of Quebec, a man who symbolizes the supreme power in our province, walked around at the time with a swastika on his chest.

I also want to express my indignation when I heard the Deputy Prime Minister give another demonstration of her lack of judgment when she justified this behaviour. Common sense dictated that she should have said she was going to recommend that the Prime Minister relieve him of his duties.

Fortunately, Jean-Louis Roux, who was more aware of the seriousness of his action than the Deputy Prime Minister, has just handed in his resignation.

[Air Transport, October 22nd, 1996]

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

On October 11, the Minister of Transport stated in this House that his government's international air transportation policy is flexible and that the "use it or lose it" principle applied only if another airline wanted the route. Otherwise, things would remain unchanged.

Are we to understand from the minister's comments that he had been pressured by Canadian before he took the Prague route away from Air Canada, which would otherwise have kept it, and reassigned it to Canadian last July?

[The Lower Laurentians Regions, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Laurentians region is facing a dramatic situation after being hit by three major economic setbacks in the past few months.

First, Kenworth went out of business. Quebec is trying to save this company but needs the co-operation of the federal government to do so. Second, all international flights were transferred from Mirabel to Dorval following an ADM decision. Despite being asked to do so by the official opposition, the federal government has not seen fit so far to demand public hearings so people could be heard. Third, a strike recently broke out at GM.

I wish to express my solidarity with the people in my riding who are affected by this triple tragedy. I call on all those concerned at Kenworth, GM and ADM to adopt a conciliatory attitude and show they care about the public interest, as this is the only way to meet this triple challenge and save our region from the threat of economic stagnation.

[Railway Safety, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently cannot see a cause and effect relationship between the appalling condition of Canada's rail system and the record number of accidents.

Will he at least admit that his negligence in the recent closing of some rail carriers' maintenance facilities is partly responsible for the increase in the number of accidents?

[Railway Safety, October 2nd, 1996]

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

This summer, we learned from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that the number of main line derailments in Canada in the first seven months of 1996 was 50 per cent higher than in the same period last year. Since the beginning of the year, there have been 146 accidents, compared to only 97 last year, for an average increase of seven accidents per month.

Does the minister not think that this disturbing rise in the number of rail accidents is due partly to the appalling condition of the rail system itself, especially in Quebec where, according to a 1995 Transport Canada study, the number of problems on Quebec's main rail lines is three to ten times-

[Canada Marine Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I will give a brief description of the bill and then I will outline the Bloc's position.

Bill C-44 implements the federal government's new national marine policy. Three hundred and twenty-four Transport Canada ports are equipped for commercial traffic. Ninety per cent of marine traffic goes through 45 ports. This bill mainly affects three major marine issues, namely ports, pilotage and the seaway.

As far as ports are concerned, 324 of them come under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, which shows the scope of this bill. The bill calls for the creation of Canada port authorities or CPAs, which will be private not for profit organizations operating in accordance with market discipline. The Canada Ports Corporation is being dismantled but the federal government still owns the federal lands on which CPAs are located.

As for the seaway, the government intends to continue to commercialize operations, as the bill allows the federal government to reach an agreement on management and operations with the private sector.

Finally, pilotage authorities will no longer have access to public funds.

Here is our party's position on these provisions. First of all, we must emphasize that we have always supported the port divestment and commercialization policy, as we pointed out in our May 1995 report on Canada's marine strategy. Therefore we support the bill in principle; however, we have four reservations about it.

First, some neglected ports must be rehabilitated. The new managers and owners should not be penalized by the federal government's failure to properly maintain many federally-owned harbours and ports in recent years. They must have access to facilities that are in reasonable shape. In this regard, officials tried to reassure us by saying that $125 million has been set aside for this purpose, but this amount seems woefully inadequate.

Second, during the divestment process, the federal government will have to take into account the differences between the various port facilities. Some profitable ports will sell easily, but other will need more assistance from public officials and the local community. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, want to emphasize this important point and we will be watching the federal government to ensure it takes regional disparities into account.

Third, even though the federal government wants to withdraw financially from the area of shipping, paradoxically, it wants to impose government representation on the boards of directors. This is just one more of many areas in which the federal government has tried to retain full power while withdrawing financially since the Liberals have been back in power. The government is decentralizing its deficit but trying to maintain control over shipping.

Our fourth and last reservation is with the federal government wanting to divest itself within six years of ports that do not meet the requirements to become part of the ports system: traffic diversity, connections with other transport modes, and financial autonomy. At the end of these six years, it will decide what should happen to those ports that did not sell. This deadline may well cause insecurity in many communities, in Canada and Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois is for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. We are also for government support for the building of ships suited for seaway navigation, which we feel is essential to the continued operation of the seaway and to shipyards in Quebec and Canada. Because of the reservations I have just listed, however, the Bloc cannot support Bill C-44 as it stands. Following the consultations scheduled to start on Monday, my party will propose amendments and, depending on how well these amendments are received, will vote accordingly.

To conclude, Bill C-44 clearly shows how miserably the federal marine policy has failed these past twenty years. The federal government just realized, although a bit late, that its involvement over the years has resulted in costly and cumbersome bureaucratization as well as ineffective management. The St. Lawrence Seaway is a good example of this.

More than $7 billion, in 1996 dollars, has been spent by the federal government on the seaway. But the seaway only generates $70 million per year in revenue, a 1 per cent return on the investment. Add to this the fact that shipping has declined by half since 1970. These figures show how effective federal policies are in shipping as in many other areas.

[Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of Bill S-7, as my colleague has just reminded us, is to dissolve the Nipissing Railway Company. The request to dissolve the company came from the City of North Bay, within whose limits it owns land, which is therefore unoccupied and not used, since the railway was never built, as it should have been before 1908, the last extension.

One might wonder whether there are still, in Canada, other such pieces of land which are, or have been, unusable for long stretches of time because the government did not think to free them up.

In my riding, in Blainville, in any event, I know of one case. Camp Bouchard, which covers 20 per cent of the municipality, belonged, until a few years ago, to National Defence. The camp had been equipped during the war with the complete infrastructure of a small city, in order to manufacture munitions. All these facilities, which would have made a wonderful industrial park for the city, were scandalously neglected, to such an extent that in the end they had to be dynamited, before the land could be sold back to Blainville, of which I was the mayor. This is another example of federal incompetence like the one before us today.

We owe a vote of thanks to the senator and the member for Nipissing, without whose initiative the government would undoubtedly have taken even longer to realize that there was no reason to continue to hold land for a railway, when 88 years after the deadline for building it had passed, there was no railway in sight.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore in favour of Bill S-17.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)

[Railway Safety Act, June 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wish to begin by condemning the fact the Liberal government has put this bill on the order paper at the last minute, without any advance notice. Our speeches today should therefore be considered preliminary only and not definitive. Overall, judging by our first cursory overview, we are in favour of the bill, but will certainly have certain reservations and amendments to make at committee.

I wish to address one particular point, the new section 23.1, which I shall read to you:

23.1 (1) No person shall use the whistle on any railway equipment in an area within a municipality if:

(a) the area meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section; and

-this therefore involves the area of a municipality-

(b) the government of the municipality by resolution declares that it agrees that such whistles should not be used in that area and has, before passing the resolution, consulted the railway company that operates the relevant line of railway and has given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.

The reason why I wish to address this particular point is that it deals with a problem that is a very real one in our region; cities such as Sainte-Thérèse, Rosemère or Blainville are bothered at 4 a.m. by a train coming through and waking everyone up.

This clause banning the use of the whistle under certain circumstances must be viewed with favour, in principle, provided safety is not compromised by the absence of an audible warning. Level crossing safety is ensured by the use of the whistle, then the bell and finally a flashing red light. All that would be left is the flashing lights and the bell.

In many countries, level crossings are protected by barriers, but I do not believe that is necessary here, because of their high cost. There is absolute safety with such an arrangement, but it is very costly and we are not calling for that much.

This clause on not using the whistle in an area within a municipality contains two noteworthy points: it is not general, and assumes that the municipality concerned has passed a resolution declaring that it is agrees that whistles not be used. This is a good thing, because obviously it is better that the decision-making power rests with the municipality, the government level that is closer to the population than Ottawa, when the decision is to be made as to whether or not whistles are to be used, for the sake of peace and quiet, while not compromising safety.

It is therefore a good thing that the municipality takes the decision. If it wants whistles not to be used, it passes a resolution. No resolution, no ban. That is reasonable.

Another aspect which strikes me as less reasonable is clause 23.1, which states that no person may use the whistle in an area within a municipality if the area meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section. This assumes that the minister has, under this bill, the power to set regulations and impose them on the municipalities, so that their resolution approving the whistle ban may be enforced. The municipality must therefore comply with certain conditions set by the federal government.

Here we see that, once again, the federal government has not been able to resist the temptation to take advantage of any new legislation to try to interfere with areas of provincial jurisdiction, for municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction. They are creatures of the province and their powers are under trusteeship from the provincial level. Now we find the federal government, once again, trampling over the powers of the municipalities, if I understand this clause properly, stating that they, the federal government, the Minister of Transport, will set out requirements to which municipalities must comply with if their resolutions banning the use of the whistle are to be implemented.

At this point, I believe that this clause must be condemned, for it goes over the heads of the provinces and thumbs its nose at their areas of jurisdiction, one of which is the municipalities. It is, therefore, obvious that we shall have an amendment to propose concerning the second paragraph of section 23.1.

In closing, I wish to stress, as did the first speaker, that we agree withe the bill's principle.

It claims to improve railway safety, and who can fault virtue. Overall, these provisions seem to us to be good ones, but we will have a few reservations to express. These will take the form of amendments. In closing, I reiterate my protest against the cavalier fashion in which the bill was presented to us.

You will recall that today's session started in the same casual way. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also made an impromptu statement and took us unawares. Now we are closing the day on the same note, so it is bracketed at both ends by high-handed actions, and one might well wonder whether the government's plan B has now been brought to bear on the committees.