Paul Mercier

[Hazardous Waste, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today the minister is avoiding direct answers with surprising regularity. I shall, however, try a supplementary.

Does the minister understand that she ought to ensure that her departmental employees apply existing regulations properly, rather than seek to set national standards and to continually meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Hazardous Waste, November 3rd, 1995]

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

Recently, the Globe and Mail revealed that some people have managed to find a way to follow the advice of the Minister of the Environment, who wished to see Canada transform its environmental challenges into economic opportunities. Despite its regulations, Canada is in fact exporting hazardous waste to the third world.

Does the minister confirm her departmental employees' complaints of being so short of resources that they cannot assume their responsibilities and apply the regulations on hazardous waste exports properly?

[Democracy, October 31st, 1995]

My congratulations also to all of the men and women of Quebec who took part in yesterday's referendum. The issue presented to them was the choice of a country.

On both sides of the issue, our fellow Quebecers in all regions behaved with dignity and honesty, respecting others' opinions, and maintaining complete calm.

There is no doubt about it, the federal government and its crown corporations, the major Canadian carriers and the telephone companies in the anglophone provinces made major illegal contributions to the no side, illegally.

But the profoundly democratic character of the Quebec referendum process belongs to us all, to all Quebecers, and we should all be proud of this. No one can take away that pride. Building serenely upon that foundation we shall continue the struggle of the Quebec people toward sovereignty.

[Canadian National Railways, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister prefers this huge order from Ontario to be made by a crown corporation. How can the minister allow CN to add $300 million to its debt load by purchasing new locomotives at our expense when he has just injected close to one billion dollars of Canadians' tax money to reduce that same debt and to make CN more attractive to investors?

[Canadian National Railways, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. While the federal government has cut CN's debt by $900 million in order to make it more attractive to investors, CN has signed a $300 million contract with GM to purchase new Ontario-built locomotives.

How can the minister justify the decision to renew CN's locomotive fleet at the taxpayers' expense, when this ought to have been left for the new shareholders to pay for after privatization?

[Automotive Industry, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of Industry has made a complete list of pressure tactics Ottawa could use to persuade the automotive industry to campaign for the No side.

To convince Hyundai, it is hinted that the government might want to recover the federal contribution for the construction of the plant in Bromont. To convince GM, there would be a reference to the $110 million loan approved by Ottawa for the Boisbriand plant. To convince other parties, there would be references to federal programs to help industry and facilitate access to the U.S. market.

It seems that the people they are counting on to do the job include Yves Landry of Chrysler Corporation, identified as the spokesperson for the automotive industry, and Maureen Darkes, the Canadian President of General Motors who is responsible for the Boisbriand plant. Leaders of the automotive industry should not give in to this federal blackmail.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the same goes for Bill C-101, which revises the National Transportation Act, especially with regard to rail transport. It is this issue that I will address.

The intention announced by the government in this bill is a good one. In a nutshell, its purpose is to modernize, streamline and deregulate. No one can criticize this, as no one is against virtue. Unfortunately, as is its habit, the government could not resist its usual temptation, which is to encroach on provincial jurisdiction, with an added bonus in that this bill significantly increases its opportunities to engage in patronage.

Plain common sense and efficiency concerns should have led lawmakers to split the rail network clearly and willingly without exception between national railways under federal jurisdiction and intraprovincial railways under provincial jurisdiction. But this would have been too simple, too logical. And how could they resist grabbing a few more powers that should normally come under provincial jurisdiction? That is just unthinkable.

Under this bill, intraprovincial and other short line railways in which national railways have an interest will come under federal jurisdiction. In addition, Ottawa will still have the right to place any short line railway under federal jurisdiction.

Therefore, depending on where their capital comes from and on Ottawa's wishes, intraprovincial short lines will come under two different jurisdictions. How logical can you get?

Clauses 140 through 146 dealing with the abandonment and sale of railway lines could, in return for some improvements, facilitate the establishment of more short line railways, which should revive our dying rail network. From now on-and this is great-, rail companies will have to prepare three year plans specifying which lines they intend to continue operating, which they intend to sell, and which they wish to abandon. When this provision will be fully in effect, short line railway companies will be able to determine which lines they are interested in and to plan accordingly. It seems, however, unrealistic to hope that these plans will be of any use for 1996.

Another thing: some of the deadlines set for potential buyers to make up their minds are surprisingly short. If no private buyer is interested, the company must offer the railway line to the governments. Do you know how many days public authorities will have to make a decision? Exactly fifteen days. This is totally unrealistic.

Finally, it means no more public hearings, where people could explain why a specific line should be kept in service for the benefit of the public, and should therefore be bought by a government, when there is no interested private buyer, given the market conditions. Indeed, how will public authorities have the time to hold hearings and consult the public before making a decision, if they only have 15 days, not to mention the fact that people will also not have time to prepare submissions?

Obviously, the federal government could not care less about the development of those regions which could be affected by the foreseeable reduction in railway services.

I said at the beginning that Bill C-101 provides interesting opportunities for lobbyists and those who rely on patronage. The National Transportation Agency, which will now be called the Canadian Transportation Agency, currently includes nine permanent members and must provide national representation. Under Bill C-101, the agency will only consist of three members and will not have to ensure national representation. The reduction in the number of members will obviously make it easier to lobby and to exert political pressure. I am not making accusations, I am just stating the obvious.

Let me summarize my position. I criticize Bill C-101 for a number of reasons. One is the fact that intraprovincial short line railways are not clearly and unhesitatingly left under provincial jurisdiction. There is also the lack of provisions to truly promote the establishment of regional railways and thus help put the rail transport industry back on track. Another flaw is the fact that, for all intents and purposes, public hearings are excluded, since the unrealistic short time frame given to public authorities to decide whether or not to buy does not allow them to hold such hearings. Finally, there is the composition of the new Canadian Transportation Agency.

These are the four aspects which we will try to improve on through our amendments in committee.

In conclusion, the time had certainly come to streamline the railway legislation and to reduce the responsibilities of the agency. However, the priority given to unstated political motives, over the rational objectives stated, once again results in the government partly missing the target. My colleague, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, and myself will propose, in

committee, amendments designed to put this exceedingly political legislation back on track.

I am most willing, however, to admit that I should be thanking the Minister of Transport instead of criticizing him. Thanking him, yes, for providing new evidence that under the federal system Quebec has no hope whatsoever of one day seeing an end to the subordination of the logic of public interest to political interests. This will be possible only in a sovereign Quebec.

[Old Age Pensions, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, "You have your pensions and you will keep them". That comment was made yesterday to a group of seniors by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Should these people rest assured following that statement? No, Mr. Speaker, because the minister did not dare tell them the whole truth concerning old age pensions. The minister did not mention that the last budget contains this statement, and I

quote: "Later this year, a paper on the changes required in the public pension system will be released".

Who can deny that the government intends to bring in changes? Moreover, the minister refused to tell these seniors whether the amount of old age pensions and the eligibility levels would be maintained. Misinformation and manipulation, this is what the minister's statement is all about. Seniors want to know the truth. They want to know before the referendum what Ottawa has in store for them.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of the CN Commercialization Act, and, in particular, we appreciate the fact that provisions in it guarantee the bilingualism of the institution and the maintenance of its head office in Montreal. There are, however, six points on which we oppose the bill, and I will first list them for you, before I go on to examine them in detail point by point.

The six points are as follows. The first is the excessive power the bill gives the minister to use public funds to pay off part of

CN's debts and to give CN consideration for any assets outside the railway system the minister wishes to transfer.

Second, we do not agree with the fact that the bill does not protect the interests of CN workers once the company passes into private hands.

In the same vein, we disapprove of the fact that the bill makes no provision for the retirement fund of CN workers. We also cannot accept the lack of provisions preventing foreign takeover of the company.

Fifth, we object to the fact that, through clause 16, the SLRs, because of their connection with CN, could, in the future, come under federal jurisdiction, whereas they are generally under provincial jurisdiction.

Furthermore, we do not agree with the fact that there is no guarantee CN's successors will carry out their obligations to repair the Pont de Québec, which is an historical work and of economic interest. There is, moreover, no guarantee that CN's successors will do it any better than CN has done it itself since its acquisition by the federal government.

Here, then are the six points one after another. First, the bill accords the minister excessive power to use public funds in order to pay off part of CN's debts in order to make the company a more attractive buy and in order to give CN consideration for portions of assets the minister would like transferred.

We find these powers truly outrageous. They are to be found under clauses 6 and 12. I will not quote the whole clause, but only parts of it: "The Minister may, at any time, while CN is a Crown corporation, direct CN to transfer property, on such terms and conditions, including consideration, if any, as the Minister considers appropriate"-he is the one in charge-"and CN shall forthwith comply with the direction".

I will now read a short quote from clause 12, which goes along the same lines: "The Minister, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, may enter into an agreement or other arrangement with CN or any other person respecting the acquisition, holding, service, disposal or discharge of or other dealing with any debt or obligation incurred by CN", this is somewhat excessive, "and pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or from the proceeds of any sale of shares, amounts in respect of any agreement or arrangement referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)".

We were and are still very much opposed to these provisions, but our proposed amendments were defeated. Motion No. 8, which I drafted myself, was in opposition to them. It said that no such agreement regarding the disposal of debt or the transfer of property may be entered into unless the following conditions were met, and here are a few of the most important ones: not until the minister has laid before the House of Commons a proposal that the agreement be entered into, and the House has concurred in the committee report. This was aimed at giving the House, rather than the minister, the authority to approve this kind of transaction.

We also proposed that the transfer of assets be conditional on either the approval of the House or the favourable opinion of the auditor general to transfer to the minister assets with a value exceeding one million dollars, or to transfer to a third party assets with a value exceeding ten million dollars. These amendments were voted down. Therefore, the minister retains this outrageous power to use public funds as if they were his own.

The second point we take issue with is that there is no provision protecting the interests of workers in those corporations that would be purchased by the minister, or transferred to the minister to be sold later on. In the case of companies that have formed an organic bond with CN and receive orders from it in some cases, if that bond is severed, we will have to make sure they remain viable and the jobs are protected. Nothing of this sort is mentioned in the bill.

We do not want to presume the worst about buyers' intentions, but someone could buy a company just to close it in order to eliminate a competitor and then the jobs would be lost. To prevent this, my colleague, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans presented the following motion which was defeated. Briefly it said that the minister could not sell any subsidiary or part of the operations of CN, unless CN and the purchaser had given the minister written undertakings, in terms satisfactory to the minister, that all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure that it would continue for a reasonable period as a viable operation and that the interests of the employees affected by the sale would, so far as is practicable, be maintained after the sale. That motion was defeated, therefore the workers have no protection whatsoever.

Third, on a similar issue, we see nothing here that would protect the CN employees' pension fund and on that point my colleague, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, also presented Motion No. 11 which naturally was also defeated. It said that the pension plan for employees of CN known as the CN Pension Plan shall continue to exist and be funded and be administered by the CN Pension Board in accordance with the rules in existence immediately prior to the coming into force of this act. This amendment to protect the pension fund was defeated.

Fourth, we object to the fact that there are no provisions which will really prevent foreign interests from acquiring the majority of shares and therefore the control of CN. To support what I was saying, I am referring to clause 8 of the bill, from which I will quote.

"8.(1)The articles of continuance of CN shall contain a )provisions imposing constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership, [-]to prevent any one person, together with the associates of that person, from holding, beneficially owning or controlling [-]more than fifteen per cent of the votes-''

This provision is excellent, in principle, except that in the laudable intention of not reducing unduly the number of potential buyers in a market which is already rather limited, there is a provision that allows various persons, individuals or corporations, belonging to a group, to take less than 15 per cent each, even if the total for the group is over 15 per cent, provided that they submit a statutory declaration saying that they will not act in concert with respect to their interest in CN.

This is a good provision and we agree with it as far as Canadians are concerned. However, we disapprove of its application to foreign interests, because we are not convinced that CN directors will be able to make sure that foreign persons will abide by their declaration. We proposed, in an amendment, that this provision be restricted to Canadians. Of course our amendment was defeated.

Fifth, clause 16 which I will quote provides, intentionally I imagine, that a local railway created with a financial contribution from a CN buyer would come under federal jurisdiction, even though the others are under provincial jurisdiction. Here is what clause 16 says:

"The railway and other transportation works in Canada of CN, of every subsidiary of CN and of every corporation formed by any consolidation or amalgamation of any two or more of those corporations are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada."

We do not accept the principle of federal jurisdiction over a local railway created in partnership with CN. Against that we proposed Motion No. 15 from which I will quote. This provision concerning federal control does not apply to:

(a) any activity of CN within a province that operates under an agreement that subjects the activity to the jurisdiction of that province, or

(b) any work, subsidiary or corporation owned by CN that is situated or operates only within one province.

So, this provision putting short line railways under federal control could only apply to short line railways operating in more than one province. This amendment was rejected, just like the others.

The last provision concerns the Pont de Quebec, in Quebec City. You know that when it was first built, this bridge was considered the eighth wonder of the world and that it has not only an economic value, but it is also very interesting in terms of heritage. It seems to me that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works should show some concern. I saw photos of the bridge in its present condition. In fact, it does not put people at risk, but it is really regrettable to let an asset such as this one fall apart.

The federal government, which was the owner, was responsible for it, and then it transferred it to CN which should have taken all the necessary measures to repair this bridge as quickly as possible. It did not do so.

We would have liked the bill to stipulate explicitly that the buyer of the part of the assets of CN including this bridge would have the obligation to repair it urgently within a specified time frame. This is the purpose of motion No. 14 which says:

That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 8, the following new Clause:

"15.1 The Minister shall, no later than January 1, 1996, conclude an agreement with CN providing for CN to repair, renovate and maintain the Pont de Quebec in Quebec City and to commence work under the agreement no later than May 1, 1996".

It will come as no surprise that this amendment was rejected. So they were all rejected, and we are left with legislation that allows the minister to use federal funds as he likes, to have assets transferred to him or to pay debts incurred by the CN.

The legislation does not protect the workers. It does not protect the CN pension plan. It does not give any real and verifiable protection against external control. It does not protect the future short line railways from an eventual take over by the federal government if ever there were joint ownership with the CN. The legislation does not give any guarantee at all respecting the Pont de Québec. It is an antisocial measure that totally disregards the rights of this House; it is insensitive to the fate of this historical bridge and would make short line railways come under two jurisdictions, some being under provincial jurisdiction and others, under federal jurisdiction.

In spite of what I mentioned earlier, in spite of the fact that it does guarantee bilingualism and keeps corporate headquarters in Montreal, we find that it is a bad bill and we will vote against it enthusiastically.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will deal with Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle underlying Bill C-89 which provides for the transfer of the CN railway system to private interests, and the purchase of the company's remaining assets to dispose of them at a later date.

However, we vigorously oppose the outrageous powers the Minister of Transport wants to assume, under this bill, to carry out these operations. The amendments I am defending here are aimed instead at giving these powers to the House of Commons or the auditor general.

First, under clause 12, the Minister of Transport is assuming nothing less than the power to pay off the CN debts, not only from the proceeds of the sale of shares, but also out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This operation aimed at making the product more attractive to buyers actually amounts to giving taxpayers' money to buyers, potentially foreigners.

This is untenable. It is strange, to use parliamentary language, that a government could be cynical enough to suggest to the people's representatives giving a minister the power to carry out such an operation.

My amendment is aimed at seeking the approval of the House for any agreement with CN by having the minister lay the proposed agreement before the House which will then refer it to a committee of its choice. It seems to me that it would be totally irresponsible for the government to reject this amendment and accept clause 12 as it is.

Secondly, the transport minister's obsession with power is not limited to asking the House to pay CN's debts with the taxpayers' money. Under clause 6, he goes ahead and gives himself the power to have any CN asset which he would like transferred to him or to a third party in exchange for a consideration in an amount he will determine himself.

In opposition to this outrageous requirement, we offer motions 9 or 10, at the discretion of the House. In Motion No. 9, we propose that no transaction be made by the Minister which would transfer to him a CN asset worth one million dollars or more, or transfer to a third party a CN asset worth ten million or more, before fifty percent of the CN shares are sold and unless the minister tables the plan for such an operation in the House and the House approves of such a plan, upon favourable recommendation from the committee designated by the House.

In Motion No. 10, since I said the House could pick No. 9 or No. 10 at its discretion, we propose instead that the House approval be replaced by the obligation, for the minister, to refer the project to the auditor general, who must report within 15 days. His opinion must be favourable in order for the transaction to be made. Again, it seems unthinkable that members would not accept one or the other of these guarantees.

Finally, the amendments I propose are aimed at preventing the Minister of Transport from acting as if CN were his own personal property and disposing of it the way he wants, buying the company's assets or paying its debts with our money. CN is a public asset, an asset that belongs to the people. We cannot, as the people's representatives, abdicate our responsibilities by conferring to a minister the power to dispose of it as he pleases.