Paul Crête

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I think it important to put all arguments to the House when a bill is being studied, and the point of this one is to bring legislation on rail transportation up to date.

In order to analyze this bill, I decided to use a specific example, because part of this bill concerns all of us and has a particular effect on certain regions of Quebec and Canada. I am talking about rail transportation and the sale of rail lines to private interests.

The example I would like to use is that of the line between Gaspé and Matapedia, in the Gaspé region of eastern Quebec. For a

number of years the fate of this line was up in the air, because there was some doubt as to its continued maintenance.

Under the old way of doing things, under the present legislation, there must be public hearings. The government, when it wants to close a line, has to go through the transportation agency, hold hearings and get opinions.

Under the new bill, and this is very important for the future of these lines, there is no provision for public hearings where people can come and present reasons why a rail link is important to their community. For example, the year after we were elected, there was a rumour the Gaspé-Matapedia line would be closed. Public hearings were held. Hearings were even organized by community groups and, as the result of representations made, we succeeded in keeping the line running.

Today, under the new legislation, things would read differently: the owner would simply have to announce its intention to divest itself of the line, and the people in the community would have only two weeks for consultations on the merits of buying the line.

We are confronted with a situation where negotiations could easily be conducted behind the scene, which could favour private owners. We have a very real case in point here. The rumour has it, and there have been reports in the press these past few days saying that the Gaspe-Matapedia line may be sold to a company like Irving, which already owns several similar properties.

In the meantime however, the local population does not know how to react, for lack of information on whether or not the line is for sale.

The bill provides that railway companies shall prepare a three year plan concerning the lines they intend to sell, but this provision is of no use in 1996. The companies have not yet been asked to table these plans. Assuming that the bill became law by the end of the current session and that the companies prepared their plans-because they are required only to prepare plans, to have them on file, not to file them-the stakeholders are in no position to prepare their case, to determine if there would be any potential local buyers. Instead, this will encourage the bringing of railway lines under the control of foreign interests or big money.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the line will remain open in the medium term. Let us take a case like that of Irving, a company involved in many areas, such as lumbering, automobile gasoline and rail transportation. At times, its interests may conflict with that of the local population.

The bill, as it stands, does not provide well enough that the local population, those who live in that part of the country will have the opportunity to thoroughly analyze the situation, take their responsibilities, and find out if local interests would offer to buy.

In this case, the example of the Gaspe-Matapedia line could be taken one step further by asking ourselves: providing sufficient notice was given, what would keep the solidarity fund recently established for the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspesian Peninsula from being used to enable a consortium of local interests-this money could be put together with money from other local sources, local interests-to buy the facility and give it a future. Let us stop throwing back into question, year after year, the future of this line.

I notice one disappointing fact and that is the fact that the current federal government does not care the least for regional development. It has really given in to market forces as we see in all the legislation it introduces, of which this is but one example. They say they will let the market forces come into play as much as possible, and under the guise of deregulating, they are tolerating things that do not promote regional development in Quebec and Canada.

I believe it would be in the interest of the Liberal majority, in particular members from the regions, to amend this bill so as to give people in the areas more time to find out about the sale of a rail line, about sale conditions, about the cost and about what kind of development can take place around the line in question.

Other points could be raised. Before, carriers could enter into secret deals to provide services at the lowest possible prices in an effort to stay competitive. They could then remain on the market. However, the law required these agreements to be submitted to the National Transportation Agency. This requirement will be eliminated. Owners of short line railways will no longer have some kind of guarantee that they will have access to major national railways.

In our opinion, this should be corrected to give equal opportunities to owners of short line railways, as there is an increasing number of such railways. We must ensure that these short line railways have a future, that they have the same opportunities as major carriers, so that these people are not sold out.

The other point I wanted to raise is that there is no assurance that there will be a requirement that short line railways be connected to the major networks. I think the bill should be amended to allow for the smooth operation of short line railways. These railways are of local or regional interest and would help develop the whole region.

This bill has another flaw: it says that, in the future, any short line railway can be declared to be in the general interest of Canada. This situation could hurt short line railway owners, since they must co-operate with major railways such as Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, and since that decision would not give these owners the leeway that they would otherwise have if they were regulated only by provincial laws. This would in fact make a lot more sense, considering that almost all short lines are sections of a

railroad in a province. Therefore, they should really be governed by provincial legislation. However, the federal government is giving itself the right to rule that any short line is beneficial to Canada. In so doing, it more or less duplicates the legislation governing owners.

Sure, it is necessary to update the legislation on railroad transportation. However, the bill does not adequately take into account the experience gained over the last 5, 10, 15 or 20 years regarding the abandonment of railway lines.

All these obstacles and difficulties have helped us develop an expertise. In fact, local groups that have developed some expertise in the submission of briefs opposing the abandonment of lines are being somewhat deprived of that expertise, since the bill will no longer allow them to use it in the same fashion. These groups will no longer have adequate information to help local authorities decide what to do when faced with this kind of situation.

I should also point out that clause 99 does not stipulate that the agency must conduct an environmental study before authorizing the construction of a railway line. This seems unusual, given an increasing awareness in Quebec and in Canada regarding the need to assess the environmental impact of any decision of an economic nature.

In short, this is more or less an omnibus bill dealing with several issues. My main concern is with the railway sector. I believe we must use concrete examples, such as the Gaspe-Matapedia line, to show that the bill will become acceptable, if some amendments allow local interests to be well informed about the decisions that will be made by current owners. Furthermore, we must ensure that they have time to draft counterproposals, so that these lines can be taken over as quickly as possible by local interest groups, thus avoiding the situation that we are currently experiencing with the sale of CN.

As we are now finding out, because of insufficient control over the sale of shares, an architectural work of art like the Quebec bridge is now owned in part by American interests. In any discussion about cultural heritage, whether in Quebec or in Canada, it is important to prevent anything of the sort from happening again.

I would urge the government to make sure that the final version of the bill provides for a more transparent process. We all agree on the need for planning and for companies to make plans, saying: "Over the next three years, we intend to get rid of such and such a line", but they should be required to submit their plans to the National Transportation Agency, not just keep them on file. Second, we should have access to this information as quickly as possible so that the public is kept informed.

Time frames of 15 days or 60 days, at present, are inadequate. More time is required, again, to protect local interests.

Let us hope that the approved version of the bill will include these changes and that, if the Gaspé-Matapédia line changes hands, this will be in the best interests of Gaspesians, Quebecers and the people of eastern Quebec and all of eastern Canada, because this is a high quality line. This line, which once provided Gaspesians with their only means of travel in the summertime, has become a major touristic tool. It is therefore important that those who want to ensure its continued development have the opportunity to buy it, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises like seeing the new owner close down the line just a few years from now for reasons that do not necessarily take into account the interests of the region.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that, two and a half years into this government's mandate, this is a start as far as taxation is concerned. Frankly, this a very late start.

The Bloc Quebecois, the other parties, the people of Quebec and Canada have all been asking for taxation reform for a quite some time already. We would have expected the thinking process to be over by now and a real tax reform to be included in this budget, following consultations with parliamentarians, but that has not been done. That is why setting up a technical committee at this stage sounds like not much compared to the real effort that could have been expected.

As for having the committee work done in here, there is no doubt that suggestions can be made in committee but, in terms of efficiency, would it not be better to have a joint committee, where parliamentarians and experts can share and exchange ideas immediately, so that it can lead somewhere?

Instead, a few months will go by before this committee makes any recommendations; in the meantime, conflicting proposals will be made by the parliamentary committee. All this work will have been done for nothing by both committees. I think that a more serious approach that could be taken by the government would be to accept the opposition's proposal and say: "Fine, a joint committee it will be, a great deal of thought will be given to the issue and we will make sure that what comes out of this reflection is promptly brought up for discussion and included in next year's budget choices made by the government." Thus, we would be certain to act on this tax reform request that has been on the table for the longest time, a request made by the people and which reflects very unfairly on the federal government.

Everywhere, the public keeps hearing: "Is everyone really doing his share at present?" A technical committee like this one will not make it possible for the public to determine if indeed everyone is made to do his share, whether everybody helps promote job creation. At present, do companies take into account, when making decisions, the impact their decisions will have on employment? Creating this kind of committee does not resolve any of these things, and I hope that the government will take note of this fact.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to speak to the opposition motion condemning the establishment of a technical committee by the Minister of Finance to examine business taxation. We are deploring the fact that this committee is comprised of members who are both judge and judged with regard to business tax reform, and we feel that the minister should set up a joint committee of experts and parliamentarians instead.

Why put such a motion forward? We are obviously not against tax reform. The Bloc Quebecois has been advocating reform for a long time and we think it is essential, especially since it is being requested from all parts. In our ridings, people ask us: "Are businesses paying their share of taxes at present? Could adjustments not be made to increase their efficiency as far as job creation is concerned?" The problem with the government's action in this regard is that it is putting the cart before the horse. Taxation is a tool, not a goal in itself. In my opinion, any tax measure should reflect political will. It is not simply a juggling game.

Let me give you an example: the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. This is an interesting example in that it has a positive impact on productivity. But at the same time, as it is being implemented and becoming operational, it is becoming obvious that it can also have negative impacts in terms of a decline in employment for unskilled workers.

Choices need to be made that are not technical but rather political in nature, and I think that, by having only legal, accounting and tax experts sit on this committee, the minister is limiting the scope of the debate, thereby denying the people of Quebec and Canada the real debate they may have wanted to have on this issue.

Political consideration should be given to this beforehand and, to do this, I think that two other groups of people should be represented on this committee. I am referring to parliamentarians, individuals who can rightly claim to represent the people, who can convey to the committee suggestions made by citizens from all walks of life.

Someone in my riding came up with this idea: Would it not be possible to tax robots-advanced technology if you will-in such way that productivity gains thus achieved could benefit the workers who may have been displaced when advanced technology was introduced? Parliamentarians are the ones who can raise such arguments. It is certainly not tax experts who know about fiscal issues, who have past experience, who are often there to defend the way things were done, and who are often responsible for the complexity of the current system. Above all, people want transparency in the tax reform process.

Even if we end up with the best tax system in the world, we will have missed the boat if people do not feel that it is a fair system. To some extent, this is what will happen with the committee that is being set up by the minister. Even with the best possible recommendations, the minister will have a hard time preserving his credibility since no parliamentarians and no experts from other fields will sit on that committee.

Indeed, when reviewing a tax related issue, why not also have experts from the employment sector? These people could offer a different perspective than that provided by tax experts and accountants. As well, we could have legal experts whose experience is totally different. In Quebec, such an exercise is currently taking place in the social assistance sector. This process allows us to get different ideas, different visions on how to deal with the issues.

The federal government's way of doing things is certainly very different from that of the Quebec government. In Quebec, all the stakeholders in the social and economic sectors are sitting together to decide what should be done. Technical committees could eventually be set up following that round table, and that would be a good thing. But the federal government has it all backwards: it creates a technical committee first, and then it will set up a consultation process. This does not seem appropriate, given the mandate that the committee gave itself.

Let us not forget that this committee is there to examine how the tax system could help promote job creation and economic growth, and how the system could be made simpler and more equitable. Should the committee be made up of tax experts who helped develop the current system? Are these people the ones most able to look at the issues from the perspective of ordinary citizens? I feel we could use their expertise, but after the first stage, we ought to consult to find out what people really have in mind in connection with these various elements.

I also think that this technical stage ought to follow on a political debate on what the government's priorities are. What its objectives are with respect to the employment of workers, or in other words, what levels of unemployment the government would be prepared to set as a target to be attained in order to decrease unemployment and make better use of human resources. Is the government prepared to make choices on criteria for assessing the efficacy of its government, or of Canadian society, that are based on something other than gross domestic product or export figures? Is the government prepared to say that one of the criteria it will assess its efficiency against is the use made of the work force?

Is there a vision of development which goes beyond mere market forces to ensure that people and places are being properly utilized? There is a direct link between this and taxation.

If we want to see Canada develop, to see each region develop independently, there must be taxation measures relating to this. There must be political choices behind it. A technical committee is not the way to go to meet that objective. In fact, it will tend to duplicate what has been done before.

In conclusion, having taken the step of finding what Quebecers and Canadians want through political debate, we can then make a technical examination of how to arrange things so as to do away with the famous problem of tax havens. Might there not be a way to revise taxation agreements to accomplish this? As far as trusts and foreign assets are concerned, could not the underlying principle be adopted, promptly, that the income of Canadian citizens earned anywhere in the world would be the figure considered for taxation purposes, in order to be sure that taxes are paid on all earnings?

As for tax expenditure accounts, for example investment credits, the $500,000 capital gains exemption, the preferential rate for small business, deferred taxes, all of these must be looked at from the employment aspect. That is what the young people of Quebec

have told us, pointing out that the entire taxation issue must be looked at to ensure that it guarantees their future.

This requires us to go beyond the confines of the technical committee. There must be a political debate. I feel that the government needs to reverse its present position and to ensure that those on the committee will be joined by parliamentarians, by other experts, so that the task can get finished as expeditiously as possible, and so that a subsequent budget may really contain tax measures with more bite than this last insipid budget did.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I were an employer, I would be tempted to take advantage of this opportunity, especially now when competitiveness is so important; and I am afraid that money will prevail over people.

Every government tackling youth unemployment is recommending banning overtime. Does the minister realize that his so-called reform is contrary to any youth job creation policy and is actually a counter-reform?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

His planned unemployment insurance reform will bring the maximum yearly pensionable earnings down from $42,389 to $39,000 in five years.

Since employers will no longer contribute to unemployment insurance once this new ceiling is reached, does the minister realize that this measure will encourage businesses to ask their workers to do more overtime?

[Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week is the Semaine nationale de la francophonie and I would like to point out the initiative undertaken by an international development organization whose headquarters are located in my riding.

For the last three years, the Institut de développement Nord-Sud has supported a twinning between two French-speaking intermunicipal entities. The Municipalité régionale de Kamouraska is twinned with the Communauté urbaine de Meknès, in Morocco.

This initiative was the first one in Canada to twin two regions. It encourages cultural exchanges, entails economic spin-offs and

stresses the will of Kamouraska, the birthplace of the French fact in North America, to open itself to the world.

Beyond borders and oceans, French areas are getting together, discussing and acting in French to ensure the mutual well-being of their inhabitants, while respecting and developing their common culture.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that, since new entrants will now have to work 910 hours instead of 300 to be eligible for UI benefits, these young people will be forced to turn to social assistance.

Will the minister recognize that, in addition to being a terrible measure for the unemployed, this is a roundabout way of making the provinces pay part of the costs of the UI reform?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In response to a question from the official opposition, the minister recognized and confirmed that several amendments to the UI program will result in greater numbers on the welfare rolls, since thousands of newly unemployed workers will no longer be eligible for UI benefits.

Does the minister not find it scandalous that people who lose their jobs are forced to turn to a form of assistance of last resort,

instead of receiving UI benefits to which they have contributed and to which they are entitled?

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that your comment does not necessarily apply to me, and I will continue to speak in the most appropriate way possible.

Moreover, we are setting a precedent here, a highly inappropriate one. Once you cry wolf, the next time you cry wolf, the rule may no longer apply, even if the situation warrants it. In view of the significance of the Standing Order referred to, we recognize that the charge is serious, but that the crown's case is terribly weak. Besides, Reform's argument did not deal with that, or only very little. They discussed all kinds of other things connected with how they perceive Quebec, but they do not have a real case here.

Therefore, it is important, I think, that we get out of this debate, that is once all speakers have been heard, that we come back to issues of real concern to Quebecers and Canadians, so that people feel that we are really doing our jobs as politicians. Moreover, this will give us a chance to increase the level of trust in politicians. You can be sure that it is not a proposition like the Reform Party's motion that will increase Canadians' level of trust in their politicians, which now stands at 4 per cent. We have to demonstrate how responsible we are.

As you know, Tuesday was supposed to be an allotted day on unemployment insurance reform. I was looking forward to it. No matter what we decide on this subject, at least we were talking about something everybody was aware of, about which everybody is talking to us on the street in our towns. It is a constant concern for them.

Is anyone in Canada, apart from the Reform Party, concerned about attempted sedition by a member of Parliament? I have not heard of anybody who has. Nobody had that impression. Nobody warned of a possible uprising. It existed only in the minds of certain people, and I believe it is high time we called an end to this debate.

It is also important to realize that we are dealing with age-old behaviours, also described in a book called Portrait du colonisé , whereby the colonizer often attempts to make the colonized peoples feel guilty, to penalize them.

This is what happened in Africa during colonial times; Africans were told it was their fault if development was not working, it was up to them to find out was why it was not working. That was how people behaved then.

A Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, once said that he was not sure whether Quebecers would be able to take on their responsibilities as a democracy because they needed a big brother, another government, another Parliament to guarantee their future well-being. Those are old tricks and one of them is being used here. The motion comes from an opposition party ,but is also supported by the government when it says that it only wants to amend it and wishes it to be referred to a committee.

We must not forget that in the end what is in question is the reputation of a member of Parliament, someone who did his job in full cognizance, in good faith, and with the intent to inform his fellow citizens of the facts. Each member must realize that. Let us try to see if there is something in what he said to inform the people, to convince them of an idea, that could have been maliciously twisted around and presented as an illegal and unacceptable act.

If the House adopts this motion in its present form, if it adopts the amendment of the Liberals and the motion of the Reform Party, it will not have shown sufficient respect for the member concerned, because the seriousness of the situation is such that no one should be submitted to this type of accusation unless it is clearly the case, unless the facts warrant it. For now, no one has convinced us in any way that there is a case.

To conclude, I would say that this whole situation resulted from a certain feeling of uneasiness, because many people in Canada realize that Quebec is on its way, and they are trying to find a way to stop it. It is somewhat comparable to the case of a teenager who becomes an adult. He wants to leave home and be independent but his parents are a little worried. At first they try to control his or her behaviour with arguments, then with threats such as "we will no longer help you", etc.

Now, Canada realizes that Quebec is determined to achieve its sovereignty and that it is going to do so over the next few years. Therefore, we now have the aggressive reaction which aims at penalizing. We always come back to the old notion of the colonized and the colonizer: to penalize is another trick, but it will not work, because the people of Quebec have reached a level of political maturity which is beyond that. We are above such things.

At the present time, Quebec is working hard on a reconciliation between anglophones, francophones and allophones, to make sure that the plan that could not be brought to fruition the last time will get a sufficient majority the next time. It will take two, three or four years more, but we will have the bases to do so. We will have convinced people with real arguments, which is what we really want.

In my opinion, if hon. members really want to do their part as supporters of Canadian federalism, they should avoid measures like this one, which will have an opposite result in Quebec. Let them show us that Canada can develop. Let them show us that there could be another way to proceed in Canada. Let them show us that Quebecers could control their development and be recognized as a people, and then the hon. members who support Canadian federalism will really have made their point, and might convince Quebecers that they have the best answer. That would be so much more convincing than negative measures like this motion.

So, even if this motion will not determine Quebec's future, it will still be another argument Quebecers will be able to invoke. Let us not forget conscription.

Let us remember the night of the long knives in 1982. We can add this to the list. If the House condemns one of its members who acted in good faith, we will add that to Canada's liabilities. It will be one more reason for Quebecers to choose to be sovereign, to come to terms with themselves as a nation. They will choose to have a democratic state where actions such as the tabling of this motion, as we have seen in this House, will not exist.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

I said bland.