Paul Crête

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I already had a few opportunities to speak about the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

With regard to the amendments put forward by the Reform Party, I should explain to the people listening to us that this is not a complex technical matter. The Reform Party is simply asking us to make ridings larger and give greater importance to urban communities and less importance to the other criteria, including territorial settlement, thus affecting our whole vision of Canada's development.

Through seemingly very technical criteria, the amendments put forward by the Reform Party would lead to a very clear choice, namely ensuring that future development is based only on natural population migrations without considering that any region may experience a temporary decline in population and take steps to revitalize the community. The amendments proposed by the Reform Party would only speed up the community's decline and reduce its political representation. It is obvious at this point, I think, that we must make sure this amendment is rejected.

The second amendment, which is aimed at eliminating the possibility of deviating by more than 25 per cent, further increases the imbalance with constitutionally protected ridings. For instance, in Prince Edward Island and a number of other places, certain ridings are protected, and preventing any variance above 25 per cent will only increase the discrepancy between levels of representation.

What kind of an advantage is a riding under constitutional protection given over other ridings in terms of representation? Because this argument of representation is coming up and I think that the rural communities of Western Canada must be surprised indeed at the position the Reform Party is taking today, a position which would make ridings already covering

huge areas extend even further. I find it very odd indeed that the Reform Party should take such a stand.

It also seems to me that, beyond the mathematics of representation, the idea is to ensure that representation is fair and accurate. Fairness is not just a matter of arithmetic. Otherwise, this whole thing could be resolved with a calculator and we would save a great deal of money. But when one riding covers, say, six blocks in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver while another one encompasses 55 or 60 municipalities, should we not take into account other criteria to ensure that rural and urban ridings are equally represented in this Parliament?

I do not think that anyone here will deny that these circumstances affect how we carry out our duties and that we need different ways to reach out constituents, one being to reduce the number of constituents in all ridings. It was just established that the act already provides sufficient variances to ensure this kind of representation in the future.

We were asked earlier how we, from the Bloc Quebecois, could not share the triple E Senate vision of the Reform Party. It is because a triple E Senate would exacerbate the problem. In a triple E Senate, all provinces would have the same number of representatives. I have nothing against the people of Prince Edward Island, but let us compare the size and population of this province to Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia.

Quite obviously, this is not an adequate solution. In any case, Quebecers had at least 15 other reasons to reject the Charlottetown Accord and this is certainly not the only one which led them to reject that deal. The accord, which was bad for all of Canada, had been cooked up by negotiators behind close doors. Afterwards, we realized that the people they claimed to represent had no intention of agreeing on such a deal, and they massively rejected it, which was a good thing for Quebec and Canada.

As regards the second amendment proposed by the Reform Party, it is important to look at its impact, for example, on the Magdalen Islands, in Quebec.

The Magdalen Islands are a very distinct region of Quebec. My Bloc colleague mentioned that his riding is too large, but there are other specific realities which have already been acknowledged by the federal government, such as being islanders. The distinct riding is gone. However, these constituents can benefit from what I would call a greater open-mindedness, a wider vision in terms of Quebec's development.

In the Quebec Election Act, the Magdalen Islands are deemed to be an exception to the rule of 25 per cent. In fact, they are currently the only exception in the Quebec legislation. Everyone is pleased because we provide specific representation to people who have very specific and distinct problems, as can be seen right now with the fishing debate.

We should ask the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell us about his experience as the member representing the Magdalen Islands, as well Bonaventure. How can he ensure adequate representation for both regions? This is almost impossible.

The member finds himself dealing with chambers of commerce which are unhappy because their interests are not properly looked after. It is not necessarily a matter of individual qualifications but probably far more a question of being able to represent all one's constituents. How can he do his job as a member in Ottawa, as well as representing Bonaventure and a district 500 kilometres away, surrounded by the sea?

I think that if the Government of Canada wanted to show that it understands the particular needs of regional development and especially this region, it would accept the proposal presented by the Bloc. At the very least we must defeat the amendments proposed by the Reform Party which would preclude any flexibility in this respect. I think we have to send a message to that effect.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a question I was asked in committee, a question I felt was particularly insulting to the people in my area. The hon. member from Kindersley-Lloydminster asked me whether it was to protect the electoral districts consisting of 100 per cent, "pure laine", French Canadians, as he put it, that I was telling them to protect the five counties in Eastern Quebec.

At this point, I had to give him a history lesson, because he was unaware of the fact that in addition to francophone communities there were also anglophone communities that were established long ago, at the time the Loyalists left the United States to settle in the Gaspé.

There are also aboriginal communities in these ridings which would like proper representation. So our intervention was not to protect the French Canadians in this area but to ensure that all citizens enjoy adequate representation.

I think this is symptomatic of the contempt in which the Reform Party holds members of this House and the role they have to play. I do not think anyone in this House makes representations to ensure he will be re-elected. In any case, changes are so unpredictable.

If during the last election, the Conservatives had done everything they could to protect themselves, instead of two members they might have had four or five, but basically, the result would have been the same. I do not think members make proposals to protect their ridings but to ensure that citizens are satisfactorily represented.

So, I believe it is important that all groups in our society, all individuals, but also the type of communities that they form--

Native, English, French and other communities in Canada-have an adequate representation, and it is certainly not by applying the two amendments moved by the Reform Party that we will achieve this result.

So, it is important to reject these two amendments in order to ensure that the federal distribution map, if it needs to be used again in the future-I personally hope that we will never need it again-because, if there is a conclusion that we come to beyond the issue of the distribution map, it is the fact that double representation, with federal and provincial members of Parliament, is confusing to people. They do not know who is responsible for what any more. It would be very important to change this situation.

If I were a federalist, I would say: "Let us clarify in the Constitution the roles of everyone so that we do not trip over the same responsibilities". But as a sovereignist, and because of my own experience over the past 30 years, I believe that the solution is obviously for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.

But, in order to respect Quebecers' right to representation, and also because we were elected not only to promote the cause of sovereignty, but to defend Quebec's interests, I think it is important that we pass legislation that will allow for the best possible representation of all voters in Canada-in my particular case, those of Quebec-and therefore I hope that these amendments will be rejected so that we can ensure proper representation for all the people who deserve it, for all citizens of Quebec and Canada.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens of Trois-Pistoles who consider that voice mail technology must be rejected, and who call upon Parliament to ask the government to

abandon its projected use of voice mail with senior citizens, since they do not feel they get adequate service especially when dealing with income security matters.

[La Relance Job Search Project, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the minister's answer that, from now on, he intends to support all groups pursuing the same objectives, whether they deal with people on unemployment insurance or with people who do not receive unemployment insurance benefits?

[La Relance Job Search Project, March 27th, 1995]

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

The federal government has just granted a subsidy to the job search project La Relance in order to help young people with no income find a job. Until now, the Department of Human Resources Development had funded only the program for young unemployed workers.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain his department's decision to give financial assistance to La Relance when it withdrew funding from Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi because that centre dealt with young welfare recipients?

[War Measures Act, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to discuss this motion asking the federal government to make an apology to those who, let us not forget, were the victims of arbitrary arrest and unjustified detention. No charges were ever laid against these people. The government ordered that these people be arrested and long searches were conducted to see if there were any grounds to lay charges. No charges were laid because no such grounds existed. People were arrested based on claims, without any regard for the habeas corpus procedure.

Let me tell you an anecdote. In 1970, I was a student at the Saint-Augustin seminary, in Cap-Rouge. I was a member of the Parti Quebecois, and so was my roommate. The evening that Mr. Laporte died, my roommate tore up his PQ membership card. I kept mine, and we debated an issue which is still topical today, namely that the federal government of the time used the reprehensible actions of the FLQ to kill the sovereignist movement. The real aim of the operation was to kill the sovereignist movement.

Because of adverse propaganda, membership in the Parti Quebecois dropped significantly. However, Quebecers also learned a lesson from this episode, a lesson which they will remember for a long time: Quebecers opted for democracy. In fact, that choice had been made long before, since Quebec has the oldest parliamentary institution in North America, as well as an appropriate motto which says "Je me souviens". We are patient; we are prepared to wait, but we will reach our ultimate objective, which is Quebec's sovereignty.

In all its efforts to kill that project, the federal government only succeeded in attacking the will of Quebecers to reach their objective not by resorting to violence, but through democratic means, and they will succeed.

The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead referred to Mr. Gérald Godin, who was arrested in 1970. The best proof that Quebecers did learn their lesson is that, in the 1976 election, the same person beat Robert Bourassa, who was then the federalist on duty. Quebec's long march toward sovereignty is based on respect for democracy. The events of those days had consequences which can still be felt. The federal government's constant attempts to instill fear in Quebecers have their roots in the actions taken then, and perhaps also in the events which occurred with the patriots, back in 1837. They are always trying to rekindle this fear.

No one among the federalists in Quebec is selling Canada as an option for the future. They are only attacking the other option, as if it was always necessary to come back to the same arguments: "Things will not go well, because the sovereignists do not want a bright future for Quebec." This is in line with the oath taken by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1970 to rekindle fear, to ensure that one can, in a roundabout way, either as Minister of Justice or as prime minister, achieve the same results.

During the October crisis, when Mr. Trudeau went on national television to make a statement on the kidnappings, he said: "Next time it could be the manager of a credit union." This was a demagogic way to say that the FLQ was such a well-organized group that it could strike almost anywhere in Quebec, but now we know that some of the FLQ cells were backed by the RCMP. This makes it a planned strategy to kill the sovereignist movement.

What we can say today is that the sovereignist movement will not die, it is here to stay. We have been using all the democratic tools at our disposal since then. We have elected the Parti Quebecois, as well as the newest offspring of our movement, the Bloc Quebecois, which is here to represent a very strong and very clear movement in Canada. It is obvious that as long as the Constitutional crisis in Canada is not settled, we will remain here, because we have a good memory and we will keep on using existing democratic tools. This is how we have decided to carve out a place in the sun for ourselves, and this is what we will do in the future.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it would be nice for those who were illegally arrested and who were never sent to trial to get an apology, because their rights were indeed violated. The purpose of the motion before us is also to send a message to Quebecers and Canadians of the future, to my children, to your children, to all young people who are growing up in our society, that when errors are made in the system, when the system forgets

that it is supposed to be democratic, we must have the courage to rectify this situation. We must be able to tell all these young people that, in Quebec and in Canada, things are done democratically and that it is possible to achieve our goals that way.

If this motion were adopted by the House, it would show people not only that the federal government made mistakes in the seventies, that it deliberately took actions that were unacceptable, but also that these actions will no longer be tolerated.

In any case, I think that Quebec will always respond through a democratic vote. It will do so again in 1995, or whenever it is deemed appropriate, so that Quebec can become sovereign at last and not encounter obstacles like those that the federal system put in its way in the seventies.

I urge the government to think about that. I believe that the Reform Party must also think about the appropriateness of the federal government making the official apology that the motion calls for and to ensure that all those who were illegally arrested are informed that the present federal government regrets the actions taken by the government of the seventies.

It would be an indication that members on both sides of the House really want to promote democracy as the sole foundation of political debates like the one that is going on right now in Quebec and in Canada.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At any rate, Canadians can see what happens during votes and see who is there to vote and who is not.

Therefore, I think that this series of amendments contains an interesting proposal, and it is important for Canadians to understand that we are not opposing this bill to prevent people from returning to work, we are doing it to ensure that, in the future, two, three, five, ten years down the road, that there are good labour relations in this sector, that people have choices, that part of the network will be sold. That will have to be negotiated anyway with the unions, and because we have put them in a situation where they cannot trust their employers, they will continue to distrust them and we will have problems. When Parliament has to bring in three special labour relations acts in one year, that is a sure sign that there is a volatile situation in Canada, and that it is one that would be better dealt with by some means other than a government gag order.

I think it is important for Canadians to hear how the government is going against the recommendations of the Hope report.

According to the Hope report, there are a number of major points on which the parties could agree and we could then proceed to the more technical points and, if need be, resort to arbitration for some of these technical points. The government held its nose and decided to ignore that part.

What saddens me a little is that I feel they are taking advantage of the fact that a new minister has been appointed. She must be briefed on the issues while fulfilling an economic mandate, although the labour relations mandate is not necessarily to settle economic problems but to ensure a good labour relations climate. This is a basic element on which we should agree.

I sincerely believe that the amendment proposing that the commission be guided by the need to establish good labour relations as a top priority is the first step in a successful approach that would allow the whole railway industry to see its future in a different light.

Let us assume that, in two years, CN wants to sell, for example, part of its line to people in eastern Quebec, the Eastern Townships or the Maritimes. With a binding decision like that one, the unions will never feel formally bound by the outcome of the negotiations, which will show at every phase of the talks with the new employers. The employer faced with these new situations will keep in mind that he could win through a decision such as this special act of Parliament.

The employers in these situations may not want union accreditations to be adjusted to the new employers. Are there ways for these employers to ensure preferential treatment from the government? Ensuring economic viability by taking away workers' rights? This is the wrong way to see the debate, as I see it.

In conclusion, you can be sure that, in labour relations, if we do not see to it that there are two winners, the unions and the employers, one of the parties will always have its moment of truth in catching up later.

Shortsighted decisions such as this bill can only be corrected by achieving a balance between the parties. Parliament's responsibility is not to impose a different way to look at railway development through special labour legislation. If we want to change the railway industry, we should do so openly through bills to that effect, but not on the backs of Canadian workers because, at the end of the day, it is not only railway workers who

will pay, but all those whose livelihoods depend on this industry and all train users across Canada.

I hope that the government will finally decide to listen to our arguments.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

We are proposing in this regard that the commission be guided first by the need to establish good union-management relations and, to this end, that it promote working conditions reflecting both the rights of the workers and the economic viability and competitiveness of the coast-to-coast rail system. And the way it is written means that we think that human resources is what is most important. It is what we hear in speeches around the world right now about globalization. What will make us competitive is the way we treat our human resources, not putting workers in no-win situations. Both workers and management must come out winners. Was management in favour of getting everybody back to work at the beginning of the week? Do you think they would agree with that? Go ask the management of the companies.

I think that this vision of government is dangerous and that it is important for all of the citizens of Quebec and Canada to go beyond this way of looking at things and to see the government's relationship with society evolve. The government is going to systematically decide who is right in society. The government is going to decide who is right and wrong, and the next in line for the snow job that railway workers are getting now will be the unemployed. The next victims after that will be another social category, and it will always be done under the pretext that we absolutely need to do such and such a thing for affordability, to emulate the American way, and that is why the official opposition is against this way of thinking. I think that we have nothing to learn from a party that has five members present in the House when we are dealing with special legislation.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I think it is highly significant that the second speaker for the government, the Minister for International Trade, spoke for ten minutes without mentioning labour relations for one single second. He said nothing at all about the situation of the workers affected by this bill. I think this is a clear indication of the government's true objectives.

The bill before us and the series of amendments are the clearest indication of the government's real objectives. The aim of the bill is not a return to work. If it were, the dispute would have been resolved four days ago. We offered the possibility Monday, we offered it Wednesday. Everyone agrees on a return to work. The disagreement lies in the fact that special legislation imposes a new type of relations on the parties concerned in the rail sector.

Let us have a look at the amendments. First, commissions were set up with the power to arbitrate and a biased mandate. The proof is in clause 12. I think it is important for all Canadians and Quebecers to understand this. The government's bill provides that:

1. Each Commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with-economic viability and competitiveness-taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations.

This is the first time I have seen a government put improvement of the economy ahead of agreement between the parties, in a bill. With this clause, the government decided to do a job on the entire rail sector. As the negotiators failed to reach an agreement, the government wants to ensure the transformation of the rail sector with clause 12 and force the commissions to do the job.

When the members of the commission see an interesting proposal from the union, their hands will be bound by this clause, which says to them: what the union is proposing will not lead to the economic viability and competitiveness of the rail system, which is the first requirement of the legislation, therefore you will not be able to accept the proposal. We are proposing a much more reasonable clause in keeping with the longstanding spirit of labour relations in Quebec and Canada. The aim of this proposal is not only to protect the workers, but also to make the future interesting in this sector and prevent people from getting into labour relations problems in the coming years.

I think this proposal comes from our added experience in Quebec of working together, of taking an approach to labour relations that permits each side to come out a winner. This is the essence of labour relations. It is nothing like arbitration, which creates a winner and a loser, because in the years following arbitration, the loser prepares to win the next time, with griev-

ances and all sorts of unacceptable situations arising as the result. It seems to me that the government should understand this.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Heritage critic did a good job of demonstrating how inefficient the Department of Canadian Heritage is.

I would like to comment on transportation subsidies in particular. For decades now, certain businesses in the east of Canada and in Quebec as far east as Lévis or La Beauce have received financial assistance to transport their products.

The government decided to cut these subsidies. I do not think that people strongly disagree with this decision, but the regions affected would have wanted the government to do an impact study first. Instead, the regions are facing radical cuts, the short-term economic impact of which is hard to predict. The decision will affect each industry differently, some favourably, some extremely unfavourably.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata's speech contained some novel ideas and some interesting suggestions on which I would like her to elaborate. In particular, will she specify how we can ensure that the money invested in the compensation fund will have lasting effects? How can we avoid finding ourselves saddled with investments that we will be forced to abandon five years down the road? Will she propose a solution which will guarantee that the money invested will have a lasting impact and enable the economy of eastern Quebec to turn the tables around and, once and for all, enable it to harness its strengths, skills and its bountiful natural resources and break free from the central system?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the Reform member and I must admit that there was some truth in it when he said that, whatever happens, Canadians will have to deal with a huge global debt in the future. Some people ask how Quebecers will ever pay their part of the federal debt if they choose to form a

sovereign state. We can say for sure that if they remain within Canada, they will definitely have to deal with that debt.

Does the hon. member not agree that this colossal and uncontrollable debt is not so much the result of inefficiency on the part of individuals-although there might have been some of that-as the result of an unhealthy competition between various levels of government? Were we not overly greedy for visibility and did we not try to make sure that provincial and federal levels would invest equal amounts in any project on the map? Sometimes we announced projects which were not entirely realistic, the investment in Hibernia for example, just to make up for the weaknesses of the economic policies implemented by the central government.

Did we not also lose control over the budget largely because of the confusion of jurisdictions? We never know who is responsible for a specific issue, the federal government or the provinces. Does the hon. member not believe that the solution lies in a major change in that area so that each level will know perfectly what are its own responsibilities and what it will have to deal with in the future?