Paul Crête

[Department Of Labour Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 reminds me of an old photograph found in the remains of a house which has burned down, because it is the reflection of the disastrous condition of the fish industry in Atlantic Canada, which is mainly due to the mismanagement of the fishery issue by the successive governments of the last 20, 25 or 30 years. It seems that we could not find a way to get scientists, fishermen and governments together to deal with this tragedy caused by the near extinction of some species.

One good thing about Bill C-30 is that it recognizes the fact that some people are in a difficult and unacceptable situation. We see workers who, at 50, 52, 53 or 55 years of age, have lost their jobs. These people had developed some expertise in their field. These were fish plant workers you could rely on, but they do not have the skills to find a job in some other line of work. I do not think you can ask them to relocate, because they often have lived all of their lives in the same community, where they have gone through some difficult times and witnessed the failure of the federal government involvement in the Atlantic Canada fishing industry.

I would like to remind members that, a few years back, we often heard, especially when the Conservatives were in office, about cuts to programs aimed at protecting certain species. I may recall that at the time there was an agreement under which administrative responsibility for the protection of species was delegated to the Government of Quebec, an agreement that was adopted in 1922. Under Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government, it was decided to withdraw this delegation-this was around the beginning of the eighties-and today we see the disastrous result. In Quebec and throughout the Maritimes, we have seen an industry collapse, an industry that is no longer able to provide work for the people in the communities which had made a living from the fisheries for years.

I often wonder what we are going to do about the industry in the future. It is all very well to come up with band-aid solutions, but there is a basic problem, a problem that will not go away and it is high time the government took the initiative. I think that along with the compassion reflected in this bill, which lets people go on living in their communities, we must find new ways to intervene so that our maritime communities can look to the future with greater confidence in the potential for their development.

I think there are a number of questions that should be asked about what the government intends to do about the fisheries in the future. What will the fisheries mean to us? Will the people who worked in the industry only be able to pass on their memories of days gone by? I am reminded of what happened in the seventies-and it seems we never learn from our mistakes-when Forillon Park was created in the Gaspé. The government forgot that people had their homes there, and they even asked them to leave. Today, we realize that we could have called on these people to develop tourism in their area, making sure that they took an active part in it and earn some money that way.

The measure is interesting, but we can wonder if it will be applied openly, giving the necessary support to people who have all kinds of initiatives, such as setting up community projects, or turning a small village or a town into a tourist attraction. I hope that they will not have to cut through the same red tape as others before them with similar projects.

For example, in my riding, some people applied to the independent workers assistance program. They were told that there was no money for that. They are on UI and since there is no money, new businesses cannot be allowed, and yet it would not cost anything more. Is this kind of treatment going to be applied to workers who will retire that way? I hope not.

There is another question one must ask. Will the agreements be signed on an individual basis or will it be a general agreement passed with provincial governments? Individuals should not have to face government bureaucracy alone. In their tragic situation, they must be treated humanely.

This bill brings the retirement age for fish plant workers down to 50. Do they not deserve a lot more? Let us have a minute of silence. It is like a death in the family. The parliamentary secretary said earlier that in areas like Atlantic Canada, the human resources were the main resource. I do agree, and it is probably the mistake we made in the past; we dissociated the human resources from their environment rich in other resources such as fish and forests. And because people wanted to catch fish, and mistakes were made in stock management, we are now in this desperate situation.

Should we not learn from our mistakes and strive for renewable development at the local level? I believe that there is a know-how to be found among the people who lived in those environments and know what it is to earn a difficult living, day after day, people who have also experienced seasonal work. If we do not take advantage of what these people can teach us, we will have missed the boat, we will not learn from the sad experience of these victims of our poor management of fish stocks. This bill is the result of the shortsightedness of past governments.

The situation in the fisheries is also preventing the next generation from learning the trade. People will be retiring thanks to a bill which will give them a minimum income, but we should use their knowledge to give young people the desire to fish, perhaps for species presently underused, and also to develop know-how in the processing of these new species in order to provide employment.

I believe that it is an acknowledgement that government intervention in the fisheries failed in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec.

This bill is more or less an acknowledgement by the federal government that it did almost irreparable damage. We also realize that it is preferable that the people affected be allowed to retire rather that try to retrain them for work in other sectors, because it is too late.

I believe that the government should try, as much as possible, to humanize its action, particularly when dealing with the people targeted by the bill.

Bill C-30 is somewhat like reparations, something we do because we feel guilty for what we have done. I think we should see beyond that. In conclusion, I hope that people affected by this measure will enjoy to the maximum the years that lie ahead. I hope they will see in this situation an opportunity for a new start and will put their own professional experience to good use for the future development of their community.

I lived in the Gaspé Peninsula for a few years and I know that people in that region have good common sense, a quality which sometimes gets scarce the higher you rise in the bureaucratic machinery; I think we should listen to what they have to say in order to arrive at more acceptable solutions.

Allow me to make a parallel with the forestry workers. In the area of forest management, the situation is similar to that of fisheries ten years ago. We are beginning to feel the real threat of a shortage. Some workers in the forest management communities have presented various proposals for a restructuration of forest harvesting that would allow the resource to renew itself and would prevent a situation similar to that of the fisheries.

The government always finds a solution for people who are really at the end of their rope, who have nowhere else to turn to, and I hope it will do the same in this case and listen to the message being sent so that it will not have to pass the same kind of bill for the forestry workers in seven, eight, ten or twelve years from now because that would be absolutely absurd.

In his speech for the tabling of this bill, the parliamentary secretary praised the whole government action program for Atlantic fisheries. I think we should also seize this opportunity to see what could be done in other areas so that a situation like this one will never be repeated.

Other sectors of industry are facing somewhat the same situation. Workers who are 50, 52 or 55 years old and who have experience in a specific field cannot easily be slotted into other jobs. I hope that this example will serve to make the government more aware of the importance of treating other groups in this manner and of being as attentive to their concerns as they were in this particular case.

There is no doubt that the government is less responsible for the situation that prevails in other industries. However, fishery is one sector for which the government has primary responsibility. Other players have always been asked to do their part and co-operate, but the guidelines have always come from the government. Moreover, it was the government that turned a deaf ear to the warnings that were repeatedly issued, either by the fishermen or by scientific groups, about the repercussions of actions taken in the fishery.

In conclusion, I hope that the workers who have lost their jobs will be able, as a result of this measure, to continue living in dignity, to weather the crisis and to ensure a bright future for their local community. I hope that governments will listen to their concerns and that they will be given the necessary means to get their communities back on track.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was handed to me by residents of the Gaspé Peninsula during public hearings held by Rural Dignity. The petitioners are asking for a moratorium on the abandonment of rail lines as well as public hearings on this issue.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that we did not necessarily represent Quebec or our ridings; I remind him that the mandate we received is to defend Quebec's interests, as was stated very clearly. That is why Quebecers chose the Bloc Quebecois, because the Liberal candidates did not represent the way of the future that they considered necessary.

Today, I rise to speak much more about the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in my riding who are looking for real straight-forward job creation measures. Rioux Fibreglass, for example, in Sainte-Françoise, MT Pressure Moulding, FF Soucy Prelco are small or medium-sized companies-in fact, the paper company is fairly large-that want simple programs. They want something so that they can contribute quickly to society by creating jobs.

The infrastructure program is a smoke screen. It is good politics, it is good for their image, it creates some jobs, we admit, but there are much clearer and simpler measures that unfortunately do not provide the political coverage which this government seeks and seems desperately to want.

My amendment is very simple: it would lower the employer's contribution to UI to 3 per cent right away, instead of playing the government's very Machiavellian game. They have created a new kind of job. Before, there were full-time, part-time and temporary jobs; now there are the jobs that they saved. They boast that they created 40,000 jobs because they saved them from disappearing.

I think that the message we must give Canadians and Quebecers now is one of confidence and the way to do that is with positive actions which tell industrialists that it is time to invest and go ahead, not contrary actions that restrict their economic commitment and keep them from playing the role that they should in creating jobs to restore prosperity.

This government prefers to give very ambiguous messages. While the government claims to want to create jobs, it decided that, in a region such as the Gaspe Peninsula, which has an unemployment rate of 27 per cent, workers will need three additional weeks to be eligible to UI benefits and will get these benefits for a shorter period. What a way to build confidence! The same bill tells civil servants, whose salaries are rather good, that things are so bad that the government must freeze their

salaries and that they cannot be paid what they deserve. Another negative message.

It sounds very much like the old Conservative line. It sounds like what they used to say before Franklin Roosevelt became president of the United States, just after the Depression. Then, people were saying: "We have to cut spending. Let us cut as much as possible and, more importantly, let us not create jobs because this will happen by itself". The purpose of this amendment is to send a clear message to entrepreneurs, to give them some leeway as quickly as possible. This is particularly important in the case of an industry such as tourism.

There are many seasonal jobs in the summer. This is the time to send a message to put people back to work. With the savings they will make, employers can contribute more easily to the job creation effort.

This is not merely a question of money and maths. There is also a psychological effect involved. In that regard, the current Liberal government missed the boat and this is why its budget satisfied so few Canadians.

Consequently, I ask members opposite, particularly those who live in the Maritimes and in regions where there are many seasonal workers, to support our amendment.

Imagine if, tomorrow, we were to send employers a message to the effect that it has dawned on the government that the simplest way to create employment was to allow small businesses to act quickly, without red tape, without additional paper burden, and without having to get approval from three levels of government to build a sidewalk. This would allow small entrepreneurs to directly invest the money they would save by not having to spend it on bureaucratic formalities.

I do hope that government members will understand that. After all, they were elected by promising "jobs, jobs, jobs". They should understand that when such political commitments are made but not fulfilled, it greatly undermines the credibility of politicians.

Last fall, Canadians elected a new government because they wanted one which would put the emphasis on job creation through concrete and realistic measures. Today, you have the opportunity to adopt one such measure with this amendment and I hope that you will do it.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-17, in Clause 26, be amended: a ) by replacing line 22, on page 13, with the following:

"48.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 48, the rate"; b ) by replacing lines 25 to 27, on page 13, with the following:

"(a) for the five month period beginning on January 1, 1994, 3.07 per cent of insurable earnings in that period;

(b) for the seven month period beginning on June 1, 1994, 3 per cent of insurable earnings in that period; c ) for the year 1995, 3 per cent of insurable earnings in that year; and d ) for the year 1996, 3 per cent of insura-''; and c ) by adding after line 31, on page 13, the following:

"(2) For the purposes of applying subsection 50(1), section 51, paragraph 75(1)( p ) and subsection 75(5) in respect of the year 1994, each period referred to in paragraphs (1)( a ) and ( b ) shall be deemed to be a year within the meaning of those provisions.''

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to expand on what my colleague was saying. As a member for the same area I also wonder, when I see that the CBC is being allowed to borrow, what they are going to borrow for? We have been burnt before.

Just think that $46 million were cut when regional stations were closed, 100 specialized jobs in communications and radio and television were abolished, but at the same time $61 million were added to the networks. There is some imbalance there.

After that experience we wonder: "If this was done in the past, and if we now add this borrowing power, what are they going to do with the money?"

The next Olympic Games, in Atlanta in 1996, are another good example. CBC submitted a tender for $28 million. This is a totally unacceptable overbidding if you consider that TVA had offered $10 million for the same coverage.

Is the $18 million difference going to come from money it borrows? Is it what is going to be used to pay a somewhat inflated price to cover an event which, after all, will only last a short period of time, whereas the cuts which are depriving our regions of adequate coverage will last all year long?

I would willingly trade three weeks of Games in Atlanta for a TV station in Eastern Quebec and on the North Shore, which would provide year-round coverage and would allow us to know how our own people are managing, how they are coming to grips with the situation and how they see their future.

You will not be surprised then to learn that what the Bloc Quebecois is asking is that this new borrowing authority be transparent. We know that for the past few years, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been presenting its business plan to the minister, but we have never seen such business plans in this House. The CBC does not produce canned goods. It is a corporation with a Canada-wide communication mandate.

Consequently, one would expect that it should be accountable to the Canadian Parliament for the manner in which it carries out its business, not with a view to censuring it, but rather to see how it spends its money. Now is the time to start doing it, especially regarding the use the Corporation is going to make of its new borrowing authority.

How is it going to spend this $25 million plus interests? Will it be for projects Canadians and Quebecers generally approve of? Will these projects provide better service to the people in Quebec and in Canada, or will they be like the icing on the cake, something extra for areas which already receive service?

So, I think it is important to know how this money will be spent. In fact, we are very concerned about the openness of this process, all the more so given the estimated deficits of the CBC. Despite cuts made especially in regional stations over the last few years, the estimated deficit should reach $41 million in 1995-1996; $54 million in 1996-1997; $65 million in 1997-1998; and $78 million in 1998-1999.

So, if this borrowing authority is going to increase the deficit without improving the service, I do not see how we can support such decisions. We want to see the CBC budget and we want to know in what direction the CBC is going, how it intends to spend the money and mostly how it will manage to provide services in Quebec and in Canada to ensure the public gets adequate information.

Let me give you an example. Two weeks ago, I was asked to act as commissioner during community hearings held by Rural Dignity and an organization set up to maintain the train service in Chaleur, in the Gaspé Peninsula.

The newspaper coverage we got was quite interesting. However, the television coverage was not so good, not because the technicians, communications experts and announcers in Eastern Quebec are not capable, but because when you have only two or three reporters to cover such a large territory as ours, that is thousands and thousands of kilometres, it is obvious that you cannot provide the same adequate service as if you had regional stations.

That shows the extent of social disintegration that can occur if we do not have a communication network which the people in the regions can relate to and identify with. You can be sure that we will never renege on our commitment to provide adequate television services.

And since the closing, we are taking steps to make sure that the services will be offered once again and that we can have in our region some experts, some people who can provide the adequate broadcasting for the people within the region as well as elsewhere.

So, indeed, we could say that the borrowing authority of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is relevant, as for any other business that may have to borrow money at a given time. But, in order to get that money, that business must prove to us that, indeed, it is using the funds in an adequate and fair manner and is also fulfilling its mandate, which is to provide communications throughout Canada.

We must get away from the image left to us by the previous Conservative government which, whether in the case of VIA Rail, Post Canada or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, decided to define the mandate of these national corporations as if they were private companies, when their mandate should reflect the realities of the country as a whole.

In that context, we would like to make the government aware of the fact that, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a borrowing authority, the uses of the amounts provided for by that authority, whether in the form of credit lines or other, should be tabled here in the House.

I hope that government members will be sensitive to this amendment and will vote with us to make sure that, at least, we know where our money is going.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Until what day?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise with regard to this series of amendments because this discussion is symptomatic of a rather fruitless debate which has been going on for several years in Canada and in Quebec. On the one hand, it is conceivable to support the Reform Party's amendments for a return to open collective bargaining, instead of having decisions on employees's wages imposed by the government. On the other hand, no lesson seems to have been drawn from past experience. Let us face it: bargaining in the public sector differs somewhat from bargaining in the private sector.

Through its consultation exercise on the budget and on management as a whole, the government should have come up with a vision different from that of the Conservatives. What we have is a Liberal rehash of an old Conservative recipe. Permanent solutions should definitely be found with respect to collective bargaining in the public sector, so as to avoid the current situation, where the government is once again forced to impose wage conditions to its employees, because it did not react soon enough. Indeed, it should have developed labour relations enabling it to reach agreements and implement a real social contract with its employees.

This is probably why the two opposition parties want significant changes to be made. This bill sends the message that government employees are not productive enough, do not work hard enough and that, consequently, they must not be paid any more than they are. Yet, the truth is altogether different. The vast majority of people in the public sector, as in the private sector, do their job very well and the government should have had the courage, the determination and the originality to develop an adequate collective bargaining model for them, because they deserve it.

During the first few months of this session, we were able to speak on the issue of the special bill passed to settle the labour dispute at the Vancouver harbour, where once again the government took a stand that showed some unwillingness and inability to negotiate fair agreements. Today, we are faced with this bill and we must deal with it. Unfortunately, we are not being asked to recognize a bargaining system arrived at through consensus by the employer, the government, and by representatives of the employees, the unionized public servants.

For all these reasons, the government should review the amendments put forward by the opposition. Up to a certain extent, the amendments from the Reform Party seem interesting, because they at least come back to the main issue, which is open collective bargaining. But such bargaining between a government and its employees occurs in a different context than bargaining in the private sector. Even if the amendments of the Reform Party are agreed to, we would still need to add new stages to the process.

It seems to me that the position taken by the opposition parties is much more in line with the new way we want to manage our labour relations. In fact, the message the opposition wants to convey to Canadians and Quebecers is this: we are here to see that our employees are treated fairly, and not to stand by while, year after year, the situation remains the same, whether we have a Conservative government or a Liberal government. We have a new government, and it has not made the slightest difference in this area and on several other issues.

I think it is important to watch what new strategies are being applied in this area elsewhere. There must be some information on compensation in the public and the private sectors. In Quebec, we get this kind of information from the Institut de rémunération, and we have learned that over the last 10 or 15 years, compensation in the private sector has slowly caught up with compensation in the public sector. Forget the tales about overpaid public servants, we are getting closer and closer to wage parity in both sectors.

If it is wage parity that we want, we will have to provide for a bargaining process as free as possible, taking into account the specificity of the government as an employer. Our amendments were to that effect, that is to find ways to oversee the action of the government because they seem to have already made up their mind, and whatever their decisions might be, they have a major impact on the budget for this fiscal year. We thought we had to ensure an adequate control in order to have the opportunity to see the results so as to be able, in the short term, to manage our labour relations in a way which does not de-motivate employees while allowing us to reach normal productivity objectives for the public service, which are measured in terms not only of lower operating costs, but also of job satisfaction.

Employee satisfaction starts with meeting their basic needs. Whenever these needs are not met, workers will not respond to second- or third-level motivation. It is well known among personnel motivation experts that basic needs have to be met before anyone can be asked to contribute more. If these are not met, no other motivational action will work.

I therefore encourage this government to accept the amendments by the opposition, be they by the Reform Party or the Bloc, which all aim at a more realistic bargaining process and at truly equal opportunities for both employer and employees. I hope the government will take heed of the amendments which have been tabled.

[Unemployment, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, considering the study's conclusion that consultation among economic partners is essential to ensure employment recovery, does the minister not realize that his proposal for the reform of social programs is not on the right track, since it has not been able to generate such a consensus among economic partners and more specifically with the provinces?

[Unemployment, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. According to a study carried out for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, unemployment cost the Canadian economy more than $109 billion in 1993 and governments alone absorbed $47 billion of the cost of unemployment. The authors of the study are asking the government to put in place a pro-active employment policy.

Will the minister admit that the timid employment recovery measures proposed by the government are not enough just to put 1.5 million unemployed people back to work and reduce the intolerable cost of unemployment which is now $109 billion?

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, support for the high speed train connection in the Quebec-Windsor corridor has been received from people who held very different views, people like Mr. Marc Lefrançois, president of VIA Rail who said: "In terms of plans that stir people into action, it is difficult to find a better one". It also promotes the expertise of a company like Bombardier which is a domestic company and holds rights to the technology required to carry out this project.

The HST project also received support from the Young Liberal Federation in Quebec who, while not being known as sovereigntists nonetheless saw in this project an opportunity to stimulate job creation for young people, whether engineers and

technicians or linemen. In other words, this is a job-creation project.

At Bombardier, they are not a bunch of incompetent people. They are the ones who manufactured in La Pocatière, in my riding, the railway cars now in service in the tunnel across the Channel between England and France, two sovereign nations that nonetheless saw fit to be linked by such a means of communication. The British did not refuse to contribute because the French were going to benefit from the tunnel. They asked themselves: "Will we benefit from this?" And came to the conclusion that they would.

I think that, whatever the constitutional context, Quebec and Canada stand to benefit from developing this link, particularly since it would be the first of the sort in North America and the technology could be applied in 19 other sites over the continent. You go nowhere with a rule like: no government money shall be invested in this project; we must wait for the private sector to take on the project. If that rule had been applied strictly, we would still ride on gravel roads and we would not have the transportation network we enjoy today.

I think we must have a modern-day attitude and the HST is definitely modern. In fact, it is the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation of all. It is a lot less polluting than cars or planes.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: is it going to be cost-effective to build a high-speed train in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor? In fact, as Mr. Rémy Bujolt, chairman of the GPC Consortium and consultant for VIA Rail on this matter, was saying: "To succeed, we will have to attract as many passengers as possible; if not this project will become a money pit. For this project to be cost-effective, the high-speed train must capture 40 per cent of the market between Montreal and Toronto compared to 13 per cent today".

But the answer to this question is in the efficiency of the high-speed train. This train would link Quebec City and Montreal in 85 minutes; Montreal and Ottawa in 45 minutes and Montreal and Toronto in 140 minutes, at 50 per cent of the cost of a plane ticket. It would also serve Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville, Toronto, London and Windsor.

Do you not think that with such a fare, the HST will easily replace many air carriers? That probably explains in part why the project is stalling so inexplicably. Is the airline lobby holding up the project? With all the support it received, there is no reason why anyone should oppose it.

I discovered this afternoon there might be a new reason: it might be the fear of displeasing the Reform Party because they see no advantage in that project since it encourages development on a north to south axis in North America; that in itself is not a bad thing and there would certainly be similar projects to be developed in the west.

We believe the HST project is highly mobilizing and job creating since it would generate 80,000 direct jobs and 120,000 indirect ones. Compared to other projects, it would be much cheaper because of the taxes that governments would collect on the income of a whole generation that would be put to work. Right now in Quebec, there are 4,000 engineers without work. Don't you think that such a project would be welcomed by those people who are looking for jobs, who studied at university and who have nothing because no interesting development project is proposed to them.

Therefore, the high-speed train project appears to be an interesting way of developing the economy of the Quebec-Windsor corridor, but it is also very interesting for the Bombardier company. For instance, in La Pocatière, in my riding, Bombardier has a plant that built the cars used to cross the English Channel and those of the New York subway. The economic cycle in that plant is often the reverse of the cycle of the whole economy. While the economy is taking off again, employment declines in the plant. Conversely, in an economic downturn, more jobs are created at the plant.

Such a project could perhaps balance production and increase employability to ensure that the region does not experience ups and downs like going from 1,000 to 250 or 300 jobs. Such a project could stabilize job creation in the region and ensure that expertise stays where it is.

Now, every time the economic cycle hurts our businesses, technicians and engineers go elsewhere. They must move on to other jobs, so that our businesses lose this expertise and have to start from scratch every time.

A project such as the high-speed train would create jobs to put young people to work and help build a corridor between Quebec City and Windsor which, in the end, would benefit all elements of society between Quebec and Ontario and towards the United States. And, if the decision is made quickly enough in case Quebec City is chosen to host the 2002 Winter Olympics, it would certainly be a very interesting means of transportation for which we would have planned in time, for once.

I think we have all the elements we need to succeed. I was a little disappointed when the Prime Minister, replying in jest to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, asked whether the high-speed train should be stopped at the border between Quebec and Ontario. I think that it is much more important than that and that it deserves serious answers dealing with the substantive issue.

Studies have already been carried out. What is needed now is the political courage to go ahead with the project. The economic conditions are such that we are sure the high-speed train is not another Hibernia project. If we could take the money that Quebec has thrown away with Hibernia and stop the Hibernia project and put that money into the high-speed train, we could

contribute Quebec's share directly to this project and maximize job creation in doing the work.

Creating a new rail line creates jobs that will make good use of skilled workers and line workers, namely people with high-school education who can do all kinds of support work to install the line; at the same time, it takes technological expertise that would surely make Quebec and Canada leaders in this field.

We can bet that in 15 or 20 years, there will be maybe 10 or 15 high-speed rail lines in North America. Then we will know if we have missed the train or if we seized our opportunity to be leaders in such projects and to make Canada and Quebec experts in developing this kind of transportation link which is what we need in a continent like North America.