Bernard Deshaies

[Francophone And Acadian Communities, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Recently, representatives from the minister's department met various organizations representing francophone and Acadian communities to confirm new cuts in federal subsidies and to try to make adjustments in the department's relations with these organizations.

However, the approach proposed by the department was judged to be unacceptable, and I would like to quote what was said by the spokesperson for the Coalition franco-ontarienne, in referring to the government's discussion paper: "We realized it failed to mention the issues we wanted to discuss. We want a comprehensive policy that respects the principles of the Charter".

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who claims to defend the rights of francophones from the Atlantic to the Pacific, confirm that his discussion paper was rejected by the Coalition franco-ontarienne?

[Excise Tax Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Abitibi, and the residents of all remote ridings, concerning Bill C-32. This bill to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act essentially contains amendments to taxes on tobacco products and, in sections 2, 3 and 4, amendments to the air transportation tax.

It is particularly in reference to these airline ticket taxes that I would like to address the House for a few minutes, in order to show that the government has not achieved its objectives and that, in addition, regions outside the network of major population centres will be penalized.

In order to judge this new rate structure, I will take a few minutes to compare the present and proposed tax rates. The present rate consists of a basic tax of $10-as the parliamentary secretary mentioned-on each ticket, plus 7 per cent of the price of the ticket, to a maximum of $40. The new structure would feature a basic tax of $6, plus 7 per cent on the price of the ticket, to a maximum of $50 for expensive tickets.

To justify this new structure, the government cites the following objectives: first, to increase the amount of money recovered-which seems fair and legitimate-for air transportation facilities and services provided by Transport Canada; and second, to reduce the tax burden on short-haul flights to small localities. We, in remote areas of the country, are those small localities. We are directly affected, and we do not understand why the second objective could not be achieved.

This new rate structure does not achieve the targeted objectives, in particular reducing the tax burden on flights to small localities-mostly to remote areas of the country. Obviously, the new rate structure will make it possible to collect much more money to cover Transport Canada's costs. As the member for Témiscamingue put it, $24 million more will be collected in the first year and $44 million more in subsequent years.

This money will come primarily from the increase in the maximum tax from $40 to $50, notwithstanding the loss of revenue from having lowered the basic tax to $6 from $10. This meets the government's first objective to increase the recovery of the cost of facilities. Of course the government has another reason for introducing this new rate, and that is why we will focus mainly on the second objective, which is to reduce the tax burden on short-haul flights.

However, this objective has not been met. In fact, air transportation to remote areas has been adversely affected since deregulation, since the full cost is now being borne by these areas. The price of a ticket to some destinations has gone up considerably in recent years. For instance, Montreal-Rimouski costs $552 plus tax. Ottawa-Montreal-Val-d'Or, a flight I take every week, costs me more than $550 plus tax.

The reason is, of course, that there is less demand for these flights, and to make a profit, carriers have to raise their rates, as opposed to busier routes like Montreal-Toronto, where a regular ticket will cost around $400 for about the same distance. The new tax rate is based on the price and does not take traffic or distance into account. The government assumes there is a perfect correlation between price and distance, which is not the case. The price is based on two factors: distance and traffic.

This means that the government is wrong if it thinks that charging less tax on cheap tickets will benefit air transportation to remote areas. This policy will tend to benefit short-haul, high-volume flights like Montreal-Toronto, used constantly by business people, and charter flights.

Remote areas are already facing service cuts due to the present policy of privatizing air services. For the sake of fairness, people in the regions should be offered the same service as people in large urban centres. Regional air traffic control, firefighting services and weather forecasting will be mostly phased out or administered from the large urban centres.

Air services are vital to people in the north, and here I am referring to the Cree and the Inuit for whom air transportation often provide their sole access to basic services such as food, health care and postal services. In many regions, especially in the North, tourism is the only way they can develop their economy and become independent in the future.

With this new tax rate, travel will become even more expensive for foreign tourists, for the French and all the Europeans who come to see the vast expanses of our country, because of the already high cost of a regular ticket, which I mentioned earlier. This cost factor will prevent people in the North from developing their economy.

Here are a few examples of fares for these regions. If you want to go from Montreal to Iqaluit, in the Inuit territory, you may have to pay between $800 and $1,100, even more if you want to go to La Grande 2 or Saluit, and this is only one way. The return fare would be $1,100 to $1,600. Certainly, all these flights would be subject to the maximum tax of $50.

You could tell me that given the small number of flights it would not affect very many people. As I said, for Iqaluit there were 4,700 passengers in 1992, the last year for which data are available. By comparison, there were 86,900 passengers for Val-d'Or in 1992. For an area like Waskaganish, where air transport is the only thing available, 11,400 passengers. These people will have to pay increased fares.

I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that it might have been possible-he said that they favour short distances-to add $4 or $5 to the Montreal to Toronto fare, and the Department of Transport would have collected as much money without penalizing people who depend on air transportation.

I would like to conclude that for people in my riding or any remote riding in Canada, clauses 2, 3 and 4, which may look innocuous, will mean an extra $10 per trip on the average. If you add this to all the other difficulties in remote areas, it becomes very difficult to control the tools of development. The government is siphoning more and more.

The motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois would delete clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Bill C-32, and maintain the status quo instead of hitting remote areas.

[Quebec Sovereignty, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Vermont stated clearly yesterday at the meeting of New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers that he was prepared to maintain good business relations with a sovereign Quebec. Not surprisingly, our neighbours to the south are proving to be the most receptive of all to our democratic plans for sovereignty.

The Governor of Vermont rightfully pointed out that the business community in his state has no qualms about a sovereign Quebec government. Vermont has understood that it is in its best interests to respect the democratic choice of Quebecers and not to engage in a debate about the province's future. There is no question that the New England states will maintain their sound economic relations with a sovereign Quebec, just as all of Quebec's other trading partners will.

The federal government's fear-mongering is simply not working.

[Canadian Association Of Lutheran Congregations, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that we support Bill S-5, which was presented in the other place.

The purpose of this bill is to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations, thereby enabling this organization to better achieve the religious objectives of its members.

Canada has always respected freedom of religious choice, and it has a long tradition of doing so. The Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations, in my opinion, fully meets the criteria for serious religious organizations. Giving this association the corporate status necessary for its development would benefit its members. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in avour of adopting this bill.

[Official Languages, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday's issue of the daily Le Droit mentions that a report tabled in the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages reveals, once again, the true nature of Canadian federalism. The Prime Minister refers to an idyllic country where one can freely express himself or herself in French from coast to coast. However, that vision does not reflect the daily reality in the federal public service.

Indeed, some French-speaking civil servants feel they could be severely penalized, by being isolated, excluded or by having their career opportunities affected, if they express their right to work in their mother tongue. The notion of a bilingual Canada was probably a nice dream, but the fact is that the public service is not bilingual: francophones are merely tolerated. Also, Canada is not recognized as the union, based on equality, of two founding nations, since Quebec is also merely tolerated in that federation.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, those who worked in regional development planning know that municipalities are not the only bodies involved. Quebec has RCMs, regional county municipalities, which bring together many municipalities and set regional priorities.

These groups or CRDCs, which also work on joint action, all bring together people from a county or a region; here we are talking about a county as a political unit but there are also regional units with their own particularities. These people meet and set policies which they apply with the funds received. For example, if we in Abitibi want to promote tourism with the funds received, we can use those funds for economic development, but if the decisions are made in Montreal or Ottawa and they say that tourism is no longer a priority that they encourage, we do not qualify for funds.

That is really how we can develop our regions, not by waiting for directions to come from the provincial level in Montreal or the national level in Ottawa. I think that the debate should be on this issue. We must know if each region can take charge; it is not a matter of knowing how much it will get. The amount can always be negotiated, but how it will be negotiated is the most important point.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I do not believe that I ever said I wanted a reduction in taxes. I did talk about transferring more money to the regions.

I think the Reform Party agrees with us that this would be a more effective way of managing our own money, instead of letting outsiders make decisions that affect local communities. We know that people in our region are quite resourceful when it comes to many fields of endeavour.

For instance, I cannot see myself telling fishermen what to do, because I know nothing about the fishery, just as someone who has no experience in the mining sector and who lives 1,000 miles away from the region would not be in a position to formulate policy for this sector.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear and if the hon. member understood me to say that I wanted a reduction in taxes. That is not what I said. I said I want more money to be transferred to the regions so that they can take responsibility for their own future.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to let you know that the speeches from the Bloc Quebecois members will be limited to 10 minutes in order to allow more members to address the subject matter of regional development.

First, I would like to mention the open-mindedness of some members who are looking for solutions to today's motion on regional development instead of dwelling on our differences.

As we can see, regional development is a complex and troubling matter which is a unique combination of economic and political notions. Defining the developed regions can be quite a challenge if we compare Montreal to Gaspésie or Abitibi. The fact that regional development depends largely upon national economic growth is another problem too.

It was only in the 1960s that Canadian politicians realized that all regions were not developing at the same rate and decided to set a series of programs based on a regional development federal policy to eliminate those disparities.

Until then, public authorities thought that federal programs aimed at promoting national economic growth would also be beneficial to all regions, which was not the case. That could have been more or less true in times of prosperity, but the disparities have not disappeared. Ever since, they have not succeeded in improving the situation of the regions which unfortunately have too often the highest unemployment rates.

The implementation of programs to alleviate regional disparities led to the creation in 1969 of the Department of Economic Regional Expansion which later became Industrial Regional Expansion after merging with Industry and Commerce.

In 1987, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion was once more dismantled, and its federal responsibilities are now those of the Federal Office of Regional Development.

The problem is that the various regions not only do not have the same financial means but their development opportunities also differ, resulting in what has become to be known as "regional disparities". However, the concept itself of regional disparities creates a problem. An easily identifiable phenomenon, regional disparities-if we talk of a sector like Toronto or a region in the Maritimes-have very often been mistaken for regional development. This explains why, after identifying a higher unemployment rate in some provinces, the government adopted job creation policies, in other words policies that would possibly disguise the symptoms without eliminating their cause.

The fact of the matter is that a difference in the level of unemployment, productivity or income can be explained by many factors affecting the regional economy together or separately and, in many instances, each case calls for different measures.

In summary, regional development programs have no doubt given positive results over the years, but in the majority of cases, they have not succeeded in alleviating regional disparities in Canada.

The disappointment voiced about those programs brought about frequent reorganizations-which I have listed-of federal initiatives in that area. However, many of those initiatives showed that various governments wanted to have an impact on regional development policy without wondering whether it was consistent with the existing needs and programs.

However, many programs were designed only for job creation, with no thought of first changing the underpinnings of local economies, which would have paved the way to sustainable growth. Usually, job creation means economic growth. We should be careful not to confuse growth and development. Growth does not imply anything as to the future of an area, whereas development means that extensive changes will improve the ability of the region to generate wealth.

Some 25 years ago, the federal government commissioned a group of professors from the Université de Montréal to conduct a study on Canada's economic development. This study is responsible for the social and economic concept whereby the main ingredients of development- capital, higher education, technology and decision-making-are concentrated around major urban centres. It is assumed that the surrounding areas will benefit from an active urban centre.

Over the past 25 years, we have had several opportunities to evaluate the perverse effects of this theory: chronic unemployment in the regions, emigration of our young people, and under-financing of regions. Yet, no serious effort has ever been made to counter this approach.

The first thing to do to foster regional development is to make money available for investment. Mr. Daniel Johnson understood that, and his strategic plan for the Montreal area included the creation of a corporation called Innovatech and the allocation of $300 million. He had understood the importance of capital, something we are lacking in the regions.

That same government encouraged all regions in Quebec to draw up a strategic plan and gave them $3 million each, for a total of some $50 million for two thirds of Quebec, while the Montreal area, with one third of the population, was getting $300 million. Clearly, a better balance would have been advisable and would have helped the regions more.

That example shows all too well that the political weight is inversely proportional to the democratic weight in the area of regional development planning. Therefore, it is important, even though public funds are less abundant than before, to allocate sufficient amounts to allow investors and businessmen in the regions to get the levers working on their behalf.

Federal-provincial agreements on development are one of the instruments that regions can use. However, the standards and the decision process should be made more flexible in order to

reduce delays and obstacles. Also, the money should come from new funds and not from funds taken from one program to finance another.

There are also other ways of stimulating regional economy; I am thinking here about tax measures. During the eighties for example, mining exploration companies benefitted from a flow-through share program which allowed a tax credit worth 133 per cent of investments, once federal and provincial tax credits were calculated. Thanks to that program, individuals could invest tax deductible venture capital, which is greatly needed, and companies had funds to operate and thereby discover new deposits that are in operation today.

People should know that there is at least a seven-year period between exploration activities and the moment when a mine begins full production; that is why it is so important for the mining regions of the country that funds be allocated to support research and exploration for future development.

It is possible, Mr. Speaker, to be creative and to come up with new tax incentives suitable for specific development sectors in different regions. In the same vein, we must give investors loan guarantees and allow them interest-free periods when they borrow money in order to contribute to regional economic recovery.

We could also offer tax benefits to companies who set up or maintain their headquarters in the region instead of locating in large centres. The feeling of belonging and the sense of civic and social responsibility of people living in the regions are directly dependant on the presence of decision-makers in their community.

In my riding of Abitibi, we really suffer from the sale of large corporations to multinational logging companies. Like my fellow citizens I regret the situation that resulted.

Other conditions come into play to stimulate a region's activity and the government can act upon them. It can stimulate sectors like transport, telecommunications and support research in the region's socio-economic component, whether it be fisheries in the Maritimes, forestry in my region, or mining.

If we want to be able to meet the challenges of tomorrow, we must put decentralization as a basic tool for change at the heart of major economic and political debates. Already implemented in a lot of countries, decentralization seems to be an important and unavoidable factor in the evolution of a modern Quebec. Its success relies on the political will to make local government responsible for certain aspects of economic, social and cultural development.

The main objective of decentralization is to allow citizens to take over the development of their economic, social and cultural environment, and to give them the power, through their elected representatives, to influence matters of concern to them in their daily life.

Not only does decentralization put governments in closer contact with the people, making them more able to meet the needs of the population, promote public participation, and diminish red tape, it is also aimed at preserving local customs which make up a community's heritage. Thus, a central government finds it harder to unilaterally impose the values and way of thinking of national elites. However, I realize that decentralization is not a cure for everything that ails us, but it does have the merit of bringing power closer to the citizens, allowing them to voice their opinion on development policies and public administration and to have a say when the time comes to set priorities and choose appropriate measures.

At the present time we are witnessing the delegation of power, rather than a true decentralization. In the context of a real decentralization, duties and responsibilities would be shifted onto local governments, enabling them to have a decisive influence on the development of their community.

Decentralization would create conditions favourable to the formulation and implementation of a regional development strategy which would complement sectoral national policies. Such a strategy would maximize the potential of each region and identify specific sectors of activity.

Decentralization is a form of government characterised by the transfer of authority from the central government to local governments. It rests on the free administration of territorial communities. I believe that it would foster long-lasting job creation, which in turn would lessen citizens' dependence on the welfare state.

[The Environment, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the green revolution launched by Horne, a copper smelting operation in Noranda, is worthy of note today since it stands as proof that a mining company can conduct its operations without polluting the environment.

The company derives no less than 15 per cent of its supplies from various recycled products. More than 150 suppliers from around the world do business with Noranda. These include such well-known companies as IBM and Kodak.

In addition to making an economic contribution, Noranda enriches the quality of life in the community by making substantial grants to local agencies.

The technology employed at the Horne smelter goes far beyond our borders. Agreements for the export of continuous smelting technology have been concluded with China, allowing the Horne smelter to make a name for itself in terms of its technology, productivity and concern for the environment.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-22 to explain how my constituents may be indirectly affected, by the more or less successful privatization of this major airport.

Pearson airport in Toronto is Canada's largest airport, with nearly 20 million passengers coming through annually, which is nearly 57,000 per day. Pearson airport has a direct economic impact worth nearly $4 billion annually on Ontario's economy.

Considering these figures, Pearson airport is considered to be, and indeed is, a very profitable airport. That is good news, because in a big country like ours, where equalization is the rule so that all citizens get a fair share, profitable airports in the south make it possible to finance the operations of airports further north.

We need a commission of inquiry to investigate the transactions that took place and those that might have been concluded to realize the real financial potential of this airport-whether or not it is sold to private interests-in order to measure the financial impact and ensure profits can be used to finance the maintenance and development of northern airports.

Air transportation in the north is a vital part of local communications between communities and provides a vital link between communities in the north and the south. Considering the fragile economy of these communities, free competition could adversely affect the security and autonomy of the people in these regions. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the privatization policy the government wants to implement in Canada and Quebec. I think that in both cases, Pearson airport and the government's plan to privatize air traffic control, the result will be a loss of services for people in the regions.

Some time ago, the Minister of Transport announced that studies would be conducted on the privatization of air traffic control in Canada and Quebec, to be followed by consultations with users, unions and groups with an interest in Canada's air navigation system.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the implications and especially about the lack of transparency around this project. The information we are getting is extremely vague. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore anxious to find out the real reasons behind the government's plan to transfer nearly 6,000 jobs, including 2,000 air traffic controllers, to an as yet unknown entity.

Will this be a Crown corporation, like Canada Post, or a completely private enterprise?

Does the minister intend to give us the names of the companies, commercial groups or interest groups that have shown an interest or even tendered bids for an air navigation system in Canada or parts of that system?

We think it is important that the public should know who wants what and what the conditions will be for the sale of the system, if there is one. We do not want the scandal of the Pearson airport privatization happening again.

Air traffic safety. If there is a transportation area where decisions concerning the safety of the travelling public should not be delegated to the private sector, it is certainly air traffic safety. Can the government explain to us how it will force this new company to offer air traffic control services where they are needed?

Will the government force this new company, or these companies, to offer air traffic control services even in regions where air traffic is not lucrative? Let us take, for example, an airport with thousands of small plane flights every year which does not bring in much money in terms of landing fees and which is not economically viable, but where the volume of flights is such that the danger of air collisions is high. Will the government force this or these new companies to offer air traffic control services even if they were to lose some money on that part of their activities? We are not too sure about that.

How will remote areas such as Abitibi or the North Shore, or any other Northern or remote area, be treated? How will the government force this new commercial entity to monitor the level and quality of services provided?

You will recall the Dryden crash, where it was demonstrated that Transport Canada had had trouble enforcing laws and regulations. It has been proven that self-regulation does not

work and is unacceptable, especially in air travel. How will the government enforce air traffic safety?

If there is a service which is of national interest, such as the Armed Forces, how can the government think about transferring this responsibility-I am talking about air traffic control-to commercial interests?

By the same token, can the minister tell us what will become of the travellers protection, given the fact that he is now considering putting an end to the presence of permanent and professional fire fighters in regional airports in Canada?

We have not forgotten the cuts in services that followed when Canada Post became a Crown corporation. In remote and isolated areas mail service was drastically reduced in order to save money and in the name of profitability. Does the government intend to do the same thing in the case of control towers, flight service stations and fire fighters in regional airports? Will we end up with airplanes being controlled from Quebec and Montreal? In a nutshell, is the government getting ready to shut down regions by reducing services to a minimum?

Furthermore, can the minister explain why his government is still going ahead with its project of "modernizing" the air traffic control system by closing thirteen control towers in Canada? Why does the department want to close four towers in Quebec, or 44 per cent of all towers in Quebec? Must I remind the minister that three out of those four towers are located in peripheral areas, namely Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau? What a coincidence!

In addition to air security, how air traffic controllers and other workers who are currently public servants will be treated is of great concern to our party. Can the minister tell us what will become of those men and women who have given 5, 10, 15 and, for some, 20 years of faithful service to the Canadian public? Will the minister dismiss those who refuse to join the new private corporation or company? Does the minister intend to offer them maybe a "grandfather" clause which would allow them to remain public servants although working within the new air traffic control system?

Is the minister aware of the fact that many believe the air controllers working for the new entity could have the right to strike, which they do not have now? Can the minister confirm or deny that rumour? Can he tell us what he intends to do to clear things up concerning that essential service? Will the government require that seniority and other benefits accumulated by theses employees as public servants for the Canadian government be respected or will these people be at the mercy of every whim of the new managers?

If the government maintains that project of privatizing the Canadian air control system, will it force the new company to abide by the Official Languages Act with regard to services offered to users and employees? Will the pilots, private or professional, still have access to air control services in the language of their choice? Will the employees enjoy the same work rules as they have now, for example the right to receive training and communications in French wherever the legislation permits?

I mention these points, Mr. Speaker, to stress the possible impacts of loss of income in the south which would allow grants and support for the northern regions.

Any privatization project which is of national interest, be it the Pearson airport or the air traffic control system, should be reviewed with everyone's interests in mind and in such a way that citizens in the northern regions or remote areas would be treated fairly.