Philippe Paré

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, if we could erase the last 130 years and if the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest were to ask his question, we would probably say: "Yes, he is probably right". We could experiment and try to see if Canada, with its English-speaking majority, and Quebec, with its French-speaking majority, can live in harmony at the economic, social and other levels.

The reality is that history cannot be erased. For a great many years, Quebecers have felt constrained in this country. Their English-Canadian partners have never been as open to them as they would have liked. So much so that Canada is even unable to accept the concept of distinct society, to recognize that Quebec and Quebecers are different. They tried to sell this reality by using another phrase: "principal homeland".

If Canada cannot accept Quebec as a distinct society, how can Quebecers trust the federal government to ensure their survival, their social, economic and cultural development?

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this budget debate. Based on the budget speech, it is possible to make an overall assessment of government action.

When we look at the action of this government, we are reminded of the old saying "all talk, no action". I will demonstrate this reality in two ways. I will compare the speech from the throne with the budget speech and I will also compare speeches that were made on Canada's foreign policy with the reality that this government is inflicting upon us.

The speech from the throne tells us that the government intends to withdraw from a number of areas under provincial jurisdiction. Four or five areas are mentioned, and members will recall that, in Quebec alone, the cost of duplication and overlap has been estimated at $3 billion by the Bélanger-Campeau commission. So when we look at the speech from the throne, we have a tendency to think that the government is going in the right direction.

But, at the same time, what do we learn in the budget speech? That the government intends to establish a Canadian securities commission when such commissions already exist in the major provinces, including Quebec.

The government says it will withdraw from the area of job training, but look at all the procrastination around this so-called withdrawal. We can see that it has really no intention of withdrawing from this area.

The government is establishing a committee of tax experts, but the experts it appoints to this committee are all certified accountants that are experts in tax avoidance.

So what are the government's real intentions when it says it wants to reform the Canadian tax system? We can have our doubts about that.

The federal government is creating a health services research fund. We will now have a new area where there will be duplication and overlap.

In the speech from the throne, the government says it wants to ensure the viability of social programs. Let us take a look now at what is happening in reality: $7 billion cuts in transfers to provinces, and let us not forget that these transfers are for major services such as health care, income security and post-secondary education, that is colleges and universities.

It claims to be contributing to ensuring the viability of social programs by its unemployment insurance reform. Let us look at a few points here. With the UI reform, all workers start contributing with the first hour worked. So the little guy, the person who never contributed in the past, will be forced to pay into a fund, with no assurance at all of being able to draw anything out of it later on, of course.

At the same time, maximum insurable earnings are being lowered. Again the little guy will be forced to contribute, while the ones contributing in the past on up to $42,000 will now contribute up to $39,000, and yet the speech still claims the intent is to ensure the viability of social programs.

The government is more or less rifling $5 billion from the unemployment insurance fund, still for the purpose of ensuring the liability of social programs, of course.

In the throne speech, the government claims to have finally controlled the deficit. Now, the 1996-97 increase in the debt is $24 billion. Since this government came in, the debt has gone up by $110 billion and yet it is patting itself on the back, claiming to have gained the upper hand over the deficit.

The government tells us in the throne speech "we will be making changes to Canadian federation in order to bring it more in line with what Quebecers and Canadians want". Their last invention, the principal homeland of French culture in North America, has made them the laughing stock of everyone. We have only to look at the political cartoons and the newspaper editorials of the past two days. Everybody is making fun of it, and this is practically the only answer the government can come up with, since it is incapable of reaching a consensus within its own ranks on this question.

The second main element I am going to address, Canada's foreign policy, I will look at from two points of view: aid to developing countries and human rights. When the Liberal Party was in opposition, it criticized the Conservatives for their foreign policy, but it is interesting to compare the priorities the Conservatives set for themselves in Sharing Our Future and the Liberals' in Canada in the World .

The Conservatives set out their foreign policy under four headings: attacking poverty, helping people help themselves, promoting development and, finally, partnership in foreign policy, which was a key concept. What about the Liberal's famous foreign policy made public in 1995? When the document was tabled, of course, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke of the generosity and compassion of Canadians. While it is true of Canadians, it is not true of the government.

Now let us look at the facts. The three pillars of Canadian foreign policy: prosperity and jobs through trade, security for Canadians in a stable world-God knows it is not stable-and, finally, exporting our cultural products and values. They even dare to add, "to ensure our success in the world".

So the concept of generosity appears in speeches as does the concept of compassion, but when it comes down to really formulating a policy and stating it, it appears that everything is centred on trade relations.

We have a very typical case to demonstrate the failure of Canadian foreign policy. It is the case of a resident of Sainte-Foy, Mr. Tran Trieu Quan, who has been a prisoner in Vietnam for over two years. He is a businessman who made a business transaction. He was simply the intermediary between an American company, which went through its Canadian subsidiary to deliver cotton to Vietnam. He was simply the go-between. There were fraudulent dealings in the transaction. The Government of Canada knows he is not responsible. Interpol in Ottawa has shown that Mr. Tran was himself a victim of this shady deal, the company's scapegoat, but the Canadian government says it cannot do a thing to help Tran Trieu Quan to return home.

There are actions the government could take. Remember that the Prime Minister, in his first trip to the Asian Pacific, signed, among other things, an agreement for a co-operation project with Vietnam worth $36 million. Just as the Prime Minister of Canada was about to sign, he could have set his pen on the table and told his Vietnamese counterpart: "I would be very happy to sign this co-operation agreement but there is a little problem. A Canadian

citizen has been a prisoner in your country for a number of months. Until Mr. Tran Trieu Quan is released, no trade agreement can be signed".

As you may also recall, the Canadian government helped Vietnam eliminate its debt to the International Monetary Fund. The IDRC has projects in Vietnam. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs increased financial aid to Vietnam by $20 million.

The April 13 edition of Le Journal des affaires reports that CIDA has just awarded a $7 million contract to Stikeman Elliott and Experco Limited, companies based in Montreal and Drummondville. Although this government continues to give millions of dollars to Vietnam, it is unable to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure Mr. Tran Trieu Quan's release.

This shows the very wide gap between what the government says and what it can or cannot do.

[Quebec Bridge, March 29th, 1996]

As my colleague from Lévis has reminded me, they have just acquired MIL Davie. So it was an American firm, Modjesky and Masters, that the Canadian government asked in 1994 to thoroughly assess the state of the bridge at a cost of $1 million. The money might better have been put toward maintaining the bridge, but that is what they did with it.

The results of the study are fairly alarming. The bridge has reached a point where it is rusting at a much faster rate than it ever did in past decades. Repair and maintenance work are needed to extend the useful life of the bridge well into the 21st century. The bridge, therefore, is in real danger.

A little further along they go on to say that, while the structure shows no signs of falling apart, if it is to remain intact and irreversible damage avoided, work must be done within the next five years.

This is not the dream or the vision of a group of Quebec bridge lovers, who are defending the bridge. No, the bridge is really in dire straits.

The price tag is a big one, we have to agree. The company expects that full repairs, including architectural lighting will cost $63 million.

This is the funny part. The federal government says it is washing its hands of it. A real Pontius Pilate. It is washing its hands of it, because it handed the bridge over to Canadian National in 1993.

However, the government fails to recognize that, over the previous 10 or 15 years, maintenance of the bridge was seriously neglected. It is, therefore, not true that CN alone is responsible for getting the work done.

The state of the bridge reflects the negligence of Transport Canada over the past 15 years. Who then should pay the $63 million? The answer is very clear: Canadian National and the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada claims that Quebec has significant responsibility.

I mentioned earlier that Quebec only leases the bridge. In spite of the fact that it is only the leaseholder, the Government of Quebec has shown incomparable magnanimity in offering to tear up the $25,000 per year lease agreement if the CN and the Canadian government promptly commit to initiating the work called for in the agreement entered into by Transport Canada and CN in 1993. The Government of Quebec is prepared to tear up the $25,000 per year lease and to pay $1.5 million per year instead.

This is 1996, and the lease agreement expires in 2012, which means that there are 16 years left in the term of the agreement. If the federal government and CN had the wits to realize what the Quebec government is offering, they would jump at the offer. While under no obligation to do so, the Government of Quebec is offering to change the terms of the agreement, putting $24 million on the table, and all the Canadian government has to do is to say: "Yes, we readily agree; this is a deal for $31.5 million", especially since the repairs, which will take between seven and ten years to complete, will create 400 to 500 summer-long jobs for many years to come. It is estimated that this would generate approximately $10 million in taxes for the federal government.

So, adding the $24 million the Government of Quebec is putting on the table and the $10 million the federal government will collect in taxes, we get a total of $34 million. But when a $31.5 million contribution is requested, the federal government does not want to have anything to do with it and says: "No. The government has handed over responsibility to CN". It certainly did.

Either the Canadian government pays the $31.5 million that makes up its share or the CN will be forced to operate under the agreement signed in 1993, a perfectly clear agreement, which states at section 1 that Canada will hand over to CN all Canadian government railway land, with a few exceptions. They gave CN a present. Section 2 states that the commissioner shall transfer to CN all national and transcontinental railway land. Another present.

In today's Le Soleil , the former mayor of Quebec City and illustrious chief of staff to the PM is quoted as saying that the land given to CN was worth $35 million. CN was to use the proceeds from the sale of this land to initiate the work, but failed to do so.

Article 4 is very interesting. It reads as follows: "Canada shall transfer the Quebec bridge to CN-CN shall undertake to fund a major maintenance program on the bridge, including the installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, which shall restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its long term viability and ensure it is maintained in this state".

Without limiting CN's obligations described above, the company was asked to try to reach a new agreement with the Quebec government, and that was done.

Article 12 of the famous agreement signed by the former Quebec transport minister, Mr. Gobeil, and CN's president, Mr. Tellier, provides that the agreement can only be amended through an instrument signed by the parties to it. The agreement does not appear to have been amended. Article 13 says that the agreement is subject to the law of Canada, is interpreted pursuant to that law, and is binding on the parties, their successors and their assigns.

In other words, CN's privatization does not change a thing. CN must do the work and the Canadian government must pay its share, since it has a direct responsibility after 15 years of neglect. I will stop here. Someday, we will have to expose the petty role played by the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

In a memo released today, he says that the federal government no longer has any obligation regarding the restoration of the Quebec bridge, and that it is now CN's responsibility. It may be so, but then the federal government should tell CN to do its homework.

One thing is certain though: the taxes Quebecers everywhere have paid since the bridge was built should have gone to its maintenance, but nothing was done. Let those who had a duty to maintain the bridge do it now.

[Quebec Bridge, March 29th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction with the Canadian National (CN), carry out repairs to the Pont de Québec.

Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this motion, but before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to remind the hon. members of an incident that happened at the Standing Committee on Transport last June, during the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-89, the CN privatization bill.

One day in June, the Coalition pour la sauvegarde du Pont de Québec appeared before the committee to support an amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which was designed to exclude the Quebec bridge from the operation of the privatization bill.

The coalition was represented by Mr. Jobin, the coalition's leader, and Mr. Beaulieu, an engineer and Laval University professor who has been taking an active interest for nearly 10 years now in the important matter of the repairs to be made to the Quebec bridge.

They made their case, then the government members spoke, and the attitude they displayed was an absolute disgrace. They started by saying: "Look, one bridge cannot be excluded from the privatization process; there are 6,000 bridges in the Canadian railway system", which was like saying that the Quebec bridge had no more value than any of the 6,000 small bridges crossing over gullies, brooks and small rivers. This is the first indication of the government's absolute ignorance.

The second one is the fact that several government members who sit on the Standing committee on transport and who only understand English, and this is certainly their prerogative, did not even bother to use their earphones to listen to the comments made by the two individuals who were representing the coalition. Worse still, some committee members would get up, leave and then come back, so that the meeting took place in a circus-like atmosphere and these two people had the impression of being treated the way they might have been in a school yard.

Let us now go back to the motion itself. Why are we submitting motion M-202? We do so out of despair, because the Quebec City bridge is in such a deplorable and preoccupying condition.

Let us not forget that when the Quebec bridge was built to span the St. Lawrence River-until the day it collapses-it was the easternmost bridge, all the others being located in Montreal. At the

time, trains could not cross the St. Lawrence when travelling from the maritime provinces to Montreal.

Consequently, the Quebec bridge was a very important addition to the economic development of the Quebec region. This is still true today. I will not discuss the historical aspects or the actual construction of the bridge. The hon. member for Lévis will deal with these issues later on, and he will also talk about the bridge's heritage value.

Today's motion is important because it reminds the Canadian government and the CN that they have a duty to maintain this monument, because it is indeed a monument, which is also an essential component for the economic development of the Quebec region.

To give you an idea of the state the Quebec bridge is now in, I have decided to read you a few paragraphs from an article by Louis-Guy Lemieux that appeared in Le Soleil on September 10, 1995. It is entitled: "Bridge of Shame".

The article reads as follows: "It is possible for a person to lift off shovel-sized chunks of rusted iron with their bare hands. Motorists are treated to pieces falling on their hoods and windshields. Pleasure boats do not like to pass under the bridge-for fear of falling debris, of course. It is going to crumble into the river one day, and sooner than you think. You do not need to be an expert to see that the Quebec bridge is on its last legs. It is in such a decrepit state that traffic should not be allowed on it".

The article continues: "After the alarm sounded by the coalition to save the bridge, and the on the whole comforting conclusions of the study by CN's experts, I went to see it up close, this marvellous old bridge I remember from my youth. I did not recognize it. The old bridge, this heap of rusted iron, abandoned to the elements, cannot be the longest cantilever bridge in the world, the triumph of civil engineering, the eighth wonder of the world. These were the glowing terms used in all the newspapers at its inauguration on September 20, 1917. Today we would have to call it the first cantilever bridge no longer fit for use, an embarrassment to local civil engineering, a perfect example of the inertia of government".

The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Who owns the bridge? There is no doubt that from the moment construction began in 1907, until 1993, there was no possible doubt, it was the Canadian government, represented by Transport Canada, which owned the bridge, although it must be understood that responsibility for its maintenance was given to Canadian National several decades ago.

Since 1993, however, the bridge has belonged to CN. It must be kept in mind that this was exclusively a train bridge between 1917 and 1928, however. Its sole use was for the railway. From 1929 on, the Government of Quebec obtained the right to have automobiles use it, back in the days, some forty years ago, when vehicular traffic was light.

This makes no difference in terms of who owns the bridge. Even if the Government of Quebec has used the Quebec bridge, is still using it, and the use is increasing, this does not in any way cast doubt on the ownership, since the Quebec department of transport has been doing this on a leasing arrangement.

Since 1949, the Government of Quebec has been engaged in an agreement renewable more or less every 20 years. I doubt that the Quebec government forced the federal government to sign it at gun point. The federal government has, therefore, signed this succession of agreements willingly, and in full knowledge of the situation.

The current agreement will terminate in 2012. If the arrangement no longer suited the Canadian government when the last renewal came up, during the 1980s, it had only to terminate the leasing agreement with the Government of Quebec. It did not. Instead, it extended the agreement to the year 2012, at a rate I would agree is somewhat low, $25,000 a year. I do not think this rate was imposed by Quebec. It is my understanding that the Canadian government was in agreement on it.

Earlier, I waxed somewhat poetic in describing the location and the appearance of the Quebec bridge, because Mr. Lemieux is a poet as well as a journalist.

Now I shall offer a description, not by a journalist, but by an American company. It appears that no Canadian company was capable of offering an expert opinion on the true condition of the bridge. This is particularly surprising when one of the designers, Dominion Bridge, has a business office in Quebec, if not its head offices. But no.

[Quebec Week For The Mentally Impaired, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, close to 1,000 people from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area got together to mark the beginning of the Quebec week for the mentally impaired.

Under the theme "Formerly excluded, now integrated: together we make changes", various activities took place throughout the week in Quebec to make people more aware of the problems

related to the integration of the mentally impaired. If we respect our differences and stand united, we can provide an egalitarian environment for these people, so that they can have the social life they are entitled to.

The Bloc Quebecois also wants to pay tribute to organizations such as the Saguenay association for the development of the mentally disabled, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. We say 1,000 thanks to Louisette Couture, Stella Beaulieu and the members of their board, for their dedication to this noble cause.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member opposite spent much time defending the accounting profession. I do not think that what is at issue here, basically, is the profession per se. Part of the problem but not all of it rests with accounting.

The big question has more to do with figuring out why, two years into its mandate, the government has decided all of a sudden to set up a committee of experts to review the Canadian tax system. What is rather despicable about this approach is the fact that this committee is being formed after the Canadian government has already cut $7 billion in transfers to the provinces, taken billions of dollars away from UI recipients and drawn $5 billion on the UI surplus.

All of a sudden, out of the blue, it occurred to the government that perhaps it should have a committee of experts examine taxation, after all the chopping in social programs has been done.

I do not think that what is mainly at issue is the ethics of accountants. I think that accountants are totally within the law; however, and this is an important difference, something legal is not automatically ethical. When the legislation is unjust, inequitable and unfair to all citizens and that accountants operate within this legislation, while not being illegal, what they do may not be very ethical either.

I think, however, that we must agree that accountants are specialized in advising their clients on tax avoidance. How can we put any trust in these people to advise the government in reforming the Canadian tax system? I think that any involvement on their part in a process that the government might have wished to be perfectly serious and credible would defeat the purpose. That is why I contend that this cannot be a serious process, since some experts will be both judge and judged.

I would say that the hon. member for Joliette made this point very clearly today.

[Aid To Africa, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this Semaine de la francophonie, we are very pleased with the project launched by the United Nations to promote Africa's development. This special initiative will focus on education and health.

The UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said in Geneva that the UN wanted to solemnly tell Africa that it would not be abandoned. This special initiative, which is under the financial responsibility of the World Bank, provides for the injection of $25 billion over the next ten years, and for maximizing the efforts and resources of the major United Nations agencies and of the international community.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canadian and Quebec NGO's will take part in this courageous fight for peace, development, democracy and the respect of human rights.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present this petition. The petitioners rightly ask the government not to increase the excise tax on gasoline in the upcoming budget.

[Human Rights, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last January 24, we were stunned to learn that Mr. Tran Trieu Quan had been condemned to life imprisonment by Vietnamese authorities after a mock trial. How can the foreign affairs minister accept that this Canadian citizen, clearly the victim of a conspiracy, be held prisoner in Vietnam without any action on the part of the Canadian government to get him out of that plight?

We have the right to ask ourselves today if the powerlessness and inertia of our government can be explained by its decision to put financial considerations before human rights. Instead of turning a blind eye to that situation, the foreign affairs minister should prove that Canadian citizenship still means something abroad by carrying out his fundamental duty, that is to protect the interests of Canadians everywhere in the world.

[Human Rights, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, considering the lack of success of government interventions to date, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to ask the Prime Minister to personally bring up the case of this Canadian citizen with the authorities in Hanoi once again and to demand his immediate release?