Roger Pomerleau

[Hydro-Quebec, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that today is the 50th anniversary of Hydro-Quebec, a Quebec company whose skills and expertise are now recognized throughout the world.

Remember that it was René Lévesque who gave Hydro-Quebec the impetus to become an essential tool for Quebec's economic development by providing work for thousands of Quebecers and generating billions of dollars in economic benefits.

Keep in mind as well that the energy produced by Hydro-Quebec is renewable and much cleaner than coal or nuclear power. The new challenges facing society today are soft energies and energy efficiency. We must encourage this option.

In closing, I would like to mention the historic agreement in principle reached yesterday between Hydro-Quebec and the Inuit of northern Quebec. We hope that this agreement marks a new partnership between the government owned corporation and native peoples.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

We are now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We were supposed to have a debate today on Bill C-17.

[Auditor General Act, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier for introducing Bill C-207. He explained very well the overall nature of the bill which is aimed at giving the Auditor General of Canada a little more room to manoeuvre so as to allow him to present the information the House truly requires as quickly as possible. The hon. member gave a good account of several great examples of totally outrageous spending. We had heard of these expenditures. He pointed out that the Auditor General's report was enormously useful to members, and I cannot disagree with this statement.

However, I would like to say that this report should also be useful to the people. The public can obtain copies of the report from the Auditor General of Canada. The published report is available free of charge. Many citizens would do well to read it. The Auditor General's Office will be happy to send them a copy if they request one.

To all those who are listening to us at this moment, let me say that the role of the Auditor General of Canada is to act as the government watchdog in matters of national finance. Each year, the Auditor General inspects a portion of the government's books and each year, as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier said, he releases a report anywhere from 600 to 700 pages long describing some administrative horrors of which the government is guilty.

Very often, and that is something that my colleague also stressed, the media jump on this report and it makes headlines for two or three days, a week at best, and then it is shelved. I believe my colleague was right to mention it.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, but I must say that ever since we arrived here, we have asked for something much larger than this. We believe that the role of the Auditor General is not wide enough. We have been asking the government to open its books to the public, so it can review, item by item, all government spending, including fiscal spending. By the way, we know that fiscal spending is beyond the reach of the Auditor General, he is not suppose to review that, it is nor part of his mandate, and I talked about that with Mr. Desautels during a meeting we had with him.

For those who would like to know what fiscal spending is, I recommend a book published in Toronto I believe, a couple of year ago. It is called The Lion's Share , by Linda McQuaig, and it describes how people who control Canadian fiscal policy could grab it for their own profit.

Unfortunately, the way things are now, I believe that government operations are not fully transparent since some elements which should be audited are not accessible to the Auditor General of Canada.

That is the case for tax expenditures; that is also the case for family trusts, which the government does not want to touch. We do not know how much money there is in these at the present time. There were also other examples, such as Ginn Publishing, things that remain secret, but that should be known in the House.

There should not be secret relationships between secret people on secret decisions. What is going on in the government should be known here, in the House, so that we could take good decisions on the matter.

Unfortunately, that is why we got the budget that we did. If we look at that budget, and that was still evident in the media today, the government is directly attacking the unemployed. In that budget, it is the unemployed and the old people who will be hurt.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, the budget does not talk about the billions of dollars in waste noted by the Auditor General of Canada. It does not talk either about solving the issue of program overlappings. It does not talk about eliminating family trusts or at least taking a look at what is going on there. The Auditor General should be the one examining that.

Unfortunately, the budget does not talk about that or about the more than 90,000 profitable companies that presently do not pay any taxes in Canada, while in the United States, which is certainly not a communist country, all profitable companies must pay a minimal tax.

In general, we are not satisfied with the way the current government is fulfilling its task of managing public funds. Canadians will not be either. Let us just think about the kind of reception the Prime Minister got during his recent visit to his riding. The same is true about the welcome they gave the Minister of Transport. I am not talking here about members of Parliament, but about people who experience problems which the government has the power to solve.

Unfortunately, I think this dissatisfaction is bound to increase because the measures implemented by the government affect the poorest among the have-nots while we know that public funds management could improve if they would only follow up on reports like the one by the Auditor General and give him more authority to push his analyses further.

However, I must stress the fact that the present bill does give more authority to the Auditor General. On the whole, this bill provides for better management and that is why the Bloc Quebecois will support it.

[Francophone And Acadian Minorities, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the income gap between francophones and anglophones, which keeps widening, is partly due to the fact that francophone minorities in Canada do not have management control of their elementary and secondary schools. This opinion is also shared by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. After thirty years of futile struggle, half of the Franco-Ontarian students still attend English schools, and their parents are getting poorer every year.

Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage reiterated the government's intention to reestablish the Court Challenges Program.

Francophone and Acadian minorities in Canada do not need federal subsidies to pay for their lawyers. The Supreme Court has already confirmed their rights. These minorities need the same degree of generosity displayed by Quebecers toward their anglophone minority, which includes fair financing of their schools as well as control of these schools.

[Canadian Jewish Congress, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today to mark the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Jewish Congress. This organization is well-known among Quebecers and Canadians; it is a pillar of our Jewish community.

Founded in Montreal after World War I, the Canadian Jewish Congress has participated in all major political and social debates in Quebec and Canada. Its fight for religious freedom and against all forms of discrimination was then taken up by all Quebecers and Canadians.

On the occasion of its 75th anniversary, I would like to thank the Jewish Congress for its important contribution to our society and to wish it a long life.

[Saint Lawrence Seaway, March 16th, 1994]

moved

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary measures to ensure that the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis, namely through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway are a major asset for Canada and Quebec. Historically, this huge river and its network of tributaries has been a major route of penetration into North America.

Not surprisingly, the first towns were founded on its shores and their prosperity came from their shipping activities. This is the case for Montreal which developed mainly because of its port facilities.

Today, the St. Lawrence Seaway, with an operating budget of $78 million and almost 900 employees, has an annual volume of more than 30 million tonnes. More than 5,000 ships go through the system every year. It provides a major transport infrastructure, not only for Canada and Quebec, but also for the whole of North America.

Today as in the past, the river remains the main corridor for the transportation of goods into the interior of the continent.

The motion I introduced today asks the government to provide for measures that will ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis, namely through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in eastern Canada.

The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for navigation on the St. Lawrence. It has enough ships, ice breakers, helicopters and communications equipment to carry out that mission.

However, last winter, ice jams paralysed traffic on the river. During 29 days in February and early March, some 40 ships were held up for various periods of time. A dozen ships had to be sent to St. John harbour, in New Brunswick because they could not moor in Montreal. The Coast Guard had simply not installed the booms that control freeze-up and ice flow, thus preventing ice jams.

Needless to say that the losses resulting from this incident were catastrophic and enormous. Of the 560 longshoremen who normally work in Montreal harbour during the winter, barely 200 were called in sporadically during that period and those who did not work were not paid because this was an act of God.

The port of Montreal alone incurred losses estimated to $1.5 million during those few weeks.

Substantial losses were also incurred by road and rail carriers awaiting delivery of merchandise on board the immobilized cargo ships and consignees suffered inventory and production problems.

As for ship owners, water carriers and insurers, according to Frank Nicol, the president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, their losses totalled tens of millions of dollars. And that does not include the losses due to flooding incurred by individuals, particularly along the shore, where the ice jams occurred.

Aside from these immediate, short-term losses, the port of Montreal now finds itself under the obligation to defend its reputation as a port open on a year-round basis in front of potential users who may well decide to land their cargo elsewhere, and this at a time when transportation infrastructures and communications are playing a major strategic role in the positioning of regions. It was a terrible blow for the entire east side of Montreal, which has already been hard hit by unemployment and job losses.

I will remind this House that, based on a document prepared by the greater Montreal mayors' convention, forty or so shipping lines connect the port of Montreal to over 200 ports around the world. It creates tens of thousands of direct jobs, and more than 20 million tonnes of goods, or 40 per cent of the total volume for Montreal, transit through the port".

The Coast Guard blamed the ice jam phenomenon on climatic conditions, and Mr. Frank Nichol added: "We were hit hard by the weather and we were not ready".

Yet, it is not the first time that the Coast Guard is blamed. In 1980, the commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the collision of the Athanasia Comninos with the railway and roadway bridge in Quebec City said this: "If federal authorities want the St. Lawrence River to remain navigable in winter, it is unacceptable on their part to tolerate at any time that ship captains be faced with ice jams such as the one which the pilot of the Comninos had to dealt with. The solution calls for the river to remain free of ice and, seemingly, this implies a greater use of the ice breakers in operation''. Again, this report goes back to 1980.

In 1982, another commission, this time on the Hudson Transport tragedy in the St. Lawrence River, headed by Judge James K. Hugessen, was even more critical of the Coast Guard. It said: Obviously, the Coast Guard attaches a low priority to its search and rescue responsibilities. The Coast Guard is certainly renowned, but not because of its role in this particular case'.' Following part of the testimony given by the then regional director of the Coast Guard, Judge Hugessen added this:His admiration fills us with deep contempt. It is symptomatic of the need for a fundamental review of priorities and attitudes in the management of the Coast Guard''.

The report concluded with those comments: "Winter navigation in the river and the gulf has now reached a level such that it can no longer be considered an exceptional occurrence. Hundreds of men and thousands of tons of goods use this waterway, which is dangerous in the best of circumstances, and particularly so in winter. We assume that Canada reaps an important economic advantage of winter navigation in the St. Lawrence. Otherwise, this waterway should be closed in the wintertime. If the seaway is to remain open, Canada must arrange for adequate search and rescue services". And this involves icebreakers.

The effectiveness of the Coast Guard in Quebec and in eastern Canada, notably as regards the allocation of vessels and land personnel, leaves something to be desired. Of the 19 icebreakers operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, 11, or roughly 60 per cent of the fleet, are based in the Maritimes. This figure includes the only three heavy icebreakers operated by the Coast Guard.

Yet, ice jams virtually never occur in this region and we fail to understand why the majority of our icebreakers-including all of our heavy icebreakers-are based hundreds of kilometres away from the locations where the ice jams occur, either because the seaway is too narrow or the water flows more slowly, as is the case in the Montreal area. Only two medium icebreakers and three light icebreakers are based on the St. Lawrence. They account for only 25 per cent of the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet of icebreaking vessels.

When an icebreaker moored in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is deployed to break up an ice jam on Lac St. Pierre, it should come as no surprise if the damage intensifies before the vessel manages to arrive on the scene.

Mr. Speaker, the port of Montreal should have been better protected last winter. We really did not need to have these problems.

This glitch, which could have been avoided, only adds to the problems already encountered by the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Since 1977, the overall tonnage of goods shipped has steadily decreased. In fact, tonnage declined from 57.5 million tonnes to 31.4 million tonnes in 1992, an especially catastrophic year, primarily because of a marked decline in wheat shipments.

We know that, in the last two years, Ottawa has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on direct and indirect subsidies to Western rail carriers for the transportation of grain to West Coast ports under the Crow's Nest Pass agreements and that a direct effect of this has been a considerable reduction of activities in the port of Montreal.

We also know that the maritime industry as a whole is in decline and that, at a time when the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon is in its death throes, Canada is still wondering whether it will ask this shipyard to build the Magdalen Islands ferry or buy a ship from a foreign supplier.

The Japanese would never do such a thing. They would build the ship themselves and provide work for their own citizens rather than putting them on unemployment. In this day and age, Canada would be well advised to follow the Japanese example.

In 1945, Japan was a third world country. It is much smaller than Canada, with five times the population, few natural resources and no energy sources; it is very far from its markets and yet, in a 40-year span, it became one of the world's major economic powers.

In contrast, Canada, with its huge territory, abundant natural resources, nearly inexhaustible energy sources and the world's biggest market on its doorstep, managed to accumulate a $500 billion debt and to kill the job market.

The only certainty in the government's recent budget is that the debt will reach $600 billion in three years and that the unemployment rate will remain high. Under these circumstances, it is important to go ahead and make the changes that can be made right away.

Under these circumstances, it is imperative to maintain maritime activity in the St. Lawrence on a year-round basis and to have the Coast Guard simply do its job. That is why we are recommending to the government to ensure a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in the St. Lawrence, specially in February and March, to avoid these preventable events in the future.

[Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 before the House today is in fact a piece of legislation the previous government did not have time to pass and which died several times on the Order Paper.

Essentially, this bill only gives legal basis to the role currently played by the National Energy Board ever since its merger with the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration in 1991.

As my colleague from Matapédia-Matane said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois approves the principle of the bill and will vote for it at the second reading stage. However, to put things into perspective, I would like to mention that the terms of reference of the NEB was, as recently as last week, challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada.

My colleague from Matapédia-Matane also reviewed the new constitutional realities concerning the need to conduct environmental impact assessments on any hydro projects undertaken for foreign markets. We are anxiously waiting for the decision the National Energy Board will should make, following the ruling of the Supreme Court, as to the need to extend such assessments to gas and oil exportation projects.

Of course, if Quebec becomes sovereign, we should be free of this control over our interests. In the meantime, we think it is crucial to promote and defend the interests of Quebec within the current federal system. Defending Quebec's interests does not prevent us in any way from also defending and promoting the interests of Canadians and the rest of Canada, provided, of course, that theirs are fully compatible with ours and are in no way against Quebec's interests.

Yesterday, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata brilliantly demonstrated this when she defended the cultural interests of English Canada against excessive control by American publishing multinationals. The Leader of the Official Opposition himself does not fail opportunity to stand up for common interests of Canada and Quebec in his speeches which attract considerable attention, including his stand on the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who took the advice of the Bloc Quebecois and yesterday extended for another six months the mandate of our UN troops in Bosnia.

But to come back to the issue of oil and gas development, there is a subject which involves the financial interests of all Canadians and Quebecers. I am talking about the Hibernia megaproject, of which our friends in the Reform Party have just spoken.

Left to market forces alone-and I think members of the Reform Party will fully agree on this-the Hibernia project would never have come about. It exists only because two governments, this one and the one before, persisted in investing billions of dollars in this venture whose outcome nobody can predict. Such quandering of public funds should give the shivers to anyone in this House who takes taxpayers' interests to heart.

In fact, what worries me most about the Hibernia adventure is the extremely high financial risk. Just think that Chevron, Mobil and Murphy, the oil companies that are partners in that venture, have so little confidence in it that they demand that the federal government, and ultimately the Canadian taxpayers, bear a huge share of the financial risk.

Notwithstanding the heated debate on the relative cost of each barrel extracted from the Hibernia and Avalon oilfields compared to the international price, one has to admit that it takes an act of faith to believe that the project will ultimately be

profitable. As a professor at Memorial University said so eloquently: "We are down to gut feelings and faith about it".

The profitability of that project, if it is ever profitable, can only be marginal at best. Moreover, the rate of return depends on unpredictable fluctuations in three distinct and very important factors. The first is the quantity of oil that can really be extracted from this field. The second is the final cost of building and operating the gigantic drilling rig. The third, which is both the most unpredictable and the determining factor, is the price of oil in 1997, the year when production is supposed to begin, and during the productive life of the field, which is 15 years.

I could refrain from mentioning the risks of environmental disasters that are never desirable but always possible, but I have to raise the issue of the safety of the platform itself, which will be towed 300 kilometres off the coast of St. John's, right in the middle of what is referred to today as Iceberg Alley, in the area where the Titanic sank in 1912. The risks of disaster are so great that it seems impossible for the promoters of the project to insure the platform for its full value in case a disaster should occur. So it is obviously something important.

It seems to me that Canadian taxpayers should not have to trust the federal government blindly, as it is asking them to do. They should be informed of all the costs and the great risks associated with this project. After all, it is the money of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers that the government is throwing at this project to prevent it from sinking.

The money invested by the federal government on behalf of taxpayers currently exceeds $3 billion in direct grants, loan guarantees, interest payments and direct equity participation in this project. And I would remind all Canadians who are listening to this debate that $1 billion equals $1,000 million. So, $3 billion means that the federal government is asking Canadians to trust it with a $3,000 million investment in a single project, over and above the hundreds of millions it has already invested in activities related to the exploration and development of resources off Canada's east coast.

In one of his recent annual reports, the Auditor General of Canada expressed legitimate concern about Hibernia. He said that it was a high risk venture due to fluctuating prices as well as technological and environmental issues. The Auditor General's analysis is still valid today, and even more so during a period of fiscal restrictions, when we are making deep cuts in unemployment insurance. Billions of dollars, thousands of millions, have been invested in high risk ventures based on faith but, when cutbacks are needed, we do not hesitate to cut benefits to the unemployed. This government seems to think that unemployed people are the problem.

If I brought up the issue of Hibernia today, it is probably because I am wary. The Bloc Quebecois is not in power and has no ambition in that direction; that is quite obvious. We cannot stop this massive investment of public funds in a high risk venture based on faith. However, as the Official Opposition, we will fight to ensure that, should this project go forward, it will generate as much economic activity as possible in Canada and Quebec. It is the least we can do.

We will hound this Liberal government to ensure that subcontracts promised to Canadian and Quebec businesses by the previous government and the Hibernia consortium will be honoured and, if possible, maximized.

As for other megaprojects whose profitability is more than doubtful, the Bloc Quebecois will defend the interests of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-6 at second reading. We will look into the legitimate complaints that will eventually be brought to our attention before or during the committee stage of this bill.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Government Spending, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the election of the Liberal government, we have kept hearing in this House and in committees that Quebecers and Canadians must tighten their belts, that governments can no longer provide families and seniors with the social security to which they are entitled.

In spite of all that, how can one explain that, since the start of the year, a worthy representative of Her Majesty used the Challenger jet twice for vacation trips to the South? How can one decently defend a bill of $160,000 or maybe even $700,000, as the newspapers report, to allow him and his wife to go and take a rest?

The answer is clear: it is an indefensible, immoral decision.

[Scouting, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, February 22 is a very important day. It is on February 22, 1857, in London, that Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the scouting movement, was born. So, on February 22, Baden-Powell Day, we celebrate scouting, which Canada joined in 1910.

The scouting movement has now more than 25 million members across the world, in 150 countries. As a former scout, I would like to repeat for the House this famous quote from Baden-Powell: Try to leave this world in a better state than you found it.