Gilles-A. Perron

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In presenting my petition, I made an error, and spoke of the hon. member for Champlain, when it ought to have been the hon. member for Chambly.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by 83 of my constituents requesting that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act be repealed.

My colleague, the member for Champlain, Post Office critic, and all other Bloc Quebecois members, myself included, strongly support the petitioners' request.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1999, I have here an article in the Journal de Montréal that confirms that Ottawa wants to muzzle Quebec.

Further to the introduction of the bill, I want to table this article. I ask for unanimous consent to do so.

[Saint-Eustache Patriots, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad anniversary. It was on December 14, 1837, that General Colborne's army of 1,200 attacked Dr. Chénier's 200 or so Patriots in the village of Saint-Eustache.

Eleven of the patriots who had taken refuge in the church, including Dr. Jean-Olivier Chénier, were executed. We should add to the list the name of 7-year old Jean-Baptiste Marineau who, after having been shot in retaliation by a volunteer from Saint-André, died in March 1838 of the injuries he had sustained.

At the time, the legislative council appointed by London had power over elected representatives. After more than 30 years of sterile parliamentary battles to achieve democracy, a large segment of the population, including some English leaders, took up arms and participated in the uprising.

Our patriots fought for the national recognition of our people, for freedom and for a democratic government.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this sad anniversary. Exactly 162 years ago today, Dr. Olivier Chénier and 11 patriots lay down their lives in the church in Saint-Eustache in the name of democracy.

Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten my friends opposite. It is an article—

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. You have just recognized a member from across the way for questions and comments. You are recognizing another member from across the way. Is it two for one or three for one? Is that what 50% plus one means?

[Divorce Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time following what the interpreter is saying. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are going much too fast.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Reform Party member who just spoke on his excellent speech.

Like him, I am concerned about young people with drug problems. It is an issue that I care about. But I do not think that Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, will do anything to help these young people.

Like him, I think that a bill like Bill C-13 would be a good idea, although I have some reservations about the bill.

I would like the member to give me his version of the facts. Does he not think, as I do, that Bill C-13 interferes in provincial jurisdiction?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. He says that the Bloc Quebecois motion is out of date.

Does his vision of the future include no possibility for Canadians to control their own international air carrier?

In other words, could some company like American Airlines be the one giving the orders on international aviation in Canada? Is that his vision of the future?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this morning on an issue that seems to be dragging on, since we have been hearing about Air Canada and Onex for months now.

Of course, during the summer, we were able to follow the reactions of both Air Canada and Onex in the papers and in the news, if we followed current events. Through it all, the government said nothing, did not take part in the debate, except briefly during the month of August, when the transport and industry ministers, with almost unhealthy complicity, quietly let it be known that the competition rules were being suspended.

The suspension of the competition rules had the desired effect, helping the government's friends from Onex to submit a proposal with the complicity of American Air Lines, in order to get their hands on Canadian International Airlines.

What did the Bloc do during the summer? My friend, our critic for transport, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, asked on a daily basis that the Standing Committee on Transport be convened to listen, comment and collect information that would be useful to the Minister of Transport. In my view, that is what a committee is supposed to do: give legal advice to the appropriate minister.

However, the government refused to discuss the issue; it even boycotted meetings. Finally, the Bloc Quebecois and all opposition parties on this side of the House demanded that an ad hoc committee hold meetings. This committee was boycotted by the members opposite and dismissed as illegal.

But we went ahead and sat—during the summer, during our supposed holidays—here in Ottawa so that we could hear what groups such as the Airline Pilots Association and Air Canada's machinists association and many others thought of Onex's bid to buy Air Canada.

Finally, a few days ago, the Minister of Transport simply told us that that was that, that everyone would have to decide, that it might well be necessary to change the 10% rule.

But this is unacceptable. This morning, the leader of my party, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, gave a good summary of the history of the 10% rule, and we in the Bloc Quebecois think that this rule should not be changed. In fact, that is the reason for our motion this morning.

Why does this 10% rule apply to Petro Canada? Last year, in all the discussions about the bank mergers, why was the existing 10% ownership rule enforced? Why, this morning, does the government want to scrap it in the case of the airline industry? That is what we are wondering. This proposal strikes us as a bit strange.

Would its purpose be to help a friend, the president of Onex, who is part of the inner Liberal circle? It is a question one is entitled to ask.

There is something else I find really strange. In my view, this issue of Air Canada and Onex is a major one, with particular consequences for those living around airports. This morning, I have some serious questions. What about the members for Laval West, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Verdun—Saint-Henri, Pierrefonds—Dollard? What about the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies? Are they unable to speak? We have not heard from them.

I admire the courage displayed by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who sits on the other side. At the risk of being reprimanded by his caucus, he dared to tell Le Devoir , on October 14, that the 10% limit is appropriate and must absolutely be maintained. I admire him for his courage.

And then there is the hon. member for Vaudreuil who was perhaps a little less courageous when he said “Maybe yes, maybe no”. At least he expressed a preference, even though he was trying hard not to make waves. Again, I admire the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He is not here just now, but that does not matter, I admire him nevertheless.

I also ask myself other questions. Why would someone like Marc Lalonde, a former Liberal minister who must surely be respected by the Liberals, want the 10% limit maintained? Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you and Mr. Lalonde sat in the House at the same time. I believe so, and I am sure you respected him at the time. On October 26, 1999, Marc Lalonde stated many reasons why the 10% limit should be maintained.

I agree with those who say that there are problems with Canada's air transportation system. We definitely have to ask ourselves certain questions. Is there room in Canada for two international carriers, namely Canadian Airlines and Air Canada? We definitely have to ask ourselves certain questions. But the issue cannot be solved in 90 days or in 90 minutes. A thorough review is in order. I certainly agree with most members here, including my friends across the way, that we must not let Canadian international air transport fall under the control of foreign companies.

Control over Canadian international air transport must remain with Canadians. Regional air transport also must be restructured, as the hon. member for Jonquière said. Coming from Abitibi, it makes no sense to me that people in Rouyn-Noranda should pay more to fly from Rouyn-Noranda to Montreal than to fly from Montreal to Paris. It is crazy and ridiculous that a 55-minute flight from Rouyn-Noranda to Montreal should cost more than a 6-hour Montreal-Paris flight. It makes no sense, and we must review all that. Competition must be reconsidered.

When the Reform member talks about competition, I agree with her that we must bring in sound competition in regional transports. It is indeed desirable and urgently needed. The lack of competition hinders regional development. It is much more expensive for business people from Rouyn-Noranda, Jonquière or any other region to travel on business to Montreal and back than to Paris. What nonsense!

That adds to production costs and results in products made in Rouyn-Noranda or in Jonquière costing more and being less competitive than those in the Montreal or Toronto area. The 10% rule must not be abolished.

Of course, I will support the Bloc motion. A major restructuring of regional air transportation in Canada is absolutely needed.