House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I see a lack of logic in the position of the members opposite.
While they say the questions in the last two referendums were not clear, they use the responses to these questions to argue that Quebeckers chose to remain in Canada. Either the question was unclear or it was not.
If it was, so was the answer, and so the 50% less three-tenths cannot be used. If it was not, then they should stop saying it was.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I think it was Montesquieu who, in the 18th century, considered the separation of the three powers, that is the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, as the foundation of democracy.
Now, the executive branch is asking the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution.
That would be agreeable if the Constitution had not been unanimously rejected by the people on whom the court's interpretation is to be imposed. The initial Constitution was developed by two peoples, the two founding peoples. The Constitution of 1982 was adopted by only one of these two peoples and now this people wants to impose it on the other one because it forms the majority.
Does my colleague think, like myself, that this process is nothing more than another sign of the domination of the rest of Canada over Quebec?
Canada Marine Act December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I will begin with ADMr. In ADM's case, the board of directors' seven members are appointed by regional organizations, and the government is not represented at all. These seven members make up the board of directors and they hold all the powers. ADM is a totally independent organization.
As for Nav Canada, it is an organization which, unlike ADM, also has ownership of the facilities, but I will not discuss this aspect here.
However, the ports affected by Bill C-9 will have a board of directors made up of seven to eleven members, including one appointed by the province and one appointed by the municipalities. The other members, anywhere from five to nine of them, will be appointed by the government, in consultation—but in consultation only—with users.
It is interesting to compare the structure given ADM and the structure given to seaports. The similarity of airports and seaports, over which Ottawa retains ownership, is obvious and one must wonder why there is such a difference in the level of autonomy given ADM, which is total, and that given ports, which is very limited.
Why was ADM given so much power? Why was ADM given complete autonomy when seaports are not getting any? I think I know why. Montreal airports were a hot potato. Mirabel was created by a Liberal government; so now we had two airports and no road or rail link between Mirabel and Montreal; having two airports was bad for competitiveness and one had to be shut down. Air Canada was lobbying to have Mirabel closed down. However, this was a hot potato the government did not want to handle. I suggest that this is the reason why ADM was given so much power.
Ottawa wanted to wash its hands of the surgery that had to be performed to move international flights from an airport developed to the tune of billions of dollars to accommodate international flights. This is exactly what it did. Every single question I have asked in this House regarding Mirabel have been met by the same answer from the transport minister of the day “ADM is in charge”. In other words, the Minister of Transports, just like Pontius Pilate, is washing his hands of the whole Mirabel mess. This is the easy way out.
To conclude, I say once again that when it comes to this government there is a world of difference between political logic and plain logic.
Canada Marine Act December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government recently privatized three facilities in the transportation sector.
First, it was the Montreal airports, which are now managed by ADM, Administration des aéroports de Montréal, with the federal government keeping ownership of the facilities. Then, it was the ground facilities for air navigation, the management of which was transferred to Nav Canada, a corporation established for this purpose. This time, ownership of the facilities was also transferred. Now, the purpose of Bill C-9 is to transfer the management of marine ports to private organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I would really appreciate it if members opposite would listen. I guess my request is not being accepted. I will carry on nevertheless.
Violence Against Women December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the tragedy that occurred on December 6, 1989, at Montreal's École polytechnique, it is with sadness that we remember how 14 young women were killed by a mentally insane individual.
Quebec and the whole international community were shocked by the massacre. This painful tragedy triggered awareness right across the country. The ribbon I am wearing today is a symbol to remind men and women that we must all make a contribution to end violence against women.
We will forever remember Geneviève, Annie, Hélène, Barbara, Anne-Marie, Maude, Maryse, Annie, Sonia, Barbara, Anne-Marie, Michèle, Maryse and Nathalie.
To the families and friends of these young women, and to all the other women who are victims of violence, we say that we share their sadness and admire their courage.
Canada Marine Act December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we do in fact support the principle of the legislation to privatize the administration of ports in Canada. We support it because, up to now, these ports were managed by a federal agency. We are sure, given the management of these ports in recent years, that they will be better off not managed by a federal agency, and I congratulate the government warmly for having the humility to understand this in introducing this legislation.
We therefore support the principle of the legislation, but we have amendments, because we feel it needs improving in certain important areas. I am thinking specifically of clause 8. It provides that certain ports may be managed by local authorities. The principle is obviously an excellent one, and the conditions the government is setting for transferring management of the port to a local authority are reasonable.
They include the port's having a certain financial autonomy, a link to major roads and rail lines, and so forth. That all makes good sense.
The problem is that the vendor or transferor, before transferring the property, should return it to good condition, especially when requiring that it be financially autonomous.
As a result of the, shall we say, less than favourable management of these ports in recent years, some of them are in need of major repairs. There are 324 ports in Canada and the paltry sum of $125 million is all that has been set aside for this operation. We will try, through our amendments, to have this amount increased.
Still on the topic of ports, we were not in the least surprised to learn in this bill that the federal government wants to divest itself of all financial responsibility. It will no longer pay anything towards port administration. I said that this did not surprise us in the least and, without wanting to jump to any conclusions, we even think that unloading this financial burden may have been one of the reasons for introducing this bill.
When one intends to stop paying, it is not normal to want to keep calling the shots. A look at clause 14 concerning the composition of boards of directors makes it clear that Ottawa intends to retain control of these ports through third parties.
What does clause 14 say?
14.(1) The directors of a port authority shall be appointed as follows:
(a) the Governor in Council appoints one individual nominated by the Minister;
(b) the municipalities—
(c) the province or provinces—
(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users—
When you consider that between seven and eleven directors will be appointed, three of them not by Ottawa, the fact remains that the majority of seats will still be subject to government appointment, even if the government says it is going to consult, yes, consult local authorities. We propose that, instead of consultation, appointments be direct and unconditional.
To date, the St. Lawrence Seaway has cost the public $7 billion and brings in $70 million annually. I do not think there are many private corporations that would be happy with a return as low as 1% on their investment, and yet that is the return generated by the seaway.
The concern regarding the profitability of the seaway, which we should be looking at, is the reduced traffic on the seaway. We think things will only get worse given that Saskatchewan grain en route to Germany goes through Vancouver and the Panama canal rather than via Thunder Bay and the seaway, which would seem to be the more logical route geographically. Similarly, grain going to Russia is sent to Vladivostok, which is a bit odd, because it is in Siberia.
So there is some inconsistency, which may come from a conflict in rates between the railway and the seaway, and which will be of concern to the new administrators, if the seaway is to recover its life and vigour.
That summarizes our positions on this first series of amendments being debated today. We support the principle of the bill, on the condition that the major amendments we are proposing are approved by this House, which I encourage it to do.
Division No. 49 December 2nd, 1997
The hon. member is taking the words right out of my mouth. I agree with him, that is the way the Quebec government operates and the way it will continue to operate when Quebec becomes a sovereign state. I do not mean to say that, in a sovereign Quebec, there will not be any disputes like this one but, if there is a dispute, it will not be dealt with in such a way that the right to a public service that is truly public and the right to strike and to use it, which are two pillars of democratic life, end up trampled like they have been in this case.
Division No. 49 December 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I will start by showing that the bill we are discussing today constitutes a denial of the very concept of public service. I will then go on to demonstrate that this bill also constitutes a denial of the right to strike.
First of all, this bill constitutes a denial of the concept of public service. The parameters the government wishes to impose upon the mediator-arbitrator in his negotiations with the workers reveal that the government has a somewhat curious concept, to say the least, of what a public service is.
In this connection, like the hon. member for Mercier before me, I will read another excerpt from clause 9, because it speaks volumes. Under clause 9, the mediator-arbitrator shall take into account, and I quote:
(a) that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates,
(i) perform financially in a commercially acceptable range—
I say that, from the moment that a mediator-arbitrator is required to be guided by such a criterion, there can be no more talk of the Canada Post Corporation being a public service. Its principal function is no longer to be a public service, but to be a profitable service.
If it were only that the government needed to ensure that the Canada Post Corporation was self-sustaining, but this is absolutely not the case. The government wants Canada Post to bring in $200 million. Delivering our letters and packages must be cost-effective, bring in money, as it would if it were a private company, and the target amount is $200 million. The Canada Post Corporation becomes a cash cow the government can milk as much as it wants.
Imagine what would happen if this principle of an obligatorily profitable public service were to become the rule. VIA Rail would not exist. It, like all passenger railway companies, cannot exist without subsidies and is even less likely to turn a profit. VIA Rail would perish. Imagine what would happen if municipalities were hit with this principle of profitable public service. Imagine a police officer having to bring in fines worth $60,000 before being hired at $50,000. Would that not be something?
I return to my quote earlier. I go back to it, because Canada Post is supposed to achieve $200 million without undue increases in postal rates. That is like saying that it is to achieve its objectives at a cost to its workers. That is so obvious. And even if we do not like strikes, we have to understand that workers really have no other way to defend themselves against this real aggression.
We all know that this strike hurts businesses and individuals, and if there is one part of the bill we agree with it is the part about returning to work as quickly as possible. However, what we absolutely do not agree with is having the negotiations involving the mediator-arbitrator conducted in the spirit of mercantilism. We cannot agree with that, and I, like my colleague for Mercier, are particularly proud that the NDP and we have come up with an amendment that will humanize this provision.
I now come to the second part of my speech, which will show that the bill before us is also a denial of the right to strike.
How could it not be the case, given that the dice were loaded from the beginning. The Canada Post Corporation has known since August that, should a strike occur, the government would immediately introduce back-to-work legislation to end it. Under these conditions, what does the right to strike mean? The act provides for this right, but the government makes sure that it is undermined, that it does not really exist, by saying “Ah, if there is a strike, we will take action to end it”. So, it is no longer a level playing field at the negotiating table. The government distorts the whole process, instead of applying the act and respecting its spirit. It is unbelievable.
It is unbelievable, but it is not. In fact, it is not surprising at all. Canada Post is nothing but a creature of the Liberal Party. The president of Canada Post is a former Liberal minister. The corporation is full of former or current friends of the Liberals. So, what happened should not come as a surprise. The predominating aspect of all this is the—I was going to say incestuous, but let us simply say family— relationship that exists between the government and Canada Post. The government is the father figure, while Canada Post is the son. The father will protect the interests of the son, particularly since the son will bring in $200 million. So, it is all very normal.
To conclude, let me quote Karl Marx, whose slightly fascist tendencies are well known. About the system which he called capitalist—now known as market system—Karl Marx said that power of any sort, be it democratic or authoritarian, always takes the side of the employer against the workers. He said that, but he was wrong, although one might be inclined to think otherwise given what is going on here today. He was wrong because there is a way to ensure it is not so, to ensure that, in a democratic system, power is not necessarily on the side of the employer. And that way is called social democracy.
Public Finances October 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister trumpets in his Speech from the Throne “We have put our public finances in order”. Patting himself on the back like that makes one wonder, when one knows that these same Liberals are the ones who left behind a $38 billion deficit when they were booted out of office in 1984.
Let us remember the performance of the present Prime Minister when he was Minister of Finance from 1977 to 1979. He doubled the deficit. He increased the federal government's debt by 50%.
But that impudence changes to cynicism when one realizes that the Liberals are reducing the deficit with provincial funds for health and education, as well as with funds hijacked from employment insurance.
They are tickled pink to announce that they will soon be able to put out a fire which they themselves started. The Liberal pyromaniac turns into a firefighter, and then uses the neighbour's well to extinguish the fire he has started. Really now!
Senator Pat Carney September 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, last week Conservative Senator Pat Carney stated that the sovereignty of British Columbia ought to be examined as a valid alternative.
Like many Canadians and Quebecers, the Conservative senator is dissatisfied with the status quo and realizes that the federal government, whether Conservative or Liberal, is totally incapable of reforming and renewing the Canadian Constitution. The words of the Conservative Senator are in contrast to those of her leader, who has nothing to contribute in response to the backward step represented by the Calgary declaration.
Even in the west, the political elite is starting to come face to face with reality. Senator Carney's statements are part of a far broader movement. Whether viewed from the west or from the east, Canada in the 21st century will surely not resemble the dream the Prime Minister describes in his throne speech.