Mario Laframboise

[Air Transport, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday representatives of Air Canada told the Standing Committee on Industry that multi-carrier competition in the air industry is a thing of the past. As we know, the lack of competition has contributed to the deterioration of regional air service.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that the government needs to change its approach and does he intend to allow competition to develop, primarily by supporting the creation of future regional competitors?

[Public Safety, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to respond. I will tell it what it could not do before and what it will be able to do after Bill C-42 is passed.

I challenge the minister of defence to deny that one of the powers accorded by Bill C-42 is to establish military security zones throughout a province, to thus have the army intervene on the basis of its judgment alone and without the express request by the provincial attorney general. Can the minister say this is not so?

[Public Safety, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that Bill C-42 on public safety was needed to enable the government to act quickly.

We would be interested in hearing from the Prime Minister just what this bill would allow him to do now that he could not do last September.

Our interpretation is that nothing prevented him from taking action in September and that existing legislation is sufficient. If we are mistaken, let him give us one example of his being prevented from acting in September.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill.

We are debating four motions to amend which have been put forward today and which form the first group of amendments. The Bloc Quebecois will be opposing the first amendment because we feel that it has absolutely no impact on the importance of the debate. We are in favour of the other three amendments put forward.

It is important that Quebecers and Canadians understand just how responsible the Bloc Quebecois was in dealing with the anti-terrorism bill. From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has been favourable to the bill, given the tremendous harm terrorists could cause our society, as they did in the United States.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois has shown an exemplary sense of responsibility, while continuing to seek a balance between national security and individual rights and freedoms. In this connection, those Quebecers listening need to have a clear understanding of how parliament operates.

First, the anti-terrorism bill was introduced with great haste by the government. Let us recall that when the minister presented the bill, she told us that it was urgent. The Prime Minister even said that, given the bill's length—186 pages—there were perhaps some shortcomings and that, because of the urgent situation, we must accept this and that we could make amendments in committee. Thus it was that the Bloc Quebecois supported the anti-terrorism bill at first reading, at which stage only the minister makes a statement, followed by the respective critics of each party.

Since the Prime Minister himself told us it was such an urgent bill, and a lengthy one, that shortcomings were inevitable, but could be remedied in committee, we went along with him.

That is why, at second reading stage—this is the procedure, and I am pointing out for the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians who are listening that there is a second reading and the bill is brought before the House—all members had the opportunity to speak before the bill went to committee.

Of course, groups and individuals who are truly concerned about such a bill have the opportunity to come before the committee and be heard. So 80 individuals, groups and organizations appeared before the committee as witnesses. Representatives from each political party and the various critics can ask questions of the witnesses. Amendments are tabled after the witnesses have testified before the committee.

The Bloc Quebecois tabled 66 amendments at committee stage through its critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm. These amendments are very important because the Bloc Quebecois has always had the same responsible position, which is to strike the right balance between national security and defending individual rights and freedoms.

The objective had been stated very clearly by our party's critic as well as by our leader. There were three main issues, three very important points that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to defend.

First, we wanted a sunset clause. It is very simple. The clause proposed by the Bloc Quebecois applied to all clauses of the bill except those relating to the implementation of international conventions. In that regard, we were willing to agree that those clauses dealing with international conventions remain in effect until the expiration of such international conventions.

For all other clauses providing for special measures, we wanted to include a sunset clause under which those provisions that, in several cases, could jeopardize individual rights and freedoms would no longer be in effect after three years. We understood that there was a state of urgency that called for special measures. We were willing to accept that this special piece of legislation, of which the majority of clauses dealt with special measures, come into effect, but only for a period of three years, except for all clauses resulting from international conventions, which could have remained in effect until the expiration of such international conventions signed by the government.

In spite of all the questions asked in the House, in spite of the fact that the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the Bloc Quebecois's position, that they supported our demand for a sunset clause, the government decided to do the opposite, and rejected all the Bloc's amendments.

We also asked that the act be reviewed, among other things. We called for “an annual review of the law by all parliamentarians”. We wanted to ensure that parliamentarians would be able to take part in the annual review of this act, of its sections that would not come from international conventions, and to intervene if the law enforcement people in Canada and in the provinces abused the system. We wanted to have the opportunity to make changes and to review the act every year.

We wanted that an independent commissioner be entrusted with overseeing enforcement, that a commissioner report be presented each year to the committee or to a standing committee of the House, which would examine it and make recommendations or propose changes, as the case may be. Most of these proposals were rejected by the government.

We also wanted a definition of terrorist activities that would exclude illegal demonstrations and strikes. We had amendments to move to that effect. Our preference would have been to remove a paragraph to eliminate all mention of work stoppage or protest so that those who want to demonstrate peacefully can still do it. Only a very weak amendment has been moved about this.

Only one of the 66 Bloc Quebecois amendments was adopted, the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. This being an omnibus bill, it will also prevent certain types of hate propaganda, and this legislation could be used to control all demonstrations in cemeteries. This is the only amendment we put forward in committee which the government accepted.

In the legislative process, the committee had to report to the House today, and we are allowed to move amendments at report stage. That is why we have before us 12 amendments we are debating in four groups.

The Bloc Quebecois did not think it was worthwhile to present amendments at report stage simply because it moved all of them in committee. It is at that stage that major changes should have been made, but all our amendments have been rejected, except the one adding the word cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda.

In spite of the 80 witnesses heard in committee, in spite of the position adopted by the Bloc Quebecois, which was in favour of the bill at second reading stage, and even if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had said that, the bill being urgent and very lengthy, it might contain some flaws but that these would be corrected at the clause by clause stage, of the 66 amendments we moved, only one was accepted. It added the word cemetery to the notion of hate messages.

Here is the question we should be asking. The report was tabled on Friday, but the House did not sit on Friday. The government had decided the House would not sit on Friday. However, amendments at the report stage could be tabled until Saturday afternoon.

That is why, in spite of the urgency of the situation, the exceptional nature of the case and the length of the bill, which contained some deficiencies as the minister and Prime Minister said when it was first introduced, we took the time required—because many days and even months have gone by since September 11, two months and some weeks in fact—and we are ready; however, we are now asking for an open debate, we want transparency.

I repeat that the first objective of the Bloc Quebecois was that we act responsibly. We are a responsible political party looking for a balance between national security and individual freedoms. If the bill remains as it stands now, if it is not modified, the Bloc will have to vote against all of its provisions because the bill will be contrary to our premise.

[Public Safety Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to understand that he can create military security zones anywhere.

How can the Prime Minister promote a bill intended to deprive businesses of the right to claim damages if they have the misfortune to find themselves within a military security zone, where assessment of the damages will be determined arbitrarily by the Minister of National Defence?

[Public Safety Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-42 had been applied at the Quebec City summit, for example, this would have meant that control would have been taken out of the hands of the regular police forces and handed over to the army and, what is more the protesters' rights and freedoms as well as their right to sue would have been suppressed.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that under this bill a peaceful protester who had a run-in with the military would not have had any rights or any right to recourse?

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in exempting interim orders from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act, is the government not opening the door to worse abuses and an unacceptable broadening of ministerial authority, under the pretext of increasing public safety?

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety bill provides that interim orders will not be verified beforehand, particularly in terms of their consistency with the enabling legislation.

How can the government justify exempting interim orders from a check to ensure they are consistent with the legislation?

What justification can there possibly be for taking this approach?

[Public Safety, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the bill he introduced the Minister of Transport most candidly admitted that it was a vast undertaking, amending 19 laws and creating one new one, all with a concern for the safety of Canadians and Quebecers. No new direction for the government is given with the exception of the few changes made to the Aeronautics Act. The minister also said that this bill has been in the works for several years.

It is difficult. They are again trying to launch a vast security operation, to tell the Canadians and Quebecers watching “See how your nice government has decided to pass a bill amending 19 pieces of legislation, one that is intended to guarantee more safety in Canada”, whereas no new standard has been adopted.

When it comes down to it, what this government is really trying to validate is the creation of interim orders, so most of the laws being modified give the minister concerned the power to adopt interim orders, thus conferring increased powers upon him and his departmental staff.

I will read the changes made to the Department of Health act. They read:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation under section 11, if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health or safety.

An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earlier of: 90 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council, the day on which it is repealed, the day on which a regulation under section 21 that has the same effect as the interim order comes into force, and one year after the interim order is made, or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

This seems to announce the orientations for the Department of Health. It will make it possible for the government to manage, on a day to day basis, an orientation that it lacks. It is quite simply a means of getting around House procedures. It is a means of enabling a minister to make interim orders, and since a number of different acts are involved, so are a number of ministers.

This is being done with the Aeronautics Act to give increased powers to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be amended to give more powers to the Minister of the Environment. The Department of Health act will also be amended, as I just mentioned, and the Explosives Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Immigration Act, the National Defence Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Canadian Water Protection Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the Quarantine Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

All these acts will be amended significantly to include interim orders and to give greater powers to the minister responsible and to his officials, so as to not have to submit to this House regulations, amendments or bills for each one of these departments.

Again, there is no government direction except for the fact that the minister is including in the Aeronautics Act, and I am grateful to him for doing so, a provision on air rage. We appreciate that initiative. There are also identification requirements for all those who are responsible for passengers in the airline system. These people will need to have an identification procedure and comply with government requirements.

All that is proposed are increased powers for each of the ministers, so that they will, through interim orders, decide alone to set new standards and give new powers to their respective officials. This will probably allow the Minister of Health to validate the decisions of his officials, who, in the Apotex and Bayer case, made the wrong decision. When the minister has made an interim order granting powers to his officials, he will be able to say “It is not my fault, it is my officials' fault”.

This is the harsh reality. There is no planning, no direction, except in the case of the Aeronautics Act and the National Defence Act, where very important amendments have been made, even to the definition of a state of emergency.

Until now, “emergency” has meant “war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended”. Now the words “armed conflict” are being added. It will now be possible to use the army in another role, that of armed conflicts. This raises questions, but those responsible are somewhat evasive as to what directions should be taken.

One thing is clear: clause 88 changes how things are done. Obviously when it came to authorizing the intervention of armed forces this was something the attorneys general of each of the provinces could requisition. Now this requisition could come from each of the provincial attorneys general or from governors general in council, but the minister will have a say.

Subject to such directions as the minister considers appropriate, the chief of the defence staff will be able to intervene. The Minister of National Defence will now have more powers. He will have a say in the case of requests from the governor general in council or, ultimately, the attorneys general of each of the provinces.

There will therefore be more interventions, more powers for each of the ministers. This is the direction in which the government is headed, without any plan. There are no new procedures. The government is not saying what exactly will be done and the Canadian Alliance member is quite right that security measures in airports have not been stepped up. There is no heightened security, other than the requirement that all companies responsible for passengers provide identification. Apart from that, we will have to rely on interim orders which could be issued by the minister from time to time and which will give increased powers to officials, without the approval of the House.

That is the harsh reality. Once again the government has decided to simply ignore the members of this House and give powers to ministers and their officials, probably so that the Minister of Health will have an out when something like the Apotex and Bayer affair happens.

[Carriage By Air Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-33.

I would like to help all the Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us to understand how Parliament works with regard to the way legislation is implemented.

I will read the summary of Bill S-33:

This enactment implements in Canada the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed at Montreal in 1999 (the “Montreal Convention”). The Montreal Convention consolidates and modernizes the rules of the Warsaw Convention and associated documents. It provides for unlimited liability for damages in the case of death or injury to passengers arising out of accidents during international air carriage, simplifies ticketing requirements, provides for electronic documentation and establishes a new jurisdiction that will allow most passengers to bring actions in the place of their domicile.

To be perfectly clear, this bill that is submitted to the House today, in November 2001, implements a convention written and signed in Montreal in 1999.

The main stakeholders in the air transport industry from all over the world met in Montreal. Most major airlines were present. There were representatives from Air Canada, from Canadian Airlines, which no longer exists, from Air Transat and from the Air Transport Association of Canada. A fairly large Canadian delegation attended the meeting since it took place in Montreal.

That meeting led to a very important convention to change the way things were done in the area of liability so that air carriers would be liable for larger amounts than the ones agreed upon in the outdated 1929 Warsaw convention. The decision was made to increase the liability of air carriers.

That convention was negotiated in Montreal in 1999 and ratified by Canada on September 25, 2001, after the events of September 11. No matter what could have happened in Canada, the Montreal convention would not have been ratified by Canada at that time. We waited until after the events of September 11 to ratify a convention that was negotiated in our country, Canada, and in my country, Quebec, more precisely in Montreal. This convention was negotiated with all industry stakeholders, and Canada did not ratify it until September 25 of this year. This is how things work in Canada. It always takes the government a few years to react.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned that this is the fourth bill introduced by the Minister of Transport since the beginning of the session. With such a pompous title, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act, we could have expected, especially after the events of September 11, more important changes than a mere increase in the liability of air carriers in case of accident.

Such is the harsh reality facing those Quebecers who are watching us and airline employees who no longer have jobs, the 9,000 Air Canada employees, the 1,400 Air Transat employees and the 4,800 Canada 3000 employees, who took the hardest hit. These people lost their jobs because their employer went bankrupt. Over 2,000 jobs were lost at Bombardier and about 1,000 at Pratt & Whitney.

So for a major industry that has suffered phenomenal job losses since September 11, the minister moves the second reading of a bill to amend the Carriage by Air Act, but all it deals with is the issue of air carrier liability in case of accident.

I repeat that Canada did not ratify this convention until September 25. Had something happened in Canada on September 11, this convention negotiated and signed in Montreal in 1999 would not have been ratified at that time.

This is how the Liberal government operates. It is always a few years late. This is the harsh reality for airline industry workers who are listening today and who have lost their jobs since September 11. It is the harsh reality for all citizens of Canada and of Quebec who are trying to understand how we can hope that this Parliament will produce legislative amendments that address real problems.

There is nothing in this bill for the travellers who lost the price of their airfare when Canada 3000 went bankrupt for instance. There is nothing that would guarantee that those who lose what they paid for an airline ticket because of a bankruptcy such as that of Canada 3000 would be reimbursed in future.

A few years from now, there will probably be another legislative amendment. The men and women of Quebec and of Canada who buy airline tickets in times as difficult as those we are now experiencing and in which there could well be other companies that close their doors, as Canada 3000 did, will not be reimbursed because the federal Liberal government has decided not to invest in getting the airline industry back on its feet in Canada. That is the reality.

Other airlines may well go bankrupt in the years to come. It is not something we want to see, but it is the harsh reality. Again today, in response to questions I asked him, the minister said that the market must be allowed to operate freely in times as difficult as these, when a disaster such as that of September 11 has put families, employees, the human capital of the airline industry, which was highly competitive internationally, in the street.

I raise my hat to the workers in Canada's airline industry, who made it one of the most competitive in the world. Our government has decided to let the market operate freely. It has not followed the example of the Americans, who invested over $15 billion right away. Just days after the sad events, they announced a massive investment to revive the airline industry throughout the United States. Of this $15 billion, $5 billion is in the form of a direct investment and $10 billion in the form of loan guarantees. That is what the Americans did.

Meanwhile back home, all the minister announced is a $160 million investment to help pay the outrageous insurance bills that all the airlines in Canada had to pay. The minister decided to compensate them for losses that they incurred following the six days of restricted airspace. Canada decided to reimburse the companies and set up a system of loan guarantees, in which it announced a loan guarantee of $75 million for Canada 3000, knowing very well that this company was going to close its doors. This is the harsh reality.

The transport minister announced a loan guarantee of $75 million to Canada 3000, with such demanding conditions that he knew at the outset that Canada 3000 would close its doors. The proof is that one week earlier, the directors of Canada 3000 refused a job sharing proposal that was to be covered by employment insurance and that would not have cost the company a penny. They refused the proposal to have their employees share their work knowing full well that the company was being forced into bankruptcy and that such a program would be of no use to them.

This is the harsh reality. The government, with its day by day management, has allowed us to witness airlines shut down, losing jobs in a highly competitive sector; men and women who are very competitive and skilled have lost their jobs in recent weeks because of events that had nothing to do with them.

It is not the fault of workers in the airline industry that the events of September 11 took place. Today, they are paying the price, and we are telling them “Listen, the free market is going to take care of you”. Obviously, the market is going to kick employees out into the street and shut down businesses.

It will continue to get worse as long as the government maintains its policy of telling airlines “you have to sell off your assets”. That is what the government did. It said to Air Canada, which had asked for assistance, “you have assets, sell them off”. It did the same thing with Canada 3000: they were forced to sell off their assets before the government would intervene. But we saw the sad results: they sold off so much that they had to declare bankruptcy. That is the reality.

There is nothing today in Bill S-33 to help the people who bought tickets from Canada 3000 and lost their money. Why? Because this bill follows up on a convention signed in Montreal in 1999, which was drafted by the airline industry the world over, including the major Canadian carriers. Canada ratified the convention only on September 25, 2001, or after the tragic events of September 11. Today, it is still being discussed and will shortly be voted on.

I wish to assure the House that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Bill C-33. One cannot oppose virtue, since it will cost the government nothing.

This bill requires airlines to have insurance. Their responsibility will be enhanced, because the 1927 Warsaw convention had the unfortunate effect of limiting carrier responsibility to $35,000. In the event of a major catastrophe resulting in death, the maximum was $35,000. Obviously, it was high time these amounts were changed, since they were no longer realistic, since more than 70 years had passed since the Warsaw Convention was signed.

Now the level of liability is limitless. Airlines are required to have loss compensation insurance, which is totally reasonable. Once again, however, there is nothing in Bill S-33 to help the men and women who invested in the air industry, who booked flights on Canada 3000, were not reimbursed and will therefore lose their money.

In two years there will likely be a new act guaranteeing, via independent insurance, that anyone purchasing a ticket from an airline that goes bankrupt will be reimbursed.

This then is day-to-day management: the inability to react rapidly when there is a problem. In Canada it always takes a few years to do so, something that never fails to amaze me.

It is important that the people listening to us, the Canadians and the Quebecers, understand that this convention was negotiated by stakeholders in the world industry, including Canadians, in 1999 in Canada, in Montreal, and that Canada finally signed it on September 25, after the events of September 11.

It probably signed the convention for this very reason, in case there were an accident in Canada and we got a mere $35,000 per passenger in the event of passenger deaths.

This is hard to imagine for those watching, for airline industry employees who have lost their jobs—the 9,000 who lost them at Air Canada, the 1,400 at Air Transat and the 4,800 who lost them so brutally with the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, not to mention the jobs at Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney.

What is needed is a policy of massive intervention in the aviation industry. The Bloc has been calling for such a thing since the start of this crisis. It contends that the Americans, who do not have a reputation for being the most liberal, whose society is very conservative, especially in matters of free trade and who tend to leave the free market to its own devices, decided to invest a massive $15 billion to protect the aviation industry. Canada invested only $160 million.

We can look at this proportionally, per capita. The Americans invested $15 billion for 300 million inhabitants, Canada invested $160 million for 30 million inhabitants—ten times less what the Americans invested.

This is the harsh reality and it is difficult to accept for workers who have lost their jobs in the airline and aviation industries, both highly competitive sectors in which Canadian companies are among the world's top performers.

Canada has decided that it would not support its airline industry, that it would let the free market dictate things. By contrast, the United States is going to support that industry, as did Switzerland. The Swiss and American companies that are going to get help from their governments will surely buy equipment which, hopefully, will have been made in Canada and in Quebec.

It is difficult to explain to those who will buy this equipment, to the countries that will provide subsidies or assistance to their industry, why they should buy equipment made in Canada, considering that our country has decided not to support the airline industry. If we do not support the airline industry, it is not Canada 3000 that will buy aircraft tomorrow, because that company is bankrupt. This is the harsh reality.

Canada is not supporting a highly competitive sector, but it expects countries that will have helped their industries to buy equipment in Canada, through their industries.

The Liberal government made a mistake. It is never too late to realize that one has made a mistake and this is an obvious mistake as we can see with Canada 3000 going bankrupt.

Despite investments of $160 million—which is proportionally ten times less than what the Americans invested—which were supposed to help the airline industry make it through the crisis, we lost one company, the second largest airline carrier in Canada. Indeed, Canada 3000 has shut down its operations.

There are also other regional businesses that will be forced to shut down. Canada has five so-called major carriers, but there are others, like Air Alma. Regarding these other regional carriers, the Liberal government policy, delivered by the Minister of Transport who has decided to favour the free market, is to say: “We will not support them, but when we do, we will support only the five largest carriers”. The government's rationale is that if these large carriers are doing well, it will boost business for all the other regional carriers in Canada.

I hope we do not see other airlines shut down their operations. It would be catastrophic for service to cities located in the regions, and not small communities as the minister and others on the Standing Committee on Transport like to call them. Cities located in the regions have as much right as large urban centres to enjoy 21st century air transport. They are entitled to have access to air transport, which is the fastest means of transportation, at reasonable rates so people can get on with their business.

I will repeat again that it is important that Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us realize that the government is submitting to the House today Bill S-33 which ratifies the Montreal convention negotiated in 1999.

It took two years for this bill, which the Bloc Quebecois will support, to be submitted to the House. But, once again, I must say that this is how it works in Canada. It takes forever for a bill to be finally introduced and passed.

The 1999 convention, which increased the liability of air carriers in case of accident or death, was not signed by Canada until September 25 of this year, after the events of September 11. It does not even contain a reimbursement clause for those who bought airline tickets from companies that may be bankrupt at the time when the tickets are supposed to be used.

That is the harsh reality. Once again, this bill comes too late.