Val Meredith

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has never excluded Quebec.

I would like to suggest that the member is out of line in saying that we think the United States should come in and take over our airline industry. That has never been our comment.

Our comment is that there have been instances internationally which show that a foreign company can offer competition. The commissioner of the Competition Bureau has offered that as a suggestion he felt should be considered for competition. It was not the Reform Party. Other people have looked at this and have put those options on the table for consideration. We should be looking at all options, not looking at it from a narrow-minded singular position.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to promote any airline. The member confuses foreign investment and 10% rules in domestic markets.

I do not agree with the 25% foreign limit. That should be open as well. There are other Canadian controls in place that would allow it. They have been used in other areas.

We cannot confuse a 10% limit in a domestic investment with a 25% limit in a foreign investment market. The member is confused.

The member says that the Canadian government has tried to support Canadian, and I will not argue that. But if he is trying to suggest that there has been a level playing field, then he is way out to lunch.

Air Canada was a government owned airline. Air Canada had the taxpayers build it tarmacs, hangars and provide it with equipment. Until 1979 Air Canada controlled 75% of the continental traffic. It was controlled by legislation for Air Canada. It had a preferred airline status until 1979 and beyond. Canadian taxpayers made it possible for it to operate in a somewhat efficient manner and it not need government help to the same degree that Canadian did.

I would argue that both of our Canadian airlines are under heavy competition with the U.S. because of high fuel taxes, high airport fees and other high costs imposed upon them by the Canadian government and the Canadian economy which the Americans do not have.

I would suggest that the member's comments which imply that Canadian is getting favoured status do not acknowledge that Air Canada has been a favoured airline for generations in this country. There never has been a level playing field.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to shed what I would suggest is the light of day on the motion of the Bloc to reaffirm the maintenance of the 10% limit on ownership of the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

It would appear to be a straightforward motion, but there seems to be a lot of emotion and intrigue behind why the Bloc would choose today to put the motion before the House. I would like to look at some of the reasons the Bloc might have done so.

I would like to know whether the Bloc is putting the motion forward because of its strict adherence to the laws of the land. I would assume from comments given by the Parti Quebecois justice minister recently that Quebec would simply ignore the supreme court's decision on separation if it chooses. We know that separatists do not really have a lot of attachment to the laws of the land, so that cannot be it.

I wonder if it is because they truly believe it is in the best interest of the Canadian travelling public. I sincerely doubt that, because if the current situation were identical, with the exception that Air Canada was headquartered in Winnipeg, members can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois would either be in favour of changing it or indifferent to the 10% limit.

The real reason, I would suggest, that Bloc members are so concerned with this 10% ruling is that they see its removal as a threat to Air Canada. If the elimination of the 10% rule would be acceptable, what would be next? Would it be the clause that requires the headquarters of Air Canada to remain in Montreal? Even though the Onex proposal has ensured that the new Air Canada headquarters would be in Montreal, the BQ knows that it cannot trust what a boss who is based in Toronto has to say. The BQ wants to ensure that the status quo remains with Air Canada.

It is only with Air Canada that the BQ wants the status quo to remain. The BQ makes no secret of the fact that it wants Quebec to separate from Canada, that it wants Canada's national airline to remain untouched in Montreal, but it does not want Montreal to remain in Canada.

Let us think about this. Canada may have one national airline situated in a city that does not want to remain in our country. Let us think of the chaos that would be created if the Bloc got what it wanted and Quebec no longer was part of our country. We have two national airlines today and all of a sudden we would end up with no national airline. That is the ludicrousness of this kind of argument and this kind of emotional attachment that the Bloc seems to have to the 10% rule.

I would suggest to Canadians and to the Bloc that the 10% rule should never have been there in the first place. It is not the government's role to dictate to corporate Canada and to a private-public shareholding company in Canada, a domestic company, what limit shareholders should have. It is not the government's role to put those kinds of attachments to any kind of arrangement. Nor should any other control be placed there other than foreign ownership.

The crisis today is a drop in the bucket of what the crisis tomorrow will be if the Canadian government and the Parliament of Canada do not deal with the situation of trying to maintain the status quo. The status quo will not work. We have to look at options and we have to be open to look at all options. That means the government has to remove those things that should not have been there in the first place which restrict the ability of the private sector to look at the options and to give different ways of solving the situation we find in the Canadian airline industry.

I question, as members can tell from some of my previous comments, the sincerity of the Bloc Quebecois in putting the motion on the table today and the reasons why it feels it is important to restrict the choices of the House of Commons, parliament and the government in looking at a solution to the crisis in the airline industry and to moving into the 21st century with a positive vision of what Canada and what Canadian airlines can offer the international community.

It is that kind of narrow-minded vision that the Bloc Quebecois has of Canada and its role internationally and its position with one another and how we can work together. That narrow-minded vision creates the situations we face day in and day out in the international community.

I have great concern that the Bloc has brought forward a motion of this nature now to complicate what is already a complicated situation. I hope the House will determine not to support it and to move on with the discussions over this industry's situation. I hope we will look at all options and not limit it to one simply because of a mistake that governments in the past have made in trying to control private enterprise in the country.

Certainly as a free entrepreneur, as somebody who believes in the open market, I find that any control that a government places is not good enough. I hope in future deliberations on how we we will help the industry through regulations and legislative change, that we will not move backward to a regulatory industry.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister about the changes he is anticipating to transfer the powers from some agencies to himself in making these decisions.

Why is he not using parliament's authority for that rather than the minister's? I take exception that he is leaving parliament and parliamentary committees out of the decision making process.

[Airline Industry, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Australia has two profitable national airlines that compete with each other on domestic routes, even though one of them is 50% foreign owned. Foreign ownership has provided Australians with healthy competition in its domestic market. The competition commissioner recommends that for Canada. Why is the minister refusing to consider it?

[Airline Industry, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, competition is important to Canadians to ensure fair prices and choices in travel.

The competition commissioner has recommended that the government extend the foreign ownership to 49%. Since this proposal would be good for consumers, why is the government rejecting the advice of the competition commissioner on foreign ownership?

[Airline Industry, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watch question period more than they watch a committee meeting. I would like to know if the minister, who has had both the Onex proposal and the Air Canada proposal before him for a week and has had a chance to look at them, knows whether these deals meet his requirements.

Is the minister prepared to support or reject either one of the two offers that have been placed before him?

[Airline Industry, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for months the government has said that it would rely on the private sector for a solution to Canada's airline industry problem. Now we understand that the transport minister will decide on what is an acceptable deal.

Will the minister tell Canadians exactly what government policies and current laws he will change to accommodate either of the two offers before him?

[Privilege, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only are we aware that CSIS collected my press releases but also newspaper clippings, radio and television transcripts of my comments. I have provided the House with a list of 107 such documents that CSIS collected. It is also clear that every one of those documents referred to me in my role as a member of parliament, not as an ordinary citizen.

In 1971 in the House the then solicitor general mentioned that the RCMP held files on some members of parliament. A question of privilege was raised by Ged Baldwin, the member for Peace River. Speaker Lamoureux ruled on April 20, 1971, as reported in Hansard at pages 5071-2, that:

—it would be imprudent of the Chair to project the question of police files beyond the circumstances or conditions raised by the...member and beyond the particular circumstances alluded to by the minister in his reply.

However, he went on to state that the matter was very serious and if any special circumstances were brought to the attention of the House and the Chair to the effect that members were in some way intimidated in their work or prevented from discharging their duties freely and without hindrance, there would be no hesitation in recognizing the matter as a breach of privilege.

I contend that the circumstances in my case are exactly the type of special circumstances to which Speaker Lamoureux referred. I remind the Chair that when that incident took place CSIS did not exist but was in fact the RCMP security service.

Thus I suggest that there is precedent that the mere collection of information by the police or similar agency is sufficient to find a breach of privilege. However in my case there is so much more.

In his comments the government House leader stated that the CSIS disclosure of information was not improper. He made no reference to section 19 of the CSIS act which is found at document 9 and specifically prohibits unauthorized disclosure.

He also failed to refer to section 3.7 of the chapter on conduct in the CSIS human resources policy manual, which is document 10 and states:

Employees must not support or oppose any person, organization or product by using information obtained through their employment by the Service, except when authorized by the Director.

The government House leader did not even attempt to defend the CSIS abandonment of the non-partisan role of the public service by taking an active role in the preparation of a lawsuit against a member of parliament, including having its legal counsel provide the plaintiff and the plaintiff lawyer with advice.

Nor did he attempt to defend CSIS for its efforts to frustrate my ability to resolve the lawsuit by misusing its extraordinary authority to protect national security and by being twice sanctioned by the federal court for misconduct and deliberately misleading the court.

Instead the government House leader says I should take my complaint to the Security Intelligence Review Committee just like any other Canadian. However in my role as a member of parliament I am not just like any other Canadian. Members of this House and the House of Commons in Great Britain have for centuries recognized the need for members of the House to protect their rights and privileges if they are to carry out their duties in an effective manner.

Speaker Sauvé confirmed the need for such protection in 1983 when she found that there was a prima facie question of privilege when a newspaper accused a member of a criminal offence. The parallel to this case is that there was another avenue open to that member, namely the courts, and in my case the government House leader is suggesting that I have SIRC available to me.

In her decision of March 22, 1983, as reported in Hansard at pages 24027-8, Speaker Sauvé found that the authorities and precedents agreed that even though a member can seek remedy in the courts “he cannot function effectively as a member while this slur upon his reputation remains”. Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

While I do indeed have the right to complain to SIRC, it is more important for myself, all my colleagues in the House and those who follow us that we make a clear statement in defence of our rights and privileges as members of parliament. If we are to follow the advice of the government House leader then we are abrogating our responsibilities and abilities to protect our rights and privileges. Thus there is absolutely no reason why we should feel compelled to defer the protection of our rights and privileges to an outside body.

I believe the defence of our rights and privileges can only be accomplished with your finding a prima facie case of privilege and/or contempt, Mr. Speaker, and I urge you to do so.

[Privilege, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of the government House leader of Thursday, October 21, 1999, concerning my question of privilege.

Most of the comments of the government House leader in arguing that this was not a question of privilege concerned the CSIS answer to Question No. 36 on Document No. 17.

I wish the government House leader had read further in my submission of documents. If he had he would have seen document 20 which shows that in responding to question 36, CSIS provided an inaccurate answer by not mentioning the 107 press releases, newspaper clippings, and radio and television transcripts as part of the material that CSIS forwarded to the plaintiff.

At document 21, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that videotapes were passed to the plaintiff in response to a request from him. Yet in the plaintiff's own sworn testimony he stated “They were provided to me without my asking”.

At document 22, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that it provided only one CSIS policy document to the plaintiff. Yet in the very affidavit that CSIS was being cross-examined on it listed five separate policy documents.

In this one answer CSIS has provided three separate inaccurate responses, yet the government House leader would have us accept this very same answer as the authority that CSIS did nothing wrong.

On the topic of collection of information by investigative bodies, I would like to bring the following to the attention of the House. Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 98, states in part:

Members have raised, as a matter of privilege, the question of police files being maintained on members.

The Speaker refused to recognize these as questions of privilege unless the charge was specific and unless the dossier referred to the individual as a member of parliament rather than as an ordinary citizen.

My circumstances are certainly specific. Not only are we aware—