Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say that you are right. Besides, what could be more fantastic than to be the first one to speak in this House on a beautiful Friday morning, before an eight-day recess, not a holiday, but a change of pace?

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of this bill. However, you will agree with us that this bill is far from being perfect, as demonstrated by the several amendments proposed by the official opposition. As it is now, we are sure the commercialization will not be done only in the best interests of users. I will deal more precisely with the Bloc's motions in Group No 2, before us this morning.

First, I would like to comment on the bill in general. As I mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois is not against the bill as such. We are not against the privatization of air navigation services, but the one thing that concerns us the most and that we must not forget, is the issue of safety.

Privatization must never be done at the expense of the safety standards inherent to navigation services. Too often, privatization of public services entails a deregulation leading to a certain lack of rigour concerning safety standards for example.

Last week's tragedy in Florida involving a ValuJet aircraft may be an indication of that. We have every reason to wonder if, as an effect of deregulation, some carriers more interested in profits than in passenger safety are not ignoring minimum safety rules.

The motions in Group No. 2 we are debating today are about the distribution of Nav Canada's notices concerning its decisions on airport facility closures. Bill C-20 states that these notices should be sent to local newspapers and band councils by mail or electronically. It is true that this is the age of the information highway, but is it reasonable to choose one way or the other? We believe not.

The motions presented by the Bloc Quebecois, only 18 motions concerning six clauses or three motions per clause on average, are mainly intended to change this so that notices are sent both by regular mail and the more modern medium, e-mail. As members know perfectly well, not everyone has access to e-mail and it is of capital importance that all those concerned, all the groups that could be affected by a Nav Canada decision to reduce or close airport facilities, receive an advance notice early enough to be able to take action.

That is simple respect for users. The fact that air service is privatized does not mean that this service should be less accessible. Services must be maintained, particularly in remote regions where news information is sometimes harder to get and less timely. God knows there are many remote regions in this huge territory that is Canada. The people who live there are entitled to a quality service.

My colleague from Abitibi gave a very good description of the concerns of remote regions as regards air service, which is very often an essential service in cases of medical emergencies or other such problems. Privatization does not mean the government can forget its obligations in matters of aviation safety and air services that must be provided to Canadians.

The government cannot do what it did so blithely with ADM, saying it had no say in the closing of Mirabel because it was a private sector issue. It can try to hide behind a private corporation, but Quebecers and Canadians will not admit that. On the contrary, when the government adopts such an attitude, Canada and Quebec reject it.

If privatization is necessary to reduce costs, very well, but it must not be done at the expense of services to users. They must not do it for the sole purpose of reducing the deficit and, at the same time, transfer costs to the taxpayers. It seems this government has developed that habit, but you can be sure the official opposition will be there to remind members of the government that we find it totally unacceptable.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition will vote yea on the amendment.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that it is clear that the day Quebecers choose to be a country, they will be one, with everything that entails. What I mean is, the promises to be a country, we will keep them collectively. It will not be like the federal government's story of unkept promises, which is their reality.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

The hon. member is truly adorable. This is extraordinary. Democracy is based on respect, and respect implies that promises are kept. When a government such as the one to which the hon. member belongs does not keep its promises, it is like a slap in the face. The next time, Quebecers will say yes, and they will do so loud and clear.

I hope that answers Marco's question.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could I please thank whom I want and in the manner that I wish to?

I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I know the riding very well, since I grew up there. Children in Vaudreuil are indeed bright kids.

It is true that two referendums were held, one in 1980 and one in 1995. These two referendums did not result in Quebecers choosing to form a country. Quebecers voted no because they were fooled, in 1980 and in 1995, by federal politicians who promised them a Garden of Eden. Fifteen years after the first referendum, it had become obvious that the Garden of Eden was still a thing to come. Therefore, a second referendum was held. Again, promises were made.

Someone may tell Quebecers: "Vote no and Quebec will really be recognized as a true society. You will have a veto power; you will really be in heaven". However, if that does not happen, what is the logical thing to do? The logical thing to do is to say to Quebecers: "Choose to become a state. You will be able to pass your own laws, and to pay your taxes to your elected government".

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil-

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the October 30 referendum, the true face of this government has emerged. It does not care about the legitimate aspirations of Quebec as a people. In fact, all the federalist parties represented in this House have been trying to do is bring Quebec in line by changing the basic rules of democracy. If we take a look back on the constitutional issue these past few years, we notice that never before has the federalist camp dared to challenge the 50 per cent plus one rule, a rule universally recognized in the democratic world.

During the 1980 referendum campaign, the current Prime Minister was a more than enthusiastic player on the no side, recognizing ipso facto both the validity and legitimacy of the referendum

process. In 1985, in his book entitled Straight from the Heart , the Prime Minister wrote, referring to an eventual referendum on Quebec's sovereignty, and I quote: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Again in 1990, he made remarks along the same line before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, when he said: "I am a democrat and I said so repeatedly in 1980, in many speeches to this effect. Had we not recognized that Quebec could decide to separate, we would have acted differently".

As we can see from such statements, as well as from the massive involvement of federalist forces in the referendum campaigns, the Prime Minister believes in democracy, that is to say the process by which citizens participate in deciding their collective future and in whatever comes of it, or at least he did at the time when he made these statements. If the whole exercise had been illegal, do you think the Prime Minister of Canada and the federalist parties would have participated in it with such determination?

No. During the last referendum campaign, the federal government kept repeating that a victory for the yes side would trigger an irreversible process. In the famous speech he made in Verdun a few days before the referendum, the Prime Minister said that a victory for the no side would mean three things: first, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; second, a veto power for Quebec over any constitutional amendment; third, a decentralization of federal powers.

Six months later, what happened to these promises and to the government's democratic attitude? In December, the government pretended to recognize Quebec as a distinct society by passing a resolution in this House. This concept does not recognize that Quebecers form a people. It has no constitutional value. It is merely a statement of principle. It is wishful thinking. The same goes for the veto power, which is not included in the Constitution.

As for decentralization, this government simply continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, with measures such as the establishment of a securities commission. The promises made in Verdun had the same value as those made regarding the GST. The government certainly shows a great deal of consistency in this respect.

However, the same cannot be said regarding Quebec's right to self-determination. Given the Liberal government's decision to support Mr. B's appeal, it is obvious that those in favour of plan B, led by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, now have the upper hand over the democrats in the Liberal Party and the government.

When he was the Prime Minister's adviser, the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, on March 17, 1995 that, should the yes side win the referendum, the federal government should make Quebec suffer as much as possible. This same minister endorses threats to partition Quebec and claims that Quebec has no right to decide its future, even through a democratic process recognized by all, except by him and his confederates. Who calls the shots in this government? Is it the Prime Minister, who claims to be democratic, or the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who is denying Quebecers the right to decide their own future.

It is important that this House adopt the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois this morning. There must be a clear signal that the Liberal Party is prepared to respect the decision of the people of Quebec about their future. If there is not, it would be a spiteful way to conduct the debate, an irresponsible way of governing.

It is, in fact, worrisome to see this government getting into bed with Mr. "B", Guy Bertrand, in a legal manoeuvre designed to prevent democratic debate. It is just as worrisome to hear the Prime Minister call into question the very ground rules of our democratic system as it is to see him interfere in Quebec's move toward sovereignty.

It is even more alarming to see this government sit quietly by and listen to threats of partitioning Quebec, in the event of a yes vote. The government's actions leave no room for doubt. It will support those who oppose sovereignty duly obtained through a democratic process.

Sovereignists respected the verdict last October 30. The Government of Quebec did not declare sovereign the regions in which a majority voted yes. This would have been anti-democratic.

As for the federal government, its promises were so much hot air. For it, what the sovereignists are doing is illegal. It unequivocally gives its support to the partitionists and those who oppose a democratic verdict. It is completely irresponsible. Either this government does not know what it is doing and is the sorcerer's apprentice of democracy, or it knows very well what it is up to with its plan B, and has no intention of observing the most elementary rules of democracy. This government is therefore either blind or just plain irresponsible. Clearly, Canada must be very worried.

This motion thus gives the Prime Minister and his colleagues an opportunity to reaffirm the democratic values that guide their actions. Once and for all, they must stop calling into question the democratic rules known to us all. What we are asking is that democracy be allowed to operate freely. The sovereignty of Quebec is a political debate in which the people of Quebec have participated and will participate, under the terms of the Referendum Act.

The national question will be resolved in this manner, not in a court of law by a handful of jurists.

[Privilege, May 16th, 1996]

With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, May 16th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle referred to me personally as a member of Parliament in his statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 before today's question period, I would urge him to proceed with caution and to check the facts before making accusations against my office. I call on him to withdraw his comments, as they are not true.