Pierre De Savoye

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question and make a comment. I hope the secretary of state will pay close attention.

If he is to be believed, the federal government is doing everything for Montreal. What a lot of rhetoric. He said we are way beyond the drawing board or the planning stage, statistics are irrelevant now.

I would like to ask the secretary of state a few questions. Given the statistics we heard earlier, it is clear that every time Montreal gives a dollar to Ottawa, Ottawa returns $0.75 to Montreal. That means Montreal is receiving three quarters for each dollar it pays.

The secretary of state will have to admit that, according to Statistics Canada, and its figures should be reliable, all those accomplishments he just listed are nothing but a description of the way those three quarters are spent. What about the fourth one? Is it that generosity, that charity, called equalization? Montrealers do not want charity; they want jobs.

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour this morning to be able to speak about revoking the conviction of Louis David Riel for high treason and restoring his memory here in this House.

I listened to the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, who has, in my view, done a good job of laying out for us the life-I was going to say the work-of Louis Riel. I have also just listened to the speech of my Liberal colleague, who, in his turn, has emphasized the important human qualities shown by Louis Riel during his unfortunately all too brief existence.

But, at the same time, I cannot but deplore the fact that the member who should perhaps, of all the members in this House, have the greatest interest in this subject, the member from Manitoba, has not taken the lead in supporting the bill before us with more vigour, resolve and determination.

What is this bill about? I think it would be appropriate at this time to reread it for the benefit of the House and also for the benefit of viewers. This is a bill to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.

Louis David Riel, it should be remembered, was a member of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Provencher from 1873 to 1874. He was convicted of high treason on August 1, 1885, sentenced to death, and hanged on November 16, 1885 at Regina, then part of the North West Territories.

The second whereas recalls that, notwithstanding his conviction, Louis David Riel has become a symbol and a hero to successive generations of Canadians who have, through their governments, honoured and commemorated him in specific projects and actions. Finally, the third whereas of this bill points out quite rightly that it is consistent with this recognition that the conviction of Louis David Riel be now revoked.

The bill would therefore have Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the other Chamber and of this Chamber, revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel for the offence of high treason, while recognizing that nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or reflecting in any manner Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy or the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General relating to pardons.

This is not, as you know, the first time this subject has been raised in the House. I would like to point out that, on November 28, 1985, the Liberal member for Hamilton East asked the Conservative government of the day, through the Speaker of this House, to exonerate the victim of the conspiracy of another Conservative government, that victim of course being Louis Riel.

That hon. member, who is still sitting in this House, more or less committed herself in 1985 to supporting the pardon of Louis Riel. Now once again she has the opportunity of putting her good intentions of 11 years ago into deeds. I trust that, even if her seat is not on the line, this time, she will follow up on it.

Just to show how important this case is, and how often it has been brought up in the House, as well as to stress the point that this ought to be the very last time it is brought up in the House-and the only way that can happen is if this bill is passed-may I point out that, in the past, many other people in the House have shared the same concern we have today.

On September 23, 1983, William Yurko, who was then the member for Edmonton East, introduced a bill to grant a pardon to Louis Riel. That bill was not followed up on. He tried again on March 14, 1984.

On June 28, 1984, Les Benjamin, the NDP member for Regina-Lumsdon, called for the conviction of Louis David Riel to be revoked.

On December 13, 1984, Mr. Benjamin tried again, followed on September 16, 1987 by another NDP member who is still among us, the hon. member for Kamloops, who again introduced a bill to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel.

Today we have a bill introduced on November 16, 1994, and here we are nearly two years later. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is now proposing a bill to revoke the convicition of Louis Riel.

Louis Riel was a great man in his day, a man of conviction, a humanist. He held a vision, not only for the Métis people, but for all Canadians from sea to sea. It seems that he was not given the attention he deserved. The tenor of the times precipitated events, and trapped him in a process which, as others have already said, was a mistake on all sides but not, most certainly, an act of treason. What took place was an error.

On many occasions over many years, the governments of all of the provinces have examined this issue. Many have adopted resolutions or motions aimed at his rehabilitation. But this House has not yet done what must be done. We find ourselves today with an opportunity to finally correct the course of history.

I trust that the member from Manitoba who referred just now to letting some time pass will instead pick up the torch and be the first to lead all of us in the House to rehabilitate the memory of Louis David Riel.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pleasure and interest that I listen to economic statements by my hon. colleague for Capilano-Howe Sound. A moment ago, I appreciated the way he explained that trade should be based on the most attractive price for the consumer. He said: "If the price is lower in Quebec, the Ontario government should buy from Quebec, and vice versa".

The question I want to ask him is: With the advent of a sovereign Quebec, would he maintain the same position?

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a different subject, and not really a more pleasant one, I had the opportunity, a few days ago, to ask the industry minister what he intended to do to ensure that everybody had access to basic telephone services.

The problem is this: the industry minister, in the name of free competition, wants us to believe that the consumer is going to benefit from this competition. However, our telephone bill has already increased by $4. And that is not all. There will be another $2 increase and, on top of that, Bell Canada will soon be asking the CRTC to approve a rate increase that will affect mostly rural communities.

I met with people from Bell Canada and asked them what is going on. They said: "Look, we do not make the laws. The minister makes the laws". But from the moment he makes them, we have to live with them.

Here are the consequences: since there is free competition and since the cost of providing telephone services in urban centres is less, everybody is rushing to take its share of the urban market. Before, since there was a monopoly, part of the revenues from urban areas were used to pay for the additional costs in rural areas. There are more poles to install, more wires, etc. That will no longer be possible.

We will have a problem in rural areas because telephone companies will refuse to provide that service. If that is the message the minister wants to send Canadians, what he is indeed saying to the people and to small, medium and large businesses is that they should stay away from rural areas because they will pay more for telephone services, that they should be closer to the urban centres if they want to reduce their telecommunication costs.

It so happens that telecommunications are very important for a business in a world where information is the cornerstone of the economy. The minister's message contradicts reality. The consumer does not benefit from this kind of competition. The consumer pays increasingly more, and it is not over yet.

So, basically, what I am asking the minister is this: Will he take measures to eliminate or solve the problem? Will he follow the example of California and create a fund to allow isolated areas to reduce their phone bill and to allow the less well-off, people who cannot afford to pay higher phone bills, to have telephone services at an affordable price?

To me, it seems to be fundamental. The minister can no longer wash his hands of it and leave everything to free competition. He has the social responsibility to protect rural communities and the less well-off. I am expecting an answer from the minister.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I went over this bill, I was flabbergasted. I met with industrialists from my riding, who told me that they have had raw material brought by boat from South America, among other places, and that the price difference per ton of using the St. Lawrence Seaway rather than a port in the eastern region of the United States, in Boston or New York, for example, and then the railway system was only about 1 cent.

Now, the fee schedule set by the minister will affect this fragile balance and cause these industrialists to rethink their transportation policies. Members will realize that, if other industrialists react the same way, some resources in the St. Lawrence seaway will have to be shut down, and this will lead to unemployment.

Earlier, my colleague from Trois-Rivières was right to say that we have yet to assess the impact of this decision. It looks like, in the very short term, the minister wants to quickly collect about $20 million a year. But for what? So that his government does not have to cut elsewhere in order to still be able to deal with a deficit without having to take the consequences.

However, the real consequences, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out, are the medium and long term impacts, which will be much more considerable than the total amount of the expected savings. This could lead, for example, to increased unemployment. In fact, this is exactly what will happen. We are creating unemployment. This government across the way, which got itself elected on a job creation platform, is proposing a bill that will create unemployment. And where? In Quebec, among my fellow citizens, whose principal activity, from the time our ancestors arrived on this continent until now, has been shipping.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is a resource for Quebec. It is a resource that Ottawa, the federal government, has no right to control to the point where we can no longer use it economically. And that is exactly what is going to happen.

The minister does not understand the ramifications of what he is about to do with this bill. The minister does not realize that, as far as industry is concerned, all the ports on the St. Lawrence are going to be dealt a hard blow.

Jean-Marie Vignola, who was given the mandate of studying the economic impacts relating to the port of Quebec City, discovered that the economic contribution of the port of Quebec City, and I am only speaking of that port, over a seven year period, is equivalent to the impact of hosting the Olympic Games. Imagine, every seven years, the port of Quebec City alone generates the equivalent in economic spinoffs for the Quebec region of hosting the Olympic Games.

That is what the minister is monkeying around with, and not just in Quebec City, but in Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Bécancour, Saint-Romuald, in fact the length of the St. Lawrence. User pay is all very fine and well. But what is the user using and how much is he paying? Will there be a distinction made between the user who relies a little more heavily on telecommunications and the user who relies a little less so, between the user who uses a satellite navigation system and the user who relies on buoys and lighthouses?

Earlier, my colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, quite rightly pointed out that ships travelling the St. Lawrence Seaway to a final destination in the United States will not pay a cent. They will have used the resources to the same extent as any other ship destined for Montreal or Quebec City, but since their destination is the United States, they will not have to pay a cent. Who will pay the bill? It will be split among other users who use the services to reach destinations in Quebec or in Canada.

You realize that this bill is being presented to us under false pretences. The rationale behind it is faulty. And I have not mentioned the absolutely ridiculous provisions that would tax an ordinary citizen, small outfitting operations and holiday camps for their pleasure craft.

Honestly, will it get to the point where they slap a tax on the boats children play with in wading pools or the bathtub? Where will it all end? The coast guard claims that it will provide services. None of our viewers takes that seriously. The only person taking it seriously is the minister.

I see that my time is up and I will conclude as follows: the public cannot accept such a sorry excuse for a bill and I hope it will make its views know. It has the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Air Transportation, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is very confusing indeed. The minister just alluded to the rule of 365 days, or 12 months.

He says it is for this reason that Air Canada lost the Prague route. If so, why did the minister give Canadian almost two years to choose its destinations to India, Malaysia and the Philippines? Why the double standard?

[Air Transportation, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

On July 12, the Minister of Transport wrote, in a letter attempting to justify the withdrawal of Air Canada's privilege to fly to Prague, that he was the one who decided that Canadian Airlines International would become Canada's carrier to the Czech Republic.

On Friday, in answering a question from the Bloc on the same issue, the minister said in this House, and I quote: "I made no decision. That is how it works. It is automatic".

There is a problem. The minister is contradicting himself. My question is very simple. Who is right: (a) the minister, in his July 12 letter; (b) the minister in the House, on October 4; or (c) none of the above?

[Telecommunications, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's answer, but the fact is that consumers will pay more, not less. Incidentally, the federation of consumers' associations and the National Anti-Poverty Organization proposed the setting up of a fund to ensure universal access to telecommunications for low-income people and the regions.

Will the Minister of Industry follow up on this suggestion?

[Telecommunications, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

On December 20, the minister stated that he did not want the rate restructuring in the field of telecommunications to be done at the expense of accessibility. The minister said: "Accessibility is currently not at stake and we will make sure that it will not be in the future".

Since the minister and the CRTC authorized significant increases in the cost of local services, with more to come, what measures is

the minister contemplating to make sure local services remain affordable for everyone?

[The Middle East, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while the President of Palestine is saying that his participation in the Summit is conditional on firm commitments from Israel, the Israeli government is refusing to close the tunnel, and is deploying tanks on the West Bank and threatening to disarm Palestinian police.

Given the impasse, I ask the minister whether he can tell this House exactly what the Canadian government's position will be?