Paul Mercier

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf is right when he says that Canada's current prosperity is largely the result of loans we have a hard time paying back.

I want to tell my colleague, and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, that this prosperity was generated by the work of Canadians and Quebecers; it is not related to the confederation. Canada's prosperity should not be used as an argument in favour of the federation. We all know other federations which are definitely not prosperous, such as Russia or the former Yugoslavia.

There is no causal link between the political system of this country and its prosperity. It is work, the work of the people, that generated this prosperity. So, let us stop raving about this prosperity and use it as an argument in favour of federalism.

If you cut a cake into two pieces, the pieces are as good after as they were before the cake was cut. If we split Canada into two parts, will Quebec and the rest of the country be less prosperous? The answer is no. So, let us cut the cake into two pieces, let each one have a piece, let us remain friends, and let us stop raving about how good the cake was before it was shared. It will be just as good after it is shared.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

What does that have to do with it? Obviously we are very grateful to Canadians. Let us use our common sense and see the problems for what they are. I am comparing two policies which use the same means, which is to fly flags everywhere, and this reminds me of Goebbels. Although the flags are not comparable, the policies are.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

I want to compare, if hon. members would show me the courtesy of letting me speak, I want to compare two policies. When you want to promote a people with thousands of flags-

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I simply want to say that for people of my generation, from my country-I was born in Europe-the money spent on flags brings to mind some unpleasant memories and unpleasant names like that of Goebbels in Germany.

When a country defends itself with flags, and I saw them all over the place, I saw thousands of them. I do not want to equate the maple leaf with the swastika-

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot anticipate whether ADM will appeal the decision or not. Nor can we anticipate what the federal government will do, since the judge is asking, and in fact demanding, in the five conditions he set to allow ADM's decision to be implemented, that the government take certain measures.

I will simply say this: millions of dollars have already been spent in legal costs alone by the two parties, millions that could have been saved had the government followed up on the Bloc Quebecois' recommendation to hold public hearings, where representations would have been made and studies submitted, at a much lower cost. The issue should have been discussed in public, not behind closed doors.

We do not know whether the saga will continue, whether millions of dollars will be spent should ADM decide to appeal, or what the government's position will be following the judge's recommendations. At this point in time, I do not know what will happen. It all depends on ADM's decision and on the federal government's decision.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have before the House today a motion presented by the Reform Party, and I will read the first sentence: "That this House condemn the government for its approach to federal transportation

policies". Need I say that I could not agree more with this motion? With regard to airports alone, we have two clear examples of the need to condemn the transportation policies of this government.

And this is only the airports. There is also the Pearson question, and I will simply say that the Liberal government's decision in this respect has meant that we as taxpayers are faced with a law suit involving more than $600 million in damages.

However, I intend to concentrate on the issue, which was in the news again yesterday, in connection with the decision made by ADM to transfer all international flights to Dorval and, without any real authorization, to start work at Dorval on the facilities that will be required as a result of these transfers.

As you know, yesterday in Superior Court in Montreal, Judge Viau reversed this decision, and his accompanying comments were very critical of both ADM and the federal government. The ruling, which is 260 pages long, contained some very interesting comments. I will quote only three.

The first one is more or less as follows: the judge orders ADM to act in the public interest. Here is a creature of the federal government that is accused of not acting in the public interest. I wonder whether we actually realize how shocking this is. Let me recall that well known saying: like father, like son. And ADM is a creature of the federal government.

Second little pearl: the judge accused the ADM of manipulating the results of a study. Here again, and I underscore this, the ADM is a federal creature and is being accused of tampering with the results of a study to its advantage or to the advantage of the lobbies supporting it. I will not mention them here.

Third pearl: the ADM is being accused of abusing power. This government offspring is being accused of abusing power because it decided on a radical change in the functions of these two airports, when the government, as landlord, was entitled to insist on consultation and to authorize all changes in their functions.

I am proud to point out that our party, the Bloc Quebecois, criticized these practices from the outset and called on the government, the final authority in matters of air transportation, to put a stop to them. It is not up to our party to speak for Mirabel or Dorval.

It is our role, however, to criticize the behaviour of the ADM and the government in this matter and, especially, the arrogance of the seven members of ADM, who, without consulting anyone, according to the judge, not even SOPRAM, the advisory body available to it for consultation, decided the future of a region and the future of airports in the greater Montreal area.

We also asked, equally unsuccessfully, that the studies the ADM used be made public. We tried under the Access to Information Act.

Our request was turned down, because as a creation of the federal government, it is not subject to this act. We were denied access to the studies. As a result, no one knows on what basis a decision crucial to the regions was made.

I will wrap up quickly. As a sovereignist, I will not complain; in fact, I should thank ADM and Ottawa for proving once again to Quebecers that, within the federal system, management without interference by the lobbies is impossible. We cannot hope for reasonable management or for management in the public interest over the transportation issues debated here today. Our only hope is for a sovereign Quebec to be managed in an honest and reasonable fashion.

[Kenworth Corporation, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while they are thinking about it and splitting hairs, unemployed Canadians have run out of UI benefits. What we want is action.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, because the parties involved are also waiting for an agreement over the TJF.

I would like to know if the Minister of Human Resources Development intends to commit funds from his transition job program to ensure the reopening of the Kenworth plant.

[Kenworth Corporation, December 13th, 1996]

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

All the parties involved have come to an agreement on the terms and conditions for the reopening of the Kenworth plant. PACCAR, the solidarity fund, the union and the Quebec government followed through on their commitments. However, at the very last minute, the federal government has come up with new requirements which could prevent the reopening to be announced before Christmas.

In order to preserve some 900 jobs, could the Minister of Industry tell the House if he intends to follow through on the commitments made by his officials concerning the Auto Pact and the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement to ensure that the Kenworth plant will reopen?

[Kenworth, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the unions certainly do not think it would be too early if it happened before Christmas.

One month after the government granted Canadian Airlines a $20 million tax rebate, could the minister show be as understanding about customs duties owed by Kenworth, which stand in the way of the plant reopening?

[Kenworth, December 12th, 1996]

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

The unemployment insurance benefits of workers who were laid off when the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse closed last April have now run out. What a wonderful Christmas present it would be for these workers to have the plant reopen, now that the unions and the Quebec government have finally reached an agreement with PACCAR. All that is missing is co-operation from Ottawa, without which nothing can happen.

Since this is a matter of some urgency, will the minister undertake to approve before Christmas the financial support required to re-equip the plant and retrain the manpower?