Paul Crête

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

I can tell my hon. colleague that when I say "we" as democrats, I am referring to the vast majority of Quebecers. Last October's referendum, in which 93 per cent of the population went to the polls, shows very clearly that we Quebecers are democrats. I would add that Canadians, too, are democrats. What we are asking today is for the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to reaffirm that they still stand for democracy and that they are always ready to accept the rules of the game, even though they are feeling the heat.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting proposal for the minister. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister is indeed a good and great democrat, then let us hear him reassert his position. He simply has to vote in favour of the motion. The Prime Minister simply has to tell his government colleagues that he is not afraid of repeating what he said in 1970 and wrote in 1985. This is what we are asking him to do on this opposition day.

The minister also says that we lost the debate. The fact is that the democratic and political debate is not over in one day. This is not the society of a thousand years, as former Prime Minister Trudeau once said. We have a right to democratically discuss ideas. We had a good example of that last week. The debate on the issue of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination lasted for over 25 years in Canada.

People maintained their position and, thanks to their tenacity, finally got what they wanted. This is how changes are brought about in the political process. This is what we were taught in the past by very democratic people, in Quebec and in Canada. We learned that political debates are the way to go, that battles are won by convincing people with good arguments.

Right now, new arguments come up every day and more and more people are in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. It is so because, in the days that preceded the October 30 referendum, the Prime Minister, speaking for the current federal government, said to us: "We will make major changes". It is the second time in 15 years that we are told major changes will take place, and this time again there are no changes. Each time, some people realize they made a mistake by voting no, and the next they will vote yes. This is the reality. This is the real political debate, and we will win it.

The people of Quebec has been forging ahead for a long time. The fact that sovereignists have been here for over two years is not a coincidence. For a long time, we believed that we could become sovereign by simply forming the government in Quebec City. We realized it was important to send a message to Canada and to make the country realize that sovereignty was not a folksy thing in Quebec, but a deeply rooted feeling. Such was the message sent by Quebecers to all federalists at the 1993 election.

Quebecers said: "We want to be represented by a majority of sovereignists, and we want Canada to know that. We will make decisions accordingly and we will always do so in the respect of democracy".

Today, we are merely asking the Prime Minister to say that, yes, he will continue to respect the rules of democracy. The decision rests with him.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to start with I would like to recall the thrust of the opposition motion. In the seventies the Prime Minister of Canada said, as reported in his book Straight from the Heart , ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The aim of the opposition motion is to have the whole House repeat this statement. It is to have the Prime Minister confirm that the rules he believed in in the seventies, and stated in his book, will still apply tomorrow. This is the objective of the motion.

We can safely say that when the present Prime Minister made that statement in the seventies, he probably had data telling him that the sovereignist side would never win a referendum. This is probably what he had in mind, given the numbers he had. But the inability of the federal system to reform itself has resulted in the sovereignist vote increasing from 22 per cent in 1970, during a Quebec election, to 40 per cent in the 1980 referendum to 49.4 per cent last year. Each time we make progress because federalists make promises they do not keep.

Obviously I understand the fear of the present government when it says that it cannot change the structure and come up with a proposal that will please Quebecers. If the present government were to say that it was going to negotiate between peoples, that it was going to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the recognition of the two founding peoples of Canada, and that it would allow Quebec to develop-

Quebecers have been making these claims for a long time, but proposals never came to anything because they did not meet the needs of both peoples of Canada. We can understand this and there is a solution to it, which is what we are proposing. The aim of today's motion however is to make sure it will be done democratically.

I would like to clarify something the Prime Minister keeps on repeating. He says: "You lost the referendum twice, now respect democracy". Democracy does not mean we have to stop believing what we believe in when we lose an election, democracy is keeping on trying to convince people we are right and they are wrong. To do this, you need tenacity. Evolution of thought is important also. In Quebec, mainly at the suggestion of René Lévesque, we gambled on the profound belief that we would solve the issue democratically. We accepted the 40 per cent result of 1980 and the more recent 49.4 per cent.

The current premier of Quebec was the first to accept the results. We play according to the rules of democracy. We are sovereignists and we say so very clearly. We will call an election, we will win and we will prove to Quebecers that this is the right solution, because you cannot make a flower grow by pulling on it, you have to nurture it. We are ready to follow the pace of the people and to present arguments to convince them.

What we need now is for the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, to confirm their respect for democracy because, over the last few days, we have heard all sorts of contradictory statements saying that it cannot be done with just over 50 per cent, that other conditions will have to be met. The federal government and Quebec must agree on the question.

There is a paternalistic attitude now, just as there was in 1982. The rules of democracy were followed then. In 1982, the government said: "We are legitimate, we have 74 federalist Libreal members out of 75 seats. Therefore, we have the right to do so. And we will put our seats on the line during the next election". Democracy prevailed because after the following election, they were all gone. Since then, the movement has gathered momentum.

We went from nationalist members within the Conservative Party to the 53 sovereignists we now have, because of the Meech Lake accord demise.

There will be sovereignists until Canada solves the problem with Quebec and, for us, the solution is sovereignty. If the government has another solution to propose, it should put it on the table and let Quebecers judge its relevancy. At the present time, the game is not played on the rink. The federal government is trying to change the rules and the players' position on the rink. That is no solution. It does not solve anything. It is like negotiating a collective agreement, when, instead of agreeing at the negotiating table, people start negotiating the back-to-work protocol, the strike issue, etc. That is irrelevant.

So, the objective of the opposition motion is to allow the Prime Minister, the current government, to reaffirm what he said in the 1970's and 1980's, that is, if they do not win, they will let Quebecers separate.

The current Prime Minister made that statement. When he says: "I'll let Quebeckers separate", which in his vocabulary is about the most terrible thing that could happen, there is a fundamental recognition that, if the results make sovereignty possible, it will have to be accepted by the Canadian government.

It is also important to let everyone see clearly that we do not live in a society that has always existed as such. Canadian Confederation is not timeless, it did not come into existence at the same time our planet did. It is the result of compromises that led British colonies to become allied in a kind of organization in 1867. It was finalized by a vote in their respective legislative assemblies. That is when it was decided to found Canada.

In a sense, Quebecers could be said to be overdoing it. They have developed an acute sense of democracy. After joining the Canadian confederation by a vote in the legislature, they saw fit, in light of the evolution of political thinking, to impose upon themselves as a requirement that a democratic vote be held in which more than 50 per cent of the population should vote in favour.

Come to think of it, the result in 1995 was fantastic. Ninety-three per cent of Quebecers voted in the referendum, a participation rate unsurpassed anywhere in the world. It was a tight vote. The verdict came in. And we said: "We shall continue to be a part of Canada according to the wishes of the majority". The majority expressed its wishes and we acknowledged the referendum results.

We also tolerated, without displaying any violence, having 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 persons-the exact number was never determined- come to Montreal to tell us in an ultrapaternalistic way that they would decide in our place what we want. I think that we can be proud of our democratic process in Quebec. It is fair to say that this may be behind the largest consensus in Quebec.

While realizing there are differences of opinion, we are prepared to live with them and to defend them. We are even prepared to take up the fight once again and to accept what comes of it. We are asking the Liberal government to take our lead. It should simply respect whatever decision Quebecers make and stick to its guns.

In conclusion, I move as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding, immediately after the word "stated", the following:

"in his book entitled Straight from the Heart , on page 140''.

I also move the following:

That the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier be amended by adding the word "autobiographical" immediately before the word "book".

I move this amendment to an amendment.

I hope that members will rise in this House to tell us that, first and foremost, they are liberals and democrats and that they will respect whatever democratic decision is made. Being a democrat must take precedence over being a federalist or a sovereignist. In the decisions facing us, it is of paramount importance that the wishes of the people be respected.

I expect the current Prime Minister of Canada to do so and to reaffirm by voting in favour of this motion that he still holds the same views on the matter, that democracy will prevail in his decision and that he will accept the result of the next referendum, which will see Quebec become a sovereign state.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the House that the Prime Minister's answer followed a question which reads as follows: "At a town meeting-a-Liberal got up and said 'Chrétien, when will you tell the separatists that there will never be independence, that the federal government will never allow it to happen?'." And the answer was: "But I did not agree-it is Mr. Chrétien who is speaking-. 'We'll put our faith in democracy,' I said. 'We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".

Can the minister explain to us why, in the amendment which he proposed and which may be in order, he deleted the part of the quote which appears in the Prime Minister's book: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".

Why did the minister delete that part of the quote? In that quote, there are two parts: if we win, we will do this; if we lose, we will do that. That is how democracy works, it is making a choice between the two.

That is the question I am asking the minister, but I have one last comment to make.

In his speech, he said that Canada is practically the best country in the world. I would like to submit to him, for his consideration, a few examples of what Quebecers and French speaking Canadians experienced in Canada.

The first example is the assimilation process in Manitoba, where the French language was forbidden for many years, with the acceptance of the rest of Canada for a very long time.

The second one is conscription, which was imposed on Quebecers despite their decision not to take part.

The third one is that, ever since unemployment rates have been calculated, unemployment in Quebec has always been 2, 3 or 4 per cent higher that the national average. Is that an interesting economic result? Is that acceptable?

For the fourth example, I will ask why, since 1982, all the successive governments in Quebec, whether federalist or sovereignist, never accepted to sign the Constitution that was patriated without Quebec's consent? Do you really think that this makes for an interesting country for Quebecers?

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary West reminded me why the referendum results went from 40 per cent in 1980 to 49.4 per cent in 1995. Why is it that Canada has not been able to adapt to this change?

Does the hon. member think that the results were affected somewhat by the message the current Prime Minister has been sending for some time now, when he says that there is no constitutional issue to be resolved in Canada, and that the problems between Quebec and Canada will solve themselves if we have a good government?

Is it not also the result of trying to hide the fact that the Canadian Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, from a federalist point of view-need I remind you that I am a sovereignist-but from a federalist point of view, after 16 years of inaction on the part of the federal government?

Is it not the best message that could be sent to Quebecers to let them know that the system cannot be changed from the inside, but more importantly, outside Quebec, in the rest of Canada, does the message sent by the current Prime Minister not lead Canadians to believe that there is no problem, when in fact we are still faced with a problem and all we see are the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion?

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means;''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to every user and other person who has, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every news paper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1, with the following:

"WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995 under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and

WHEREAS the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over all other considerations in the business decisions taken by NAV CANADA;

THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and".

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1, with the following:

"WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995 under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and

WHEREAS NAV CANADA is committed to ensuring equality of opportunity for small and large carriers in establishing its charges and, in particular, in achieving a balanced representation of small and large carriers on the Board of Directors of the Corporation;

THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-20, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 1, with the following:

"WHEREAS NAV CANADA is a corporation incorporated on May 26, 1995 under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act; and

WHEREAS NAV CANADA recognizes that Canada is a country where air service to northern and remote regions is essential;

THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and".

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate, which is at the report stage but which is also at the second reading stage as the bill had been referred directly to committee. This bill is about the commercialization of civil air navigation services. Behind this bill is a commendable goal: trying to make air navigation services more efficient, more profitable, by reducing operating costs.

If the bill referred to this goal while recognizing that safety is paramount, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, could support it. We are proposing a number of amendments, and some of the most important ones are in the first group.

What we really want is a preamble to the bill, which would be used as an interpretive clause for the whole bill and would ensure that safety is always paramount. Privatization or the establishment of a non-profit organization in charge of managing air navigation services, strikes a balance in a way.

We have gone from living in an era when everything was managed by the public sector to creating a non-profit organization that must become viable. Along the way, however, we forgot to set aviation safety criteria based on operational requirements in this area, in which errors can have disastrous consequences.

Yes, we must bring excessive costs under control, but without throwing the baby out with the bath water. We want to make sure that safety has priority over all other considerations and that is the purpose of our preamble. We hope the government will pay attention to our arguments.

There is another aspect we regard as important, as essential even, an aspect which, in our opinion, must be approved as an amendment if the bill is to be acceptable to Quebecers, to Canadians, to users and to those who operate the system: small carriers must be given an active role to play.

During consideration of the bill in committee, we realized that the board of directors of Nav Canada, on which will sit representatives of all air navigation stakeholders, did not include enough small carriers. So how will we decide in the future what to charge carriers for air navigation services? There are people who do not have enough of a say.

Among these is the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, which was unable to get a guaranteed seat on Nav Canada's board of directors. We all know the importance of this industry as far as the use of the French language in the future is concerned. This is an industry where there have been problems for several years. Today still, it is a daily battle for those working in this industry to ensure French is recognized.

The bill states that the Official Languages Act will apply to Nav Canada. Fine, but we feel that many other aspects of everyday use of French in air travel are insufficiently protected. The use of French is one thing, but there are also many economic considerations.

For example, there is a risk with a fee structure based only on criteria favouring large carriers, should it established. When the time will come for the board to decide on a pricing system, since the people sitting on the board are there to look after their own interests, naturally they will make sure that the fee structure selected is the one that penalizes them the least.

A decision that impacts only minimally on very large carriers may destroy small carriers.

Very small air navigation companies do not have very high profit margins. The fee structure could make the difference between a given operation being profitable or becoming unprofitable, spelling the death of small carriers in the medium term. This point was made to us in committee by many witnesses, especially those in the tourist transportation industry, such as outfitters and other small carriers operating on lines which are not major commercial lines. These lines are a source of income for them and constitute, among other things, an interesting business activity for remote communities.

The second thing we felt important to include in our preamble is the fact that there should be a balance between small and large carriers in Nav Canada's operations, thus eliminating the need to hold a debate to specifically guarantee a small carrier a seat on Nav Canada's board of directors. Our intention is that the preamble will create a moral obligation, a need for statutory interpretation whereby small carrier representatives will be able to take their cases to the board of directors and have their say.

The third subject covered in the proposed preamble, which we hope to see the government add to its bill, is northern and remote communities. It must be realized that, while the bill changes the air traffic control system and allows a non profit corporation to take over this system, it does not oblige the corporation to take the economic impact of its decisions on the regions into account.

For example, in the case of the airport in Mont-Joli, or any other regional airport with air navigation equipment, Nav Canada will have to decide, when trying to determine future equipment needs, whether to buy new equipment, and what to install for safety purposes at the airport.

Senior public servants told the committee that, under the bill, the corporation is under no obligation to take the economic impact of a regional airport into account. If equipment required to meet safety requirements represent a major investment in terms of the volume of traffic at the airport, the equipment might not be bought, thus reducing the impact of the airport and resulting, in the long term, in its closure.

Nothing is provided in this bill to allow those concerned by the region's economic development to express their views. Several other amendments will therefore be moved so that, when changes are anticipated, the regional community will have to be informed through the media and all other suitable means to ensure that decisions are not made without consideration of their impact on the region. Decisions must not be made without the knowledge of interested local parties, to ensure they do not lead to a crisis. This is the third element of our proposed preamble to the bill.

We could consider the bill to be acceptable if the government included these three points in a preamble, namely to consider safety as a paramount concern, to provide an adequate role for small carriers, to protect airports in northern and remote regions, and to guarantee that interested parties have a say when Nav Canada makes decisions regarding equipment in regional airports.

The system could probably be changed effectively if such elements were included to ensure an adequate balance regarding the issues of safety, regions and small carriers.

Under the current system, costs were somewhat out of control and the expected level of satisfaction was not necessarily met. There would now be a return to private activity.

The government must analyse the situation, find a balance and come up with a solution ensuring the paramountcy of safety. After all, safety is the primary responsibility of Nav Canada.

[Air Transportation, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister denying at the same time having any responsibility in anything relating to international air traffic, such as international flights? In any case, aircraft require airports to land on.

Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that the federal government is hiding behind Aéroports de Montréal, which is its own creature, to try to play down its own responsibility in the historical fiasco with Montreal airports?

[Air Transportation, May 15th, 1996]

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

Last week, the government refused to hold public hearings on the decision made by the firm Aéroports de Montréal to transfer international traffic from Mirabel to Dorval. While these airports are still public property, the government argued that it did not come under its purview to act in this matter.

Will the minister take his responsibilities and tell us what concrete actions are contemplated to provide a public forum where the various stakeholders will be able to voice their opinions?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I will rise in this House on this bill. We have followed it in committee for nearly two years. We have tried to make the government aware of the Canadian reality. Rather than get into technical arguments, I would ask the Liberal members to consider the upcoming vote and look at the effects on Canadians, the people of the maritimes, of Quebec, Ontario and especially northern Ontario, and western Canada and even the major centres. I will explain.

This bill on unemployment insurance reform is a sort of model for society the government wants us to choose. It has decided to kill off the old model of Canada where some things worked and other things did not work so well, but the desire to ensure that each region received equitable amounts, at least in terms of compensation for economic development, is gone. The government decided to do away with this sort of development, and now we have this bill before us today.

I am going to give a more down to earth example, which seems to me to be very close to the truth. As you know, the economy in our regions is a bit like a second hand car that uses up a lot of oil. Its motor does not work well, because the oil evaporates too readily. Usually, you put oil in the engine to keep it running, and, at some point, you decide to have it repaired so that it will then work properly.

For the UI reform, the government decided that even if the engine was using up too much oil, the solution was to quit topping it up and after that the engine would repair itself. We know very well that it does not work like that. Regional economies, the economies that depend on seasonal industries, are economies that need diversification.

That was proven by the human resources development minister's committee on seasonal workers, as well as by the demonstrations seen by the human resources development committee. It was also proven by people in the last consultation on the bill itself, when people from the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as other areas, gave us examples where there were 50, 75, 100 applicants for one job. So, people want to work and see their economy develop, and that raises serious questions about an inequitable principle, an unacceptable principle in the present system, which is to decide from the outset that people are taking advantage of the system.

This bill assumes guilt on the part of the people using the unemployment insurance system. It considers that they must be punished to set them back on the straight and narrow. This approach is difficult to understand coming from the present government, because when it was elected it told us that it would make employment a priority, and came up with the slogan: "Jobs, jobs, jobs".

It therefore proposed a model of society that was completely different from that of the former Conservative government. If we had the present reform before us and it was the former Conservative government that had introduced it and been elected, we could say that Quebecers and Canadians had chosen this kind of government, that that was what they wanted, and we would act accordingly. But no, we have before us a government that was elected on a completely different philosophy than that in the bill.

Today, it is abdicating completely the responsibility of a party in power, which is to do what it was elected to do. This government, particularly the members from the Atlantic provinces, will have

some terrible political fallout to contend with if they vote in favour of this bill.

Allow me to quickly quote several excerpts from a letter signed by the present Prime Minister on March 26, 1993, when the Conservatives were taking measures far less harsh than those contained in this bill. Among the points made in the letter-and it is the present Prime Minister, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, speaking:

I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern about this attack against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent superficial amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures.

Do you not find that this bears some resemblance to the three little amendments we have had tabled before us just now? The Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition at the time, goes on to say:

Instead of getting to the heart of the problem, it goes after the unemployed.

In closing, he says:

You can be assured that the Liberals will continue to call on the government to withdraw this unfair bill.

This may be the most serious effect of this bill.

It is true that it penalizes the regions and the workers. It is true that there are regional economies in danger of destruction. It is true that people are made out to be nothing but economic agents.

They are telling us mobility is necessary. That the fact that you have been in the same community for generations does not give you the right to stay there, the right to demand development of the economy in your area. No, you have to go where the jobs are. That is what the government is saying. The most serious point is that it casts doubt on the credibility of elected officials. The fact of being elected with a mandate and failing to fulfil it gives politicians today a standing of 4 per cent in the polls. And this is totally unacceptable.

It is true that there are major negative consequences. This applies to regional economies, but also to the major centres. In the next few years, the labour force will move out of the regions, including those people with skills in the tourist industry, who will not be able to accumulate the number of hours they need to be eligible for unemployment insurance. The race for hours will be on. People in the labour force will move to the major centres, empty the regions of valuable resources and put unacceptable pressure on the work force in the major centres. The negative effects of this will be significant.

The unemployment insurance system is the best economic regulator during a recession. My greatest fear is that, in the next recession, we will be dealing with economic situations similar to those of the 1929 depression, where people were literally dying of hunger because there were no social programs.

These programs were set up. They realized that the unemployment insurance system at least made it possible to avoid the long term effects of the recession. A person receiving unemployment insurance benefits continued to contribute to the economy and remained a consumer. This will no longer be the case. These are the major changes.

These are the negative effects of this choice of society, the choice of the path of neo-liberalism that disregards the need, in a country like Canada, for stop gap and economic assessment measures making for a better society.

When you vote shortly, give some thought to what will happen to our regional economies if you know people who live in Shediac, Bonaventure, Charlottetown, the Gaspé, in Nouvelle, in Gaspé, in any of the regions and areas. What will happen to a labour force that for a number of years has been working in seasonal industries, which takes workers who will not be able to work the entire year? We are going to put them in unacceptable situations where they will have to go on welfare.

All this in a society where there is an unemployment insurance system that will generate systematically this year, next year and in other years a surplus of $5 billion. Is this in keeping with the values for development we sought for Canada in the past 20, 25 or 30 years? Are people going to want to continue to live in a country that sets all these values aside? I think the answer is very clear to Quebecers.

The Liberal government will have to bear the responsibility for its decision. This is not only an unfulfilled commitment, but a form of disregard for democracy. Who are the real decision makers? What made them create a system like this one?

Why do members who were elected on their promises to work in good faith to promote full employment, to use human potential so their constituents can be happy in their own environments, suddenly all clam up two and a half years later? They are not saying a word on these issues and are no longer making any suggestions so that these results can be achieved.

How come no one told us to set goals in the fight against unemployment, as we did in the fight against the deficit? How come? These are fundamental questions to ask ourselves as they are to be found not only in this bill, but also in other government measures.

There are two types of decision makers. I think the basic flaw in this reform is the link between the UI system and the fight against the deficit.

To have unemployment insurance claimants pay premiums is one thing. They paid them in the past and could have been asked to keep on paying them. But the government stubbornly insists on

drawing $5 billion a year on a fund basically intended to support a person's income between jobs. UI claimants are being penalized and made to feel guilty for using the unemployment insurance system to offset those negative aspects, where the government failed to take its responsibility.

Concerning the $5 billion put to the somewhat artificial use of covering the deficit, the preferred approach would have been to say: We will take a closer look at government spending on items such as embassies or national defence to see if we could not save more on those items. We will settle once and for all the whole manpower issue and stop wasting $250 million a year in duplication with the Quebec government alone.

Had they dug deeper in that area, we would not have had to take actions such as defending, as we are doing now, a reform that is indefensible on the basis of its economic objectives. The $5 billion surplus generated by the system is being sunk into in a bureaucratic machine and conditions created where the money will not be put to productive use. Why not have decided to put this money back in the economy to foster job creation instead of reducing employees and employers contributions?

We are told that, for every penny by which employer contributions are being reduced, approximately 12,000 jobs could be created across Canada.

When will the bureaucratic machine generate such interesting things? We have to realize that the government no longer has any money to spend in areas that are under provincial jurisdiction. It no longer has the money required to be involved in these areas, and it can no longer borrow on foreign markets. The only thing left is the cash cow that the unemployment insurance system has always been. The government is relying on a fund in which it does not put one penny. Indeed, all the money in the UI account comes from employers and workers.

But the government will not let them manage their $5 billion surplus. It will not tell them: Employers and employees, you will decide what to do with your surplus. Are you going to build a reserve for bad times? Are you going to reduce premiums? Are you going to invest the surplus in other ventures? Are you going to increase benefits for those in more difficult situations? This is your money. You do what you want with it. We will simply make sure that it is properly spent. But no. The government does not say that.

Under the circumstances, the opinion of Quebecers regarding these measures should not come as a surprise. According to a poll, 75 per cent of Quebecers feel that the whole issue of unemployment insurance management should become the province's sole responsibility. Moreover, 59.8 per cent of Quebecers oppose the UI reform, while 27 per cent support it. As well, 79 per cent of them think it will primarily benefit the federal government, not workers and employers. These people clearly understand the point I made earlier.

They clearly understand that it is strictly a deficit-related issue. The government is holding employers and employees hostage.

Quebecers clearly understand, since 72 per cent of them oppose a reduction of the benefits paid to the unemployed, while 66 per cent oppose a reduction of the benefit period. It is good to see that Quebecers have clearly understood the negative impact of this system.

There are other indications of that, including the fact that the Minister of Human Resources Development received 40,000 postcards from people asking for the withdrawal of the bill and the patriation of the manpower sector. The fact that 40,000 people took the time to send a postcard is a clear message in itself. It is a message to federal Quebec Liberals, but the message would be the same in the maritimes if the same poll was conducted there tomorrow.

I will conclude by quoting a Quebec poet, Gilles Vigneault, who wrote a line in a song that perfectly applies to the current Liberal government, and particularly to the Prime Minister: "By generating such winds, you prepare quite a storm".

The storm will come from the young people and those you will oblige to work 910 hours, 26 weeks of 35 hours of full time work, in order to become eligible for unemployment insurance, instead of 300 hours. It will come as well from seasonal workers whose benefits you are cutting, event though they paid for these benefits. For each 20-week period of unemployment insurance, they will lose 1 per cent of their benefits. We will be the ones who will have voted for this bill, on behalf of all those who will have to live with it.

It will also affect owners of small businesses. In a region such as mine, there will $10 million less in the economy. This is therefore very significant. I think this bill must be roundly criticized. There is still time to defeat it, and I think the same message as was sent to the Conservatives over the closure of the post offices should be sent to the Liberal government. The Conservatives thought they were right and the people were wrong. The government is doing the same thing and, if it does not change its mind, the people will judge it the same way.