Mario Laframboise

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Transport announced $160 million in aid to the airline industry following the shutdown of Canadian airspace between September 11 and 16.

Will the minister tell us whether he intends to announce other measures to help air carriers?

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me read again the motion now before the House. It says:

That this Committee take note of the difficulties experienced in the Canadian airline industry.

To listen to the Minister of Transport, the industry's problems are all linked to security issues. He told us that he has solved all these problems. He has had or will have changes made to cockpits. He was very eloquent about the viability of the industry. What he promised is that he would look after things if the industry ever got into trouble.

That is what the Minister of Transport had to say in a debate that is surely watched by some air industry workers. After all, Air Canada did announce 9,000 layoffs; Air Transat, 1,300; Rolls Royce, 22; and Pratt & Whitney, 600. All the government has to say for itself today is that security in the cockpit will be improved, which brings us back to the same old question “Does the government have a plan? If so, will it tell us what it is?”

There have been requests from the airline industry. Air Canada was one of these. Can we know today what Air Canada asked for, and what the government's financial situation is? How is it capable, with the taxpayer money, of predicting the impossible, this tragic and horrible situation that occurred last September 11, putting the safety and security of air travellers in jeopardy as well as the future of an entire industry that is highly prosperous in Canada, and in Quebec in particular?

In a debate as important as this one today, an emergency debate on the airline industry, all that we get out of the Minister of Transport is “We have improved security”. As was necessary. It was what everyone would want to see to restore travellers' confidence. That was obvious. The decision has been made to reinforce cockpits, and we agree with that. What about the 13,602 jobs lost in the airline industry in recent weeks? What about that? That is the debate we thought we would have seen develop here in the House today.

The Bloc Quebecois will give its position to the minister. That is what he wanted and we are prepared to do so. What we want is for the airline employees not to be the ones that have to pay through job losses for the entire problem arising out of the September 11 events. That is what we want. That is what the 13, 602 workers want from the minister. They want to have job security, as far as the events of September 11, which were not of their doing, are concerned. It is as simple as that.

Today then, it is clear: the airlines must be helped, in all sectors, the men and women who have lost their jobs or will do so in the weeks to come, because of this dreadful situation to which they had no connection and for which they assuredly did not ask to lose their jobs. That is what we are proposing: to help the struggling airlines and the entire aeronautical and aerospace sector to absorb all the repercussions.

We are now seeing the domino effect of these sad events. People are less inclined to fly. Airlines are losing money. This has an impact on aircraft manufacturers and parts suppliers. The whole industry will be penalized. If we look even further, there are repercussions also on the tourism industry and on everything international tourism could bring to Quebec and Canada.

We want to know if the government is willing to deal with all job losses resulting from events beyond the control of any of the employees who have been laid off since September 11. That is what we want to hear today. The government has the money. We know that the accumulated surplus since the beginning of the year is estimated at nearly $10 billion, and the government has access to that money. Is it ready to sit down and negotiate with businesses, to find ways of getting the industry back on its feet? That is what we want to hear. We want to know if the government is willing to help all sectors that have suffered losses because of the sad events of September 11, be it the airline industry, the aeronautics industry, international tourism or any kind of tourism.

That is what we are hoping to see develop tonight. That is what the Bloc Quebecois will focus on over the next few days. We will not stop asking questions because we want to know what the government plan is and what the airlines' demands are.

If we take the case of Air Canada, we know very well that, prior to September 11, Air Canada had made requests. Cuts had already been announced. There was talk of 3,500 jobs being lost. In Air Canada's annual report to shareholders on May 15, the president, Mr. Milton, had already announced that there would be staff cuts in his company, which were to be achieved through voluntary departures, authorized leave, and attrition. No one would have their job ripped away from them. This was the policy Air Canada had announced.

There was also a request for loans. We were told that there would be a request for $500 million in loans to help buy new aircraft. The company asked for a $500 million reduction in federal government airport fees, as well as a reduction in fuel tax. These were requests made by the company prior to September 11.

These are requests about which the Bloc Quebecois will be very demanding. We do not wish to enrich the shareholders of a private company without due cause. We want everyone to be very clear on this: we are prepared to agree to assistance to the industry for all the problems associated with the September 11, 2001, attacks; but the industry will have to pay for mistakes it made on its own prior to September 11, 2001.

Earlier, the minister told the House that errors were made along the way. What the public needs to understand is that those mistakes were not made only by the industry. The government also made mistakes when planning the integration of the two airlines, because that is what we are talking about here, the integration or merger of two airlines.

Under the circumstances, we have to be able to put things in perspective for the benefit of those who are watching us. We need to cover the losses incurred by the industry since September 11. Investors and shareholders have to face the music for what happened before September 11, just like the other companies have to do.

In a press release, WestJet announced it was doing fine, that, despite the tragic events, it was in top shape financially. It was in great shape at the beginning of the year, unlike Air Canada. As we can see, some companies did well.

It is important to tell the men and women who are watching us, who work hard to pay their taxes, that the federal government will not spend their money to correct the mistakes made by some airlines managers. We will leave it to the shareholders to assess the decisions made by the CEOs and the boards of those companies.

To deal with the serious impact a tragedy like the terrorist attacks of September 11 has had on the airline industry, the aeronautics industry and the international tourism sector, what we want and what we need is a governmental action plan. We know the federal government has money. Some of that money could be made available following a thorough debate, and not just the rhetoric we heard from the Minister of Transport tonight.

This evening, on the strength of a motion as simple as “That this Committee take note of the difficulties experienced in the Canadian airline industry”, the minister managed to boast about the merits of his decisions on security, for which he guaranteed that, if the industry had a problem, it would have the support of his government.

It seems to me that the minister must reveal now or never the demands of the industry so we, with him, may be able to make recommendations. How much money does the government have to help out the industry and the 13,602 people who, as we speak, have seen the layoff notices: 9,000 men and women at Air Canada will lose their job, 1,300 employees of Air Transat, 2,680 people at Bombardier, 22 at Rolls Royce and 600 at Pratt & Whitney. So, we have 13,602 people who have paid their taxes like everyone else and who did not deserve to lose their job.

As the result of a single day, a single tragic event we all deplore, they are today, with their families and their children, practically out in the street. This event occurred, and the government made no provision for special assistance or for money to be available to help these 13,602 people and the others who will join them in the coming days.

We hope there will not be others. We do not want to be prophets of doom, we want no more loss of jobs, but these are the logical consequences of the domino effect in an industry that strongly felt the backlash of a catastrophe Canada had never imagined.

We hope that the government makes the right decisions and that it tables in the House a plan with figures, the demands of the various types of industry and the amounts that should be made available so that the men and women who have lost their job may see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking us to debate a complex problem this evening, yet we do not know its position. Nor do we know Air Canada's specific requests or the government's financial situation. Indeed, the government is informing neither the House, nor Canadians, of anything.

Will someone from the government please explain what, exactly, we are going to debate, since everyone is being kept in the dark?

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, tonight in this chamber there will be a take note debate on the future of Air Canada. We know that Air Canada is asking the government for huge grants to get itself out of the jam it is in. What we do not know is what the government's response will be.

Will the Minister of Transport tell us what the government's position is? Does it plan to provide generous grants to Air Canada or will it limit itself to compensation for losses directly related to airport closures and increased insurance premiums?

[Air Canada, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush plans to meet with the stakeholders of the aeronautical industry in the United States. Quebec will be greatly affected by any downturn in the aeronautical industry, because that is where it is concentrated.

Does the minister therefore intend to meet with all those who are connected with the aeronautical sector in order to inform them of a recovery plan, starting immediately?

[Air Canada, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, Air Canada announced that it would be laying off 9,000 employees because of the slowdown in its activities triggered by the September 11 attacks.

Could the minister tell us what measure he intends to take to ensure that the cuts at Air Canada are directly connected to the exceptional situation of the past weeks rather than the result of poor management dating back far earlier than that?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's question, I will give the example of Quebec, though any other region of Canada could be referred to.

In terms of avionics, aerospace and aeronautics, Quebec has become a major player. The Greater Montreal area is now considered to be, after Toulouse, the second largest focal point for this type of industry in the world.

Needless to say, the fact that Canadians and people around the world refuse to or are afraid of flying has tragic consequences on the industry as a whole, not only the travel industry, travel agencies and airline industries which are directly hit, but all those who support that industry, namely aircraft producers and manufacturers.

In the United States Boeing has made some important decisions. Bombardier will do the same in the days to come. They are going through a process of analysis. Of course, it also concerns companies manufacturing airplane parts and there are many in Canada.

In terms of the domino effect, the avionics industry is directly linked to international tourism. My colleague clearly understands that there are communities and territories which rely largely on international tourism, which is the case of Mont-Tremblant in Quebec and many other areas in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Such areas depend on great numbers of international tourists coming to our regions, and those people have cancelled their reservations throughout the hotel and restaurant network.

Because of the domino effect to which my colleague was referring, the taxi industry is also affected. It is a huge operation. Appropriate funds will have to be committed, because if we accept the complete annihilation of that part of the Canadian avionics industry, airlines and international tourism, the terrorists will have won. Though they may not have anticipated it, the terrorists must certainly be happy that their attacks have almost completely paralyzed the airlines industry as a whole and international tourism.

We will need spending and emergency budgets which, I hope, will urgently be voted by the House. As the Minister of National Defence said, the issue is a somewhat complex one because often parliament is not sitting. However, I am convinced that not a single member of parliament would refuse to participate in an emergency debate followed by a vote, even if parliament had to be called back to Ottawa to debate an emergency situation concerning all of Canada.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Roberval today introduced a motion which this House is debating as part of an emergency debate. I would like to show Quebecers, the people watching us today, why, on Tuesday, September 25, we are having a debate of such urgency with respect to a situation that has gone on for nearly two weeks now and why the Bloc Quebecois felt compelled to demand this debate in the House so that members, regardless of their affiliation, may vote on a situation of such importance.

I would like to reread the motion with the amendment by the member for Saint—Jean:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action nor any financial resources until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

The moment the House resumed sitting on September 17, the Bloc Quebecois drew to the attention of the Prime Minister the need for members, who are the representatives of the people, to have an opportunity to vote on such an important decision. Here again is the question my BQ colleague and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie put to the Prime Minister during oral question period. It reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the House was consulted after the decision had been made or without a vote.

I ask the Prime Minister if they could do a little more, ensure that all parliamentarians exercise their responsibility, and have the House vote on the government's proposal when the time comes to make a commitment, even a military one.

This was the question put by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister's answer reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is consulted. The House of Commons speaks. The members of all parties may have their say, and a consensus is expressed at that point.

This is the procedure that has always been followed. I do not see why we should change it under the circumstances, but we will see. If it needs changing, we will change it.

On the strength of this statement by the Prime Minister, the representatives of the Bloc Quebecois have always thought that the Government of Canada supported it. In view of the urgency of the situation and regardless of the military and economic decisions Canada has had to make in the past, today we have a threat on our doorstep. From what the Prime Minister says, the terrorists could even be inside our country.

We are faced with an emergency situation. Canada's whole economic, democratic and parliamentary systems, not to mention provincial institutions in Quebec and in the other Canadian provinces, are jeopardized by unscrupulous people.

The situation is an urgent one and this is why the Bloc Quebecois wants members of this House to have a say. We represent constituents who every day have to put up with the problems posed by this major terrorist crisis. This crisis first affected our American neighbours but, as we can see on a daily basis, it is also affecting us from an economic point of view. There have been layoffs in the airline industry and we can see what is happening with the aircraft parts industry. There is a domino effect. We know what companies are going to announce Pratt & Whitney has already made such an announcement while Bombardier is rethinking its investment strategy.

We are finding out that this terrorist attack has a lot more impact than one would think on Canadian and Quebec industry. Therefore, it is only normal that constituents send messages to their members of parliament so that they can represent them in this House, ask questions and, more important make decisions and vote on the issues.

I agree with my colleagues that we are not here merely to make speeches. We are also here, and this includes both opposition and government members, to make decisions and to vote.

At this point I wish to inform the Chair that, from now on, all Bloc Quebecois members will share their time.

This is an urgent situation. On behalf of our constituents, we are asking for an emergency debate on two major types of action. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government for a vote to be held on any military intervention that could endanger the lives of Quebecers and Canadians, and on any amount that could be spent on protection, armaments and required actions.

There is always money involved. We understood that quite clearly when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois put the question to the Prime Minister on September 17. There will be decisions made. As I explained earlier, even the Prime Minister raised the possibility of reviewing that practice, what was acceptable and in order.

The American congress voted on the amounts to be devoted to military strikes and interventions. Those who voted were elected representatives, our neighbours, those who were suffering through this terrible situation and who were victims of this brutal and inhumane attack. Nonetheless, this whole situation is happening on our doorstep, in the neighbouring country. I take this opportunity to express my most sincere sympathy

At this very instant we even think, the Prime Minister himself said it, that there could be terrorists on our own territory. It is not too late. History will determine if we were efficient and if we were taken seriously. More and more observers think that Canada is not being taken seriously because of the way it reacted to this crisis. However, history will be the judge of that.

Except we, as members of parliament representing our constituents, must make the right decisions for them. We must, and the Bloc Quebecois felt obligated to raise this debate, agree to this motion so that all the citizens of Quebec and of the rest of Canada fully realize that this is very important. In such a serious situation that may affect us, even within the borders of our provinces and of Canada, we should be able to make informed decisions. Most of all the members of parliament who the citizens have elected to represent them in the House should be able to vote on the issue.

It is the hand, the olive branch that the Bloc Quebecois is holding out to the Liberal government. We have acted quite responsibly and we have been able to respond by supporting the government when the time came to make some decisions in this crisis. In such serious situations that may affect the lives of Quebecers and Canadians who are in the military and who might be sent overseas during the strikes or that may affect the budgets, our citizens' money, perhaps it is time for the government to think about the important monetary decisions that imply major investments, sums of money that will be allocated to counter the effects of terrorism.

We are asking the government, both in the amendment and in the main motion, for a vote to be held in the House. That is not asking too much and it is reasonable, given the situation and the gravity of this crisis, that the government take another look at its approach. All the more so because when it was in opposition, the Liberal Party questioned the government's position in its interventions during the gulf crisis. An amendment was moved by the current Deputy Prime Minister, then in the opposition. This amendment referred to military support for operations in the gulf, and read as follows:

That this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House.

This was what the Deputy Prime Minister, then in the opposition, had to say. In his speech in support of his amendment, he said, and I quote:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

These were the terms used by the Deputy Prime Minister, an important and influential minister and an influential member of the Liberal Party. Why is the Liberal Party, which is now in power, applying a double standard at such a serious time? The Minister of National Defence went through Canada's involvement in all the conflicts worldwide. The fact remains that we are now facing an urgent situation following a serious attack perpetrated on our American neighbours which threatens us on our own territory.

This is a situation which is unique in the history of Canada and, obviously, of Quebec as well. It calls for unique action by parliamentarians and a vote in the House.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will point out to the Minister of National Defence that history will tell whether Canada has done what had to be done.

More and more observers are beginning to say that Canada is not taken seriously. On the other hand, what is put forward today in this House is serious. There might be terrorists inside our country. As members know, the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was an attack that was carried out against our neighbours, close to home. That is why the Bloc Quebecois wants the issue to be considered in the House and a vote taken here with regard to any military intervention.

I quote the Deputy Prime Minister, who was sitting in the official opposition in 1990 when he said this:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

I would therefore ask this to the Minister of National Defence: Why not accept today what the Liberal Party was asking for in 1990, all the more so since it is about a crisis happening at our doorsteps?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague from Saint-Jean thinks about the comments made by representatives of the Liberal Party in 1990, when, on the issue of the gulf war, the member at that time, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

It was the Liberals who were calling on the government for a vote, as we are doing today.

What does my colleague from Saint-Jean think of this?