Mauril Bélanger

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use the few moments I have tonight to talk about three main issues.

First, the minister asked me to explain that he had to leave to take part in a meeting. He apologizes and will be back as soon as it is over. His parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, is here and is taking note of what is being said tonight.

The first item I would like to cover briefly is the matter of safety in our air transportation system. I readily recognize that I am not an expert in this area and I will not attempt to provide advice as to what can be done to improve it. There is certainly a recognition nationwide that it has to be improved somehow. There will be those who are more familiar with these matters who will come forward and provide sound advice and we will improve the system.

There seems to be a consensus throughout the country that the government must take the lead in ensuring safety and security in the airline industry.

Everyone I have talked to since the tragic events, the horrific events of September 11, agrees that the government must ensure that Canadian airports and air carriers implement the best security measures possible. The government has a role to play in this area. It must once again assume some responsibilities, ask the RCMP to be more visible, and so on. That is the first point I guess on which most Canadians and certainly the residents of my riding of Ottawa--Vanier, with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue, would agree.

The second item I would like to bring up is the matter of insurance companies that a few days after the horrors of September 11 decided they were no longer offering a certain item of coverage relating to war and terrorism. I find that behaviour despicable. I am speaking of companies that have been engaged to provide insurance coverage and suddenly decide, unilaterally, that they will no longer offer this coverage no matter how much they are paid.

That essentially put governments in the position of stepping up to the plate. Otherwise the entire system would have been grounded. I congratulate the government for having stepped up to the plate and for giving a 90 day breathing period to the industry to come up with a different solution.

I hope that we look in terms of those solutions to a self-insurance mechanism of sorts, whether it be through a co-operative venture involving all partners in the airline industry, whether it be through government or whatever mechanism we eventually end up with on self-insurance. I would hope that at that point we would look at the three other product lines that these insurance companies have not revoked and perhaps offer them to this joint venture, co-operative self-insuring mechanism that we have devised.

It is unacceptable that the private sector, which I hear being lauded by a lot of people across the way, would in a time of crisis and a time of dire need pull the plug as they have on their coverage. This is behaviour that I would not have expected from Canadian corporations. They are not Canadian. They are multinationals, I gather, and three of them control this market worldwide. I would hope that we have learned a lesson in not trusting monopolies.

The matter of insurance is one that I wish to bring to the attention of the government because I hope it will push these insurance companies very hard and reprimand them for their behaviour.

The third item is Air Canada itself. I have to admit that I am one of those who were quick to criticize Air Canada in the past, either because of its casual attitude or because of its lack of service or because of one of its employees or representatives. I have to admit that I am not always pleased, even today, with its behaviour, particularly since it has indicated its intention to ask $3 to $4 billion in government assistance. It is now down to $2 billion. I find this behaviour most reprehensible.

That being said, I think it is absolutely crucial for a country like ours, a country that has trading partners all over the world, to have a national air carrier. I think it is a must.

We need a national carrier. For a trading nation it is a necessity. Therefore we either deal with Air Canada or we invent another one. We have Air Canada for the moment and I for one think that it would be very detrimental to our economy and to our international reputation should this carrier be grounded. I am of the view that somehow, somewhere, we have to help Air Canada restructure itself and be sure that it can continue occupying the air space that Canadians wish to occupy.

What should we do? On one hand, the company is asking us for money; on the other hand, we do not want to give it a blank cheque, and I agree with that. There is no question of giving a blank cheque to Air Canada, and I think the government was pretty clear on that.

We must show some imagination. I want to go back to a suggestion made by the member for Davenport. We should invest in Air Canada. I do not think we should buy Air Canada shares that are currently available.

There are about 120 million shares outstanding. I think Air Canada closed at somewhere around $3.35 today, so its market capitalization is around $400 million. I am not suggesting that the Government of Canada buy those shares, buy back Air Canada. I am suggesting that it should consider making an equity investment to be issued as treasury shares, and it could make a significant equity investment before it goes out to secure loan guarantees and so forth. There might be a package of measures to sustain Air Canada but at the same time protect the Canadian public and its tax dollars.

The government should seriously consider some form of investment for which it would receive treasury shares, which would give it seats on the board, and I said seats, in the plural.

I think it is rather important that the government obtain through that mechanism seats, in the plural, on the board to help Air Canada restructure. For instance, having a good presence on the board, it could force Air Canada out of unfair competition, out of the regional carriers, out of the low cost carriers where there are others in the country that are prepared to compete in that area. It could concentrate on long haul flights in Canada and certainly on our international routes, which is what we would expect a national carrier to do. That is my first idea that I would encourage the government to consider. I am not the only one who has such an idea.

Second, there is a need for loan guarantees, it goes without saying, especially if the government has a major investment in Air Canada.

Third, It is perhaps time to act quickly and offer Air Canada employees, those remaining anyway because, unfortunately, there are many fewer than before, an opportunity to buy shares in Air Canada, so that they too are at the table to protect their interests.

An employee share ownership plan that might encourage some equity investments into Air Canada at this time could be very useful, certainly for the remaining employees of Air Canada. It might have been useful for those who may have been given notice that they will not work there any more.

Those are some of the measures that I think the government should look at: equity investment, some loan guarantees and certainly employee share ownership. As well, once we have seats on the board we can reorganize Air Canada and help it restructure. The government has proven that it can be a good manager. A private-public partnership would help us protect two things. As a private concern Air Canada is focused on maximizing shareholder value. That is its job. However, as a public concern we are here to be mindful of service to the public.

Now, as Air Canada heads into some very difficult times over the next few years, a private-public partnership would be one way of ensuring that the government does not just maximize value for shareholders and profitability, but that it also concerns itself with service to the Canadian public. It is important that we have a national carrier.

Incidentally, the government could ensure that Air Canada reviews the percentage it gives travel agents who sell its tickets. There was a decision on this very recently. Air Canada took a very tough stand against travel agents who sell plane tickets. This would be a way of forcing Air Canada to review this treatment of travel agents which is, in my view, heavy-handed.

These are the basic ideas I wanted to present. It is a very difficult situation and I hope that wisdom will prevail.

[Privilege, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

To be certain of what has been said in the House, if I have properly understood, the opposition is in agreement, until a decision has been made on the matter, to allow this debate.

The government House leader seemed to agree. I wonder if you reached this conclusion and whether, regardless of the conclusion on the point I raised, I may, in the meantime, do so in the coming days.

[Privilege, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

[Privilege, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to report a situation that, in my opinion, infringes members' rights.

On May 30, I put a question in the House to the member for Ottawa West—Nepean in her capacity as the spokesperson for the House's Board of Internal Economy on the subject of a Library of Parliament service that was being developed for parliamentarians, including the members of this House.

Standing Order 37(3) affords all members the opportunity to debate a matter further if they are not satisfied with the answer. This is what I am doing right now. I gave notice here, to the table, that I intended to raise the matter in the House during adjournment proceedings.

We recognize that there is a bit of a gap between the time the member gives notice of intent to raise a matter and the time the announcement of matters to be raised during adjournment proceedings is given, since only three matters may be debated at that time.

I let some time go by, thinking that, by parliament's resumption on September 17, I would have been told when I might raise the matter.

I noted the first week that subjects were lacking for adjournment proceedings. So, I made inquiry with the table, which referred me to the Private Members Business Office.

On the 26th, a letter arrived at my office. The next day I notified the Speaker of my desire to raise this matter of privilege. Here we are.

In the letter, which I will table, if necessary, I am told that, according to the Standing Orders, I cannot request debate on the matter during adjournment proceedings, because the member for Ottawa West--Nepean is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 38(5) provides, and I quote:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes to do so, may speak for not more than two minutes. When debate has lasted for a total of thirty minutes, or when the debate on the matter or matters raised has ended, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried and shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.

This paragraph sets out how the privilege may be used during adjournment proceedings.

Because the member, the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary, my privilege is infringed.

It clearly says “if he or she wishes to do so”. This means that if the government wants to, someone may reply to the comments of the hon. member who has the privilege of speaking for longer on the issue of concern to him or her, that is four minutes instead of the 30 seconds that are available to put a question.

So, because there seems to be an internal conflict in the rules of the House, there is a breach of my privileges.

This may not seem like a very important issue to some, but it seems to me that a parliamentary institution, the Library of Parliament, seems immune from questioning.

I cannot, as a member of parliament, ask questions to the Speaker of the House—this is what I am told—even though the Library of Parliament is accountable to both Chairs, in the House of Commons and in the other place. Since I cannot address the Chair in the House before the Canadian public about issues that are of importance, who can I turn to?

I asked this question in the House. I was allowed to do so. But I am not being permitted to elaborate and I think this is a breach of my privileges.

Secondly, I would like to know why we waited until I raised the question? I had to go back to the Office to find out when adjournment proceedings were scheduled, only to then receive a letter saying that they would not.

In my opinion, my request could have been replied to when I submitted it, or soon thereafter, instead of waiting until the month of September. This seems to become a pattern with parliamentary institutions. I will probably have the opportunity to raise another question of privilege on another case dealing with a similar situation.

I do not understand why I would be deprived of my privilege to address the House on what is a current issue, this under the pretence that no one can answer my question.

I do hope that the Chair will determine whether there is indeed an internal conflict in the rules, as seems to think the clerk at the Private Members' Business Office and, if so, that it will be corrected. But in the meantime, I hope I will not be deprived of my privilege to address the House.

[Health, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the premier of Ontario and his minister of health and long term care issued a challenge to the rights of companies to patent individual human genes. I had many occasions to disagree with decisions of the government of Ontario but on this one I have to state my agreement.

Getting a patent for a diagnostic test or process deriving from the applications of genes is fine, but to actually patent individual human genes and prohibit others from carrying research on those genes is not acceptable.

It is tantamount to allowing companies to seek and obtain a patent on individual elements of the periodic table such as oxygen or hydrogen, and it is not a tenable situation.

I urge our government to embark on a fight to disallow the individual companies around the country and anywhere else in the world to obtain patents on individual human genes. That is not the way of sharing information worldwide. The human genome belongs to everyone, not to individual companies.

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the resumption of the session, I would like to add the voices of everyone in Ottawa--Vanier, who wish to offer their condolences to the families of those who perished and who disappeared in last week's terrorist attacks in the United States.

Some of us will remember Bush Sr. talking about a thousand points of light. As darkness threatened last Tuesday, there were some points of light that emerged and I would like to pay tribute to one of them today.

I had tried to imagine what went through the minds of the people who were aboard United Airlines flight 93 when they decided to cause the plane to crash as it did in Pennsylvania in the fields therefore avoiding an incredible augmentation of the threats that the terrorist attacks represented to democracy and freedom in our countries.

I pay tribute to the incredible courage that these people showed. I think we owe them a great deal of thanks.

[National Gallery Of Canada, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a strike by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada employed by the National Gallery of Canada has gone on for too long. This morning, gallery management confirmed that it would be going ahead with the Gustav Klimt exhibit.

However, many visitors will choose, as will I, not to cross the picket line. If this situation drags on, everyone will lose: gallery employees and art lovers.

If this dispute is to be resolved, the parties must talk to each other, which they do not seem to be doing right now.

What does the minister intend to do in the coming days to get the parties back to the bargaining table?

[Committees Of The House, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

I am pleased to table this report, which is an interim one. We feel it necessary to point out that the bilingual services provided by Air Canada are of vital importance for Canadian travellers.

The committee has expressed the wish that, if possible, the government respond to this report by the end of September, so that the committee may continue to study this matter when we resume sitting in September.

The committee wishes to underline the outstanding collaboration and support of the people who appeared before the committee and also of the people who served the committee.

We wish to thank researchers Robert Asselin and Françoise Coulombe, from the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, as well as co-clerks Tonu Onu and Jean-François Pagé and their support staff for their invaluable contributions, which have enabled us to table this fifth report this morning.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it a good idea to speak today on a topic that is receiving a lot of press and on which all Canadians, almost without exception, have an opinion.

I will begin by making it clear that I intend to support this bill. I supported it at second reading and it is my firm intention to support it at third reading a bit later on today.

At the appropriate time, when there are forms to fill in, I intend to opt in to the new pay plan set out in Bill C-28. I want this to be perfectly clear.

I wish to point out that some 30 people have contacted me by telephone or in writing at my office this week. A few of them were clearly in favour of the bill but most were against it. Among the latter, reaction was divided.

Almost half of those against it oppose it for procedural reasons such as retroactivity or application. They would like to see it apply to the 38th parliament, not the 37th. They are also unhappy at how quickly Bill C-28 is being passed or how soon the increase will take effect. Some of them would like it to be phased in over two, three or even four years. The rest are simply against it.

Very few mentioned the opting in clause. This clause has led to another kind of discussion in the debate. Yesterday we learned that this clause would be permanent. I hope that, indeed, during the 38th parliament, if members get re-elected who had chosen not to adhere to the plan, this situation can be corrected to make things fair. I am also taking a stand on this issue.

I would like to elaborate on the arguments that we heard in support of the bill. We heard several. Comparisons were made with the business world, among others.

Two weeks ago, the Ottawa Business Journal had two full pages listing the salaries of the heads of public corporations in the region. Their salaries ranged from $100,000 to $300,000. Some people earn several millions per year. I do not think it is appropriate to make this comparison.

The shareholders of a publicly traded company make a choice. They choose to join in and to buy shares, to become shareholders. By contrast, taxpayers, who will pay our salaries, do not make a choice. It is something that is imposed on them.

Our salaries were also compared to those of athletes. It was even said that the Prime Minister is paid less than the minimum wages paid in the National Hockey League. We were told that the average salary in several professional leagues is one million dollars.

I do not think the comparison is appropriate because the salaries paid to these players are generated through revenues that the public is not required to contribute to.

Some also mentioned unions. In yesterday evening's news on the CBC, Mr. Lumley said that there are 200 union leaders in Ontario who are paid over $100,000. Again, this is not a perfectly appropriate comparison, but it is somewhat more, because the Rand formula requires all members of a union to pay union dues, but it is not a good example.

Then arguments such as “We work impossible hours” were used. It is true our hours are long. A typical day for a member may be 12 or 14 hours, easily, five, six and sometimes seven days a week. However, with all the respect due my colleagues, I do not believe this justifies what Bill C-28 is proposing. My father-in-law was a taxi driver and he worked 12 hours a day regularly. He worked as long as I do, so this is not an issue of hours of work. I have a bit of a hard time with this argument.

I would like people to not take the issue of hours of work into account because in my opinion it is not a good reason for voting in favour of the bill, even though we do work long hours. We all wanted this job, so we must not complain.

Others cite pressure. It is true that there is pressure. Often we are bombarded with requests of all sorts: requests for help or ways to find funding for a given project. This sort of pressure is perhaps unique but in our society others who are policemen, nurses, teachers or air traffic controllers are also subject to pressure unique to them but real nevertheless. Once again this argument does not hold as justification for supporting this bill.

Where I am coming from instead is what we do as legislators. The three branches of government, the judicial, the executive and the legislative, are what I believe we should be using as a comparison basis. It seems quite clear that over the last 30 years we have systematically undervalued the role of the legislator in our society and in the Government of Canada.

I believe that if one were to stop and think about that, we would see not only rationale but some encouragement to do what is being asked of us to do by voting for Bill C-28, which is to establish a basis of equilibrium between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. Not to do that is to undermine the importance of the legislators of this House and of the other House in the life of our country and how we govern ourselves.

Some numbers have been given that show in the sixties the role of the MP was valued slightly more than judges. However over the last 35 years it has been the opposite, and the role of the MP vis-à-vis a comparison to the judicial side has been much less. It has been the same with the executive. We heard numbers that show what the top executives are paid. I am talking about a public executive, not someone in the private sector, whether judicial, legislative or executive who is funded by the same taxpayer. That range is to $375,000.

If we look at what the legislators were valued at, then we see a huge discrepancy. I think that is the genesis of some of the discredit that seems to be attributed to members of parliament, legislators and senators. It behooves us to turn that around because the legislative function in a government is essential. It is a basis of democracy. We have the role of legislators, and we also have the surveillance role.

The importance of the legislative and monitoring roles of this House and its members cannot be neglected. We have officers of the House, such as the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, who report to the House. Everything turns upon the House and the legislative process, which naturally are responsible for setting the policies of the nation, the country, through the process of drafting and passing bills, but also through monitoring.

I believe it was vital for a start to be made at striking a balance between the value assigned to the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches. There is nothing personal involved here. The voters will decide who is sent here or not in each riding.

I believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to attribute to the legislative branch a value comparable to that attributed to the judiciary and the executive branch. The legislative function of this chamber and the other is essential to the process of government, the democracy of this country. It would be regrettable if this trend were allowed to continue.

We have the opportunity to reverse it by supporting this bill. I would invite all my colleagues to do so, so that we may recognize and enhance the value and importance of the legislative process and those involved in that process.

[Committees Of The House, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the third and fourth reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

The third reports on the committee proceedings on the appropriations for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and approves them.

In the fourth report, the committee unanimously expresses the wish that the government consider the advisability of increasing funding for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.