Michel Guimond

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among representatives of all the parties, and I seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in employment), all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

I remind the House that there have been consultations among the leaders of all the parties.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I could begin my speech by congratulating the members of the Standing Committee on Transport for working many hours, just before the Christmas holiday. They heard many witnesses.

I could begin by congratulating the public servants at the Department of Transport for having worked hard on this bill.

I will not use that approach for the simple reason that we parliamentarians just did our job. People elected us through a democratic process. Personally, I was re-elected on June 2, 1997 to represent my constituents in parliament and to do the job of a parliamentarian. Part of that job is to pass bills. These bills must be reviewed in committee before finally being passed.

I do not want to boast about having worked hard. We just did our job. Transport Canada's officials just did their job.

I will begin my presentation by having a kind thought for the workers, for those in the airline industry who have been suffering for over 18 months. I am thinking in particular of the employees, pilots, flight attendants, ticket agents and maintenance people at InterCanadian. We are talking about more than 1,000 direct jobs.

Considering that governments, both federal and provincial ones, try to attract industries and create jobs—and I say this very objectively, because we want those whom we represent to have worthwhile jobs—we should have a kind thought for these 1,000 workers, and the members of their families, who lost their jobs. Over 600 of them were in Quebec and the rest in the maritime provinces.

My thoughts are with them and I am sorry that, with the restructuring that is going on, their company has not been able to stay in business.

I could also talk about the Air Montreal workers. This company had to suspend its operations lately. They were to resume on May 15, but it seems that the suspension will be much longer.

My thoughts also go out to Canadian International Airlines employees who have been under stress for years, worrying about the financial survival of their company. They have invested money in the company and they have accepted salary rollbacks to invest in their company and save jobs.

My thoughts go out to Air Canada employees also, who had their share of worries with the Onex takeover proposal. I remember that last fall, when I boarded a plane in Quebec or Montreal, they were wearing a stop Onex button. The situation was stressful for everybody.

I am tempted to say that this bill was expected, and I would add, without any hint of partisanship, that it is the reason why all parties in the House agree to dispose of it quickly.

No party has tabled 930 or 430 motions in amendment this time, although such things can be done in a democracy. Even if we want to deal quickly with a bill, members of parliament have the right to move amendments. Everybody could see that, in this case, we were ready to move this bill swiftly through the House, and that is what we have done.

The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the federal government since 1993 to stop subsidizing Canadian International Airlines at the expense of Air Canada, Quebec and Montreal.

After the elections held on October 25, 1993, the then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, asked me to be transport critic for our party. I can remember some of the questions I put to Doug Young, the Minister of Transport at the time and now the newest member of the Canadian Alliance, who had a lobbying firm in Toronto and was making big bucks thanks to contracts he got from the Liberal government. I am sure business with the Liberals is not as good since he switched over to the Canadian Alliance.

In any case, Doug Young has not changed. I knew him and I am very glad to be able to call him by his name in this House because he got what he deserved. The people of Acadie—Bathurst got rid of him. The people not only in his old riding but throughout the country do not like anyone who is as arrogant or, as we say back home, “baveux”, as Doug Young was. He was both arrogant and insulting.

Just as arrogant was David Dingwall, who was also defeated. His Nova Scotia constituents sent him packing and now he is doing very well as a lobbyist in Ottawa.

I remember a question I put to Doug Young at the time, when I was criticizing the Liberal government for its lack of fairness in allocating international routes.

I asked the minister why Air Canada, which has its head office in Montreal, could not have access to the growing markets in Hong Kong and Japan. He told us that Canadian was experiencing financial difficulties and we had to help the company, which was normal since a lot of jobs were at stake. That answer was clearly aimed at winning votes. I said at the time and I will say again that, in 1993 and around that time, this government showed incompetence in allocating international routes and discriminated against Air Canada.

That is the reason why the position of the Bloc Quebecois has been clear since 1993. Seven years later, we are finally getting what we were asking for. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, were saying that Canada should have a flag bearing national carrier for international routes, just as Great Britain has British Airways, France has Air France, Greece has Olympic Airways, and I could name many more, except of course for Japan and the United States.

We were in agreement with having a national carrier and real competition on the Canadian domestic market, the trans-border market and the regional market. Seven years later, the bill before us is an answer to the position the Bloc Quebecois has been advocating since 1993.

What we have been asking the federal government since 1993 was to act to put an end to the duopoly that forced regional travellers to pay extravagant prices for service that was totally inadequate. We demanded that the federal government be more open regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act in air communications.

In August of last year, the federal government undertook to change the rules of the game to allow Onex and American Airlines to take over the two Canadian national carriers, without giving any guarantee about competition.

Here, I have to be critical of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I recall very well that in August 1999, our party asked that the Standing Committee on Transport be called in as soon as possible, because of preoccupying allegations in the press.

Earlier today, the Minister of Transport showed aggressiveness in his comments about the media and editorials. The minister was drawn and quartered by the media, especially the English language media. The French language media refrained from commenting. I read those editorials and the minister was rather roundly criticised, so I understand that he may have wanted to get even with the anglophone media, in particular those of Toronto, especially as he is the minister responsible for that area. He seized the opportunity to get even with them.

Of course, it is no use to say “If the Minister had done this or if he had done that”, but in the case of this bill which is timely and the passing of which we do not want to delay, if the minister had been more responsive, if he had not listened to the government leader who refused, who played hide and seek with us, who did not want to call the Standing Committee on Transport because he knew that the House would be prorogued, that there was going to be a new speech from the throne, in other words if it had not been for all that hide and seek we were drawn into all summer long, I believe that the situation might have been solved much more rapidly. Who knows, InterCanadian might not have ceased operations on November 28 last. This has to be pointed out. That is where I must criticize the lax attitude of the federal government, especially the transport minister.

I must also tell the minister we know of his ties with his good friend Gerald Schwartz and Onex; the minister cannot deny that Onex president Gerald Schwartz is a generous contributor to the Liberal election fund.

I blame the minister for trying, in the middle of the summer holidays, to pitch us a fast ball, as we would say back home. In baseball terms, he tried to pitch a curve ball outside the home plate, the empire called a strike for a third out in the ninth inning. However, things did not go as planned.

The opposition was keeping a close watch. The four opposition parties formed an ad hoc committee which met here, in the House of Commons. We told the government “You do not want to convene the transport committee, we will form our own committee”. We heard witnesses with the co-operation of the four opposition parties.

The government House leader called it a masquerade, backroom or barroom discussions, but whatever it is called, it gives us an inkling of how he perceives democracy.

Again, if the Minister of Transport had managed to convince the government House leader to convene the committee as soon as possible during the summer, perhaps we would not be here today, on May 15, reviewing this important bill.

One of the points the Bloc Quebecois insisted on, and I believe it is in the bill, but I want to confirm it, was the respect of the 25% foreign ownership limit and the 10% limit on individual share ownership in Air Canada. We indicated to the transport minister that the increase of 10% to 15% of the limit on individual share ownership in Air Canada did not represent a major problem for our party.

In committee as well as through the amendments we put forward at report stage, the parliamentary action of the Bloc members has been to insist that a series of concrete provisions be included in the bill to protect the regions and the small carriers.

Moreover, we were in agreement with the commitment made by Air Canada on December 21 that no layoff would result from the merger between Air Canada and Canadian International. That is reflected in the bill. That is why we cannot criticize it. We insisted that no regional route be abandoned by Air Canada or its subsidiaries for the next three years.

This morning I talked about the consideration of bills. We are members from various political parties, with different interests, coming from different regions and, in my case, with a different language and culture. A bill is basically a tool of compromise. It is like the collective agreement signed at the end of the collective bargaining process, where labour and management have to determine the working conditions for the next three, four or five years. Ultimately, a compromise must be reached.

The compromise we have before us is not completely satisfactory to me. Many things in life may not be completely satisfactory; as much as I strive towards sainthood and would like to get canonized as a saint at the end of my life on earth, I do not always behave accordingly. When I take stock of my life, I will say that it has not been fully and completely satisfactory.

There is one aspect where I would like the government to show a bit more open-mindedness, even if the minister has told this House that more restrictive measures had been adopted, and it is the enforcement of the Official Languages Act. I raise it again because this is the last opportunity I will have to do so in debate.

I would like the minister to know that the air transportation workers intend to pursue the issue with the Senate. Do not forget that Senator Joyal defended the air transportation workers 25 years ago, and it is very likely they would testify before the Committee.

I think that Air Canada could improve its record as far as the use of the French language is concerned. Once again, I call upon Air Canada president Milton. He is a serious, reasonable person. He is not an adventurer. I believe that he has displayed tact in the debate over the restructuring and merging of Canadian International and Air Canada. He has proven himself to be a good manager, and I would like to congratulate him on that.

I would like him to put his foot down and make a much stronger commitment to increasing the number of French-speaking employees in all groups of employment at Air Canada. This company, as well as others, is considered as a stronghold of Canadian unity.

We have seen Via Rail change its logo. Trains now have a great big maple leaf on the front. There is also a maple leaf on the tail of all Air Canada planes. This is to tell all Canadians “This is your country. Whether you speak French or English, wherever you live, this is your country”. In principle that sounds fine and dandy, but I would like to see it applied in real life.

Among the 1,258 pilots at Canadian Airlines, is it normal or acceptable that, as of today, only 71 of them speak French? With francophones representing 24.8% of the overall population in Canada, is it normal or acceptable that only 17% of all Air Canada employees speak French? Is it normal or acceptable that only 15.8% of Air Canada pilots speak French?

Given all his power and business acumen, surely Mr. Milton can summon the vice-president of human resources and tell him “Look, with 24.8% of the population of Canada speaking French, since we now are a dominant national carrier, the tenth biggest company in the world, we must hire francophone workers”. By the way, these French speaking employees are all bilingual. I do not think there is one French speaking employee at Air Canada who is not bilingual. We have to remember that we are talking about bilingual francophones.

Such a commitment from Mr. Milton would give hope to young men and women who are currently studying at the CEGEP in Chicoutimi. Hon. members will probably wonder why I am suddenly talking about the CEGEP in Chicoutimi. Let me point out that the CEGEP in Chicoutimi is the only CEGEP to have a flying training school.

There are young people from every region in Quebec and even from elsewhere who come to the Chicoutimi CEGEP flying training school. It costs $100,000 a year to train a pilot at the school. Is it normal and acceptable, considering the strong demand on the aviation market, that 22% of graduates from the Chicoutimi CEGEP flying training school do not succeed in finding a job as a pilot? There must be something wrong. I do not want to start saying things because people will send me letters, faxes or e-mails to tell me that I am crying murder and expressing that mistreated francophone feeling again.

It has nothing to do with that. It is a matter of respect. If people say to us francophones that they love us, as they certainly will three days before the next referendum, “we love you and we do not want to lose you”, like the theme of the Centennial campaign in 1967 that said “Canada, stand together; understand together”, then they should prove it.

I would like to add that I think Air Canada should make an effort to hire InterCanadian pilots who were laid off.

The Minister of Transport is listening carefully so I would like to ask him the following question: Does he know how many pilots of InterCanadian have been hired by Air Canada recently? There were many pilots. Of the 1,100 employees, I believe that there were between 325 and 400 pilots. Only three InterCanadian pilots were hired. Most of InterCanadian's pilots were francophones. With a bit of good will, Air Canada could encourage the hiring of InterCanadian's francophone pilots who are competent but presently out of work.

In terms of the Official Languages Act I would like, before concluding, to draw a comparison between the percentage of francophone employees at VIA Rail and the percentage of francophone employees at Canada Post.

VIA Rail is a transportation company that operates from Halifax to Vancouver—it provides rail transportation while the other one provides air transportation—and has to provide its service through the different provinces. Air Canada should know that the percentage of francophones at VIA Rail is 39.3%. VIA Rail is a crown corporation. Of course, the government has never heard us complaining that there were too many francophones at VIA Rail. Their percentage is 39.9% and at Canada Post it is 23.8%, which is equitable proportionally speaking. When I say that francophones account for only 17% of employees at Air Canada, it shows there is room for improvement.

Let us have a look at complaints under the Official Languages Act. In 1998, there were three complaints against VIA Rail compared to 98 against Canada Post. The same year, there were 251 complaints against Air Canada. This shows that if the Official Languages Act were applied more rigorously to Air Canada, this carrier might be forced to abide by the act. There were three complaints against VIA Rail in 1998 compared to 251 against Air Canada. This is totally unacceptable.

Another aspect I would like to point out to the House is the merger of seniority lists. The minister, and we, as parliamentarians, may be powerless in this regard.

My colleague of the Canadian Alliance spoke about this earlier. I think there should be a little more good will or good faith among parties, and Air Canada management should show leadership and say “Wait a minute. Is it normal and acceptable that a Canadian Airlines International pilot with 22 years of experience should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Air Canada pilots?”

I would like to salute the determination of my friends, the regional pilots, mainly those of Air Alliance, now Air Nova, who believed for many years in the one employer theory. They thought in good faith that they could be included at their seniority rank on the list of Air Canada pilots.

Unfortunately, a decision was made, confirming the opposite. I greatly sympathize with regional pilots, especially those of Air Alliance and Air Nova, who thought it was legitimate for them to think they would fly other planes than a Dash-8 or a Beechcraft 1900, and I do not intend here to discredit the reliability of these aircraft.

I am not a pilot, but apparently, when you are a pilot, you expect to start flying small bush airplanes, then bigger aircraft and, perhaps, after 28, 30 or 32 years in your career, a Boeing 767 or 747 or an Airbus 330. It is perfectly legitimate for a young pilot to think about flying a bigger plane one day.

There is no way we can force those who chose to continue flying Beavers or Piper Aztecs to fly bigger planes, but I think that regional pilots simply wanted respect and recognition.

I call once again on the goodwill of the management of Air Canada to try to resolve this issue of the amalgamation of seniority lists. I call on the management of Air Canada and Mr. Milton to give serious thought to giving the new Bombardier regional jets, 50-seaters, to the unified regional carrier that will be born of the amalgamation of Air Ontario, Air British Columbia and Air Nova. Mr. Randell said before the committee that there would be a new amalgamated unit with a new name. I would like Air Canada management to give serious thought to allocating the RJs to Air Canada's regional pilots.

I realize that Bill C-26 will require Air Canada to provide independent regional carriers with the same services it provides its subsidiaries to enable them to serve the regions.

I also recognize, on behalf of my party, that this bill gives new powers to the competition commissioner and the Canadian Transport Agency to prevent Air Canada or any other carrier from using anti-competitive practices or from imposing unfair prices.

This is provided in the law, but we must keep an eye on how the dominant carrier will apply the law. We wanted an ombudsman, as the minister said, and the government responded by providing a complaints commissioner. Let us say that it is a borderline situation.

I would like to respond to one thing the minister said earlier in his speech. Perhaps this is the advantage of speaking after someone else: I can criticize what he said, but he cannot criticize what I say because there is no questions and comments period.

The minister said that an ombudsman was too bureaucratic and complicated a structure. I am disappointed in the minister. He went through all the problems of the armed forces when he was the Minister of National Defence, and the government's response to these numerous problems was to appoint André Marin as armed forces ombudsman, the person to whom soldiers could take their complaints. I have never heard members of the armed forces complaining about the bureaucracy of the ombudsman. On the contrary, he has a role to play.

If the minister had wished, he could have agreed to what all members of the committee, except the Liberal majority, agreed—the creation of an ombudsman. Once again, I do not wish to criticize for the sake of criticizing. I wish to be constructive. The minister has responded by creating a complaints commissioner. This is very interesting.

In passing, I wish to congratulate Air Canada on appointing an ombudsman. Air Canada's management probably knew that the committee was pushing for this. It is interesting to see that our concerns as parliamentarians were noted by the dominant carrier. Air Canada decided to appoint an ombudsman.

In conclusion, we will have to keep a close eye on how this legislation is actually enforced, on a daily basis. I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Bill C-26 at third reading, so that it can be passed quickly and real competition made possible, so that small local and regional carriers are protected as quickly as possible.

We realize that we must pass this bill as quickly as possible, once again in order to protect the regions, regional users and companies with regional operations.

[Human Resources Development, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is extraordinary. In describing the letters sent to employees by the presidents of the new companies as new information, does the minister realize that she is asking us to believe that only her own auditors did not have the letters everyone else did, the employers, the employees and even the Quebec parity committee?

Is this possible? Is it plausible to believe that only the auditors did not have the letters in hand?

[Human Resources Development, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the Modes Conili affair, the Minister of Human Resources Development has described as new information the letters sent out to employees by the presidents of Conili Star and Paris Star.

Can the minister guarantee that the auditors of her department did not have the letters to employees in hand at the time they submitted their report, which led to the paying out of a $700,000 grant?

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

The Minister of Transport is professing his love for me. How perfect; he is shouting to me from across the floor that he loves me. If he wants to prove that he loves me or that he loves francophones, he should vote in favour of my amendment. I extend my hand to him—and I know that he is a reasonable man. He has a French-sounding name. We know that the name of the Minister of Transport, which I cannot say in the House, is Huguenot in origin, and that some of his ancestors are French.

In short, I think that the battle fought by Les Gens de l'air in 1976 is again deserving of support. I know that when the minister and the Canadian Alliance member address the House later on, they are going to make a short statement saying that they do not agree with the amendments. In any case, I heard my Alliance colleague's comments in the second group of amendments by the NDP. I am familiar with these amendments and I know that the Minister of Transport will be open and sensitive to these amendments and accordingly perhaps agree to our amendments.

I would ask the House to go a bit further. I recognize that the government has made an effort in Bill C-26. But I think that francophones should be given an equal chance, as the figures are not very eloquent. I do not know if the House is aware, but I inform it that today and at the end of 1999 and in early 2000, Canadian International had 1,258 pilots. Of this number, there were only 71 francophones, representing 5.8% of the pilot population. If it is acknowledged that francophones represent 24.8% of the Canadian population there should be something like 24.8% francophone pilots with our airlines.

I will quote from an editorial in Le Soleil of January 31, 1985. Although it was in 1985, it still is relevant. It was written by Roger Bellefeuille, and reads:

Francophones are entitled to their fair and reasonable share in what used to be known as Trans-Canada Airlines. Quebecers want to go off with the others, but not in second class seats.

In these remarks on an amendment that I am putting forward on official languages, I call on the common sense of the president of Air Canada, Robert Milton. He is an American working in Montreal who respects Canada's linguistic duality. I know that he is working to learn French and that he is very sensitive to the place francophones occupy in Canada and in his airlines.

I call on Mr. Milton, and say to him “When you, Mr. Milton, the president of the major airline that Air Canada has become, put your fist on the table and make a commitment to promote the employment of francophones, I want you to know that doing so carries a certain weight. To remind you of this, I am going to quote two of your predecessors”.

I will quote Claude Taylor, and then Pierre Jeanniot. Let us look at what Mr. Jeanniot had to say at the fifth convention of the Association des Gens de l'Air, in April 1980:

In order for Air Canada to be a truly Canadian company, we believe that Air Canada employees of both official language groups should reflect the community, the province and the country, both in their numbers and in their representativity within Air Canada.

These were the words of former Air Canada President Jeanniot.

Now let us look at what Claude Taylor, Air Canada President in 1981, had to say:

Air Canada acknowledges its vital role in maintaining national unity. This means, essentially, that its role is to bring Canadians closer to one another, to make it possible for them to meet each other, to communicate, to come to know each other, to understand what it is to be a Canadian. This is the area in which, in my opinion, we have had our greatest successes, the ones of which we are the most proud.

These two, both of whom have headed a major airline, Air Canada, acknowledge linguistic duality. This bill, in my opinion, offers us the opportunity to confirm it.

The situation is not all that rosy at the present time. I have already painted a picture of the situation with Canadian International. Let us now look at the francophone representation at Air Canada overall. In 1998, the percentage of francophones was at the same level as in 1978, with only 17% of all Air Canada employees speaking French. In 1998, the percentage for pilots was 15.8%. The number of French-speaking pilots required at Air Canada has not therefore been reached.

This is why I am calling upon the government to think seriously about the legislative amendments we are proposing in order to give our bill a little more teeth, so as to lend more weight to French in hiring, in maintenance manuals, to make more room for living and working in French within Air Canada.

I do not mean to say that there is any ill will. What I do mean is that it would be a good idea for a president, in this case Mr. Milton, to put his foot down and say “Now listen, there are 24.8% francophones in Canada; our francophone new graduates deserve to be given a chance”. The Cegep in Chicoutimi trains excellent pilots. I would point out in passing, that it costs $100,000 a year to train a young francophone man or woman. I think they are entitled to the hope of one day joining the ranks of Air Canada personnel. I trust that the government is going to think about this and pass our amendment with respect to the Official Languages Act.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-26, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 22 the following:

“(2.1)(a) A body corporate referred to in subsection (3) shall comply within four years with Part V of the Official Languages Act and within seven years with Part VI of that Act.

(b) Air Canada and any other body corporate referred to in subsection (3) shall submit to the Treasury Board Secretariat an annual report containing the following data available to any Canadian citizen:

(i) the total number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees of the body corporate;

(ii) the number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees among management, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other employees of the body corporate;

(iii) the number, which cannot exceed 5% of the total number of employees of the body corporate, of employees who belong to the category “language unknown”.

(c) The Commissioner of Official Languages may investigate any complaint relating to the delay to comply with Part VI of the Official Languages Act referred to in paragraph (a) and the result of the investigation, if it relates to the information referred to in paragraph (b), shall take precedence over the provisions of paragraph (b).

(d) In case of failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) dealing with the delay to comply with Part VI of the Official Languages Act, the Governor in Council shall, before making a decision regarding measures to be taken to remedy the situation, consult with persons in the official language group adversely affected by that failure to comply.

(e) Within one year following the coming into force of this Act, the following documents shall be made available by Air Canada in the English and French languages and have equal force of law:

(i) the Flight Operations Manual;

(ii) the standard operating procedures;

(iii) Flight Attendant Manual:

(iv) memoranda;

(v) administrative policies;

(vi) contracts of employments.”

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to a group of workers from the airline industry who have been fighting since 1976 to make sure francophones in Canada have equal opportunities in this area.

I am referring of course to a group called the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, which was created in 1976, following a battle that begun in 1975, to allow a francophone pilot, in his cockpit, to speak French with an air traffic controller in an airport control tower or in an air traffic control centre.

Members will recall that the association won its fight, because it was proven that having two francophones speaking French to each other does not jeopardize air safety.

Members will also recall that two anglophone unions, CALPA and CATCA, fought tooth and nail against that measure. I remember they both fought hard. But the government of the day agreed to amend the act to allow two francophones to have the right to speak to each other in their language.

We Bloc Quebecois members often hear it said in the House that this country, Canada, is ours, that as francophones, we can express our views, that we have the same rights as anglophones. This is constantly being pounded into us.

I remember how, three days before the last referendum, in 1995, many western Canadians made the trip to Montreal's Place du Canada, having paid $99 return for a Canadian Airlines charter from Vancouver, to tell Quebecers that they loved them and urge them not to leave.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second group of motions presented by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Churchill, to the Standing Committee on Transport.

What I want to do is to quickly remind the minister, and everyone else—I hope no one will think we are suffering from collective amnesia—that the Bloc Quebecois position on this 10% rule on individual share ownership was that it was a major point, in order to avoid having an individual or a group of individuals take over control of Air Canada.

If this 10% rule had been introduced when Air Canada was privatized in 1988, we were convinced, and we still are, that this rule would still be meaningful.

For the benefit of our audience, I would like to dispel any ambiguity. The Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of Air Canada taking over control of Canadian International, rather than the bid from Mr. Schwartz, representing Onex, that friend of the Liberals and Liberal bagman. It has been discovered that Mr. Schwartz had made a considerable contribution to the Liberal election fund in 1997.

I will remind all hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois was not at war with either Mr. Schwartz or Onex. The Bloc Quebecois position was clear at that time. We felt, and still do, that the Onex bid to acquire Air Canada was illegal, and this has been confirmed by a Quebec superior court decision. Although the package was wrapped up earlier at a meeting with the Minister of Transport, we believed that the Onex offer was illegal. We had nothing against Mr. Schwartz or Onex.

The Bloc Quebecois even introduced a motion on an opposition day asking the government to not increase the rule of 10%.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks on the first group, a bill is a set of compromises. We think that the amendment proposed by my colleague in the New Democratic Party to maintain the 10% rule is reasonable. We support her proposal.

I also want to say to the government that the compromise in Bill C-26 of having 15% individual ownership is also satisfactory. If the government had followed the lead of the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Transport, which wanted to increase the figure to 20%, the question would be different. Twenty per cent of the individual shares of Air Canada gave effective control, whereas 15% does not and ensure sufficient protection.

As to the second motion in this second group, I inform my NDP colleague that we will be favourable. Unlike our Canadian Alliance colleagues, we opposed the fact of raising the figure for foreign participation in controlling Air Canada shares beyond 25%.

It is odd to see Quebec sovereignists like us defending Canadian sovereignty against the Americans. This is why, although the Liberal majority on the committee encouraged it to go as high as 49%, we are happy to see that the bill limited everything to 25%.

However, the minister is keeping for himself in the residual powers, the option of increasing it by order in council with the support of three ministers of the crown. We feel that 25% foreign control is enough to maintain Canadian and Quebec funds in the new Air Canada. For all these reasons, we support the two amendments moved by our NDP colleague.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, this weekend, when I was preparing my speech, I asked myself the following question: what is the significance of a bill such as the one before us this morning?

By definition, a bill is nothing more or less than an instrument of compromise. It is similar to a collective agreement, where the parties have opposing interests.

Before I became an MP, I worked in labour relations for 16 years and I often drew the following comparison. Putting the employer and the union together is like putting two scorpions in the same jar to propagate the race. Ultimately a compromise and an agreement have to be reached.

The bill before us today represents this sort of compromise between diverging interests. It is certainly true, for me as the Bloc Quebecois representative on the Standing Committee on Transport as well as for all the members of my party, that it would have been or would be good to improve some parts later on, because, by definition, a bill is above all an instrument that is perfectible, or capable of improvement.

However, when it is a question of the sort of situation we have had for over a year, with a major carrier experiencing serious financial difficulties, we had to define a new legal framework for the advent of a so-called dominant carrier.

On the one hand, there was Air Canada, which has acquired Canadian International, and on the other a whole gang of others directly or indirectly involved in this restructuring.

There were the regional and local carriers, the employees' unions, the travel agents, and consumer groups. Each of these many groups was profoundly convinced that the situation needed organization and regularization. We ought therefore to have a game plan.

I do not want to just give the speech I intend to give on third reading. I will have an opportunity to come back to that. This morning, what I want to do is comment on the first group of amendments introduced by my NDP colleague for Churchill who is, I might point out in passing, a highly professional colleague who has followed the committee's deliberations most seriously and always comes up with reasonable opinions. Although sometimes the concerns she has expressed differ from ours, I wish to thank her for her contribution.

I do not wish to get off on a diatribe on this, but I do wish to say that my party engaged in a serious exercise around the proposed amendments to Bill C-26. I respectfully submit to my colleague from Churchill that they impose a framework which we consider far too rigid, paralyzing or constraining.

As I said earlier, it is true that we had to set new rules based on the fact that one company, Air Canada, was becoming a dominant carrier. However, we also had to ensure quality services, with the emphasis on frequency of flights, on time departures and arrivals and affordable airfares for people from all regions, particularly those of Quebec.

These people, who have to transit toward major centres, often use small local and regional carriers. One of the main concerns of the Bloc Quebecois members who represent Quebec regions was to ensure that these regional and local carriers could discuss on an equal footing with the new giant created by Air Canada, which accounts for 80% to 85% of the Canadian market.

With all due respect, the amendments proposed by the member for Churchill are much too constraining, rigid and almost impossible to apply. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose three out of the four motions:

Motion No. 3, with which we agree, would amend clause 4 of the bill, which reads as follows:

(6) The Agency may make a finding...on its own motion within two years after the date this subsection comes into force.

The motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill seeks to remove the two year restriction, by stating that the agency can make a finding immediately. We agree with this motion, which also has the effect of removing the power of the governor in council to extend for two years the period within which the agency may make a finding.

Therefore, with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 proposed by the New Democratic Party, but will vote for Motion No. 3.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-18, concerning impaired driving causing death.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his work as justice critic for the Bloc. He works tirelessly on this issue, and I thank him very much.

I want to state clearly that the Bloc is against Bill C-18. I want our position to be very clear. I would like the House to know, from the outset, that the Bloc does not in any way condone driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any other substance.

I can already imagine the big guns from the right, not to say big guns at my right, that is to say some members of the Canadian Alliance, getting themselves in a state and crying “This does not make sense. The Bloc should not be against this bill. Drunk driving is a scourge in society. There are organizations like MADD”.

Hon. members receive many documents from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. A women who lost her son and her husband in road accidents caused by drunk drivers founded the association.

I want to stress that the Bloc does not encourage drunk driving. However, we think that the proposed sentence for impaired driving causing death is unrealistic and unenforceable. It is one thing to have a sentence in the Criminal Code, but if it does not mean anything, if judges find it is unenforceable, why bother amending the code?

Members may be surprised to see a transport critic speak to this issue, but there is a connection between driving and road transportation, by car or truck.

I must also specify that my training and my experience as a lawyer before I got involved in politics made me realize that it is important that lawmakers make changes to the Criminal Code or any other law that are enforceable. This holds true for Bill C-18. What the government proposes is impossible to enforce and is also incompatible with other types of sentences provided for in the Criminal Code, and I will come back to this later.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence. Nevertheless, if we were to pass Bill C-18, we would be denying the specific nature of this offence and creating a profound imbalance in our penal system. We will prove this later.

Statistics show that the courts still have lots of room to manoeuvre with the provisions of the Criminal Code. The longest sentence imposed by courts for impaired driving causing death is, currently, 10 years.

The courts, which are in the best position to analyze the characteristics of every delinquent, have not exhausted the resources of the Criminal Code, which sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death.

The percentage of people sentenced to jail upon conviction, by the courts, for impaired driving decreased from 22% to 19% between 1994-95 and 1997-98. The terms of imprisonment imposed in the majority of these cases were less than two years.

There is a provision in the law providing for a much higher maximum penalty, but in all logic and in all justice most of our magistrates and our courts impose penalties of less than two years.

Let us not forget the deterrent effect of the penalty. Let us not forget society's repulsion for offences it punishes. That is why people who do wrong must be punished by having the courts impose penalties on them. That is why we have a penal code, the Criminal Code.

Taking into account what I was saying earlier, namely that most judges impose sentences of less than two years of imprisonment, why should we, as parliamentarians, legislate to allow life imprisonment when the courts are not inclined to fully use the tools currently at their disposal?

Although impaired driving causing death is a very serious offence, it is wrong to suggest that we are now faced with a criminal outburst in that area.

In 1998 in Canada, 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death, which is the fewest since 1989. I understand that 103 convicted offenders is still too many and that we should aim for zero. But do 103 convicted offenders really represent a problematic situation in Canada, although it is still too many? There had not been this few since 1989.

With the wind from the right wing, the Canadian Alliance, blowing on our Liberal colleagues opposite, we get the impression they feel bound to react with much stronger legislation.

We may only be 12 to 15 months away from a general election in Canada, and we know the Liberals feel threatened by the rise of the Canadian Alliance in western Canada. They feel they have to use the same language, the same words, but with different actors.

With this wind from the right wing blowing ever stronger in Canada, this country has become a champion of incarceration. It ranks second for the rate of incarceration. Behind which country? Which country ranks first? Is this a model of social peace and tranquillity, with safe neighbourhoods, and kids in high school packing guns and killing people?

I am talking about murder, but I could also be talking about all violent crimes. The country in the world that puts the most people behind bars is the United States, and Canada ranks second. We have to wonder what this means.

Let us compare Canada with European countries. As far as I know, it is not the law of the jungle in European countries like France, England, Germany and Italy. They do not play havoc with the legal system. They are not in a state of anarchy. I think that there is a reasonable societal balance in Europe. In Canada, nowadays, our incarceration rate is twice the rate in most European countries.

Even the Supreme Court justice condemn the fact that federal lawmakers are too ready to resort to incarceration in order to resolve delinquency problems. Even the Supreme Court justices, appointed by the federal government on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice who wants to amend the Criminal Code in this way, condemn the increased reliance on incarceration.

This is what the Justices Cory and Iacobucci of the Supreme Court said in the Gladue ruling:

Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the areas of progressive social policy and human rights. Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world leader in putting people in prison. Although the United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population—

In the United States, there are 600 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants. They put plenty of the people in prison. Is everything going well in the United States, when we see what happens every day at McDonald's, where lunatics who are able to easily obtain weapons shoot people who were quietly eating their hamburgers or what happens to people going for a walk in a shopping mall? Such things are happening more and more frequently in the United States. That is not to mention the 10, 12 and 14 year olds who commit crimes with firearms. In the United States, however, there are 600 inmates per 100,000 population.

The supreme court judges go on to say:

Although the United States have by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialised democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest...

Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have been imprisoning offenders as risen sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late...

In the same vein, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, in its 1987 report entitled “Sentencing Reform: A Canadian approach”, says the following:

Canada does not imprison as high a portion of its population as do the United States. However we do imprison more people than most other western democracies.

The Canadian Sentencing Commission Report states further:

In the past few decades, many groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and should be limited to the most serious offenders.

These words are important because they set the tone for the next part of my speech, where I will compare this type of offence to other types of offences. If we consider it a serious offence, then we must look at the way the Criminal Code deals with other serious offences.

The Canadian Sentencing Commission goes on:

However, in spite of the number of times this recommendation was made, very few steps have been made in this direction.

As I was saying earlier, by proposing life imprisonment for those who are convicted of impaired driving causing death, the Minister of Justice is ignoring the comments of her own supreme court.

The only solution is prevention. Incarceration should be a last resort. However, the Minister of Justice has not shown that she has used up all the tools at her disposal to fight impaired driving and to protect the public. She has opted for the easy way out by increasing prison sentences. She has opted for the line of least resistance suggested by the Canadian Alliance, when she could have acted otherwise.

There are effective ways other than imprisonment to lower the number of offences related to impaired driving. For instance, there is the ignition interlock device, greater use of which we support.

Alberta and Quebec are currently the only provinces to impose the use of an interlock device as a condition for a restricted licence for drivers who have had their licence suspended by the province.

An ignition interlock device—we remind our listeners—is a device that determines the blood alcohol level by a simple breath sample from the driver. This system prevents the vehicle from starting if the alcohol level exceeds a certain level.

Currently, only people accused of a first impaired driving offence can have the period during which their licence is suspended shortened by court order if an ignition interlock system is installed.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Criminal Code should be amended to make it mandatory to install an ignition interlock system on all repeat offenders' vehicles. The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the Bloc critic for justice, will soon introduce a bill to this effect.

This type of program would be much more effective than imprisonment. Not only does this system prevent the offender from committing an offence, but it also allows for consciousness-raising activities. Imposing life imprisonment for impaired driving could generate nonsensical situations.

For instance, an impaired driver, who is undoubtedly negligent— we agree on this—could be sentenced more severely than a hired killer who, having skilfully planned a murder, would be given a reduced sentence by becoming an informer.

Should someone who has celebrated a bit too much on New Year's Eve be treated the same way as a member of organized crime? Granted, both individuals have acted wrongfully but it must be recognized that they have very different profiles, a reality which is denied by Bill C-18.

Furthermore, one must take into consideration certain types of sentences related to other offences with characteristics similar to those of impaired driving causing death. In the case of dangerous driving causing death, a prison sentence of 14 years is prescribed by section 249(4) of the Criminal Code.

Other types of offences could be mentioned. For instance, an individual who commits attempted murder is liable to a 14 year sentence; the offence of accessory after the fact may result in a maximum sentence of 14 years; participation in a criminal organization—involving hardened criminals—may result in a 14 year sentence; a person committing aggravated assault is also liable to a 14 year sentence.

The federal government knows only one way to do things about criminal justice, and that is to overdo things. Whether it is about young offenders or impaired driving, the Minister of Justice has once more shown her incapacity to deal with complex problems without using dangerously repressive measures.

This approach is totally unjustified, since criminality has been on the decline in Canada over the last few years. Furthermore, no study proves the effectiveness of such an approach.

In conclusion, we know that a law and order policy yields lots of good results, politically speaking, something the Minister of Justice is very aware of.

[Shipbuilding, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the Canadian shipbuilding industry has been dying for the past several years, we discover today in the National Post that one of the Minister of Finance's companies is having two new ships built in China at a total cost of $90 million.

This generous contract will expand the fleet of the Minister of Finance, which already has in it a number of ships built outside the country.

As if this were not enough, a number of ships belonging to the Minister of Finance are registered abroad, a loophole enabling the minister's companies to avoid income tax and payroll taxes. A fine example set by a man who would be Prime Minister.

One thing is sure: in the next elections, Quebec and Canadian taxpayers will remember this Minister of Finance who taxes the most disadvantaged and then saves several million dollars thanks to a fleet of ships flying foreign flags.

Sail on, he who amasses millions of dollars. Sail on, until the next election.