Michel Guimond

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who taught constitutional law at the university level knows full well that international routes are given through agreements between countries.

When the level of 200,000 passengers a year to a certain destination is reached, representatives from one country meet representatives from the other country, and a bilateral air transport agreement is signed.

We saw that, in the past, Air Canada suffered from the fact that the federal government always favoured Canadian International Airlines. Members will recall that when we reached the required number of passengers to Hong Kong. The Minister of Transport of the day was the late Doug Young—I say the late Doug Young since he was defeated because of his arrogance. He is still alive, but he is the late Doug Young in this House because he was arrogant.

There was also the late David Dingwall, who was just as arrogant. He was defeated as well. Ordinary people do not like people who are arrogant. They prefer real people, with their qualities and their faults.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it obvious from the question by the member for Trois-Rivières that we are going through turbulent times.

Since I must stick to the topic of transportation, it ties in with the Prime Minister's personality. He is bound and determined to put Quebecers back in their place. It is unfortunate that Ottawa should recruit Quebecers to do its dirty jobs.

A dirty job does not necessarily reflect on those doing it. In this case however, I believe it does, even though I am not allowed to say so. It is really sad to see what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are doing. I cannot wait to see how Quebec members will vote on this draft bill.

How is the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie going to vote? How will the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis and the 20 members from Quebec vote? I cannot wait to see how the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is going to vote. How will the members for Outremont and Beauce vote? This is going to be interesting.

In Quebec, we have a great motto. It is on our licence plate. It reads “Je me souviens.”

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for his question, which I find interesting in various regards.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and I do not see the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada the same way, but we both worry about the airports located in subnorthern areas and especially those in my riding. He knows that I am very sensitive to this whole issue.

On the other hand, I am a bit disappointed with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik because I did talk about the constitutional aspect of the relationship between Quebec and Canada in my speech and I would have expected the hon. member to refer to this aspect in his question.

For instance, if the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik had asked me if I trust the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I had a truly remarkable figure of speech ready for him.

As the Germans say “Do not ask the cat to look after the cream”. That is how I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

To give him another example, the Americans say “Do not put the rabbit in charge of the lettuce”. Or “Do not ask Dracula to run the blood bank”. Or still “Do not hand the keys to the hen house over to Colonel Sanders”.

I could also quote from the Three Little Pigs , where the poor wee things hire the big bad wolf as a real estate agent and tell him “Come, we will give you a tour of our houses”.

I would have thought the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik would have realized that we ought to ask the federal government to prove that the status quo has more to offer than the sovereignty project we, the sovereignists, are putting forward.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

The Standing Committee on Transport does not say a word either on air safety. I will finish on a darker note, a little bit more serious—although I should not say serious, because I have been serious since the beginning—but I have making my points in a more casual way. What I want to say is that this report does not say a word about the lack of safety in numerous regional airports. Unfortunately, in the last year and a half, many people have lost their lives in Baie-Comeau, Gaspe and Sept-Îles because Nav Canada closed down control towers.

The transport minister, answering a letter sent to him by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, said “The ministry is prepared to accept and tolerate an acceptable risk”. But what is an acceptable risk? Is it playing Russian roulette? Is every Quebecer travelling in regions of Quebec, such as the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe, North Shore, Abitibi or Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, entitled to safe regional air transportation? Do we say “I hope I will not be subjected to unacceptable risk because if that is the case, my plane could crash on the account of there being no air traffic controller”. This should have be mentioned in the report.

The last issue I would like to talk about is this: the Bloc Quebecois asked that regional airlines be subject to the Official Languages Act, as is the main airline, Air Canada. As members know, in the regions of Quebec, 98% of the customers are francophones. Flight attendants act as a link between the pilot and the passengers and are in charge of safety on board. The primary function of a flight attendant is not, as many people think, to serve meals and drinks, but to ensure safety.

It is not enough for flight attendants to know the usual speech and say “Exits are above the wings and lavatories are at the back”. A first grader, the young daughter of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for example, if taught properly, could say that in front of 700 or 800 people.

It is one thing to teach that to a first grader, but it is quite another to act in an emergency situation like the one we had recently where a Focker 28 from Canadian Regional on a flight from Quebec to Montreal had trouble with its front landing gear and the flight attendant had to go through the emergency landing procedures. And she only spoke English. She knew the usual speech. But when the time came to tell passengers to take off their eyeglasses, their dentures and their shoes and to assume a foetal position, she could not do it. It takes a flight attendant who is capable of communicating in both official languages.

I will finish with a quote that goes back to the second point I raised in my speech. Unfortunately, you interrupted me, but we will have the opportunity to talk about it again later this week. I barely touched on the subject in my speech today.

Someone said that it is up to Quebecers to decide, that the federal government is wrong to try at all costs to impose a way through the courts. This is what Gordon Wilson, constitutional adviser to the Premier of British Columbia, said on February 5, 1998.

I will conclude with a quote from another journalist from Beauport from the 19th century, when Quebecers were called French Canadians. This journalist from Beauport by the name of Étienne Parent said “It is the fate of the French Canadian people not only to try to keep their fundamental freedoms, but also to fight for their very existence as a people. If we do not govern ourselves, we will be governed”.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was just about to talk about the 10% ownership rule in Air Canada. I hope that I will not be interrupted. That rule is essential to maintain a broad shareholder base.

I want to explain that the Bloc does not support the majority report of the Liberals, who want to raise that percentage to 20%. That would have the effect of giving effective control to a single shareholder or a group of shareholders. If we want to maintain a broad shareholder base, we absolutely must keep the 10% limit.

We read in The Gazette “The Liberal hon. member for Vaudreuil said the following. Personally, I think that the limit should not be set at 20%, because that would give the separatist Caisse de dépôt control over Air Canada”.

Across the way, there are people, like the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who will charter buses, just as at the time of the last referendum in 1995, three days before the next referendum, for crowds to come and tell us they love us. Do you think Quebecers are gullible enough to believe such a thing once again?

That reminds me of those members from the Reform Party who were lucky enough to get Canadian Airlines tickets. At the time of the last referendum, Canadian Airlines chartered 747 planes and people came from Vancouver to Montreal, three days before the referendum, just to participate in the love parade.

You want me to speak about air transportation? Let us do so. VIA Rail changed its name; it is now VIA Rail Canada and its engines bear a logo with a big maple leaf. They speak about transportation, but they will not let me finish my speech. I am an impulsive person. I wonder if you have realized that, Mr. Speaker.

The Standing Committee on Transport voted upon a second rule.

Before the President of the Treasury Board leaves, I want to say I am convinced she will agree with me that the 10% ownership rule at Air Canada should not be modified. I am sure she is a true Quebecer, and I am sure she will be against changing that rule.

Unfortunately, since she left the House, I cannot say she is not here, but I want to say there is another important element in this report from the Standing Committee on Transport. It is the 25% foreign ownership rule, which the Liberal majority wants to increase to 49%. This means that Americans could control up to 49% of the airline industry.

This creates a totally ironic situation whereby members from the Bloc Quebecois agree that the foreign ownership rule should remain as it is, and the limit be maintained at 25%. Believe it or not, we will respect the partnership between an independent and sovereign Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are so respectful that we are opposing the 49% rule in order to promote Canada's sovereignty against the Americans.

If we accept the increase to 49%, there will more situations such as those we already witnessed, for example American Airlines which held large blocks of shares and which transferred the positions of machinists, repairmen, and maintenance employees from Vancouver and Calgary to the United States.

The Liberal majority pointed out that it agreed to increase the percentage because we apparently need foreign capital. There is not enough solid capital to justify ownership in Canada, wealth in Canada. And yet one of the proudest achievements of Quebecers, the Caisse de dépôt, is ready to invest in Air Canada, not to take control of it. The Caisse de dépôt's role is to ensure that the savings of Quebecers earn a return so as to provide a future for our children and our grandchildren.

That is the role of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. This is not like the derogatory comments of the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who says that he does not want the limit raised to 20% because he does not want to see the separatist Caisse de dépôt take control of Air Canada. These are unacceptable remarks coming from a Quebecer like the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who is as much a Quebecer as I am. That does not prevent him from saying this kind of things. That is where the inconsistency is: it is acceptable for Americans to control Air Canada but not the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as to the point of order raised by the Reform member for St. Albert, with whom I sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when I was chair and he was vice-chair of the committee, I want to say that he acted as the watchdog of democracy.

I must say I find it very sad that he is trying to distract me while I am speaking, as I am doing the best I can. I am only a backbencher with qualities and shortcomings, and more shortcomings than qualities, in fact—

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Indeed, but I am surprised that my colleague, who used to work for Canadian in Nova Scotia, more precisely in Halifax, who is a member of the NDP, would use dilatory tactics of this kind to cause a member who is doing his best as a parliamentarian and is working on a speech with researchers and a whole team, to lose his concentration.

This is very sad coming from a former unionized employee of Canadian; this is very sad coming from a member of the New Democratic Party that is supposed to be a progressive party. I am very surprised that the NDP would do such a thing. But when the time comes to save Canada, I would like our fellow citizens who are listening to us in Quebec to remember that the NDP is a federalist party just as the Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives are. They all sing from the same song sheet when it comes to standing up for this great and beautiful Canada they refer to all the time.

On June 22, 1990, someone said in the Quebec National Assembly: “No matter what one says or does, Quebec is today and forever a distinct society, free and able to take its own destiny and development into its own hands.”

This person was the former Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, a federalist, the day after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.

Also, a group of individuals said: “The people of Quebec may not be deprived of the responsibility to decide their own future.” This is what the Assemblée des évêques du Québec said on February 22, 1995.

Somebody else said: “It is imperative that Quebec be allowed to retain full authority over decisions regarding its future within the framework of Quebec democratic institutions.” This statement was made by the Conservative senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a former political advisor to Premier Bourassa.

I would like to read one more quote. Somebody mentioned: “One thing is certain, from now on the future of Quebec will no longer be decided in—”

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

These words were said at the Quebec National Assembly—

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

moved that the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, this speech will obviously deal first with air transport but, as you will understand, considering the bill just introduced by the government, it will be very difficult for me not to refer to this sad day for democracy in Quebec and in Canada.

Not to be accused of being out of order, I will have to deal with the first report of the transport committee. At the outset, I would like to tell the men and women who work for the Canadian transportation industry that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and myself, as the transport critic for the Bloc, are very concerned with the uncertainty they now experience, a few days only before Christmas.

This has been particularly true for a number of months, more precisely since August 13 when the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, by suspending the provisions of the Competition Act, created total chaos in the Canadian transportation industry. This situation recently led to the shutdown of operations at InterCanadian, and 900 workers and their families, could perhaps be forced in the very near future to go on welfare.

I think that 14 days before Christmas we, as parliamentarians, cannot remain insensitive to the gloomy situation faced by the workers of InterCanadian, a company based in Montreal.

I could talk for a long time about the content of this report, but I will of course be able to revisit it in the future. Since I am running short on time, am allowed only 20 minutes to make a speech and have already been talking for two minutes, I would like to turn immediately to the second part of my speech since I am afraid to run out of time.

For the benefit of the members in the House and of our viewers, and I know that there are quite a few of them, I would like to go back to a statement made by a person who said “No matter what, Quebec is and will always be a distinct and free society capable of assuming its own destiny and development”.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the leader of the government in the House to listen to this quote from Étienne Parent, a Beauport journalist in the 19th century.

We all know that in the 19th century, the people of Quebec were referred to as French Canadians. He said “It is the fate of the French Canadians not only to have kept their civil liberties, but also to struggle—”