Roger Pomerleau

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that, contrary to what he alluded to yesterday and again today in the House, in addition to the appeal mechanism available to citizens, the federal cabinet may also, and the legislation is quite clear in this respect, act on its own to do justice to the francophone and Acadian communities, and demand that the CRTC reverse its decision? The legislation is quite clear on that; we can provide him with a copy of it.

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Yesterday, in the House, the minister said that he understood the disappointment felt by the francophone and Acadian communities, and he added that he could not be both a judge and a party at the same time, which he repeated again today. He suggested instead that the francophone and Acadian communities appeal the CRTC's decision regarding the French-language all-news channel.

Does the minister share the opinion expressed by the ACFO President to the effect that, once again, a CRTC decision places the francophone and Acadian communities at the mercy of local cable companies? Does he agree with the ACFO president who said that, once again, our rights are being infringed upon?

[Irving Whale, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Could the minister indicate who will pay the cost of dealing with the problem of the Irving Whale ? The taxpayers, the oil companies' compensation fund or Irving, the company responsible for this time bomb?

[Irving Whale, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It seems the government is preparing to refloat the wreck of the Irving Whale , which contains more than 3,000 tons of oil, off the coast of the Magdalen Islands. Apparently, the decision was made although studies have shown that the pumping option is much safer than refloating.

Are we to understand that to save $14 million, the government is prepared to take considerable risks that may affect the fisheries and the local tourism industry, by opting for refloating which is less costly but not as safe as pumping?

[Association Canadienne-Française De L'Ontario, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the media reported the angry words of some Liberal members who were outraged at the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition had agreed to attend the convention of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario.

I am surprised by these reactions since the association also invited seven members of the Liberal cabinet, including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, to participate. However, not one of the ministers in question had the courage to accept the invitation.

Furthermore, the members who criticized the most harshly of all the presence of my leader at this convention, namely the members for Ottawa-Vanier and for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, have still not confirmed if they plan to attend.

In view of the absenteeism of federal Liberal representatives, one has to wonder really who is being courageous and who is being chicken.

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before the break in the question period, like all of my colleagues present here today, including the Reform Party members, I mentioned the non-transparency of the government in the cancellation of the Pearson Airport privatization. Afterwards, I spoke of the general lack of transparency on the part of the government each time they are asked to open the books to the public whether in the House or in committee.

Added to that is the fact that when there is no transparency, someone has to be blamed for the way things are going. So they talked about welfare recipients and the unemployed. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say this morning, in reply to a Reform Party question, that the question was a vicious attack on the unemployed when in fact it was absolutely reasonable.

I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the most vicious attack against the unemployed and welfare recipients was made by her own government and the Prime Minister himself when he accused all the unemployed of being beer-guzzling couch potatoes.

Then they tried to blame the whole thing on Quebec's whims. If everything is going wrong in Canada, it is due to some passing fancy of that province. But it is a well-known fact that all of Canada's history can be reduced to Quebec's attempt to obtain real powers within Confederation. We only have to remember the various commissions that followed one after the other and that cost an enormous amount of money: Laurendeau-Dunton, Pépin-Robarts, Spicer, Beaudoin-Dobbie, Castonguay-Dobbie, Dobbie-Dobbie, and so on ad infinitum, up until the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord failures.

Non-transparency also in the way the facts are presented. Another issue was raised this morning. Another 65,000 Canadians have joined the ranks of the unemployed. When the Deputy Prime Minister was asked how she could explain this, she told us that these 65,000 people had regained hope at last. In reality, these 65,000 people have lost their jobs, so we have non-transparency in the way the facts are presented.

They suggested that if things were not going well in the country, it was because of separatists, when we know full well that the Moody's credit-rating agency has just issued a warning to the government. If things are not going well in Canada, it is not because of separatists, it is because we owe $500 billion to our bankers, because we are unable to pay them and because we swear to them that in three years we will owe them $600 billion. That is serious.

As far as separatists are concerned, I remind this hon. House that Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been around for a while, said that Quebec sovereignty would not be a problem, that they could live with it. If Quebec opted for sovereignty, Americans would not have a problem with that.

And this too is part of the non-transparency. I remember the Prime Minister jokingly indicated to this House that construction of a high-speed train could not be seriously contemplated because there could be a border between Quebec and Ontario. In fact, there has been a statement on this subject today. In Europe, high-speed trains run across all the countries and nobody seems to have a problem with that. A high-speed train running through the recently opened Chunnel will link two countries and that does not seem to cause any problems.

Every day, hundreds of trains circulate freely between the United States and Canada, and that does not appear to create any problem. Yet, there seems to be difficulties when trains travel between Quebec and Ontario. Therefore, I think that the facts are totally misrepresented. The presentation of those facts lacks transparency.

It is also suggested-again by the Prime Minister-that we are afraid of him coming to Quebec during the next election or referendum campaign. Indeed, I must recognize that we are afraid, but we are afraid that he might not come.

There are many issues which require greater transparency, and there are many people in Quebec who have very specific questions to ask to the Prime Minister on these issues, including his role in the decision to impose the War Measures Act in Quebec, which resulted in hundreds of people being beaten up, imprisoned and deprived of their rights. In fact, all Quebecers were deprived of their rights. Yet, the facts clearly demonstrated later that there was no justification for such action.

Quebecers also have questions to ask the Prime Minister regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, a decision which was unanimously rejected by Quebec's Nation-

al Assembly. They have questions to ask him about the night those long knives were planted in Mr. René Lévesque's back. They also have questions regarding the kiss to Clyde Wells, when the Meech Lake Accord failed, and when, unfortunately, the Quebec Premier was on his knees, and even crawling, to get a minimum minimorum for our province.

The major issue which will have to be debated in a few months with absolute transparency, although I am not sure that we can trust the government to do that, is this: Why should Quebec keep 25 per cent of the voting shares of a country which is literally going bankrupt?

To conclude, I believe that greater transparency is required on the government's part and we will monitor its actions.

[Quebec City-Windsor High-Speed Train, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today saw the inauguration of the tunnel under the English Channel which will join Great Britain and France via high-speed train. This train will cross the border of these two sovereign countries with the speed for which it is known. The borders of sovereign countries do not stop trains or communication lines.

So how can the Liberal government still drag its feet on the Quebec City-Windsor high-speed train? This project will be good for the economy, whatever Quebec decides about sovereignty.

The high-speed train must not become a political football; rather, it must be seen as an economic issue that could create thousands of jobs.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 before the House today aims at cancelling the privatization of the Pearson Airport, and the government, by introducing this piece of legislation, wants to fulfil the commitment it made during the election campaign.

This morning, my colleagues reviewed in detail all the process surrounding the negotiations of this privatization deal, and the Reform member who spoke first this morning mentioned that Conservative as well as Liberal lobbyists were involved in this deal since the very beginning.

In his report, ordered by the government, Mr. Nixon concluded that this contract had to be cancelled, and I quote: "My review left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation in unacceptable. I recommend that the contract be cancelled". Of course, in such circumstances, the Bloc also agrees that the contract must be cancelled.

But today, we are addressing the issue of political manipulation, the transparency of these contracts and the involvement of lobbyists, people close to the government and the friends of the big political parties.

Let me remind you that the Nixon report, as my colleague mentioned briefly, also made the following recommendation: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day". He adds what has already been quoted: "The public should have the right to know the full details of this agreement". That is why the Bloc Quebecois is requesting a public inquiry on this matter, on this contract which we never saw.

With this bill, the government wants not only to cancel the privatization of the Pearson Airport, but also to leave it to the minister to settle all of the financial problems related to this agreement. All of these details will be up to the minister. We ask that the amounts and the names be made public and that there be real openness.

We remember that, according to the red book, which the government delights in quoting more and more in this House, the Liberals were probably elected on the promise of wall-to-wall openness. We know quite well that people everywhere in Canada and in Quebec are starting-I dare say-to be fed up with politicians with a tight-lip policy.

If the Liberals were lucky enough to be elected, it was especially on their promise of openness. But what is the reality? When we ask for an inquiry and for the documents on the issue of privatization of Pearson Airport to be tabled, we do not nor will we get anything. The answer is no.

Ever since the beginning of this 35th Parliament, in January, we have been asking the government to open its books to the public and to examine one by one all items of public spending, including tax expenditures. The answer is no. The Prime Minister said recently in the House that if we wanted details on government spending, we only had to ask the committees, since their mandate is to study these expenditures. The Bloc Quebecois asked all committees that sit and the answer was no.

In the case of the Hibernia Project, which is now losing billions of dollars, I for one asked the Committee on Natural Resources to let me see the Hibernia original contract. The answer was no.

This afternoon, we will resume debate on a motion by the hon. member for Richelieu regarding the funding of political parties by individuals. When this motion was first moved, we could see right away that members of the Liberal government were against it. Again, they refuse to make things more transparent.

Meanwhile, the situation is very bad in Canada. According to some figures reported last week, there are 790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed in Quebec. We heard this morning that the number of unemployed in Canada grew by 65,000 in the month of April, an increase of 1 per cent in some areas. These unemployed people are concentrated in three provinces: Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia.

Faced with this situation, the government cannot find anything to say other than it is the unemployed who are the problem, they are a bunch of beer-drinking couch potatoes. That is why things are going bad in Canada. Also, and this is again related to the policy of transparency, when things are going bad, there has to be a reason. If the government cannot be transparent, it has to find a scapegoat. When things are going bad in Canada, we hear that it is because Quebec is too demanding. We all know that since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation, the whole history of this country could be described-

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

To make it short, Mr. Speaker, I will skip a few things. Let us just say that we request a royal commission into the Pearson airport transaction. It is obvious from all the facts stated in this place that there has been some degree of scheming. We do not want any dealings to take place outside of this House. If certain facts need to be disclosed to the public, we want them to be made public here, before this House, so that the people can have a good idea of what this is about.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, most of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have taken part in the debate on Bill C-22 so far looked at it in terms of government openness, and all of them came to the obvious conclusion that a royal commission of enquiry should be set up to look into the whole issue of the privatization of Pearson airport.

In the speech he just made, my colleague for Brome-Missisquoi brought out quite well the large number of friends of the government, both Conservative and Liberal, who were involved or had a hand into this matter, which represents millions of dollars.

My colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead told us how this piece of legislation before the House today was put together: under clause 7, no action may be instituted against the government by any company that could have grievances against it, but clause 10 allows the minister to make a direct but secret settlement with people who might want to claim some small compensation.

Besides, the Nixon Report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, concludes along the same lines. I would like to quote its conclusion:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that it be cancelled.

Leading to that conclusion, Mr. Nixon said: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in the agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion".

In my opinion, when the government proposes to privatize a Crown asset, openness should be mandatory and the public

should be entitled to know all the details in the agreement. That is why, on the whole, we are asking for an enquiry in that matter.

I would also like to quote some remarks made by the hon. member opposite for York South-Weston and reported in the media. They were reported in the November 26, 1993 issue of the Ottawa Citizen , and I quote:

"I didn't spend the last nine years in Ottawa bashing Tory sleaze to have it occur in our party or for our party to condone it".

Some other remarks were also reported by the Globe and Mail where he was quoted as saying:

"This will be a true test of Mr. Chrétien's commitment to integrity in government and I have considerable confidence in him that he will kill the deal".

Of course, this is the bill that kills the deal. The only problem is that giving the Minister of Transport discretionary powers to compensate people party to this behind-the-scenes deal is tantamount to having the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and the Bloc is obviously against that.

Why was the privatization of Pearson airport ever considered to begin with? It is quite simple. Pearson airport makes money. Incidentally, it is one of the very few money-making airports in Canada. Why does it make money? Because everything was done to put it in that position.

The Mirabel airport was built many years ago because the Montreal airport was crowded with international flights. A few months after Mirabel was built, the ban on international flights landing directly in Toronto without a stop-over at Mirabel was lifted. After that, all international flights could land directly in Toronto without stopping first in Mirabel.

What did that mean? It meant killing Mirabel and increasing the number of international flights landing directly in Toronto. Today, Mirabel airport is a white elephant and we are on the verge of expanding Pearson airport at the cost of millions of dollars, several million of which will come from Quebec.

The same pattern can be seen in the case of the port of Montreal, with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over the years, that system diverted traffic from Montreal to Toronto. The port of Montreal is failing and the one in Toronto is thriving.

The same thing happened with the Borden line. It was recommended by the Borden commission, on which not a single Quebecer sat. It resulted in the petrochemical industry of the east end of Montreal being transferred to Sarnia.

The Auto Pact is another example. It was signed with the United Stated, which goes to prove beyond the shade of a doubt that a small country like Canada can strike deals with a giant such as the United States. But that deal was made for Ontario. Quebec did not get anything out of it.

What is the logic behind all this? They want Ontario to be the economic heart of Canada. This is a Canadian way of thinking. Concentrate all the economic activity in Ontario. Unfortunately, this concentration is to the detriment of Quebec. In the four points I just mentioned, thousands of jobs were lost in Quebec.

Once Toronto's and Ontario's international attraction is established, many companies deciding to come to Canada will follow the same logic which says: "If you want to do business, go where the business is". So they all go to Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario because that is where the business is.

Once this attraction has become extremely strong, it even drains Quebec's own companies. And I am referring to companies like Cadbury, Black and Decker, Electrolux, Habitant Soups, which all left Quebec because there were better opportunities in Toronto. Of course, this endless corporate exodus is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Quebec. As we speak, the media report that there are 790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed workers in Quebec. And the media-and I heard it again this morning-tell us about an economic recovery.

There is no economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. The Prime Minister of Canada, under the circumstances, must find a culprit because he does not want to admit the phenomenon I just described. Of course someone to blame is always found, as we saw recently in the House: the unemployed and the welfare recipients, they are to blame.

So they are officially accused of being beer drinkers slouched in front of their TV, this after their jobs have been taken away. Unfortunately all these people are in fact looking for a job. Since he got a very strong reaction, the Prime Minister is attempting to find other reasons why the situation is bad, even if the corporate exodus from Quebec to Ontario is very clear. And now the Prime Minister has called all of Quebec's legitimate and historical demands whims.

I would like to say a few words on this. All the Premiers of Quebec, whatever their political party, as far back as I can remember-and I am not very old, but I still remember it-always said the same thing.

In the mid-1950s, Maurice Duplessis wanted Ottawa to give Quebec back its due. This was not a whim on his part; he said it because he believed that we were being had by Ottawa.

In the early 1960s, Jean Lesage liked to use the expression "masters in our own house"; that was no whim. He was simply convinced that we were not in charge of our own affairs and that Ottawa always controlled everything.

A few years later, Daniel Johnson used the expression "equality or independence". That was not a whim either. He simply felt that, with the way things were in Canada, Quebec was not getting equal treatment. The situation was such that ultimately Ottawa always decided what was best for Quebec.

Of course, several years after that, René Lévesque began to champion the cause of Quebec sovereignty. And that was no whim either. He believed that sovereignty was the only way for Quebecers to become masters in their own home.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the same conclusion. Either Canadian federalism undergoes a radical change to ensure that Quebec is given its fair share, or Quebec becomes sovereign. That conclusion was certainly no whim. It reflected the clear consensus of all Quebecers who appeared before the Commission.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I have one minute remaining. There is so much more that I could say. When we say that we do not want the federal government to intrude into our field of jurisdiction with respect to vocational training, it is no whim. This is the unanimous position of the National Assembly.

The Prime Minister claims that disaster will ensue if the separatists-this is the word he used-are elected. Need I remind him that Moody's, which is certainly not a den of nasty separatists, has pointed out to him that the debt, not the political situation, is responsible for what ails Canada. When the Liberals came to power in 1980, the debt stood at $80 million. They managed to increase it to roughly $200 million. Under the Conservatives, the debt rose from $200 million to $500 million. Now the Liberals, in office once more, are saying that the debt will come in at about $600 million.

It does not take a genius to figure out why our bankers are nervous. The fault does not lie with the nasty separatists. They are nervous because they are owed money. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?