Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-22 to explain how my constituents may be indirectly affected, by the more or less successful privatization of this major airport.
Pearson airport in Toronto is Canada's largest airport, with nearly 20 million passengers coming through annually, which is nearly 57,000 per day. Pearson airport has a direct economic impact worth nearly $4 billion annually on Ontario's economy.
Considering these figures, Pearson airport is considered to be, and indeed is, a very profitable airport. That is good news, because in a big country like ours, where equalization is the rule so that all citizens get a fair share, profitable airports in the south make it possible to finance the operations of airports further north.
We need a commission of inquiry to investigate the transactions that took place and those that might have been concluded to realize the real financial potential of this airport-whether or not it is sold to private interests-in order to measure the financial impact and ensure profits can be used to finance the maintenance and development of northern airports.
Air transportation in the north is a vital part of local communications between communities and provides a vital link between communities in the north and the south. Considering the fragile economy of these communities, free competition could adversely affect the security and autonomy of the people in these regions. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the privatization policy the government wants to implement in Canada and Quebec. I think that in both cases, Pearson airport and the government's plan to privatize air traffic control, the result will be a loss of services for people in the regions.
Some time ago, the Minister of Transport announced that studies would be conducted on the privatization of air traffic control in Canada and Quebec, to be followed by consultations with users, unions and groups with an interest in Canada's air navigation system.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the implications and especially about the lack of transparency around this project. The information we are getting is extremely vague. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore anxious to find out the real reasons behind the government's plan to transfer nearly 6,000 jobs, including 2,000 air traffic controllers, to an as yet unknown entity.
Will this be a Crown corporation, like Canada Post, or a completely private enterprise?
Does the minister intend to give us the names of the companies, commercial groups or interest groups that have shown an interest or even tendered bids for an air navigation system in Canada or parts of that system?
We think it is important that the public should know who wants what and what the conditions will be for the sale of the system, if there is one. We do not want the scandal of the Pearson airport privatization happening again.
Air traffic safety. If there is a transportation area where decisions concerning the safety of the travelling public should not be delegated to the private sector, it is certainly air traffic safety. Can the government explain to us how it will force this new company to offer air traffic control services where they are needed?
Will the government force this new company, or these companies, to offer air traffic control services even in regions where air traffic is not lucrative? Let us take, for example, an airport with thousands of small plane flights every year which does not bring in much money in terms of landing fees and which is not economically viable, but where the volume of flights is such that the danger of air collisions is high. Will the government force this or these new companies to offer air traffic control services even if they were to lose some money on that part of their activities? We are not too sure about that.
How will remote areas such as Abitibi or the North Shore, or any other Northern or remote area, be treated? How will the government force this new commercial entity to monitor the level and quality of services provided?
You will recall the Dryden crash, where it was demonstrated that Transport Canada had had trouble enforcing laws and regulations. It has been proven that self-regulation does not
work and is unacceptable, especially in air travel. How will the government enforce air traffic safety?
If there is a service which is of national interest, such as the Armed Forces, how can the government think about transferring this responsibility-I am talking about air traffic control-to commercial interests?
By the same token, can the minister tell us what will become of the travellers protection, given the fact that he is now considering putting an end to the presence of permanent and professional fire fighters in regional airports in Canada?
We have not forgotten the cuts in services that followed when Canada Post became a Crown corporation. In remote and isolated areas mail service was drastically reduced in order to save money and in the name of profitability. Does the government intend to do the same thing in the case of control towers, flight service stations and fire fighters in regional airports? Will we end up with airplanes being controlled from Quebec and Montreal? In a nutshell, is the government getting ready to shut down regions by reducing services to a minimum?
Furthermore, can the minister explain why his government is still going ahead with its project of "modernizing" the air traffic control system by closing thirteen control towers in Canada? Why does the department want to close four towers in Quebec, or 44 per cent of all towers in Quebec? Must I remind the minister that three out of those four towers are located in peripheral areas, namely Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau? What a coincidence!
In addition to air security, how air traffic controllers and other workers who are currently public servants will be treated is of great concern to our party. Can the minister tell us what will become of those men and women who have given 5, 10, 15 and, for some, 20 years of faithful service to the Canadian public? Will the minister dismiss those who refuse to join the new private corporation or company? Does the minister intend to offer them maybe a "grandfather" clause which would allow them to remain public servants although working within the new air traffic control system?
Is the minister aware of the fact that many believe the air controllers working for the new entity could have the right to strike, which they do not have now? Can the minister confirm or deny that rumour? Can he tell us what he intends to do to clear things up concerning that essential service? Will the government require that seniority and other benefits accumulated by theses employees as public servants for the Canadian government be respected or will these people be at the mercy of every whim of the new managers?
If the government maintains that project of privatizing the Canadian air control system, will it force the new company to abide by the Official Languages Act with regard to services offered to users and employees? Will the pilots, private or professional, still have access to air control services in the language of their choice? Will the employees enjoy the same work rules as they have now, for example the right to receive training and communications in French wherever the legislation permits?
I mention these points, Mr. Speaker, to stress the possible impacts of loss of income in the south which would allow grants and support for the northern regions.
Any privatization project which is of national interest, be it the Pearson airport or the air traffic control system, should be reviewed with everyone's interests in mind and in such a way that citizens in the northern regions or remote areas would be treated fairly.