Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-20, which is before us today. Our position is clear: we are not, opposed to the principle set out therein, that is to say providing the public with better and more affordable service. In today's difficult times, I believe this principle must be everyone's objective.
We are, therefore, in agreement with the principle of Bill C-20, but we have many questions on the way the government has drafted it, has worded the underlying principles.
For instance, it is all very well to say that Nav Canada is to be a not for profit corporation. Fine, no problem with that. Now, if we look at who will be on the board to preserve the rights of users, we find there will be 15 representatives of the aviation sector, both commercial and non commercial, the unions, the federal government, plus independent members. Here again, I find this praiseworthy.
When we thoroughly examine who those members will be, however, we find they will be only the major carriers. The small ones will not be represented, although a number of those consulted by the members of the task forces on this intended government
measure expressed a wish to see small carriers hold at least one seat on the board.
They did not get it in the legislation, for all practical purposes. Is that a sign of how things will be later on? I hope not. Surely they will have the chance to remedy this, and we will stress that point when the bill goes to committee.
Therefore, we support the principle, but we have some questions about the wording. We have some concerns about safety as well.
I heard the minister introduce this bill at this particular stage, and he said we would have to leave it up to the agency to check the homework the government had done to find ways to save money, and all with the aim of user safety. I do not think the bill stress safety enough. I agree that savings have to be made, but, as far as safety is concerned, I do not think anyone, especially in the field of aviation, is going to ask the government to make savings at the risk of safety.
The preamble to this bill should make the message very clear to the agency that will be managing these things in the future. Safety is vital, and, at this point in time, I think the bill is lacking in this regard. We will also make sure the matter comes up for discussion in committee.
There is the matter of employment as well. The agency, which currently manages all navigational services, has some 6,400 employees. It is therefore very important in terms of the jobs in this agency that legislation be passed by Parliament to promote or attempt to keep as many jobs as possible, while lowering costs.
I heard the minister earlier assuring the House that union members had been consulted, that there was no problem continuing labour contracts and that everything would go smoothly. Yes, for the time being. However, there is a series of collective agreements to be renegotiated between March 1997 and October 1998, I believe. If the objective is to save money, some jobs will certainly be lost in the process, whether we like it or not.
This bill should perhaps include a detailed list of what the government would like the corporation to keep. Now is the time to do it while we are reviewing this bill and setting up this organization. We as legislators and members of the House of Commons will set the guidelines, and I think it is important to do so right away.
I look forward to hearing union representatives testify about these collective agreements before the committee and explain to us how they see the future in terms of privatizing, so to speak, all civilian air navigation services. This is a very important point.
I have another point to make that is extremely important, especially for some regions. I represent the riding of Berthier-Montcalm, which unfortunately does not have a major airport although there are some on the outskirts. My colleague from Trois-Rivières, for his part, is lucky enough to have a major airport in his riding. I think it would be important, in this bill, to make the regions feel secure, to help small airports get equal, if not special, treatment because local economies are often directly or indirectly linked to transport facilities, including airports.
However, in its drive to save money, the non-profit corporation may not see things the way I do today. It will not necessarily think about the regions in deciding to eliminate or modify jobs or even to close air transport services. Now is time for us, as the legislators now considering this bill, to include in it some very specific provisions outlining what we as parliamentarians want from this non-profit corporation.
The corporation will buy this for $1.5 billion. This is all well and good, but then if there are problems or if the regions encounter some difficulties, we will not come out ahead in return for $2 billion.
It is time that to stand up for the regions, because they are important. They are important to Quebec and to Canada as well. Nowhere in this bill do I see any assurance that these services will be maintained.
Another important element is small air carriers. There is a direct link between small carriers and small airports. Small carriers and major carriers view things quite differently; take for example, in Part III, the air navigation charges set by NAV CANADA.
Major air carriers would like fly over fees to be lower than landing fees, which is quite normal. On the other hand, small carriers are calling for just the opposite. Why? Because they are not on as strong an economic or financial footing as major carriers.
If we want small air carriers to be able to survive in their regions, this point must be stressed in the legislation. Nowhere in Bill C-20 is this philosophy, this attitude of the government regarding small carriers reflected.
We get the distinct impression that the bill was dictated by major carriers and that it is intended to serve their interests. Granted, It is for reasons of economy and to have better service in the future. But we know that the signal was sent by the major carriers.
It is important for small airports and carriers, as well as for the regions, to send the message today, through Bill C-20.
Bill C-20 is complex because it deals with a number of issues. However, many terms used are vague. A principle of law provides that, when drafting a piece of legislation, the legislator must be clear. It uses terms that are as clear as possible, to facilitate their interpretation by the courts.
However, some expressions in this bill are quite vague, including three in clause 2(4), which will have to be improved on, hopefully in committee. There are expressions such as interested party, persons designated by the minister, demonstrable consensus and transparency. These expressions are not very clear in the bill. In the end, we do not really know the purpose of this legislation.
These things will have to be clarified in committee so that we can support this bill. In principle, we agree, but we must also end up with an act which will mean something and with which we can agree.