Debates of May 15th, 1996

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has asked that the House agree to a proposal she put forward. I asked if we agreed that she could make that proposal. The House agreed. I also asked if it could be considered that the proposal had been agreed to by the House.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Perhaps I could explain once again what my proposal is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member can perhaps give her explanation in French if she wishes.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

It is simply to ask the House if there is unanimous consent that all the motions, resolutions and amendments be deemed to have been read and moved.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The clerk has just explained to me that we do not need the consent of the House to accept this proposal. We may say that, with the unanimous consent of the House, the proposal is accepted by all members of the House.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not fully understand. It is obvious that we will shortly be voting on the motions group by group. For the moment, we are looking at Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Of course, we are going to read them and comment on them, group by group, and, if I have understood correctly, go on to the vote. I presume that it is not a question of forgoing a vote by accepting in advance to the motions as presented.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member is quite right. The Chair is in agreement with what the member has said. All the groups of motions will be debated, but the deputy government whip has merely asked that the Chair dispense with reading all the motions. That is all.

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the parliamentary secretary spoke before I did. It was my understanding that it was to be Bloc, Liberal and Reform. At least that is the normal rotation. That is why I assumed that was what we were doing.

The parliamentary secretary in essence said many of the things I would have said. I thank him for saving me from digging through all of that.

The consideration for Nav Canada is to run a business guided by economic and financial considerations, with safety of paramount importance, regulated by the government.

However, one thing the parliamentary secretary said which I find exceedingly interesting was that he thought it inappropriate to list certain types of operators, small and large, and not address other groups such as private and recreational users, leaving them off the list. I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport feels it is bad to create lists if some people are to be left off.

I suggest he review the blues on what he said and then read Bill C-33, which the government has just passed and which I believe he voted in favour of. That was the principal argument of the Reform Party.

Likewise, I suggest the Prime Minister of Canada read that list because now with this action dealing with the referendum question in Quebec he is stating how important it is to uphold the rule of law, as is the Minister of Justice. I would ask them why they did not think the same way when they brought in the bill on Pearson airport where the rule of law was clearly subverted.

We will not be supporting the Bloc motions on this for reasons that have been adequately stated by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

In essence, we feel these would politicize the mandate of Nav Canada, and that is clearly not the intent of the bill.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has said, we agree with privatization in principle, but we have considerable reservations about its key mechanisms, so much so that, should the amendments we will be presenting not be accepted, we will find ourselves forced to vote against this bill.

For the moment, we are talking about the motions in Group No. 1, which address the preamble we wish to see at the beginning of the bill, and which we see as important in expressing the ultimate purpose of the bill.

Nav Canada is a private body, but one that provides a public service. Because of that private status, perhaps the public will not have the guarantees and services it would otherwise, if the body had not been privatized.

The essence of our opposition to certain aspects of the bill therefore lies with that point, that a private body providing a public service must deliver the same quality and quantity of services as would be provided without privatization.

For an overview of our position, I shall digress a little to list the points covered in the motions of Group No. 1.

There are six applications to the principle I have just set out. The first addresses safety. Public safety may be reduced by privatization. I think that this is a perfectly obvious principle, and one that must be set out explicitly in the preamble.

The second point is that Nav Canada's concern for profits must not, either now or later, lead to the reduction of services to northern and isolated regions. In terms of its viability, service in these regions might be considered less profitable, but we feel that this ought not to be a reason for Nav Canada's cutting back on services. We therefore insist that the preamble explicitly include the principle of maintaining services to northern and isolated regions.

This is also the case for the necessity of protecting the interests of the small shippers, whose profit margin is very slim and who

could run into rate problems if their interests were neglected in favour of the large companies which, we feel, were the source of most of the influence on the government around this proposed bill.

These three points I have listed are the ones covered in the motions of Group No. 1. We will have an opportunity very soon-I am stating them here to establish our overall position-in Group No. 2, to talk about the need for sufficient local dissemination of the changes Nav Canada would propose to charges or to the quality or quantity of services.

We will also have to intervene to prevent private clients from having to pay indirectly for services provided to public clients such as organizations designated by National Defence; then, and this is extremely important, we will have-and this concludes the overview of our objections to the bill-to protect the personal information on clients and personnel held by Nav Canada.

Generally speaking, this leads me to say that, when the federal government delegates its power to an organization it has created, services to the public must not be cut.

This sort of delegation must not-and this applies to ADM as well-result in the organization created serving as a screen between the public and the government so that, as the Minister of Transport has just said, the government cannot say: "It is ADM; or, it is Nav Canada. We are innocent of the blood of this just person", in the words of Pontius Pilate.

There is no way we will accept this surreptitious dropping of a hot potato, under the guise of decentralization, with the blame being directed elsewhere: "It is not me, it is Nav Canada; or, it is not me, it is ADM". We totally object to this handy way to fob off responsibilities.

This summarizes my position on these three aspects of block 1. I will no doubt have occasion to rise again on the other aspects I have spoken to briefly.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not on the transport committee, but I was in the aviation field for a number of years, and when I caught wind of this issue, I saw there were some things not right about the bill.

As my colleagues have said, we are not against the bill, but there are certain things that are slipping past the public, and in some respects the issue is such a complex one that people are not reacting.

We are in agreement with the privatization of air navigation services. It is a good idea. We have reached the point where we must pay. The problem is the manner in which the government is going about it. They have created an agency called Nav Canada to examine ways of privatizing air navigation services.

The first problem is that in the group of 15 people making up the board there are very few, if any, representatives of small carriers. It is for this reason that I wished to speak on Motion No. 2. When Nav Canada has to decide on fees for users and carriers, will it take small carriers into consideration?

I come from a remote area, Lac-Saint-Jean, where the air link between Montreal and Alma is very important, and small carriers like Air Alma are essential. A study has been done showing that if the price of an airline ticket goes up by one dollar, there are losses of one dollar on this same ticket as a result of this bill. Each time airfares go up, there are some very negative repercussions for airline companies.

What I find fascinating is that the only reactions come from Quebec. There is very little reaction from other air carriers. We were told that Nav Canada's board includes representatives of small carriers such as Air B.C. Air B.C. has BA-146s, which can carry 146 passengers; this, in my book, does not make it a small carrier.

What is interesting and important is that, first of all, this board should include Quebec members so that French language air navigation services are always well represented. We are also proposing that AQTA, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, be represented.

At a recent committee meeting, we were told that the president of AQTA had refused. I have here a letter from ATAC, the Air Transportation Association of Canada, which refers to the invitation to the president of AQTA to sit on the Nav Canada board. I have a second letter in which the president agrees to sit on the board. I have a third letter saying that, unfortunately, the president of AQTA will not be able to sit on the board. This is a major disappointment because AQTA represents both Quebec and small carriers.

Within Nav Canada small carriers are represented by the president of ATAC, Mr. Crichton, who also represents ATAC. The problem is that some 70 per cent of ATAC's funding comes from large carriers. One therefore has good reason to fear that the way air services are taxed may hurt small carriers.

You may argue that small carriers are not happy because the price of their tickets will go up a little. This could have a very negative impact, even on chambers of commerce. I think it was the Matane chamber of commerce that sent the Prime Minister a letter saying: "It is about time to lower the price of tickets". This goes to show how important this is, because the prices have to be reasonable for the representatives of chambers of commerce routinely doing business with Montreal to be able to get to Montreal regularly.

Not only are air carriers adversely affected, but employment in regional airlines, chambers of commerce and any company doing business with Montreal and across Canada are also adversely affected.

This may look like nothing, but I think it could have serious consequences not only in Quebec but also across Canada. Some will say: "Why is Quebec the only province griping about this?" That is because, in Quebec, we have a permanent organization known as the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. I say "we" because I worked in that field for three years. Our purpose in having a permanent organization is to ensure that all small carriers are represented by an association capable of analysing the issues concerning them.

Another problem I can see with the Nav Canada committee is the fact that Nav Canada is not accountable to the people. After the committee has been established, it is very important to undeerstand that small carriers must have a say. If they disagree with something- because of the lack of representation I mentioned earlier-will they be heard, even if they take to the streets? There is cause to be very sceptical.

As my hon. colleague indicated, the same kinds of problems were encountered with ADM. Nav Canada then acts as a shield behind which the government can hide by saying: "This is no longer our responsibility. Blame Nav Canada". Except that Nav Canada was created by the government. Again, we realize that the system is flawed in that regard. We have every reason to examine a consideration that could have very serious consequences.

It is also important, in considering this bill, to take a look at the various forms of taxation. At present, three separate methods of taxation could be contemplated. There is, however, reason to believe that only one of them would work to the benefit of small carriers, but that Nav Canada is not considering that particular one.

I will sum up by saying that I really hope that the government will be able to revise its bill at least to include small carriers and an AQTA representative, so that small carriers can have a say about the method of taxation. It would be much too complicated to get into the various methods, although I touched on the subject, but all I really want is for the minister to allow an AQTA representative to sit on his committee. I am not asking for anything complicated. In fact, it is quite simple, yet it would be very important.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is this still debate, or are we now at questions and comments?

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is the period for ten-minute speeches, without questions or comments.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-20 which, among others, establishes a corporation called Nav Canada.

I want to stress the importance of the Bloc Quebecois' first motion. The motion proposes that the preamble of the bill includes a mention that the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over all other considerations in the decisions taken by Nav Canada. This motion seeks to have the government and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take precedence over money considerations.

I have been the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue since the last election, two and a half years ago. Our party did not oppose the privatization or, rather, the commercialization of civil air navigation services. We did, however, have some reservations and we still do.

For example, we know that, given modern technology and satellites, air traffic control services for all of Canada could be provided from a single location, for example a mall in Mississauga or North Vancouver. One of the Bloc Quebecois' concerns was the preservation of French in this area.

As members of the official opposition, we have a duty to be vigilant. In the years 1975-76, a battle took place in Quebec regarding the use of French by air traffic controllers. This episode turned out to be a determining factor in the Parti Quebecois' victory on November 15, 1976. Thanks to these efforts, a French speaking pilot and a French speaking air traffic controller could now communicate in French. This was not the case before. Until then, two francophones were forced to speak English to each other, seemingly for safety reasons.

We do not want such gains, including those of the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, to have been made in vain and to simply be forgotten. This is why I just mentioned that modern technology makes it possible to set up, in a Mississauga mall, a national air traffic control centre that would include Quebec's airspace. This is particularly true now that a corporation primarily interested in making profits will have responsibility over this sector. We are not talking about a charity or a non profit corporation. Consequently, profits might take precedence over the requirement to provide services in French in Quebec's airspace.

Despite the victory won by the Association des gens de l'air in 1976, still today, on the Lower North Shore, still today, in the Magdalen Islands-and we in the Bloc Quebecois have regularly asked questions about this-pilots tell us that they have trouble being served in French in some sectors, including the one covered by the Moncton area control centre, which is apparently supposed to be bilingual.

I also wanted to speak to Motion No. 2, because we realize that there is a certain common denominator in the composition of Nav Canada's board of directors, and that the large airline companies are very well represented.

Our new colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has, I believe, his pilot's licence and therefore knows whereof he speaks, and did so most eloquently a moment ago, in my opinion. Where I find fault, as does my colleague, is with the composition of Nav Canada's board of directors. It is unfortunate that this government did not respect the wish of small carriers to be represented, to be listened to.

So this will be just large carriers, and regional carriers will not be heard from. Is it acceptable, for example, that the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens cannot sit on Nav Canada's board of directors? Is that realistic?

What were we told in the Standing Committee on Transport? That the association was a member of the Canadian council, and will therefore be indirectly represented. I am sorry, but this does not really meet the expectations of the aviation sector, in any event, not those of Quebec carriers.

The bottom line is that if all the seats are held by representatives of large carriers, the priorities set regarding cost per passenger could also give them an advantage over small carriers. Because we know that what matters is who gets in there first. If someone in the family makes a big chocolate cake and the first person to come along helps himself to a great big piece, the others will have nothing but the crumbs that are left to divide up among them.

Human nature being what it is, the big companies will not want to assume the lion's share of the bill, so they will arrange to pay just a bit of it and to pass the rest on to the small regional carriers, who will not be able to afford it. And who will the small carriers pass the buck to, since their profit margins are so slim? To the passengers.

When I was in the Saguenay, I recall being told that flying from Bagotville to Montreal costs more than from Montreal to Miami and, in certain seasons, more than a round trip ticket Montreal-Paris. They used Bagotville-Montreal as an example, but it could as easily have been Val-d'Or-Montreal, Sept-Îles-Montreal, or Gaspé-Montreal. This is aberrant. Once again, the people in the regions are the ones to be penalized by such a decision.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the potential impact of Bill C-120 in this area. We are proposing, and this is the purpose of our motions, that an addition be made to the preamble stipulating that Nav Canada must commit to maintaining equality of opportunity between small and large carriers when imposing all the charges.

I will conclude on this point, because time is running out. The third and final motion I wish to comment on attempts to include in the preamble the fact Nav Canada must recognize that Canada is a country where air service to northern and remote regions is essential. A tour of Dorval airport reveals that it is not only the people of Dorval who fly out of it. People in transit at Dorval come from the regions and are on their way to another destination, such as the south, Europe or other provinces in Canada. They are people from the regions, and we must take this into consideration with respect to air services.

The aim with this provision is to establish a parameter for interpretation purposes, drawing attention to the fact that one of Nav Canada's prime objectives is to serve the regions.

In conclusion, we must remember that it is true Quebec has Montreal and Canada has Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, but we must not forget that Quebec and Canada are made up of regions as well. Sometimes decisions made centrally here in Ottawa by bureaucrats do not take the regions into account.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I too am happy to speak to Bill C-20 on the commercialization of civil air navigation services. In the final analysis, what we are discussing today is the establishment of a private air navigation corporation.

I think that the Bloc Quebecois has a duty to review the bill before us very carefully. After looking at the motions to be debated, I asked to speak. Although I was not on the committee, I asked to speak because I was a long time member of SOPRAM, the organization promoting the Montreal airports, which revolves around ADM and the Montreal airports. I asked to speak because I thought we had done a good job, especially on the motions before us today in Group No. 1, including the motions saying that safety must take precedence over commercial considerations.

Of course, the private corporation being formed will try to make a profit. I remember that, for ADM, this was often an area of concern. We often looked at safety versus deregulation, versus privatization, as there is a tendency to confuse deregulation with privatization.

We also realize that setting up a commercial, for-profit corporation is often done at the expense of safety. Even our American friends are asking questions about this whole issue, as we saw with the crash of a ValuJet DC-9. Investigators in the U.S. are asking if Americans are safe when these companies may be cutting corners on safety to make a little more profit.

We may wonder if, in Nav Canada's decisions, people's safety will take precedence over making a little more profit. As far as the safety of passengers, personnel and the public is concerned, it seems quite logical and right that the preamble to the bill should provide that safety take precedence over Nav Canada's profits.

I often like to give examples from my riding. In Saint-Jean, we have an airport with a control tower paid for by Transport Canada. What will happen the day after Nav Canada takes over? I made some enquiries today. Naturally, officials at Transport Canada are telling me: "Do not worry, Mr. Bachand. In any case, Nav Canada will take perhaps a year or more to consider what it should divest itself of, what it should keep and what to do with what it keeps".

There are about 50,000 aircraft movements per year at the Saint-Jean airport. Dynamair, a flying school, is responsible for the majority of these movements. Of course, teaching students to fly a plane means many takeoffs and landings. The same is true of the gliding school where air cadets attend glider training every summer. You will understand that the bill before us has an impact on my riding as a region.

I must admit that we are somewhat concerned about what would happen if, a year from now, Nav Canada said: "We have decided to make changes at the control tower in Saint-Jean. Air traffic will no longer be controlled by air controllers, but by people like those of the UNICOM project, for example". A single individual mans the tower and directs traffic. That is a bit on the lean side. These are not professionals like air controllers. They will have to call upon the services of the airport in Saint-Hubert.

This raises serious questions in my mind and in the minds of my constituents about the impact this bill here today will have.

What will happen to the flying school for instance if we no longer have air controllers at our airport? This is rather serious, considering that there are often three, four or five aircraft taking off and landing, not to mention the possibility of a plane from another airport entering the school's airspace.

We are right to warn the government. We agree on the issue of profits for Nav Canada, but these profits should not jeopardize safety. We also wonder about the other side of the issue, the introduction of user fees. Some of my colleagues just gave the example of large carriers versus small ones. This is the object of Motion No. 2. Industry officials in Quebec told me that the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens would have liked to be represented on Nav Canada's board.

The minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development, said: "You are only a regional association". I happen to think that Quebec is larger than a region.

This was not good enough for the minister. He added: "See if you can form a group". A council of air carrier associations was set up. It included the Quebec association and several other associations in Canada. Some 800 companies were represented by the council.

After forming the council, these people asked again for a seat on Nav Canada's board, but the minister told them they could not be represented, because the work was already too advanced. People were upset that they had taken the time to form a council, only to be told by the minister that, as small carriers, they would be excluded from Nav Canada, that only Air Canada, Canadian and all the large carriers would be represented. The danger exists that Air Canada and Canadian will say that they want preferential rates, and that if Nav Canada wants more money it has only to turn to the small carriers.

This has an effect both on privatization and on control towers. There are also repercussions for users, such as the pilots' school I mentioned earlier, and the air cadets, who might be slapped with user fees. Right now, there are no user fees at Saint-Jean. Airplanes landing and taking off from Saint-Jean pay no fees.

This could have major consequences for an industry such as Dynamair, which could find itself paying fees for each landing and take off. These are the negative consequences. This is why the motion before us today says that safety must take precedence over business considerations.

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention remote areas. You know that, as Indian affairs critic, I am often required to travel to remote areas. These people are worried also, because air services are absolutely essential to them. I think that the bill before us does is neither satisfactory nor sufficiently reassuring for these areas.

The motions moved by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois add the necessary amendments and safety for remote areas. I thought this needed to be said. I invite the government to join us and agree to these motions, which will increase safety and take account of remote areas in Quebec and in Canada.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my turn in speaking to Bill C-20. First of all, I would like to remind you that, in July 1994, when the former Minister of Transport, now Minister of Human Resources Development, released the policy for commercializing airports and air navigation, the Bloc Quebecois came out in favour of the principle.

At that time, however, we did not know how this new policy would take shape, and so we voiced some reservations on its application.

Today we are starting to have a somewhat clearer idea of how the government plans to put into practice the principle made known in July 1994. Why did we agree with the principle at that time? It struck us as reasonable, and more efficient, to make local administrators who are familiar with their region, its resources, its strengths and its weaknesses, responsible for the way their local airport developed.

Nevertheless, even then, we had some concerns about what would become of the regions. My colleague has just spoken of this. There are 26 major airports in Canada, and there is very little doubt in our minds that management of those major airports by the private sector is more dynamic than management by public servants in Ottawa.

However, we must also remember that there are over 500 or 600 airports in Canada. This raises the question of what fate is in store for the small local and regional airports. Things are not moving along very quickly, because, at the moment, some 20 local and regional airports have been transferred to municipalities.

My remarks apply primarily to three elements of the first block of motions. The first concerns safety. In recent years, I have been involved in the issue of safety because there is an airport in my riding, Jean Lesage international airport, and we have watched how the government-Transport Canada-has dealt with this issue over the past few years. While we supported the principle of commercialization of airports and air navigation services, it is still possible now for us to have serious reservations. Increasingly, the government's motives are becoming clear, transparent.

It is not out of generosity. It is not because the government places greater faith in local managers that it is withdrawing. No, it is doing so strictly in order to pull out and to save money. Therefore this bill must be considered in the light of this.

May I remind the House of some cases that show how relevant my comments are. A little over a year ago, almost two years ago in fact, Transport Canada decided to close a number of terminal control units at five or six airports, the last one being the one at Jean-Lesage airport.

We then waged a major fight to try to convince and show Transport Canada that there was still a ray of hope. The system that had been put in place to monitor all of Quebec did not always work properly. I remember in particular that, on April 9, 1995, a Quebec City terminal control unit that was following a plane suddenly realized that the plane had done a 180-degree turn. What was going on? Very simply, the radar allowing controllers to monitor the plane suddenly focused on a flight of Canada geese going in the opposite direction.

Every time we asked the Minister of Transport a question, he told us: "The most important thing is the safety of passengers". Allow me to question how safe they are.

We were also told, to justify closing the terminal control unit in Quebec City, that the emergency control unit at Dorval airport was fully operational, which was not true. When we went to the airport, we saw that the equipment that was supposed to be there did not exist and, what is more, that it took exactly 20 minutes to move crews to the regional control centre.

That is the first point. So, when government members come and tell us: "Our primary concern is safety", we do not believe them.

Let give you another example, still in connection with safety. In the interest of economy, always, Transport Canada discontinued the security services normally provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at a number of Canadian airports. Again, Jean-Lesage airport was one of those affected. RCMP officers were replaced with veterans, I think. Granted, they can perform some functions, but I does not seem to me that they can do the same job as the RCMP officers.

Further evidence of the fact that the government, through Transport Canada, does not care about safety can be found in the length of aircraft allowed to land in Canadian airports. Of course, it is regulated.

The applicable regulations take into account, among other things, runway length of course, but also firefighting services available at the airport.

Given the number of firefighters on duty at the airport in Quebec City, the number of fire trucks available and the type of trucks used, it was clear that Transport Canada was not abiding by its own regulations. What did the government and Transport Canada do? They took one more truck away and reduced the number of firefighters, departing even further from their own regulations.

This government has decided to decentralize to the regions only to save some money. We have seen what it has done with Canadian National Railways. You might say I am getting sidetracked, but I am not. I am still discussing the same theme. The government is withdrawing from this area, not out of generosity towards the provinces, but to avoid fulfilling its financial obligations. Transport Canada neglected the Quebec City bridge for 15 years. And no sooner was CN privatized last year, what did the federal government do? It started saying: "Yes, the Quebec City bridge is in bad shape, but like Pontius Pilate, we are washing our hands of the whole thing. CN is now a private corporation. Consequently, we have nothing to do with the maintenance of the bridge". Yet, it is because of CN's negligence, and Transport Canada's negligence, that the bridge is in its current state of disrepair.

The issue of navigational aids in the St. Lawrence River, which we raised on numerous occasions in recent weeks, is another example of government withdrawal. The reason is always the same: to save money. Safety is hardly a consideration. Without first conducting a real economic impact study, Canada was divided in three zones and the government is telling users of the St. Lawrence Seaway, to the Great Lakes, that they will now have to pay for services provided to them. The decision was made without even

bothering to see if it will impact on the volume of traffic and if it will result in ships using American ports instead.

ADM is another example of the government's quickness to say it is no longer its responsibility, when it withdraws from an area. ADM was established and we agree with the underlying principle. Now there is a problem, and the government, instead of requiring a public examination of the effects of transferring flights from Mirabel to Dorval, said, instead: "No, no, this is no longer our concern. We are no longer involved and have passed the responsibility for the Montreal airports on to a private firm".

I would also like to talk a bit in this context about Nav Canada's representativeness. Colleagues have already spoken on this. Nav Canada's board of directors does not represent the Canadian reality. Only the Transportation Association of Canada has been authorized to appoint representatives to the board. And where do these representatives come from? Two are from British Columbia and two are from the Ottawa region. This composition of the board they claim represents Canada. There is no one from Quebec.

Two groups in particular have been very involved in navigation in Quebec over the past 20 or 30 years: the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens and the Association des gens de l'air. They had a special place in air transportation and were dismissed with a wave of the hand, simply because, as they were told: "You do not represent a national association. You are regional". So there is no one from Quebec.

When the criticism is made to the Minister of Transport that there is no one from Quebec, his response is very smooth.

He says: "Well, we appointed someone from Quebec to represent you: Michel Vennat, the president of the Council for Canadian Unity". He is representing the interests of Quebec aviation with Nav Canada. What does Mr. Vennat know about air transportation? Probably nothing. I am not criticizing him. I am criticizing the government for appointing him.

It refuses to appoint people from the industry and appoints a political person, someone who plays a very dubious role in constitutional discussions, to the board of Nav Canada to represent Quebec's interests.

We should be having serious doubts about this bill. Agreeing with the principle is one thing, but accepting the bill as written is another.

In another vein, I would like to return to the matter of French. I do not consider the guarantees at all satisfactory. The minister says: "We will ensure that the Official Languages Act applies", but while Transport Canada was managing air control, it took no steps to ensure that the Official Languages Act was being complied with. Why should we trust a private company to do so? I will come back to this a little later.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise immediately after my colleague from the riding of Louis-Hébert, in Quebec, to speak to Bill C-20, which the Bloc Quebecois has introduced motions to amend. This bill is of particular concern to my riding, the riding of Abitibi, which is definitely a remote area relying heavily on air services. I think that these motions should be given serious consideration.

One of the motions is to add to the preamble that Nav Canada recognizes that Canada is a country where air service to northern and remote regions is essential. We are seeking, in this way, to lay down a parameter that would help prevent areas such as ours from being frequently left out of the equation.

In my area, Val-d'Or, an airport is affected by this bill. Right now, the city, or the chamber of commerce, whichever is working on the question, is required to know whether Val-d'Or will keep its airport when the Department of Transport cuts off its dwindling grants. Will the city of Val-d'Or have the money to run this airport?

For five years now, the policy of the Department of Transport has been to reduce the size of airports. It is obvious that, in the past, airports had practically the same services. The regions did not always ask to have all the fancy services available at Dorval, Toronto, or even Vancouver. It is not necessary to have moving walkways, the sophisticated checking systems of major airports, but areas such as ours must receive essential and equitable service.

Why do people in regions like ours, as my colleague has said in the speech prior to the last one, pay two or three times more per kilometre to fly than people who go from Montreal to Toronto, for example, which is almost the same distance? Why can they get seat sales at $149, while we have to pay $550 for a regular fare between Val-d'Or and Montreal?

What about the air fare between Val-d'Or and Quebec City? It is $650, which makes it expensive for people from Abitibi to get to Montreal or Quebec City-usually not for pleasure, but for business. Pleasure trips are also possible, as they are for people who fly from Montreal to Miami, but people with average incomes find it almost impossible to fly from Val-d'Or to Montreal or Quebec City.

This has, I feel, become impossibly expensive. Some months ago, when I spoke on decentralization and deregulation of transportation services, I called for recognition of equal rights for the people in the regions, whether my region or some other region in Canada, to receive quality service. Not necessarily the plush service there might be in Toronto or Montreal, but service which would allow people to get quickly from place to place as needed. Often trips of more than 700 kilometres are required, to get to

Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City or beyond. These services are necessary, I believe, for sometimes trips have to be made on an emergency basis because of illness or death or the like, and sometimes there is no choice between driving and flying.

But now Val-d'Or is faced with a choice: Will we continue to maintain our airport? Will we have the $500,000 or $600,000 needed to put into it yearly? Will the taxpayers have to foot the bill? I do not feel it should be necessary to ask such questions.

People in regions like Val-d'Or ought to have access to an real operating airport, so that, for instance, if there is a health emergency, a government plane can land quickly and rush the patient to hospital in Montreal or Quebec City.

The Val-d'Or region also serves a vast area of nearly 1,500 kilometres north of Val-d'Or: the Inuit and Cree territories of the Far North. It is from Val-d'Or that the goods intended for these people are shipped.

All the goods sent to the Inuit and the Cree go through Val-d'Or. Shipping may cost less than a third of what it would if the goods were sent from Montreal. It is easy to understand, as an air mile costs much more than a road mile. But, if the Val-d'Or airport closes, shipping costs for the Inuit and the Cree may increase even further, while the people of Val-d'Or would come out even.

I used Val-d'Or as an example, but I am sure there are other airports in the northern regions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba that serve Native communities living further north who also need services at fair and realistic prices.

A few years ago, during the air service decentralization process, the air traffic controllers in Val-d'Or lost their jobs. They had uncovered documents proving that keeping them in Val-d'Or did not cost more than sending them to Toronto or Montreal, where air traffic is monitored. They could also control air traffic over a rather large territory, and there was less of a safety risk.

One of the things the Bloc Quebecois wants to find out about Nav Canada is if the safety level of the people in those areas is not as high as that of the people in Montreal or Toronto. Why are they seen as being candidates for reduced service? Because they live in outlying areas? I think that most of the people in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region work in the natural resources sector, that is to say, in the forestry and mining industries. These people generate a lot of money for those who live further south.

As my colleague was saying, when I hop on a plane in Val-d'Or or Rouyn-Noranda to fly to Montreal, Quebec City or Toronto, I pay money to those national airports. If we could get only half the taxes collected on the cost of plane tickets, we could finance our own airports and control our own destiny.

We also wanted Bill C-20 to say that Nav Canada should let small carriers have a say, as they would like to. That is the wish representatives of the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, or AQTA, have expressed to the Air Transport Association of Canada, and people listened to what they had to say. With the support of the Canadian council of air carrier associations, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens made representations to be fully represented on the board.

How can your interests be defended when you are not even represented on the board? If Quebec's small carriers serving our regions have no control or say, how will we go about ensuring any degree of protection? Quebec users have received only a negative answer.

When the airport decentralization and air transport system devolution policy was introduced in the latter part of 1993 and early 1994, we were promised that the system would be more cost-effective and deliver the same level of service at a lower cost.

The letter from the Association des transporteurs aériens du Québec makes us wonder what services are to be expected. What can we do, if we are not even given the right to know what goes on at the board?

I take a strong interest in this matter, because in deciding the future of their airport, as I indicated earlier, the people of Val-d'Or cannot help but wonder also about future changes Nav Canada could impose on a local civilian authority like the City of Val-d'Or, when people will not have any control over future changes.

At the airport in Val-d'Or, for example, there is an aircraft approach system. This system will be under the control of Nav Canada. What would prevent Nav Canada from sending the City of Val-d'Or a bill for the maintenance of the system three, four or five years from now? This is one of many possibilities that have been raised. Last week, I attended a meeting of the chamber of commerce on the Val-d'Or airport acquisition project. People were wondering how they could be sure that costs would remain constant, if there is no control over any of these elements.

Again, if we include in the bill a motion to ensure the safety of air services in northern regions, it will always be possible to tell the government in the future: "Listen, the municipality cannot absorb the annual costs of $200,000 or $100,000. It should be up to Nav Canada to ensure our safety. Aircraft cannot land without an approach system". Then, we, who live in regions, will be protected.

In conclusion, I am asking the government to be receptive to the needs of regions. For too many years now, the government has been making decisions under cover of cuts required by its debt. Regions can absorb part of the deficit. However, the government must realize that if it does not stop depriving us of essential services, people will get discouraged. Sometimes, we cannot help but wonder if the government is trying to shut down regions.

In my estimation, this would be a serious mistake, given what northern regions such as ours provide to other regions, given our great natural resources, which are not even developed here, but taken to southern destinations to increase their worth. Indeed, it would be a serious mistake to conclude, here in Canada, that northern regions generate costs and not profits.

The government should support this motion, so that all regions will feel, even though they do not get additional funding, even though they have to learn to live within their means, that they have some security, that they are respected, and that no forgotten bills will show up in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question? The question is on Motion No. 1.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.