Debates of May 17th, 1996

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an amusing story behind clause 96.1 of the bill we are considering. As amusing stories are rare in this House, I will relate it briefly. Clause 96.1 does not appear in the text of the bill we passed at first reading. It appears now, because the bill before us was amended by the Standing Committee on Transport. It added this clause under the amendment proposed by our party.

No need to remind the House that the majority of members sitting on the Standing Committee on Transport are Liberal and therefore, with the government's motion to delete this clause, which was added by the Standing Committee on Transport, we have the minister rejecting a proposal from his own committee with a majority of its members from his own party. At the very least, we can say this is a different approach.

And what does clause 96.1 say? It says:

96.1 The Privacy Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.

The purpose of the amendment we proposed, which the committee accepted, was to ensure that Nav Canada would protect personal information on personnel and clients, just as if the government were still responsible for all air navigation services.

My colleague on the other side says there are other corporations, such as the CN, that are not subject to the Privacy Act; but by saying this, he is giving me other arguments. He says there are entities created by the government which no longer have the same obligations as before privatization. These government creations are now private sector corporations. Yes, but they took on responsibilities for public services and, as such, they should give the public the same services the government was providing before. It is clear, it is only logical. But they have forgotten all about that on the other side.

The fundamental principle is this: it is unacceptable for a government creation to reduce services to the public when this creation is a private corporation serving the public. It is inappropriate to create such screens.

My colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, said it again this morning, there is a stunning parallel between ADM, another government creation which manages the Montreal airports, and this corporation which is being created so that the public will not have access to information concerning the studies on which ADM based its decision. You can be for or against the decision, that is not the point. The point is that the public has the right to know about the studies used by ADM. Our offices requested those studies, but the request was turned down because this organization is under no obligation to provide them.

What we have here is a deliberate attempt, on the part of the government, to hide behind corporations which act as screens, allowing it to dodge responsibilities it had before they were created.

I now come to the argument that, as Mr. Philips is reported to have said, what should be changed is the Privacy Act. If this argument was logical, Liberals would have applied it in the bill we are discussing today. Yet, in that bill, what do we see? We see a section that we agree with, but that contradicts the principle just mentioned.

Section 96 says:

1. The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.

This is excellent but, if it is valid for the Official Languages Act, why is not valid for the Privacy Act? Why do we not say: "The Official Languages Act will not apply to Nav Canada, so we are going to amend the Official Languages Act". That is not what the bill says.

All of the sudden, we are told: "As for the protection of privacy, it is not the same, it is the Privacy Act that has to be amended". This does not make any sense.

The result of all this, and I will conclude here, is that we understand perfectly what the federal government is up to. It is transferring public property currently under the management of the federal Minister of Transport to Nav Canada, and then will hide behind Nav Canada in order to withhold important information from the public.

Such an approach goes against the transparency the government as a whole is bragging about, and its effort to defeat our amendment, which was accepted by the committee and rejected by the minister, shows I am not making a case based on assumptions, but on facts.

The Liberals want to use their majority in the House to defeat an amendment that was passed in committee, because they know a majority of Liberal members will vote as the government tells them to, without even knowing what this is about. And they call that democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague opposite was getting ready to speak, but he was getting ready to leave.

Since this is both the report and second reading stage, I would like to broaden the debate and deal with a point which seems to be well covered in a clause, but which is nevertheless a cause for great concern. That point is whether the Official Languages Act will apply to the new air navigation services corporation, Nav Canada.

Air navigation services have been under the jurisdiction-actually, they still are, as long as Nav Canada is not operational-of Transport Canada, a government department. Despite this direct link between air navigation services and the government, Quebecers working in the air transportation industry had to put up a great big fight to be able to use French in planes, control towers, and air control services.

This is a cause for great concern. If they had to fight so hard when air navigation services were under the government, how can we be sure Nav Canada will abide by the Official Languages Act? The former minister told us Nav Canada would be covered by the act, and that the bill says so, but how can we trust him?

Even after the Official Languages Act was put in force, we had to wage a great fight. I remember the part the late Roger Demers played in this fight for the right to work in French in the air transportation industry in Quebec. It took years, even if the Official Languages Act was in force and if we were dealing with the government.

Those opposed claimed that disasters would result if French was used in air navigation services. As if as soon as they entered Quebec air space, all the planes would have crashed simply because French could be used to communicate.

Roger Demers and the Association des gens de l'air fought some very important battles over this issue and the use of French in the air, and that battle is far from over.

This was such a major event in the history of Quebec that the Association des gens de l'air has created two awards to commemorate the battle French speaking Canadians had to fight. Every year, the Association des gens de l'air presents to an individual who has distinguished himself or herself in the air industry the Roger Demers Award and the BILCOM, which is short for "bilingualism communication".

These people remember perfectly the battle they had to fight and that is still going on.

At this point in my speech, I would like to read part of a letter my colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and I wrote to the Minister of Transport in April, 1994. Part of this letter concerned the issue of services in French, and I quote: "After Canadian air control is centralized, only one of the nine air control centres, the Montreal regional air control centre, will be French, that is, one centre for 7 million people, while the ratio for English speaking persons will be one for 2.6 million". How can Quebecers accept these figures?

The letter goes on: "It is not surprising, then, that the Îles-de-la-Madeleine are served by the Moncton regional control centre, usually in English unless a pilot demands to be served in French, in which case the control tower leaves him on standby at the end of the runway. He will sometimes have to wait up to ten minutes to get his instructions in French.

"It is in this context also that we should look into why Transport Canada is so offensively slow to bilingualize the Ottawa terminal control unit". We are, of coure, talking about the Ottawa airport here.

"Indeed, for the last five years-this letter was written in 1994-Transport Canada has been trying to make this terminal control unit bilingual, but in vain. For the umpteenth time, it has been announced that this service will be available as of May 1, 1994". It was still not to be on that day, since it was postponed to May 26, 1994, that is, more than five years after it was promised.

I will continue with the letter, and I am talking here about the use of French: "It also relevant that, in this part of our discussion on French services, we take a look at the airports that you, Transport Canada, have decided to exempt from centralization, namely Ottawa and Calgary". These two airports have kept their terminal control units, whereas many cities lost theirs, including Quebec City.

"Until now, in justifying these two exceptions, you always referred to the traffic density and complexity of the Ottawa and Calgary airports".

Traffic density and complexity are just excuses. We believe the real reason is totally different. Ottawa being the capital of Canada, Transport Canada knew that, some day, air traffic control in Ottawa would have to become bilingual. However, to think that the Toronto area control centre could become bilingual was an aberration. And to think that air traffic control for the Ottawa airport could be done from Montreal was hardly more acceptable for Transport Canada officials.

So Transport Canada used another kind of logic to solve the problem. It was determined that the Calgary airport was busy enough and complex enough to warrant the maintenance of its terminal control unit. Then, Transport Canada concluded that Ottawa was similar to Calgary in this sense. Therefore, it had just found a way to justify its decision. But, in reality, it is the old battle of French in the air that justified the maintenance of the terminal control units in Ottawa and Calgary.

If you look at-and this is something that is even more insulting to francophones-Order No. 4 from Transport Canada and read section 3 of that document, you will see that the title of section 3 is "Interdiction". Not tolerance, but "Interdiction".

The section reads as follows: "Unless otherwise provided in section 4, 5 or 6, anyone operating an aeronautical radio station in Canada shall not exchange advisory services or air traffic control services in a language other than English".

This order was issued on May 29, 1980, therefore after the battle fought by the Association des gens de l'air, after nearly 10 years of applying the Official Languages Act, and it is still not allowed. Obviously, the exceptions in section 4 apply to airports located in Quebec. This means that, outside Quebec, francophones wishing to speak French with other francophones, a francophone pilot wishing to speak with a francophone air traffic controller in Toronto, Moncton or Halifax, is not entitled to do so. And that was by authority of Transport Canada, in other words the government.

Just because Bill C-20 says that the Official Languages Act will be applied, how can we be sure that French will be protected in the air? That seems to me to be an extremely important point. I have the impression that workers in the aviation sector in Quebec will have to remain extremely vigilant. However, as the responsibilities are being transferred to a non-profit agency, I think that future battles will be all the more difficult. They will require even greater effort.

I will conclude on this note. There was one nice thing in Order No. 4. It said that, in the event of an emergency, two francophone pilots could perhaps speak to each other in French in Canada's air space, but only in an emergency.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as several of my colleagues have said, the Bloc Quebecois subscribes to the principles of Bill C-20 concerning the commercialization of civil air navigation services. Its objectives of efficiency, cost effectiveness, lowered operating costs, are praiseworthy ones, and we acknowledge them as such.

The reason we have reached the report stage, which is moreover the purpose of the exercise, is that we want to improve this bill. If we listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, however, it would appear that all of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are useless. He has said that ten times or more since the beginning of the debate. I hope he has not reached the stage of considering the official opposition useless. My purpose in speaking will, therefore, be to convince him that Group No. 5 of our amendments is not useless.

Motion No. 25 introduced by the Liberal government aims at removing section 96.1 of the bill as amended by the transport committee. This provision was added on the recommendation of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. Members will recall that members from the three political parties, The Bloc, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party voted for this amendment in committee.

I find the Liberals' about-face at the report stage rather astounding, because they are trying to exclude Nav Canada from the application of the Privacy Act. The Liberal government may claim that the Privacy Act has to be amended so that it can apply to Nav Canada.

Yet, Liberals thought it was important to include the following provision in section 96 of Bill C-20:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.

Then why, in that case, did the government not consider it necessary to amend the Official Languages Act instead? This is a double standard.

This government is acting contrary to the spirit of openness it so often brags about.

It is transferring to Nav Canada public assets under the responsibility of the federal Department of Transports, in order to escape its obligation to inform the public, claimming that this corporation is a private service. This government is not acting properly by using an agency as a screen to avoid providing information that the public has a right to expect from a public agency.

The attitude of the Liberal government on this issue is disappointing, disconcerting and even demoralizing. As I said earlier, members of all parties supported this provision in committee. Today, the Liberals intend to use their majority in the House to defeat an amendment carried in committee. It is a pity that a majority of Liberal members will vote with the government, without being aware of the whys and therefores of Motion No. 25. One has to wonder why committee members bother.

Simply put, with Motion No. 25, the federal government is shirking its responsibilities with regard to openness, integrity and respect for the public it must inform. Needless to say, the Bloc Quebecois is firmly opposed to this motion.

In conclusion, I would like to say a couple of words regarding the comments made a little while ago by the parliamentary secretary, who would like to avoid putting the privatization process on hold because other corporations such as the CN and the CBC are not subject to the Privacy Act, so Nav Canada should not be subject to it either. This is the same as saying that it is important for this government to repeat past errors. This is a strange way to govern.

Finally, Motion No. 26, in Group 5, is presented by the Bloc Quebecois for the sake of consistency with clause 96.1. It amends the Schedule to the Privacy Act so that Nav Canada is added to the list of institutions covered by the act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

A recorded division on Motion No. 25 stands deferred.

Normally at this point the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions of the report stage of the bill. However, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, May 27 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Standards Council Of Canada Act

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the main motion.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are calling Bill C-4 at second reading stage, when there is only five minutes left to debate this issue. I think that, with the unanimous consent of the House to recognize that the time for consideration of government orders has expired, we could move on to private members' business. We would not want to vote on this matter today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Private Members' Business begins in five minutes, as the hon. member pointed out.

I asked if anyone wanted to participate in this debate and no one stood up.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to rise on debate but, since there is only five minutes left to start a speech to be completed in 10 days, do you not think this would make for a lack of continuity between the two parts of the speech?

That is why I request the consent of the House to postpone this debate until our return.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I did put the question. I asked if anyone wished to speak and no one stood up. The question has been put and it is too late for debate now, unless the government side gives consent. I therefore refer to the government whip.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to challenge, nor could I, the Chair in its ruling. I understand you have made a decision. Let me confer with my colleague across the way. If on the day we come back we decide something on our own we can always, by unanimous consent, change that which is already decided by Mr. Speaker today. However, Mr. Speaker has made a ruling and I do not think it is appropriate for us to change it at this point. If anything different is to occur we certainly can confer among ourselves as members of Parliament and seek that unanimous consent if it is in order.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was and am prepared to speak on this bill. However, when you were asking for speakers I was fumbling for my ear piece to get the translation and I did not understand what you were saying. By the time I got it in you had acknowledged there was no speakers.

I apologize for that and I ask if you might seek unanimous consent of the House for me to speak on this bill.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not dispute the fact that the debate on Bill C-20 has been concluded. Unlike my friend from the Reform Party, I think that you have called the vote and that the matter is closed. What we are seeking is the unanimous consent of this House to debate the next bill on the agenda upon our return from the parliamentary break.