House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was safety.

Topics

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

Oral question period started early today.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member for Vaudreuil, the Chihuahua for Vaudreuil to go bark outside the House? I cannot concentrate, I cannot even hear myself.

What I wanted to say-

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Dear colleagues, I ask you to listen more carefully to what members from both sides have to say, so that each of you can have his or her turn. The hon. member for Vaudreuil will have his turn presently.

In fact, the hon. member for Vaudreuil can have the floor immediately after the member who is now talking, if he wishes so.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I think I mentioned Hamilton East. There will probably be a member from another party after the byelection of June 17. I apologize to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, whose riding is Hamilton West.

This legislative measure provides the legal framework to transfer Canada's air navigation services from Transport Canada to Nav Canada, a non profit corporation incorporated under part II of the Canada Corporations Act.

I want to say from the outset that the official opposition is not opposed to the sale of air navigation services to Nav Cananada, for an amount of $1.5 billion. However, we are most concerned about safety. Through the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc Quebecois wants to ensure that the safety of passengers, airline personnel and the public has priority over all other considerations in business decisions made by Nav Canada.

Those interested in this privatisation of ANS will not be surprised by the position of the Bloc today. Right from the start, members knew where we stood. As the official opposition, we do not have a reputation for flip-flopping like the government, which changes its position at every whim of the electorate. The Bloc Quebecois has always had a consistent position on this matter.

Right from the start, official opposition members have tried to convince the government and Nav Canada that the security and the interest of the public should come before the commercial interest of Nav Canada. This will now be a private corporation which will not necessarily have the public interest as its top priority. Its first goal will be its own viability.

Unfortunately, in our capitalist system, commercial interest sometimes takes precedence over other considerations, particularly in air navigation security.

Amendments by the Bloc were discussed in committee and at report stage, and we tried to have this principle recognized. But the Liberal majority has stubbornly refused to move, and all our amendments have been rejected. Through the parliamentary secretary, this same Liberal majority wants to stifle our opposition and limit our excellent speeches.

Today, we are leading a final attack against this bill to make sure the security of passengers, of air carriers and of the general public take precedence over any effort to better serve private interests. But the government is turning a deaf ear.

On May 29, in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Hamilton West, bluntly admitted that the sale of ANS to Nav Canada would bring in an amount of $1.5 billion to be applied to reduction of the federal deficit. That seemed to justify the swift passage of the bill.

The Bloc does not challenge that amount, but I raise question for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. Is the air navigation system really worth $1.5 billion? It is part of the Canadian heritage, the heritage of Quebec's and Canada's taxpayers. Is this a botched up sale, a garage sale, a bankruptcy sale? To some extent, taxpayers' money is being squandered. As far as we know, this air navigation control system was paid for with the taxes of Quebecers and Canadians.

Quebecers pay $30 billion in taxes to Canada every year. When the federal government invests money in our province, I hope it does not think it is giving us a gift. When senior citizens get their pension cheques with a maple leaf in the corner, they should not think the federal government is giving them a gift. This is their own money they are receiving.

The parliamentary secretary swept the safety issue under the rug when he said: "Safety will continue to have the highest priority for Transport Canada", said the parliamentary secretary and member for Hamilton West. "Safety regulations will be in place before ANS is transferred. Transport Canada will monitor and enforce compliance with these regulations as it does now in the case of airlines".

I continue to quote: "The Aeronautics Act which sets out the regulatory framework to maintain the safety and integrity of the aviation industry will continue to prevail. I point out to Bloc members, said the parliamentary secretary, that the Aeronautics Act will prevail over the ANS Act."

The parliamentary secretary answered "by the book", as we say back home. He urges us not to think that our safety is at risk. In other words, he implies that we tend to be a bit paranoid, since we always worry about accidents. But we have good reason to worry. I must tell the parliamentary secretary that he is known for his arrogance and his lack of understanding.

I recall vividly the day the Coalition to save the Quebec City bridge came here to present its brief-the parliamentary secretary is about to rise to say that I am getting off the NavCan issue. I just want to remind him of what he said during the debate over the privatisation of CN Rail, when a request was made to exclude the Quebec City bridge, which is part of world heritage. He stated that the government was not about to start saving every small structure at the end of a country road.

He compared the Quebec City bridge, something the residents of the Quebec region take pride in, to a small structure at the end of a country road. That is what the parliamentary secretary said when he was-

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the record, I said no such thing.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think that is a point of debate. The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, we will speak of motion No. 15 amending clause 32 of the bill so that charges may be imposed to the Department of National Defence or a user in respect of a state aircraft of a foreign country.

We know that small air carriers have already proposed that charges be imposed to the National Defence. Is it normal, realistic or even acceptable that, in 1996, National Defence has a $10.8 billion budget paid with taxpayers' money while there is no more war threat, the cold war is over, and there is detente all over the world? The generals, National Defence employees act like a government inside the government. Is it normal that National Defence does not have to pay for its aircraft? This would be a good point to develop when the parliamentary secretary speaks a little later. We will ask him if he finds that acceptable.

Here is the position of the Bloc Quebecois. According to the Bloc, it is unfair that carriers pay for the services provided to National Defence; if clause 32(2) is not amended, it will still allow for hidden spending by National Defence. The Bloc Quebecois has always asked for the reduction of military spending. Therefore, it is important to know what the real cost of military spending.

Moreover, and this is the ultimate argument, private air carriers should not have to pay for National Defence.

I could also mention another example and ask for more information from the parliamentary secretary when he speaks on Bill C-20. Can the government guarantee that services in French will be

maintained over the Quebec territory and the Ottawa territory, which is officially bilingual, when this bill is implemented?

I already know what the parliamentary secretary will answer me. Later, when he comments, maybe he will say that, pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-20, the Official Languages Act will still be in force. We will have to see whether the provisions of this act will apply to Nav Canada's operations, to its corporate headquarters, its administrative services and the regional control centres. But can the parliamentary secretary ensure us that the Francophones in Quebec who, in 1975-1976, won the fight of the Association des Gens de l'Air du Québec, gained the right for a francophone pilot to speak to a francophone air traffic controller in the language they both choose?

What I am explaining could look like an aberration and might seem stupid, but before the fight of these people in 1975, it was totally and specifically forbidden for Francophones to have a conversation in French, for instance between someone in the cockpit and someone in the control tower or at a regional control centre. It was an aberration.

I would like to hear more about this, because this is one of the concerns of the Bloc Quebecois. With the cost-effectiveness requirements, maybe nothing would prevent the closure of all regional control centres and the transfer of their operations to a large commercial centre, for instance in Mississauga, in Ontario, which would control the entire air corridor in Canada. To make the operations cost-effective, maybe services in French would be reduced.

It may seem like an aberration that two Francophones were not allowed to speak French in the field of aviation. But I would remind you that pilots flying over the lower North Shore and the Magdalen Islands, which are part of Quebec, cannot get services in French. Why not? Because the services are offered by the Moncton area control centre, which is officially bilingual, but cannot offer services in French.

When an Air Alliance pilot is ready to take off at the end of the Magdalen Islands airstrip and asks for services in French, he gets this answer: "Please wait, we will give you the services as soon as possible". In the meantime, his engines are running and fuel is burned.

The Air Alliance supervisor wants his pilot to think of cost effectiveness. The pilots of Air Alliance and Inter-Canadien, Quebec's regional carriers, as well as Air Satellite and others are conscientious and want their company to succeed. But when they are being asked to wait 5, 7 or 9 minutes and their engines are running, they know they are wasting fuel and adding to costs. I would like to know if, with this bill, we will be able to get services in French in the whole territory of Quebec, like the government promised.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that my time has expired. I could also have mentioned that no one will represent the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens on Nav Canada's board, but some of my colleagues will do so. Our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, was trained as a pilot. He is not only young, he is a pilot, so he knows what he is talking about. I could have spoken about it, but unfortunately my time has expired.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Hamilton West Ontario

Liberal

Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. He has been a hard working member of the Standing Committee on Transport which I had the privilege to chair for the last two and half years. The member has moved on to another area and his energy and effervescence is certainly missed at the committee.

The hon. member addressed three points on which I would like to touch. The first is safety. Safety has always been priority one for Transport Canada. It must be clear to members of the Bloc that Bill C-20 clearly establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act and sets up appropriate linkages to that act.

The Aeronautics Act, which looks after all the safety concerns of anything in that flies in this country, has demonstrated that it has been able to ensure the safe passage of men, women and children on aircraft.

I do not think the hon. member can stand here and say that Canada has a disastrous policy on aeronautics which is resulting in crashes of aircraft. He must admit that the Aeronautics Act has done the job well for our country and for the air carriers.

The member says that when Nav Canada takes over that Canada's air navigation system the role the government plays will somehow be unplugged from the process. Nothing could be farther from the truth, particularly when it comes to the safety of the system. The government has a number of other roles to play on an ongoing basis.

The Minister of Transport is likely to be involved in the approval of charges during the first two years when NavCan introduces its full complement of user charges.

The minister has the final say when there are disagreements among users, that is, provincial or territorial governments. Specifically, when it comes to safety, the economy and accountability, the government took great care to establish a framework with Nav Canada upfront. With Bill C-20 the contractual agreements that have been entered into with Nav Canada are there, transparent, open to the public through its bylaws and letters patent.

If I had a question for the hon. member opposite after that comment it would be to ask him what specific measure would the Bloc suggest that would, if not already incorporated in the Aeronautics Act, be better or more clear than the Aeronautics Act itself which protects and ensures the safe passage of men, women and children in aircraft in this country?

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the former chairman of the transport committee for his kind words. He asked what specific measures the Bloc would like to see included in the bill to guarantee the safety aspect. I repeat that if he reads motion number one carefully, he will notice that its sole purpose is to mention in the preamble that the safety of passengers, air carrier personnel and the public has priority over all other considerations in the decisions made by NAV CANADA.

I will simply say to the parliamentary secretary that since he states that he and the government are devoted to safety, he should admit it is not superfluous to have legislative clauses that give supplementary guarantees in terms of air safety. If he considers that that aspect is covered by the Aeronautics Act, I do not see why the government opposes so categorically the fact that we want to reinforce safety and introduce a statement to that effect in the preamble of the bill. That does not represent a threat at all. Everybody here is in favour of the safety of passengers and personnel. Just include it in the preamble of the bill and there will be no problem.

I wonder why the hon. members opposite are so afraid of us. There is no threat. Our motion would only confirm the safety considerations in the preamble of the bill.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphan Tremblay Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, regarding his very eloquent remarks.

Furthermore, I am 100 per cent in agreement with his thoughts on defence. Why should small carriers, who are struggling, have to foot the bill, when the Armed Forces, with their huge budgets, their hours of F-18 training sometimes estimated as costing $20,000 an hour, and I am not exaggerating, would not even be asked to pay for the air navigation services they use.

I think my colleague raised a very good point here. Before asking my question, I would like to go back briefly over the earlier debate regarding ATAC. Earlier, we heard that small carriers were going to be very well represented on Nav Canada's board, because of the fact that ATAC represented Air Canada as well as the small carrier in my riding.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that we know that what drives the world nowadays is money. I would point out that ATAC, the Air Transport Association of Canada, gets approximately 80 per cent of its funding from large carriers. So if you think that the small carrier in my riding, when he wants to have his say, will ask the president of ATAC if he would mind lowering user charges, or keeping the DME or VOR service in his sector, or whatever, I am sceptical. The president of ATAC will wonder what his contribution to funding is. He will not say it out loud, of course, but he will think it. There is every reason to be worried.

The other point that was also mentioned earlier was ATAC's interest in preserving the use of French. I could tell you that when people spoke to us about ATAC's use of French, all that was bilingual was the letterhead. That was all. Apart from that, all its articles of incorporation were in English.

So I think we have good reason to have certain doubts about the quality of French or about bilingualism in this area.

I would like to put a question to my colleague, with whom I was discussing this issue a few moments ago, about his concerns regarding French in aviation.

I have over 1,000 hours flown as a professional pilot. When we talk about navigation assistance services, assistance is really the key word. When it is nice and sunny on a Sunday afternoon, it is not so bad because there is no problem. But when the ceiling gets low and weather conditions become difficult, when you start to worry and find yourself in trouble, that is when you really need navigation assistance. I can tell you that it is serious. That is where this issue becomes relevant. When you start to get nervous in the cockpit and you have to speak English on top of that, it becomes dangerous.

I would like my colleague to talk about his concerns regarding the use of French in aviation in Quebec and in the Ottawa area.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, before responding specifically to the question, I would like to simply reinforce what my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has said concerning National Defence.

Often, the past is an indication of what the future holds. Reference is made to concerns about military spending. As you know, there was publicity over the case, a month and a half or two months ago, of an F-18 pilot based at Cold Lake using his aircraft at the taxpayers' expense to go see his fiancee in Phoenix, Arizona. Imagine, National Defence refuses to even pay for the air traffic control system, yet its pilots can fly around as they please. This one can go say hello to his fiancee at taxpayers' expense. What sheer nonsense.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

She must be good looking!

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Yes she may be pretty, I have no idea.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Love is blind.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Love is certainly blind.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

So is the government.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Yes, so is the government, as my colleague says.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Love knows no borders.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Second, as for small carriers, I have an example in mind. In Lac-Saint-Jean riding, there is a small but dynamic airline called Air Alma. It has a counter at Dorval and is capable of holding its own against any major charter carrier. And why is it able to be competitive? Because it is a flexible operation, one whose employees like the company, like their jobs, and are capable of giving something back in return.

Yet, if they are deprived of revenue, it is like depriving them of oxygen. How then can small carriers like Air Alma survive in the marketplace?

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

Is there unanimous consent to extend the hon. member's time?

Is there unanimous consent to give the member more time to give his answer?

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

An hon. member

Agreed.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member has one more minute to speak, two minutes at the most.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.

I might also have talked about the RAM radar tracking system. Will it be very effective when it is given over to Nav Canada? The RAM system was not effective, and I have an example for you. Twice last year, they lost the government's air ambulance, which was on a mercy flight in the North. They lost it on the radar screen.

I could also give the example of the Bernières radar system in suburban Quebec City, which was tracking a plane. At one point, the screen indicated that the plane had made a sharp 180 degree turn. What happened? The RAM system had stopped following the plane it was tracking and had picked up a flock of geese flying 10,000 feet below and in the opposite direction.

Imagine how safe it is in tracking a plane.

In closing, I have one final point to make about French in the air. I am very concerned that, as a cost cutting measure, they will say all pilots are bilingual and able to provide service in English, to the detriment of French.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the question the parliamentary secretary asked my colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans earlier could not have come at a better time. He asked him what steps the Bloc Québécois would suggest today for improving the Aeronautics Act in order to improve air safety. My speech also could not come at a better time because I am going to address air safety.

Bill C-20, which we are debating today at third reading, provides for the creation of a business corporation called Nav Canada. This bill deals first and foremost with the commercialization of civil air navigation services.

In other words, the government has decided to sell to Nav Canada the air navigation system and to entrust it with its management. As we repeatedly pointed out during this debate, the official opposition is not against selling the air navigation system to Nav Canada for an estimated $1.5 billion, apparently. This government decision, whose merits we recognize, is based on objectives of efficiency, cost effectiveness and less costly operations.

However, we are dismayed by the fact that none of the amendments proposed by the opposition parties have been retained. Worse, an important amendment regarding the Privacy Act passed by the transport committee-where, as we know, the Liberals have a majority-has been eliminated from Bill C-20 by the same Liberal government. In other words, never mind the committees.

As my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, critic for transports, put it so well, we swung like a pendulum, from one extreme to the other, not stopping in the middle. Yet, the government could have struck the appropriate balance, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport might think, by conducting an objective review of the proposals and amendments presented by the members of his own party.

Citizens who are interested in the privatization of navigation services will not be surprised to hear today the Bloc Quebecois remind the government of a basic aspect of this bill that, unfortunately, it neglected. Through the amendment of my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc Quebecois would like the government to acknowledge the fact that security of passengers, personnel and the general public must take precedence at Nav Canada.

We must not forget that, at the very beginning, the official opposition tried to have the government and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take precedence over Nav Canada's financial interests.

Several amendments of the Bloc were debated in committee and in this House at the report stage to have this principle recognized. Each time, we came up against the Liberal majority.

Yet, in matters of air transport, security is certainly a number one consideration. The parliamentary secretary bluntly admitted, on May 29, that the sale of the air navigation system would be, and I quote, "a $1.5 billion contribution to reducing the federal deficit".

Would this claim be sufficient to justify speedy passage of Bill C-20? The parliamentary secretary tried to reassure us by once again avoiding the safety issue. "Safety will continue to have the highest priority for Transport Canada". He repeated that earlier today.

Safety regulations will be in place before ANS is transferred. Transport Canada will monitor and enforce compliance with these regulations as it does now in the case of airlines. The Aeronautics Act which sets out the regulatory framework to maintain the safety and integrity of the aviation industry will prevail. I point out to members of the Bloc that it will prevail over the ANS Act.

I listened with great interest to these words of the parliamentary secretary. I understand that Transport Canada established some safety rules and standards that will apply to the new corporation and that operations will be controlled so that these rules and standards are properly observed. The government statements might seem reassuring. But, in spite of the rhetoric and the good intentions of the parliamentary secretary, as far as I know, safety standards are not mentioned in the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that, given all the commercial decisions being made by Nav Canada, the only way to ensure safety would be to state, in the bill, that safety will remain priority number one. That is the principle we want to assert when we say that the public's safety comes before a private corporation's profits.

Unfortunately, it seems the government has already decided what priority will be given to safety in air transport. Furthermore, I feel that it is just stone deaf to what we are saying. The only thing it hears is the ring of the deficit cash register. All we can hope is that it will not be awakened by some unfortunate event caused by its lack of responsibility.

In conclusion, I would like to point out another aspect of the bill I find unfair. As my young colleague spoke about it at some length, I will be very brief. I believe that the new corporation, Nav Canada, must make sure that those who are poorly or not represented on the board, such as small carriers and the aviation sector as a whole, are not discriminated against.

The newest children must not be put at a disadvantage. NAVCAN did not respect the wish of small carriers, and only major carriers have a representative on the board. For example, nobody will represent the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, as my new colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean so wisely pointed out. This is another sad reality endorsed by a government in a hurry to get rid of the Canadian air navigation system.

The Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill as it stands because of its many significant flaws including-as I stressed at some length-the one regarding safety. For these reasons, I will support the amendment moved by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Laval East has emphasized, quite rightly so, the issue of safety in air transportation. I would like to come back to the issue that has just been dealt with two or three times in a row relating to the preamble we would have liked to see in the bill and which some say is unnecessary since there is the Aeronautics Act, on the one hand, and on the other, the government controls safety issues.

In fact, would it not have been logical to express the very spirit of the legislation in its preamble? This is a private company that has to provide a public service, just like ADM. I find the explanations given by my colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau totally justified, because of this comparison.

It is quite justified to express right at the very start the spirit of this legislation, the spirit in which it must be interpreted later on, in order to stress the public service role of this private company and the primacy of public services over mercantile interests. We do not see why the government refused to express this very legitimate concern in the preamble.