Debates of June 4th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

With respect to the 25 per cent withholding provision contained in the Canada-U.S.A. tax treaty on pensions paid by United States sources to Canadians, what has the Government of Canada determined to be ( a ) the total number of resident Canadians who are subject to the withholding provisions of this treaty, ( b ) the total number of resident native Canadians who are subject to the withholding provisions of this treaty, and ( c ) the section of the treaty which allows for different application of its provisions to native and non-native Canadians who are recipients of pensions from U.S. sources?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

This question is assumed to relate to the income tax treatment of cross-border social security benefits, rather than to the taxation of pensions generally.

Based on figures provided by the United States Government, the total number of residents of Canada receiving U.S. social security benefits is estimated to be about 81,000. It should be noted that this figure may include persons temporarily in Canada and others who would not be considered residents of Canada for income tax purposes. It also includes recipients who are U.S. citizens, and who are thus liable to U.S. tax on all of their income. The number of

recipients is thus significantly greater than the number who are subject to U.S. withholding tax.

No information is available as to the number of native Canadians who receive U.S. social security benefits. The Canada-United States Income Tax Convention does not make any special provision for native Canadians. The convention would probably not preclude the United States from choosing, as a matter of internal policy, to provide more favourable treatment to native Canadians than to other Canadians. The Government of Canada is not aware of the United States having implemented any such policy.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from Wednesday, May 29, consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will use the last five minutes allotted to me to summarize what I said previously.

My colleague's amendment will be dealt with by other members. As for me, I prefer to focus on Bill C-20 itself. I will address two questions: what will happen, and what I fear from this bill.

For those who are not familiar with this bill, it concerns the privatization of air navigation services, which will imply additional costs. The users of air services and air navigation services will foot the bill.

I am ready to admit that we must all tighten our belts, considering the state of public finances. However, I fear something that I will share with you.

The Nav Canada committee was created to set a fee schedule for all types of carriers. What I fear is that small carriers will be forgotten. We know perfectly well that a $1 increase in fares means a $1 loss in sales for small carriers.

This could have a very negative impact on the regions. I am talking here about small carriers who employ mechanics, baggage handlers, receptionists and pilots who play an important part in a region's economy.

Businessmen and women often have to go to Montreal or Quebec on business. I speak for my region of course, but it is the same in other remote regions in the rest of Canada. If ever they impose a fee structure that is too high for small carriers, I fear that some of them will not survive. I can tell you they already have a hard time, because of the small number of passengers.

I will never try hard enough to convince the government that the Nav Canada committee must establish a good fee schedule so that big carriers will pay just as much as small ones, if not more, because they are probably in a better position to do so.

This sums up my concerns and I think they are justified since there are no Quebecers on the Nav Canada committee. Time will tell if I am right.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services, at third reading.

Since 1994, the Bloc Quebecois' position has been pretty much the same. The principle of privatization has always been acceptable to us, but we question how it is being applied. With the creation of Nav Canada, a not for profit organization, profitability obviously becomes the main concern. The objective of the Bloc Quebecois is to put the safety of passengers, staff, air carriers and the public ahead of any other consideration when business decisions are made by Nav Canada.

As I mentioned in the speech I gave in this House on this bill on May 17, this corporation bears a striking resemblance to ADM, a corporation which is not for profit and has no capital stock. For those who do not know it, ADM means Montreal airports, namely Mirabel and Dorval.

On August 1, 1992, ADM signed a lease with Transport Canada giving it the mandate to manage, run and develop Dorval and Mirabel airports. ADM is headed by a board of seven directors representing businesses in metropolitan Montreal-when I say metropolitan Montreal, I should really be saying Montreal, because there is only one director from the Lower Laurentians on the board-and by a CEO appointed by the seven agencies making up SOPRAM, the body responsible for promoting Montreal airports.

Mirabel airport is located in my riding, and I am very concerned by ADM's decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval. This

decision is a source of grave concern for me as we are wondering about the safety of passengers, staff, air carriers and the public at large. The CESAMM, a wide coalition in support of Montreal-Mirabel airport, has voiced its opposition to ADM's decision to transfer international flights from Mirabel to Dorval.

Even the Quebec transport minister, Jacques Brassard, disapproves of ADM's decision. He said that the arguments presented by ADM since it made this decision have many flaws.

According to Mr. Brassard, the Quebec government noted "no environmental impact assessment for the long and medium terms, making it impossible to judge this aspect of the issue". Second, he points out how uncertain the new future reserved for Mirabel is. He says that "a study conducted in 1994 by SNC-Lavalin for the Quebec transport department concluded that the lack of profitability of general freight services shows that the development of air freight strategies cannot be based on this sector. Analysis conducted by the MICST, the trade and industry department, yielded no decisive results regarding the impact in Canada of the free zone concept as suggested by ADM".

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I understand that what is being debated today is third reading of the transfer of Canada's air navigation system to Nav Canada.

The hon. member has spent the last five minutes talking about a whole different issue, the Aéroports de Montreal and the operations of Mirabel and Dorval. Quite frankly it is not on topic.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, as you know, it is always a problem for the Speaker if someone strays a little from the subject, but I am sure our colleague will get to the point very rapidly.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that I was making a comparison. I said so earlier.

This company strangely looks like ADM and that is why, of course, I allowed myself to talk about it here when dealing with the problem caused by the transfer of Mirabel flights to Dorval.

The distinction between regular and charter air services is diminishing so that a considerable reduction of charter activities at Mirabel cannot be excluded, which could put into question the airport's financial profitability. Several carriers that were consulted by the Department of Transportation pointed out they expected Mirabel to close sooner or later.

As a result of the Quebec government's position on this issue, ADM's chief executive officer responded in an article released in La Presse on Wednesday, May 29, and I quote: ``May I suggest to you that public hearings on this issue are not necessary, since the area has long been waiting for these undertakings and there is a wide consensus on this''.

Furthermore, Jacques Auger mentioned that the nature of the company's project was not subject to the assessment process provided for in each of the acts. Why? Because we are not enlarging Dorval airport, we will not increase its surface, we are not adding new runways, nor are we extending existing ones".

ADM's decision is a blatant lack of transparency, as would be the case for Nav Canada, because the people involved are still demanding public hearings. A second mistake should be avoided. The first one was made when the land around Mirabel was expropriated. Are we going to say once again to the people in my riding that it was another administrative error?

Bill C-20 must not be adopted, because it does not take into account the safety of the people concerned. A report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada lists the aeronautical incidents that occurred around Mirabel and Dorval between January 1, 1981 and May 10, 1996.

This report also deals with safety matters. It points out that, during the same period, 89 reportable incidents occurred at Mirabel as opposed to 284 at Dorval. It concludes by demonstrating that the number of accidents is 13 times higher at Dorval than at Mirabel.

Even if the percentage of fatal accidents is low, with over 60 million passengers passing through Canadian airports every year, one must not forget the impact of transferring flights to Dorval.

A group of citizens calling themselves "Citizens for Quality of Life" or CQV in French got together to oppose ADM's decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval, because it will increase the level of noise and pollution in neighbouring municipalities without really generating any economic benefits. These municipalities are Ville-Saint-Laurent, Dorval and Mount Royal.

Furthermore, this group decided to intervene through the judicial process. It disclosed new environmental studies that raise many questions. One of these studies was carried out by the firm of D'Aragon, Desbiens, Halde et Associés, which maintains that the studies on air quality published by ADM are incomplete. Two other studies were done by Rowan, Williams, Davies & Irwin, a Guelph-based engineering consulting firm with expertise-

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We are talking about transfer of air navigation services to a not for profit corporation called Nav Canada, not air pollution and noise pollution studies going on at Mirabel and Dorval.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is always grateful when a member on either side of this House stands up to point out that another member is out of order. I am asking for the co-operation of all hon. members, wherever they are sitting. It is the same problem on both sides. Could the hon. member please speak to the bill?

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on this. We must also ask ourselves questions about Nav Canada's goals. I would like to reiterate my position, and that of the Bloc Quebecois, which is that Bill C-20 should be defeated, as the sole purpose of establishing Nav Canada is profit and not public security.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the remarks made by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who I understand is a small aircraft pilot. He is aware of air navigation services and the level of safety that has always been priority one for Transport Canada.

I want to address his remarks and the remarks made by the member who followed. Frankly, the fears of the member regarding the issue of regionality and regional representation are unfounded.

The Bloc alleges small carriers will be forgotten when Canada's air navigation system moves to the not for profit corporation. There are no small carrier or major carrier seats on the Nav Canada board. There are four seats on the board that are appointed by the largest national association of Canadian air carriers, the Air Transportation Association of Canada, ATAC. ATAC draws its membership from carriers of all sizes, from Air Canada to the flying club the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean may represent.

It is interesting to note that among the initial four directors appointed by the Air Transportation Association of Canada is Mr. Iain Harris, the former president and CEO of AirBC. AirBC is not a big carrier. It is a regional carrier.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the member would resume his seat for a moment. I think it is unfair for a member to get up on questions or comments when we have moved on to another member. In this case the member for Lac-Saint-Jean has no opportunity to respond.

I therefore ask the hon. member to confine his comments or questions to the remarks given by the member who is able to respond.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish these Speaker's rulings were as stiff when we first rose on the point of order. I will address the direct concern of the hon. member who just spoke.

Bloc members have presented this argument at every reading and have focused their concerns on this bill in those two specific areas, regional representation on the board of Nav Canada and aspects of safety. Therefore my remark made to the hon. member who spoke previously was really more of a collective remark. We will probably get the assurance of the hon. member who will get up in a moment that is precisely what their focus is on those specific areas.

I have already addressed the small carrier-major carrier attitude the hon. member is putting forward vis-à-vis representation on the board, that there is representation. The hon. member is concerned about the small carrier and specific protection for the small carrier. Let us take a few examples of what is in Bill C-20 to protect the charging principles for small carriers.

Paragraph 35(1)(d) prohibits discrimination among Canadian carriers in terms of charges. This would rule out the use of quality discounts, for example, which would give a price break to the large carriers.

Paragraph 35(1)(e) requires a reasonable allocation of costs and a determination of charges for terminal and en route services. This would avoid any unjustified loading of costs into the cost base for terminal charges, which typically impact heavily on the smaller carriers making frequent landings and take-offs.

The legislation in committee was addressed point by point. Regrettably the hon. member who just spoke was not at committee. I hope the hon. member feels reassured at this point. Given that the bill deals with the Aeronautics Act which looks after safety in this sector and with Nav Canada, and given the assurances of the large and small carrier representation on the board, I hope he would have no problem with the legislation before us today.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address representation at this time, since my hon. colleague opposite raised the issue. We complained earlier about the fact that there were no representatives from Quebec on Nav Canada. I am now making the same complaint about ADM, or Aéroports de Montréal, including Dorval and Mirabel airports. On ADM's board, all members but one are from the Montreal business community, the only exception being a businessman from the Lower Laurentians region. That is why we are afraid that, when the time will come for these individuals to make a decision and choose one airport over another, it would only make sense that they would not go for Mirabel, the one in the Lower Laurentians.

At the time Mirabel was built, the intent was in fact to eventually all but close down Dorval. But then, in the 1980s, as a result of a certain lobby gaining great influence, flights were never transferred from Dorval to Mirabel, as originally planned, although Mirabel had been built for that very reason, after many West Island residents complained about the noise and pollution created around Dorval airport.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first wish to commend my colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau for his speech, even if it was interrupted twice by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

The hon. member for Hamilton West is a seasoned and experienced parliamentarian, who was elected in 1988, and he knows the procedure better than I do, because I am still a rookie. I was elected only in 1993.

I was very surprised to see the parliamentary secretary disturbing my colleague repeatedly during his speech, breaking his train of thought. I am astounded. Does this reflect the position of the government on this bill or on other bills? Is the government trying to deny opposition members their free and democratic right to express themselves in the House?

I am astounded. But I am also disappointed and surprised by the attitude of the hon. member for Hamilton West, because when I knew him, during the two and a half years that I was a member of the committee on transport, which he chaired, he was always respectful of differences. I wonder if he was told to give us a hard time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Back home, on île d'Orléans, this is called strong-arm tactics. Does the government want to use strong-arm tactics against the opposition?

Today, I take part in the debate at third reading-

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Stay on topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, could you please call the member for Hamilton West to order? He felt my colleague talked a little bit too much about the decision to close Mirabel and reroute flights to Dorval. I will ask him real questions. I will ask him questions on Bill C-20 and Nav Canada. I will raise specific questions and you will see the attitude of government members. The best is yet to come.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Good, come on.

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

So, I take part in the debate at third reading-