Jim Gouk

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised that the government member spoke to our motions in this group before the Reform Party had spoken, but I am glad he did.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra thinks we should not consult with provinces like British Columbia that he is from. He thinks we should not have any obligation to talk to the various users and beneficiaries, for example the Marine Advisory Board. He thinks that we should not talk to any of these people, that it would be time consuming. He is right. It would be a total waste of time because clearly the minister of oceans does not listen to anybody anyway.

The Reform Party believes in the user pay concept but it also believes in-and I think I have even heard a few Liberals use it-user pay, user say. That has not happened. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that they have no intention of changing their tune and giving the users any say or any input into the various fees and policies they come up with.

I am not a regular member of the committee that dealt with the matter but I sat in on a lot of the meetings. It was pretty clear what was being said by the users the government was pretending to consult with. They understood the user pay concept, the need for them to pay for the services they used, and they are to do that. However first they wanted to make sure they were paying a reasonable amount for it. They had no idea of the true costs of the coast guard.

They are prepared to pay for them but they should be implemented after an economic impact study to determine the real costs and how to bring them forward in a manner that does cripple the industry.

I have risen in the House several times and referred to the minister as the minister of oceans. I specifically and intentionally leave off fisheries. It is not the minister himself, but certainly the department has all but destroyed the east coast fisheries and many species over the years. Now it is doing a hell of a job of doing the same thing on the west coast. If the bill were implemented in an irresponsible and improperly thought out and possibly premature manner, it would do the same thing to the oceans the minister's department has done to the fisheries.

The Reform Party policy dealing with user pay has three basic concepts: first, the users should pay for what they use; second, they should only have to use those things they need; and, third, it should be on a commercially fair and reasonable basis.

With regard to the coast guard, it has not opened its books. We do not even know if it keeps books, in the regular concept of it. We do not know if there somewhere sits a coast guard as a business with a ledger showing its expenses, its revenues, where it spends money, where its costs are, and what it is doing to control costs. There is none of that. Nobody has opened the books.

The coast guard is saying: "Trust us. There is a lot of costs out there and you should pay them". Then it says: "We are even going to be real fair in implementing this. We are only going to charge you 20 per cent so how can you possibly object?"

If the 20 per cent represents 100 per cent or more of the reasonable costs of that portion of the service they are applying to cost recovery and to the marine users, perhaps they are paying too much.

The coast guard says this is something the users should be able to absorb without any harm. The minister says that yes, a study is need but he has done one. He has consulted with the Mariport group which stated in a report that the users are going to be able to accept the impact of this with no harm.

Why should we believe some of the other things we are being told if this is the justification the minister is using? The person from Mariport who did the report has recanted the entire report. The report found there would be no unbearable impact and that these costs could be absorbed based on the information the department supplied.

The department changed all of the parameters after the report came in. The department told the consultant it was going to do this, this and this, (a), (b) and (c). On the basis of that the department wanted a study done to see if it was feasible and absorbable by the users. The department then turned around after the fact and said it was going to scrap (a), modify (b), double (c) and add (d), (e), (f) and (g). The consultant said they were now looking at fees that were four times as much as what they were led to believe would be imposed when they did the study. There is no credibility at all in the ministry or in the minister in the way these fees have been introduced.

As far as an impact study, the minister has said there should be an economic impact study. That is a great idea. It is exactly what the users asked for so it seems they may be on line. The only problem is that the users said they needed to do an impact study to see how to implement this and the minister said something totally different. He said they were going to go ahead and implement it.

The minister's own notes state that they know there will be damage and problems; they know there will be loss of business to American shippers which is going to cause problems. He stated they are going to wait and see what kind of devastation the bill does on the industry and then do an economic impact study to see what they did wrong and how much damage it caused. That is a pretty backward way of approaching this.

Reform has a total of six amendments and the Bloc has two in this group. Contrary to what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said, we do not think it is unreasonable to consult with people. In fact, we are here as the representatives of people, at least that is what I and my colleagues in the Reform Party are here for. We did not get elected to be the rulers.

It is absolutely despicable that the Liberal Party says it should have no obligation to consult with the provinces that are impacted by this. It says it should have absolutely no requirement to talk to the marine advisory board which is supposed be the expert on this. It says it should have no obligation whatsoever to talk to the users who are going to be impacted by this. Given that the Liberals never listen when people do talk, I suppose they are trying to save the taxpayers money by not bothering with a process that they will end up ignoring.

Contrary to what the hon. member says, I implore members opposite to join with us in bringing in reasonable measures. We need measures that limit the powers of the minister and ministers who follow him in the future, that limit the powers of the government, and which make it necessary that we, the elected representatives of the people, must actually talk to the people so we know what it is they want us to represent.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject, both from citizens of Canada within my riding, one from the employees and their families of A.M. Ford in Trail, one from the employees and their families of Kalawsky GMC in Castlegar.

The petitioners point out the right to lease automobiles would provide unfair competitive advantage to Canada's banks because of their privileged access to consumer credit and loan funding as well as confidential bank-client financial records.

Auto leasing by banks would likely increase unemployment in local communities and effectively decrease, not increase, competitive options for Canadians.

They therefore call on the Government of Canada not to allow the Canada banking sector to get into the automobile leasing industry.

[Pearson International Airport, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Pearson Development Corporation was prepared to spend more than $800 million of private sector money renovating Canada's most essential airport. Instead what we got was a contract cancellation from the newly elected Liberal government. More than two years later, there is still no alternative development of those terminals under way.

Now that the Liberals have admitted in court that the developer's profits were not excessive, will they admit to the House that the real reason they cancelled the Pearson contract was to cover up more misspoken election rhetoric?

[Pearson International Airport, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for the last two years the Liberals' explanation for cancelling the Pearson airport development contract was that the developer's profits would have been excessive. Now the government has admitted that the potential profits were far from excessive. In fact, the Liberals in a court of law are stating that the developer would have lost money on Pearson.

Can the Minister of Transport please tell us which Liberal statement we should believe: the one which was made in the House that the developer would have made too much money, or the one which was made in a court of law that the developer would have gone broke?

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this bill. I think it is the best of all possible outcomes. That is not to say there are not some weaknesses and flaws in it. In honesty, what bill does not have something in it that could be improved?

I begin by making a few comments on the speeches by the Bloc members. I am sure these things were said with great sincerity. I noticed they member focused on various parts of Quebec. That is not unreasonable for a single province or regional party to do.

However, because I have a much broader spectrum, being the national transport critic, I have looked at the potential problems and concerns of the bill from a more national perspective.

Any time a change or something new is introduced it is only natural that it would make some people who are affected by it nervous. The member for the Bloc talked about no representation for airlines, even small airlines. He was speaking from Quebec's perspective, as he should.

Mr. Jenner is the head of a large airline organization in Quebec, representing mostly small airlines, the very people the member was concerned about. I am sure the member knows Mr. Jenner was offered a seat on the board of directors of Nav Canada and turned it down. Also, the head of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, small aircraft operators, was offered a seat on the board of directors of Nav Canada and turned it down.

I would not want him to leave the impression that Nav Canada is trying to bully these small companies and have a little clique of selected people. That is not the case.

The member also mentioned there would be no public consultation if Nav Canada decided it wanted to take a particular piece of equipment out of an airport and move it elsewhere. I do not know of any procedure that requires Transport Canada to have public consultation if it wishes to move a particular piece of equipment from one airport to another.

I have seen some of the old equipment that Transport Canada operated a decade or two ago. If there were public consultation to finally move this rather decrepit equipment it would be cause for celebration and rejoicing.

When the bill was first introduced there were a number of possible ways of divesting Transport Canada of its air navigation system. A variety of things were looked at, including profit companies, a mixture of private sector businesses working together. Some sounded a little wild but were considered because, wild or not, they should at least be looked at because maybe there was a portion merit.

However it was very quickly narrowed down to just two particular aspects, one being a crown corporation and the other being the not for profit corporation which is what we have ended up with. As near as I can see, the government to its credit did not appear to be pushing any one scenario. The same thing cannot be said for the bureaucrats who were falling all over themselves trying to make sure it was a crown corporation while they were busy jockeying for position to ensure they got all the key positions in this new crown entity.

Fortunately, industry got its act together and the users and the various employee groups got together. They quickly recognized what was happening and that what was good for industry and the travelling public was the not for profit concept. They did an excellent job of not saying one at a time: "I want it and I can work with him". Rather they said: "We the industry, we the users, we the operators, we the employee groups, we the bargaining agents are all sitting together and we have agreed how to do this jointly". Thus was born Nav Canada. It was a very good collaboration by industry. People put together the best possible outcome for the divestment of the air navigation system.

The price was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary to the minister. Nav Canada was ripped off. I must make that comment because Nav Canada will not make it. Nav Canada negotiated with a gun at its head. They were the only obvious buyers and it was in their own best interests to ensure that they were the ones to take over this operation. They did not want somebody from outside with no expertise, with no concern about the users, the bargaining agents and all the internal people that make up Nav Canada to come in and take over. And they certainly did not want it to remain with the government because it was hardly an efficient or effective system.

They were the only buyers but they were also in need of getting the system and it had to come from the government. Therefore they had to pay whatever the government asked. I think they paid too much, in part to bail the government out of a problem contract it got into and perhaps also to pay off some other bad investments. One example is the microwave landing system. It was not that this concept was bad but government inertia makes it difficult to let go

of something when its time has passed. The government continued with the MLS long after it should have been abandoned, when other industrialized countries had dropped it.

We heard concerns and fears from some of the northern operators, even some remote regional operators, as the Bloc mentioned. I am a commercial pilot and I was an air traffic controller for 22 years. I have a lot of background in the specific issues people were concerned about. I have looked closely at what this bill contains and the risks. It is not a perfect bill, but what bill is? I am satisfied it contains the necessary protections and has the right intent with Nav Canada moving forward.

It is only natural that some operators should have some fears. That is to be expected. If there is any fault here it is that the government and perhaps even the committee, of which I am a member, did not do a good enough job of selling the idea and convincing the people that they were protected.

There is one area which came to the fore and troubled me a bit: general aviation and recreational aircraft fees. It is only natural for people to object to fees when they have been getting something essentially for free and which will now have a cost. Instead of a regular user fee for this category of aircraft there has been talk about a general flat annual fee. The amount that has been discussed is in the range of $500 but there is nothing in the bill. It is a Nav Canada charge.

I have heard a lot of objections from different operators and owners of aircraft along with their representatives such as the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. They proposed an alternative, not that they do not want to pay and I am sure they do not want to pay. Who does?

However, it is reasonable that a system is there. They will have to call flight service to get weather briefings and flight information and to file flight plans. Maybe they are not flying on instruments but many people who have the equipment-and many do-still tune in and use the airway as a navigation aid for themselves. They talk to air traffic control whenever they go into a controlled airport. Some of them fly on instruments and make use of the area control centres. It is not unreasonable that they pay something for the service.

One of the suggestions they brought forward was the idea of paying for the service through an excise gas tax. I hasten to point out that they pay a significant gas tax already. It could be some portion of the amount that is already paid dedicated to go to Nav Canada instead of the fee, or even possibly a bit of that combined with a very nominal, and I stress very nominal, increase in the gasoline component of the aviation fuel tax. A pilot who flies 50 hours a year, which many private aircraft owners do, would pay based on his 50 hours. An operator or an owner who flies 500 hours would pay that much more in a similar type of aircraft because he potentially is making 10 times the use of the service.

I am not proposing that at this time. However this is enabling legislation, and is not a finely detailed, carved in stone type of legislation. I will continue to look at that proposal. I will continue to consult with the various groups and individuals this is going to impact on to see if that would have real favour. I will confirm with Nav Canada that it is something it would look on favourably if that were to be the type of system that was put in.

I move next to labour disputes. This is something that has not been overlooked by the committee. I brought it up. Again, it was something that came up. It is a very overwhelming issue. The bill moved through far too quickly. It would be a long delay to try to address this issue and would hold up a bill that should move ahead.

A lot of the bargaining agents are critical of the operation of the entire air transport system of this country, the total transportation system. The work of the air traffic controllers, flight service people, the licensing people has to continue. When it stops, the entire system stops. The government has introduced something and it is jury-rigged and a poor way of doing it.

I am not talking about this government, I might add, before I get its dander up for no reason. I do it often enough for reason so I certainly do not want to do it for no reason. I hear kind comments coming from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Of course, those are the only comments I get from him.

What happened is a right to strike was given. I will use the air traffic controllers as an example. They are not the only group, but they are the ones I am most familiar with.

In the late 1960s they got the right to strike. In a contract dispute in the early 1970s when a settlement could not be reached between the Air Traffic Controllers Association and Treasury Board, the air traffic control system was shut down. The controllers went on strike and air transportation in this country stopped. After a week and a half in the dead of winter, the government legislated the controllers back to work. Mandatory arbitration was the settlement dispute.

Some time later, a contract dispute came up again. Once again it looked as if we were headed toward a strike. This time the government in advance of a strike taking place legislated the controllers so that they could not go out on strike and legislated the

settlement. In other words, it completely revoked not only their right to strike but even their right to bargain.

During the time when the strikes took place, the controllers had agreed and worked with the government. There would be a number of designated employees who would go in to ensure that safety was still maintained.

If there was an aircraft still up and in distress the controllers would handle it. If there was a medical emergency, the controllers would handle it. They would handle flights that reprovisioned remote communities in the north and air defence flights. All these types of things were still handled. It amounted to about 15 per cent of the control staff. The controllers did this willingly and the system was fine.

Sometime after the second piece of legislation, the government came out with a new list of designated employees. It pertained to everybody who controls aircraft. It came out with a list of designated duties which contained everything the controllers did. This was appealed and taken to court all the way to the top and the government prevailed.

From that day forward and for approximately the past 20 years air traffic controllers have had the right to go on strike, but when they go on strike every one of them has to report to work and they have to do all the duties they normally do. No other dispute settlement was put in place. The only dispute settlement is to strike when in fact they cannot strike. It has been a very unsatisfactory system for the past 20 years.

Now controllers and other bargaining agents in similar situations are once again getting back the right to strike. They are no longer covered by this legislation because they are no longer in the public service. They are now private sector employees covered by the Canada Labour Code.

I say in all sincerity that air traffic controllers are very conscientious and sincere people. They are interested in flight safety and in doing a good job. In fact, if controllers as a whole did not do a little more than the system even expects them to do or expects them to be able to do, the system probably would not work very well at all. They are very conscientious people but they are also people who have had a bad deal for 20 years. If there ever was a problem in negotiations between any of these bargaining agents and the new Nav Canada employer, we would have a major problem in this country.

The government had to legislate back to work the dock workers in Vancouver. I agreed in doing that. It causes severe economic problems in this country when the port of Vancouver goes down. The government legislated back to work the national rail system when it went on strike and I supported that as well. I believe it had to be done. But those two things pale in comparison to the economic impact of the air transport system of this country being shut down.

I say to the government that it should have a heads up on this problem. I want to make sure it understands that the problem exists, that we rely certainly on good faith bargaining between the various bargaining agents and Nav Canada, but at the same time the government should be aware that this potential problem is there. It may be necessary at some point in time for the government to do something about it and it should start putting some thought into it.

I will now move on to committee practices particularly with respect to this bill. I begin with the Canadian Transportation Act, specifically section 27.2.

When legislation starts in the House and goes to committee, I have to assume it goes to committee for a reason and not just because a piece of paper says that is the procedure. There has to be a reason for it to go to committee. I am told by the government that legislation goes to committee so we can discuss it openly, so we can hear witnesses, hear what problems might exist with the legislation, and address the concerns the majority of witnesses bring forward and find ways to deal with these problems.

There were many witnesses on that piece of legislation. Most of the people who came forward said: "Get rid of 27.2. It is a disaster for us". They quoted chapter and verse where all the problems were. On the other side were representatives of the National Transportation Agency, the government body. I asked them about section 27.2, which started as a significant prejudice and later became substantial commercial harm. What did it mean? They gave us a spectrum. Maybe it was a small loss or profit or, to the other extreme, maybe bankruptcy and anything in between. Lawyers will argue this for ages and precedents will eventually be set.

The government ignored that completely. It refused to do anything significant about section 27.2 or, more appropriately, remove it. Why were there all these hearings? Why was the bill sent to committee if the government was going to ignore what the public said? It then came back to this House.

A new minister is now responsible for this bill. A lot of the shippers began last minute consultations because there was a new minister and a new chair of the committee. They said they were really concerned about section 27.2. The minister said that he was also concerned, that he had just read it and had a lot of concerns about it. He asked for some time to look at it because he felt something would have to be done about it. This was nothing more than a ruse.

I offered the minister every opportunity to do something about section 27.2 without involving politics. I told him that if he wanted some co-operation to take it back to committee and do it in an all-party, relatively non-partisan way, no feet to the coals and no saying "I told you so, I'm right you're wrong". I told him it should be done because it was the right thing to do and that he had my total co-operation.

As soon as it was time for the vote they said they did not want to do anything. It passed and section 27.2 is still in the bill.

We then moved to another transport area involving the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or, more appropriately I guess, the department of oceans because in order to have a department of fisheries there has to be fish. The user pay concept is commencing, the coast guard recovery fees.

I attended the committee meetings of that department and listened to the witnesses talking about user pay. They recognized that they needed to pay and they were willing to pay. However, they thought the government was being a bit premature. There had been no cost rationalization of the coast guard and no impact study to see how this was going to affect them and the whole marine shipping strategy.

The minister was sure that the fees were going to have an impact and maybe cause some traffic to be diverted to the United States, but he felt that after the bill was implemented an impact study would be done to see how much damage it had caused. That is a pretty bizarre way of doing it. Again, it ignores everything that happened in the committee.

We now get to Bill C-20. At committee the government's privacy commissioner told us that he had a serious concern about the bill. At the present time the Privacy Act covers all the activities of Transport Canada in the operation of the air navigation system and when it is transferred to Nav Canada, a private corporation, that will not be the case.

There is also employee privacy which may possibly be dealt with in other ways. Almost everybody who takes to the air, except for some local flights, and who has to file a flight plan with particular information, is covered by the Privacy Act now. However, they will not be covered under Nav Canada as it is a private corporation.

The privacy commissioner said that it would not cost a dime and that the bill should include that the Privacy Act continue to apply to Nav Canada as if it were a crown corporation. This is the exact same wording that the parliamentary secretary bragged about tonight for the official languages. It was stated that Nav Canada, as a private company, still has to operate for the purposes of the Official Languages Act as if it were still a crown corporation.

I put in an amendment stating exactly that. I just extended what it said for the Official Languages Act. I wanted NavCan to be covered under the Privacy Act is if it were still a crown corporation. It passed. That is what a committee is supposed to do. It is supposed to consider these matters, listen to the witnesses and vote. Matters that are defeated are defeated and the matters that are passed are passed. My amendment passed and became part of the bill.

Democracy does not live well in committees. Certain parts of the committee, not sitting on this side of the House, did not like that. Democracy be damned, so they waited until the bill came to the House and put forward a motion to remove the amendment that the committee passed in response to the witnesses that came forward. That is not a very good system. It does not speak well of what the government does in committees.

I would like to turn now to what the Bloc said it its amendment. The amendment is that the bill not be read the third time because the air navigation system will not be safe with Nav Canada.

I worked in the navigation system for 22 years. For all those years we wanted to get out of government control because it would be far more efficient and more technologically advanced. We could respond quicker to changing needs through the use of technology and changing conditions.

Contrary to what the Bloc says, I believe that the system will be at least as safe as it is now. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that it is not a safe system now. However, it is not in any kind of danger with regard to safety whatsoever. It will be a much more efficient and safe system once Nav Canada takes over. Therefore I will not be supporting the Bloc motion.

It will also enhance the air industry's viability. The air transport industry in this country is in trouble. Everyone knows about the clash between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines and how both of them are writing a lot of red ink. Perhaps that is why the government relates so well to them with its red ink book. They are in trouble. With open skies they get a lot of pressure from American competitors. They need to find ways to operate more efficiently.

If Nav Canada can operate the system, which is made up of users and operators, and operate it more effectively and more efficiently than the government does, then that is going to save money for all the people involved in the industry and it will enhance that industry's viability.

It will also give enhanced service and value to the travelling public. If NavCan can keep its costs down, better compete against foreign competitors, offer better fees and better opportunities to travellers and travel to more places, the travelling public has to benefit.

Finally, it is good for the general public. The government has been running this system for years at a significant loss. Most recently with some new initiatives added toward the end of the system being under government control, the government was

losing something in the range of $200 million a year. This adds to the deficit and all the associated costs that go with that.

This is a good bill. There are some bumps in the road which the government could have handled a little better. If I had been in the government's place handling it, some things could have been done better. We have to move ahead. We have to recognize that the government needs to get out of business. The government's sole responsibility is regulation. It has retained all the regulatory controls. It will still monitor safety. It will still set standards. It will still ensure that those standards are kept up.

The government has brought forward several bills in the transportation sector. With one exception, the Pearson airport, they have been relatively good bills. It is only the implementation that has suffered.

I hope the government will continue to learn. I hope it will continue to listen, as the member for Kingston and the Islands is mostly doing, which is rather gratifying. When the government does I will be pleased to support it.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a couple of little housekeeping items first. Both the Bloc member and the parliamentary secretary mentioned a couple of areas.

Bloc members were concerned that the Quebec transport association was not getting a proper voice. For the record, Mr. Jenner of that organization was offered a seat on the board of directors and turned it down. He acknowledged this right in committee. I am not quite sure where the Bloc is coming from on that. He was offered exactly what they say he should have got and he turned it down.

Also Bloc members talked about ADM. As the parliamentary secretary said, I do not know how that found its way into this discussion. I have one point for clarification. What they are asking for is the Montreal authority be ruled by the federal government.

If Bloc members are saying that rather than having local authorities in Quebec rule on things, they want the federal government to rule on it instead, they had better re-evaluate their entire mandate as separatists. What they want is to come away from the federal government and take control but when they have it, they are saying they want the federal government to take it back. They should clarify why they are really here in the first place.

With regard to the variety of motions in Group No. 2 dealing with information and the process of advertising that information, I talked with the Bloc members on this in committee where it had been brought up by them. I did not support them at the committee level because while they had a good concept, it went too far. It was far too onerous.

I said that they should come down with something simple. They were telling me they wanted better notification for changes in services or deletion of services particularly in northern areas where there may not be good information dissemination. I said I could support that if they could word it in such a way that they did not get into all those other areas. That is still a great concept, to have a better type of advertisement in some of the more remote and hard to reach areas. However instead of simplifying their motion, if anything, they have made it more complex.

The parliamentary secretary correctly pointed out that if a general change were made in the fee structure, which obviously will happen from time to time-God knows I would love it if I were still paying the same for food, a haircut or gasoline that I paid in 1970 but that is not the case. And it is not going to happen with Nav Canada neither. From time to time its fees are going to change. The way it reads for most of the motions is that every time Nav Canada changes its fee structure, as it will do, it must advertise in every newspaper in this country. That is so onerous and makes it absolutely impossible.

It seems ironic that the government, correctly though it may have been, speaking against better dissemination of information mainly because it was too onerous should turn around in another area and try to promote the dissemination of information that probably should not be going out.

At committee we dealt with a motion by Reform which actually added to the bill a requirement that Nav Canada meet the same parameters of the Privacy Act as was done when it was a government organization. It follows exactly the same format the government used for the official languages bill. In fact, it was a subclause to that same section of the bill. This is not something which the privacy commissioner, who has the responsibility for this, spoke against. In fact, he came to committee to see if we would please put it in. Nav Canada did not have any objection and was basically going to do this anyway.

It put in an assurance to the users that it was going to be taken care of and it passed. Reform, who put it in, voted for it. The Bloc, who had a similar amendment, voted for it as did some Liberals.

As the parliamentary secretary is fond of saying, a committee is master of its own destiny. If we ignore what the committee does and overrule it by Liberals only, then why bother even having the committee? If the Liberals are going to pass only the things they like and overrule things that get passed in spite of them, then why do we bother having these committees in the first place? The government might as well write out its four year agenda, pass it and that is the end of it.

I am very shocked and disappointed to see the Liberals trying to take out a clause that their own Liberal dominated committee passed. It is astounding.

Reform will not be supporting the motions brought forward by the Bloc in Group No. 2. The only area we support are some technical motions that are going to be discussed later in Group No. 3 brought forward by the Liberal Party. We do not have a problem with that. Because of what I would have to say is a rather deceitful motion by the government, we will probably also support the Bloc motion to try to put it back in, even though it is by a somewhat convoluted method.

It is a good bill. It is unfortunate that we get into these debates on various types of changes, some of which are political. The bill has been drawn up out of eight possibilities that were looked at early on which were quickly narrowed down to two and soon focused in on one. The users, the employees, the service providers are all working together to provide a not for profit organization so that somebody is not going to try to get rich from this.

Could the bill have been better? I doubt there is a bill that is ever passed that could not perhaps be slightly better. Maybe we will find some improvements to make on it as we watch it unfold. We may find there are some corrections we could make.

On the whole it has the support of the industry, albeit some people are a little nervous because it is new and change is always a little scary for a lot of people. It has the support of the users. It has the support of the people who work in the industry. It will have the support of the Reform Party as well.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1996]

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.

[Fishing, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we do not execute someone accused of murder and then have a trial to see if he or she is guilty.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is executing his marine fee structure plan before studying its impact. What good is a post-mortem if the industry is dead? Has he learned nothing from what he has done to the Canadian fishing industry?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

What about pedophiles?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of appointments made in advance when the bill suddenly came up and so I was not here to vote on first and second reading. I assure the House I am here to stay now until the bill has been completed at both report stage and third reading and that I am clearly voting against the bill. I will be voting in favour of the amendments but I do not expect to get much support for that from the majority of Liberals opposite.

They suggest this is a free vote. I think we should clarify this. I do not think there can be any argument on that side that it is a free vote. Had it not been a free vote they would have had just about the same number of Liberals voting against it in any case, which would have presented tremendous problems for the Prime Minister in light of recent actions on their side, their own peculiar version of Liberal democracy.

It is interesting that despite the fact there is a free vote, there is an extremely restricted right of free speech on the Liberal side. We have witnessed that and I am sure we will continue to witness it as the the debate carries on.

I am opposed to various types of discrimination, much of which has been stated in the bill. The problem with the bill is that it does not deal solely with those areas of discrimination. It opens up broad doors where someone can say that is not what they meant, and someone else could say they think it means this or they think it means that.

We know the kinds of problems that happens to legislation, even good legislation, which I would not categorize this as at all. After continuous lobbying, the Minister of Justice finally agreed to pass legislation banning the drunken defence. What happened? The courts said that is not quite the way they interpret the Constitution in any case. There have been cases where that has been overturned. Despite the fact that the entire House passed legislation, the courts have made their own interpretation. When we put something like this in the open and deal with the courts we open up an incredibly bad can of worms.

Some of the amendments deal with clarifications of various concerns that people think the bill may come to represent, things like alterations to the Criminal Code or ways to circumvent the

Criminal Code, possible situations where there will be special programs because of sexual orientation. These are things people are concerned about, particularly in my riding.

The previous speaker said he has to vote the way he thinks is right. I have to vote the way my constituents think is right. They did not elect me to be their ruler. They elected me to be their representative. Every member of the House as the elected representative of the people of their riding should represent the will of those people.

Some people in my constituency are very concerned about some things that are already happening. I will read from a pamphlet funded in part by the federal government. It found its way into schools and the community college in my riding under the guise of AIDS literature. I assure the House that I will restrict and censor the way I read this, but the House may still find it offensive. It is not my intention to offend anyone. If the Chair sees fit to intervene at any time because it sees this as offensive, I fully understand. Keep in mind this is after censoring has been applied to a government funded document.

This states choices for, in my word, fornication. It mentions things like fisting. Fisting is the insertion of the entire hand inside someone's body: "Fisting can create serious tears in the anus or vagina. In the interest of safe sex the safe choice for fisting is to wear a rubber glove". This is from the Man to Man Society, funded by the government.

It mentions toys. I will not get into what it suggests should be done with these toys. It is suggested how to have safer sex with toys: "Make sure you clean the toys you share".

It also deals with shaving, piercing and branding. It suggests that when branding with a knife, ideally a disposable scalpel be used. It suggests that branding with heat, a branding iron, is much safer because the heat kills the virus. It talks about how to use electric torture. The safer choice for electric torture: "Thoroughly clean anything exposed to body fluids and blood". This is a bad document. I have trouble reading some of the things in here.

I think the point has been made. This is just one of several documents. This is not a document I found somewhere in some obscure specialty bookstore. This is a document in the public school system in my riding. That is why people in my riding are mad, upset and concerned.

I have many constituents, not a huge majority obviously, I want to make that clear, who are part of the homosexual community. These are not rampant people like in Gay Pride and in some of these strange parades promoting the homosexual lifestyle. These are regular citizens who contribute to the economy of our area. They participate in community events. They run businesses. The people in my riding have no problem with people simply because a man happens, through choice or otherwise, to fall in love with another man, or a woman a woman. That is not what is at issue.

What is at issue is the bill is loosely written, so wide open, people are afraid of how it will be interpreted by the courts. I explained what happened with the drunken defence after it left here a good bill. They are concerned about this kind of garbage ending up in our school system, about the promotion of their right to promote an alternate life style openly to things like marriage benefits for same sex couples.

I live in a rural community. I live in a western, outdoors, rural community. It has a beautiful hunting area and everything. I belong to a trap and skeet club. I am active with it. It is a very prominent activity in my riding. When Bill C-68 came out, it got tremendous response opposing it.

Since I became a member of Parliament I received correspondence on all things, with more opposition for the possibility of marriage benefits to same sex couples aspect alone in Bill C-41 than I have for any other things, including Bill C-68.

To date there has been a short amount of time available to people to mobilize, something I really object to. The previous NDP government in Ontario came out with a bill like this. It had free discussions and a free vote. The difference was it did not rush it through committee or debate. Closure was not used.

It gave the citizens in the communities of this province the time to mobilize to let their elected officials know where they stood. It is my opinion the Liberal government is rushing this through in order not to allow people not only in Ontario but in the rest of the country to mobilize. That notwithstanding, they have.

To provide balance, I will read from the file I have from people who are in favour. I want to be balanced. Because I want to be complete, I will read both of them. One suggests they are writing to support quick passage of Bill C-33 because it fulfils a commitment. That is the strongest argument they use in their letter. In the other one they want to make it clear that they view sexual relationships between consulting adults as a personal matter. So do I.

What people do in the privacy of their homes, within reason, is a general concept I have no difficulty with. I can give more from this pamphlet. It suggests we should go into the homes a little.

I do not think we should refuse to hire someone, fire them or refuse to allow them to rent an apartment simply because their orientation is different from ours if we care to define it.

I cannot remember the official name of it, but there is the man-boy love society. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. That I am

completely and totally against. I hope everybody in the House is. If it is not defined, if one just says sexual orientation, it leaves us open.

Allow me, because I have a lot of opposition to this, to read a couple. One says: "Each Canadian as a person is already protected. Why must what happens in the privacy of one's bedroom need the protection of the law?"

Another says: "This is an immediate and grave threat to the natural family. A homosexual as a person is entitled to respect because of his humanity, not because of his sexual behaviour".

The protections are there. If we need to clarify then it should be clear. This bill is not clear. This bill is incredibly vague. The amendments proposed now at report stage attempt to clarify many aspects of the bill. They were made by people who object to this bill. They are saying that if we must have this bill, let us at least make its intent clear. Let us have what the government says it means but has not said in the bill.

I urge members opposite to seriously consider accepting the amendments that have been put forward. Without these amendments the House can be assured I will vote against Bill C-33.