Stan Keyes

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to address one more time the issue of safety, particularly the preamble the hon. member has been alluding to along with his colleagues in the Bloc.

I will not go through it again. I stood after the last speaker and explained how safety is our first priority. It is in the bill. Clause 5 clearly establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act. Clause 14 provides another example where it requires changes in services to be consistent with the Aeronautics Act and regulations made pursuant to that act.

Let us talk for just one moment on the preamble, like the one proposed by the Bloc Quebecois in Motion No. 1. Let us first look at what that preamble states: "Whereas the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over all other considerations in business decisions taken by Nav Canada". That sounds pretty good. Why would we not have a motion like that off the top of a bill that talks about passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public having priority over all other considerations in business decisions?

There is a reason and it is why the government had to vote down Motion No. 1 put forward by the Bloc. The one proposed here is silent. For example it does not say a word about the respect of safety of private and recreational aviation. It does state air carriers. By air carriers we mean Air Canada, Canadian, the big guys, but it is silent on private and recreational aviation.

How can anyone ask the government to put in a preamble to a bill when it is void of something as critical as private and recreational aviation? It is covered in the bill because the Aeronautics Act has supremacy. It is in the Aeronautics Act and therefore it is covered.

Bill C-20 ensures that safety is our top priority. It ensures that Nav Canada will ensure that safety is its top priority. The question of a preamble is a good one but unfortunately this one was lacking and had to be voted against.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it really troubles me that for nothing more than political partisan principles, this hon. member would come to the conclusion that the reasons why he cannot support the bill, and obviously the chief reason why he cannot support this bill, is because he feels that the transfer of the air navigation system to NavCan would be "to the detriment of safety," or "there is not much talk of safety in this bill," or "the principles of safety have not been kept in mind".

Remarks like that from the hon. member opposite are totally irresponsible and bordering on fear mongering. I want to explain to the hon. member again why safety is a priority of the government and why safety regulations have been built into this bill to ensure that safety is the number one priority of the government and of NavCan, the not for profit agency that will take over air navigation services in this country.

The supremacy of safety comes through references to the Aeronautics Act and regulations made pursuant to that act. I am not sure if the hon. member even knows what the Aeronautics Act is. If he did he would understand that the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act in this bill assures safety. Clause 5 of the bill states that "nothing in this act affects the application of the Aeronautics Act". Again, it is a demonstration that safety is the number one concern of NavCan and the government when it struck the bill.

Clause 14 states that any changes in services or facilities that Nav Canada wants to make must be subject to the Aeronautics Act and any regulations made under that act that relate to aviation safety or safety of the public are again subject to the Aeronautics Act, an act that has served this country well, an act that ensures safety for the travelling public in this country.

Where it was determined that the Aeronautics Act could be strengthened, Bill C-20 provides for consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act. Clause 101 of Bill C-20 provides for an amendment to the Aeronautics Act to give the minister authority to make orders directing ANS Corporation to maintain or increase the level of civil air navigation services it provides in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be specified in the orders. Clause 103 provides for a significant maximum daily fine for conviction arising from a failure to implement a safety order.

While Transport Canada was both the operator and the regulator of the air navigation system, safety of the system was largely governed by internal departmental standards, practices and procedures. These internal safety procedures, policies and practices are now being given legal effect through part eight of the Canadian aviation regulations. These regulations will be in effect prior to the transfer of ANS to Nav Canada.

If the member wants more, the regulations will also require Nav Canada to establish a safety management program that provides for an internal system of oversight to ensure the safety provision of civil air navigation services.

On top of all these safeguards, if that was not enough for the hon. member to stop this-I will not go on.

ANS will remain subject to independent scrutiny by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, the CTSB. The separation of operational responsibility and regulatory responsibility has the advantage of offering an arm's length relationship between the regulator and the regulated. This arrangement has served the public interest well in the case of the regulation of air carriers, aviation personnel, aircraft manufacturers and other commercial aviation.

Part eight of the Canadian aviation regulations also give the minister the right to request the provider of civil air navigation services to conduct an aeronautical study when proposing to reduce a service. An aeronautical study is intended to demonstrate how aviation safety will be addressed. If the minister is not satisfied with the results of the study, the service provider can be directed to maintain the service.

I am not sure if the hon. member opposite was aware of all these particulars in Bill C-20. I am sure that if he were, he would not get up and start talking about how the bill is to the detriment of safety or that there is not much talk of safety in the bill or that the principles of safety have not been kept in mind. I assure the hon. member opposite they have been.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are trying to debate the movement of the air navigation system in Canada over to Nav Canada. The hon. member's question is completely off topic and way out of line.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to quickly address a couple of concerns brought forward by the hon. member.

The Bloc worries that a facility at a smaller airport could be closed down because it is not profitable. This concern is probably based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Nav Canada.

Nav Canada is a not for profit entity. Its focus will be on whether particular services are necessary for safety and wanted by the users, not on the profitability of such services. Financial consideration become relevant only in so far as the needs of the users are affected and their willingness to pay for these services.

However, if a particular service is required in the interests of safety, and I heard the hon. member address this point too, it will be provided. It will be required regardless of the financial considerations.

What about air navigation services at local airports? There are a number of air navigation services at existing airports that are not required under the criteria laid out by Transport Canada. It is reasonable to assume Nav Canada would try to rationalize some of those services, although it does not mean safety or even levels of service will suffer.

With constantly improving technology it is possible to provide the same or even better levels of service from centralized facilities. In all such cases the corporation will be required to consult widely before acting. It has to provide due notice and it has to establish with Transport Canada regulators that the proposed change in service does not affect safety. These are all the provisions built into Bill C-20.

Unfortunately I did not see the hon. member at committee. I understand we cannot attend all committees but we do have our concerns.

Nav Canada is a not for profit corporation, not a company going out to take over the air navigation services from the government trying to make big money. That is not the object of Nav Canada. I hope with these assurances the hon. member will see fit to support the bill.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

You are avoiding the ADM question.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points I wish to put to the hon. member opposite.

He says there are no protections for the French language, as others in the Bloc have said. He ignores the fact that article 20 of the Nav Canada bylaws requires the corporation to comply with the Department of Transport practices and procedures with respect to bilingualism with regard to the Canadian air navigation service in effect as of the date of incorporation, a year ago last month, and to comply with any provision of the Official Languages Act. There are respect and protections for the French language in Bill C-20. I assure the member of that.

On a more important note, again the Bloc brings into question this issue of the Aéroport de Montréal and its role as the local authority, charged with the responsibility of operating the airports at Dorval and Mirabel.

It is passing strange the raison d'être of Bloc Quebecois is to relegate to provincial authority as much control from the federal institution on matters of social and economic policy. When the federal authority transfers responsibility like the operation and management of the airports to local authorities, the ADM, the Bloc says "no thank you, the local authority does not have the competence to handle the issue on these two airports and the federal government should step into this issue".

Which way does the Bloc want it? It cannot have it both ways.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

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 Act, June 4th, 1996]

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

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Good, come on.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 4th, 1996]

Stay on topic.