Lost his last election, in 2004, with 34% of the vote.
Supply May 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not to cast aspersions on hon. members of this place or of the other place, which in itself is reprehensible, I would point out that Senator Colin Kenny went across Canada on Bill S-7 which is the alternate fuels bill that successfully passed this place.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the remarks of the hon. member for St. Albert go without reminding him that he did not spend a single moment in the transport committee when we dealt with this bill.
We addressed concerns between NavCan and ANS. He did not spend a second in committee, but he made a speech saying things that completely contradict the critic of his party. Can anyone imagine? The critic of his party is charged with the responsibility to go to committee to put forward the position of the Reform Party.
Yet the member for St. Albert made his statement. Yesterday the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, the Reform Party critic, made the position of the Reform Party very clear. Then his colleague from St. Albert got up and talked about something he obviously knows nothing about and contradicts the critic in his party. You have to wonder where these guys are coming from.
However, let us move on to the last group of motions. We are talking about the Privacy Act.
The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke yesterday made some remarks with regard to the Privacy Act. He said he called NavCan, the not for profit corporation which we would like to move this to. He said he had talked to NavCan and it has no problem with the Privacy Act being brought forward to this bill.
NavCan wrote a letter to the government on May 9 and also appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. It is clear in the letter to the Minister of Transport and I quote:
First, the Privacy Act currently applies only to certain federal government institutions, including federal government departments and certain agencies and Crown Corporations. It does not apply to all Crown Corporations. It does not apply to corporations that have been privatized such as CN or Air Canada. It does not apply to any private sector corporations or organizations whatsoever.
The extension of the Privacy Act to any part of the private sector would represent a significant change in policy of the Government of Canada. It would bring with it to the private sector not only the necessity to substantively guarantee the protection of personal information (which is not in itself objectionable) but also the processes designed to apply to the federal government for correcting and amending records containing personal information and the requirement that a private sector corporation be subject to a complaint and investigative procedure by a Federal government officer, namely the Privacy Commissioner with, ultimately, decisions on the collection, retention and administration of records containing personal information being subject to review in the Federal Court of Canada. This degree of bureaucracy and administration would be inconsistent with the imperatives of the private sector and, certainly, with the rationale for the commercialization of the ANS.
Government could not agree more. We had discussions in the Standing Committee on Transport. In the government's reassessment of whether the Privacy Act should apply to Nav Canada, it became increasingly clear that the application of the Privacy Act to Nav Canada is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. The Privacy Act deals with the protection of personal information held by government and the rights of an individual to access that information.
As I said at the outset, it was interesting to hear the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke yesterday saying that Nav Canada did not have a problem with this. Mr. Speaker, I must put this diplomatically because I do not want you to intercede. The hon. member was incorrect in that statement. The proof of the pudding is the letter dated May 9. If the Reform critic for transport wants more evidence of that he is invited to phone the officials at Nav Canada any time for a very clear explanation of why Nav Canada does not agree that the Privacy Act should apply in this not for profit corporation. I hope he does that.
We are wrapping up discussions at report stage and second reading of the bill. When we come back after working hard in our ridings next week, we will be discussing third reading of the bill. I hope the hon. member will retract his remarks.
As outlined by its letter to the minister, Nav Canada would be the only private sector entity subject to the Privacy Act. The act does not apply to previous government commercializations like CN and Air Canada. It does not apply to other regulated monopolies, not even those in key economic sectors like telecommunications.
When the privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, came before the Standing Committee on Transport, I suggested that if there was a need to extend the application of the Privacy Act to private sector
entities, it should be considered in the context of a comprehensive review of the fundamentals of the Privacy Act, not Bill C-20.
Why decide to pick on one area, one bill, one of the four major modes of transportation to apply an act against a not for profit corporation? That kind of review should provide an opportunity, if Mr. Phillips were to examine his own backyard on the Privacy Act in which all interested parties could express their views.
When all is said and done it must be remembered that the privacy commissioner can at any time investigate complaints and initiate investigations.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the argument being put forward by the Bloc member were as simple as he stated, I might even support this motion when it came to a vote.
We discussed this at the Standing Committee on Transport. It was made very clear why the government would reject this motion. Motion No. 15, the only motion within this grouping, demonstrates again a total lack of understanding of the charging aspects of Bill C-20, in particular the charging aspect as it relates to DND services.
The Bloc motion tries to eliminate the exemption for Nav Canada's charges for aircraft operated under the authority of the Minister of Transport and for aircraft of a foreign state. Let us deal with the foreign state issue first. The exemption for foreign state aircraft is the least significant of the two. Bill C-20 reflects the fact that many states do not levy charges on state aircraft and in the interests of reciprocity, in the interests of symmetry the state aircraft of such countries should not be charged for Canadian air navigation services.
The Bloc should take great comfort in the fact that the bill leaves the door open for the governor in council to authorize charges on state aircraft of countries coming into Canada that charge Canadian state aircraft at the present time or in the future when they fly to those countries. I hope that would satisfy members opposite.
The more significant exemption being asked for is the one in respect of aircraft operated by the Minister of National Defence. Rather than an outright exemption, this is just an element of an arrangement between Nav Canada and the Minister of National Defence.
The arrangement recognizes that the minister is both a user and a provider of air navigation services. As a provider of services, the minister operates the air navigation services in designated military air space which includes the air space around military bases such as Comox, Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Trenton, Bagotville, Goose Bay and others. At present the Minister of National Defence does not charge for any of these services.
The arrangement is for Nav Canada not to charge the Minister of National Defence's aircraft for the use of Nav Canada's services. In return, as compensation, the Minister of National Defence would allow Nav Canada to charge civilian users for air navigation services provided by the military. That means Nav Canada gives up some of its revenue in respect of services it provides and it gains some revenue from services provided by the Minister of National Defence.
Because the two amounts for all intents and purposes are just about the same, it is a good arrangement for both parties. In addition, the Department of National Defence avoids having to establish a whole separate billing and collection system for charges it would otherwise likely have to introduce for air navigation services provided by the military.
Because the two amounts are roughly equal, it is not correct to say that the exemption burdens civilian users with costs that should be borne by the Minister of National Defence, as outlined by members opposite. Users will also benefit from this arrangement by receiving only one invoice from Nav Canada, even when they use services provided by both the Minister of National Defence and Nav Canada.
This motion would completely destroy this arrangement. For the same reasons that we stated last week at the Standing Committee on Transport, we would reject this suggestion.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this group of motions has within it two motions.
Motion No. 13 is necessary to correct two differences between the French and English language versions of Bill C-20. The French version in the reprinted Bill C-20 of May 8 contains the requirement that a person requesting additional services from Nav Canada must agree in writing to pay all incremental costs associated with the provision of the additional services, and the standing committee agree to eliminate this requirement, and the English language version of the legislation reflects this agreement.
The French version of Bill C-20 does not include the requirement which is contained in the English version that the person demonstrate, through written evidence, that a majority of affected users agree to the provision of the additional services.
Motion No. 14 is a consequential amendment to a motion that carried at the Standing Committee on Transport. At this time I call for the question on the third group of motions.
Questions On The Order Paper May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 32, standing in the name of the member for Lisgar-Marquette, will be answered today.
Question No. 32-
Government Response To Petitions May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions, 3 from the first session of Parliament and 17 from the present session.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the chair, if we have completed debate on this group, maybe we could call for the question and move on to the next group.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motions being put forward by members of the Bloc. Talk about latitude. I do not know how we got on to the issue of the ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal.
I want to remind members of this place and the hon. member opposite that ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal, is the body which looks after the operations of Mirabel and Dorval airports.
It has been charged with responsibilities that are no longer under federal jurisdiction. It is the working group that will manage the two airports in that area. The government's intent is to split off the business of running business away from the federal government and let the communities take control of their destinies. It is the communities, on many levels, municipal, provincial, et cetera, that are represented on this local airport authority called ADM and are charged with these responsibilities.
It is a measure that has been put forward by the government which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is producing very dramatic, very appreciable and well supported, far reaching opportunities for all the airports, including my airport in Hamilton, Ontario.
I must respond to and strongly disagree with the concerns outlined by the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and others in the Bloc who allege that the regions are not fully represented on the Nav Canada board.
On the subject of the request by Bloc members in their motions for representation for large and small carriers on the board of directors of Nav Canada, this request is entirely unnecessary. This request was debated in committee. I am not sure how a lot of these motions got put in at report stage. Exactly the same motions were dealt with in committee, but that is a matter for another day.
Why is it completely unnecessary? This matter is already taken care of by the bylaws of the corporation. Four directors are appointed by ATAC, which is the Air Transport Association of Canada. It is the largest trade association, representing carriers of all sizes and from all regions of the country.
ATAC membership includes major national and international carriers, regional air carriers, and I stress the word regional, local service carriers and even flying clubs.
On the specific issue of regional representation, Nav Canada's bylaws require the corporation to consult with bona fide regional trade associations in the appointment of its directors. It is worth noting that one of the four directors appointed by ATAC is the former president and chief executive officer of a regional air carrier.
Organizations representing smaller air carriers also have an opportunity to influence Nav Canada's decision making process through an advisory committee provided for in the Nav Canada bylaws.
At Nav Canada's first annual general meeting held last April 10, 15 individuals were elected to the advisory committee. Among these individuals were representatives of several regional associations, typically consisting of smaller commercial operators such as the British Columbia Aviation Council and Mr. Jenner at the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. Therefore, the representation is there and the Bloc's concerns that the regions are not represented are entirely unfounded.
Moving to the next group and in response to the hon. member's motions, particularly Motion No. 4, can anyone imagine the impracticality of giving notice in every newspaper serving the regions to be affected by a proposal, whether in respect of changes in services or changes in charges?
If one carries that logic to the logical extension, in the case of an en route charge where one is taking it right across the country, that would impose a requirement on the new not for profit corporation called Nav Canada to publish in every newspaper across the entire country. Can you just imagine the fees and charges that would entail in making notice on a change in charges, for example?
Incidentally, the motion also contains an error. Clause 15 deals with changes in services and facilities, not charges. The notification requirement established in clause 15(3) already ensures that all interested persons will know about a Nav Canada proposal. It is there.
In addition, the Nav Canada bylaws require that notice be given in the two largest national circulation newspapers in each of the official languages of our country.
In Motion No. 5 presented by the Bloc members, the requirement to send by mail and electronic means would clearly represent an unproductive duplication of effort. The Bloc motion refers to mail and electronic means.
What if an individual, organization or group was not equipped to receive a notice by electronic means? There must be a few of them in Canada. Nav Canada could be in breach of its obligation to provide notice if it did not send a notice electronically to such a person or a group because, and I remind the hon. member opposite, the motion refers to mail and electronic means. Nav Canada should be allowed to use either mail or electronic means, which makes the most sense in terms of the specific interested individual.
On Motion No. 6, Bill C-20 identifies only one group of persons specifically, that is, the users. This does not mean that only users have a role. Everyone else is covered by the expression "other person". The reference to "other person" is in Bill C-20. To single out, as the Bloc requests to do in this motion, band councils from all other interested persons seems rather inappropriate.
The association of commercial pilots which appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport would be one group that might expect explicit recognition. Airport operators would be another group that might feel this way.
The expression "representative organization of users" seems pretty clear. It is clear enough that a change to "organizations representing users" is entirely unnecessary.
On Motion No. 7, the reference is incorrect. It should be clause 18, not clause 15. It would be impractical to give notice in every newspaper primarily serving the regions to be affected by a proposal, whether we are talking about changes in northern or remote services or changes in charges. In the case of an en route service where one is taking it right across the country, this proposal could impose a requirement on Nav Canada to publish in every newspaper in outlying regions of the entire country. This is not very practical.
Motion No. 8 contains a reference which appears to be incorrect. It should be clause 18 and not clause 15. The requirement to send by mail and electronic means would represent that unproductive duplication of effort we spoke about earlier.
Motion No. 9 contains an incorrect reference. It should be clause 18, not clause 15. I repeat that Bill C-20 identifies only one group of persons specifically, that is, the users. That does not mean that only users have a role. Of course everyone else is covered by the expression "other persons".
The remaining Motions Nos. 10 to 12 and Motions Nos. 16 to 24 are amendments which repeat all the impracticalities put forward by the Bloc. They are impractical and unproductive amendments which I addressed in the first nine motions of this group.
In the closing remarks of the last group the Bloc raised its concerns about safety. I cannot stress enough to hon. members opposite that Transport Canada prides itself, whether it is the Minister of Transport, members on this side of the House or all the men and women who work for Transport Canada, on the safety record in transportation in this country. Transportation safety is always priority one in that department.
When the hon. members speak I dare say politically on the issue of safety and their concerns, I recognize they have concerns. However I want to remind them and I must remind them that where safety is concerned, the supremacy of safety in Bill C-20 is clearly established through references to the Aeronautics Act within the body of Bill C-20 and regulations made pursuant to the act.
We cannot do a better job putting those requirements or preambles to motions within the body of Bill C-20. We cannot do a better job than referring to the Aeronautics Act. It is the best instrument to address safety, better than anything the Bloc might want to move motions on.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to the amendments the hon. member put to the House. A great deal of work has been done by the Standing Committee on Transport, which I had the privilege to chair in my previous incarnation.
In this situation we have witnessed an agreement that transfers Canada's air navigation system to the private sector. This is by no means an easy task with all the nuances and all the negotiations that must take place between the two sides for a move from essentially a crown corporation, a government entity, to a not for profit corporation. Imagine all the legalities involved in such an undertaking.
This change was made with a minimal number of bumps in the road. There was agreement on almost all the nuances that took place between both the federal government and the not for profit corporation, Nav Canada.
Nav Canada came to the federal government with this proposal. It was not that the federal government went out looking, but the proposal was made and it was a solid proposal. As I have just heard, the proposal was endorsed by the member opposite from the Bloc. We on this side of the House agreed with the hon. member when he said Bill C-20 is good legislation.
As with any legislation there is some discussion on the ability to see clearly each clause in a piece of legislation to ensure that each one of these clauses is accurate and does what is in the best interests of the travelling public and Canadians at large.
Priority number one for Transport Canada and for Nav Canada has been safety. The hon. member opposite raised three issues in the first group of amendments which I will speak to. The insertion in the preamble is in our opinion unnecessary. The legal effect of a preamble is to assist in the interpretation of other sections of legislation. The three issues dealt with in this motion by the hon. member, as well as Motions Nos. 2 and 3 which I will address separately, are specifically addressed within the legislation already. The value of the preamble is doubtful at best.
A preamble on safety is definitely unnecessary. For example, clause 5 clearly establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act, the legislation that governs safety. We all know safety is the most important aspect of any mode of transportation, in particular this mode of transportation.
Members opposite have alleged the bill does not adequately address safety. Bill C-20 is intended to deal only with the transfer of Transport Canada's air navigation services to a single not for profit company and with the commercial and economic regulatory arrangements for the continued operation of those services.
Clearly Bill C-20 establishes the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act. Section 5 states that nothing in this act affects the application of the Aeronautics Act. Section 14 states that changes in services and facilities must be subject to the Aeronautics Act, including any regulations made under the act that relate to aviation safety or the safety of the public.
The preamble proposed by the hon. member opposite is bound to overlook some important matter that otherwise would be dealt with in the legislation. In the preamble proposed in Motion No. 1 there is no mention of the safety of private and recreational aviation. We do not want to put forward a preamble that might be void of critical and important aspects that would affect the rest of the bill. We feel that is covered in clause 5, which states the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act.
The Bloc member who proposed the second motion is a new member on the Standing Committee on Transport. He is well versed on the matters of transportation and has been a hard working member of the committee. We can tell the differences between members who bother to care about anything in committee work. This hon. member surely does.
On this motion, an insertion in the preamble, given the three issues dealt with in the motion as well as Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are addressed in the legislation, again we are not convinced of the usefulness or value of this motion.
It is about charging and it is completely unnecessary. The charging principles contained in clause 35 and the associated opportunity to appeal charges to the National Transportation Agency as well as the diversity of interests represented on the Nav Canada board remove the need for a preamble dealing with equality of opportunity and charging for large and small carriers.
Rather than clarify the charging principles, the proposed language in the preamble may well confuse matters. In this case it is the expression "equality of opportunity". I am not sure what that means. It is ambiguous. It is certainly less clear than the charging principles outlined in clause 35 of this legislation.
The final representation by the member, Motion No. 3, requests that Nav Canada recognize Canada is a country in which air services to the north and remote regions are necessary. Clauses 18 to 22 and the charging principles contained in clause 35(1)(g) take care of the concerns of the hon. member about services to remote regions of the country.
Clauses 18 to 22 establish a special process for designated current air navigation services in northern and remote parts of the country. This designation means that if Nav Canada, the new private not for profit company, wishes to terminate or reduce any of these services in a way likely to affect a significant group of users or residents in any material way, it first must give public notice and then must have the concurrence of all the affected provincial or territorial governments and a quorum of users or the approval of the Minister of Transport. Clauses 18 through 22 certainly make the addition of a preamble in this area unnecessary as well.