Stéphan Tremblay

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

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.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when can a referendum be held? In my opinion, whenever we see division among the people or the need for a societal debate.

So, I would say to my colleague that, at 50 per cent and a little more or less, the issue is not really decided. When the people are asking themselves some questions, I believe it is appropriate to further the debate to inform them well. At that time, I think it will be very credible to have another one in four years, in two years.

To respond also to the first question of my colleague, I would say that referenda are appropriate when the people ask themselves questions. It would even be interesting in the future to have a card announcing a referendum to be held at a given time and on a given issue. Perhaps we could have an annual day of referendum to ensure the people would participate more.

There are many questions we have to ask ourselves. Inasmuch as we ask ourselves questions on our system and we not do consider it the best in the world, perhaps it is the best in the world, but that is not a reason for sitting down and saying it should stay the same. On the contrary. I think the world is modernizing today and we must constantly ask ourselves questions on what we do and what we want to become.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minor elements I would like to discuss tonight. Many references to the participation rate in the referendum that took place in Newfoundland were made. It was said that that rate was so low that it undermined slightly the credibility of the exercise.

People often say that the right to vote is a also a responsibility for the citizen. We know that there are citizens who are highly interested in politics and others who are not very interested. Would had it been very appropriate for those who did not really take an interest in the debate surrounding the Newfoundland referendum to make a judgment on the issue since they had decided to leave it to other more informed people?

So, the participation rate is not really important. In Quebec, the participation rate, or the percentage of people who felt concerned by the issue, exceeded 90 p. 100. In Newfoundland, less people decided to participate. So be it. We have to respect their decision.

The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that the word referendum seems to raise great fear in this House. I believe that a referendum, as has been said so many times this evening, is a very modern and highly democratic tool.

What is important to understand is that, at the present time, in this dynamic world with its rapid changes, where we are constantly being required to totally change our tack, decisions must be made quickly, but they must be tailored to the wishes of the people. That leads us to the concept of referendum.

What can be wrong with consulting the people, consulting those who have pondered the question? So we prepare a question for the population, and those who want to answer do so. That is completely normal, and I believe there ought to be more referenda.

The other point is that, when legislation is being prepared, we need to add things to it, and then later on it will dictate to us how we ought to act.

In the end, the people are represented by politicians, and these very politicians establish the laws defining the broad social trends in our society. At some point in time, we realize that these laws, including the Constitution, are so complex we get lost in them. How can our country remain dynamic and adapt quickly, when we are caught up in a jumble of laws?

This brings me to the Bertrand case, which claims that we cannot do what we want to do because the law prevents it. But the people, through their politicians, establish the laws to define the course of society, and we are not even allowed any more to oppose it. I think there is room to question this. Society needs to debate this point. We should ask people about this, because they are those who elected us here.

They elected us to represent them along some party lines and those party lines are the ones defining social trends. However, we must lend an ear to the people to know if our decisions are appropriate. These are considerations that fascinate me tonight, and I think we would gain from pondering over them.

Last September 5, the Newfoundland government held a referendum to change the school system to a non-denominational one. Results were a yes vote of 54 per cent with a 52 per cent participation rate, which meant that the Newfoundland government could start the process whereby it is today asking the federal government to amend term 17 of the 1949 union act, in accordance with clause 43.

As we know, section 43 allows the federal government to amend the Constitution with the consent of one province when the amendment applies only to this province. We also know that section 43 was used on three occasions in the recent past. In 1987, with regard to the same rights of churches in Newfoundland, but it had to do with the Pentecostal Church. In 1993, to enshrine the equality of the French and English languages in New Brunswick. And again in 1993, to facilitate the building of a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

We do not see anything wrong with the proposed reform. The school system in Newfoundland has become too complex and too costly. Three years of consultations with the churches involved have led nowhere. If an agreement had been reached, it could have been cancelled by anyone with the help of the courts.

As I was saying, the rule of law Mr. Bertrand is so adamant to support has its limits. When the limits have been reached, fortunately there remains democracy. We come full circle; is the law there to serve the people or are the people there to serve the law? What tools can we use? I think a referendum is a very good one.

When the population so wishes, even if the turnout is not so large, the opinion of the well-informed prevails. Fifty-three per cent of the people felt they were informed enough to give their opinion. They said what they had to say. Democracy played its role. I hope things work just as well during the next referendum in Quebec. The participation rate will be determined by the number of people really interested in the debate.

Maybe we should hold a broad public debate on the right to vote. Is it a civic duty or a right? Are those who vote knowledgeable enough to give direction to public debates in our country?

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

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I will see that it does not happen again.

In the editorial in Circul-Air , Édith Fournier, the general manager of Air Satellite and president of the council of the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, or AQTA, said the following: ``In the course of the negotiations leading up to the privatization of air navigation services, we have heard some pretty strong language. John Crichton, the president of ATAC, the Air Transport Association of Canada-which I mentioned earlier-on the op-ed page of the January 4, 1996 issue of Le Soleil , took the contempt of regional bodies to new heights''.

First of all, Mr. Crichton, from his lofty new perch as president of Nav Canada, took it upon himself to cast doubt on the accuracy of remarks made by Mr. Jenner, the president and CEO of AQTA at the association's 20th annual conference. In his article in Le Soleil , he said: ``Let us be very clear: the bitter words of Mr. Jenner concerning the privatization of air navigation services say it all. Furthermore, they are an accurate reflection of the opinion of AQTA, which feels that ATAC stole control of Nav Canada away from small and medium size businesses in the air transportation sector.''

As for Mr. Crichton's remarks about breaking solidarity, of greater importance to members of AQTA, there is a preoccupation with the almighty buck, a value completely foreign to AQTA. No one member is more important than another in our association. I will explain. Furthermore, it is because of scrupulous respect for this principle that AQTA rallied over 50 per cent of all Quebec air carriers, an unheard of level of support. ATAC cannot teach us anything about representativity, then, with its meagre 10 per cent of Canadian air carriers.

And here is where the problem lies. ATQA has more than 50 per cent of all carriers, whereas ATAC, which boasts that it is representative of all carriers, in fact represents only 10 per cent of them. They say ATAC is far larger. When one has on one's board members such as Air Canada and Canadian, which generate big bucks, one is capable of financing associations such as ATAC. The little guys are not necessary.

That is not the case with AQTA. In AQTA, whether you are a big or a small carrier, it is not the amount of your dues that counts. What counts is that you will be defended, and your membership is wanted.

Still quoting Mr. Chrichton, it appears that Mr. Jenner was the only one opposed to ATAC's highjacking of Nav Canada. In reality, there was generalized opposition by the commercial airline associations, so much so that they formed the council of air carrier associations, or CATA, another four letter acronym to add to the confusion. There were some air carriers in Canada who did not agree and who formed an association called the council of air carrier associations to defend themselves against the privatization which had been decided upon with the greatest of insensitivity to the opinion of small and medium size businesses.

Through AQTA and other regional associations, the majority of small and medium size businesses chose to be represented by this CATA. Let there be no confusion. Democracy and fairness require that choice to be respected and not denigrated. Mr. Chrichton still has a long way to go in that respect.

So that is about where the situation stands. I would have liked to talk of other things, including the letter from ATAC to Mr. Jenner inviting him to sit on the Nav Canada committee. I also have a letter from the AQTA, from Édith Fournier, the editorialist I have just referred to, expressing great pleasure, saying: "Yes, Mr. Jenner is in agreement, despite our not always agreeing on the

principle of Nav Canada, but since there was no other choice left, yes, we will get involved in the Nav Canada committee". A letter of acceptance.

I also have a third letter from ATAC, where the Nav Canada representative writes: "unfortunately, your candidature could not be accepted. Thank you for your offer, but unfortunately we cannot take you". And that is the end of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate on this bill because it concerns the representation of small carriers, the subject I have given greatest consideration to. We were told that the small carriers were represented.

I have here a series of facts. I have letters here. Those who are not familiar with the bill must understand that the government said it was going to privatize air services. No problem so far. For those who are not really familiar with air services, here is what that means. When a plane takes off from an airport, it must communicate with a control tower. Then there are the instrument flight rules and the pilot is in contact with other controllers whose job it is to direct aircraft according to the various weather conditions.

The government decides to privatize these services. So far so good. With the state of public finances at the moment, there is reason to think this is very appropriate. Then the government said it would appoint a competent board. Given that the government does not necessarily know everything in this area, it appointed a board to look after privatizing services and then set the charges for air services to users. When the time came to decide who would sit on the board of Nav Canada, discussions were held. My remarks will concern the persons on this board.

The people deciding the type of charges are probably experts in the area of aviation. The real problem is that, if these experts-as I said-are major carriers, the charges will probably favour major carriers over small ones. This is my fear.

Coming from a remote region, I can confirm that small carriers in such regions encounter major difficulties. Travel by air is important if you want to go from the Lac-Saint-Jean region to Montreal. Air transportation is vital for business and economic development in remote areas; it also creates jobs. Given the need to provide a high level of service despite the fairly low number of passengers, costs are prohibitive. Ask most of the people in my riding and in all the regions from Vancouver to Newfoundland and they will tell you that plane tickets are very expensive.

This was the subject of a study. Every time the cost of tickets goes up by $1, there is a corresponding $1 drop in annual sales for the airline. Other modes of transportation are slower, but those who cannot afford to fly take the bus or the train even if it takes longer. But in business, time is important, time is money.

One chamber of commerce-I think it is in Matane but I am not sure-asked the Quebec government whether it could give remote areas a subsidy allowing them to reduce their costs. As I was saying, air service is a key factor of economic development.

This brings me to the squabble that surrounded the creation of the Nav Canada committee. As you know, sometimes it does not take much to provoke an outcry, but there may be cases in which such an outcry is justified. There are cases in which questions should be raised, but the issues are too complicated. That is one of the problems in this case; what happened is extremely complicated. People find it quite confusing.

I will try to explain the situation as best I can. The people in the Quebec air transport industry got together. As you know, I worked in that sector for three years so I am quite familiar with the difficulties faced by small airlines. Quebec set up an association of small airlines called AQTA or Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens.

We would have liked AQTA to sit on this committee for two reasons. First of all, because AQTA represents mostly small airlines and, second, because it represents the French fact in Quebec and Canada and also because it represents Quebec. I think it would have been important. There was a debate. They told us they invited us but we did not come.

I will quote from a few articles, including a letter of opinion published in Le Soleil . This letter, from Mr. Jenner of the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens or AQTA, read as follows: ``The privatization of Canadian air navigation services is turning sour. The Air Transport Association of Canada or ATAC has taken control of the new corporation''.

It is important to understand that the current president of Nav Canada is also the president of ATAC. The acronyms are confusing,

but the thing to remember is that ATAC stands for the Air Transport Association of Canada.

So this association is bragging, saying: "Look, do not say that small carriers are not represented. Not only does ATAC have a representative on Nav Canada's committee, but he is the chairman". The problem is, and I will come back on this later on, that ATAC and the AQTA are quite different in terms of representation.

The article reads on: "Ottawa has set out to privatize the entire Canadian air navigation system, which employs nearly 7,000 Canadians. A non-profit organization called Nav Canada has been created to eventually take over the administration of this operation on behalf of the industry. When the users committee responsible for incorporating the new company was formed, AQTA stepped aside to let the president of ATAC represent all users. This was too good to be true. As soon as the incorporation committee submitted the first draft of the letters patent, the fighting started", Mr. Jenner told the members of his association, who were gathered in Quebec City yesterday for their 20th annual congress.

The article reads on: "ATAC's president was holding the pen on our behalf but the fact of the matter is that he just wrote whatever he wanted to. He has betrayed us", Mr. Jenner told Le Soleil , adding: ``Consequently, regional carriers are complaining about being completely excluded from the decision making process. Thus, any recommendation they may have made concerning the selection of board members came to naught. The president of AQTA had asked that Nav Canada's statutes and letters patent be bilingual, so as to recognize both official languages as equal, arguing that this was the practice in all legislation in Quebec and Canada. It was requested that the mission statement include a commitment to promote the use of the French language in air operations. The committee came back a week later, having settled the language issue. Only the company's name and corporate logo are bilingual''.

So much for Canada being this great bilingual country. But this is another story, that I may get to debate in my future career.

According to Mr. Jenner, "such an attitude jeopardizes the headway made over the past 20 years in the fight for the use of the French language in the air transportation industry. What kind of quality of life and quality of service can we expect from Nav Canada's French speaking employees if management has a total aversion to our language?"

Sure, it is a bilingual service, except that only the logo is. But that is another issue.

Brian Jenner is concerned that small carriers are not represented on Nav Canada's board, particularly since the decisions that will be made will directly impact on the already exorbitant transportation costs in the regions.

The article goes on: "The costs of privatization are going up. Originally, there was talk of selling the service for an amount somewhere between $800 million and $1.3 billion. Now, the figure mentioned is $1.7 billion, possibly more. The budget of the whole operation was also scaled up, as well as the anticipated deficit. In the end, the expected savings will give way to increased operating costs".

According to Mr. Jenner, "if regional airports are asked to be financially self-sufficient, it could really hurt air transport outside large centres. It is obvious that the Sept-Îles airport cannot self-finance itself; however, closing its control tower is not an obvious solution. There is a limit to the ability of small and medium size businesses to pay".

One problem is that if authorities find out that little use is made of a control tower in Sept-Îles or in northern Saskatchewan-because I am not merely talking about the interests of Quebecers but those of all small carriers in every remote area-if they find out you are not using your on-board equipment-I will spare hon. members the aviation jargon-they will decide to close it down because of the high costs involved. This is what privatization is about. If you want to keep your services you have to pay. How do you expect a small carrier to do that?

This was a letter published in Le Soleil , but I have another article, this one from the magazine Circul-Air , which is a Quebec publication on air transportation-

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not on the transport committee, but I was in the aviation field for a number of years, and when I caught wind of this issue, I saw there were some things not right about the bill.

As my colleagues have said, we are not against the bill, but there are certain things that are slipping past the public, and in some respects the issue is such a complex one that people are not reacting.

We are in agreement with the privatization of air navigation services. It is a good idea. We have reached the point where we must pay. The problem is the manner in which the government is going about it. They have created an agency called Nav Canada to examine ways of privatizing air navigation services.

The first problem is that in the group of 15 people making up the board there are very few, if any, representatives of small carriers. It is for this reason that I wished to speak on Motion No. 2. When Nav Canada has to decide on fees for users and carriers, will it take small carriers into consideration?

I come from a remote area, Lac-Saint-Jean, where the air link between Montreal and Alma is very important, and small carriers like Air Alma are essential. A study has been done showing that if the price of an airline ticket goes up by one dollar, there are losses of one dollar on this same ticket as a result of this bill. Each time airfares go up, there are some very negative repercussions for airline companies.

What I find fascinating is that the only reactions come from Quebec. There is very little reaction from other air carriers. We were told that Nav Canada's board includes representatives of small carriers such as Air B.C. Air B.C. has BA-146s, which can carry 146 passengers; this, in my book, does not make it a small carrier.

What is interesting and important is that, first of all, this board should include Quebec members so that French language air navigation services are always well represented. We are also proposing that AQTA, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, be represented.

At a recent committee meeting, we were told that the president of AQTA had refused. I have here a letter from ATAC, the Air Transportation Association of Canada, which refers to the invitation to the president of AQTA to sit on the Nav Canada board. I have a second letter in which the president agrees to sit on the board. I have a third letter saying that, unfortunately, the president of AQTA will not be able to sit on the board. This is a major disappointment because AQTA represents both Quebec and small carriers.

Within Nav Canada small carriers are represented by the president of ATAC, Mr. Crichton, who also represents ATAC. The problem is that some 70 per cent of ATAC's funding comes from large carriers. One therefore has good reason to fear that the way air services are taxed may hurt small carriers.

You may argue that small carriers are not happy because the price of their tickets will go up a little. This could have a very negative impact, even on chambers of commerce. I think it was the Matane chamber of commerce that sent the Prime Minister a letter saying: "It is about time to lower the price of tickets". This goes to show how important this is, because the prices have to be reasonable for the representatives of chambers of commerce routinely doing business with Montreal to be able to get to Montreal regularly.

Not only are air carriers adversely affected, but employment in regional airlines, chambers of commerce and any company doing business with Montreal and across Canada are also adversely affected.

This may look like nothing, but I think it could have serious consequences not only in Quebec but also across Canada. Some will say: "Why is Quebec the only province griping about this?" That is because, in Quebec, we have a permanent organization known as the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. I say "we" because I worked in that field for three years. Our purpose in having a permanent organization is to ensure that all small carriers are represented by an association capable of analysing the issues concerning them.

Another problem I can see with the Nav Canada committee is the fact that Nav Canada is not accountable to the people. After the committee has been established, it is very important to undeerstand that small carriers must have a say. If they disagree with something- because of the lack of representation I mentioned earlier-will they be heard, even if they take to the streets? There is cause to be very sceptical.

As my hon. colleague indicated, the same kinds of problems were encountered with ADM. Nav Canada then acts as a shield behind which the government can hide by saying: "This is no longer our responsibility. Blame Nav Canada". Except that Nav Canada was created by the government. Again, we realize that the system is flawed in that regard. We have every reason to examine a consideration that could have very serious consequences.

It is also important, in considering this bill, to take a look at the various forms of taxation. At present, three separate methods of taxation could be contemplated. There is, however, reason to believe that only one of them would work to the benefit of small carriers, but that Nav Canada is not considering that particular one.

I will sum up by saying that I really hope that the government will be able to revise its bill at least to include small carriers and an AQTA representative, so that small carriers can have a say about the method of taxation. It would be much too complicated to get into the various methods, although I touched on the subject, but all I really want is for the minister to allow an AQTA representative to sit on his committee. I am not asking for anything complicated. In fact, it is quite simple, yet it would be very important.

[Young Canada Works Program, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against encouraging young people. However, since that question infringes on the most basic of individual rights, the freedom of speech, will the minister withdraw this questionnaire from circulation and order that all the responses received so far be destroyed?

[Young Canada Works Program, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Operation Propaganda continues at the Department of Canadian Heritage. Today, it is young people they want to indoctrinate as part of Operation "National Unity". One of the questions on the form to be filled out by young people interested in the Young Canada Works Program asks them to write a 250-word essay on what Canada means to them.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize that this question is aimed at selecting young people on the basis of their political views?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since I got into politics, I have become aware of things I never noticed before. For instance, I have noticed to what extremes some people will go to pull the wool over people's eyes. They tell half-truths, until the public realizes in the end that not a word of what they have been told is true.

A reporter in Quebec used to say: "To tell the truth is a challenge, but the real challenge is to tell the whole truth". I have been listening to my colleague opposite who is trying to say that, yes, this bill will be very good for Canada. Also, if we were to believe him, the Bloc Quebecois refused to do any work on this bill. Quite the contrary. We took part in consideration of this bill, but what we tried to do was to move amendments to improve the legislation.

It is also important to note that the human resources development committee travelled throughout Canada to listen to what the public had to say about this bill. What did the government do? It turned a deaf ear. It travelled throughout Canada to show how democratic the whole process was, to show that, yes, the public had been consulted and that, yes, the bill is consistent and meets the expectations of Canadians.

When I was appointed to this committee, I was disappointed to see that the government had held consultations, but had it really listened to what was said? Did the committee members travelled throughout Canada just for the sake of it? That is the impression I am left with.

I think the problem here is that the public still does not know this bill well enough. When people finally understand, probably in May, when the act will be in effect and its effects will unfortunately have started being felt, when their pay cheques are cut, then the people will take to the streets. In fact, they have already started.

For instance, people in Jonquière and Chicoutimi took part in a 18- kilometre march recently. Do you think they did it for fun? Do you think people demonstrate just for fun or simply to protest? No, like the hon. member opposite said, in a region such as mine, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, people march because they have to deal with certain realities, with seasonal work. This bill will have a negative impact on seasonal workers. The government would have us believe otherwise. Fascinating.

There is another reality that I would like to mention, the one our young people are living in. The situation is clear enough. I have friends who are still in university and who will be working this summer. We know how hard it is to find a first job, but people are always hoping to find one.

With this bill, which makes it even harder to qualify for UI benefits, we, the young, tell ourselves: "UI is for other people, for those who were part of the old system". Again, young people are hit in the knees. At least, that is the impression I get.

Another point the hon. member for Mercier mentioned this morning is something unbelievable that people are not well aware of, that is, the issue of double jobs. The hon. member said a little while ago that this bill will precisely benefit those who hold down two jobs. In a sense you always look good telling the truth, but it must be the whole truth.

We know that this reform affects people who have two jobs, and we know full well that it is often young people who have two jobs, who have two McJobs. Those who have two jobs, let us say job A and job B-and I am telling you this because it is important-will have to accumulate a certain number of hours in order to become eligible. I once had two jobs, as a matter of fact, when I went to Alberta to learn English.

I had two jobs at that time and I suddenly realized that it was too much for me, so I quit one. Today, if a person quits one of his two jobs, that person will be penalized in terms of the total number of hours and in terms of benefits. These are things that my colleague opposite has neglected to mention.

Again, I would like it so much if people who are watching us would listen carefully to what I am saying and understand what is really going on. This bill is scary. It takes us back 20 years. What I find unfortunate is that the government still refuses to listen, saying, of course, that the opposition has done nothing to improve this bill. It is very disappointing, but we will see what happens. Time will prove us right.

[Experience Canada Program, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting public funds in this way or financing task forces that are not representative of young people, what is the government waiting for to settle the manpower training dispute between Canada and Quebec, which is the only way to give some real hope to Quebec's young people?