Maud Debien

[Haitian Police Force, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that Canada invested close to $2 million in the training of these police officers. The minister just told us that a number of these young officers were hired by the Haitian government. But there remains a number of them, in which thousands and even millions of dollars were invested.

What does the minister intend to do to put the money invested in the training of these police officers to good use, until they are fully integrated into the Haitian force?

[Haitian Police Force, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In answer to a question from the official opposition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs pledged, on March 1st, to ensure "that those who have been trained here in Canada will have full access and opportunity in the Haitian police force".

Three months later, and after a visit from the President of Haiti to Canada and a trip to Haiti by the minister, the situation remains unchanged.

Can the minister tell us why, three months after his commitment in this House, and given that Canada is leading, at its own expense, the UN mission in Haiti, more than 30 police officers trained in Canada are still waiting to be integrated into the Haitian force?

[Mexico, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the visit to Canada of the President of Mexico, Mr. Ernesto Zedillo. I am delighted that Canada and Mexico enjoy such excellent relations. There has been a remarkable increase in economic exchanges under NAFTA, notably those with Quebec.

The two governments need to take advantage of this meeting to reiterate their rejection of the American Helms-Burton bill, which creates a dangerous precedent. What is more, Mexico and Canada must continue to join battle against drug trafficking and to develop effective economic, social and environmental policies to improve the standard of living of our populations.

The Bloc Quebecois acknowledges Mexico's efforts to get out of its economic crisis, and we hope the Mexican people will be able to reap the benefit of those efforts as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question. Of course, whenever I board a plane as a passenger-and I think the same goes for most of us-I always feel a kind of natural fear. At least I do. I have not yet fully overcome my fear of flying, so this is a concern.

Since the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked me personally to answer this question, I must say that I might be even more fearful knowing that the priority that should be given to safety is not clearly indicated in the bill, as the Bloc Quebecois had proposed to do by inserting a preamble. That is the answer I would like to give my colleague.

In response to the parliamentary secretary, I think we are not asking the impossible. We asked him to write a few lines in a preamble showing how important it is for the government to make people like myself-I think I am not the only one-feel safer about the priority given to safety by a commercial company providing a public service.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, I totally disagree with the member of the Reform Party.

First of all, I would like to point out to him that, when passengers fly to India, the language of the country, Hindi, is spoken on the plane, and English is also spoken. I do not see where English has primacy. When you go to Spain, both Spanish and English are spoken on the plane.

Wherever you go in the world and you take a national air carrier, it is always the national language that is used and English.

I do not see why and how English would suddenly become the international language, when in practice, this is totally false in the case of most major countries in the world. It should be the same here in Canada.

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

The hon. member tells me it was a comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I was busy giving a document to someone. I would like to know whether my colleague from Blainville-Deux-Montagnes asked a question or only made a comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question the parliamentary secretary asked my colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans earlier could not have come at a better time. He asked him what steps the Bloc Québécois would suggest today for improving the Aeronautics Act in order to improve air safety. My speech also could not come at a better time because I am going to address air safety.

Bill C-20, which we are debating today at third reading, provides for the creation of a business corporation called Nav Canada. This bill deals first and foremost with the commercialization of civil air navigation services.

In other words, the government has decided to sell to Nav Canada the air navigation system and to entrust it with its management. As we repeatedly pointed out during this debate, the official opposition is not against selling the air navigation system to Nav Canada for an estimated $1.5 billion, apparently. This government decision, whose merits we recognize, is based on objectives of efficiency, cost effectiveness and less costly operations.

However, we are dismayed by the fact that none of the amendments proposed by the opposition parties have been retained. Worse, an important amendment regarding the Privacy Act passed by the transport committee-where, as we know, the Liberals have a majority-has been eliminated from Bill C-20 by the same Liberal government. In other words, never mind the committees.

As my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, critic for transports, put it so well, we swung like a pendulum, from one extreme to the other, not stopping in the middle. Yet, the government could have struck the appropriate balance, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport might think, by conducting an objective review of the proposals and amendments presented by the members of his own party.

Citizens who are interested in the privatization of navigation services will not be surprised to hear today the Bloc Quebecois remind the government of a basic aspect of this bill that, unfortunately, it neglected. Through the amendment of my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc Quebecois would like the government to acknowledge the fact that security of passengers, personnel and the general public must take precedence at Nav Canada.

We must not forget that, at the very beginning, the official opposition tried to have the government and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take precedence over Nav Canada's financial interests.

Several amendments of the Bloc were debated in committee and in this House at the report stage to have this principle recognized. Each time, we came up against the Liberal majority.

Yet, in matters of air transport, security is certainly a number one consideration. The parliamentary secretary bluntly admitted, on May 29, that the sale of the air navigation system would be, and I quote, "a $1.5 billion contribution to reducing the federal deficit".

Would this claim be sufficient to justify speedy passage of Bill C-20? The parliamentary secretary tried to reassure us by once again avoiding the safety issue. "Safety will continue to have the highest priority for Transport Canada". He repeated that earlier today.

Safety regulations will be in place before ANS is transferred. Transport Canada will monitor and enforce compliance with these regulations as it does now in the case of airlines. The Aeronautics Act which sets out the regulatory framework to maintain the safety and integrity of the aviation industry will prevail. I point out to members of the Bloc that it will prevail over the ANS Act.

I listened with great interest to these words of the parliamentary secretary. I understand that Transport Canada established some safety rules and standards that will apply to the new corporation and that operations will be controlled so that these rules and standards are properly observed. The government statements might seem reassuring. But, in spite of the rhetoric and the good intentions of the parliamentary secretary, as far as I know, safety standards are not mentioned in the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that, given all the commercial decisions being made by Nav Canada, the only way to ensure safety would be to state, in the bill, that safety will remain priority number one. That is the principle we want to assert when we say that the public's safety comes before a private corporation's profits.

Unfortunately, it seems the government has already decided what priority will be given to safety in air transport. Furthermore, I feel that it is just stone deaf to what we are saying. The only thing it hears is the ring of the deficit cash register. All we can hope is that it will not be awakened by some unfortunate event caused by its lack of responsibility.

In conclusion, I would like to point out another aspect of the bill I find unfair. As my young colleague spoke about it at some length, I will be very brief. I believe that the new corporation, Nav Canada, must make sure that those who are poorly or not represented on the board, such as small carriers and the aviation sector as a whole, are not discriminated against.

The newest children must not be put at a disadvantage. NAVCAN did not respect the wish of small carriers, and only major carriers have a representative on the board. For example, nobody will represent the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, as my new colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean so wisely pointed out. This is another sad reality endorsed by a government in a hurry to get rid of the Canadian air navigation system.

The Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill as it stands because of its many significant flaws including-as I stressed at some length-the one regarding safety. For these reasons, I will support the amendment moved by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

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

So is the government.

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

Love is blind.