Maud Debien

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as several of my colleagues have said, the Bloc Quebecois subscribes to the principles of Bill C-20 concerning the commercialization of civil air navigation services. Its objectives of efficiency, cost effectiveness, lowered operating costs, are praiseworthy ones, and we acknowledge them as such.

The reason we have reached the report stage, which is moreover the purpose of the exercise, is that we want to improve this bill. If we listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, however, it would appear that all of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are useless. He has said that ten times or more since the beginning of the debate. I hope he has not reached the stage of considering the official opposition useless. My purpose in speaking will, therefore, be to convince him that Group No. 5 of our amendments is not useless.

Motion No. 25 introduced by the Liberal government aims at removing section 96.1 of the bill as amended by the transport committee. This provision was added on the recommendation of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. Members will recall that members from the three political parties, The Bloc, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party voted for this amendment in committee.

I find the Liberals' about-face at the report stage rather astounding, because they are trying to exclude Nav Canada from the application of the Privacy Act. The Liberal government may claim that the Privacy Act has to be amended so that it can apply to Nav Canada.

Yet, Liberals thought it was important to include the following provision in section 96 of Bill C-20:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.

Then why, in that case, did the government not consider it necessary to amend the Official Languages Act instead? This is a double standard.

This government is acting contrary to the spirit of openness it so often brags about.

It is transferring to Nav Canada public assets under the responsibility of the federal Department of Transports, in order to escape its obligation to inform the public, claimming that this corporation is a private service. This government is not acting properly by using an agency as a screen to avoid providing information that the public has a right to expect from a public agency.

The attitude of the Liberal government on this issue is disappointing, disconcerting and even demoralizing. As I said earlier, members of all parties supported this provision in committee. Today, the Liberals intend to use their majority in the House to defeat an amendment carried in committee. It is a pity that a majority of Liberal members will vote with the government, without being aware of the whys and therefores of Motion No. 25. One has to wonder why committee members bother.

Simply put, with Motion No. 25, the federal government is shirking its responsibilities with regard to openness, integrity and respect for the public it must inform. Needless to say, the Bloc Quebecois is firmly opposed to this motion.

In conclusion, I would like to say a couple of words regarding the comments made a little while ago by the parliamentary secretary, who would like to avoid putting the privatization process on hold because other corporations such as the CN and the CBC are not subject to the Privacy Act, so Nav Canada should not be subject to it either. This is the same as saying that it is important for this government to repeat past errors. This is a strange way to govern.

Finally, Motion No. 26, in Group 5, is presented by the Bloc Quebecois for the sake of consistency with clause 96.1. It amends the Schedule to the Privacy Act so that Nav Canada is added to the list of institutions covered by the act.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleagues, I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services. Among other things, this bill establishes a business corporation called Nav Canada, or NAVCAN.

We are now at report stage, at Group No. 4, to be more precise, Motion No. 15 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. This motion is to amend clause 32 of the bill to ensure that DND and state aircraft of a foreign country are not exempt from paying charges.

To listen to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, you would think that the Bloc Quebecois never understands a thing and always introduces useless motions. He claims this is a good arrangement between the Department of National Defence and Nav Canada, which will apparently split the costs about 50-50. I would be curious to see the parliamentary secretary's figures in this.

At any rate, I should point out that a proposal has already been tabled by small air carriers, suggesting that DND should have to pay for its use of services at airports in Quebec and Canada.

The problem, then, comes from the need not to make taxpayers, passengers and air carriers pay for military aircraft, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will not be the case.

The Bloc Quebecois feels it is unfair to have private users pay for services required by national defence. If clause 32(2) is not amended, defence expenditures will once again be hidden. We have always demanded a reduction in military spending. For this to happen, we first have to know the actual costs. However, in its present form, clause 32(2) will not enable us to know these costs.

Again, it is not up to private air carriers and Canadian taxpayers to pay for DND's flying activities until the minister tables the figures relating to such activities.

Our motion is based on the notion of transparency. It seeks to avoid an artificial reduction of the national defence budget, so as to ensure that actual costs and expenditures relating to such activities are accounted for.

Taxpayers living in remote regions-including those represented by the hon. members for Abitibi, Lac-Saint-Jean, Gaspé and others-must sometimes pay two or three times more per kilometre to go to Montreal or Quebec City than people who travel between Montreal and Toronto. Therefore, I do not see why national defence should be exempted from having to pay the costs associated with its flying activities.

Since the Liberal government is cutting social programs, programs helping the handicapped, old age pensions and women's support programs, I wonder what could possibly justify keeping clause 32(2).

If there is such a thing as natural justice, the Liberal government has definitely missed the boat in this case and forgotten about the principles of fairness which underlie our laws.

I ask all members of this House to support Motion No. 15 moved by the Bloc Quebecois, so that national defence, for the reasons I mentioned, will not be exempt from paying fees to Nav Canada.

[International Trade, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns and preoccupations of the minister, and fine sentiments such as those expressed by the Prime Minister in China, the situation has not changed in the slightest. I would like to know: Can the minister tell us if he intends, in the near future, to require that foreign operations of Canadian companies observe humane standards of work, in particular by prohibiting child labour?

[International Trade, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The organization Development and Peace recently collected 163,500 names on a petition condemning the terrible working conditions that prevail in the factories of certain foreign subcontractors of clothing giants Nike and Levi's. The main victims are women, adolescents and even children.

Can the minister tell us what Canada is doing to keep products such as those sold by Nike and Levi's, which are manufactured under deplorable working conditions, from coming into the country?

[Liberia, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that he would support any effort by the United States to bring an end to the serious crisis in Liberia.

I have a supplementary for the minister. What is the exact role the Canadian government intends to play to facilitate the ongoing peace initiatives and diplomatic negotiations aimed at reaching a lasting ceasefire agreement?

[Liberia, May 6th, 1996]

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

Yesterday, thousands of Liberians were cramming on board a ship to flee chaos in Monrovia while rival factions kept on fighting. Civil war in Liberia has reached unsurpassed levels of violence, claiming many more victims. The number of casualties since 1989 is estimated at more than 150,000.

Can the minister give us an update on the situation in Liberia and tell us whether the peace talks planned for tomorrow and Wednesday in Accra, Ghana, will go ahead as scheduled?

[Developing Countries, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this difficult period of increasing globalization and competition, where some are tempted to withdraw into their shell, it is reassuring to note that some Quebecers continue to be care about developing countries and do not hesitate to get personally involved.

It is therefore with much pride that I salute Claude St-Hilaire, Viateur Alain and Mario Ferland for their work in Senegal in their respective fields of endeavour, that is management of a building company, recycling of plastic waste and the establishment of a school of commerce at graduate level. Their volunteer work overseas, for the International Services of CESO, deserves our admiration.

We are very glad to note that human solidarity with developing countries remain an important value, which should inspire our governments in their relations with our political and trade partners.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.

This is certainly a strange name for a bill that will be harmful to certain groups of Canadians and Quebecers, denying them the protection of the UI system and plunging them deeper into poverty. 1996 is the International Year for the Elimination of Poverty, a fact the government seems to have forgotten.

I would like to begin by saying that Bloc members are not opposed to social program reform. We are, and have always been, in favour of UI reform in order to keep the system up to date.

In our opinion, Bill C-12 fails completely to meet this need to move with the times. Under the reform now before us, the poorest members of society would essentially end up paying for the financial irresponsibility of the financial government, and the latter would see its role in provincial areas of jurisdiction increased.

In fact, this is quite the opposite of the promises made by this government barely six months ago in Quebec. One that is particularly representative comes to mind, something about having to face the music. In light of what has happened since, it is clear that the Prime Minister was addressing not just the Quebec government, but also had in mind Quebecers who were unemployed, particularly women and young people.

We must analyse this bill for what it is and not for what certain Liberal members would have us think it is. It is estimated that over 30,000 Quebecers and Canadians will be forced to turn to welfare if this bill is passed. As recently as yesterday, an article in Le Devoir reminded us, and I quote: ``According to a study commissioned by the Quebec Department of Manpower and Income Security, single mothers were the group particularly affected by unemployment insurance reform. A sizeable number of them would be forced onto welfare rolls''.

The situation is clear. Several of the measures contained in the bill will affect the disadvantaged, whose jobs are generally unstable and at the bottom of the scale. For example, at present, workers are required to contribute to unemployment insurance once they have worked 15 hours in a week, or have earned $163. Bill C-12 proposes to make everyone contribute from the first hour worked.

Workers get their contributions back only if they have earned less than $2,000 in a year, and only when filing their income tax return. Until then, the government has the use of the workers' contributions, and the interest earned on them. This simple measure will affect part time workers in particular, and 70 per cent of these are women or young people. Let us not forget, as well, that the government can dip just as freely into the UI fund, to which it does not contribute one red cent.

The reform proposed by the Liberal government will also restrict access to the plan. At present, a worker has to work at least 15 hours a week, for 12 to 20 weeks, to be eligible for unemployment insurance.

Amendments in Bill C-12 will force possible claimants to work at least 35 hours a week for 12 to 20 weeks, depending on the area. Keep in mind that 31 per cent of women in Canada and Quebec work less than 35 hours a week. Therefore this is a double penalty.

Moreover new workers will be forced to work more than 910 hours before being eligible, a three-fold increase. This measure will seriously impact on women who return to work after have stayed home for a while. Young people just coming onto the job market are also hard hit. Many women and young people will contribute to the unemployment insurance fund but will not accumulate enough hours to be entitled to claim. They will pay premiums without ever being able to receive UI benefits.

It is no wonder therefore that so many women's groups and student associations have submitted briefs against the proposals. They understood, just as we did, that because of those measures they could very well be prevented from ever participating in the system. The Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec maintains that this legislation is violating section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of its discriminatory impact on some disadvantaged groups.

Moreover, certain provisions of the bill provide for a 1 per cent reduction in benefits for workers who have claimed benefits for 20 weeks or more during the last five years, up to a maximum of 5 per cent. Again, this will have a negative impact on seasonal and contract workers.

Again, women and young people can be found in great numbers in areas where seasonal and contract work is the norm. The government wants to punish women and young people for being too often on UI, treating them as if they were to be blamed for losing their job and for the precarious nature of the labour market.

Using family income to determine eligibility for the family supplement has harmful effects. This is a form of income support which is closely related to welfare. This is not the role of unemployment insurance. Why not increase the child tax benefit instead? Shamefully, this measure brings women back to square one with regard to their financial autonomy.

Finally, since I am running out of time, I would like to mention one last measure contained in Bill C-12, which discriminates against women in the area of maternity leave. Fewer and fewer women are entitled to maternity leave. Current statutory provisions require a minimum of twenty 15 hour work weeks to be eligible for maternity leave. Under the new provisions, over 700 hours of work will be needed.

However, the very person in charge of the status of women keeps on denying that these measures are disastrous for women and young people. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women, appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, claimed that, far from penalizing women, the unemployment insurance reform would benefit them.

And yet, even the Minister of Human Resources Development has recognized that his reform would be harmful and that the bill should be amended. This incident reminds us that since the government abolished the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, there is no longer any group defending women's interests within government.

What can we say about this government's attitude and its lack of compassion for young people? The only measure it implemented was to create a training program called "Experience Canada", which constitutes another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. But the best part is, just listen to this, the program is managed by the Council for Canadian Unity. As young people would say, things are not cool between the Council for Canadian Unity and young people. Do not treat us like a bunch of twits.

Ultimately, what we are asking today is that the Minister of Human Resources Development do what his ex-colleague Sheila Copps did and keep his word by withdrawing his unfair Bill C-12.

[Broadcasting Act, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-216 entitled "An act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy)", which was introduced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, gives me an opportunity to rise in the House today to address this issue.

I am doubly pleased to do so since I share the hon. member's concerns, and I congratulate him on supporting the protection and preservation of cultural industries in Quebec and Canada.

The bill before us proposes to amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act to protect consumers against the questionable practices of certain cable companies and to question the almost abiding role played by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.

We will recall that, over a year ago, cable companies were authorized by the CRTC to increase their revenues through negative option billing. What is this high handed method used by cable companies?

In 1994, the CRTC licensed eight new specialty services, including the Réseau de l'information, or RDI. These services were available starting on January 1, 1995. That is when the new channels were added, in most cases, to the basic service provided to subscribers, who then had to pay a monthly surcharge without ever having been notified or consulted.

Cable companies had introduced negative option billing before finding themselves confronted to angry subscribers. They have since had to backtrack and apologize to their customers, promising that, in the future, when they introduced new services, they would give subscribers a choice.

Is it not paradoxical for the CRTC, whose mandate includes looking after the interests of television service consumers, did not say a thing and that circumstances led the cable companies to self-regulate? In light of the CRTC's neglect of duty, Bill C-216 proposes to legislate to prevent this kind of situation from ever occurring again.

We agree with the spirit of Bill C-216, which seeks to give consumers greater control over the programming services they get and, of course, over the costs of such services. We certainly hope that Canadians and Quebecers can enjoy adequate protection, so that no company can demand from them money for programming services that they never requested or accepted. TV viewers must pay for the services they want, not for those a cable distributor or the CRTC wants to impose on them.

That being said, we wonder, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton did on March 27, about the federal government's authority to legislate on this matter. As the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe pointed out, Quebec already has a consumer protection act to prevent abuse such as negative option billing.

The member for Richmond-Wolfe also said that such bill tabled in this House is very clearly a duplication of regulations and an intrusion of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the state of Quebec. It is not ill will on the part of the member for Sarnia-Lambton, added my colleague, it is because his own government has not taken its responsibilities and he is calling it to order. He is also reminding the government that many provinces have no consumer protection legislation and that the present government, with the CRTC, is sending a very clear signal to cable distributors to take whatever action they see fit.

This bill reminds us once more of the ineffectiveness of Canadian federalism. The Consumer Protection Act is a provincial law, while broadcasting is regulated by federal legislation. The result is that when consumer rights need to be protected in the broadcasting sector, there is overlap.

Even in the case of something as simple as consumer protection, regarding which there seems to be a consensus, the whole issue turns into a federal-provincial tangle. Last year, the former heritage minister himself thought that broadcasting was a field of provincial jurisdiction. A few days later he revised his position and stated that broadcasting came under federal jurisdiction. If the former Minister of Canadian Heritage had trouble making sense of all this, how can ordinary citizens figure out these contradictory signals?

Let us be clear, Quebec, just like Nova Scotia, has already passed legislation to protect its consumers against negative option billing. The problems experienced by Canadian subscribers in January 1995 did not happen in Quebec. Quebec has, for some time now, assumed its responsibilities with its Consumer Protection Act.

What Canadians and Quebecers want is a government that is effective, able to act rapidly in the interests of the public, not governments that overlap, contradict each other and duck issues. In the area of consumer protection, we believe that the provinces can best meet these needs. If people in the other provinces are not happy to find themselves subscribing through negative option billing, they must urge their provincial governments to take action.

Incidentally, when all this happened, at least three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba, indicated their intention to step in to prohibit commercial practices such as negative option billing. Why does the federal government now want to bring in legislation, unless it is to duplicate what the provinces are doing or make up for others' failure to act.

The other question raised by Bill C-216 concerns the appropriateness of adopting such a measure at this time. The disputes in question took place over a year ago and were resolved subsequently, under pressure from consumers. Well after everyone else, when the problems are a thing of the past, when the provinces are beginning to assume their responsibilities, when the cable companies have regulated themselves, the federal government would now like to pass this bill today. Why? The Liberals know why and we have a good idea.

We repeat that the provinces are best placed to regulate the business practices of cable companies, including negative optioning.

The member for Sarnia-Lambton and the federal government should, instead, look at the new challenges created by technological developments in telecommunications, which will increase in both number and complexity. We already have a pretty good idea of what to expect at the turn of the century. It is only a matter of time before consumers have broadcasting services on a pay-per-view basis. Apart from a few common interest channels, people will make their own choice and pay only for the services they want.

The choice available to consumers will be ever more vast, and government control will be increasingly difficult. This is where the government will have to be more vigilant than ever before in order to ensure the survival of Canada's cultural institutions.

The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of the member for Sarnia-Lambton and, as we said earlier, the principles underlying Bill C-216. However, for the reasons given earlier, including the duplication of provisions of the Quebec consumer protection act, we cannot support this bill.

[Humanitarian Aid, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier told my hon. colleague from Verchères that he had spoken out against the conflict in Lebanon. As we speak, however, and the minister is perfectly aware of this, Brian Rohatyn, a young student from Regina, is in the 66th day of a hunger strike to protest against the American authorities and against the seizure of humanitarian supplies from Canada destined for Cuba.

We are still at an impasse and I would like to know what, other than protesting, the minister intends to do to get us out of it.