House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Referendums May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said on several occasions that the next Quebec referendum, and the declaration of sovereignty, would have to comply with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is silent on the issue.
Does the Prime Minister intend to make a constitutional amendment to this effect?
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague, and, do you know, I understand his federalist reactions when he criticizes the position of the Liberals, who lately, to our great delight, seem to be committing one mistake after another, to the detriment of their cause. I am speaking, for example, of their intransigence that even the federalist premier of Alberta has just criticized, saying that he does not understand their stubborn insistence on interfering in the fields of education and health in particular, as these are provincial jurisdictions, and that it is harming the cause of federalism.
Before that, there were the blunders about the distinct society that was not, and the right of veto that seemed equally imaginary. I therefore understand very well the position of my hon. colleague, who is a federalist and who sees the other federalist party stubbornly blundering on and harming the cause of federalism. I have only one explanation to give him, and it is this: Whom God would destroy He first sends mad.
Now, I have a question to ask. Newfoundland was mentioned earlier. Newfoundland became a province of Canada as a result of a referendum won by a close margin. First of all, I would like my colleague to enlighten me on a constitutional point. Back then, did the Constitution provide for the arrival of a new member in Canada? And if not, why is it constitutional that Newfoundland is a member? Would it not be in order to throw it out by force of arms, as it has no business being in Canada, having entered it unconstitutionally? That is my first question.
I have a second question. At the time-I was not yet in Canada unfortunately-was the opinion of the nine provinces already there sought, because the Prime Minister is telling us that there is no question of allowing Quebec to separate without the consent of
nine other provinces? Was the consent of the nine other provinces sought before Newfoundland was allowed into Canada?
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the motions in Group No. 2 deal with clauses 15, 18, 21, 36, 37 and 40. We put forward 18 motions on these six clauses, which goes to show how important this group of motions are.
The main objective of these motions-which is also why they were grouped together-is to ensure broader distribution of the notices Nav Canada has to give in some instances stipulated in the act. The main instances where Nav Canada has to give such notices to the regions and the organizations concerned are the following. It has to do with the notices Nav Canada has to give when it wants to increase or reduce the services it provides.
Another specific clause deals with the instances where Nav Canada wants to increase, reduce or modify designated northern or remote services.
Lastly, Nav Canada must give notices when it wants to establish a new charge or revise an existing charge or review the organizations that have to pay those charges.
Those are the three instances where Nav Canada must give notices. In these three cases, the current legislation provides for notices to be given to the organizations concerned. However, the problem we have with this, and which deserves our attention, is that the list of organizations that may be concerned is too vague, as are the means to be used to reach these organizations.
All our motions propose, in the three cases I just mentioned-changes in services, changes in northern or remote services, changes in user charges-that advance notice be served first to all local daily newspapers. Obviously people must be advised of such important changes as those to the services provided by Nav Canada.
We also think that, if need be, the band council or councils concerned should be informed. Generally, theses notices should be sent as much as possible not only by mail but also by E-mail.
We also want the large and small organizations representing the users to be advised of changes to the user charges and services. Finally, since individuals should not be forgotten, anyone who has expressed an interest in the previous ten days should be informed. This, then, covers the cases in which we want notices to be sent and the type of notices to be sent.
We do not think these provisions are useless. We just want to specify the means that must be used. Let us not forget that, since Nav Canada necessarily has a commercial purpose, we, as legislators, must protect ourselves and protect users against the tendency Nav Canada could have, for financial reasons, not to announce widely the measures it intends to take, or to save money in the way it makes these announcements.
We want to avoid anything arbitrary in the way Nav Canada provides information concerning the measures it intends to take. Again, these amendments are based on the general principle that even though Ottawa delegates some of its powers to a private organization that has to provide a public service, it does not mean that this service must be reduced in terms of quality and quantity. In this second group of motions, this service is the provision of information.
Since we are talking about information, I will take this opportunity to draw a parallel between this and another creation of the federal government, namely Aéroports de Montréal. ADM is another example of the government's unfortunate tendency to delegate responsibilities to an organization in a way that allows it to use this organization to avoid providing services that it had an obligation to provide before this delegation of responsibilities took place.
The parallel being drawn here, with respect to information, is justified by the fact that ADM has just taken a decision that is extremely important for the region and even, I would say, for Quebec and for Canada, because it involves international airports. With respect to the measure taken by ADM, my office asked for copies of the studies on which ADM is basing its decision. If you can believe it, we were told that ADM is subject to the requirements of the Access to Information Act and that therefore they do
not have to provide us with the studies on which they are basing their decision. We therefore have here another federal creature, which, thanks to the delegation of authority, may decline to justify in a manner satisfactory to the public the decisions it wants to take.
We therefore see that there is a risk that the federal government will create agencies in order not to have to provide the public with the information it has a responsibility to provide and which it must provide when there is no delegation of authority to an intermediate agency, which, under the label of private service, may decline to give out information that, in this case, one is entitled to expect from an agency providing a service to the public.
The point is that the ADM precedent is an indication that we should be very wary that Nav Canada does not become a convenient screen that the government can use to shirk certain of its obligations. In this case, the obligations that we want to be sure Nav Canada assumes concern the distribution of notices in the cases provided for in the bill in the manner and according to the terms regarding the media that we have mentioned.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has said, we agree with privatization in principle, but we have considerable reservations about its key mechanisms, so much so that, should the amendments we will be presenting not be accepted, we will find ourselves forced to vote against this bill.
For the moment, we are talking about the motions in Group No. 1, which address the preamble we wish to see at the beginning of the bill, and which we see as important in expressing the ultimate purpose of the bill.
Nav Canada is a private body, but one that provides a public service. Because of that private status, perhaps the public will not have the guarantees and services it would otherwise, if the body had not been privatized.
The essence of our opposition to certain aspects of the bill therefore lies with that point, that a private body providing a public service must deliver the same quality and quantity of services as would be provided without privatization.
For an overview of our position, I shall digress a little to list the points covered in the motions of Group No. 1.
There are six applications to the principle I have just set out. The first addresses safety. Public safety may be reduced by privatization. I think that this is a perfectly obvious principle, and one that must be set out explicitly in the preamble.
The second point is that Nav Canada's concern for profits must not, either now or later, lead to the reduction of services to northern and isolated regions. In terms of its viability, service in these regions might be considered less profitable, but we feel that this ought not to be a reason for Nav Canada's cutting back on services. We therefore insist that the preamble explicitly include the principle of maintaining services to northern and isolated regions.
This is also the case for the necessity of protecting the interests of the small shippers, whose profit margin is very slim and who
could run into rate problems if their interests were neglected in favour of the large companies which, we feel, were the source of most of the influence on the government around this proposed bill.
These three points I have listed are the ones covered in the motions of Group No. 1. We will have an opportunity very soon-I am stating them here to establish our overall position-in Group No. 2, to talk about the need for sufficient local dissemination of the changes Nav Canada would propose to charges or to the quality or quantity of services.
We will also have to intervene to prevent private clients from having to pay indirectly for services provided to public clients such as organizations designated by National Defence; then, and this is extremely important, we will have-and this concludes the overview of our objections to the bill-to protect the personal information on clients and personnel held by Nav Canada.
Generally speaking, this leads me to say that, when the federal government delegates its power to an organization it has created, services to the public must not be cut.
This sort of delegation must not-and this applies to ADM as well-result in the organization created serving as a screen between the public and the government so that, as the Minister of Transport has just said, the government cannot say: "It is ADM; or, it is Nav Canada. We are innocent of the blood of this just person", in the words of Pontius Pilate.
There is no way we will accept this surreptitious dropping of a hot potato, under the guise of decentralization, with the blame being directed elsewhere: "It is not me, it is Nav Canada; or, it is not me, it is ADM". We totally object to this handy way to fob off responsibilities.
This summarizes my position on these three aspects of block 1. I will no doubt have occasion to rise again on the other aspects I have spoken to briefly.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not fully understand. It is obvious that we will shortly be voting on the motions group by group. For the moment, we are looking at Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Of course, we are going to read them and comment on them, group by group, and, if I have understood correctly, go on to the vote. I presume that it is not a question of forgoing a vote by accepting in advance to the motions as presented.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I did not fully understand what we are doing.
Raw Milk Cheeses April 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker,
A minister rather naive, Oh, could you so truly believe, Cries, "Death waits in the heart of all bries",
So, must we banish from table all cheese, That from raw milk be made Or 'tis a great price to be paid.
But unlike the cheeses he pleases to Chase from our meals, The minister himself is not raw.
Quite the contrary, he's well overcooked. His death-to-cheese plan in Quebec is not brooked.
Our society distinct, Will put up a stink,
Against this project most sinister, Unless you withdraw it, oh minister. Let hear it whomever it pleases, We cry, "We'll not go without our raw milk cheeses".
Kenworth Plant In Sainte-Thérèse April 15th, 1996
Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Last Friday, the Government of Quebec made a proposal to PACCAR, Kenworth's parent company, in an attempt to prevent the closure of the Kenworth plant.
Since the Minister of Labour has announced that the federal government will get involved in this matter, could the Prime Minister undertake to support the proposal the Quebec government made to PACCAR to save the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse?
Kenworth Plant In Sainte-Thérèse April 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Over a week ago, the management of the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse announced its plans to shut down operations at the truck manufacturing facility. Since then, all stakeholders have been actively seeking to prevent this plant from closing and to save the 850 jobs at stake.
Could the Prime Minister tell this House what steps he intends to take to save these 850 jobs?
Kenworth Company April 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, more than a week ago, Kenworth's management announced its decision to shut down operations at its truck manufacturing plant in Sainte-Thérèse. More than 850 directs jobs are jeopardized by this announcement.
As we speak, almost all concerned are actively trying to prevent the closure of this important plant and to save 850 jobs. But the federal government has yet to take positive steps in this important issue.
Time is of the essence, and I might remind the government that it takes more than wishful thinking to prevent the 850 jobs at Kenworth's from moving to Mexico or to the U.S.
In its speech from the throne and its budget, the government boasted about putting job creation first. It should therefore get directly involved in the Kenworth matter and co-operate with the Quebec government in finding a solution, thus preventing the plant's closure.