Paul Crête

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a further petition signed by 300 persons in my riding, who have joined with another 12,000 who already signed petitions asking that Bill C-12 be withdrawn and all powers relating to employment and manpower training be transferred back to Quebec, along with the associated budgets.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about motion No. 70. This motion states that the coast guard be required to provide services more efficiently. We support this motion because we believe there is some cleaning up to do in the coast guard.

Second, we are asking to allow the people in the marine industry to have their say in the services for which they will have to pay. I believe this would be a good solution in order to offer a better service at a lower cost. Let us respect the voice of the marine industry people who really know about the situation.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I had the consent of the House to extend my time, and since no specific time limit was imposed, I ask if I may conclude.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House for realizing the importance of the issue and allowing us to debate it a little longer.

I want to emphasise a point I mentioned but did not elaborate enough on because of time constraints. Stakeholders asking for a moratorium as an opportunity for Quebec to suggest other solutions are not those we traditionally identify as sovereignists in Quebec. They are industrial stakeholders, people who make our economy work. They are corporations like Iron Ore, Alumax, Daishowa. They are all major economic stakeholders, people who have made their mark in Quebec's economy and have made investments that are growing.

Take an investment like Alumax for example. We gambled on its profitability. When it was first established in Quebec, that corporation had some strategic information whereby it knew that it would have to pay so much for transportation.

Today, it sees the rules being changed. We are telling these people very clearly and ruthlessly that, from now on, the rules will no longer be the same, that we have decided to increase the fees. These people know the St. Lawrence and the industry, they know what the impact of the government's decisions will be, and they also know what the operating costs are for these types of services. They agree to do their share. I would compare that to my house and

say I agree to pay the heating but if the tenant keeps the thermostat at 30 or 35 degrees Celsius, I am paying a lot for nothing.

Should it not be possible to start by finding a more economical way of managing? This is what those concerned are asking: they want the coast guard to provide its services in a more effective way.

Is the situation so urgent that the government must operate like a steamroller, and listen only to its senior public servants and not to stakeholders? I do not think so. There is time in the summer months ahead. It would be possible to arrive at a much more consensual solution that might please stakeholders.

I would like to draw your attention to an article published in the newspaper Les Affaires , on Saturday, February 10, 1996. The article is entitled The fees proposed by the coast guard primarily affect St. Lawrence users'' and contains a significant comment. It says:The recovery policy of the Canadian coast guard, which comes under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is in addition to the ports marketing policy proposed by Transport Canada''.

As you know, yesterday the transport minister tabled the Canada Marine Act. This is a very pompous title for an act. One would expect a general policy on the whole issue of marine transportation. Unfortunately, we do not find what we would expect, given the title of the legislation. Rather, this is an act dealing with the relinquishment of ports, which will have a major impact on how the river will be managed over the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years.

Let us see what will happen. On the one hand, the Department of Transport says: "We will give very large harbours a freer hand; they will be able to operate in a more independent way and as such compete with each other and arrive at interesting results". But, on the other hand, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will increase fees to be charged at harbours along the St. Lawrence. But that is kept under wraps. As a result, the harbours in the maritimes will become much more competitive.

So, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other by changing the rules and charging unfair fees to harbour authorities in Quebec.

So what we are facing 5, 10 or 15 years down the road is a double challenge. I was talking about large harbours that will have complete autonomy, but what about regional harbours? For example, the harbour in Cacouna, which, according to the Department of Transport, is a profitable harbour. With the level of traffic in and out of the port we have right now, the port is efficient and viable. The local people were told: "You should take this in charge". A corporation made up of very dynamic people, called the Corporation de développement du port de Cacouna and chaired by the chief executive officer of F.F. Soucy, a paper mill in Rivière-du-Loup, undertook to examine this opportunity and said: "It would be an interesting proposition, but first, we should check the condition the infrastructure is in and see what we can do with it".

And all of a sudden this issue of fees comes up. An organization not as well informed as this one could have been taken for quite a ride, but the chief executive officer of the paper mill immediately realized the consequences this could have on this undertaking. He has been experimenting for a few years, and still does today, with ways to ferry wood from there.

Raising the fees will increase the ship rental costs and, ultimately, this kind of wood transportation will be made less viable.

Thus, because of those fees, an infrastructure that could be rather interesting for the region will be lost. It comes as quite a surprise that the government does not have a more comprehensive approach to this sector. One of the major causes of that may be that the bill was apparently prepared on the sly, that a firm position was taken without even consulting the stakeholders. Could it be because a new minister was appointed in the meantime? But is the minister just acting like the spokesperson of senior civil servants instead of setting the agenda? I do not know if this explains this situation, but the results are there.

The proposed fees for coast guard services will mainly penalize the users of the St. Lawrence River, who see this as a concession to the Halifax lobby. This is not new in Canada. There are many examples of this in the past.

When Canada was founded, Gaspé could have become our official port of entry. Its natural harbour is possibly the most beautiful in Canada and boats could have gotten there without any problem. No dredging or anything else would have been necessary.

If Gaspé had been chosen, the transcontinental railway could have started there and today the economic situation of the Gaspé peninsula would be quite different. The John A. Macdonald government deliberately chose to develop Canada from east to west, a decision which was very harmful to the province of Quebec.

Today, we see the same thing happening with these new fees. The government has decided to haul the carpet out from under the feet of Quebec users. You could say: Here goes another one of those blasted separatists, who is going to tell us that Quebec is hurting within Canada and that there is no other solution. He always says the same thing.

The problem the Liberal government is facing today is that the people who are demanding changes, who want a moratorium, who want the Coast Guard to clean up its act are not known for being sovereignists.

In this regard, let me quote Raymond Giroux, who says in his editorial comment: "Until now, the major industrial players-namely Iron Ore, Alumax and Daishowa-were scared stiff of being accused of acting in connivance with sovereignist politicians." The senior executives of Canada Steamship Lines, property that the minister Paul Martin holds in trust and which is part of the coalition, the SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, are also mentioned.

These people who are mentioned, who are not identified as sovereignists and who were not particularly courting the yes side last fall, all agree that the federal government's proposal is not fair and that it will prevent Quebec from sustaining adequately competition. They all ask the government of Canada to go back and do its homework all over again, to look again at the way the consultations were held, to give consideration to the advice given by the industrial players and then-

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the consent of the House to let me speak a few minutes more.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this group of motions, Group No. 11, concerning- The Liberals were not here a few moments ago and now they will not stop talking. They are not any more useful to us now than they were then.

Motion No. 70 says that the Coast Guard should provide its services in the most cost effective manner possible and, more importantly, that people in the industry should be consulted about the services for which they are paying. It is an interesting motion. To assess its relevance, it may be necessary to go back to the substance of this bill.

We are talking about user fees on the St. Lawrence Seaway, but most of all we are talking about conditions that will make this seaway an important economic asset for Quebec and for Canada.

We must not forget that there are several ports along the St. Lawrence River. Some are very large, others are smaller, but they are always important to the region where they are located, whether it be in Sept-Îles, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Cacouna, Rimouski or Matane. These are all places where ports play an important role.

We are witnessing what I would call an attack on Quebec by the federal government through the imposition of fees. Let us not forget this is happening at the same time as the releasing of the ports. On one hand, the government paints an interesting picture for the future by decentralizing port management, but, on the other hand, it takes measures that will make ports on the St. Lawrence Seaway no longer competitive and no longer attractive to businesses.

I think there is a very important message being sent to the present government, this message being that people who are behind Quebec's demands are not what the Liberals would call separatists, but people from the aluminum industry, the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry, people from all these job creating industries that are good for the economy. The current government should take that into consideration. These people are all members of the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent. We are talking here about well known firms such as Daishowa and Alumax; in my area, Gaspesia, in Chandler; and F.R. Soucy, in Rivière-du-Loup. These are all businesses that will have to make major economic decisions for the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. When we tell them about the possibility of user fees becoming much higher, they may decide to go elsewhere, to expand their facilities less. We then see clearly the direct link that exists between regional development and the user fee policy.

Why should this kind of fee structure be adopted today? Did we make all the efforts necessary to find another solution? I myself have a proposal for the government that would replace its steamroller approach. As Raymond Giroux, an editorialist at Le Soleil , wrote: ``The administrative machinery already acts as though Canada was nothing more than a secondary residence for its 7 million francophones. Like air traffic control, the issue of ports is handled by the offices of deputy ministers, where the true power resides, in keeping with the Liberal tradition''.

Could the minister not get out of his deputy minister's office, go out there and ask the people in the industry to propose solutions? These people are ready to propose solutions. They have already said they were willing to accept a new fee structure and, after a reasonable time, to adhere to the user-pay principle. It is not a matter of making Quebec pay for the services provided in the maritimes and Newfoundland. Rather, we must review all the solutions, not only raising fees but also looking at the way services are provided in the region.

The people directly involved in maritime shipping have interesting solutions to propose. Instead of raising fees, they would take measures to significantly reduce operating costs. As is well known, the coast guard sometimes behaves as it did in more prosperous times. For example, since its home port has long been outside Quebec, the icebreakers operating in the gulf must go back to their home port in the maritimes just to fill up on fuel. Is this still an

effective way to operate? Would it be possible to save money on this? Should we not review all of the coast guard's operations? I think there is room for self-examination here, but this has been somewhat neglected.

From that point of view, Motion No. 70 is interesting and I think the government would do well to redo its homework, get back to its users and seek proposals so that they can agree from the start on reduction targets that make sense, targets susceptible of generating a consensus. On this sound basis of an agreement on the targets to be met, we could then think about how to go about meeting these targets.

This would constitute a much more worthwhile solution than the one consisting in using a steam roller as the minister is doing right now.

This is a time of year when many of the costs associated with ice during the winter months are no longer incurred. Why would the minister not take a month or two during the summer to look into this, review the matter and find solutions that could meet the approval of all concerned? He could come back to the House with much more interesting answers, answers which could have been arrived at through parliamentary committees, by consensus, answers which could satisfy everybody, transparent answers.

At the moment, a strong impression is being created that this is part of an overall strategy to have Quebec lose its competitive edge. Certain operations lead us to believe that the government is holding a "garage sale", where Quebec's competitive advantages are being sold off, and the St. Lawrence is one of them.

It is also important to ensure that there is solidarity between users all along the river. It must be realized that, when a boat goes down or up the river, it can stop at various ports.

There some major ports which have the equipment necessary to load a ship. There are also several wharfs along the river where ships can take on cargo. For example, ships can take on wood, powdered milk and peat moss, to name but a few, in Cacouna's port, in order to make this stop cost effective, recover their costs and make a profit.

However, if a decision systematically puts industries which settle eventually in the region at a competitive disadvantage and if, indeed, there is a reduction in the use of ports, the whole development of Quebec will suffer, because all ports can be affected by these decisions. Therefore, before making any decision, the government would do well to ensure that there will be no surprises later on.

Public hearings could have been held which would have made it possible to take the public opinion into account. We are told that 75 per cent of stakeholders have asked for a moratorium. Should not the government listen to these people, consider the advantages of this moratorium, give itself time to look for other alternatives and ensure that the business plan which would result would suit all users and not only those who want to maintain services without questioning their relevance?

That is why I think Motion No. 70 deserves to be supported. I would like members, especially those whose riding is affected by this situation, to consider their vote carefully and think about their constituents' interests before they simply support a government position.

True, the government must reduce its operating costs. It needs to raise its cash inflow, but it must do so with the knowledge that it will get a quality service at a minimal cost. It must not simply raise the prices since, by doing that, it does not apply the basic principle that it advocates, that is, sound management. For all these reasons, I ask the government to vote in favour of Motion No. 70.

[National Transportation Week, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, National Transportation Week is on until June 8. It gives me great pleasure to draw attention to this event, especially since federal transportation policies provide us every day with more reasons to wish for Quebec sovereignty.

If a single government had jurisdiction over transportation, we would never have faced the uncontrolled development of road transport without first making better use of existing rail and shipping services. Rail transport comes under federal jurisdiction while road transport is a provincial responsibility. Because of this artificial division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, intermodality could not become a major tool for government action.

Quebec sovereignty will solve part of the problem in this area. In order to modernize the whole transportation system, society in both Canada and Quebec must equip itself with modern tools such as sovereignty-partnership and set aside an antiquated and ineffective Constitution.

[The Senate, June 3rd, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should abolish the Senate.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to open House proceedings this morning on the motion in which I call on the government to abolish the Senate.

First of all, I would like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for allowing this motion to be put to a vote, because I think it is important for the House to have an opportunity to deal with this significant matter.

Why do I want the Senate to be abolished? The reason I moved this motion is that I realized that, throughout Quebec in particular, the Senate symbolizes in a way the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of Parliament. A case in point, which is a caricature because it does not concern all the senators, is when we saw some of them doze off on television during the throne speech.

That incident made me think about the following question: Why do we still need today a second House like the Senate, an unelected House? The senators were never elected by the people to carry out this function; they were appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendation. Senators are often appointed as a political reward, because they helped run a political party so it could win an election, or because they will work on an election campaign in the future.

I can give you two examples: Céline Hervieux-Payette was defeated as a Liberal candidate before being appointed to the Senate; she is now co-chair of the Liberal Party of Canada's organization for the next election campaign. There is also Mr. Nolin, who plays more or less the same role for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Although they were not elected, these people sit in a House with the same responsibilities as the House of Commons. Let us not forget that after a bill passes third reading here in this House, it is sent to the Senate, which goes through the same stages. This is a form of duplication. We saw in the Pearson airport case-and the Liberals were the first ones to be affected as a government; I think this will make them think about how relevant this motion is-how the bill was stalled in the Senate for several months. The reality we are facing is that elected parliamentarians who have passed a bill are now paralysed in their work by an unelected House. This, I think, is unacceptable in this day and age, on the eve of the 21st century.

The Senate's existence was understandable when the Canadian Confederation was created, because we wanted an equivalent to the British House of Lords. It was said at the time that the people sitting in the Commons might not have had all the intellectual capacities necessary. That kind of thinking was prevalent at the time, and all the problems had to be given due consideration. It was therefore decided to institute a kind of patriarchal entity, a House capable of seeing to it that things are done properly. But times have changed.

Today, members of Parliament have all the capabilities required to do their jobs; they have different opinions they are entitled to voice. They have researchers working for them and people lobbying them. Really, the Senate is no longer useful.

The other theoretical function of the Senate was that of representing the various regions of Canada. I have a teaser for you and all members of this place for that matter. Who can identify the senator responsible for his or her riding? Who can give me the designation of the Senate division or district represented by their senator?

I have asked the people of my riding time and time again and no one could tell me the name of the senator representing us or the designation of the division. We are part of the Grandville division and we are represented by Senator John Lynch-Staunton; he is certainly a very fine man. This goes to show that the Senate has not fulfilled this regional representation mandate because nowhere in Canada is a region associated with a senator in particular. And the reason for this is surely the fact that senators are not elected. There is also the appointment process. Often, senators to be were selected or appointed even before knowing what division they would be representing. There was also a requirement for holding property. We have seen cases where, on the eve of their appointment,

individuals rushed out to by a property to meet this statutory requirement. But the Senate no longer meets the objective inthis regard.

Another aspect seems very important to me today. Our constituents are asking us to cut the fat in government spending. They are asking us to look for areas where there are unnecessary expenditures being made. The government took a stringent measure in reforming the unemployment insurance program. Just to save a couple hundred or thousand dollars here and there, legislation was passed that gets down to the nitty-gritty, checking up on recipients to ensure they do everything by the book, all under this very complex act basically designed to hunt down abusers. But at the very same time, we have here a House, the Senate, with an annual budget of $43 million; that is a consideraable amount for an unelected Chamber.

And that is not counting expenses attributable to the senators' activities and associated costs. This amount covers wages, staff compensation and travelling expenses in general. Should we not eliminate the Senate, instead of targeting unemployment insurance beneficiaries? This would generate savings of $43 million. This is an expenditure that recurs year after year. The amount of $43 million is the actual budget. However, when senators delay the passing of a bill for six months or a year, this also generates major costs and it has a very harmful effect on the actions taken by the government and by Parliament.

We should modernize things somewhat. Eliminating the Senate would be one way of doing it. In this respect, the federal government is lagging behind. For example, it was almost 30 years ago that Quebec's National Assembly, then called the Legislative Assembly, eliminated its legislative council, which was more or less the provincial equivalent of the Senate.

I can assure you that things are not going any worse. People do not call to say that they miss legislative councillors. I do not think there would be any more problems if we did the same with senators.

Why is that institution such an anachronism? It may be that, at the turn of the century, there were more complex issues requiring an expertise that elected representatives did not always have. Today, a support system has been developed for MPs and it includes all the functions necessary to that end.

A debate in the Senate does not shed new light on a bill. The legislation goes through all the stages in the House: introduction, followed by first, second and third readings, as well as consideration in committee. Let us not forget that consideration in committee did not exist 10 or 15 years ago. Since then, this stage has become a very important part of the process. Committee members consider bills clause by clause; they have expertise.

The Library of Parliament provides non partisan support and research services. It is very easy to get information on issues of interest. Nowadays, members of Parliament are very well equipped to give thorough consideration to legislation.

There is no longer a need to rely on outsiders whose mandate is unclear. We do not really know whether senators represent the interests of lobbyists or those of the public. That is not always clear. There are some rather ambiguous connections, and, since they are not elected, senators have a great deal of room to manoeuver. They do not have to take any account at all of what they have been told by their fellow citizens in the positions they adopt.

As members of this House, we are only too aware of this. When there is a controversial bill, a situation that is more difficult to analyse, we are approached by lobbyists, but also by our constituents. Imagine how differently you would do things if all you had to take into account in reaching a decision were lobbies. In the end, what we have is a sort of outmoded 19th century democracy, one that does not correspond to our needs today in the information era. What we need above all is people well attuned to their communities, something the senators certainly are not.

Earlier, I mentioned the $43 million budget. This is a lot of money. Freeing up this amount would still not solve the problem of the Canadian deficit, but it would be an important symbolic gesture. When we ask the public to do their part and accept cuts, we are asked all the time: "Are you guys in Parliament doing your part? Are you doing what is necessary so that the best possible decisions are taken at the least cost?"

The Senate is a flagrant example of the sort of area where we could make an important symbolic gesture in the vote following this debate. This would not exclude a debate at a later date on the advisability of having a second House in Canada. What form would this House take? Should it be a House whose seats are distributed by region, or should there be no regional representation at all? This debate can take place later on.

I think there are speakers who are going to raise these points in the debate today, but that is not the real focus of the debate. These are significant considerations, but it is important to realize that the motion is concerned only with the abolition of an archaic institution no longer meeting any need. Agreeing to this motion does not preclude another subsequent debate on a motion proposing a different solution. That is a debate on another scale, with constitutional ramifications. It will be up to the House and the different political parties to defend their points of view in the debate over the coming weeks, the coming months, and probably up until the next

election campaign. There may be differing positions on the relevance of a second House.

But today the purpose of the motion is to identify clearly the importance of making such a gesture, of sending a message to the public that we think that senators, with their present mandate, are no longer needed.

We no longer have any need of a chamber of this type, because the mandate is totally met by the House of Commons. We have MPs capable of performing its duties and this also represents an opportunity to help solve Canada's financial problems. I refer to all of the costs relating to the work of the senators.

In this connection, I would refer you to the 1991 auditor general's report in which he made 27 recommendations for corrections to certain practices of the Senate. We have no way of knowing if those corrections were made, for last week the government operations committee was told by the Senate, giving rise to an interesting motion by the Reform Party: "We do not have to be answerable to the House of Commons. As a chamber, we, like the House of Commons, have only to answer to the Governor General. We do not have to account to you for the $43 million".

In my opinion, that on its own is a provocation and ought to lead Parliament, the House of Commons, to adopt the motion I am proposing, for it seems to me that we ought to have had the opportunity to find out in the House the implications of the auditor general's recommendations, and to analyze in committee whether they had indeed corrected the improper practices. There were a number of significant charges against the senators, whose overall policy was that they could spend like there was no tomorrow whenever anything was needed.

Reference was made to messenger services, travel services, documentation services. In a number of aspects, the Senate is still living high off the hog while the rest of us in Parliament are having many items questioned by the board of internal economy in order to ensure that funds are being properly spent. The desire to economize is not found in the Senate.

How could the Senate be abolished? With the way the motion is presented we are not saying that the Senate is to be abolished the day after a vote here, rather we are giving the government the mandate to see that job is done. I think a number of these people are ready for a golden handshake. Starting with conditions that are acceptable here, we would work it so that within perhaps a year or two the matter would be settled and the other House would disappear on its own.

Those senators still with a taste for politics could simply be invited to come back into the real political arena, that is the next election campaign, where they could face the electorate. They will be able to judge whether they can convince their fellow Canadians that the positions they defend in the Senate are relevant.

The quality of parliamentary debate arises from the fact that, during election campaigns, elected officials have to confront the needs of the population on the campaign trail. Let us remember that we have been here two and a half years and that we must be careful not to live in a parliamentary bubble and to return and visit the people. Basically that is why elections are held. Every four years or so we do a check to see whether what we have done meets the expectations of the people. This is the basis of democracy. I do not think we need outdated institutions today, particularly costly institutions like the Senate.

If the House were to pass this motion, I would feel I had contributed significantly to the quality of democratic life and to ensuring that the Canadian system, as we know it, is as functional as it can be and that it will permit better management of the public sector and better response to the requests of our fellow Canadians.

One of the Bloc's prime mandates, to defend Quebec's interests, includes this notion. You may be sure that the abolition of the Senate is a matter of almost total consensus in Quebec. We never felt there that the Senate satisfactorily represented us and we do not want more governments either. We want to eliminate one level of government.

So we can safely say that throughout Quebec, when we look at the list of senators and their designations, few people know that Victoria, De Salaberry and Mille Isles are represented by senators or can give the names of the corresponding senators. So no one in Quebec would be sorry about the abolition of that House.

We would make the House of Commons accountable by giving it the ultimate power of decision. There would be no second level of decision. The decisions affecting the federal Parliament would only be made here.

Once the debate on this motion is over, I hope enough members will vote for it so we can take the significant action of giving Canada even better democratic tools and strengthening the House of Commons' powers, while at the same time doing something that is very significant these days by saving the money we would no longer have to spend on the Senate.

That is why I ask every member of this House to consider this motion individually. It is not a matter of toeing the party line but of determining if the Senate is still useful to Canada, if it makes a contribution, or if things would not run more smoothly without the Senate and their negative public image. This might help raise people's level of satisfaction with the work of their elected representatives.

In conclusion, I hope that, after the vote, all of us can in a way go down in history by abolishing an unelected House and allowing the government and the Canadian Parliament to act in accordance with

the mandates given by the people, and by taking the symbolic action of cutting some unnecessary spending in Canada. In my opinion, the most significant way to do so with regard to Canada's current institutions is to abolish the Senate.

[Day Care Services, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, parents, educators and politicians are all concerned by the theme of the Quebec week for day care services: "Give me time to be a child".

This theme reminds parents that they must let their children live their childhood, in spite of life's demands.

As for educators, it reminds them that their daily responsibility is to take care of our children, at a time when they learn values and also how to behave like members of a society. The dedication of the qualified and competent staff in Quebec's day care services must be emphasized.

Finally, the theme reminds politicians that, in these times of budget restrictions, children must remain a priority, and the services provided to them must be exempted from budget cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill at the third reading stage.

I became a member of the Standing Committee on Transport when we were at the final stages of the bill. We looked at the bill as a whole, and the amendments moved. I could see that the committee members had put a lot of work into it, and that there was a desire to correct a situation that had existed in the past, namely the problem of controlling the costs of air navigation.

The Bloc Quebecois also saw, however, that the situation was a bit like a pendulum, having gone from one extreme to the other with no stop in the middle. The bill could, in our opinion, have turned into something worthwhile and acceptable. Its purpose was to create a not-for-profit organization in an attempt to involve representatives of the entire industry, with everyone having the opportunity to sit on the board. It seems, however, that the small carriers will not have a say, despite their expectations.

This is one of the negative aspects of the bill, and one which has not been corrected along the way since it was introduced. No amendment in this connection has been made, despite the numerous representations made about it.

Today, however, at the third reading stage, what I would like to tell the government is that, if it were to agree to modify the bill to give precedence to air safety instead of the financial stability of Nav Canada, this bill would have the potential of becoming an acceptable one, in our opinion.

That is what is missing from the bill at present, and our concerns have grown because of the government's refusal at other points, for example, to add a preamble to the bill which would satisfy the need for giving precedence to air safety. This is a very important aspect because of its considerable human impact. We have just had an example of this with the recent U.S. crash, with the loss of many lives, and all of the personal and economic aspects of it.

Canada has, in the past, acquired a reputation for air safety, since we have not had an undue number of accidents. From that point of view we have had a good reputation; our problem lay more, as I have said, with controlling costs.

By trying to settle the problem of controlling costs, we are leaving the door open to the creation of a new air navigation problem: safety. In its present form, the bill does not address that aspect satisfactorily.

This is why we want to ask the government once again to consider the question and, if possible, accept an amendment from us that would make the bill acceptable to the official opposition.

Why does so much importance need to be given to safety? Well, this is an area where mistakes are fatal. Newspapers regularly carry reports of events that have taken place. In this area, for both equipment and people, the most important thing in getting the job done is safety.

We were told in committee, particularly by the spokespersons for the Air Canada pilots' association, by those who came to talk about the use of French in the air and by representatives of the general population, the users of air services, that this was an important consideration and that the government's responsibility should be carried out by Transport Canada.

This distinction is not in the bill. Why is the government not agreeing to include this request on safety in Nav Canada's mandate? The question arises when we look at the make-up of the board of directors. All the representatives of the industry are there, people who are obviously in an industry aimed at making money. The major carriers, like Air Canada and Canadian International and others, are in the air transport business to make money, obviously, and this is perfectly normal.

These people are on the board of Nav Canada and will have to ensure the services they receive from Nav Canada are charged at an acceptable level and that they, after calculating their own costs, will be able to declare a profit.

So when they arrive on the board of directors, their first concern will be to look at the effect of the decisions on their own companies. As for public protection, as it appears in the legislation establishing Nav Canada and in the mandate defined there, we will see whether the members of the board of directors in fact do abide by acceptable standards of safety.

Except that the mandate establishes no such requirement. There is no provision for anyone in Canada to refer to, in the event of an accident or for prevention purposes, saying: "In a certain airport, in a certain situation, Nav Canada decided not to provide a certain sort of equipment or service, and we would like it to do so for safety reasons".

The legislation as it stands contains no provision for appeal or consultation and certainly no legal clout making such arguments possible. So, as far as safety is concerned, there is some anxiety.

The method of financing Nav Canada is also worrisome. Let us take a brief look at how it will work. There are some very large carriers who will bring in a significant amount, who will provide a lot of money to finance Nav Canada, because of the frequency of use of equipment and of Canadian air space, while use by others will be considerably less.

Accordingly, when the time comes for the board of directors to make budgetary choices, when decisions have to be made about what equipment to invest in, certain individuals will have a greater say than others. I am speaking of those who control air transportation.

What, however, will happen to small carriers, as well as people living in remote areas, for instance? I do not necessarily mean the Far North, which the bill covers quite adequately by making provision for special rules, but regional airports. I could mention the Mont-Joli airport, in my region, or the one in Sept-Îles, or any other regional airport in Canada. If Nav Canada decides not to add a particular piece of equipment to their airport so that a particular plane can land, that would have an important regional economic impact. This is a reality communities will have to live with. We have a very telling example, the situation now being experienced in the area of Montreal and Mirabel, with ADM.

You will recall that this was an organization created by the former Conservative government to manage Montreal's airports. We have here the same financial objective as Nav Canada's. There is a decision to turn the management of the airports over to the private sector, just as the question of air navigation services is being turned over to the private sector, through Nav Canada. In both cases, the organization created will have a phenomenal amount of leeway and will not necessarily have to be truly accountable for its actions.

In the case of ADM, we now see what this leads to. Without in any way saying whether the choice of Dorval or of Mirabel is right, what can be said with certainty is that the public is not now in a position to judge the best possible decision. They must pretty much rely on ADM, which is not accountable for its actions to either the Government of Quebec or the federal government.

Even if the federal government owns these airport facilities, even if there is a lease between the federal government and ADM for the management of the Dorval and Mirabel airports, the government has not left itself any position from which it could say to ADM that the decisions it takes will have a major impact, a direct economic impact on air navigation, as well as on the tourist industry, the industrial sector, and all sorts of other impacts. Again today, during question period, the federal government, through the responsible minister, could not tell us anything other than that ADM is autonomous and can do what it wants.

I give this example because, in the case of Nav Canada, it seems to me that there is a risk that we will find ourselves in exactly the same sort of situation in the years to come. There will be quite a heated battle in certain regions for safety equipment accommodating particular types of planes and people will practically be begging Nav Canada for this equipment.

No appeal mechanism is provided by which a community, citizens, organizations or users can be heard and can obtain rulings reflecting the economic impact of these decisions.

At the same time, I would also like to make a comparison with what happened with Canada Post Corporation. This is a Crown corporation with considerable leeway, which was given a mandate of becoming cost effective. Because this corporation was showing deficits, the only criterion was to require it to be cost effective. This led to a policy of brutally closing down post offices, with the determining factor being quite simply the age of the postmaster. It had nothing to do with the number of clients served.

It took a political decision, a moratorium by the present government to stop this operation. The same mistakes are being made, as though we were in some sort of neo-Liberal model, where, when we see the pendulum swinging back, we say: "Before, we interfered in everything and it was costing too much, because we were doing it badly. Now, we will not interfere in anything and we will give people free rein". But between these two extremes, a balance must be sought, and in the case at hand, it is the issue of safety.

This raises another problem as well, and that is the question of transparency. Even if Nav Canada makes the best decisions in the world, for them to be accepted by the regional communities involved, public debate must be possible. Certainly public debate brings about delays on occasion, but the time spent in public debate is often shorter and more profitable than that spent in legal wrangling.

We need only think of what is happening with the ADM, in the case of the Montreal airports, Dorval and Mirabel. Since we are not allowed access to all of the studies on this, we are now faced with citizens who want to institute legal proceedings, and unacceptable delays may result. The bill we have before us now will not solve this problem of transparency.

Let us just look at the question of the small carriers. In Canada, there are carriers that can be identified as major carriers with high volume and a heavy influence on air travel markets. There are,

however, also many small carriers. These are found just about everywhere in Canada.

There are, for example, tourist carriers which take southern hunters or biologists to the north. There are many of these in the west, and many also in northern Quebec. There are also small charter companies. These are not companies that do a lot of business, but they will be considerably hindered by the fee scales set by Nav Canada.

Setting fees in this way will not impact only on the economic survival of the small carriers. The rates set could well have only a minimal effect on the major carriers, but a considerable one on the smaller ones.

The way the board is set up, small carriers will not have enough representation to make themselves heard. I believe that Nav Canada could, in good faith, take decisions that are not intended to hurt the small carriers but will in fact do so. There will be a negative impact, and that is the first consequence of the fee scale.

There is another. Obviously, because there is more air traffic between major centres, the small ones, the small airports will find it harder to defend their arguments for obtaining relevant equipment.

As small carriers are the ones using small airports, a sort of vicious circle is created. We have people who are not represented on the board of directors-small carriers-and small airports with limited traffic, providing essential services to the smaller centres. In the end, this could even lead to lessening economic activity in certain regions. The effects of the choices made will be felt in two, five, ten or twenty years with the small carriers being shifted to the larger airports or simply eliminated. These are some of the effects of Bill C-20.

Despite the government's best intentions, despite the work in committee, the finishing touches are lacking. There is one element that was not given sufficient consideration. Accordingly, if there are no amendments, the official opposition will be unable to vote in favour of this bill, because some things need to be changed.

Let us consider for a few minutes the various decisions that will have to be made by Nav Canada and that may have negative effects because of this lack of concern for safety.

For example, Nav Canada could decide to set up new navigational equipment in an airport. As the bill now stands, the cost of the aircraft will be reviewed, as well as all the charges for the whole country, but not the issue of whether this equipment is really needed in this or that airport to ensure adequate safety. There will be no advisory committee to warn us of an inadequate level of safety in a given sector.

This is not an area in which things can be fixed afterwards. In air navigation services, any mistake that causes the death of people or that has a major economic impact is very harmful to all of society. You may appoint as many inquiries as you like, but all it takes is one or two major accidents to have bitter regrets about not making safety a top priority right from the start.

Another decision that can be made by Nav Canada is to redistribute the equipment. For example, if air traffic in eastern Quebec was down, it could be decided that the facilities in Mont-Joli are no longer be needed and some of the equipment could be transferred to the national capital region, for instance. There is no control, no requirement to inform the regions concerned that part of their equipment will be transferred to another airport or to tell them about the possible consequences. This bill does not provide any mechanism for appealing decisions or consulting the communities affected.

Several amendments to that effect were put forward during consideration of the bill at report stage. Those amendments were rejected.

Now that we are at third reading, we would like the government to at least pay attention and realize that making safety a priority would have a direct impact on such decisions. Through this bill, the government could prompt Nav Canada to take into consideration the security of any given airport when moving equipment. We do not feel this was emphasized enough in the bill.

Generally speaking, this bill will no doubt make the whole cost control issue easier. I hope we will see a marked improvement. At the same time, it seems to us that it has deficiencies in terms of safety, by not making safety the first consideration. This is something we feel the government should reconsider before giving this bill the force of law.

In the coming years, we will live through the situation I described earlier and already experienced by other organizations, where the federal government has relinquished so much responsibility that it does not even have the nub to pull the door shut with. One, two or three years from now, it will not be able to tell Nav Canada that its decisions do not meet an acceptable minimum level of safety.

It is all interconnected. It does not allow citizens or users to request information about Nav Canada under the federal government's Access to Information Act because it has been decided that this act would not apply to this particular organization.

All the more proof that this bill is only about economic and cost effectiveness considerations. But what we are dealing with is not a cannery or some private sector enterprise where safety is not that important. This is an area where the federal government must always have some responsibility over safety, air safety and related regulations. It must give the organization it is establishing and

which will be in operation for many years to come the mandate to give top priority to safety. The bill does not contain anything to this effect.

That is why I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"this House declines to give third reading to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services, because the bill does not give the safety of passengers, airline personnel and the public priority over all other considerations in business decisions made by Nav Canada."

I move this amendment, which I have signed, seconded by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, hoping that the House will debate it and see that it can help ensure that the final product meets all public requirements in that respect, so that the bill is acceptable to all members of this House.