Paul Crête

[Aéroports De Montréal, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the people of Quebec, to whom the transfer of operations from Mirabel to Dorval will cost in excess of $200 million, have no business knowing what the studies supporting this transfer say?

[Aéroports De Montréal, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

For months now, the minister has been making excuses for Aéroports de Montréal's failure to release all studies on the transfer of international flights from Mirabel to Dorval by saying that this firm is not subject to the Access to Information Act. However, the contract between ADM and the Government of Canada does specifically state that ADM shall co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport.

How is the minister ensuring that the terms of an agreement entered into by his own department are being complied with?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think it important to put the the motion brought forward by the Reform Party in its true context. The Standing Committee on Government Operations asked representatives of the Senate to come and defend the upper House's budget requirements.

The Senate did not respond to this request. We are talking about a budget of $43 million. It is defensible in terms of the principles prevalent at the time the two Houses and Canada's parliamentary system were created, but today we have to ask ourselves whether we can afford to pay the cost of principles and situations of this sort.

Today, $43 million is still a fairly significant sum. It covers a whole lot of things. If we were certain the spending of the Senate were exemplary, we might have fewer questions. I would refer to the report of the Auditor General of Canada.

In the Senate in 1991, a number of anomalies and questionable practices were reported. In the case of the messenger service, for example, the senators decided that there was no limit and that they could spend however they liked so long as there was a need.

The report of the auditor general also drew attention to the matter of attendance. A lot of senators are absent much of the time, thereby not generating a lot of expenditures. There are, however, a minority who generate a lot of expenditures.

These things are perhaps justifiable. This is the aim of the motion by the Reform Party, further to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

The Senate's response is all the more surprising because, when our fellow citizens learn that there is a House of unelected people who are accountable to no one or just about, they are shocked. Any comparison may be flawed, but you have, on the one hand, the requirements imposed on the public, for example, how UI recipients may use their benefits-they are required to understand some very complex laws-and, on the other hand, a House of unelected people, most of whom were recommended for appointment for having contributed to the activities of a political party such as the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party. Most senators were appointed because of their involvement in political organizations.

Is it still appropriate on the eve of the 21st century to have a House that can spend $43 million without being in any way accountable for how this money is spent? Is it appropriate that we cannot ask questions to find out, for example, if the money to be spent on salaries is justified in light of the Senate's activities?

Is there any justification for the way Senate committees operate and unelected senators' travelling expenses, in today's Canada? This calls for a short history lesson. The Senate was modelled after the British House of Lords. The Senate was first created as an unelected body because it was said that elected members did not have all the abilities required to properly manage the affairs of state, that wiser people were needed, people with special training, and so on.

The situation has changed since then. Today, the House of Commons includes people with experience in various sectors, people who have the technical skills required. We also have support teams of assistants and researchers who do a very good job. They must help elected members, because of the fundamental notion that elected members of Parliament are accountable for the effectiveness of their work if they want to be re-elected when their mandate expires.

It is quite a different matter for senators, who are appointed practically for life without being accountable for their effectiveness.

To illustrate this, I would like to ask a question; I think I could even put it to the members of Parliament here in this House. Do you know who is the senator responsible for the general area of your riding?

How many people can identify the senator representing the Senate divisions of Lauzon, De la Vallière, De Lorimier, Wellington, De Salaberry, Grandville, Rougemont, Mille Isles or Motarville for example? I think it would be quite a challenge to ask Canadians which senator represents what division.

This is an exaggerated example to show that the Senate does not meet an essential criterion for management of public funds, the accountability criterion. Senators are not accountable, neither individually nor collectively. Senators are not required to account to the people for their performance and we cannot get them to appear before a House committee to account for the way the

Senate's budget is spent and for its operational effectiveness. This goes to show how archaic an institution the Senate is.

We could even go as far as to say that the Senate is somewhat of an anachronism. By refusing to do as requested in the motion and accounting before the committee for the use made of its appropriations, it may add fuel to arguments in favour of the motion, soon to be debated in this House, to abolish the Senate as we know it.

A full debate could be held across Canada on this issue. I think we will have an opportunity to have such a debate when my motion to abolish the Senate is considered. We will be able to discuss what kind of upper House we want. Do we want an elected upper House? Would we rather not have any upper House at all? Should proportional representation by region be introduced? There are many options to consider.

I am deeply convinced however that, as it stands today, the upper House does not meet in any real way democratic requirements for the turn of the century.

Coming back to the auditor general's report for 1991, which contained 27 recommendations regarding various aspects of day-to-day administration, it would be very interesting to see to what extent the Senate has taken these recommendations into account. For example, if a committee could ask how budgets are allocated and divided regarding messenger services, salaries, trips, including those in the senators' divisions and in the rest of Canada, we would get answers to all sorts of questions that are of interest to us.

Members of Parliament are accountable to the public. If we do something wrong or if we make bad decisions, the public decides whether or not to give us a new mandate. The Reform Party motion is nothing but a request for a minimum of respect for our role as members of this House. Will we tolerate the fact that senators can spend with impunity, without being accountable?

Does the principle upheld by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, namely that the two houses are independent from each other, still apply today? If we asked Canadians whether the Senate should be accountable for its spending, I think they would be unanimous in saying that it should be. Canadians would say that the Senate must be accountable for its activity and its work in the same way members of Parliament are accountable to them through the election process.

The fact that we have an obsolete rule does not mean we cannot change it.

When we visit our ridings, we are asked a lot of questions such as: "How are you going to ensure that the federal system reaches an adequate level of efficiency, so as to put an end to the list of horrors related to a lack of control over spending?" People give examples. They mention losses such as forgone tax revenues from family trusts. They refer to what is going on at the Department of National Defence. And then there is the Senate.

We saw it very clearly when the last speech from the throne was delivered. Do you think Canadians were impressed when they saw a few senators having a little nap during the speech? This situation is truly unacceptable from a democratic point of view, and it must change.

When you think of it, the request made to the Standing Committee on Government Operations is a healthy initiative. The Senate is not an elected house. It is important to always remember that senators in Canada are not elected. Our system is not at all like the one in the United States or in other countries where senators are elected. When people are elected, they knowsthat it is for a given period of time, for a mandate.

If they do not do their job properly, the public has the last word. This is not the case with senators in Canada: they face no sanction. Whether they are effective or not does not change anything. It makes no difference in the way they are treated. You are not accountable to the public for the position you adopt.

I therefore think the motion is entirely justified. I urge the government to vote in favour. I even think that a message could be sent. If the senators truly wanted to avoid this sort of non-confidence motion, they have all day today to come and tell us that they have changed their position and that they would be ready to appear before the committee. If that happens, the motion would at least have provided an opportunity, through the resulting public debate, to bring home to all Canadians the need for the Senate to be accountable, the need to be able to know to what use the money people pay through their taxes is being put, and whether this money is being spent on the right things. At the same time, it is a perfect opportunity to launch a debate on whether we should continue to pay for a House of non-elected representatives and whether we can afford to have a House that operates like this.

If I were a senator today, I would have jumped at the opportunity to come and defend the manner in which the money was allocated. By refusing to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations, the senators are leaving themselves even more open to criticism of their activities, because those who do not defend themselves must often bow to their critics' version of events.

In the present situation, it is very clear and very obvious that the senators appear to have a great deal of difficulty in defending the way they use their budget. It is a very bad sign, and a very poor message to be sending to the Canadian people, a message which encourages us to ask other questions, and to question the very idea

of the Senate. The members of this House will have the opportunity to do so, thanks to the vote there will be on a motion, and to decide whether or not they are in favour of abolishing the Senate.

The motion, which will be discussed next week, will go still further into the problem. It will raise basic questions such as: Do we need a House whose members are not elected? Do we need a second House?

Finally, this is one way of updating the parliamentary process. Just because an institution has been in place for 125 years is not necessarily a reason for maintaining it. This is but a small example, but in a way the very structure of the country is somewhat the same.

It is not true that, just because Canada was created in 1867, the relationship between the various communities of which it is composed, between the people of Quebec and the people of Canada, must remain the same in future. Populations create their own structures; the structures are not there to be a hindrance and to create inefficiency.

In conclusion, I will state that the Reform Party motion is a valid one. It is too bad that this motion is not votable. I would have liked us to have been able to send a message to the Senate, through a vote in the House, that we here are really frustrated, dissatisfied, and somewhat insulted, by the fact that the senators have not deigned to come before the committee on government operations to defend their votes. As a result, we could tell them: "You do not wish to be held responsible, so we will not make the money available".

If the government were to take such a position, we would really have an opportunity to see which House has the upper hand, since this is an important issue. Which one ought to have the final say, in Canada?

Now I understand from the debate on the motion and from the government's position that the government is ignoring the Senate's inefficiency. It is saying: "This can go on the way it has for several years". Senators representing Senate divisions can carry on this way.

I would say to the people of the Senate divisions of Grandville, La Salle, Repentigny or Thousand Islands: "Call your senator and ask him what he is doing with the money he is responsible for. I know very well, however, that there is a basic problem: Canadians do not know which senator is responsible for their area, because no representations are ever made.

Do you remember seeing senators touring your area to discuss local issues? Never, because they lack the basic credibility of being elected by the people. I think, today, that the Senate is archaic, somewhat of an anachronism. The fact that the senators are refusing to come and defend their budgets is even clearer evidence of this anachronism.

I think the Senate's and senators' behaviour needs correcting. The government must take note of today's debate and require the Senate to provide an accounting. If the Senate refuses, we have one more argument for its abolition.

[Income Tax Budget Amendment Act, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-36, a sort of omnibus bill amending several aspects of the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act and various similar pieces of legislation.

What particularly attracts my attention, and what I would like to address in my speech, is the whole question of measures related to family trusts. I think it is very important that the public be very well informed of where things stand on this issue. I would like to give a brief run through of the background. In the 1993 election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois raised many questions about the amounts of money held in these family trusts. At the time, the deficit was growing, as it continues to do, and we were also wondering how we could ensure that we really received all the tax revenues that we thought appropriate.

Thanks to information it had gleaned from one source and another, the Bloc Quebecois knew that family trusts could contain money that the government was missing. Following the election, we kept telling the government: "Before pronouncing on the effectiveness of family trusts, let us at least find out the amounts of money involved, what information we could obtain".

As a young newly elected MP, I came here in all good faith, thinking that, during our work in committee, we could actually examine the figures, see what was possible and take appropriate action accordingly.

But that was my first disappointment with the work of an MP, because examining these matters in committee brought us up against a wall of indifference, and even a wall of missing information from senior public servants. Time after time, they told us: "The figures are not available. That would require giving personal information. Most trusts involve families in which there is a mentally or physically disabled person who cannot look after his own needs. That is how it operates, so there is no reason to go poking about in it".

But our representations did get the government to decide to make some modifications. For example, allowing families to free up the assets they held in family trusts until 1999. We are, of course, against that measure. It is like finding a burglar in your house and telling him: "You have an hour and half and then I am going to start running after you". He would have time to empty the house before you would have been able to find out just what he had taken.

There have been examples of this situation in recent weeks, reference to trusts containing more than $2 billion which have been able to send their assets, their investments, out of the country without having to pay any tax on them.

This is a really negative side of the government's action. The fact of voluntarily acting slower than it should have a year or two ago leads to situations like this. At a time when we need all the tax revenues we can get, the message sent to workers in particular, low or middle income earners, is that there are 500 rich families, from what it says there, that may have family trusts.

There is talk of a tax shortfall of possibly $400 million. Four hundred million dollars will not settle Canada's deficit problems, but at least in terms of tax equity, Canadians and Quebecers will get the message that the government is going after the rich as much as it is going after the poor.

When unemployment insurance reforms like we have seen recently occur in the same days and weeks as we learn that some $2 billion invested in family trusts has left Canada without being duly taxed, people consider this situation clearly unacceptable.

Finally, we consider what is in Bill C-36 to be too little, too late. It is too little, because the people who have invested in family trusts will have had all the time they need to diversify their assets and transfer them to other tax evasion possibilities. The Canadian government thus does not collect as much tax as it could have. It is too little and too late because of the time allowed for recovery.

I would like to remind the House of the recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois in December 1994, about one year after the election, as part of a committee study. If these recommendations had been carried out at the time, we would not have to deal with trusts taking their assets out of the country and trying to find legal ways to evade as much tax as possible; whether these tactics are legitimate is a different matter, but they are still legal according to the legislation put forward by the government.

The first recommendation made by the Bloc Quebecois is that investigations be carried out to determine the exact value of assets managed by family trusts, the value of capital gains from assets under family trust management, the value of tax revenues whose collection was postponed by deferring capital gains taxes until the last trust beneficiary dies.

These studies could give us actual figures on the impact of the legislative measures taken with respect to family trusts. We must recall that family trusts were instituted in 1972 to help families facing special and rather unusual circumstances, such as caring for a child with a handicap, or even small business by allowing them to tax-shelter certain assets. But like in many other such instances, this measure is benefiting those who can afford the services of tax specialists who found in this measure a tax loophole for avoiding to pay taxes.

Since then, amendments made to the legislation have actually made the family trust loophole wider. Now, efforts are made to try to plug the hole, but the measures contained in Bill C-36 certainly do not ensure tax equity for families in these circumstances.

I would also like to remind you of another recommendation making it mandatory to pay taxes on capital gains on a trust paid out in favour of the beneficiary. This issue has been close to our hearts from day one, as it reflects the whole battle going on in Quebec and Canada around the share of tax revenue that every segment of society must pay to restore Canada's economy to health. This issue has become a symbol; it is an issue where, as a

result of yesterday's measures and carelessness, we find ourselves today having to do without desperately needed resources.

On the one hand, they claim that the unemployment insurance reform will save $2 billion through cuts to unemployment insurance recipients and those who make contributions to the unemployment insurance plan, employees and employers alike, but on the other hand, they are leaving the door open for those who should be paying up to $400 million in taxes.

Imagine how much less pressure there would be on the unemployment insurance system if the government's financial statements showed additional revenues of $400 million from family trusts. This would have taken pressure off of the unemployment insurance reform. This is significant when we are talking about fiscal balance. Sometimes, in debates like this one, we hear that the opposition is there to criticize, to find flaws in the legislation.

In this case, opposition parties are not the only ones making recommendations. The Auditor General of Canada also raised the issue of family trusts and asked the government to ensure that all the information be available, so that future legislative measures allow Revenue Canada to recover all the amounts that can be recovered. The auditor general is only fulfilling his mandate, which is to ensure that the amounts owed are collected and that the moneys are spent in the best possible way to meet the objectives set.

For a long time now family trusts have been used for purposes other than to help small and medium size businesses. It is said that someone with an annual income of $100,000 or $150,000 is unlikely to have any use for a family trust. Who benefits from family trusts? It is people whose income is very high. It is a fact that these trusts benefit the very rich and that they deprive the government of considerable revenues.

Family trusts are not the cure-all. Canada's fiscal problems would not all be solved if trusts paid their fair share of taxes. However, it would allow the government to tell taxpayers: "We made high income people pay their fair share. We asked them to contribute and we made sure they all did. We did not provide them with any means to avoid paying taxes. We kept a close watch on them. Now, we are asking you to also do your share".

That would make all the difference in the world in the situation we are facing now, where those receiving unemployment insurance, those with low incomes, are being asked to pay $100, $150 or $200 in additional taxes on incomes of $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000. In family trusts, we are talking about millions of dollars, $400 million in unpaid taxes.

That would be seen as a gesture of fairness on the part of the government, a gesture not found in Bill C-36. This bill does not contain measures that would have made it possible to truly stem the flow. The government tells us that it is washing its hands of decisions concerning family trusts and capital shifted to the United States when the Conservatives were in power, that it is not responsible for what went on then.

But now, with the deadlines given, with the provisions in Bill C-36, with the fact that people will have until 1999 to transfer their money into other sectors, is the government not shirking its responsibility? It cannot blame the Conservative government for not doing its work. Now it is the Liberals who have decided to let matters take their own course and to allow people to continue to avoid paying taxes that they should be paying.

We must ask ourselves why they are doing this. Why, in these times when we are so in need of money, are they closing their eyes, not listening to reason and allowing wealthy families to continue not paying their taxes?

I think that one thing that needs to be looked at very closely is the question of party funding. Would there not be a link to be made-indeed, almost a bank reconciliation-between the contributions from these important families to parties which will accept money from anyone, whether a physical entity or a corporate entity?

In Quebec, for some years, nearly 20 in fact, only physical entities can donate to political parties. This has led to a complete change in political mores. The federal government has not yet reached this stage. Significant sums, $50,000 or $100,000, can still be received from companies, unions or other organizations.

You can well imagine, afterward, when the government is being lobbied, that the company or family which donated $50,000 or $100,000 to the coffers of the party in power is certainly going to be listened to because of that contribution.

All of the key points in this current situation are in place: a tax system that has not been revised, a government that is very timid about tax review. It talks about a technical committee. It is because the opposition has repeated the same arguments and attacks almost ad nauseam that it has managed to get some small changes of the type found in Bill C-36, to at least close the loophole in the medium term. But the government's measures are very timid, too timid, and do not make the restrictions that ought to have been on the family trusts.

In conclusion, I would say that the present government does not appear to be aware of the urgency of acting in this area. First of all, we have been aware for two years of the necessity of having all

available information on family trusts. We have asked for it repeatedly in committee, and senior officials have told us it was not available, often in a rather condescending way. Today we find out the reason for that reaction. It is because the transactions have already been made and some are perhaps being made so that certain taxpayers will avoid paying tax and, moreover, will take their investments abroad.

I think this is unacceptable even to federalist Canadians. So the government should have moved, legislated quickly on this. Today, moreover, it must turn off the taps in a hurry, because it is clear that there are many things that even Bill C-36 will not correct. There is no way with this bill to ensure that each of the great families pays the taxes it ought with respect to the funds it invests in family trusts.

This is an important point. There is nothing in this bill to force the legislator to act. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. So long as we obtain no assurance that family trusts will no longer be a way to avoid paying taxes for people with the means to do so, we will continue to press for satisfactory amendments from the government. On this point, I hope the Standing Committee on Finance will act quickly, now that we have proof money is flowing out of Canada and being invested abroad without taxes being paid on it.

I think that the government should follow the auditor general's recommendations as quickly as possible and take appropriate action so that, in the next federal budget, the revenue side of the sheet will show the amounts that belong there, including taxes payable by wealthy families and by those who invest in family trusts, so that they pull their weight, and we do not see inadequate cuts that crack down harder in the wrong places, for example, through very stringent unemployment insurance legislation, on the one hand, and a laissez faire approach on the other.

This sort of situation must be corrected. I hope that, after hearing our arguments, the government will take corrective action and bring in tougher legislation, so that people can no longer evade taxes that they should be paying.

[Standards Council Of Canada Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we do not dispute the fact that the debate on Bill C-20 has been concluded. Unlike my friend from the Reform Party, I think that you have called the vote and that the matter is closed. What we are seeking is the unanimous consent of this House to debate the next bill on the agenda upon our return from the parliamentary break.

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

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 50, the following new Clause:

Privacy Act

106.1 The Schedule to the Privacy Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading "Other Government Institutions":

NAV CANADA CORPORATION Société NAV CANADA''.

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

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-20, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 37, on page 16, with the following

"(2) A charge authorized by the Minister of National Defence may be imposed under subsection (1) a ) on a user; or b ) on a user in respect of a state aircraft of a foreign country.''

Mr. Speaker, in this bill that will commercialize air navigation services, the motions in Group No. 4 are aimed at ensuring that the Department of National Defence will do its part in funding and running Nav Canada.

This bill currently provides that the Department of National Defence will not be subject to the charges that other carriers will have to pay. In our opinion, this distorts the real assessment of DND's operating costs, of the budget funds allocated to national defence, and may have a negative impact on some airports when services are shared by DND and all private air service users.

Why should DND be exempt? The easing of international tensions in recent years has led to perhaps insufficient but still significant cuts to DND. Further cuts are needed, but DND should still be held accountable for all its spending.

If DND is exempted from paying air service charges, its annual estimates will give the impression that it costs less than it really does.

Military flights still mean something in Canada. Our training bases are used by Canadian soldiers, but some of our flight training areas, notably in Labrador, are also used by other countries. Why should DND not pay its share? This would also help us determine what parts of the country benefit from this kind of spending.

If DND generated significant revenues for a special purpose airport, this would allow us to consider the economic impact of this bill on air navigation activities.

Ultimately, what we would like to see prevail, and this is the principle found everywhere else in the bill, that is why we are somewhat surprised at the government's position and we think it would be a good idea to correct the situation, is the user pay principle.

Would there not be a benefit today in ensuring that the real expenses incurred by a department are paid by that department? There are other sectors of government activity that will have to defray these costs directly or indirectly. For example, if we take the health sector, ambulance airplanes are used in Canada to reach remote areas. These people will have to cover the planned charges. Why would this kind of charge be picked up by the health sector and not by the national defence sector? It applies in the health sector, but it could also apply in the tourist sector.

The tourist industry in Canada is very important. It has grown considerably and is expected to grow even more in future. With the new charges, many small carriers may see their economic activities jeopardized. They will have to change their method of operating accordingly. This is not required of a huge department like defence, which spends enormous amounts on protection, but, at the same time, it would not be charged the portion of air navigation costs that apply in its case.

It strikes us as most surprising that, in sectors like health, tourism, businesses, they are trying to justify fee scales for private sector flights but there none for defence flights. Is that not a double standard? Is that not a mistake, in fact?

This seems to be perpetuating, in relation to the defence sector, practices which existed in the government some 15, 20, 25 or 30 years ago. People became aware that these practices were having devastating effects, a loss of control over the cost of operations. If defence does not have to bear its part of the costs, does this not lead to a tendency to use available services more, and to put increased pressure on the system? Finally, there can be no real assessment of what the costs of air navigation for the defence sector are. Are there not facilities in certain parts of Canada which will need to be put into place specifically for defence purposes, without there being any corresponding charges levied?

All of these questions lead us to wish to see an amendment to the bill, one ensuring that this department assumes its share, as other departments must, and as the private sector is required to do, paying its way in the reconfiguration resulting from the creation of Nav Canada and the commercialization of air navigation services.

Reference is also made to foreign government aircraft, which whould also be made to pay. I think it is important, from the safety and security points of view, to know what is going on with these flights, what costs they will generate, what sort of protection we can provide them.

Just imagine something which I certainly do not wish to ever see happen: a collision between a defence or military aircraft and one belonging to a private carrier. This would create a somewhat artificial situation in which one of the parties involved in the accident had never been required to contribute to the quality of safety services. This would surely contribute to a poor opinion of the defence sector. These days I do not think there is anything to be gained by adding to the negative image of a department described yesterday by its minister as in a "painful situation", when serious questions are already being asked about its efficiency and transparency.

The purpose of our amendments is to ensure greater transparency, to make sure that the exact air navigation costs of department of defence activities will be known. This will, I believe, be worthwhile both to the House and to those concerned with costs, in these

times when people are questioning whether money is being used properly. It will be one way of knowing what the real costs are.

Also, private air carriers and Canadian taxpayers should not necessarily be the ones paying for national defence. Why should they have to foot the bill in this case? This is tantamount to giving additional importance to the defence sector. As I said earlier, if I could favour certain sectors by granting them such an exemption, flying ambulances would definitely take precedence over military flights. Let military aviation officials know exactly how much it really costs to fly their aircraft. This is important and it should be taken into account. This is the purpose of our amendment, and we hope the government will support it.

Small carriers really wonder about the additional pressure put on their activities through the new tariff structure. They are justified in saying there should not be a double standard in Canada but, rather, a level playing field. Whether it is the military or the private sector, everyone must bear the overall costs. Under the user pay principle, everyone must make an adequate contribution, so that when the time comes to determine the real costs of defence activities, these costs will be based on actual figures, not incomplete data that does not allow us to know the overall government costs in this sector.

I hope the government will seriously consider our proposal. It is based on sound arguments and it is fully justified. In the middle term, the government's decision to exempt DND from having to pay these costs would certainly not prove efficient from an administrative point of view, or in terms of the follow up of air navigation costs, which is the very basis of the legislation.

[Road Safety, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this House to bring attention, as the minister has, to national road safety week, to be celebrated in Quebec and Canada May 17 through 23, 1996. Since arriving in Ottawa, the official opposition has always made it its duty to support and promote issues around highway safety and safe driving.

I have listened to the federal Minister of Transport's speech with interest. We share his concerns, and we support his desire to reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents. We share his belief that improved safety is an excellent thing.

We were, however, a bit surprised to hear what the minister had to say on behalf of his government. Today he is trying to blow his own horn, to pass himself off as the great defender and promoter of road safety. As recently as last week, however, in response to a question by my colleague from Lévis on restoration of the Quebec bridge, he stated as follows: "The deterioration of the bridge, including the part on which vehicles drive, is due mainly to car and truck traffic- Motor traffic in the province of Quebec is the responsibility of the Quebec transport department; it is not a federal responsibility". Now today he is giving us a speech on road safety. We also need to see what that means in day to day reality.

The decrepit state of the Quebec bridge is beginning to be a threat to driver safety. The federal minister turns a deaf ear to any question of accepting his responsibilities and restoring the Quebec bridge, in conjunction with Canadian National and the Government of Quebec. We see this as contradictory to the speech the minister has just finished.

Where road safety is concerned, I would like to raise a constitutional aspect which is very likely to pose an increasing threat to the safety of drivers and the general public. As you know, the Canadian Constitution recognizes rail transportation as a federal responsibility, while highway safety within each province is a provincial one.

This somewhat artificial division poses serious problems.

As you know in rail transportation, the government's inaction has forced many businesses to use trucks rather than trains to ship their goods.

The same situation could well arise with the new policy of fees for coast guard services the federal minister of fisheries has just announced. All transportation sectors interact. The effect of the policy is to drive many maritime carriers to American ports, requiring goods destined for Quebec and Canada to be transferred by truck.

Because the federal government has failed to finance, manage and develop the rail system properly and because it is proposing an unfortunate policy of charging for coast guard services, private firms have found alternate ways to make their deliveries. The increased number of trucks on the roads of Quebec and Canada is largely the cause of the deterioration in the state of the roads, threatening public safety particularly.

The arbitrary division of powers in the transportation sector therefore prevents our having an integrated national transportation policy. With intermodality increasingly popular, the obsolescence of Canada's Constitution may well threaten our road safety. I think this is the message we must bear in mind during this national road safety week.

Of course we must support initiatives such as operation life saver, but we must recognize that, if transportation is to be modernized, Canadian and Quebec firms will have to acquire modern equipment and set aside the antiquated aspects of the Constitution to permit an integrated national standard on transportation and thus greater road safety.

In closing, I would repeat our support for National Road Safety Week and encourage everyone to drive carefully.

[Privilege, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite astonishing. In the presentation we have just heard, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is accused of having used unparliamentary language. The allegation is made, but the words are not specified. Insinuations are made, but we do not know what the words were.

The attitude of the member raising this question of privilege is astonishing, because such a comment could be made about any remark made by anyone in this House, they could be said to have shouted out something irrelevant. He has not mentioned the words in question. I think that discussion of the matter could be deferred until the member knows what he is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, to give the context of the series of changes proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and included in the second group of amendments, it must be pointed out that the objective of the bill is to commercialize the air navigation services, which is to say to transfer to a not for profit organization a service that had been up to now in the public domain.

As I said in my speech on the first group of amendments, that is something that could be interesting and commendable but only if we can guarantee the population that the security and safety level of the services will be maintained and that it will have its say at the regional level on all decisions having a major impact on the local economy.

For that reason I would like to correct an impression left by the parliamentary secretary on May 15, when he said that our motions contained errors because we were not referring to the right clause. This is not the case because, as we also said in committee, we want to ensure that information is made available not only on the formula for calculating the fees, but also on the services because, in isolated areas, services are as important as fees.

If decisions taken by Nav Canada have the effect of depriving airports of safety equipment and have an impact on the volume of local air traffic, we must ensure that the local population has its say. That is the reasoning behind our amendments. If we want regions to have their say, they must be informed of the decisions.

We want to give people the opportunity to send their comments by traditional or electronic mail and ensure that they will be informed of all planned changes.

We added special consideration for the native band councils because, due to their particular situation, the traditional media are not necessarily the best means to reach them. We must ensure that they are well informed also. I think that, considering the special interest of the government for the natives, it should accept our amendment to guarantee appropriate coverage.

An airport is vital to a remote area, to an isolated area, because if often has a strong impact on the region. Let us take, for example, the Mont-Joli airport, in eastern Quebec. It is obvious that any decisions made with regard to aviation safety at this airport will likely have an impact on the activity at this airport.

We want people from the regional county municipality, people from Mont-Joli, all stakeholders in the tourist industry and other industries to have their say in any decisions that will have an impact on safety at the airport and that could ultimately have an impact on the economic activity around the airport.

That is why we want to ensure that the information is adequate and timely so that people can have time to react and make their opinions known accordingly.

We have a very good example of that in the decision of Aéroports de Montréal to possibly transfer international flights from Mirabel to Montréal. It is not for me to say here whether this decision is good or bad, but I just want to show that this organization created by the federal government to manage both Montreal airports has changed its position drastically in a relatively short period of time. At first, it was saying that both airports could survive, that it would share out responsibilities and transportation opportunities between both airports, and that everything should

work out this way. Now it is saying that it wants to transfer all international flights to Dorval.

This situation is provoking reactions in the Dorval area because people have certain fears in terms of safety. We saw it again today in the newspapers. There is even talk of taking this matter to court. So would it not be preferable for the consultation mechanisms allowing people to voice their opposition and express their views to be provided for in the bill that creates Nav Canada, the organization which will be responsible for air traffic control, instead of ending up with very expensive legal battles in which economic decisions will be challenged?

I take this opportunity to urge the government once again to take its responsibilities in this matter and also to make the comparison with the bill before us today. If we have an example like the one concerning ADM, because there is an unwillingness to let people have their say about the future of their airport, the future of air navigation in their region, is there not a risk that, in the years to come, there will arise two, three, five, ten problems of the same sort as we are seeing in Montreal, with negative reactions from local communities, who are forced to take a very vocal approach or go through the legal system in order to make their views known.

This is the reasoning behind our amendments today in Group No. 2. We want to ensure that people living in the Northwest Territories, in northern Quebec, as well as in large centres, because there are decisions about large airports that affect urban populations, have a say. When an airport has a lot of traffic, take Pearson in Toronto, it is certain that there are decisions that, in the medium term, have an impact on all economic development in a region, and it would be very appropriate if, before decisions about safety equipment in these airports were taken, the people in the surrounding areas were heard from.

That brings me back to the safety aspect. Last week, there was a very unfortunate plane crash in southern Florida in the United States, pointing up just how important the question of air navigation is. No margin of error is acceptable in this sector. It is a sector where guarantees of safety with respect to decisions taken are essential, and if accidents happen, that they be truly unforeseeable and not in any way due to decisions made either by the government or by the new agency known as Nav Canada.

Imagine what we could have in a few years' time, if there were a similar accident here and Nav Canada officials refused to accept any responsibility, saying: "The legislation did not oblige us to have safety take precedence over our economic commitments. In the case of the airport where the accident took place, we did everything we were required to do. We did not necessarily buy the latest equipment it would have taken, or put in place all the required safety measures, but it was not in our mandate".

There would be costs in terms of human lives and of equipment, and no way of ascribing the blame to anyone. It is important that the bill provide some balance.

Originally, the costs of air navigation were extremely high. Steps were taken in conjunction with the industry and most of the stakeholders, although the small carriers were not given enough of a say, with a view to ensuring lower and more acceptable costs.

The bill fails to make safety paramount, and also to ensure that decisions will not have a negative economic impact on the regions. The approach to this matter, as in a number of other current government bills, is to make things uniform across Canada. This is a trend which, in my opinion, ought to be resisted, and I think this is important.

We have proposed a preamble, a sort of interpretive clause, to restrict somewhat the considerable leeway afforded to Nav Canada, and to require that it take the elements referred to into consideration.

Our amendments on the distribution of information prior to a decision and on finding out the regional point of view reflect issues of importance to us, and we feel tney would make for a better bill.

Government acceptance of the proposed amendments would provide the satisfactory balance the bill lacks at this time. We are making a transition from a very costly system to one where the costs will be well controlled. Let us ensure that passenger safety will be guaranteed. This is the purpose of our amendments.