Roger Pomerleau

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

Madam Speaker, the comment was a very good one. I am sure that Canada has legislation applicable to air navigation.

What we would have liked to have seen done was for there to be included in the preamble to the bill a condition making safety a priority, so that Nav Canada's board of directors would never lose sight of it. This was not done.

Earlier in the House we heard about a very specific case of what can happen with a private corporation looking after the public interest, the example being ADM, which is a body very similar to the one being considered. It is a not for profit, private corporation

that will, in fact, look after the public interest. We saw that ADM is the solution to a number of problems for the government. There is no access to information with ADM, while there would have been with the government.

We can see, then, that the transfer to private corporations of responsibilities that, until now, belonged to the government places limits on a number of things. We would have liked to see the preamble to this bill include a statement, once and for all, to the effect that when Nav Canada's board of directors meets, priority will be given to safety of operation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this bill at the third reading stage. I have already had an opportunity to speak to it at the report state and I must state, regretfully, that there has not been much change in what I have to say, because most of the amendments proposed by the Bloc have been rejected. What I have to say has not, therefore, changed a great deal, nor has what I already said had very much influence on the debate. When in a minority position in a democratic system, we do what the others tell us to do, when they feel like it, when it suits them.

That is the democratic principle for minorities, and a minority is what we are in this House. Now, where are we, exactly, with this bill? I want to give a quick overview of the key points. I will start by pointing out before I go any further that something is happening in Canada at this time which merits our attention. Canada is selling its ports, its airports, its bridges, its rail lines, its rail cars, its navigation systems. A close look indicates that we are perhaps in the process of holding a huge clearance sale.

This legislation provides the legal framework for turning Transport Canada's navigation system over to Nav Canada, a not for profit corporation, as it has just been described, created under part II of the Canada Corporations Act. It is a follow up to the December 8, 1995 agreement in principle between Transports Canada and Nav Canada, selling the system for $1.5 billion.

The key principles of Nav Canada-four points set out in the Act-are that it is to be operated as a legally constituted, self-regulated entity operating on a cost-recovery basis. The air transportation tax levied on passengers when they purchase tickets from or to a destination in Canada will be eliminated in two years. During that time, the federal government will make transitional payments to Nav Canada based on anticipated ATT revenues. Nav Canada will have a commercial mandate to run and manage its operations according to recognized commercial practices. Nav Canada will set the charges for its services so as to recover all its costs from users.

My colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata pointed out that military flights would not have to pay these charges and that Nav Canada would offer employees transferred from the public service the continuation of current collective agreements and the granting of successor rights to bargaining agents, as well as equivalent working conditions and benefits.

The purpose of this bill is to privatize and commercialize air services in Canada by incorporating Nav Canada. Creating this organization is, of course, part of Transport Canada's overall strategy to modernize transport services in this country. The federal government tells us we must support the principles of greater effectiveness and lower prices.

But it is easy to detect the real reason why the federal government wants to create Nav Canada. Its main concern is really to make air services profitable at the expense of safety and regional development. We emphasized this in our speeches throughout consideration of this bill.

The previous Minister of Transport himself stated that the government could no longer afford to pay for adequate air services. We therefore wonder, because it has not been proven yet, if the new corporation will be able to do better. For the moment, they are busy selling off and privatizing, although they have no idea where this will take us at the end of the day.

The government therefore must create an organization that will have on its board of directors representatives of all major airlines in Canada at the expense of small regional carriers, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean pointed out a while ago, when he talked about the impact privatization will have on Air Alma, for example. We had hoped that this negative aspect of the bill would be reviewed and corrected along the way.

Unfortunately, it was not, in spite of the many representations made by small carriers. It is clear that only major carriers like Canadian and Air Canada will have a representative with any decision power of Nav Canada's board of directors, and this of course because our major carriers are in the majority. As my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata explained, they will probably make decisions based on their own interests and needs, at the expense of small carriers.

But, as we know, the needs of major carriers are often quite different from those of smaller ones. For example, major carriers would like fly over fees to be lower than landing fees, while small carriers are calling for just the opposite. This tends to suggest that decisions on certain matters will require debate on conflicting interests on a board where small carriers will always be the minority.

I am therefore concerned about the impact this will have on the economy, tourism and regional development, since small carriers operate mostly and for the most part at the regional level. As you know, the regions are mainly served by small regional carriers and the fact that these small carriers will not be represented adequately and that their voice will not be heard when decisions are made can only impede long term regional development.

Nav Canada will have a monopoly on air navigation services. It will slap users with fees and have total control over the fee structure. How can we not predict or expect the financial interests of major carriers to take precedence over everything else in the long run, including public interest and safety? But the need remains to ensure that someone is still accountable for safety standards, which must be the top priority at all times.

I cannot see how the government could oppose this motion tabled just recently, when the sponsor of the bill himself, a minister, stated in a speech that Transport Canada's top priority was to maintain and, whenever possible, to improve the safety and security of Canadians. Yet, there is not much said about safety in this bill. I do hope government members will stand by the statements made by one of their ministers, even though what we saw and heard in recent weeks about this bill might lead us to think otherwise.

It must be understood that Nav Can's board of directors will be made up of people from the private sector. These people are, of course, interested in having a profitable venture, in making profits. When they sit on the board, their primary concern is the impact of the decisions on their own companies. This is only normal.

It is obvious that this bill is primarily about financial considerations. This is why the Bloc Quebecois withholds its support for Bill C-20 until a reference is included about safety. This legislation favours financial security, instead of the safety of airline personnel, passengers and the general public.

The air navigation sector does not allow for any mistake, because mistakes cost lives. This is an area regarding which the federal government can never elude its responsibilities. The government has an obligation to give priority to safety. Yet, there is no reference in this bill to such an obligation or to any commitment to this effect. This is why the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, seconded by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, proposed an amendment, which I will read because it accurately reflects the Bloc's position: "That 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". Yet, we are at third reading stage now.

For some months now, we have been seeing an increasing tendency to give overriding priority to financial considerations in all decisions, whether governmental or quasi-governmental. We see it in discussions about human rights violations in certain countries, when ministers and even our own Prime Minister regularly rise in their place to say that, in the final analysis, what matters is business law, and other interests will have to take a back seat.

This makes us think that, in the bill before us, safety issues are of secondary importance. That is why we have a lot of trouble swallowing it.

I would like to mention that we are in agreement with the actual principle of privatizing air navigation services, but that we will still

vote against this bill, because it does not take into account the safety principles that must override all else.

We proposed amendments along these lines, amendments that we considered important and on which there was unanimous agreement, in principle at least, but which were nonetheless rejected. All we are asking is that these principles be clearly set out in the bill, that they be part of the preamble, and that they serve as guidelines for the operation of Nav Canada. Apparently we are not going to get this, and we will be voting against the bill.

[Banks, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions admitted last week that intense manoeuvering by private interests is delaying the release of the white book on the Bank Act.

Are we to understand that the government is negotiating behind closed doors a reform that will meet only the wishes of lobbyists and will present the public with a fait accompli when it is released?

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in fact, the Government of Newfoundland did not have to consult the people. It simply wanted to increase the legitimacy of its position in an apparently extremely contentious debate. That is why a referendum was held, and why the issue is taken up in the House, but there was no need for that in Newfoundland.

We will support the motion for two reasons. First, because a democratic referendum to that end was successful, and second, because we met with the premier of Newfoundland, whom we admire a great deal and who gave us a minimum of guarantees that minority rights would be respected.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, those were mostly comments that my hon. colleague and neighbour-seeing that we have adjacent offices in the West Block-made. First, he said that the premier of Newfoundland was certainly the best communicator in Canada; we, on this side, have always called him Captain Canada, and this was not meant to be derogatory in any way. We do agree that, as a communicator, the premier of Newfoundland has spearheaded practically everything that was done in Canada. That is probably also one of the reasons why he got elected.

My hon. colleague commented on my calling the attention of the House to the fact that Newfoundland had just set a precedent, but I was just making a connection between the case of Newfoundland, where a 54 per cent result is readily recognized in this House, and Quebec, where the application of democratic rules is being questioned.

I think that what my hon. colleague is saying it that we are setting a precedent by passing this here. The precedent has already been set anyway. It was set at the international level, at Charlottetown, when the results were not questioned, because the 50 per cent plus one rule came into play. They were not questioned with respect to Meech, the 1980 referendum or any other referendum until now.

I sincerely believe the Prime Minister of this country is right when he says the basic problem and the first thing we should do, not myself personally, but those of my constituents who still believe this is possible-yes, some still do-would be to try to persuade Quebecers they must remain a part of Canada. Under those circumstances, a referendum would not be any problem.

Needless to say I have my doubts. I have been concerned with politics for 30 years-not actively involved but at least watching what is happening on the political scene-and in the past 30 years, we have never succeeded in having Quebec's minimum demands recognized. The only way out for us is to hold a referendum on sovereignty and we will win this referendum.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to speak today on a matter as interesting as the one we are now addressing. For the fourth time in its history, a legislative assembly, this time the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, has adopted a resolution asking the federal Parliament to amend the Constitution under section 43 of that Constitution.

This section allows the federal government to amend any provision of the Constitution which applies to one or more of the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador. According to section 43, any such amendment may be made by adoption of resolutions of the House of Commons and Senate and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

In 1987, this House adopted a resolution to place the Pentecostal schools of Newfoundland on the same footing as the seven denominations recognized by the 1949 agreement, as well as to ensure their funding. This was the first constitutional amendment made under the section of concern to us today, section 43.

The second was to guarantee the linguistic equality of French and English in New Brunswick. That was in 1993. The same year, there was another constitutional amendment to permit the construction of an interprovincial bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I would point out that, in this vote, which involved approving the construction of a bridge, the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour, because we felt, and continue to feel, that this is the best long term solution in economic terms.

Today, therefore, the members of this House are preparing to pass a resolution that will lead to a new constitutional change, and I shall spare you the reading of the text. I would, however, mention that the aim of the Newfoundland legislature is to rationalize the province's education system to permit savings to be made. The aim is to put an end to denominational schools so as to cut the number of school boards-everywhere these days there is talk about downsizing the school boards, even in Quebec-in order to set up a new multidenominational school board, which will be more efficient and less costly, it is claimed.

This proposed education reform is based on the recommendations of the Newfoundland royal commission of inquiry into education, which published its report in 1992. The major obstacle faced by the Newfoundland government arises from the fact that denominational schools were guaranteed by term 17 of the Terms of Union establishing Newfoundland's entry into Canada in 1949, which is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution.

At first glance, there does not appear to be a problem, because the Government of Newfoundland could simply have passed a resolution to amend term 17 of the constitutional agreement of 1949 and then simply have it passed by this House. This time, however, the provincial legislature wanted to hold a referendum first to consult the people of Newfoundland before passing its resolution.

The referendum question asked Newfoundlanders whether they would allow the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a resolution calling for the amendment of term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. It must be pointed out that there was no obligation to hold a referendum to amend this term, since the amending formula in section 43 of the Constitution requires only that a resolution be passed by the Newfoundland legislature, the House of Commons and the Senate in such cases.

Yet, the Government of Newfoundland felt it had to hold a referendum in order to consult the population beforehand, thus

showing great respect for democracy. As we well know, referenda were not so widely used 30 years ago but today, with all the countries in the world joining large consortiums in Europe, Asia and North America, we will see more and more of them.

In this referendum, which, by the way, is the consultation mechanism par excellence and is now gaining popularity around the world, the people of Newfoundland expressed their desire to amend the extent to which and the way the various religious denominations get involved in the administration of the education system. They endorsed the government proposal by a 54 per cent majority, which is not that much. Only 52 per cent of all the people exercised their right to vote.

This referendum was held on September 5, 1995. In the following months, the Prime Minister of Canada said in response to the Newfoundland premier's formal request that he intended to table for adoption the text of the constitutional resolution in February 1996. In his letter to his provincial counterpart, the Prime Minister gives no indication whether he agrees with the referendum result; he simply accepts it and says he will table the resolution in the House.

In his response, the Prime Minister of Canada showed clearly that he accepts the result of a referendum in which 52 per cent of all registered voters participated and in which 54 per cent of the ballots cast is an acceptable majority. The parallel with the referendum situation in Quebec is impossible to ignore.

Although the issue of Quebec sovereignty is much more important and has a greater impact than today's constitutional amendment, that fact is that the Prime Minister has established a precedent by accepting the results of the referendum held in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Prime Minister said in this House on several occasions-I will not quote from Hansard but I think everyone remembers the various times he said this-that a result of 50 per cent plus one in a referendum on Quebec sovereignty was not enough. He said a result of 50 per cent plus one was not an acceptable majority in the case of a Quebec referendum. Today, the same Prime Minister recognizes the results of a referendum in which only 54 per cent voted for a constitutional amendment and only 52 per cent of registered voters participated. We all know that voter participation in the Quebec referendum was slightly higher. It actually was over 90 per cent.

Are we to conclude from this that, for the Prime Minister, a referendum in which only 52 per cent of registered voters have exercised their right to vote is good enough anywhere in Canada except in Quebec, where 90 per cent of the population participated in the referendum and are about to do so again soon? Are we also to conclude that, for the Prime Minister, a referendum held across a province where a majority voted yes, with 54 per cent, this is good enough, except in Quebec of course, where 54 per cent is just not good enough? In his mind, according to the figures quoted or hinted at by friends of the regime and business people, it would take a 65 per cent vote, perhaps as high as 70 per cent, it is not clear, for a yes victory in a Quebec referendum to be recognized.

This makes us realize how totally inconsistent the Prime Minister of Canada and his government are. A referendum is a democratic public consultation process, and the cornerstone of democracy is precisely the 50 per cent plus one rule. It is the majority of the population making a choice.

In the information papers we have received, one of which I believe is from the Department of Justice, there are striking similarities there. Question 4 states: "Why do church and government leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador not settle this issue without constitutional amendments being necessary?" The paper in favour of passing the resolution reads: "Having negotiated intensively for three years, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was unsuccessful in obtaining the consent required to implement the necessary changes. In addition, a further attempt by the Newfoundland and Labrador education minister to negotiate an agreement also failed and did not produce an agreement on key reforms".

In Quebec, we have been trying for 30 years and we are still waiting. So far, every attempt to reach an agreement has failed.

The document submitted to us by the Department of Justice also included the question: "Why are these changes necessary?" The answer given is that the current system must be changed, because it creates a complex administrative structure generating overlap and inefficiencies.

What difference is there with the Bloc Quebecois? The document states that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has come to the conclusion that eliminating these costly inefficiencies and freeing up resources to introduce other operational changes is the best way to improve its education system. Eliminating costly inefficiencies is, of course, exactly what Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois are asking for.

Shortly before I rose to discuss this issue, the House was debating the very real possibility of conducting an in-depth review of the Senate's role, and even of considering abolishing it, given the current situation. This suggestion has nothing to do with the quality of the men and women who sit in the Senate. Rather, it is based on the fact that this institution is an anachronism in our system. It prevents it from functioning well and it is also costly for nothing. The figure of $65 million per year was mentioned.

So, Newfoundland wishes to make some changes to its system to improve its situation. This is exactly what Quebec seeks to do, albeit on another scale.

The document also states that "it is those affected by the changes that approved them". This is in reference to the people who voted in the referendum held in Newfoundland. So, according to the Department of Justice, when a referendum will be held on Quebec's sovereignty, those affected, namely Quebecers, will have the right to express their views, because they will be the ones affected by the outcome.

Further on in the same Department of Justice document, in response to Question No. 9, the following is asked: "Did the government of Newfoundland and Labrador act arbitrarily?" Response: "On February 22, 1996, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador received a majority mandate with the campaign promise to reform the denominationally-based school system". Here again, we note the similarity with Quebec. Let me just remind the Liberal MPs, in case they have forgotten, which I doubt, that the Parti Quebecois received a majority mandate with the campaign promise of holding a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec.

Another point catches my attention as well. Here we are speaking of a constitutional amendment which might impact upon other provinces. Yet the Liberal government, the government in this House, did not ask to choose the wording for the referendum question. It was drafted solely by the Government of Newfoundland, with no participation whatsoever by the federal government or any other provincial governments. Odd, because in the case of Quebec the federal government absolutely insists on taking part in preparations for the wording of the question. Yet that question, as will be seen later, will be asked of Quebecers by Quebecers. As in Quebec, however, the proponents of the no side in Newfoundland are unanimous in criticizing the question, as we have seen in the press reports, for being ambiguous, not explicit enough. But no attention was paid to that. The question was asked by the people of Newfoundland, it was answered by the people of Newfoundland, and the federal government did not get involved in drafting the question, whereas it did indicate that it might do so for Quebec.

In this connection, we have listed a few questions that were not raised about the recent Newfoundland referendum, yet are being raised in the case of Quebec. I will run through a few of them quickly, since I think I have only four or five minutes left.

A lot has been said on the question of a simple majority. The Prime Minister has intimated a number of times in the House, as I said earlier, that a simple majority might not be enough to ensure Quebec's sovereignty. In July 1948-and my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm has looked into this much more deeply than I-barely 52 per cent of Newfoundland electors agreed to join the Canadian federation in a referendum, and this was the second referendum in a few months, with the first one being held on June 3, 1948. So, the results of the first one were not accepted.

In the case of the second referendum, which passed with 52 per cent, 48 per cent of Newfoundlanders voted no, not wanting to join with Canada. It was not this figure that was taken into account, but rather the vote of the democratic majority, and Newfoundland joined Confederation.

Since referenda will be used increasingly, we will see internationally that the results of referenda committing peoples' future will be ever closer. The law of the majority will never change. In November 1994, 52 per cent of Swedes voted to join the European Union; although 48 per cent voted against, the rule of the majority prevailed. Two weeks later, Norway voted against joining by 52 per cent; 48 per cent of Norwegians were in favour, but the law of the majority prevailed.

The rule of a simple majority in a referendum is universal, because it is the only democratic and practicable rule. When a society says "one person, one vote", it does not mean "one person, two thirds of a vote" or "one person, a vote and a third". Everyone's vote is equal. This is why a referendum is based on a majority.

When Quebec joined the federation, there was neither a referendum nor an election. Quebec joined the federation by parliamentary vote. In the first Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1980, and in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, the federalists participated in the campaign without ever imposing any conditions regarding a majority of more than 50 per cent, because until then they were confident they would win. But, as soon as things start heating up, they want to change the rules of the game. In Quebec, like everywhere else, winning a referendum requires a simple majority, that is to say, 50 per cent plus one vote.

I have noted on several occasions that our friends in the Reform Party have, through their leader, taken a clear stand on this issue. I am convinced others have taken the same position, although I have been unable to read the reports in other newspapers, I did read his statement that:

"A 50 per cent plus one vote for independence is sufficient for Quebec to leave Confederation, according to the Reform leader, but the terms and conditions would have to be subject to a referendum in the rest of Canada". I agree with that. "I do not know of any other threshold than 50 per cent plus one". That is what went on everywhere.

There is also Don MacPherson, who wrote in a recent article in the Gazette :

"I hate to test his legendary modesty but I am forced to admit that my good friend Bernard Landry"-I do not know if it is true that he is friends with Bernard Landry-"is right again. Landry, who is vice-premier in the Parizeau government"-so this goes back a few months-"says a simple majority is good enough to decide a referendum on sovereignty. The vice-premier could have also pointed out that it was good enough for federalists in the 1992 Quebec referendum on the Charlottetown constitutional accord. What is sauce for the federalist goose is sauce for the sovereignist gander". He ended by saying: "And by current world standards of democracy, a yes vote in the referendum would give a Quebec declaration of independence impeccable legitimacy".

This does not mean it would be easy, but it would be legal. We could repeat some of the other arguments that were never made again in relation to what is happening elsewhere in Canada. There is no dispute about the Newfoundland referendum, which was only won by a few points and in which only about half the population voted. But they are already starting to set the rules for the next referendum in Quebec.

They are now addressing the issue of borders and minorities. They are telling us the borders of Quebec might change, that minorities may not want to stay within these borders, that the territory may be partitioned, who knows. Yet, Canada as a country has recognized many countries in the world-I will name a few-with the borders they had before. Canada has recognized the two sovereign countries that resulted from the partition of Czechoslovakia: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Ottawa was one of the first capitals to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991, and that of the Baltic states, as we remember. In the case of the Baltic states, which became sovereign through democratic means, I think Canada was the first country to recognize their independence and all their borders. Yet, the fact that all those countries have significant minorities does not take anything away from the results of a democratic referendum.

As for the resolution proposed by the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, I will support it because the people have expressed in a provincial referendum their desire to amend the extent to which and the way religious denominations get involved in the administration of the education system. I, however, would like to point out one thing, namely that the federal government seems to feel there are two kinds of democracy in this country: one for Canada and one for Quebec.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Me too.

[Milling Industry, May 31st, 1996]

We certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that our experts are experienced. Otherwise, we would be in trouble.

Does the Minister of Industry intend to sit on his hands and allow this transaction, which will effectively transfer to two American companies the power to set the price of flour in Canada?

[Milling Industry, May 31st, 1996]

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

The Archer-Daniels-Midland company has announced plans to buy out Maple Leaf Mills. As a result of this transaction, 75 per cent of the Canadian flour market would be concentrated in the hands of two American subsidiaries.

What does the Minister of Industry intend to do regarding this potential concentration of 75 per cent of the milling industry in the hands of just two companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House at report stage to speak on Bill C-20 respecting, as mentioned previously, the commercialization of civil air navigation services.

The purpose of this bill is to privatize air navigation services across the country through the establishment of Nav Canada, also called NAVCAN. This is a name worth repeating a few times so that the public will get used to it, because it may well become infamous for the problems it will create.

This corporation will be responsible for supervising air navigation services throughout Canada. As someone already pointed out, this kind of organization is being established as part of an overall Transport Canada strategy to modernize transportation services across the country.

Under this strategy, the government has already privatized CN, recently commercialized some services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard and is currently contemplating the possibility of commercializing the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway.

Canada is selling off its ports, airports, railway lines, railway cars and even bridges. This is like some kind of huge liquidation sale. The sale of bridges, and the Quebec bridge in particular, will obviously give rise to untold difficulties, since whoever buys the bridge in Quebec City will not have to take on the obligations the government had regarding the bridge. In fact, the government has gone into business.

Today, it is civil air navigation services that are being commercialized. The federal government tells us that we must agree in principle with improved efficiency and lower prices. The federal government's real motivation in creating Nav Canada is quite obvious. Its main concern is really to make air navigation services cost-effective-or so it says-at the expense of safety and regional development.

The former Minister of Transport himself has admitted that the government can no longer afford the cost of maintaining adequate air navigation services. We must therefore ask ourselves if the new corporation will be able to do any better. Several of the stakeholders who spoke on this issue expressed their concern about the possible costs of the new system and their impact on charges paid by users of air navigation services.

Only large carriers will have a representative on the board of directors of the new corporation known as Nav Canada. Regional air transportation associations and companies will not be represented.

We know that, for a long time, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, the government has been asked to decentralize its operations so that local residents, who are familiar with local conditions, can have a say in something affecting their community. Again, in this bill we see an excessive centralization that will result in large carriers being the only ones to be heard.

Thus, regional air transportation associations and companies will not be represented. Large carriers are being given an advantage over small ones, especially as far as passenger fees are concerned. This aspect must be followed very closely, and we will do so as this bill progresses.

My colleagues and I are worried about the impacts of Bill C-20 in this regard. That is why we are proposing to add to the preamble a note indicating that Nav Canada must agree to maintain equal opportunities for small and large carriers in setting all charges.

This way, we will ensure small carriers a certain degree of fairness in this regard, and we know how important this is. Usually, large companies always end up deciding on everything, and everybody abides by their decisions. Nav Canada is meant to be a non-profit corporation with a mandate to manage public interests, and as my hon. colleague was saying a moment ago, we can draw a comparison with Montreal, where private companies will determine the future of Montreal airports without involving anybody else, without holding any public hearings, without making any studies available. The government is about to do something similar with this bill and the establishment of Nav Canada.

This creates a risk for users and the general public, since Nav Canada will hold a monopoly over air navigation services in Canada. The corporation will impose user fees and will have absolute control over the tariff structure. We want to make sure that Nav Canada's financial interests do not take precedence over the public interest. This is why the Bloc Quebecois motion seeks to include, in the preamble of the bill, a recognition that the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over all other considerations in the decisions taken by Nav Canada.

The first motion in the first group aims to have the government and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take precedence over Nav Canada's financial interests. We have to ensure that someone is still accountable for safety standards, which must always remain the top priority. The government would be ill-advised to oppose the motion, since the minister sponsoring the bill said, in a speech, that Transport Canada's top priority is to maintain and, whenever possible, to improve the safety and security of Canadians.

The government can really not vote against a motion confirming such priority in the bill, since the minister himself alluded to it. I do hope government members will support the statements made by one of their ministers, even though what we saw and heard in recent weeks might lead us to think otherwise. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, the government did not even support a declaration made not too long ago by its Prime Minister, in some kind of autobiography, not posthumous of course.

The third motion in the first group seeks to add to the preamble a mention that Nav Canada recognizes that "Canada is a country where air services to northern and remote regions is essential". The purpose of this motion is to establish a basis for interpretation. Again, I do not see how government members could oppose the motion. We want to make sure that regional services will effectively be provided, particularly in remote regions.

This parameter will serve as a basis for interpretation by stressing that one of Nav Canada's fundamental objectives is to provide services to the regions. The idea is to make sure that large carriers do not impose their rules on smaller ones, without regard for regional markets and needs. Co-operation and understanding are essential between all carriers, large and small.

As you can see, the first group of motions includes three motions that would fit into the preamble in order to recognize the legitimate rights and responsibilities that Nav Canada should always respect.

What these motions propose is, roughly, that the government and the new corporation recognize that the safety of passengers is one of the most important concerns and must take have paramountcy over all other considerations, including the financial interests of large carriers and the new corporation. I would like to mention, not as a vision of doom nor as something that could happen-because I hope it will never happen-the plane crash that happened recently in the United States, in the Florida Everglades.

The possibility was clearly raised on television, at least according to some comments I heard, that the accident could be related to the financial problems suffered by the airline, which would appear to have great difficulty in performing the technical checks needed to ensure the full safety of its passengers. This is currently under investigation in the United States.

I mention this case to ensure that we do everything to prevent such an occurrence here. As we know, this country's two largest air carriers have financial problems. And we do not want them to take advantage of the establishment of this new corporation to bail themselves out by increasing rates, for example, which would immediately impact negatively on small regional carriers. We do not want to find ourselves once again in the situation where the

little guy is made to pay for the big guy. This seems to have become the rule nowadays.

We only have to think of what the Auditor General of Canada just told us. Large family trusts have no problem because, through nebulous rulings made behind closed doors, and often in matters that could be judicially examined, they can transfer billions of dollars out of Canada without paying taxes. When you are big, there is no problem doing that. We are even setting precedents that will allow all the others to do the same afterwards.

Last week, the Financial Post quoted Revenue Canada documents to the effect that over $60 billion in assets were taken out of Canada in 1991 without any tax being paid. It is obvious that big shots in Canada have no trouble whatsoever making their sweet little deals. Included in those big shots were most Canadian banks who advertise on television and tell us how much they care about the public's interest. What we would not like to see happen with this bill is big companies ending up with an advantage over the small ones.

In conclusion, there is no reason why the government should oppose these motions, especially those in the first group, since they are a mere confirmation of principles the government itself has applied repeatedly. All we want is to see these principles clearly entrenched in the bill and included in the preamble.