36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 97
CONTENTS
Monday, May 15, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Motion
|
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1125
1130
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1135
1140
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1145
1150
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1155
1200
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 4
|
1210
1215
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1220
1225
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1245
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1250
1255
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Motions Nos. 5 and 6
|
1300
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1305
1310
1315
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1320
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1325
1330
| Motion No. 7
|
1335
1340
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1345
1350
1355
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Third Reading
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1400
| CBC
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIPS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| RIMOUSKI OCEANIC
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| NORTHERN STUDIES
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1405
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| VINA WADDELL
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| THE LATE KEIZO OBUCHI
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| NUCLEAR FUSION
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1410
| GASPÉ
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| THE FAMILY
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1430
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
| BANKING SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING PERSONS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1440
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
| CBC REGIONAL NEWS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1450
| DEVCO
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1500
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Third reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1700
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1725
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. John Herron |
1730
1735
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1740
1745
1750
1755
1800
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1805
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1810
1815
1820
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 97
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 15, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
JOB CREATION
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should take into account regional unemployment rates
when establishing or expanding government offices and agencies so
that regions with high rates of unemployment are considered for
any new job creation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on my motion.
It should come as no surprise to members of the House that the
motion should come from me, given that I represent one of the
areas which has had chronically high rates of unemployment for a
long time.
We are not alone in that. One of the privileges and I suppose
one of the benefits of being a member of parliament is that there
is a lot to learn. What I have learned over the last three years
is that the chronic rates of unemployment which affect Cape
Breton are not exclusive to Cape Breton. There are areas in New
Brunswick, including certainly the region represented by the
member for Acadie—Bathurst, which have chronically high
unemployment.
For the member who is seconding the motion, the gracious member
for Yukon, unemployment is no stranger to her riding, as well as
regions in the north of the country, northern Manitoba, parts of
northern Saskatchewan, and parts of British Columbia. In fact no
region of the country is free from chronic high rates of
unemployment. As we have said repeatedly in the House, the
disparity between the have regions of the country and the have
not regions of the country is growing immensely.
One of the ways, and it is a humble suggestion from me, I think
the government could address this issue is by incorporating the
motion into its decision making process. The motion essentially
says that if the government is expanding a government department,
if it is creating a new government department, if it is expanding
an agency or creating a new agency, part of the criteria as to
where that agency or department would be located would be to look
at unemployment rates in areas of the country which have
chronically high unemployment rates.
It is appropriate that we address the motion on a Monday. Most
of us have come to the House this morning from our ridings. I
know for me, when I leave the airport in Sydney, Cape Breton,
arrive in Ottawa and travel downtown, and then conversely when I
go home, it is a bittersweet experience because I see the
tremendous wealth in Ottawa, generated and created to a large
extent because of the public service in the city in that it is
the government capital.
There was a time when it had to be that way.
There was a time when in order for departments to run
efficiently, in order for there to be a fair exchange of
communication, there had to be government departments congregated
in one area, and that area was naturally the capital city.
1110
Let me tell the House a little story about what came to light
for me. It was given to me in a dialogue with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and indeed with his deputy regional
director. There is in my riding a radio station necessary for
ship to shore communication operated by the coast guard. There
was a plan afoot to move that and centralize it in Halifax.
Understandably the people in my riding, the people who work in
that area, were not pleased to think about having to leave their
homes and locate somewhere else.
When I met with the regional deputy director he told me that if
they wanted to they could navigate the ships that come in and out
of the gulf and the Bras d'Or lakes from an office in Ottawa. I
put the reverse to him and said that if they could do that with
the technology, surely they could navigate the ships that come in
and out of Halifax harbour and other harbours from this location.
He began to laugh, so I asked him if I were wrong, if the
technology were one way. He had a sober second thought. Maybe
he is planning to work for the Senate or to be appointed, I do
not know, but after sober second thought he told me I was right,
that there was no reason.
We know that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in
one of its reports two years ago, maybe not that long ago,
recommended that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be
located on either one of our coasts because there are no fish in
the Rideau Canal. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans had
made some errors in calculation. It was felt by the standing
committee that it would be appropriate for those public servants
to be located in the fishing communities to hear from the
fishermen directly.
Which coast would be chosen? My suggestion would be, and the
motion reads, that one of the criteria would be that the
government would look at the areas of high unemployment. I say
quite frankly, to have a huge department like that locate in
western Newfoundland would be beneficial. I will not even be
parochial here, as much as I would like to have it in my own
riding. Suppose the department were to locate in Port aux
Basques? Suppose it were to locate in Argentia in a community
that right now is seeing its resource bases dry up? These would
be welcome well paying jobs that would provide some stability in
that community.
Conversely, there may be some ridings along the northern coast
of British Columbia, and I am not as familiar with them, that
would be suitable for the department's location. Would it matter
in terms of communication? We have the technology now. That is
what we are constantly told by the Minister of Industry. The new
technological age allows us to sit at our computers anywhere in
the country and effectively do our jobs and run our departments.
If the private sector can do that, if it can be done from Ottawa
to the regions of the country, then I do not see why it cannot be
done from the regions to the centre.
There is another point that I would raise. Some time ago in the
1980s there was some decentralization, which is what it was
called then, where the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
located in my home town. It is a good thing it did, because as
the government divests itself of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, as the government withdraws from other industries
and as we face real economic challenges, one of the bright spots
is the employees of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
who are keeping the downtown core alive to a great extent. They
are the people who can afford to buy lunches, buy clothes and
whatnot to keep small entrepreneurs in business. If these small
entrepreneurs were supplying goods to various departments they
could benefit.
I had an exchange earlier in my term with the Minister of
National Defence. We do have a small base in Sydney. When it
came time to refurbish it, two of the local small business
entrepreneurs went to the department to try to sell furniture.
They were rebuffed. The furniture came from somewhere else.
There was no spinoff in the local economy from that, shamefully,
but had there been a fairly substantial government department or
agency there is no question that it would benefit the
communities.
1115
If we do want to question that, we need only look at the cities
in the country where the civil service and government
expenditures laid the foundation for an economy. I am happy for
the people of Ottawa, but in this city today we hear constantly
of large high tech corporations locating here. They are doing so
in part because there is a stable financial base here.
The same is true in Halifax in the province I come from and of
Moncton or Fredericton, New Brunswick. The civil service has
provided a stable economic base for investment. Frankly, the
wealth being generated in some of those capital cities today by
the private sector certainly would allow the public sector to
move out without tremendous disruption, especially if it is a new
agency or government department.
Another example is the recent announcement by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage of $48 million for a national war museum. I
have nothing against a national war museum but I do not know why
it has to be in Ottawa. I do not know that there is any
particular reason that expenditure of money has to be spent here.
It provides construction and tourism jobs. It attracts tourists
to a particular area. Why not look at an area of the country
that proudly served by sending its soldiers, sailors and airmen
over? It could be in any particular part of the country as no
region has a monopoly on courage. We could look at an area with
high unemployment, which made a significant contribution to the
war effort, and locate that museum there. It would serve as a
focal point for tourism, would provide construction jobs and what
have you.
Instead, it will be yet another expenditure in this city. Just
as it is completed, I suppose the the multimillion dollar
renovations to the Parliament Buildings will take place. I do
not know how far they will go but there are plans to create
boulevards in this city, all of which are government
expenditures. Since I have come to this city, I have seen the
road outside my office paved three times. People in my riding
would give anything for one-tenth of the paving budget alone that
is spent on government buildings here in Ottawa.
If we look at how the expansion of the national capital region
to Hull enhanced the economy in that particular area, it
certainly shows that it can work.
I also point out that we in Cape Breton have been criticized
because of the Devco expenditures. People have said that the
government spends millions of dollars on the coal industry. I
ask members to think about the following fact and what it would
mean in their own ridings. In the city of Halifax there is
something like $60 million deposited into bank accounts every two
weeks by way of civil servants' pay. The civil servants do
important work and heaven knows we agree with the work they do.
However, if I had one-quarter of those pay cheques being
deposited in my riding, it would go some lengths to offset the
loss of jobs we are going to suffer when the federal government
pulls out of the industry.
It is interesting to note that Canada's newest territory,
Nunavut, recognized the importance of doing this kind of work.
Nunavut stands out for having recognized the failure of the
federal government on this front and has set out recommendations
in a detailed plan outlining the priorities for the new
territorial government. It is entitled the Bathurst Mandate. One
of the things the new government recognizes is that if people are
going to feel connected to their government, if they are going to
feel that they pay taxes and should receive some benefit for that
not just in services but in economic development, then one way to
do that is to provide those outlying communities with government
departments. As I have said, why should we not? The technology
is there.
Nunavut is calling for the fulfilment of the commitments of
government to deliver employment to decentralized communities.
How better for a community to feel connected to the federal
government and to see some benefit for the taxes they pay than to
see the government spending some money in their own community?
1120
Through partnering arrangements, the government does spend money
in terms of paving, assisting provinces and in medicare. Every
day in the House we have debates on whether or not the federal
commitment is enough.
I will use another example, the new gun registry. To the
government's credit, the registry was not located in Ottawa. The
gun registry is a very real and tangible expression of government
expenditures in a community.
I do not want to touch on the HRDC scandal that has occupied so
much of the House's time, but instead of arbitrary criteria, what
I am saying in this motion is that one of the compelling criteria
in determining where those government offices should be located
would not be political patronage but would be in areas of high
unemployment.
It is very hard to justify, in this day and age, setting up a
government agency or a government department in a city like
Ottawa when we have regions in the country that have, in my
particular hometown, an unemployment rate of 21% to 22%. I will
not just single out Ottawa. It is also difficult to justify
putting it in Toronto where there are predictions of a shortage
of skilled labour. I submit that it could be a saving to the
taxpayers in terms of the amount of taxes the Government of
Canada would have to pay on a building with a high square footage
because of the crowding and the land value in certain areas. If
the buildings are located outside the major centres in areas of
high unemployment there tends to be empty office buildings.
If we were to walk down the main street of Sydney Mines or of
Plumber Avenue in New Waterford, I could show the government
empty buildings that it could fill with a government office or
agency at a fair savings to Canadians.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member has brought forth some
good ideas with his private member's motion. If we could use
employment insurance, as the hon. member has decided, it would in
fact not be used in a political way.
I want to draw members' attention to what the hon. member had to
say about the headquartering of the gun registration in New
Brunswick. There was nothing wrong with that in in itself. It
outlined the principles of the hon. member's motion. However,
the moment the government changed in New Brunswick there was some
sort of threat that the office of registration should move. That
clearly indicated to this controversy all across Canada, that EI
is indeed being used for political purposes, which it should not
be, simply because people from across Canada pay into this and
there is nothing wrong in supporting regions of low unemployment
with government offices.
In the province that I come from many things were moved out of
the city of Regina into the smaller cities where it could be
handled. Crop insurance is in Melville, and so on and so forth.
Retirement is out of the city. It provides employment in the
smaller areas of Saskatchewan. That point is good.
I want to mention what he had to say about having the road paved
three times in front of his office. When I first came here a
chap of a French dialect said to me “Monsieur Bailey, I want to
tell you that in Ottawa we have two seasons.” I said “Oh,
what are they?” He said “Winter and construction.” That stuck,
and is quite true; we do spend a lot of money here.
I would disagree with the hon. member, however, on the site of
the national war museum. Aside from that, his points were very
well taken.
1125
The other day I briefly mentioned the fact that when young
people in my constituency get the chance they jump to get on oil
rigs. They work 12 hour shifts until the rig goes down and then
they have to come home. Most of them qualify for EI benefits.
However, if they are living with their mother and dad on a farm,
if they do not have a permit book and are not registered as
farmers, they do not qualify. That is an injustice. Everybody in
here knows that. It is a misuse of funds. We should take
advantage of this time in the House to tell the people in charge
of EI that this is not a tax and should not be used as a tax. We
need to make sure that everybody can qualify.
My hon. colleague, in speaking about his own constituency, said
that he was well aware of the high employment rate and so on. I
want to describe to the House a case that is before me at the
present time of a terrible injustice for which no one is willing
to lend support to correct.
I am aware of a 24 year old young man who has spent all his
working time on the oil rigs. He had a very bad accident and can
never return to the work he was doing. EI and Human Resources
Development very promptly and very correctly provided funds to
this intelligent young man to upgrade his skills in order to find
work in the future and be able to earn enough money to pay child
support which he had always paid.
Human Resources Development through EI got this man into
training and he was doing well. However, another branch of
government took away the funding for his training and sent it off
for child support. He is now not only broke and desperate but,
quite frankly, I think he is suicidal.
There is something wrong with government agencies working
against one another. This is but one case. I know of several
other cases. This issue should be examined. Many different
departments have been approached, as well as the Minister of
Justice, the Prime Minister and provincial officials. No
response has ever been received on this huge problem.
The member talked about new job creation. I do not think
anybody would argue with that if this was totally without
political interference. I have no argument whatsoever that we
could move many institutions from Ottawa to other parts of Canada
and EI would be one of them. I do not think we should ever be
found guilty of using this money as a political tool.
I do have trouble knowing the tremendous profit that goes into
general revenue from this. I have no hesitation to agree with
the government when it says that it needs a surplus in case of a
shortfall but how much of a surplus does it need? The workers
out there now consider this to be a tax and not an insurance.
The final point I want to raise relates to students.
1130
I remember the first paying job I ever had. There was no EI
around at that time. Young people may get their first job at
Dairy Queen or McDonald's. When they get their first paycheque
they see two big deductions. One is income tax and the other is
EI. Income tax is taken off even though they are students, and
they can never reclaim the EI deduction. We encourage our young
people to find work, but there should be a declaration of some
type which would limit the amount of the EI premiums they have to
pay. It is a little disappointing for the 14, 15 or 16 year old
who gets that first paycheque to see the amount of the
deductions. After all, we have $27 billion sitting in Ottawa.
We need to look at this in a big way because it is unfair.
I would like to commend the hon. member for his job creation
motion. I would like to believe that this money would not be
used for political purposes, but somehow I do not have any firm
belief that would happen.
This is a non-votable motion. It is Monday morning and this is
a private member's motion. Who cares. However, before we
dismiss it totally I would say that there is meat in this motion
which should be considered by both sides of the House.
I hope hon. members opposite and on this side of the House
realize that corrections can be made to Canada's employment
insurance system. They should listen and pay heed to the private
member's motion and to some of the serious problems that I have
brought forward this morning. I would hope that anyone watching
today would pay heed as well.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for his job
creation motion and inform him that, in principle, we on the
government side of the House are not opposed to the intent of
Motion No. 268. The government is already doing exactly what he
proposes we do.
The government's vision has always been of a strong and vibrant
country where prosperity is shared across all regions. That is
why we continue to be committed to a job creation strategy that
focuses on helping the private sector to grow. This in turn
fuels job creation in the private sector, which is exactly what
we all want to achieve.
While all federal organizations support the government's job
creation priority, Western Economic Diversification Canada,
Industry Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for
the Regions of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency play a key role in advancing our jobs and growth agenda.
These organizations work in partnership with other levels of
government, associations and the private sector to help
entrepreneurs establish new businesses and help existing
businesses grow and prosper. The member for Sydney—Victoria did
recognize that.
At the national level, these organizations work together to
increase Canada's share of global trade. They work to improve
the conditions for investment in the Canadian economy. They
promote improvements to Canada's innovation performance and help
build a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace for
businesses and consumers.
At the regional level, these organizations have programs in
place that are tailored to specific regional needs. At the same
time, these programs support broader objectives, such as targeted
job creation, export promotion, improvements in the business
climate and access to financing and technology information.
At the local level these organizations partner with communities
and associations.
One of their partners is the network of over 250 Community
Futures Development Corporations that are spread right across
this country. These grassroots organizations, supported by a
voluntary board of directors and a small paid staff, deliver
programs to establish or expand local businesses, which in turn
create new jobs in the community. As for the operations of the
federal government itself, we have offices right across the
country which represent a significant presence in each and every
region.
1135
I reiterate that, in principle, the government is not opposed to
the intent of the hon. member's motion. Indeed, when the
opportunity presents itself to expand federal operations in the
region, we have done exactly what the member proposes.
The Summerside experience, for example, is an excellent case in
point. In this instance we worked with the provincial government
to offset the impact of the closure of CFB Summerside. We
established a new GST centre, while the provincial government
transferred Holland College's Police Academy to Summerside.
These moves were followed by extensive and diversified new
private sector activity in conjunction with the establishment of
Slemon Park.
I note that, in practice, areas of high unemployment are already
one of the considerations when there is to be an expansion or new
establishment of government offices. The reality, however, is
that today expansionist governments are effectively extinct. I
can empathize with the concern that we, as a government, need to
do everything possible to create new jobs and opportunities for
our citizens. At the same time, I believe that all members
appreciate the fact that today bigger government is not the
answer to new job creation.
That is why instead of a strategy of government job relocation
or creation our government has chosen to focus on a different
strategy. Instead of moving existing government jobs or
expanding government activity, our approach has been to help
create brand new jobs in the private sector.
The recent Cape Breton experience is another case in point.
Instead of taking government jobs from one area and relocating
them, the government chose to work with the provincial government
and the private sector to help create new jobs. As a result of
these efforts, EDS Canada recently announced that it will
establish a contact centre that will help create up to 900 new
full time jobs in Sydney over the next four years.
I am very pleased to say that our approach is working, not just
in Atlantic Canada, but in every region of the country. Our
approach is helping to create new jobs. These new jobs continue
to be created month after month after month. According to
Statistics Canada, April marked the 27th consecutive month that
the Canadian economy produced job growth. In real terms this
growth has fueled the creation of 115,000 new jobs in the first
four months of this year.
The effect of our focus on job creation can also been seen in
the unemployment rate, which remained at 6.8% in April. This
level is the lowest in almost a quarter century. In fact, we are
now a full 4.6% down from the 11.4% unemployment rate which we
inherited just after taking office in October 1993. The translation
is, we have reduced the unemployment rate by over 40%
since 1993.
This goes to show what our commitment and determination, coupled
with the right policies, at the right time can achieve—more new
jobs for more Canadians. These increases add up to a significant
number of new jobs. As of today over 1.9 million new jobs have
been created since we took office in 1993. I have no doubt that
our jobs and growth strategy will continue to help Canadians in
all regions, just as we will continue our focus of creating more
jobs and lowering unemployment.
Statistics Canada reports that Canada is on a run of economic
growth that is the longest it has ever measured—18 straight
quarters of GDP growth. Moreover, the composite leading index,
that is, the indicator of projected economic growth over the next
three months, rose 1.1% in March, almost doubling economists'
expectations of a .6% gain.
1140
The policies and measures put in place by this government are
working. Even more important is the fact that more Canadians are
working as a result of our efforts. We have helped to create new
jobs. We have helped to create a climate of growth.
The finance minister's budget 2000 will keep the growth and
momentum going and help to make Canada the place to be in the
21st century. Budget 2000 continues our efforts to put forward a
balanced approach to creating new prosperity and enhancing the
quality of life of all Canadians in all of our regions.
Our approach is one of balanced budgets and lower public debt,
as well as lower taxes, especially for middle and low income
Canadians and families with children. Our approach is one of
smart, strategic investments and initiatives that will boost job
creation, productivity and our standard of living. Our approach
includes initiatives to strengthen our health care system,
promote knowledge and innovation and ensure the quality of our
environment.
Our government's record of prosperity and job creation is
strong. The member does not have to take our word for it. Look
at the agencies that monitor these situations. We are working to
ensure that every region benefits from the new economy and new
job creation. Our vision for the future is clear. We want our
citizens to be skilled and knowledgeable. We want our businesses
to be successful and competitive. We want our country to remain
strong and prosperous.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
considerable interest to the member who has just spoken. It is
a good thing that he only had ten minutes, because, had we let
him go on, we would have ended up with a shortage of unemployed
people in Canada.
It would perhaps be a good idea to look closely at the NDP
member's proposal and read the motion. It provides:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
into account regional unemployment rates when establishing or
expanding government offices and agencies so that regions with
high rates of unemployment are considered for any new job
creation.
I do not know if the member is aware of the scope of his motion.
I was involved in the 1993 and 1997 election campaigns and I
saw the Liberals opposite waving about the famous red book,
which, the second time round, had rather a warmed over look
about it. However, the government did not object.
The government is being asked today to honour its promises and
do what it has always promised in the regions. The member who
spoke before me gets around this when he says that unemployment
dropped by 40%. This is why I was saying we will end up with a
shortage of unemployed people. The member should have said that
40% of the 12% it had been, and it is still high, unfortunately.
Some 20 RCMP investigations are under way in management at Human
Resources Development Canada. I did not invent that figure. It
was in the papers again this morning: all sorts of
misappropriation.
The minister explained her terrible boondoggles by saying that
there were pockets of unemployment in the regions and that the
department was acting based on these pockets. I wonder which
pockets.
In any case, in response to a simple application for a name
change, HRDC gave $720,000 to a company that had 118 employees
and transferred them three or five doors down the street.
Meanwhile, in my riding of Chambly, which is neither poor nor
rich, just average like most constituencies represented by my
colleagues, we feel that we are not getting our fair share, as
the hon. member from the NDP pointed out.
When a party like the one in office has 98 of its 155 members
coming from Ontario, it knows which side its bread is buttered
on.
1145
This is a recurring story itself, with the result that, since
Confederation, the regions have been ignored, except during
election campaigns, when politicians come and promise the world
to everyone. But once they are elected, they make cuts affecting
the regions and they centralize everything around the national
capital, Ottawa, instead of trying to give the regions a fair
share of the economic spinoffs resulting from government
activity.
There are, of course, some exceptions. Unfortunately, these
exceptions are all found in the 20 investigations currently
being conducted by the RCMP on all kinds of misappropriation.
Is the hon. member of the NDP aware that Atomic Energy of Canada
is preparing to outsource the building of its Candu reactors to
someplace in Asia, Vietnam or a neighbouring country? I learned
this last week when doing research on various government
agencies, at which time I discovered that it has been five years
since Atomic Energy Canada submitted its five year plan to
parliament for approval, as it supposed to.
This has been going on for five years, under the supposed
pretext that there is restructuring going on. As well, there
are preparations under way for signing agreements with Vietnam
and Cambodia, I believe, for production of Candu reactors over
there. This is totally against the very principle of the motion
by the hon. member from Nova Scotia and the totally gratuitous
statements made by the Ontario member who spoke before me.
A total of $12 billion of Canadians' hard-earned dollars has been
invested in Atomic Energy Canada at a time when there was no
hope of any clear benefit from the production of Candu reactors.
Time has passed and the interest has built up. If Atomic
Energy of Canada were to pay back capital and interest to the
Government of Canada, the total would be impressive, so much so
that the figures might seem unrealistic. The interest that
would normally have been paid back to the government was
therefore written off.
This is a little like the government telling Canada Post “I
transferred assets to you when I created Canada Post, so now I
am entitled to dividends. I want to be reimbursed”. This is
why André Ouellet, the President of Canada Post, pays the
government dividends every year.
Last year, he handed over $200 million in dividends to the
government and he will likely hand over the same amount, maybe a
bit more, this year, because Canada Post Corporation is doing
quite well.
Why does the government require Canada Post Corporation to hand
over dividends, but not Atomic Energy of Canada? For the simple
reason that taxpayers are the ones who are going to be paying
dividends to the federal government through Canada Post
Corporation. They are easy to overtax and shove around because
they do not answer back or, if they do, it is just part of the
general background buzz, and no one pays any real attention.
But when Atomic Energy of Canada gets ready to contract out the
building of its Candu reactors, there might be a slight
possibility of some small benefits, rather than the already
considerable capital losses and interest loads associated with
this kind of project. But no, the government is going to
contract this out to another country.
That is how this government treats Canadians who, election after
election, want to see the government's actions produce some
economic benefit. Generally, the parties that take office hold
out the promise of tremendous post-election economic growth in
the form of job creation.
In my riding, for instance, Marieville is located in one zone,
because Canada has been carved up into zones for the purposes of
the transitional jobs fund.
1150
If you have less than 12% unemployment, no business in your
riding or your region is eligible for the transitional jobs
fund. Marieville, a pretty town in my riding, is a major
centre. The region is almost 100% agricultural. The people not
working in the farming community come into the major centre.
The town of Marieville itself has perhaps 22% or 24%
unemployment. However, neighbouring villages have almost full
employment. There are family farms and small family businesses
linked to the field of agriculture.
Marieville is being penalized, because it is in an area with
less than 12% unemployment.
If we isolated Marieville, it would be a pocket of unemployment
in the opinion of the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the Prime Minister. He considers these pockets when they
are in his bailiwick, which is Saint-Maurice. He considers them
such all the more since the RCMP is considering them as well,
because it went rooting around there.
Why do these famous pockets not count elsewhere? Perhaps
because the elsewhere did not elect someone in the party in
power. What bothers me and what the member for Nova Scotia is
right in saying is that this business is unfair.
Apart from those around Ottawa, in Ottawa itself, or in Ontario
in the case of many, Canadians do not feel they are getting fair
benefit from the government's economic activities.
The government generates activity, for example for document
printing or for jobs for public officials.
Although not necessarily for the same reasons as the Canadian
Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, for its own reasons and after
considering all that I have said, feels it has to make the
government see things as they are. It has to say to the
government “You do not do what you should be doing unless you
get a push from behind”. It takes motions such as the one by
the member for Sydney—Victoria to say to the government “If you
are unfair, rotten to the core, do not give people that
impression. Try to at least appear to be fair”. That is what
we want.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in the debate on Motion No. 268. This motion
would see the federal government take into consideration regional
unemployment rates when establishing or expanding government
offices and agencies so that regions with high rates of
unemployment would be considered for any new job creation.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from Nova Scotia the
member for Sydney—Victoria for drawing the government's
attention to the serious unemployment problem which exists in the
maritime provinces. The member would likely agree that the
Liberal government has done little if anything to stop the tide
of our young and brightest Atlantic Canadians who are being
forced to relocate to other parts of the country in search of
employment. Even the Prime Minister has failed to recognize the
serious brain drain problem in the country.
It was indicated in the comments by my colleague from across the
way who spoke earlier that everything is rosy. In certain parts
of the country unemployment rates are low, but I can assure my
hon. colleague that the unemployment rates are very high in the
Atlantic Canada ridings, and more specifically the riding of West
Nova which I represent. Unemployment in seasonal work is very
high. The amount of seasonal jobs are high as well which causes
a lot of unemployment.
Another issue which is important in West Nova is the brain
drain. The last census showed that over 2,000 people have left
the riding. These people are between the ages of 18 and 35.
1155
[Translation]
With a population of approximately 70,000, West Nova cannot
afford to lose 2,000 of its brightest inhabitants. It is time
the federal government did something about this problem before
more of our young people decide to leave.
[English]
I can certainly sympathize with the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria. All Canadians are aware of the many
difficulties that have plagued Cape Breton Island over the past
decades. Unemployment is at an unacceptable level. Therefore it
is paramount that the government do something to assist future
economic development in that area as in most areas of the
Atlantic provinces.
The Progressive Conservative Party recognized the serious
problems facing Atlantic Canadians. That is why in 1987 the
Progressive Conservative government of the day announced a new
direction for regional economic development policy in Canada.
That Progressive Conservative government was responsible for
creating the western economic diversification program and the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
I might add that earlier my colleague opposite seemed to speak
in very positive way of those things which the Progressive
Conservative Party put forward and which the present government
has adopted as its own. It is interesting that when things look
bad, government members point the finger at us. They would
probably point the finger at Sir John A. Macdonald if they
thought they could get away with it. But when it is an issue
that has worked well for parts of the country, they take it as
their own.
One of the very important components of these two new agencies
was precisely the moving of government's regional development
decision making out of Ottawa and closer to the people it serves.
This policy helped to address some of the concerns referred to
by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria in the motion he has put
to the House.
Obviously much more needs to be done to help Atlantic Canada.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a legislated
mandate which in part reads “to increase opportunity for
economic development in Atlantic Canada and more particularly, to
enhance the growth of earned income and employment opportunities
in that region”. In many instances ACOA has achieved those
goals.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has enabled many small
and medium size businesses in the Atlantic provinces to create
jobs that otherwise would not exist. Its involvement in the
region's economy has resulted in an important net positive
contribution.
Despite its success, there have also been some publicized
failures. These failures have been harshly criticized for some
of their business decisions and rightfully so. Overshadowed by
this criticism is the fact that there have been countless success
stories throughout the Atlantic provinces; companies such as
Tri-Star Industries in Yarmouth which, with the help of ACOA, is
now exporting ambulances throughout the world.
There are problems with ACOA. Improvements must be made to
ensure that Canadian taxpayers are getting true value for their
investment. However, unlike the reform party, I do not believe
in running away from the problem and turning our backs on
Atlantic Canada. Let us work together to make necessary changes
to ACOA so that Atlantic Canadians can benefit from this agency
and ultimately create new long term jobs for our youth.
When the reform party calls for the disbanding of ACOA, it fails
to recognize the fact that most chartered banks in Atlantic
Canada are quite reluctant to support a small business venture
unless it is willing to provide between 30% and 50% of its own
equity. Unfortunately most aspiring entrepreneurs are unable to
meet this demand. Without ACOA having taken a chance on
individual projects, many would not have gotten off the ground.
The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria has introduced a motion
calling upon the government to focus greater attention on regions
with high rates of unemployment when establishing or expanding
government offices and agencies. Unfortunately the opposite
appears to be happening. Already the federal government has made
huge cuts in the federal civil service.
I will take a moment to speak to the comments made earlier by my
hon. colleague on the Liberal side.
He said that job creation was going very well.
1200
I am thinking specifically of my part of the country, the riding
that I represent, West Nova. We have seen many jobs in Yarmouth,
for example, being pushed off to more centralized locations in
other parts of the province. These are jobs that are valuable
and needed in an area where unemployment is too high.
Another issue which I think is very important is the CBC, the
links it provides and the potential removal of local broadcasting
centralized in Toronto. This is another issue in which the
government seems to lack the foresight and the intention. I
would stress that it should keep pushing to make sure that local
broadcasting can remain in local areas.
On the weekend the Right Hon. Joe Clark, leader of the PC Party,
made a commitment to all Atlantic Canadians that our party would
be working hard on their behalf to help them achieve their
maximum potential. As the member for West Nova and a proud
Atlantic Canadian I will do whatever is necessary to help us
achieve that goal.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria, I should advise the House, speaks now he will
close the debate and exercise his five minute right of rebuttal.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank members of the House who participated in the debate for
their thoughts and for their ideas.
Because I only have five minutes I want to comment on the
remarks of the member for Hamilton West. I will concentrate
there first because I am not sure he understood the importance of
the motion. He spoke about the accomplishments of his government
in terms of reducing unemployment. Again, I do not want to be
political and I do not want to be critical for the sake of being
critical. There are areas in the country where government policy
has worked extremely well, but there are areas in the country
where it has not worked.
As much as Toronto, Ottawa and perhaps Vancouver have unlimited
growth, it very difficult in regions of the country to pick up
national newspapers that talk about the unprecedented growth and
the economic strength of the country and walk out to the main
street of our downtown and see boarded up buildings and young
people leaving our communities because the unemployment rate is
20%, 21%, 24%, and, heaven knows, in some of the native
communities it is 75%.
While there is economic growth and that growth is important to
help carry the regions which do not have the growth, we do not
want to be carried any more. We want to be self-sufficient and
make a contribution.
The member said that they appreciated the intent and were doing
what the motion says. Then he went on to talk about the private
sector. If that is the belief then all government departments
should be sent out of this city and the private sector should be
the sole engine of growth in Ottawa. Give us the $60 billion of
the Department of Human Resources Development and put it into the
main street in my hometown. I would be happy with it. Take the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and put it somewhere in
Newfoundland. Take the Department of Transport and put it in
western Canada. Let the private sector be the sole engine of
growth in this city.
I do not want to get too angry. When we hear that in other
regions of the country there is a temptation to say the
government does not care. It says that we should do as it says,
not as it does. I want to make very clear that if the Liberal
Party and the member support the intent of the motion, we would
look forward to receiving some of the things that could be
located in our area.
I know the member from Bras d'Or has written to the Prime
Minister and suggested that the Canadian Tourism Commission be
located in Cape Breton. The government keeps telling us that
tourism is the way to do that yet there is no sign of it. When
this commission is created it would not even be missed in this
town, but it would be a centre of good jobs and some money
located in the community I represent. Then if someone wants to
open a little coffee shop or a restaurant, he or she knows there
will be some people there who will spend some money.
1205
The member for West Nova touched on the CBC. I think that is a
prime example. There is talk of centralizing, of cutting
regional broadcasting across the country and centralizing the
whole operation. Centralizing it where? In Toronto where the
government's policies are working, where there is low
unemployment, where a centralized broadcast is not needed. One
of the conditions for the CBC to get some of its licensing was
that Newsworld would be run and operated out of Halifax.
There was a commitment to the intent of this motion but now we
see that being cut.
We have been through this in the smaller centres. We dealt with
cuts to CBC and the loss of a regional broadcaster and a local
suppertime news hour 10 years ago when we lost it in Cape Breton
and it went to Halifax. Now we are being told it will go from
Halifax to Toronto.
The CBC is a crown corporation and the government does not have
a complete hands on approach, but surely it would say that its
intent and in the spirit of the motion, if the regional
suppertime news hour has to be cut—and I do not think the
government could justify it—that it should be located somewhere
in western Canada in an area where there is high unemployment.
I did a show with Ralph Benmergui one time and that is what he
said to me. He talked about Devco and I asked him how many
people were employed in his building in downtown Toronto by the
government and paid by taxpayer dollars. I would like to see a
little more decentralization.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has expired. As the motion has not
been designated as a votable item it is dropped from the order
paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, an act to
amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act, the
Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public Participation
Act and to amend another act in consequence, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are seven motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the
Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada
Public Participation Act and to amend another act in consequence.
Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted on
separately.
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate and voted on
separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 7 will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order in relation to Group No. 1. I wish to withdraw Motion No.
2.
(Motion No. 2 withdrawn)
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 3, be amended by
adding after line 42 on page 7 the following:
“(2.1) Every licensee who contravenes subsection (2) is
guilty of an offence and is liable (a) on summary conviction, to
the suspension of its licence for a period of up to five years
and a fine of not more than $25,000; or (b) on conviction on
indictment, to the suspension of its licence for a period of up
to five years and a fine of not more that $50,000.”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 4, be amended by
replacing lines 46 to 48 on page 9 and lines 1 to 3 on page 10
with the following:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 4, be amended by
adding after line 3 on page 10 the following:
“(6.1) Where the Agency makes a finding, under subsection
(1), that an increase in fare is unreasonable, the Agency may, in
the case where the increase during the year is at least 1.25
times the inflation index for that year, order an investigation
of the circumstances surrounding the increase in fare and make
any ruling it considers appropriate in the circumstances.”
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with some disappointment that I am
here at report stage dealing with amendments which I hoped would
give some kind of clout to the piece of legislation before us.
It was quite apparent through numerous witnesses at committee
and numerous comments by committee members that there was much
fear out there with regard to having a monopoly carrier in
Canada. There was a lot of concern from airline travellers, a
good number of them members of parliament who sat around the
committee table, and a good many who had horror stories and
complaints about the way things were already being done since
December 1999 and January of this year when the merger started to
show the first signs of how things would be.
With all the talk among committee members and witnesses I was
initially getting the impression that we would actually see the
committee put some strong rules in place to control this monopoly
carrier, to control prices throughout Canada and to provide
service to communities.
In spite of all that talk, all that huff and puff, we have before
us a piece of legislation that is fairly lacking.
1210
I hoped that by making some amendments we could at least have a
bit of meat in the bill to give the Canadian Transportation
Agency some chance at dealing with a monopoly carrier and to give
the Competition Tribunal an opportunity to do something. We
listened to these two bodies that appeared before us indicate
that they did not have the rules in place to put the clamps on a
monopoly carrier.
With regard to the amendments in Group No. 1, I have moved three
amendments which I believe would certainly give the opportunity
to provide that. I will take this opportunity to emphasize
Motion No. 1 which reads:
Every licensee who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an
offence and is liable (a) on summary conviction, to the
suspension of its licence for a period of up to five years and a
fine of not more than $25,000; or (b) on conviction on
indictment, to the suspension of its licence for a period of up
to five years and a fine of not more than $50,000.
This is not the exact similarity, but it was intended that this
amendment would deal with the situation similar to the one
involving InterCanadian in the last part of 1999 when it withdrew
service in a matter of a day or so and a lot of travellers were
left stranded.
I think everyone has recognized that in the case of
InterCanadian there were some real serious financial problems. We
have rules in place to address that, but a discussion took place
about situations where a carrier just says to heck with it, does
not abide by the rules that are in place, does not give the
required time limits to withdraw service, and goes ahead and
withdraws.
The bottom line was that we have rules which say the carrier
should not do it, but there is no penalty to emphasize that it
was not okay for the carrier to withdraw the service and start up
somewhere else. There should be some kind of penalty in place.
If a carrier has the means to continue the service and the means
to give reasonable notice, it should do it. This amendment would
give the legislation some clout.
We had numerous witnesses who appeared before us at committee
saying that they wanted to know the rules when they got into the
game. They did not want to go before the CTA and find out that
it will do it this way or that way. They wanted to know upfront
what the rules were. That was the indication for the first
amendment.
The second amendment in Group No. 1 is in relation to the
Canadian Transportation Agency having to wait to get a complaint
before it could review a situation. When we have an agency such
as the Canadian Transportation Agency and we want it to have the
power to deal with issues, we should accept that maybe it could
look at a situation and say that it is not right. It should be
able to go in and investigate. It should not have to wait a
period of three or four months until unsuspecting consumers get
up in arms, ask that something be done about it, and realize they
have to put in a complaint. We have a qualified group of people
at the Canadian Transportation Agency. Let us give them the
authority to intervene and investigate on its own initiative
should it see the necessity to do so.
Motion No. 4 refers to when the agency may want to review the
pricing. We heard a whole pile of complaints come across the
committee table from all members about how terrible the price
gouging was and about how terrible Air Canada was being already.
What was the result of the committee? It wanted to give it six
months and if it appeared there was a problem the committee would
review it.
Boy, did that ever put a lot of meat in the bill; let us give
them six months and we will see how things happen.
1215
I would suggest that we have some rules in place. Motion No. 4
reads in part:
Where the Agency makes a finding, under subsection (1), that an
increase in fare is unreasonable, the Agency may, in the case
where the increase during the year is at least 1.25 times the
inflation index for that year, order an investigation of the
circumstances surrounding the increase in fare and make any
ruling it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
Again, it recognizes that the agency is qualified and should be
able to review. It knows all the different fares involved in the
airline industry.
Most passengers do not know the number of fares involved. They
do not know what applies in certain instances but the agency
does. We need to give the agency that opportunity. We need to
give it something to go by. Again this reflects what the
witnesses said, that they want to know the rules before going in.
If they know the rules ahead of time, and they know that if the
increases are above a certain point and there can be an
investigation, at least it is going to put the clamps on those
airlines which may decide to raise their prices to heaven knows
what.
Those are the three motions in Group No. 1. I am not going to go
on about it. Members know what has been happening; certainly the
committee members know. Over the weekend the government should
have had a little insight into the fact that the bill has not
given any clout whatsoever to the Competition Bureau or to the
CTA in regard to addressing the problems that are going to be. I
would hope it would see fit to put some rules in place in the
legislation so that we are not reviewing some whimsical idea of
what we think may happen with Air Canada or any other monopoly
carrier.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to deal with the
amendments from the New Democratic Party. I understand the
reasoning in putting the amendments forward but we believe the
three amendments should be defeated, notwithstanding the
sentiments that I understand.
Motion No. 1 mixes the questions of licensing and penalties for
offences. I remind hon. members that section 174 of the Canada
Transportation Act already provides for penalties for
contravention of section 64 as follows:
Every person who contravenes a provision of this Act or a
regulation or order made under this Act, other than an order made
under section 47, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction and liable
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding
$5,000; and
(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding
$25,000.
The motion insofar as it provides for penalties would overlap
and be inconsistent with section 174. At the very least we would
need to provide that section 174 does not apply to any offence
covered by subsection 2.1.
Also, section 65 provides that in cases of failure to comply
with section 64 the agency may direct the reinstatement of the
service, which is considered the most appropriate remedy.
Motion No. 3 removes the time limit during which the agency can
act on its own motion on review of prices on monopoly routes.
The government is of the view that such time limits are
appropriate to cover the transition period. As we move to a more
healthy and stable airline industry, the government has given
itself the latitude to extend the period of time for an
additional two years if competition is not developed and there
remains a significant number of monopoly routes.
The hon. member may be able to make the case that during the
statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act which must
begin July 1, this period could be extended even further.
We are open to that.
1220
When we debated this in the department, I was very insistent
that we put this clause in to allow the agency on its own motion
to review the monopoly prices and have the power to roll back and
not just wait for complaints. We have to have a proactive Canada
Transportation Agency. We have seen in recent weeks some of the
inherent dangers. Notwithstanding all the best intentions that
Air Canada may espouse, the fact is that when one has 80% of the
market, there is a tendency to try to push the envelope a bit
more.
On the question of monopoly prices, we want to make sure that
small communities are protected. Even though I believe we are
going to get a lot of competition in the months ahead, there is
no question that some of the smaller communities are vulnerable
because they may not be as attractive to competitors. Therefore,
the only way we can help the people in those communities is to
put this particular clause in play.
This in effect is going to have a two year life. If toward the
end of next year we believe that is not going to be enough, then
I would certainly, if I am still Minister of Transport at that
time, be open to bringing forward amendments to the Canada
Transportation Act to entertain extending this motion on its own
motion authority for the CTA. The hon. member has made a valid
point. Even though I think the transition period will deal with
these issues, we cannot ultimately let the power lapse if indeed
it is required. I hope that will help the hon. member even
though she probably will not withdraw her motion at this stage.
We also think that Motion No. 4 should be defeated. The current
process puts the onus on the carrier to produce a fair rate that
is reasonable in the opinion of the agency. The effect of this
motion would allow the agency to fix prices where certain indices
have been met. That goes a bit too far in terms of reregulation.
The government prefers to have the agency retain the discretion
it would have under the provisions of Bill C-26 as they currently
read.
When this was debated in the department a balance had to be
struck. If we accept the amendment, we are going further down
the road to adopting the 1987 psychology with respect to the
Canada Transportation Act which really reregulates the whole
market.
Even though I think my friends in the NDP and others make valid
points that base airfares have grown unconscionably in the last
10 years, the fact is that advance booking fares and all the
other fares one can get with layovers are reasonable. We cannot
forget that about 90% of the travelling public use that kind of
method. The number of people travelling by air today
proportionate to the population is significantly greater than it
was before deregulation.
Something which may confuse hon. members and others is that for
10 years there was a duopoly with Canadian Airlines and Air
Canada. Everybody talked about it being a competitive environment
but it was not. The two carriers knocked themselves over the
head each and every day putting on too much capacity, but the
base fares were the same. If Air Canada had a seat sale, Canadian
Airlines was ready to have one within a few days and vice versa.
It was a duopoly. I would not say it was a cartel but it was a
duopoly and it was unhealthy.
I travel to Toronto two or three times a week. Before the
merger, if a person travelled on an economy or business class
ticket, the ticket was interchangeable between Canadian Airlines
or Air Canada. There was no price break. There was no real
competition for the business traveller. We have to be serious
about competition. Some of the measures in the bill, especially
on predatory pricing and the powers given to the commissioner,
will deal with competition in a very strict fashion.
I was surprised to hear the member say that the bill needed more
teeth. This has to be the toothiest bill that has come forward
in a long time with respect to regulation of a private sector
company.
In fact, it is even toothier as a result of what the hon. members
and our colleagues did in committee, and I think with good
reason.
1225
There is no question that even though we wanted this bill
through earlier, the delay in getting it to this stage in the
House has turned out to be a bit of a blessing in disguise. We
have seen some of the effects of the consolidation of Air Canada
and some of the things we do not like about it. There have been
a lot of good things, but we have seen some of the negative
things. That is what led hon. members to convince me and my
colleagues in the government to come forward with another
commissioner at the CTA. That alone gives much added protection
for the consumers.
In terms of the powers dealing with the Competition Bureau,
there was another amendment that came forward from the bureau
which helped to toughen up the act. This regime is as tough as
we want it to get without going back to the old days of
reregulation.
With great respect for my hon. colleague, while the three
motions obviously have merit, they should be defeated.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I will probably speak not only to
Group No. 1 but also to Groups Nos. 2 and 3 so I do not take up
the House's time later on.
I am not surprised that the New Democratic Party has come up
with an attempt at report stage to reregulate the industry.
Those attempts were made during the committee hearings. With all
due respect, the committee did not support it on that.
I would like to congratulate the committee of which I was part.
It did a super job of reviewing the legislation, at times under
some stressful situations. It did a good job in looking at the
legislation and bringing forth some amendments through the
committee process which, as the minister said, have dealt with a
number of issues that have identified themselves since the merger
began in the spring.
I would like to address the amendments proposed by the New
Democratic Party on the Air Canada public participation act.
I have great difficulty with government at any time interfering
with the private entrepreneurial spirit of an individual. I do
not think the government has the right to limit how many voting
shares a Canadian can have in a Canadian company. Again I am not
surprised the New Democratic Party has put forward an amendment
to try to take that back a step rather than move forward in
taking government out of the operations of and interference in a
Canadian company. It will certainly not get support from us to
do so.
I am a little disappointed the government also was not prepared
to take the big step and remove itself from interfering in a
Canadian company and the operations of such. I do not think it
is the role of government to determine what kind of ownership a
Canadian has in a Canadian company.
I was not surprised that the New Democratic Party challenged the
foreign ownership and wanted to get rid of any suggestion that
Air Canada might at some time have the foreign ownership
component raised. It wanted to limit it to the 25%. It is
somewhat ironic and a little hypocritical that the New Democratic
Party is totally supportive of the automobile industry which is
100% owned for foreigners. It does not seem to have the same
problem with the automobile industry that it does with the
airline industry. It is curious that what is good for the
automobile industry, the NDP does not consider to be good enough
for the airline industry.
I have problems with the proposed amendments in that they want
to penalize people for withdrawing a service that has proved to
be uneconomical. They are putting extra burden on a company that
may decide to try a new route in a smaller community. Looking
down the road, that company may have some serious financial
penalties addressed to it if it chooses not to continue that
service because it is uneconomical. We are not going to
encourage competition by laying the heavy hand on business people
who are willing to take a risk and try a new route. We certainly
cannot support the intentions of those amendments which the
member has brought forward.
1230
The minister mentioned the amendments to the legislation which
offer the teeth to control the monopoly of Air Canada. We would
suggest that the teeth which the government has put in the
legislation are enough. I do not think we want to interfere any
more than we have. We have given cease and desist powers to the
competition commissioner, powers which are quite extreme in the
entrepreneurial world.
The competition commissioner has also been given a broader
predatory behaviour designation, which gives him some
flexibility. That is a good move because we are not always able
to identify when we are dealing with legislation what might
happen in the future which is predatory in nature. We support
the government in that.
We believe that more controls to re-regulate the industry
certainly will not move us forward into the 21st century, but
will move us backward. Therefore, the Canadian Alliance will not
be supporting the amendments put before the House by the New
Democratic Party, which is no surprise to my colleague. We
believe that the government has a role to play only in trying to
get a monopoly to understand that it has a responsibility to the
travelling public. We feel that the teeth in the legislation are
enough to hold that company accountable.
We look forward to the legislation passing and to controls being
put on Air Canada to help it through this transitional period.
There are protections to the travelling public in this
legislation. The ability of the new commissioner in his position
in the Canadian Transportation Agency to act as ombudsman for
complaints will be an added factor. We are somewhat disappointed
that there is no means for that individual to actually resolve
the problems, but at least he can identify where the problems
exist and through the other means that the government has can see
that resolutions are fulfilled.
As I mentioned before, we will not be supporting the amendments
to this legislation and we look forward to the report stage going
quickly so we can get on to the third reading of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, this weekend, when I was preparing my speech, I asked
myself the following question: what is the significance of a
bill such as the one before us this morning?
By definition, a bill is nothing more or less than an instrument
of compromise. It is similar to a collective agreement, where
the parties have opposing interests.
Before I became an MP, I worked in labour relations for 16 years
and I often drew the following comparison.
Putting the employer and the union together is like putting two
scorpions in the same jar to propagate the race. Ultimately a
compromise and an agreement have to be reached.
The bill before us today represents this sort of compromise
between diverging interests. It is certainly true, for me as
the Bloc Quebecois representative on the Standing Committee on
Transport as well as for all the members of my party, that it
would have been or would be good to improve some parts later on,
because, by definition, a bill is above all an instrument that
is perfectible, or capable of improvement.
However, when it is a question of the sort of situation we have
had for over a year, with a major carrier experiencing serious
financial difficulties, we had to define a new legal framework
for the advent of a so-called dominant carrier.
1235
On the one hand, there was Air Canada, which has acquired
Canadian International, and on the other a whole gang of others
directly or indirectly involved in this restructuring.
There were the regional and local carriers, the employees'
unions, the travel agents, and consumer groups. Each of these
many groups was profoundly convinced that the situation needed
organization and regularization. We ought therefore to have a
game plan.
I do not want to just give the speech I intend to give on third
reading. I will have an opportunity to come back to that.
This morning, what I want to do is comment on the first group of
amendments introduced by my NDP colleague for Churchill who is,
I might point out in passing, a highly professional colleague
who has followed the committee's deliberations most seriously
and always comes up with reasonable opinions. Although
sometimes the concerns she has expressed differ from ours, I
wish to thank her for her contribution.
I do not wish to get off on a diatribe on this, but I do wish to
say that my party engaged in a serious exercise around the
proposed amendments to Bill C-26. I respectfully submit to my
colleague from Churchill that they impose a framework which we
consider far too rigid, paralyzing or constraining.
As I said earlier, it is true that we had to set new rules based
on the fact that one company, Air Canada, was becoming a
dominant carrier. However, we also had to ensure quality
services, with the emphasis on frequency of flights, on time
departures and arrivals and affordable airfares for people from
all regions, particularly those of Quebec.
These people, who have to transit toward major centres, often
use small local and regional carriers. One of the main concerns
of the Bloc Quebecois members who represent Quebec regions was
to ensure that these regional and local carriers could discuss
on an equal footing with the new giant created by Air Canada,
which accounts for 80% to 85% of the Canadian market.
With all due respect, the amendments proposed by the member for
Churchill are much too constraining, rigid and almost impossible
to apply. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose
three out of the four motions:
Motion No. 3, with which we agree, would amend clause 4 of the
bill, which reads as follows:
(6) The Agency may make a finding...on its own motion within
two years after the date this subsection comes into force.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill seeks to
remove the two year restriction, by stating that the agency can
make a finding immediately. We agree with this motion, which
also has the effect of removing the power of the governor in
council to extend for two years the period within which the
agency may make a finding.
Therefore, with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, the
Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4
proposed by the New Democratic Party, but will vote for Motion
No. 3.
1240
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise on this subject as we near the end of
the great debate about the airline mergers and the changes to the
Canada Transportation Act and the Air Canada Public Participation
Act.
I want to compliment the member for Churchill for her amendments
proposed in Group No. 1, which include Motions Nos. 1 through 4.
Certainly she has been a very attentive and effective critic and
member of our committee.
Having said that, we are going through a really interesting
transition as these two airlines come together and we see other
airlines either starting up or expanding. Obviously we have a
work in progress. Everything we do as a government and all the
legislation we pass must be flexible to allow these things to
happen. Even we have been surprised, and certainly Air Canada
has been surprised I believe, by some of the new proposals that
are on the table for regional airlines, discount airlines and
expansions. There is a lot of entrepreneurial interest in the
aviation industry, which certainly surprised me.
Since the effective merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
we have seen a lot inconvenience to consumers, confusion,
overbooking, delays, scheduling problems and all those sorts of
things, which I think were a surprised to Air Canada and
certainly have been a surprise to consumers.
Although Air Canada is dealing with so many issues, such as
scheduling aircraft, union negotiations and slots at airports, I
believe that it underestimated the impact on consumers. I
believe this is a transitional issue. I believe Air Canada will
fix it. I believe the will is there and that Air Canada really
understands how serious it is and how big the problem is. Again,
I detect the will to fix it and I am confident it will be
corrected.
In the future perhaps a dominant carrier would not recognize the
effect on consumers, so we need Bill C-26 to protect those
consumers from a dominant carrier or monopoly situation that
would not address or care about consumers. That is what we are
here to talk about today in the amendments put forth by the hon.
member for Churchill.
I believe and our party believes that the government's position
should be one that encourages competition in every way possible,
one that encourages the entrepreneurial instincts which we see
are alive and well in the industry. If there is one thing that
impressed me throughout the debate and throughout the discussions
and the presentations by so many organizations, it was the
entrepreneurial instinct in the aviation industry.
There are airlines in Canada that I had never heard of, and I
was really impressed with them. I think the government should
encourage these new companies. It should encourage new routes
and it should encourage new ventures. That should be part of
everything it does, to create the infrastructure and the
framework to encourage the entrepreneurial instinct to provide
competition for the dominant carrier.
In the meantime, we have to provide protection for consumers in
a monopoly situation because without competition they are without
protection. There is no choice. If people are unhappy with the
airline and they are travelling back and forth from Atlantic
Canada, if they are unhappy with the flights, with the treatment,
with overbookings or delays, there is no place to go. We cannot
go to airline B any more. There is no competition. I
believe that Air Canada is striving as quickly as it can. I
think a big indication of its will to fix the problems is the
recent announcement that it will appoint an ombudsman, a proposal
which it flatly turned down about two weeks ago. It did not
think it was necessary. It did not think there should be an
ombudsman. However, it announced last week that it will appoint
one.
The minister has put in place a complaints commissioner through
the CTA, which was an excellent move. I had proposed an
amendment to the bill to bring in an ombudsman. The minister's
amendment, as much as I hate to say it, was better than my
amendment. It had more teeth in it. I applaud him for it.
Today we are dealing with the amendments put forth by the member
for Churchill, which I will summarize briefly.
1245
Motion No. 1 establishes penalties in the event that an airline
does an early pullout on a route. It sets the penalties between
$25,000 and $50,000 maximum, depending on the circumstances. I
see the point and the argument of that but my position and my
approach would be to encourage entrepreneurs and competition. I
believe this motion does a little more than is necessary. I do
not believe the CTA needs these powers. It takes away some
flexibility. It sounds like re-regulation. We in this party
want to stay away from that as much as we can, while at the same
time protect consumers.
Motion No. 2 seems to define the terms of monopoly. It appears
to deny a dominant or monopoly carrier the right to defend itself
in the designation of the Canada Transportation Agency of a
monopoly. I do not think that is right. It should have the
right to defend itself or at least express its opinions or
concerns about any decision the CTA makes.
Motion No. 3 takes away the time limit provided in the bill to
two years, plus an optional extension on that. Again, I do not
think we need that. The bill provides enough time and
flexibility by the CTA to deal with this issue. I would think
that a four year period would give plenty of time to deal with
that.
If I understand Motion No. 4 correctly, it defines the
thresholds where CTA would act. It kind of ties down the CTA.
This is a work in progress that is changing day by day. We see
fundamental changes on behalf of the dominant carrier. Air Canada
is now changing the rules and adapting as fast as it can to many
things.
There is a fundamental change of direction on the ombudsman
point of view. Two weeks ago it said that it did not want an
ombudsman, that it was unnecessary. Last week it announced that
it would have its own ombudsman.
This is a work in progress. I think it is important to leave
the flexibility in this for the airlines and for the Canada
Transportation Agency and the Department of Transport.
Although there are some motions that we could support, and I can
see the arguments back and forth, overall, because of the way
they are grouped, we will be voting no on this group of
amendments. I do respect the member for all the good work she
has done on her amendments here today.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to these amendments.
The NDP, as my colleague already stated, is not content to have
a powerless complaints commissioner and a vague promise to look
at pricing in the future. The time to protect what we have is
right now.
I will give an example of pricing. The price of a regular
ticket to fly down east from the Yukon is $4,000. The minister
mentioned that there are ticket sales. Everyone I know does book
in advance, as do I over the summer, in order to get the cheapest
flights available, but that was when we had some choices.
Canadian Airlines has always had a monopoly in the Yukon. From
time to time, other carriers have come in during the summer
months to address the tourist season. Right now everyone is
facing less choices, less chance of a flight, less room on the
flight and less flights.
Canadian Airlines will not be putting its third flight in over
the summer. However, many people have accumulated points. A lot
of people in the north do that because it is a way to get
themselves and their families out of the north for a holiday.
Since they are down at the very bottom of the pecking order, it
gets more and more difficult to get a flight out of the Yukon on
points.
A lot of people come to me when there is a death or an illness
in the family and they have to get back east. They are looking at
$4,000 for a ticket and have to pay that up front.
The north also has to deal with the Medivacs that fly to
treatment centres in Vancouver or Edmonton. There is generally
an escort, depending upon the seriousness of the condition. If a
nurse is required, then the nurse travels with the person who is
ill and a family member cannot go. Sometimes there are
allowances. If the illness is not serious, a family member can
go with the person and stay with him or her at the hospital.
This is really critical for elders and seniors who become very
disoriented and cannot make their way around. If they have to go
out for cancer treatment and stay for a long time, they have to
make their way back and forth from the hotel and deal with all
the consequences of the illness. Most family members cannot
afford to fly to and be with that person. Even a bargain ticket
costs anywhere between $600 to $1000. A regular ticket from
Whitehorse to Vancouver is $1600.
1250
I know of a young woman who needs dialysis treatment every
second or third day. She is living in Vancouver completely
isolated from her community of Haines Junction. No one can
afford to fly out to see her. There is no dialysis treatment in
the Yukon. These stories go on and on. Since I have been MP in
the Yukon, the prices of flights have gone up by at least $800.
People cannot count on the transportation system to get them out
in an emergency or during a family crisis.
If one is fortunate enough to plan his or her travel months in
advance sometimes it will work out. I was talking to an elderly
woman who tried to arrange a flight three or four months in
advance. Some flights no longer exist today which means a delay
of three to four days for her to get back to the Yukon. Flights
into remote communities are limited by time.
The Canadian Alliance has said that the government should not be
involved at all in any business. We are talking about
transportation over a huge country. It is absolutely critical
for the government to be involved and for the Canadian people to
have a say in the transportation policy through their government
and through their elected members of parliament.
If we do not have the ability to travel from one end of this
country to the other, there is no sense thinking we are a part of
this country. It is a three day drive to get out of the Yukon.
If we need to get out of the Yukon because of illness, an
emergency or even to take a holiday to Vancouver or Edmonton, it
is at least a three-day drive. It would take a week to 10 days
to drive across the country to visit family on the east coast.
Transportation is critical to all areas of our lives.
The minister said that a duopoly was unhealthy in this country.
I happen to agree but at least we had some choice. Even as a
member of parliament, I had some choice on which flights I could
connect with to get back home or get down here. I have to travel
a day in either direction to be at work. If a duopoly was
unhealthy, how healthy can a monopoly be? I have no idea what
we will be facing when it comes to price changes. It is nothing
that I look forward to.
I think the Canada Transportation Agency should have the power
to review fare increases on its own without waiting for action on
some other front. It should have the permanent ability to act on
pricing. The minister did hint that if he was still minister he
would extend it. I do not think as a government or as a people
we should be depending on perhaps a promise to think about it.
Before we go any further, we should have concrete guidelines and
rules set out that people can actually count on and know what
they are facing as much as we can know when heading into this
next century.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1255
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 4 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed with the
motions in Group No. 2.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 17, be amended by
replacing line 29 on page 21 with the following:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 17, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 22 with the following:
“than 25% of the votes that may ordinarily be”
(b) by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 22 with the following:
“votes to not more than 25% of the total number of votes”
(c) by deleting lines 18 to 22 on page 22.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 5 and 6 in Group No. 2 have
been up for much discussion during the whole airline merger
debate. They specifically deal with the ownership of shares.
Motion No. 5 deals with the 10% ownership share in Air Canada.
We all know why the 10% was initially put into the first Air
Canada Public Participation Act legislation. It was to ensure
the broad ownership of shares within Air Canada and to ensure
that Canadians had an opportunity to be very involved and to give
a chance to people throughout the nation to do that.
Motion No. 6 deals with the 25% ownership rule. I propose to
keep the Air Canada share ownership limit at 10%. The new
legislation changes it to 15%. I want to entrench the foreign
ownership limit, currently at 25% in the legislation. As was
indicated by the member from the Canadian Alliance, they do not
care one way or another if foreign companies literally own
everything in Canada. They make no bones about it.
Quite frankly, I do care. I care that Canadians have control
over crucial elements in society; over transportation that needs
to be provided to all of Canada, not just Vancouver, Toronto,
Calgary, Edmonton and Halifax. We are talking about the whole
country. We want to make sure that we have control over
companies that benefit from the opportunity of providing a
service in Canada. As a result, we believe that in a crucial
industry such as our air industry there should be limits.
Right now the Minister of Transport and cabinet have the power
to increase the foreign ownership cap up to 49%. The New
Democratic Party is not opposed to increasing foreign investment
in Canada but we think the decision should be made in
consultation with parliament.
It is interesting to note that members of the Canadian Alliance
are always saying that everything should come to parliament and
that the government should not be doing this or that. In this
particular case, because it is allowing foreign ownership to take
over everything, they do not care if it comes to parliament. Let
the governor in council order it up to 49%.
Entrenching the 25% limit in the legislation would require
another act of parliament in the future to change it,
guaranteeing that it would be voted on and that all Canadians
would have a say as to whether or not they wanted to see
ownership of their airline either increased to 49% or increased
to 100%. At least Canadians would have a say through their
members of parliament.
Bill C-26 will increase Air Canada share ownership from 10% to
15%. We propose leaving it at the 10% which was formerly in the
legislation. Raising this to 15% opens the door for a
non-hostile takeover attempt. Many industry stakeholders have
expressed concerns about allowing Air Canada to fall under the
sway of a dominant shareholder. We agree with stakeholders that
the public interest is best served if Air Canada remains under
the control of a broad cross-section of Canadian shareholders not
a single dominant shareholder. This motion would close the door
to that dominant shareholder scenario.
Further, it is of real importance to recognize that Canadian
taxpayers over the years have been very supportive of Canadian
Airlines and Air Canada.
As a result, I do not think we should ever look at Air Canada or
Canadian Airlines, or any company that has had much support from
Canadian taxpayers, the same as any other, just up for sale,
willy-nilly to whomever. Canadians do have a real interest in
the corporation and should have a say over what happens.
1300
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the second group of
motions.
Motion No. 5, in effect, would negate the point in the bill to
increase the shareholder limit from 10% to 15% in the Air Canada
Public Participation Act. Without doubt this was certainly one
of the two pivotal issues that came to the fore during this
entire restructuring, the other being the use by the government
of section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act.
As members know, the superior court in Quebec made a ruling
about one of the private sector proposals put forward by Onex
Corp. The court said that technically it was against the law,
and the inference was that it should not proceed. Onex decided
not to appeal the decision and, as a result, the remaining
private sector option, the Air Canada offer, which has been
implemented in the last few months, was the one that came
forward.
There are some issues as to whether it is a good idea to have
limits on individual shareholder participation in these
companies. When Canadian National and Air Canada were
privatized, as well as some other crown corporations, it was felt
that by having a shareholder limit of 10% or 15%, as in the case
of Canadian National, this would somehow dissuade a foreign
takeover. We could understand this in the case of Canadian
National because 65% of the shares of Canadian National are owned
by people outside Canada. Obviously there is a 25% foreign
ownership limit on Air Canada, and on Canadian airlines in
general. Therefore, the argument that there could, in effect, be
a de facto foreign takeover is really not valid.
The limit could increase to 20% or 25% and have foreign equity
and voting control, but still remain Canadian controlled. This
happened with American Airlines when it injected money into
Canadian Airlines some years ago. It had 33% of the equity and
25% of the voting shares. That it had to be kept at 10% to
prevent a foreign takeover became a very emotional issue during
the debate.
Let us not kid ourselves. This kind of rule makes it very
difficult for outside groups to exercise normal business
behaviour and vie for control of companies. This protects
existing management. It entrenches existing management and
existing directors.
Air Canada argued very strenuously that it would not want it to
go above 15%, and the government reflected upon that. Both
committees of the Senate and the House wanted the limit to go up
to 20%, but the government took the view, given all of the
turmoil created with the section 47 process, which I think was
very valid because it did find private sector solutions, that Air
Canada should be allowed to digest this acquisition without the
fear of a third party coming along and staging a raid on the
company.
Therefore, the government agreed to increase it to 15%.
Air Canada is in agreement with that. I do not think it should
be debated at this point in time. It will be for politicians in
the future to decide whether the arguments remain valid.
Certainly, for the next 18 months to two years during this
restructuring process, this is something we should put aside. It
was a very difficult issue to deal with, a very emotional issue
to deal with and as a result I think we should vote this down.
1305
Similarly, Motion No. 6 should be defeated because its purpose
is to negate the government decision to bring the provisions of
the Air Canada Public Participation Act in line with the Canada
Transportation Act.
Failure to implement the proposal in Bill C-26 is to make it
possible to increase the limit on foreign ownership by regulation
for all of the industry except Air Canada. The motion means that
it would continue to take an amendment of the act to increase Air
Canada's limit on foreign ownership, an unfair burden on a
national carrier.
I think this should be rejected. I would hope my friends in the
New Democratic Party would understand that this is something that
was agreed to with Air Canada as part of the deal. I know they
have strong feelings for 10%, but I would ask them before they
force a recorded division to reflect upon this because the 10%
clause has been raised to 15% with the agreement of Air Canada.
I do not think it is for us as parliamentarians to disagree with
a deal that has been negotiated between the Competition Bureau
and Air Canada to put this matter to rest. It is not as if Air
Canada is asking any one party in the House to carry its cause.
In fact, I think that when the president of Air Canada came to
the committee he made it quite clear that he accepted 15% and
would live with it.
I believe that these two motions should be rejected. With
respect to Motion No. 6, if my friends in the New Democratic
Party are concerned that somehow there is a Trojan horse, I have
said consistently that it is not our intention to increase the
foreign ownership of the airlines beyond 25%. We already have
the statutory authority to go to 49%. We do not intend to do
that because we believe, Canadians believe and I know that the
New Democratic Party believes that one of the cardinal issues we
have to face is the growing foreign domination of our economy,
and we do not want that to happen with the airlines. We are in
agreement with the NDP on that point. However, as I have
mentioned, if we fail to make the change in clause 17 we would
not even be allowing Air Canada the benefit of having the 25%
foreign ownership that others are entitled to. I think we have
to treat Air Canada with some degree of fairness.
This is not a question about losing control. Neither of these
amendments would do anything. They would not change the fact
that the Air Canada regime will have some stability throughout
this re-organization process. Certainly, with respect to the 25%
issue, members of the committee, in fact members on my own side
have said that it should be raised to more than 25%. I have
discussed it with cabinet and we believe it should remain at 25%.
We are not playing games. We will not raise it to 49% next week.
I would ask my friends in the New Democratic Party, once again,
to continue their great co-operation on this matter and agree to
allow this particular vote to pass on division so that we do not
unduly delay the bill any further.
Every day that the bill does not get dealt with gives licence to
the monopoly tendencies of Air Canada to push the envelope.
Notwithstanding what it may say, it is natural that when a
corporation has that much authority it likes to test it in the
marketplace.
We have to get this bill to the other place so that it can deal
with it. Right after the break it should be in place. Then the
competition commissioner can start to use the cease and desist
powers, which will give absolute comfort to all those new
entrants who come into the market. I want to talk about that at
third reading.
1310
I would ask my friends in the New Democratic Party to show
some good sense and allow this to pass on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the second group of motions presented
by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member
for Churchill, to the Standing Committee on Transport.
What I want to do is to quickly remind the minister, and
everyone else—I hope no one will think we are suffering from
collective amnesia—that the Bloc Quebecois position on this 10%
rule on individual share ownership was that it was a major
point, in order to avoid having an individual or a group of
individuals take over control of Air Canada.
If this 10% rule had been introduced when Air Canada was
privatized in 1988, we were convinced, and we still are, that
this rule would still be meaningful.
For the benefit of our audience, I would like to dispel any
ambiguity. The Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of Air Canada
taking over control of Canadian International, rather than the
bid from Mr. Schwartz, representing Onex, that friend of the
Liberals and Liberal bagman. It has been discovered that
Mr. Schwartz had made a considerable contribution to the Liberal
election fund in 1997.
I will remind all hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois was not
at war with either Mr. Schwartz or Onex. The Bloc Quebecois
position was clear at that time. We felt, and still do, that
the Onex bid to acquire Air Canada was illegal, and this has
been confirmed by a Quebec superior court decision.
Although the package was wrapped up earlier at a meeting with
the Minister of Transport, we believed that the Onex offer was
illegal. We had nothing against Mr. Schwartz or Onex.
The Bloc Quebecois even introduced a motion on an opposition day
asking the government to not increase the rule of 10%.
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks on the first group, a bill
is a set of compromises. We think that the amendment proposed
by my colleague in the New Democratic Party to maintain the 10%
rule is reasonable. We support her proposal.
I also want to say to the government that the compromise in Bill
C-26 of having 15% individual ownership is also satisfactory.
If the government had followed the lead of the Liberal majority
on the Standing Committee on Transport, which wanted to increase
the figure to 20%, the question would be different. Twenty per
cent of the individual shares of Air Canada gave effective
control, whereas 15% does not and ensure sufficient protection.
As to the second motion in this second group, I inform my NDP
colleague that we will be favourable. Unlike our Canadian
Alliance colleagues, we opposed the fact of raising the figure
for foreign participation in controlling Air Canada shares
beyond 25%.
It is odd to see Quebec sovereignists like us defending Canadian
sovereignty against the Americans. This is why, although the
Liberal majority on the committee encouraged it to go as high as
49%, we are happy to see that the bill limited everything to 25%.
1315
However, the minister is keeping for himself in the residual
powers, the option of increasing it by order in council with the
support of three ministers of the crown. We feel that 25%
foreign control is enough to maintain Canadian and Quebec funds
in the new Air Canada. For all these reasons, we support the
two amendments moved by our NDP colleague.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon.
member from the Bloc, I think that his amendment is totally
unnecessary. The bill already states that the Official Languages
Act would be respected. Personally, I think that is all that is
required. The motion is redundant.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did
not want to get up and unduly delay any activity in the House,
but I have had the privilege and the honour of being the chair of
the Standing Committee on Transport. I also have had the
privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on
Transport since 1988 when I was first elected. I spent five
years in opposition and when we became the government in 1993 I
was chairman and had the privilege of being the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, three of them, and then
chairman of the transport committee.
I have an understanding of where the opposition is coming from
in the hope that its motion at report stage of the bill would be
successful. However I must appeal to the members of the New
Democratic Party. If they had talked to the employees of the
airlines, both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, then certainly
they would understand that they are making it increasingly
difficult for Air Canada to meet its commitments to all the
employees not just of Air Canada but also of Canadian Airlines
where there are 16,000 people working. By rolling back from 15%
in the agreement of December 21 to 10% will limit the airline's
ability to generate the revenue it must in order to support its
employees and to meet its commitment to keep those employees
employed. This is about saving 16,000 jobs.
Any delay will also trigger a chain of events. By asking the
House to delay the vote until tomorrow means we must return
tomorrow night to vote on this amendment and then our House
leaders will have to find another day for third reading debate.
Then we will have lost a week. I am sure it is not the intention
of the New Democratic Party to lose a week.
I am concerned that any amount of delay will delay the oversight
ability that is built into the bill. That is what is important.
It is important for the travelling public. It is important for
the employees of the airlines. It is important for the regions
of the country to be served. Therefore we do not want to do
that. I would hope that the NDP would see the advantage of
moving on, and thereby would not call a vote that we would have
to carry to tomorrow night, but to move along to the next motion
and if need be, pass that motion on division.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to these amendments. As I said earlier,
this has been a very interesting debate all the way through the
several months we have been involved with it. We have seen many
changes and a lot of transition.
We are seeing transition every day. This is a work in progress.
1320
Our party believes that the flexibility must be left in the
system to change direction as things change. We have seen
dramatic changes and surprises all the way through the debate,
especially since the airline merger itself. Some of us thought
that this would put a lot of the problems to bed. Instead it has
initiated all kinds of new changes, new challenges, new airlines,
new proposals, new entrepreneurs, new routes.
Again, flexibility is very much a part of our position on the
bill. It has to be in there for the Department of Transport to
make changes as things unfold and as situations change.
On Motion No. 5 to change the Air Canada public participation
act, if I remember correctly the committee passed a motion to
increase the ownership limit to 20%. Then the government rolled
it back to 15%. The NDP motion now is to roll it back even
further to 10%. As luck would have it during the debate in
committee on the most practical and appropriate percentage, I
proposed 15% and the Minister of Transport took my advice and put
in 15% exactly what I recommended. He is to be credited with his
good judgment and his good consultation powers in consideration
of others.
I would be hard-pressed to support the amendment if I had
proposed it in the first place. Even though it was defeated at
committee, the minister in his wisdom saw fit to bring it back,
so I am afraid I have to stick with the 15%.
On the foreign ownership limit of 25% in Motion No. 6, I also
agree that the power should be left to the governor in council.
Again it is flexibility in the system. The government has the
power to change that if at some time in the future it feels it is
necessary. It does not have to come back to the legislature. It
can be changed after consultation with the industry and as things
unfold. This is a work in progress. The government has to have
the flexibility to change because we are all getting surprises as
this merger takes hold and things evolve.
We are going to support the bill as it was originally put
forward. We will not be voting in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly not the intention of the NDP to hold up this
legislation, although one has to show some amusement at the
crocodile tears the member from Hamilton was about to shed in
great quantities. Imagine after all this and the NDP members
want to hold up things for a day so they can vote on their
amendments. This will put a chain of events in motion. Heaven
forbid, we would not want to be responsible for the catastrophe
the member from Hamilton was about to predict should we not be
co-operative.
However we have made our point both in terms of the moving of
the amendments and the arguments that were put forward on behalf
of those amendments by the hon. member for Churchill.
I listened to the minister. It was a plea for flexibility.
However I have to preface my remarks by saying that in the
interest of getting this regime into practice, into law so that
we can see if it works, to see if some of the things that we are
worried about actually need the kind of fixing that we say it
will, why should we trust the Liberal government? Maybe we
should trust the Minister of Transport, but why should we trust
the Liberal government when it comes to questions of foreign
ownership?
The Liberals are the people who as far as I am concerned
perpetrated one of the greatest acts of economic sabotage,
treason, that I have ever seen in Canadian history with the sale
of the Canadian National Railway. They are the people who want us
to trust them when it comes to questions of foreign ownership,
the people who did something which has now resulted in a national
railway that was once owned by the Canadian people is now owned
60% by American shareholders.
And the Liberal government has the nerve to stand and say “Trust
us when it comes to foreign ownership”.
1325
An hon. member: Are you talking about Doug Young?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I do not even want to talk about Doug
Young because I do not want to spoil my day, nor that of others.
The minister said that they have seen the light. I hope they
have because if they had not seen the light soon, there would be
nothing left to sell off to the Americans. In fact, many people
in this country not just on the left but even within the
corporate community are saying that this has not turned out the
way they thought it would. Head offices are moving. We do not
have the same kind of economic infrastructure that we used to
have. Maybe all this free trade and lack of protection from
foreign investment is not working out the way we thought it
would.
We see the ghost of Walter Gordon, not the ghost of Tom Kent
because he is still around, but the ghosts of others asking what
has happened to the Liberal Party. If the kinds of things the
minister said in the House today are to be taken seriously, we
hope that perhaps there is a bit of a turnaround over there, but
we do say that it comes late.
What did the Prime Minister say the other day? It was not the
Minister of Transport; perhaps he has said these kind of things,
but I hope not. The Prime Minister says the kinds of things that
give us the anxiety that all this will be done, this monopoly
situation, in the name of creating a context in which in two,
three or four years from now the government, whether it is a
Liberal government or whatever kind of government—but of course
an NDP government would not be saying it—will be saying that now
we have to allow American airlines to operate more fully in
Canada in order to compete with this monopoly that people are
complaining about. In fact people are already complaining about
it in many respects in terms of regional service, et cetera.
I just could not let it pass, the irony of having the Minister
of Transport and others on the government side saying “Trust us
when it comes to questions of foreign ownership” because they
are the ones who did the dirty deeds that not even the Tories did
in nine years of government.
I remember Harvie Andre saying that he wanted to privatize the
CNR in 1979 and all through those years the Tories never did it.
Who criticized them for nine years in the House? I listened to
all of it. The Liberals. And then what did they do? They
out-Toried the Tories, not just in terms of privatizing the CNR,
but they became an uncritical cheerleader for every free trade
agreement that came along. We had to watch that we did not talk
to the Liberals for too long or they would want to sign a free
trade agreement with us even if we had nothing to trade.
If this is the beginning of something new, that would be nice,
but I am not going to put any money on it. I rest with those
words in the interests of seeing this bill get to the other place
and into force so we can see what needs to be done and we can
begin this new era in Canadian air transportation and see what
else needs to be done. I am sure this bill will not be the final
word having been drafted by Liberals as it was.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost on
division.
(Motion No. 5 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost on
division.
(Motion No. 6 negatived)
1330
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after
line 37 on page 22 the following:
“(2.1)(a) A body corporate referred to in subsection (3)
shall comply within four years with Part V of the Official
Languages Act and within seven years with Part VI of that Act.
(i) the total number of English-speaking and French-speaking
employees of the body corporate;
(ii) the number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees
among management, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other
employees of the body corporate;
(iii) the number, which cannot exceed 5% of the total number of
employees of the body corporate, of employees who belong to the
category “language unknown”.
(c) The Commissioner of Official Languages may investigate any
complaint relating to the delay to comply with Part VI of the
Official Languages Act referred to in paragraph (a) and the
result of the investigation, if it relates to the information
referred to in paragraph (b), shall take precedence over the
provisions of paragraph (b).
(d) In case of failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph
(a) dealing with the delay to comply with Part VI of the Official
Languages Act, the Governor in Council shall, before making a
decision regarding measures to be taken to remedy the situation,
consult with persons in the official language group adversely
affected by that failure to comply.
(e) Within one year following the coming into force of this Act,
the following documents shall be made available by Air Canada in
the English and French languages and have equal force of law:
(i) the Flight Operations Manual;
(ii) the standard operating procedures;
(iii) Flight Attendant Manual:
(iv) memoranda;
(v) administrative policies;
(vi) contracts of employments.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my sincere
congratulations to a group of workers from the airline industry
who have been fighting since 1976 to make sure francophones in
Canada have equal opportunities in this area.
I am referring of course to a group called the Association des
gens de l'air du Québec, which was created in 1976, following a
battle that begun in 1975, to allow a francophone pilot, in his
cockpit, to speak French with an air traffic controller in an
airport control tower or in an air traffic control centre.
Members will recall that the association won its fight, because
it was proven that having two francophones speaking French to
each other does not jeopardize air safety.
Members will also recall that two anglophone unions, CALPA and
CATCA, fought tooth and nail against that measure. I remember
they both fought hard. But the government of the day agreed to
amend the act to allow two francophones to have the right to
speak to each other in their language.
1335
We Bloc Quebecois members often hear it said in the House that
this country, Canada, is ours, that as francophones, we can
express our views, that we have the same rights as anglophones.
This is constantly being pounded into us.
I remember how, three days before the last referendum, in 1995,
many western Canadians made the trip to Montreal's Place du
Canada, having paid $99 return for a Canadian Airlines charter
from Vancouver, to tell Quebecers that they loved them and urge
them not to leave.
Hon. David M. Collenette: I love you.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The Minister of Transport is professing his
love for me.
How perfect; he is shouting to me from across the floor that he
loves me. If he wants to prove that he loves me or that he
loves francophones, he should vote in favour of my amendment. I
extend my hand to him—and I know that he is a reasonable man. He
has a French-sounding name. We know that the name of the
Minister of Transport, which I cannot say in the House, is
Huguenot in origin, and that some of his ancestors are French.
In short, I think that the battle fought by Les Gens de l'air in
1976 is again deserving of support. I know that when the
minister and the Canadian Alliance member address the House
later on, they are going to make a short statement saying that
they do not agree with the amendments.
In any case, I heard my Alliance colleague's comments in the
second group of amendments by the NDP. I am familiar with these
amendments and I know that the Minister of Transport will be
open and sensitive to these amendments and accordingly perhaps
agree to our amendments.
I would ask the House to go a bit further. I recognize that the
government has made an effort in Bill C-26. But I think that
francophones should be given an equal chance, as the figures are
not very eloquent. I do not know if the House is aware, but I
inform it that today and at the end of 1999 and in early 2000,
Canadian International had 1,258 pilots. Of this number, there
were only 71 francophones, representing 5.8% of the pilot
population.
If it is acknowledged that francophones represent 24.8% of the
Canadian population there should be something like 24.8%
francophone pilots with our airlines.
I will quote from an editorial in Le Soleil of January 31, 1985.
Although it was in 1985, it still is relevant. It was written
by Roger Bellefeuille, and reads:
Francophones are entitled to their fair and reasonable share in
what used to be known as Trans-Canada Airlines. Quebecers want
to go off with the others, but not in second class seats.
In these remarks on an amendment that I am putting forward on
official languages, I call on the common sense of the president
of Air Canada, Robert Milton.
He is an American working in Montreal who respects Canada's
linguistic duality. I know that he is working to learn French
and that he is very sensitive to the place francophones occupy
in Canada and in his airlines.
I call on Mr. Milton, and say to him “When you, Mr. Milton, the
president of the major airline that Air Canada has become, put
your fist on the table and make a commitment to promote the
employment of francophones, I want you to know that doing so
carries a certain weight. To remind you of this, I am going to
quote two of your predecessors”.
1340
I will quote Claude Taylor, and then Pierre Jeanniot. Let us
look at what Mr. Jeanniot had to say at the fifth convention of
the Association des Gens de l'Air, in April 1980:
In order for Air Canada to be a truly Canadian company, we
believe that Air Canada employees of both official language
groups should reflect the community, the province and the
country, both in their numbers and in their representativity
within Air Canada.
These were the words of former Air Canada President Jeanniot.
Now let us look at what Claude Taylor, Air Canada President in
1981, had to say:
Air Canada acknowledges its vital role in maintaining national
unity. This means, essentially, that its role is to bring
Canadians closer to one another, to make it possible for them to
meet each other, to communicate, to come to know each other, to
understand what it is to be a Canadian. This is the area in
which, in my opinion, we have had our greatest successes, the
ones of which we are the most proud.
These two, both of whom have headed a major airline, Air Canada,
acknowledge linguistic duality. This bill, in my opinion,
offers us the opportunity to confirm it.
The situation is not all that rosy at the present time. I have
already painted a picture of the situation with Canadian
International.
Let us now look at the francophone representation at Air Canada
overall. In 1998, the percentage of francophones was at the
same level as in 1978, with only 17% of all Air Canada employees
speaking French. In 1998, the percentage for pilots was 15.8%.
The number of French-speaking pilots required at Air Canada has
not therefore been reached.
This is why I am calling upon the government to think seriously
about the legislative amendments we are proposing in order to
give our bill a little more teeth, so as to lend more weight to
French in hiring, in maintenance manuals, to make more room for
living and working in French within Air Canada.
I do not mean to say that there is any ill will. What I do mean
is that it would be a good idea for a president, in this case
Mr. Milton, to put his foot down and say “Now listen, there are
24.8% francophones in Canada; our francophone new graduates
deserve to be given a chance”. The Cegep in Chicoutimi trains
excellent pilots. I would point out in passing, that it costs
$100,000 a year to train a young francophone man or woman. I
think they are entitled to the hope of one day joining the ranks
of Air Canada personnel. I trust that the government is going
to think about this and pass our amendment with respect to the
Official Languages Act.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the
amendment proposed by the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans to Bill C-26. I
appreciate the arguments raised by the hon. member and I want to
alleviate his fears by saying that I like him.
From the outset, this government has clearly established that
Canadians must be able to count on their national carrier to
serve them in the official language of their choice.
Along with safety, that is one of the two fundamental concerns
that must be met, as we prepare to restructure our airline
industry. Considering that our linguistic duality is an integral
part of Canada's identity, that position should come as no
surprise to anyone.
1345
The government met the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of
Official Languages by defining Air Canada's obligations to its
subsidiaries.
In fact, this proposal meets every fundamental concern raised by
the official language commissioner when she addressed the two
standing committees on transport. The commissioner publicly
expressed her support for the federal government's measures in
that regard when she said:
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, welcomes
the federal government's decision to clarify the linguistic
obligations of air carriers affiliated to Air Canada.
The amendments proposed by the hon. member opposite can be
summarized as follows: to directly impose on Air Canada's
subsidiaries the provisions of the Official Languages Act on the
language of work, part V, and the representation of linguistic
minorities. part VI; to create for Air Canada and the
subsidiaries that it controls a requirement to submit reports to
the Treasury Board regarding their employee population; to allow
the Commissioner of Official Languages to investigate complaints
relating to delays in complying with part VI in the case of
subsidiaries controlled by Air Canada; to impose on the governor
in council an obligation to consult the linguistic group
adversely affected before making a decision regarding the
measures to be taken if a subsidiary controlled by Air Canada
fails to comply with part VI; to require Air Canada to make
available certain documents in both official languages, one year
after the coming into force of the act.
Briefly stated, the government's position on these amendments is
that they are not necessary, that they represent an unreasonable
extension of the guidelines in the Official Languages Act.
I would now like to explain our reasoning.
One of the main purposes of the Official Languages Act is to
ensure that Canadians can receive services in the official
language of their choice from federal institutions and be
represented within those institutions.
Air Canada is no longer a federal institution per se but, in
order to maintain existing linguistic rights, the Act to
incorporate Air Canada stipulated that Air Canada would continue
to be fully subject to the Official Languages Act.
Bill C-26 creates a precedent by extending the obligations of an
entity subject to the Official Languages Act to its
subsidiaries.
But this precedent was created within the framework of an entity
that is no longer a federal institution per se. It is only
through legal assimilation that Air Canada remains subject to
the Official Languages Act. Other private air carriers are not
subject to the Official Languages Act and therefore do not have
the same legal obligations as Air Canada.
Enforcing parts V and VI could impose considerable obligations
on private sector entities, which are not now and never were
subject to the Official Languages Act.
As I said earlier, Bill
C-26 already creates an important precedent by extending Air
Canada's linguistic obligations with respect to its
subsidiaries, in particular by ensuring that they comply with
part IV, a key component of the Official Languages Act.
1350
Air Canada is fully subject to the Official Language Act and
there is therefore no need to include in Bill C-26 any provisions
requiring Air Canada to translate its working tools or to report
on the composition of its personnel. If there are any problems
relating to the application of Air Canada's obligations, they
should be solved by other means.
Contrary to Bill C-26, which sets out and extends the obligations
of Air Canada—an entity which is already subject to the Official
Languages Act—the proposed amendments would have the effect of
creating linguistic obligations for entities which have never
been explicitly subject to that legislation. This would
establish a major precedent.
In conclusion, if we concentrate on the essential question of
services to the public and require Air Canada to ensure that its
affiliates provide the services Canadians expect to receive, we
feel that this is a responsible way for government to act.
The motion by my colleague across the way must be rejected and I
trust I have given the underlying reasons for so doing. Since
we still have a few minutes until the end of the debate, I must
point out on behalf of the members on this side of the House
that we sincerely and strongly support all the provisions of the
Official Languages Act.
I have been a member of parliament for 17 years, and I had the
honour of being here at the same time as the great
parliamentarians of that period, not only the current Prime
Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, but also Mr.
Trudeau, Mr. Marchand, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Lalonde and all the
others, including members from the other side of the House.
When I first came here, in 1974, the leader of the Créditistes
was Réal Caouette, a great Canadian political figure, and the
former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John
Diefenbaker, was still here. So were Mr. Stanfield, Tommy
Douglas, Ed Broadbent and many others.
Even though some members of parliament do not accept the reality
of two official languages in Canada, all the parties strongly
support the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
During the eighties, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader
of the Government in the House and I had the opportunity to take
part in the constitutional debate. What was remarkable was the
fact that all the members and all the parties in the House
supported not only the enshrinement of fundamental rights in the
Canadian Constitution, but also the enshrinement of the Official
Languages Act itself. That act is truly part our Constitution.
I want to assure the member opposite and all the other members
of this House that rejecting the motion proposed by the hon.
member must not be perceived as rejecting the spirit of the
Official Languages Act, because we in fact strongly support it.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
1355
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 7 negatived)
Hon. David M. Collenette moved that the bill, as amended,
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David M. Collenette moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall we agree to call it 2 p.m. and
begin the debate when Government Orders are resumed after
question period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
celebrate National Police Week we also celebrate the memory of
police officers who have given their lives for us.
In my riding of Cambridge an inquest into the death of Constable
Dave Nicholson who lost his life on August 12, 1998, while trying
to save young Mark Gage from the speeding waters of the Grand
River is a solemn reminder to all of us of the sacrifices police
officers make.
Constable Nicholson's widow, Wendy, described her late husband
as her hero in life, not death. These touching words are a
fitting tribute to all fallen police officers and have been
inscribed on the new Ontario Police Memorial in Toronto.
I encourage all Canadians to remember these heroes in life, not
death, not only this week but every day of the year.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I live on beautiful Vancouver Island and I am proud to
be part of a wonderful country that stretches from sea to sea. I
am Canadian but I also live in the highest taxed nation in the
world. Like many fellow citizens I shake my head in disgust at
how the government many times spends my money.
I believe deeply in the family as the cornerstone of a strong
nation but watch in dismay as the Liberal government seems to try
to destroy it.
I appreciate the freedom to worship in my church each Sunday but
have grave concerns about a growing intolerance on the part of
government and its bureaucracy for Judeo-Christian beliefs.
I have eight children but wonder about their future in a country
where the Prime Minister does not even recognize the brain drain
and does little to foster a business friendly environment, the
ultimate creator of jobs.
After this past weekend I am increasingly thankful that I am a
proud member of the Canadian Alliance which offers the only hope
for the country in the 21st century. I am Canadian.
* * *
CRTC
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today we learn of an application before the CRTC for
permission to operate three hard core adult entertainment
channels on Canadian cable. If this application goes through, it
will offer around the clock porn to Canadian cable and satellite
subscribers.
One hopes the CRTC will fulfil its current mandate in this
matter. The CRTC has the power to regulate and monitor all
aspects of the Canadian broadcast system under the Broadcasting
Act.
The Liberal government is responsible for that act and must be
held accountable. In situations like this one common sense must
prevail. Why is it in times past that the CRTC could approve
playboy channels but turn down a Catholic education channel?
1400
The government has allowed the regulatory agency to get involved
in some cases, but look the other way in others. It is time to
review the entire mandate of the CRTC. It is time to ask the
government to rewrite the Broadcasting Act.
* * *
CBC
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
strongly opposed to any efforts by CBC's head office to reduce
CBC television presence on Prince Edward Island.
People throughout Prince Edward Island are speaking with one
voice: “Keep Compass, the only locally produced
television news on Prince Edward Island”.
Canada's Broadcasting Act requires the CBC to reflect Canada and
its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the
special needs of those regions.
It is time for the board of directors of the CBC to understand
that the government absolutely cannot stand by and watch this
national institution undermine its very existence in the regions
of Canada. We must maintain CBC's local staff in the regions so
that they can continue to do the excellent job of reporting what
is happening in those regions locally and nationally. It is an
important institution in Canada.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today on this International Day of Families.
As most of us know, countless Canadian parents face the daily
struggle of balancing work and family life. Today approximately
70% of married Canadian mothers work outside their homes. Up to
60% of them return to work six months after the birth of their
children.
Studies, as well as leading academics, have found that in the
first year of their lives children benefit greatly from increased
contact and stimulation by their parents. A strong relationship
makes the children more creative, secure, sociable and curious
individuals.
The government recognizes the critical responsibilities parents
have in raising their children and understands the need to
balance work and family life in the year 2000.
For these reasons the government has proposed to extend parental
benefits to give parents the choice of staying at home for up to
one full year. This will provide flexibility for mothers and
fathers in the labour force.
Helping families to provide a supportive environment for their
children is not only a worthy social goal, but increasingly a
national economic imperative.
* * *
MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIPS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to congratulate two organizations in my riding of
Kitchener Centre which have received funding through the Canada
Millennium Partnership Program.
J. M. Drama has been awarded $93,812 for the development of a
community arts centre. The Registry Theatre will be housed in
the historical Waterloo Registry Office. This facility will be a
focal point for special events and festivals in Kitchener. It
will undoubtedly encourage the development of arts well into the
21st century.
The Canadian Women's Army Corp has received $9,922 to erect a
life-size memorial statue in front of Kitchener's new armoury.
The bronze monument will commemorate the thousands of women who
trained in Kitchener in the 1940s for the CWAC.
The residents of Kitchener have seized the opportunity to create
long lasting millennial legacies. Under phase four the
millennial bureau received 16 proposals from Kitchener
organizations. Each project was unique and would add to our
community in a different and special way.
* * *
[Translation]
RIMOUSKI OCEANIC
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to extend hearty congratulations to members of the Rimouski
Oceanic on their stunning win at the Quebec Major Junior Hockey
League final.
The team owes its berth in the Memorial Cup tournament to the
discipline of its players and the skill of its trainer, Doris
Labonté. Mention should also be made of the public's unwavering
support of the team over the past five years. In return, the
players have delivered some exciting hockey and progressive wins
as they improved their skills.
I also wish to congratulate general manager Éric Forest and
co-owner Maurice Tanguay on their talent as organizers and their
belief that the Oceanic can be built into a solid team of which
the entire Lower St. Lawrence can be proud.
Bravo to the Rimouski Oceanic, and good luck on your next step,
the Memorial Cup.
* * *
[English]
NORTHERN STUDIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, ACUNS,
is calling for a coherent policy on polar affairs, including
research.
It calls for legislation similar to that in the United States,
which would include a polar institute with research capacity,
which would be sustained by the federal and other northern
governments. It sees this institute as playing an important role
in the expansion of research and education in the north.
Canada is a great polar nation.
We should be truly masters of our own northern house and a leader
in polar affairs abroad.
1405
I urge the government to give the ACUNS document the most
serious consideration. It is time we revitalized and rejuvenated
northern studies in Canada.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers received the news of
the government's intention to introduce grain transportation
reform with mixed emotions. Certainly farmers are pleased, as I
am, with the freight rate reduction, but there are unanswered
questions.
Why did the government take so long to make this announcement?
Why is there still no legislation before the House? Why will the
bill look so different than the recommendations of the Estey and
Kroeger reports, which asked for a complete commercialization of
the grain transportation industry? Why is the government
delaying commercialization of grain transportation?
Farmers, grain companies and the railways all agree that a
commercialized system of grain transportation would result in
lower freight rates. Why would the government want to withhold
further freight rate reductions by paying lip service to the
commercialization of grain transportation in the west?
* * *
VINA WADDELL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the old saying “You don't know what you've got till it's gone”
never rang more true for me than with the retirement last week of
one of my long time staff members, Mrs. Vina Waddell.
Vina joined me when I was first elected to Nepean city council
in 1988. She stuck with me through the next two elections and
such was the quality of her work that when I resigned to run
federally in 1997 she was appointed regional councillor for the
duration of the term. She has continued to work for me in my
constituency office.
Not only did Vina provide excellent service to me and my
constituents, she also found time to serve her community,
volunteering with the Canadian Cancer Society and Pinhey's Point
Historical Society.
To Vina Waddell I say many, many thanks for her wonderful work
and service. I wish her and Eldon the very best for a long and
healthy retirement.
* * *
THE LATE KEIZO OBUCHI
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
chair of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group I would like
to express on behalf of the members of the interparliamentary
group our deepest condolences with the sad news of the death of
former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi.
Mr. Obuchi was a strong supporter of Canada-Japan relations.
His counsel and his advice were most appreciated. In November
1999 a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians had the great
honour of meeting with Mr. Obuchi in his private residence in the
context of the 10th bilateral consultations with their
counterparts in the Diet. Members were struck by his warmth,
friendship and genuine interest in Canada. They sensed that they
were among a true friend.
[Translation]
We offer our deepest condolences to Mr. Obuchi's family and to
the Japanese people. We will miss him.
* * *
[English]
NISGA'A TREATY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, May 12 I had the honour to attend and witness the signing
of the historic Nisga'a treaty in the home of the Nisga'a people
in the beautiful Nass Valley. Amidst snow capped mountains and
glaciers, fields of green and black lava rock thrown for miles
from its volcano 250 years ago, the people of the Nass River
celebrated in their great tradition of community over 130 years
of struggle for justice and equality.
President Joe Gosnell Sr. solemnly told those assembled,
including the premier of B.C. and the federal Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, that the treaty sends a beacon
of hope to all aboriginal peoples throughout the world.
Today the federal NDP pay tribute to the Nisga'a people for
their perseverance, strength and vision that, as Dr. Gosnell
said, is creating a new society.
We congratulate the Government of Canada, the province of B.C.
and the Nisga'a on this truly historic day. Premier Dosanjh said
“This treaty is about justice” and he is right.
* * *
[Translation]
NUCLEAR FUSION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
once again, we see the federal government's bad faith in its
dealings with Quebec. It deviously forced the closing of the
most important energy R and D project in Quebec: the Varennes
Tokamak.
The real reasons behind the closing of the Varennes Tokamak are
finally clear: members of the Canada-United States
interparliamentary group are being urged to bring pressure to
bear on the Americans in order to push for Canada, more
specifically Ontario, as the site of the future ITER reactor.
The federal government has therefore shut down Quebec's nuclear
fusion research project in order to launch a new, infinitely
greater fusion program, but this time in Ontario, a province
that already enjoys more than 50% of federal R and D funding. If
the ITER reactor project comes through, billions of dollars in
economic benefits will once again go to Ontario.
* * *
1410
GASPÉ
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the
difficult economic times buffeting the Gaspé, the Government of
Canada has announced it will contribute $1 million to a project
to invest in the rail link between Matapédia and Chandler. This
will mean the improvement of much of the rail line and railway
bridges.
This long expected news was well received by the people of the
Gaspé, as was the news of two weeks ago on the division of the
Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé regions for employment insurance
calculation purposes.
The Government of Canada is there as well for the Gaspé region
in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
demonstrated to Canadians this past weekend in Quebec City that
we are the only truly national alternative to the Liberal
government. Over 1,000 dedicated Conservatives from across this
great country discussed, debated and approved what will be our
vision for Canada's future in the next federal election.
This past weekend also demonstrated to cynics of other political
persuasions that the Conservative Party is very much alive and
kicking after more than 130 years. Our party will continue to
put forward new, bold, progressive ideas, ideas that will appeal
to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
I would also like to congratulate Kris Paulson from my
constituency who won a communications award from the PCYF.
On behalf of the PC caucus I would like to thank all of the
dedicated Progressive Conservatives, young and old, across this
great country who showed their true blue colours over the weekend
in Quebec City.
[Translation]
I am a Canadian, my country includes Quebec as well.
* * *
[English]
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the week of May 15 to 21 marks the fourth annual North American
Occupational Health and Safety Week. Each year this special week
gives us extra opportunity to promote awareness of the importance
of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.
Workplace accidents take a tremendous emotional, physical and
financial toll on many Canadian workers and their families. On
average three workers are killed every working day. Every nine
seconds someone is injured on the job. An investment in
occupational safety and health is an investment in the well-being
of workers and in the economic health of Canadian business.
It is fitting that this year, the 100th anniversary of the
labour program, the theme is “Work Safely for a Healthy
Future”. The aim is to encourage young workers to become aware
of the critical importance in working in a safe and healthy
manner.
Many special events are being held throughout this week in
Canada, Mexico and the United States to bring attention to
workplace safety issues. I hope hon. members will join me in
wishing the participants a very successful week.
* * *
[Translation]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out that today is the International Day of Families and
the start of Quebec's week of families.
The family lies at the heart of our personal universe. Family
members meet often to create a bond of trust, security and
longstanding respect to last a lifetime. The family is also a
source of the support and frustration, happiness and obstacles,
the routine and wonderment, sadness and joy that make an
enormous contribution to all of our daily lives.
Starting a family today is an act of courage and, all too often,
we forget the merit of it and the contribution it makes to the
quality of life of mothers and fathers, children, grandparents,
seniors, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters.
On this international day of and Quebec week of families, I want
to remind them of our recognition.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, something new is in the air. There is a vibrancy and an
enthusiasm that I have not felt for quite some time. Canadians
are coming out of political hibernation and taking a new interest
in politics. Why? The Canadian Alliance is filling the
leadership vacuum in this country. For far too long true
leadership in government has been missing. Canadians have been
deliberately lulled into complacency by a Liberal government
satisfied with the status quo, and distracted by a seatless
leader who does not know which battles to fight.
These days are over. True leadership is not measured by where
one stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where one
stands in times of challenge and controversy. Those times are
upon us.
The alliance leadership race is provoking Canadians to think, to
discuss and, most importantly, to determine the course of their
future. It is indeed a welcome change and one that will surely
lead Canadians to their full potential.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but be intrigued at
the government's view of ethics. Patrick Lavelle is a long time
friend and confidant of the Prime Minister, and friendship has
its privileges.
Mr. Lavelle was handpicked to head up the Export Development
Corporation. While that is a lovely little job in its own right,
it is even better for Patrick because he has a personal stake in
companies that receive EDC assistance.
Why is it that conflicts of interest are always overlooked for
friends of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is overlooking the fact that Mr. Lavelle
is a part time appointee to the board of directors where he
serves as chair. He was chair at the time that EDC put into
effect its code of ethics. I understand that Mr. Lavelle has
complied with this code of ethics.
Furthermore, I understand the EDC board has never considered a
matter related to any of the organizations Mr. Lavelle has an
interest in. Part time board members are not subject to the
compliance measures of the conflict of interest code, but they
are fully subject to its principles.
I think that deals with the matter, contrary to the unwarranted
assertions of my hon. friend.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, not exactly. I do not think
Canadians who are forking out cash are really pleased with that
answer. He talks about a part time chairman. Too bad they were
not just giving out part time cash.
It is absolutely amazing that when Patrick Lavelle is not
chairing EDC board meetings, which he does as the minister just
said, he sits on the board of the Canadian Bank Note Company and
Slater Steel and he has stock options in both of those. Wouldn't
you know it, the Canadian Bank Note Company and Slater Steel both
got millions of dollars in assistance from EDC.
Why is public money being used to finance private business deals
for friends of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my friend's assertions are completely unwarranted. As I
have already said, I am informed that the EDC board has never
considered a matter related to any of the organizations in which
Mr. Lavelle has an interest. Why does she not stick to the
facts?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, maybe he does sit out those
particular meetings but I do not think that it looks good or
smells good for the government, and the minister knows it.
Patrick Lavelle oversees the management of millions of dollars
of public money, period. He also sits on the board of two
private companies that do business with that same public money.
He is in a massive conflict of interest and the government is his
accomplice. Why?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is wrong in alleging a conflict of
interest. I have been advised that Mr. Lavelle complies with the
EDC's code of ethics. I am advised that Mr. Lavelle complies
with the conflict of interest code for government appointees. I
repeat, the board of directors does not deal with any matters in
which Mr. Lavelle has an interest.
My hon. friend is wrong. If anything smells, it is my hon.
friend's question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, he does not have to sit on the board. He just has to
put his name on the letterhead and it seems to go to the right
place.
Last week the EDC was in the news for giving untendered
contracts to friends of the Prime Minister. This week we find
out that a deal between the Canada Bank Note Company and India
went sour. Guess who picked up the $3.5 million tab? EDC, of
course.
Why does that matter? It is because Patrick Lavelle, the
chairman of EDC, is also a director of the Canada Bank Note
Company. Mr. Lavelle says it is not a lot of money. He does not
get involved unless the amount of money is $20 million or more.
Apparently somebody else looks after the petty cash.
Why is it that friends of the Prime Minister keep getting bailed
out with public money?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I challenge my hon. friend to put facts on the table in
the House and outside the House which indicate that Mr. Lavelle
was personally involved in the matter in question. I challenge
the hon. member to do that or to stand revealed as not having the
ethics that he wants from others.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, here are the facts. There is something rotten going on
at EDC.
When the largest oil company in Brazil needed a loan guarantee,
René Fugère, a good friend of the Prime Minister and currently
under RCMP investigation, helped to get it one. The man
appointed to be chairman of the EDC has a personal financial
interest in companies that receive millions of dollars from the
EDC. The biggest corporate donors to the Liberal Party are the
biggest beneficiaries of EDC financial assistance.
Why is it that so many recipients of EDC support just happen to
have such close personal and political connections to the Liberal
Party and the Prime Minister of Canada?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the hon. member ought to explain why many of the
companies to which he refers are also donors to the Conservative
Party and even the reform alliance party.
What is the reform alliance party up to? Reform alliancers
should come clean. What are they up to?
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has been saying since
the beginning that she has invoices to justify the payment of
the $1.2 million grant to Placeteco.
My question is very simple: Where are these invoices?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has told the House that
he has made an access request for these invoices. I have said a
number of times that I agree that the responsible approach to
take when we are talking about individual companies with personal
information is to use the access to information process.
I am sure that the department, when it reviews the request, will
make available all information that it can make available.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
these invoices exist, the minister could table them. They were
not in the file provided to us under the Access to Information
Act. We have submitted a request, but this has gone on for too
long.
The minister solemnly told this House that, indeed, invoices had
been submitted by Placeteco. Since she minister is not tabling
these invoices, will the minister reaffirm in this House that
the grant to Placeteco was in fact paid out on the basis of
invoices from and only from Placeteco?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House before, the
department did an administrative review of this file. It
identified there were invoices that concurred with the terms and
conditions of the program.
The hon. member has said that he has requested the invoices
through an access to information request. Again I would say that
this is arm's length from the minister. The information that can
be made available will be made available.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are quite
prepared to give a chance to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, but there are limits.
She just told us again that we simply have to submit a request
under the Access to Information Act. We did, but we got a file
in which there were no invoices. We submitted a second access to
information request on March 23. That was seven weeks ago, and
we have not yet seen any invoices.
Do these invoices really exist?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the department
has received hundreds of access requests as a result of
undertakings these last few months.
The department is working very diligently to respond to the
requests of members of the House and of others with regard to
their concerns. Again, I am convinced that whatever information
can be made available under the access program will be made
available in due course.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
minister that, strangely enough, when we ask for other files,
the invoices are always included.
With regard to Placeteco, the minister's whole defence is based
on the existence of invoices. These invoices were not in the
first file. We submitted another request seven weeks ago. We
were still not able to get these invoices. We asked the minister
to table them, but she did not. No one has ever seen these
invoices.
Is this not simply because the invoices to which the minister
referred concern companies other than Placeteco and that none of
these invoices concern Placeteco as such?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me say to the House that the
department is working diligently to ensure that the information
requested is made available. Thousands of pages of information
have been provided to the public as a result of access to
information.
In this case the hon. member confirms that he has made a
request. He has asked for the invoices. Again, it is an arm's
length process. The request will be reviewed and any information
that can be made available will be made available.
* * *
1425
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage who is
responsible for the CBC. It now appears certain after the
announcement or non-announcement on Friday that CBC has plans to
violate, even repudiate, the mandate given to it by the
government and the mandate that the CBC committed itself to in
front of the CRTC.
I want to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the minister
responsible for CBC and for making sure that mandate is lived up
to what the government intends to do now in order to make sure
that the CBC does not go ahead with these plans.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act makes it
very clear that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has the
responsibility to reflect Canada and its regions to the national
and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those
regions. I fully expect that mandate will be respected.
The Speaker: Order, please. I wish the bantering back
and forth between the minister and the leaders would stop so we
could hear the question. I think that is only fair.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister said in the House before that she expects
the mandate to be lived up to, but what she is not telling the
House is what she will do if it is not lived up to, what she will
do about the fact that the vice-president of English CBC has all
but indicated that they will not live up to the mandate.
Could she please tell us how she will communicate to the CBC
that Toronto is not the centre of the universe and that regional
news broadcasts like 24 Hours in Winnipeg and Here and
Now in Newfoundland and in other Canadian cities need to be
preserved or otherwise the CBC will hardly be worth having soon?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member's comments and views are shared
by all members of the House, including members of the Canadian
Alliance. I fully expect that the CBC will continue to meets is
mandate under the Broadcasting Act.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians everywhere, including the good people of
St. John's West, are tired of waiting for the health minister to
come forward with real action on the number one issue facing the
nation, health.
At this weekend's P.C. policy convention our party
overwhelmingly endorsed implementing a sixth principle of the
Canada Health Act to provide much needed stability and
predictability.
Will the health minister commit today to meaningful long term
health care funding for the provinces to face this crisis?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is regrettable that the Progressive Conservative Party did not
use the opportunity of the weekend's convention to change its
policy in relation to funding under the Canada Health Act.
The Progressive Conservative Party would provide funding only
through tax points with no cash, removing any opportunity for the
Government of Canada to enforce the principles of the Canada
Health Act. That would be ruinous for Canada's health care
system.
I call upon the PCs to see the light, to change their policy and
to do what governing Liberals do.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, once again the health minister is caught in a time
warp. Canadians are looking for action, not words from the
minister.
Members of the Liberal government have had seven years to come
forward with a meaningful plan to address the health care crisis.
First, they have removed billions of dollars from social
transfers, and the minister's stand pat attitude just does not
cut it. The provinces have been forced to look for their own
solutions.
Will the health minister stop the rhetoric and commit today to a
concrete plan to provide predictable, stable, long term plans for
health care in the country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has not been listening. We have been saying for
months the status quo is not on. We know what the status quo is.
Status quo is Latin for the mess the Tories left us. It is not
on. We cannot go on like this. We need to improve the quality
of care for Canadians.
If the member would speak to the Tory Premier of Ontario,
perhaps he could make some progress talking about a constructive
plan instead of just television ads picking fights about funding.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport claims that
he wants competition in Canada's airline industry but he has a
funny way of showing it.
1430
The Department of Transport recently informed Calgary based
WestJet that it will no longer be able to have its flight
operation inspections in Edmonton. Instead it will have to bring
its airplanes and pilots to Ottawa.
Will the minister please explain how forcing WestJet to take its
flight operation inspections to Ottawa is going to enhance
competition?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had given me notice of this
question I would have had a detailed answer for her. I certainly
will look into the matter and get an answer tomorrow.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the director general of
civil aviation for Transport Canada stated that it was Air Canada
that suggested WestJet should be required to do its inspections
in Ottawa instead of Edmonton.
Will the minister please inform the House when he transferred
his authority to oversee Canada's airline industry over to Robert
Milton?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member poses her question in such a
rhetorical way having sat for months on this particular file. In
fact, we are doing report stage and third reading today on Bill
C-26. She knows full well that it is the law that will be passed
by this parliament that will ensure that there is competition in
the air industry. It is the law that is passed by this
parliament that will ensure that consumers are protected. She
should know that Transport Canada has the most outstanding air
inspection regime of anywhere in the world. I am surprised she
would ask that kind of question.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the Modes Conili affair, the Minister of Human Resources
Development has described as new information the letters sent
out to employees by the presidents of Conili Star and Paris
Star.
Can the minister guarantee that the auditors of her department
did not have the letters to employees in hand at the time they
submitted their report, which led to the paying out of a
$700,000 grant?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that last Tuesday the
department received new information on this file. On Wednesday
it reviewed the information. On Thursday it transferred it to
the RCMP, which, in its authority, will determine what steps to
take next.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is extraordinary. In describing the letters sent to
employees by the presidents of the new companies as new
information, does the minister realize that she is asking us to
believe that only her own auditors did not have the letters
everyone else did, the employers, the employees and even the
Quebec parity committee?
Is this possible? Is it plausible to believe that only the
auditors did not have the letters in hand?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that this
information was received by the department last Tuesday. It
reviewed it and felt it was wise and appropriate to send it to
the RCMP. The matter now rests there.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it appears that the government's spending practices are
completely out of control. We have seen a lack of accountability
in HRDC, EDC, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and now in
Health Canada.
In the most recent Health Canada audit of the Indian and Inuit
health contributions, it appears that $22 million has gone
missing.
At a time when people on reserves are suffering through some of
the worst health conditions in Canada, will the Minister of
Health simply tell us where the money has gone?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member, of course, misreads the report, misunderstands
the conclusion and misstates what really happened.
The facts are quite clear. The audit uncovered some areas of
difficulty and remedial steps have been taken by managers to make
sure they are put right. Every dollar is properly accounted for
and we will ensure that it is spent in the public interest.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me get a bit more specific here. These are very
serious problems.
In one case close to my own riding, the Tsartlip Band could not
account for 63% of its total health contributions of $177,000.
Financial report conditions were not complied with. No monthly
reports were submitted. On March 28 officials were to meet with
the Tsartlip Band and discuss options for recovery of these
missing funds.
The Tsartlip people, indeed all Canadians, simply want to know
how the Minister of Health will get this money back.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in relation to each of the audits in question, including the one
referred to by the hon. member, managers have taken remedial
steps. We will ensure that all dollars are accounted for and are
spent for the health benefit of those intended to receive the
benefits.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
BANKING SYSTEM
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
legislation the Minister of Finance proposes to implement in the
banking system would have the effect of facilitating the
take-over, even by foreigners, of banks with small and medium
capital, such as the Banque Nationale and Banque Laurentienne.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to us why he has chosen to
protect the major Canadian banks and not the small Quebec banks?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of bank ownership,
Quebec banks in particular, is under the jurisdiction of the
minister. As he has said in connection with all other bank
mergers, acquisition is a matter of policy and of the well-being
of all Canadians. When banks in a province like Quebec are
involved, this is a matter involving the interests of Quebecers.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the secretary of state tell us the banking system is being
reinforced, benefiting Quebecers in particular, when the
acquisition of small and medium Quebec banks is possible, even
by foreigners, while the major Canadian banks are protected?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, this is
a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the minister. In
reaching this decision, he is going to take into consideration
the interests of Quebec consumers, small and medium businesses
and shareholders.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians were stunned last week when Rose Cece and Mary
Taylor, the killers of police officer William Hancox, were both
incarcerated at Joliette. We know that the decision has since
been reversed.
I want to ask the solicitor general what his corrections
officials were thinking. Did they really think the two killers
would have a positive influence on each other? Was any
consideration given to the family of the victim?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I could never even begin to
understand the pain that the family is going through.
On Friday when I was in Washington I called the director of
Correctional Service Canada. I also instructed Correctional
Service Canada to develop a policy to deal with offenders who
commit serious violent crimes together.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this pair of killers deprived a woman of the intimate
relationship she enjoyed with her husband. They permanently
removed a relationship between young children and their father.
Their reward was that they were almost allowed to continue their
own personal intimate relationship. Their vicious crime was just
a little glitch along the way.
Why did it take the outrage of the victim's widow to point out
the obvious?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is a very serious
situation. That is why I instructed Correctional Service Canada
to make sure that the likes of this situation does not develop
again.
The Speaker: So that all members will understand, the
hon. member for Longueuil will be asking her question using sign
language.
* * *
[Translation]
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING PERSONS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
[Editor's Note: Member signed as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1999, the House of Commons unanimously
passed a Bloc Quebecois motion recognizing the importance for
the public and private sectors of providing deaf and hard of
hearing persons with the tools required for them to take their
place in an increasingly communications-oriented world.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will she
tell us what her government has done since this motion was
passed one year ago?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one very important tool that Canadians have for
communication is the CBC.
I myself raised this issue with the CBC's president, with the
goal of having subtitles available in all the corporation's
French and English programming.
* * *
1440
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, due
to the tireless efforts of the member for York North, EcoSummit
2000 starts today. This year the focus of the summit is water.
As water quality is an important question for all Canadians, can
the Minister of the Environment inform the House of his strategy
to address Canadians' concerns about this issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again join with the hon. member in
congratulating the member for York North on the work he has done
in establishing the EcoSummit. I would remind all members of the
House that it is taking place this evening and tomorrow. There
will be some very excellent speakers and panels. The Government
of Canada and I am sure all members of the House share with her
the desire to make sure that water policy in Canada is maintained
at the highest possible standards.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my possession an independent consultant's
report on the morale problems at Grierson prison in Edmonton.
The report's first recommendation was to put an end to the
inappropriate audio and video surveillance of the staff.
Has the solicitor general put a stop to the electronic bugging
of the staff at this institution as recommended by this report?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety of the staff at Correctional
Service Canada is the number one priority of Correctional Service
Canada.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this has nothing to do with their safety. This is an
intrusion into their privacy. This report could easily apply to
any institution in Canada. In this report the consultant
criticizes the management style of the institution and remarks
that it parallels the commissioner's management of CSC itself.
Does the solicitor general approve of management through
intimidation and bullying to get its way with staff.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would be well aware
that there is no such thing happening with the staff of
Correctional Service Canada. In fact, Correctional Service
Canada wants to make sure that the staff have the greatest
protection possible. The safety of the staff is the number one
priority.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the hurry up and wait health
minister.
On bill 11 the health minister says that we should wait for the
legislation, then wait for the amendments, then wait for third
reading and then wait for the regulations. Now he says that we
should wait for the implementation. The future of medicare is
too important for that kind of dilly-dallying. The minister
still has a chance to act. He can move before bill 11 is
actually proclaimed.
Will the Minister of Health do that? Will he hurry up and do
something for a change?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I suppose that is the philosophy of the NDP, hurry up and do
something. It is a little shy on exactly what it is it will do
before the proclamation of the act.
Canadians do not have to wait for this government's commitment to
the five principles of the Canada Health Act. They do not have
to wait to know that we will do what is necessary to make sure
those principles are respected in Alberta and throughout the
country.
As I made clear last week when I made my statement in the House,
we will ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are
respected throughout the country.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what the Minister of Health said back on
April 7 when he wrote to the health minister in Alberta. At that
time he said that the bill presented circumstances where in fact
there were serious concerns in relation to the principle of
accessibility.
What has happened since April 7? Who got to this minister? If
he is not prepared to apply the current Canada Health Act, will
he at least bring in changes to the act to make it clear that
this country will not stand for private hospitals or two tier
health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will tell the member what has happened since that letter was
sent. We asked the Alberta government to amend bill 11. Indeed,
allowing charges for enhanced services in private for profit
facilities in combination does create a circumstance that we feel
imperils the principle of accessibility.
Alberta did not amend the act. That danger is still there. For
that very reason I said in the House last week that we will be
watching on the ground, monitoring to ensure that the danger we
are concerned about does not occur. If it does, we will step in
and use our powers under the act to protect the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
CBC REGIONAL NEWS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister
of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she has indeed held
discussions with the president of the CBC with respect to the
elimination of regional news?
If so, can she reassure the House that she will never accept
such a proposal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for West Nova for his
support for compliance with the Broadcasting Act.
If the Broadcasting Act is to be complied with, the regions must
indeed be represented on television. I hope that this is one of
the questions he will ask tomorrow morning when the CBC's
president appears before the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Compass in P.E.I. and Here and Now in Newfoundland
are the most watched CBC programs in their respective provinces.
With an audience share of 68% and 59% respectively, these two
programs seem to contradict the CBC president's assertion that
nobody watches regional CBC news.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage intervene on behalf of
all Canadians to protect these and other popular TV programs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support.
These two programs in their own areas are actually the most
popular programs in the country, not just in the region.
I am sure he would not want me personally to start picking and
choosing the shows on CBC. I do believe that he and I together
and this House of Commons are going to work to make sure that
Canada's law on broadcasting is respected and that the regions
are reflected in the way that will do dignity to the CBC and to
the country.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canadians want clean air to breathe, but some Canadian oil
companies are complaining about new regulations limiting sulphur
in gasoline even though similar regulations have been in place in
the U.S. for 10 years. Will the minister please explain to
Canadians just how important those regulations are?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The
regulations for sulphur in gasoline have been in effect in
California for some four or five years. Costs have been minimal.
They have been in effect since the beginning of the year in New
England. Again, in an area with a gasoline market larger than
Canada as a whole, costs have been about half a cent per litre.
The fact is we are talking about approximately 30 lives lost
prematurely as a result of the level of sulphur in gasoline and
the resulting emissions and air quality that comes from it. We
wish to reverse that. We wish to cut down on those deaths. We
will continue to put in place the regulations that industry has
known were coming for the last six years.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we know that 84% of aboriginal households live below the
poverty line and that the unemployment rate on Indian reserves is
in the range of 80% to 90%. We also know that in the 1998-99
fiscal year the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development made a $10,000 grant to the national tulip festival.
What we want to know from the minister is how was section 66 of
the Indian Act fulfilled? How was the general progress and
welfare of those poverty stricken people promoted by this grant?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every single department,
including ours, has an education component to make Canadians
aware of what aboriginal culture is all about. That is what we
were doing under this particular grant. Some 600,000 people go
to that festival and we can then show the importance of
aboriginal culture and aboriginal peoples to our Canadian family.
I hope those members have an opportunity to go because they
could use some education.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
two of my colleagues have asked the solicitor gneral to
investigate the files of Placeteco and Option Canada.
Could the solicitor general report to this House on the status
of the files, tell us what point the investigations have reached
and confirm that he intends to get results before the next
general election?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as solicitor general I am responsible for
the RCMP. I am not involved in the daily activities of the RCMP.
I am not involved, nor do any of my colleagues in the House wish
me to be involved, in investigations involving the RCMP.
* * *
1450
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last week the government invoked closure to stifle debate on Bill
C-11, the government's bill which dismantles Devco. This week it
plans to ram the bill through committee.
The company and the unions right now are in arbitration which
may compromise the evidence which comes before the committee.
Will the minister show good faith and write to the committee
asking that it postpone hearings until the arbitration is
complete? If not, will he at least ask the committee to travel
to Cape Breton to hear from the citizens in that community?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman in effect is asking for the
legislative process with respect to Bill C-11 to be put off until
sometime in the fall. Quite frankly that is not in the public
interest and particularly is not in the interest of Devco in Cape
Breton. That would mean that the ability to find private sector
owners to secure the business and to secure the jobs for the long
term would go off into never never land, leaving a huge cloud of
uncertainty over at least 500 jobs in Cape Breton.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in the very first meeting of the council of Atlantic premiers
held today, the premiers called for a federal highway funding
program.
Last week the minister announced a $175 million program for
rural roads in western Canada completely separate from any
infrastructure program. Will the minister announce an equal
program for Atlantic Canada of $175 million for highways in
Atlantic Canada, completely separate from any infrastructure
program, as he did for the western provinces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the $175 million for grain roads was specifically
tied to grain transportation reforms and will help producers in
western Canada overcome some of the problems which arise as we go
to a more competitive system.
In the budget the Minister of Finance announced over $2 billion
for infrastructure and $600 million for highways. Some people
say that is not enough. In a perfect world we would have much
more money, but this is a start. It means we can now start
reinvesting in national highways. I think that is a very good
start and who knows, more money may come in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
municipalities are keen to hear the good news about the great
infrastructure program.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure. Could she inform the
House of the progress in the negotiations between the Government
of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments on
infrastructure?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
fact, the preliminary consultations with the provinces have
begun in connection with the municipal infrastructure program.
I can say to the members in this House that all of the provinces
and territories are interested in taking part in the program.
They agree that priority should go to green infrastructures,
that impact on the environment of our fellow citizens. They
agree that the program should be based on the needs of the
individual communities.
I have every reason to believe that we will keep to our
schedule. Official negotiations will be underway shortly. We
think we will be able to sign formal agreements by the end of
the year, and sooner if possible.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is time for the minister to wake up and smell the
tulips.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
failed to meet even the most basic needs of the people for whom
it has primary responsibility. Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation reports that 65% of on reserve housing fall below
standard codes and 23% lack water. Yet the department can find
$10,000 for the national tulip festival.
Does the minister think that those people who have to carry
water to their rundown houses would approve of this grant?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, because they are the
ones who applied for the grant.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at its
conference in Quebec City this past weekend, the Ordre des
diététistes du Québec examined the issue of GMOs. It is calling
for mandatory food labelling and more thorough studies into the
potential impacts of transgenic foods on health.
What is the Minister of Health waiting for? Do all the
professional corporations have to demand the same thing of him?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
genetically modified foods have to be submitted to Health Canada
for evaluation and determination of whether they are as safe as
other foods already on the Canadian market.
Recently we set up a committee of experts to examine Health
Canada regulations and ensure that we are acting appropriately.
For us, the most important objective is the health of Canadians.
* * *
1455
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, when the free trade agreement was being negotiated
with the United States and Mexico, Canadians worried that we were
on the way to weaker environmental laws and lax enforcement.
Senior American officials now confirm that the Canadian
government is trying to undermine guidelines that allow
whistleblowing citizens to take complaints to the centre for
environmental co-operation.
The minister's officials will meet with the other two countries
this week and he will meet with his counterparts in June. Will
the minister promise that he does not support and will not allow
changes to guidelines governing citizen's submissions to the
centre for environmental co-operation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member's preamble to his
question is sheer rubbish. The fact is we have a good system in
place. There will be opportunities of course to improve it. It
is a new system, virtually unique in the world, where there is
such a commission in effect between three countries above what
they can do domestically in terms of appeal. Undoubtedly there
will be improvements and changes in the approaches that are taken
and the mechanisms in the future, but to suggest that any change
must be a negative is sheer unadulterated rubbish.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's answers to questions today
have been somewhat curious. In an answer to the Bloc Quebecois
he said that he could not get involved in that department. In an
answer to my colleague from Surrey he said that he got involved
in that department. My colleague from Wild Rose stood in the
House and asked a question about a report. The solicitor general
should know that in the last five minutes Correctional Service
Canada has asked my colleague for a copy of that report.
Who is in charge? When does the minister actually take charge
in his department? What is going on?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was informed of the situation on
Friday I indicated to the House that I contacted Correctional
Service Canada immediately and action was taken.
Does my hon. colleague feel that I as solicitor general and
other ministers and politicians should be involved in police
investigations? Around the world that has not worked very well
and it will not happen in this country.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
know that the Minister of Health is aware of the desperate
situation in Vancouver's downtown east side where the death toll
continues to mount from people who are dying from drug overdoses.
I also know that the minister is aware of the increasing number
of reports from medical experts and scientific experts who call
on him to show leadership and do what has been done in Europe
which is to take a comprehensive harm reduction approach.
When will the minister act? How many more people will have to
die before the Minister of Health takes action on this very
critical issue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will know that Health Canada has already acted in the
sense that money was made available for important community
services including a resource centre. We have worked with the
community groups to identify how that additional money is best
spent. Most important, we are participants in a three government
partnership, federal, provincial and municipal, to address these
very complex and tragic problems. Our interest continues. We
are working very closely with those other governments. If the
member has specific suggestions, we would be happy to receive
them.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week three ministers of the crown held a press conference to
tell us their vague intentions with respect to grain
transportation in western Canada. One of the ministers, the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, even suggested
that there would be a memorandum of understanding signed between
the Canadian Wheat Board and the government to find out what its
participation will be in those changes.
1500
Is the minister prepared to table the memorandum of
understanding prior to the legislation, and will other
stakeholders have an opportunity in those negotiations of the
memorandum of understanding?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously work is ongoing on the memorandum of
understanding. It will, in fact, be a public document.
Let me remind the hon. gentleman of the reactions of some of the
important organizations in western Canada to the announcement we
made last week. I refer to the reactions of the Keystone
Agricultural Producers, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities, the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Government of
Saskatchewan, the Government of Alberta and the Government of
Manitoba, which were all favourable.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has obviously put on the table a number of
testimonials in favour of that particular suggestion. He has not
put on the table the testimonials opposed to it.
Will the minister please table the memorandum of understanding
prior to tabling the legislation so that we can have an
understanding as to the influence of the Canadian Wheat Board on
grain transportation in western Canada?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the memorandum has obviously not yet been negotiated.
There will be ample discussion about the content of that
memorandum. And, yes, it will be public before the legislation
comes into effect.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act,
the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public
Participation Act and to amend another act in consequence, be
read the third time and passed.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate this
afternoon as we wind down on this very important piece of
legislation. This bill is designed as a federal response to the
restructuring of our two major airlines and to deal with the
consequences as far as the rest of the Canadian airline industry
is concerned, as well as travellers and shippers.
I would like to thank members of the Standing Committee on
Transport. I have to say that this has been one of the more
salutary efforts I have been involved with in the House, in the
sense that there has been remarkable co-operation on all sides.
There has been good, sharp, intense debate. Amendments came
forward which received the acceptance of members of the other
side, which helped to strengthen the legislation and clarify some
things. I am extremely happy to have had that co-operation from
members of the committee and I thank them publicly.
[Translation]
I want to put on the record my thanks to all of them. I know
what long, and late, hours they put in to move this bill forward
as quickly as they have.
My second reason for being pleased is that the prospects for
passing this bill sooner are looking brighter.
Members of this House, I am sure, understand the importance of
bring this bill into force, and I have no doubt the other House
will be of the same view.
[English]
I would like to deal with a few of the important points of the
amended bill.
The law at present provides the authority for the process to
approve the airline acquisition deal between Air Canada and an
Alberta numbered company and Canadian Airlines. This bill
provides the mechanisms and the enforcement tools necessary to
ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the deal,
which are the commitments made to me by Air Canada and to the
undertakings negotiated between Air Canada and the competition
commissioner.
This bill expands the powers of the Competition Act to ensure
new protection against anti-competitive behaviour by the operator
of a domestic air service that would impede or discourage the
development of new services by other Canadian carriers. This is
extremely important.
There has been much made in recent weeks about the need for
competition. I have met with charter carrier officials and
people from other airlines in Canada. I can assure the House
that there is a willingness to step in and provide the necessary
competition. But the people want some assurance of stability,
some clarity of the rules and the knowledge that Air Canada would
not use its pricing might, its capacity, to drive other airlines
out of business. That is why this bill is so important.
We have not only brought in predatory pricing provisions through
a clause that was developed by the Competition Bureau, we have
actually toughened up that particular aspect of the bill.
[Translation]
This bill brings increased protection for consumers and new
obligations to ensure that communities can make the case for the
retention of services when carriers are considering reducing
service, or withdrawing from a market.
This bill ensures that travellers and shippers will be able to
deal with Air Canada and all its subsidiaries, current and
future, in the official language of their choice, where there is
significant demand.
I made a small comment on the importance of these amendments
with respect to the Official Languages Act and its application
to subsidiaries of Canadian Airlines International. This is a
notable change in our policy, because Air Canada used to be a
crown corporation, and now it is a private sector company.
1510
[English]
Before commenting on what is new and improved in the bill as
amended, I would like to say a few words about what is not in the
bill. There is nothing in the bill which would change Canada's
policy regarding Canadian ownership and control of our airlines.
Despite the lack of support for the policy by some editorialists
and columnists, the government will maintain its policy. I know
that members in my own party sought to increase foreign ownership
from 25% to 49%. We have that statutory authority now, but we
fixed it at 25% because we believe that the airline industry must
be controlled by Canadians. That has been clear throughout this
debate, through letters to the editor, e-mails we have received
and polling. There was a poll done by Maclean's and CBC in
December which showed that 83% of Canadians believe that we have
to maintain a strong Canadian identity in this new century and
that Canadian ownership of business in Canada should be even
greater.
I would ask why we would want to arbitrarily increase the 25%
limit when many other countries around the world keep that limit
themselves. The Americans do not allow foreigners to have more
than 25% ownership in any U.S. carrier. Hon. members will
remember a few years ago when Air Canada owned 25% of Continental
Airlines. It was a very good investment by the former president
of Air Canada, which reaped great benefits for Air Canada, but it
could not hold any more. It could not, in effect, control
Continental Airlines. Why should we dilute our control and yet
allow the U.S. to maintain its 25%? And not just the U.S., but
other countries in the world. We must maintain solid Canadian
control, effective Canadian control, of our airlines.
When it comes to other issues of competition, we have been held
up to some criticism by editorialists who believe that we should
allow foreign carriers to come into the country. Again, I have
spoken with Canadian carriers, the WestJets, the charter carriers
and others, and they believe that they can fill the void.
I noticed in the clippings today from transport statements made
by Mr. Kinnear, the president of Canada 3000. I met with him
last week and what he said to me privately he said publicly, that
is, now that they know what the regime will be they are going to
acquire more planes. And not just that charter company, but
other charter companies will be doing the same thing.
I think the naysayers in the media and some of these great
experts we see who pop up from academia should perhaps wait for
18 months to see what the Canada 3000s, the Air Transats, the
Royals and the Sky Services can do. We know that CanJet, the
airline being proposed by Mr. Rowe, a prominent businessman from
Halifax, is going to get off the ground. He has made public
statements in the last few weeks. That will be an exciting
development. He wanted to see what kind of bill we were bringing
in. He wanted to see what kind of regime he would have to deal
with. He wanted to know that the competition commissioner would
have real power to deal with Air Canada, which, notwithstanding
its protestations about competition, has 80% of the market and
naturally would try to push the envelope. I think we have seen
evidence of that in the last few weeks. There was so much
evidence that members of the committee became quite annoyed at
the president of Air Canada and took him to task when he appeared
before the committee. As a result, the bill was toughened up.
Now that the bill has gone through the House and will be going
to the Senate—and hopefully will receive expeditious approval
after full debate in the Senate—companies like CanJet and
WestJet and the charters will know the regime and they will want
to plan for extra capacity. I am quite excited about the new
discount carrier that Mr. Rowe will be basing in Halifax and
Toronto because that will provide discount competition from the
hub in Toronto. We now have discount competition by WestJet from
Hamilton serving eastern Canada.
1515
Western Canada has continued to enjoy the good service of
WestJet. There is Conair and some other smaller companies not
allied with Air Canada providing good service and price
competition. The charters provide that competition. Even before
Air Canada and Canadian merged, in the peak season in the summer
months Air Transat, Canada 3000 and Royal Airlines provided 25%
of the capacity between Toronto and Vancouver. There was choice.
One of the problems is that there is not a choice for the
business traveller. It is to be hoped that an airline will come
along. I have heard certain things where there will be other
entrants into the market whereby there will be real competition,
full service competition, not just in the charters, not just for
those people who want the cheapest seat possible, but competition
for those companies that want some real choice for their
executives travelling across the country. That will come.
What makes me so annoyed in this whole debate is that somehow
people think we can just flick our fingers after we announced on
December 21 the historic deal of putting these airlines together
and brought in a bill in February and somehow competition would
emerge overnight. As Mr. Kinnear of Canada 3000 said in the
newspaper on the weekend, he has four A319s on order to lease but
they cannot get into service until next summer. There is a
backlog of new aircraft orders around the world.
It is not like flicking our fingers and getting immediate
certifications of planes, training crews and having a total
competitor to Air Canada overnight. That is why I keep talking
about 18 months to two years to give the marketplace time to sort
itself out. If it does not, I can tell the House categorically
that the government will not hesitate to bring in foreign
carriers to compete with Air Canada because ultimately we have to
make sure the travelling public has a good deal.
I am not happy with the kinds of prices we have seen in the last
10 years. As I said earlier at report stage, the duopoly of
Canadian Airlines and Air Canada was not competition at all.
People are lamenting the demise of Canadian Airlines as the end
of competition. The fact is there was very little price
competition. What they were doing was bashing themselves over
the head with extra capacity all around the country with flights
departing at the same time.
I remember going down to the Deputy Prime Minister's riding
about a year ago. I was booked on an Air Ontario flight to go to
Toronto. Then I found out that there was a Canadian regional
flight that was leaving a half hour earlier. I had about three
minutes to get a ticket and get on it, and I did. I ran to that
plane. It was a 19 seat Beachcraft. Do hon. members know how
many people were on it? Yours truly. I was the only one on it.
Do hon. members know how many people were on the Air Ontario
flight? There were six people on a 50 seat Dash-8. That is the
kind of ludicrous competition that we had. It was not
competition.
Anyway, let us not talk about the past. We are wasting time
talking about the past. Let us talk about the future. We have
made Air Canada strong. It has new roots. It is now the world's
10th largest airline. It will do battle with the best in the
world, British Airways and Cathay Pacific. The U.S. carriers are
not even in Air Canada's league. They are not in Canadian
Airlines' league. We had two of the best carriers in the world.
They won awards for service. Now we will turn them loose as a
combined entity under the Air Canada banner right around the
world.
New services have been announced. I was present in Toronto a
few weeks ago for the new non-stop service by Air Canada to
Tokyo. There will be other new markets to Asia, to Australia and
to other parts of Europe. This is great for Canada, because we
not only have a good product. We have a strategic advantage.
With the open skies agreement with the United States we attract
the biggest market in the world to come through the Canadian hubs
of Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. We will
sup up a lot of that traffic which knows that they get a poorer
product on U.S. carriers. They will go on Air Canada.
Air Canada will be happy. It will make lots of money. There
will be competition on the international routes because if people
do not like Air Canada's prices then all those foreign carriers
still come into Canada and there is competition on the
transborder.
Where we are really concerned is for those people who do not
have competition in Canada. That is why the bill is particularly
strong with respect to monopoly pricing on routes where there is
no competition. Is it likely that we will have competition in
some smaller communities in the country? No, it is not. We have
to make sure that Air Canada does not gouge the travelling
public.
1520
That is why we have amended the Canada Transportation Act, to
ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency has that power. We
are giving it on its motion the authority to go after Air Canada
and say “Listen, justify your price. Roll it back”. We are
not just going to wait for any member of the House or a member of
the travelling public to go in there and say “We have a
complaint and would you deal with it over the next few months?”
The Canadian Transportation Agency will be monitoring these
prices on a daily basis. With modern computers it will be
monitoring all the prices, not just the full, economy and
business class fares but all the various excursion fares, to make
sure that Canadians get the best opportunity.
[Translation]
We clearly share the view that there should be a federal
official who can deal with consumer complaints. I believe we
have found a formula which will not create a new bureaucracy but
will provide for the mediation of complaints where no other
remedy exists.
Making the proposed air travel complaints commissioner a member
of the Canadian Transportation Agency complements the other
complaint handling mechanisms which the agency said it wanted to
put in place to gather complaints, including those from persons
who want to register their views.
[English]
I know members of the committee were a bit frustrated when they
gave their report and I gave the government's response because
they wanted an ombudsperson. We had some real reluctance in this
regard because we did not want to set up yet another bureaucracy
to deal with the complaints about service and pricing. On
pricing we have the mechanisms in the Canadian Transportation
Agency. On predatory behaviour and predatory pricing, we have
given new powers to the commissioner.
In putting our heads together over at the department we asked
why we could not have this person whom the committee wants to
oversee the merger and to make sure that complaints are dealt
with. Why do we not give the individual real teeth? That is why
we are doing something quite extraordinary. We are naming a new
commissioner of the Canadian Transportation Agency. Again this
does not seem to be out there in the country.
The Canadian Transportation Agency is the quasi-judicial
regulatory body over transportation in the country. If we name a
new commissioner who specifically will have the mandate to deal
with airline restructuring, that is an extremely powerful
individual. It is an individual who can subpoena documents and
haul in the executives of Air Canada to ask them what is going
on. This individual can demand mediation and use the full powers
of the office. If that were not enough, the individual can refer
matters to the full commission for adjudication, refer matters to
the Competition Bureau for its adjudication, or refer matters to
the courts for ultimate arbitration.
I cannot believe that Air Canada would want to run afoul of the
Canadian Transportation Agency, the regulatory body. I am sure
it will co-operate now. To its credit, Air Canada has named its
own ombudsperson. The fact it has done this is an admission of
the fact that not everything has gone that well with the merger.
By and large, the macro issues have been managed quite well, but
a lot of what people may refer to as the smaller issues in terms
of consumer-customer complaints have not been handled properly.
I was a customer the other week, along with some members of the
Reform Party going back to British Columbia and some colleagues
of mine from Winnipeg and Windsor. We saw firsthand some of the
problems. We cannot dismiss a small complaint when as a result
of a mechanical problem on one plane with a capacity of 135 a
larger plane was brought in with a capacity of 180 and the
airline tried to squeeze in 230 people on that 180 seat plane.
No wonder there was a lot of irate passengers. Plus, there was
the fact that the flight from Winnipeg had a mechanical problem
and it was three hours late. As well, there were not enough
ticket agents on duty because there were some off sick.
1525
These may seem like small things to some. I note that on Bay
Street they say that we are not taking note of all the big things
that have gone well. The air service exists solely for the
Canadian travelling public. It does not exist for the stock
market. It does not exist solely for the shareholders of Air
Canada. It exists for the benefit of passengers. That is why we
have not apologized one whit—neither have the members of the
committee, no matter what party in the House—for defending the
rights of the Canadian consumer, not the rights of the air
carrier.
The modifications we have in this bill are quite strong and they
will deal with many of the problems that will have to be
addressed as the merger goes on.
Let us take the exit provisions. There were some modifications
required because some of the carriers like the charters came to
us. WestJet came to us and even Air Canada asked if it was
particularly fair going from 60 days to 120 days. We have shown
some modification there. We have made it easier for the WestJets
of the world to go into a new market and not have to stay there
for 120 days and lose their shirt if they are not going to make
any money.
I think people will forgive me in the House if I blow the horn
of the government. If we do not do it ourselves no one else will
do it, certainly not if we read some of the editorialists across
the country. We have found through government action by using
section 47 last fall a private sector solution. It was a bit
messy. It was a bit annoying for some people. Anyone who
follows the business world knows that mergers and acquisitions
are messy at the best of times. The difference here is that the
government instigated the whole process through section 47. We
had to adjudicate it in the end and come forward with regulation
in parliament, which is what we have done through this
legislation.
It is obvious, having done that, we would get knocked around in
the process. However there is no one that can convince me that
we were not right in bringing this whole matter to a head. If we
had not done so, we would have had a failure of the second
airline in the country. We brought forward a regime that came
forward with a private sector solution.
Some people said that we should have let Canadian Airlines go
bankrupt. There were columnists in national newspapers saying
that. These guys sit at their typewriters or their computers and
do not think about the 16,000 people working at Canadian
Airlines. They do not think about the thousands of travellers
across the country who would have been inconvenienced. I tell
the House that the government was not going to let the travelling
public down. We were not going to let the workers of Canadian
Airlines down.
When we did the deal on the Tokyo route on December 20, Canadian
Airlines had two days cash left. I did not know whether it would
meet the payroll for Christmas. All these great observers said
that we should let the marketplace find its ultimate way and let
these people be out of work. It is government, parliament,
members of parliament no matter on what side of the House, who
would have had to pick up the pieces. It is all right for people
to make great pronouncements, but when men, women and children
would have been affected, disrupted, that would have been a
tragedy.
There was not the capacity in the country to deal with it. Air
Canada could not have picked up the load. U.S. carriers could
not have come in here even on temporary permits to pick up the
load. The charters could not pick up the load at Christmas.
Everyone was stretched.
This was the only solution. Not everyone likes the deal that
was negotiated between the commissioner of competition and Air
Canada, but in the failing firm scenario he had to deal with it
the best he could do. I would like to thank him publicly for the
work he and his staff have done in helping all of us bring this
new regime forward.
The deal has resulted in the taking of the number one airline in
the country, the number two airline in the country, 41,000
people, 350 aircraft serving hundreds of destinations in Canada
and around the world. We did not have to put up a nickel of
taxpayer money to bail out Canadian Airlines. The taxpayer has
not been asked to fork out a nickel. There was no bankruptcy.
There was no tragedy. There was no heartache.
There has been some slight disruption, depending on the day. We
would not call it slight. I did not call it slight the other day
at the Ottawa airport. However, the next day when I came back it
was okay and things have improved this week. That is why I asked
for time for the airline to get its act together.
I asked for time for competition to develop because there will be
competition, Canadian competition operated by Canadians. It will
give the pricing and the flexibility that Canadians want.
1530
I think the commissioner will be making an announcement today or
tomorrow about his negotiations on the sale of Canadian Regional
Airlines. He got a very big extraction out of Air Canada as part
of the deal. Canadian Regional is not an inconsequential player.
It has 53 planes, 28 of them jets, albeit old jets. It flew to
many communities across this country and even to a few in the
U.S. Under the deal that was negotiated by the commissioner,
Canadian Regional Airlines must be offered for sale. That is
about to be done.
My friend from the Reform Party was taking me to task the other
week in question period about the delay in this airline being
offered for sale. However, as I said at the time, it has been
very difficult to put a value on Canadian Regional Airlines
because it was part of the overall Canadian Airlines
International. We did not know what amounts should be assigned
for marketing, maintenance, sales and all the rest. That has now
been done. A third party is being retained to sell that airline.
If it is not sold, Air Canada gets to keep the airline. I cannot
believe there are no entrepreneurs out there making an offer for
Canadian Regional Airlines. If that is the case, there will be
more full service competition to Air Canada in the months ahead.
In looking back at the last nine months, I must say that it
has not been easy. It seems that anything I have been involved
with in my career as a politician has not been easy. However, it
is not all the knocks taken on the way; it is how a certain issue
ends up. This is ending up, I think, good for Air Canada and for
its shareholders.
Let us not forget that if we were Air Canada shareholders,
having bought shares when the Mulroney government privatized it
in 1988, watching the stock market go through the roof in the
last few years, at $6 a share when all this began last year
having been floated at $8, we lost money. Today the shareholders
are laughing. The share price is at $16 or $17. It is rumoured
to be going even higher. We have done the shareholders of Air
Canada a favour, despite all the hand-wringing of last fall about
the poor shareholders and how they would be sacrificed. The Air
Canada shareholders are happy.
We as Canadians are happy. We are going to have the world's
tenth largest airline, an airline that is fully bilingual in the
service that it provides to the travelling public, and an airline
of outstanding quality, of dedicated employees, of new aircraft,
one of the newest fleets in the world, and it will be Canadian.
We should all be proud of that.
We have also helped all those employees who would have been
thrown out on the street. The people at Canadian Airlines will
be protected for two years. Any redundancies have to be provided
with full packages. The communities that Canadian Regional was
servicing at the time the deal was consummated on December 21
must continue be served by Canadian Regional. Those employees
will be needed. They should have no fear if a new owner comes
along. The alternative would have put people out of work and put
families under pressure at a difficult time of year. We see a
positive aspect there.
Communities are protected in the bill. For three years Air
Canada has to give service. The same goes for Canadian Regional
if it is sold. It is all right for guys like me who come from
Toronto because we have service coming out our ears. It is the
same for the hon. member from the Reform Party who comes from
Vancouver. We are lucky. We have lots of service.
My friend from the NDP comes from Churchill, a small community.
There is not much service in that area or in areas like that. My
parliamentary secretary, who has done an outstanding job here, is
from Thunder Bay, another small community. The Thunder Bays of
this world will all be protected in this particular regime.
1535
Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank God for Hamilton.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend
from Hamilton West, the committee chair and the former
parliamentary secretary, waxing eloquently about Hamilton. As a
Torontonian I am happy that we can finally get those people from
Hamilton to keep quiet about their airport because they have air
service. They will have scheduled service and more flights will
go in there. It is now the biggest cargo operator in all of
Canada. Let us not have any more crocodile tears about Hamilton,
I say to my colleague from Hamilton West.
We have all these benefits: the communities are protected, the
employees are protected and an international airline is growing.
The only thing we have not yet been able to do, but which I
believe sincerely will be done, is to get the kind of competition
forward that will ensure that Air Canada has to really be on its
toes. I have told the media that it should not keep on talking
about cabotage but that it should call up the executives of the
charter carriers, WestJet, Mr. Rowe of CanJet and others and ask
them if they want cabotage. They will say “No, my God, no.
Please give us a chance to compete”.
I believe in Canadian entrepreneurs. I cannot believe some of
the drivel that has been written about the need to bring in the
Americans to somehow rescue us from the lack of competition.
Nothing can be done overnight but, as we can see from the plans
of the charters and others like WestJet, there is new equipment
coming on and new entrants will be coming into the market. There
will be competition and it will be Canadian competition. It will
be competition of which we can all be proud.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much for your rapt attention. If
you think that I have been somewhat strong-minded in my views
today, you are absolutely right. It is at this stage of the
debate that I can actually say what has been on my mind for
months. This is an accomplishment not only of this government in
its air transportation policy but it is an accomplishment of
parliament. It shows how members of all parties can work
together for the benefit of Canadians and how all of us can have
such a dramatic effect on public policy.
I again thank all my colleagues who took part in the debate: my
parliamentary secretary; the chairman of the standing committee,
the member for Hamilton West; Senator Bacon, the chair of the
Senate committee where the bill will now go; the people at the
Competition Bureau; the hard-working staff at Transport Canada
who have hardly had a day off since last August; and my own
personal staff. It was not an easy task. It was often tough but
we did the right thing and it will benefit all Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to see the end of
this debate today.
It is very important to recognize the contribution by not only
the Transport Canada people but by the committee members who sat
for hours before Christmas and again just recently. Everyone put
a lot of time and effort into finding the best solution to
dealing with the reality of a monopoly air carrier.
The government does have a role in this situation. It was
interesting to hear the minister talk about what happened and why
we reached this situation where we had to deal with the merging
of two airlines. It was critical last fall when we found that
one of our major air carriers was failing and days away from
having to shut down its operations. It was prudent that the
government stepped in to try to prevent a bankruptcy from
happening. I also believed that the interruption to the lives
not only of the employees but of the travelling public would have
been incredible had a major airline like Canadian Airlines
actually shut down its operations overnight. There was a role
for government. It recognized that and stepped to the plate.
The legitimate role for government is in safety, environmental
issues, labour and competition issues, more specifically,
anti-competitive issues.
1540
I do not believe it is up to the government to get back into
regulation; to regulate the prices, the routes and that sort of
thing. I am pleased the government has not gone that route.
Attempts were made today to put in more regulation, but I am
pleased to see the government and parliament has stayed away from
that.
The best thing the government can do is encourage competition. I
listened to the minister with great interest about his hope that
Canadian air carriers will step in and be able to provide that
competition. I hope so too but airplanes do not come cheap. It
takes a lot of money to run an airline and, as in most things,
the capital available in Canada for this kind of investment is
limited.
I do not see what is wrong with opening the doors and allowing
foreign capital to come in to hold up or bolster Canadian
airlines. We have done it with other industries and they have
been successful. They have offered Canadians good high paying
jobs. On more than one occasion I have used the automobile
industry as an example. We have tens of thousands of Canadians
working in the automobile industry. They have good paying jobs
and good working conditions. They are working in Canada under
the Canada Labour Code labour relations but the companies are
foreign owned. The automobile industry is 100% foreign owned but
it provides a lifestyle for tens of thousands of workers that I
think is beneficial to our country.
I am not sure that if we can do it for one industry, whether it
is the automobile industry, forestry industry or whatever, that
it cannot happen in the airline industry where it is a highly
capitalized industry.
The government should be concerned about competition and should
not be afraid of opening it up. We can have a Canada only
airline that is fully owned by foreigners but which still
operates in Canada, hires Canadians in good paying jobs and with
security, operates under our regulations, buys our gas, pays our
taxes and contributes to our Canadian economy. Just because it
may not be owned by Canadians does not mean it will not benefit
our country. I am not afraid of opening the door to more foreign
competition.
The minister made comments about being concerned about the
travelling public, the consumer. I would have to say that
probably the number one concern of all the committee members was
about the Canadian consumer who uses air travel. Because of the
size and regional disparity of our country, many people have no
choice but to use Canadian air carriers. We were very concerned
about making sure that the service to Canadians would be there
and that it would be at a price they could afford not at prices
out of their reach. We were concerned that the airline, the
monopoly carrier, be held to its commitment that it had made to
consumers.
However, there are some shareholders of Canadian Airlines who do
not see the benefits. The minister was saying that the
shareholders of Air Canada have seen great increases in their
share prices and that they have benefited from it. The
shareholders of Canadian Airlines do not have the same benefit.
Basically their shares were taken up at nominal value. Yes, the
trade-off was that it it it went bankrupt the shares worth
nothing, but some of those shareholders are the employees of
Canadian Airlines. Those employees, who gave up 10% of their
salary for a number of years to help Canadian Airlines, have
taken a real hit in all this.
Part of our concern has to be that government has a role to play
in labour relations. We have two labour forces that have to
merge. There are some unhappy situations between those two
labour forces. I would suggest that maybe one of the legitimate
roles of government is to help those two labour forces
accommodate that merger.
1545
There are questions about seniority lists which are causing
great concern. Maybe the government should take a more active
role in trying to resolve some of those disparities between the
labour force of the old Canadian Airlines International and Air
Canada. I hear from both sides that they are expecting and need
some intervention. Perhaps government is the one to do it.
I think the government does have a role to play. With all due
respect, it has done the job fairly decently. There is still
room for it to move as far as the competition issue is concerned
and not be afraid of foreign competition or foreign investment
coming in. I for one feel that Canadians can rise to the occasion
and that Canadians will step up to the plate to make sure they
are in the game. If we really want full competition and
consumers to have choices, we need to encourage that competition
to happen.
I want to move on to the role of Air Canada, the now monopoly
airline company which is offering services to Canadian
travellers. I want to tell it that at second reading I agreed
with the government that Air Canada needed the transition time,
that it was reasonable to give it two years to make the
transition. I had assumed that Air Canada would be magnanimous in
the way it would deal with this issue. I thought Air Canada would
realize that it had a tremendous opportunity to be number 10 in
international carriers. I thought it would realize the potential
that was there and that it would be a little more gracious about
how it handled this transition period.
I am sorry to say that it seems to have chosen a different
route. It has chosen to take a hardball, hard-nosed attitude not
only toward the travelling public, but toward the system, toward
its competition, toward the creditors who had invested and lent
money to Canadian Airlines International, and in particular
toward its rivals, people who may be the competition, other air
carriers in Canada, which the minister is trusting to step up to
the plate and become the competition.
Air Canada with its huge monopoly, control and more important,
its influence, is sending a message that it does not want to
assume the responsibility in a gracious manner and that it is
going to play hardball. I am concerned with the way it is
treating the competition or people who thought they had a
relationship, agreement or understanding with Air Canada prior to
the signing of the document. I see that American Airlines may be
taking Air Canada to court because of the reneging on a deal it
thought it was code sharing.
Service contracts with Canada 3000 have been cancelled with 30
days notice. I am not saying it should be held to contracts
which are not profitable or realistic. I am saying that Air
Canada should have realized the position it is in, the
sensitivity of the airline industry right now. It should have
been a little less willing to go in with a heavy hand and should
have done some of the negotiating in a more sensitive manner. I
have not seen that.
We saw where Air Canada, taking advantage of a situation with
its size and ability to add capacity, went after WestJet, another
potential competitor that the minister is relying on to develop
competition against Air Canada. It was another instance where
Air Canada sent a very strong message in a very hard-nosed way
that it is not going to tolerate any kind of competition from
anyone. After having reduced its capacity on the Toronto-Moncton
route, it increased its capacity and lowered the fares to make it
impossible for WestJet to establish a market there.
I have concerns. I am sure there is a lot of testosterone in
the Air Canada boardroom going into overdose levels.
There have been some poor strategic and operational decisions.
This has been handled very poorly.
1550
Air Canada has not done a good job in communicating to the
travelling public what the expectations should be. It has not
told the travelling public that they can expect to wait in long
lines, that they can expect airplanes to be cancelled, luggage
lost and all the rest of it. Maybe it should not say to the
Canadian travelling public that it is not able to meet its
requirements and needs. At least it could have explained to
Canadians that it is going through a transition period and that
there is going to be a period of time when there will be
interruptions in services and inconveniences. It could have done
a better job in communicating with the people on whom it depends
to buy its tickets.
I appreciate the overcapacity issues. Both airlines were not
doing as well as they should have been because they were
competing nose to nose and were flying half empty planes. I
appreciate that. However, I have problems when the first thing
Air Canada did was reduce the overcapacity in western Canada by
removing aircraft and moving them east. It has sent a message to
western Canadians that in the total picture they are not as
important as the other people in the country. There may have
been a reason that some of it happened, but I have to ask how is
it that Air Canada did not feel that there was not a need for
some of the aircraft to be relocated in the western area?
I will use an example of a flight from Fort St. John to Prince
George which used to take half an hour. This is in northern
British Columbia. People who wanted to go to Prince George, a
larger centre with better hospital care and the whole bit, used
to fly from Fort St. John to Prince George. Now, in order to get
to Prince George from Fort St. John, they have to fly from Fort
St. John to Vancouver and then turn around and fly from Vancouver
back north to Prince George. It now takes six and a half hours
on one flight and four and a half hours on the other, when it
used to take half an hour. That is the kind of interruption and
inconvenience that is being placed on people because of the
transfer of the equipment from western Canada to eastern Canada.
The other concern people in the west have is because equipment
has been moved it prevents adding on routes or adding on more
frequency to destinations during the height of the tourist
season. A number of communities depend on convention travel and
large conventions. They are having trouble getting bookings now
because they cannot get the people who attend these conventions
from Vancouver to their location. Whole markets are dissipating
because of the change in the flight availability. It is having a
detrimental result. Even though it might make economic sense to
the air carrier, it has a negative effect on the western region.
I have trouble when I hear that everything is going well and
that it is only a matter of time. It will only go well if the
corporate entity of Air Canada assumes the responsibility that
has been placed with it and it takes on that responsibility in a
way that understands the need of Canadians to use air travel. It
is not that we want to, it is that we have to. The distances
between communities mean for the most part that we depend on air
travel.
The government feels that Bill C-26 is the answer. I do not
disagree that it is a good step in the right direction. The
government's response in giving more powers to the competition
commissioner to put in place cease and desist orders so that he
can immediately stop predatory behaviour before it has an effect
on the competition is a good thing.
It is a good thing the minister and his department in their
wisdom have recognized the need to have an ombudsman or in this
case a commissioner to deal with and investigate complaints from
the travelling public and make recommendations as to how they can
be resolved. Those are good things.
1555
The most important thing for the Canadian travelling public is
choice. If we are going to control prices and service and if we
are going to make sure that Air Canada assumes its corporate
responsibility, there has to be competition. We have to ensure
that Air Canada through its influence does not keep the
competition from developing within Canada. We must allow others
to come in with their capital and assist Canadian companies to
form competition.
The minister mentioned that British Airways will be the
competition internationally. That is only if British Airways
decides to stay in Canada. The domestic part of its ticket has
increased three times. It may be that British Airways and some
other international carriers who come to Canada cannot afford to
stay. This means that Air Canada not only would have control of
the total domestic market, it may be conceivable that unless
someone leaves Canada and in my case goes to Seattle, they may
not have a choice of using foreign carriers.
The real solution is competition. I would like to think that
the government will not stand in the way of looking at how we
provide competition if Canadian players are not stepping up to
the plate in the near future.
It is a fallacy to think that Americans are bad guys, that
Canada is a loser if we use foreign investment money. We do it
all the time. Companies do it all the time. They use money from
other sources in order to enhance their ability to grow and
provide services for people.
I would hope that the government will consider opening up the
contributions for foreign investors from 25% to 49%. If put at
the 49% level, the company is still considered to be controlled
by Canadians. When we have bilateral agreements with other
countries, it is important to have a Canada owned airline.
Forty-nine percent would ensure that it is a Canadian controlled
company and would meet the bilateral agreement requirements.
Not only would we have competition, but the competition would be
able to meet the occurring international growth. As the minister
explained, Air Canada will become the 10th largest international
carrier and I think that is great. Canadians will benefit by
having a strong international carrier, a strong Canadian airline.
I want to reinforce that the strong carrier should not be able to
influence those things that happen in the airline industry
outside of the company itself.
In discussions with various witnesses before the committee we
heard not only of the difficulties facing WestJet but also the
difficulties facing Canada 3000. The implication was that because
of Air Canada's volume of flights, because of the 80% to 90%
control of the market that Air Canada has and because of its
buying power, it has a lot of influence on those who provide
services to airlines. I am thinking specifically of airport
authorities. When the largest customer is putting pressure on
for the best and most of everything, it is pretty hard for the
entity to refuse.
If we really want competition, be it international or domestic,
good service from airports and good locations in airports must be
available to the competition. The dominant carrier should not
always get the best space.
1600
We heard from a number of potential airline competitors to Air
Canada that they are always relegated to the back corners of our
international airports. I think that is something that we may
have to look at; not to implement regulations, but to have the
understanding that the most important thing in our country is
ensuring that competition can come in and can grow.
I think this legislation is a good step. It will help Air
Canada through this transitional period by ensuring that it
understands what is expected of it. The bill will hold Air
Canada to the agreement it made with the competition
commissioner.
I am hoping that as time progresses—hopefully not too much
time—the government will understand that competition, no matter
where the money comes from, is healthy and that we should not be
afraid of foreign competition, whether it is from the United
States, Britain, Holland, Japan or wherever the money might come
from. If it can assist our airline industry to be vibrant and to
provide choice for consumers, that is the most important thing.
Canadians need to have choice. Canadians need to be able to
decide what airlines they want to take. The services from
Vancouver to Ottawa have been reduced. The number of direct
flights have been reduced. I do not have a choice. Only Air
Canada flies direct from Vancouver to Ottawa.
I think it is important that we have choice, that the Canadian
flying public have choice. I urge the government to consider
removing that barrier to increasing competition. Also, as I
mentioned earlier in my debate, the government may want to look
at assisting in the labour relations issues of the two companies
which are now before Air Canada. Perhaps that is a legitimate
role for government to play.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I could begin my speech by congratulating the members
of the Standing Committee on Transport for working many hours,
just before the Christmas holiday. They heard many witnesses.
I could begin by congratulating the public servants at the
Department of Transport for having worked hard on this bill.
I will not use that approach for the simple reason that we
parliamentarians just did our job. People elected us through a
democratic process. Personally, I was re-elected on June 2, 1997
to represent my constituents in parliament and to do the job of
a parliamentarian. Part of that job is to pass bills. These
bills must be reviewed in committee before finally being passed.
I do not want to boast about having worked hard. We just did our
job. Transport Canada's officials just did their job.
I will begin my presentation by having a kind thought for the
workers, for those in the airline industry who have been
suffering for over 18 months. I am thinking in particular of the
employees, pilots, flight attendants, ticket agents and
maintenance people at InterCanadian.
We are talking about more than 1,000 direct jobs.
Considering that governments, both federal and provincial ones,
try to attract industries and create jobs—and I say this very
objectively, because we want those whom we represent to have
worthwhile jobs—we should have a kind thought for these 1,000
workers, and the members of their families, who lost their jobs.
Over 600 of them were in Quebec and the rest in the maritime
provinces.
1605
My thoughts are with them and I am sorry that, with the
restructuring that is going on, their company has not been able
to stay in business.
I could also talk about the Air Montreal workers. This company
had to suspend its operations lately. They were to resume on May
15, but it seems that the suspension will be much longer.
My thoughts also go out to Canadian International Airlines
employees who have been under stress for years, worrying about
the financial survival of their company. They have invested
money in the company and they have accepted salary rollbacks to
invest in their company and save jobs.
My thoughts go out to Air Canada employees also, who had their
share of worries with the Onex takeover proposal. I remember
that last fall, when I boarded a plane in Quebec or Montreal,
they were wearing a stop Onex button. The situation was
stressful for everybody.
I am tempted to say that this bill was expected, and I would
add, without any hint of partisanship, that it is the reason why
all parties in the House agree to dispose of it quickly.
No party has tabled 930 or 430 motions in amendment this time,
although such things can be done in a democracy. Even if we want
to deal quickly with a bill, members of parliament have the
right to move amendments. Everybody could see that, in this
case, we were ready to move this bill swiftly through the House,
and that is what we have done.
The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the federal government since
1993 to stop subsidizing Canadian International Airlines at the
expense of Air Canada, Quebec and Montreal.
After the elections held on October 25, 1993, the then leader of
the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, asked me to be transport
critic for our party. I can remember some of the questions I put
to Doug Young, the Minister of Transport at the time and now the
newest member of the Canadian Alliance, who had a lobbying firm
in Toronto and was making big bucks thanks to contracts he got
from the Liberal government. I am sure business with the
Liberals is not as good since he switched over to the Canadian
Alliance.
In any case, Doug Young has not changed.
I knew him and I am very glad to be able to call him by his name
in this House because he got what he deserved. The people of
Acadie—Bathurst got rid of him. The people not only in his old
riding but throughout the country do not like anyone who is as
arrogant or, as we say back home, “baveux”, as Doug Young was.
He was both arrogant and insulting.
Just as arrogant was David Dingwall, who was also defeated. His
Nova Scotia constituents sent him packing and now he is doing
very well as a lobbyist in Ottawa.
I remember a question I put to Doug Young at the time, when I
was criticizing the Liberal government for its lack of fairness
in allocating international routes.
1610
I asked the minister why Air Canada, which has its head office
in Montreal, could not have access to the growing markets in
Hong Kong and Japan. He told us that Canadian was experiencing
financial difficulties and we had to help the company, which was
normal since a lot of jobs were at stake. That answer was
clearly aimed at winning votes. I said at the time and I will
say again that, in 1993 and around that time, this government
showed incompetence in allocating international routes and
discriminated against Air Canada.
That is the reason why the position of the Bloc Quebecois has
been clear since 1993. Seven years later, we are finally getting
what we were asking for.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, were saying that Canada should have a
flag bearing national carrier for international routes, just as
Great Britain has British Airways, France has Air France, Greece
has Olympic Airways, and I could name many more, except of
course for Japan and the United States.
We were in agreement with having a national carrier and real
competition on the Canadian domestic market, the trans-border
market and the regional market. Seven years later, the bill
before us is an answer to the position the Bloc Quebecois has
been advocating since 1993.
What we have been asking the federal government since 1993 was
to act to put an end to the duopoly that forced regional
travellers to pay extravagant prices for service that was
totally inadequate.
We demanded that the federal government be more open regarding
the implementation of the Official Languages Act in air
communications.
In August of last year, the federal government undertook to
change the rules of the game to allow Onex and American Airlines
to take over the two Canadian national carriers, without giving
any guarantee about competition.
Here, I have to be critical of my colleague, the Minister of
Transport. I recall very well that in August 1999, our party
asked that the Standing Committee on Transport be called in as
soon as possible, because of preoccupying allegations in the
press.
Earlier today, the Minister of Transport showed aggressiveness
in his comments about the media and editorials. The minister was
drawn and quartered by the media, especially the English
language media.
The French language media refrained from commenting. I read
those editorials and the minister was rather roundly criticised,
so I understand that he may have wanted to get even with the
anglophone media, in particular those of Toronto, especially as
he is the minister responsible for that area. He seized the
opportunity to get even with them.
Of course, it is no use to say “If the Minister had done this or
if he had done that”, but in the case of this bill which is
timely and the passing of which we do not want to delay, if the
minister had been more responsive, if he had not listened to the
government leader who refused, who played hide and seek with us,
who did not want to call the Standing Committee on Transport
because he knew that the House would be prorogued, that there
was going to be a new speech from the throne, in other words if
it had not been for all that hide and seek we were drawn into
all summer long, I believe that the situation might have been
solved much more rapidly. Who knows, InterCanadian might not
have ceased operations on November 28 last. This has to be
pointed out.
That is where I must criticize the lax attitude of the federal
government, especially the transport minister.
1615
I must also tell the minister we know of his ties with his good
friend Gerald Schwartz and Onex; the minister cannot deny that
Onex president Gerald Schwartz is a generous contributor to the
Liberal election fund.
I blame the minister for trying, in the middle of the summer
holidays, to pitch us a fast ball, as we would say back home. In
baseball terms, he tried to pitch a curve ball outside the home
plate, the empire called a strike for a third out in the ninth
inning. However, things did not go as planned.
The opposition was keeping a close watch. The four opposition
parties formed an ad hoc committee which met here, in the House
of Commons. We told the government “You do not want to convene
the transport committee, we will form our own committee”. We
heard witnesses with the co-operation of the four opposition
parties.
The government House leader called it a masquerade, backroom or
barroom discussions, but whatever it is called, it gives us an
inkling of how he perceives democracy.
Again, if the Minister of Transport had managed to convince the
government House leader to convene the committee as soon as
possible during the summer, perhaps we would not be here today,
on May 15, reviewing this important bill.
One of the points the Bloc Quebecois insisted on, and I believe
it is in the bill, but I want to confirm it, was the respect of
the 25% foreign ownership limit and the 10% limit on individual
share ownership in Air Canada. We indicated to the transport
minister that the increase of 10% to 15% of the limit on
individual share ownership in Air Canada did not represent a
major problem for our party.
In committee as well as through the amendments we put forward at
report stage, the parliamentary action of the Bloc members has
been to insist that a series of concrete provisions be included
in the bill to protect the regions and the small carriers.
Moreover, we were in agreement with the commitment made by Air
Canada on December 21 that no layoff would result from the
merger between Air Canada and Canadian International.
That is reflected in the bill. That is why we cannot criticize
it. We insisted that no regional route be abandoned by Air
Canada or its subsidiaries for the next three years.
This morning I talked about the consideration of bills. We are
members from various political parties, with different
interests, coming from different regions and, in my case, with a
different language and culture.
A bill is basically a tool of compromise. It is like the
collective agreement signed at the end of the collective
bargaining process, where labour and management have to
determine the working conditions for the next three, four or
five years. Ultimately, a compromise must be reached.
The compromise we have before us is not completely satisfactory
to me. Many things in life may not be completely satisfactory;
as much as I strive towards sainthood and would like to get
canonized as a saint at the end of my life on earth, I do not
always behave accordingly. When I take stock of my life, I will
say that it has not been fully and completely satisfactory.
1620
There is one aspect where I would like the government to show a
bit more open-mindedness, even if the minister has told this
House that more restrictive measures had been adopted, and it is
the enforcement of the Official Languages Act. I raise it again
because this is the last opportunity I will have to do so in
debate.
I would like the minister to know that the air transportation
workers intend to pursue the issue with the Senate. Do not
forget that Senator Joyal defended the air transportation
workers 25 years ago, and it is very likely they would testify
before the Committee.
I think that Air Canada could improve its record as far as the
use of the French language is concerned.
Once again, I call upon Air Canada president Milton. He is a
serious, reasonable person. He is not an adventurer. I believe
that he has displayed tact in the debate over the restructuring
and merging of Canadian International and Air Canada. He has
proven himself to be a good manager, and I would like to
congratulate him on that.
I would like him to put his foot down and make a much stronger
commitment to increasing the number of French-speaking employees
in all groups of employment at Air Canada. This company, as well
as others, is considered as a stronghold of Canadian unity.
We have seen Via Rail change its logo. Trains now have a great
big maple leaf on the front. There is also a maple leaf on the
tail of all Air Canada planes. This is to tell all Canadians
“This is your country.
Whether you speak French or English, wherever you live, this is
your country”. In principle that sounds fine and dandy, but I
would like to see it applied in real life.
Among the 1,258 pilots at Canadian Airlines, is it normal or
acceptable that, as of today, only 71 of them speak French? With
francophones representing 24.8% of the overall population in
Canada, is it normal or acceptable that only 17% of all Air
Canada employees speak French? Is it normal or acceptable that
only 15.8% of Air Canada pilots speak French?
Given all his power and business acumen, surely Mr. Milton can
summon the vice-president of human resources and tell him “Look,
with 24.8% of the population of Canada speaking French, since we
now are a dominant national carrier, the tenth biggest company
in the world, we must hire francophone workers”. By the way,
these French speaking employees are all bilingual. I do not
think there is one French speaking employee at Air Canada who is
not bilingual. We have to remember that we are talking about
bilingual francophones.
Such a commitment from Mr. Milton would give hope to young men
and women who are currently studying at the CEGEP in Chicoutimi.
Hon. members will probably wonder why I am suddenly talking
about the CEGEP in Chicoutimi. Let me point out that the CEGEP
in Chicoutimi is the only CEGEP to have a flying training
school.
1625
There are young people from every region in Quebec and even from
elsewhere who come to the Chicoutimi CEGEP flying training
school.
It costs $100,000 a year to train a pilot at the school. Is it
normal and acceptable, considering the strong demand on the
aviation market, that 22% of graduates from the Chicoutimi CEGEP
flying training school do not succeed in finding a job as a
pilot? There must be something wrong.
I do not want to start saying things because people will send me
letters, faxes or e-mails to tell me that I am crying murder and
expressing that mistreated francophone feeling again.
It has nothing to do with that. It is a matter of respect. If
people say to us francophones that they love us, as they
certainly will three days before the next referendum, “we love
you and we do not want to lose you”, like the theme of the
Centennial campaign in 1967 that said “Canada, stand together;
understand together”, then they should prove it.
I would like to add that I think Air Canada should make an
effort to hire InterCanadian pilots who were laid off.
The Minister of Transport is listening carefully so I would like
to ask him the following question: Does he know how many pilots
of InterCanadian have been hired by Air Canada recently? There
were many pilots. Of the 1,100 employees, I believe that there
were between 325 and 400 pilots. Only three InterCanadian pilots
were hired. Most of InterCanadian's pilots were francophones.
With a bit of good will, Air Canada could encourage the hiring
of InterCanadian's francophone pilots who are competent but
presently out of work.
In terms of the Official Languages Act I would like, before
concluding, to draw a comparison between the percentage of
francophone employees at VIA Rail and the percentage of
francophone employees at Canada Post.
VIA Rail is a transportation company that operates from Halifax
to Vancouver—it provides rail transportation while the other one
provides air transportation—and has to provide its service
through the different provinces.
Air Canada should know that the percentage of francophones at
VIA Rail is 39.3%. VIA Rail is a crown corporation. Of course,
the government has never heard us complaining that there were
too many francophones at VIA Rail. Their percentage is 39.9% and
at Canada Post it is 23.8%, which is equitable proportionally
speaking. When I say that francophones account for only 17% of
employees at Air Canada, it shows there is room for improvement.
Let us have a look at complaints under the Official Languages
Act. In 1998, there were three complaints against VIA Rail
compared to 98 against Canada Post. The same year, there were
251 complaints against Air Canada.
This shows that if the Official Languages Act were applied more
rigorously to Air Canada, this carrier might be forced to abide
by the act. There were three complaints against VIA Rail in 1998
compared to 251 against Air Canada. This is totally
unacceptable.
1630
Another aspect I would like to point out to the House is the
merger of seniority lists. The minister, and we, as
parliamentarians, may be powerless in this regard.
My colleague of the Canadian Alliance spoke about this earlier.
I think there should be a little more good will or good faith
among parties, and Air Canada management should show leadership
and say “Wait a minute. Is it normal and acceptable that a
Canadian Airlines International pilot with 22 years of
experience should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list
of Air Canada pilots?”
I would like to salute the determination of my friends, the
regional pilots, mainly those of Air Alliance, now Air Nova, who
believed for many years in the one employer theory. They thought
in good faith that they could be included at their seniority
rank on the list of Air Canada pilots.
Unfortunately, a decision was made, confirming the opposite. I
greatly sympathize with regional pilots, especially those of Air
Alliance and Air Nova, who thought it was legitimate for them to
think they would fly other planes than a Dash-8 or a Beechcraft
1900, and I do not intend here to discredit the reliability of
these aircraft.
I am not a pilot, but apparently, when you are a pilot, you
expect to start flying small bush airplanes, then bigger
aircraft and, perhaps, after 28, 30 or 32 years in your career,
a Boeing 767 or 747 or an Airbus 330.
It is perfectly legitimate for a young pilot to think about
flying a bigger plane one day.
There is no way we can force those who chose to continue flying
Beavers or Piper Aztecs to fly bigger planes, but I think that
regional pilots simply wanted respect and recognition.
I call once again on the goodwill of the management of Air
Canada to try to resolve this issue of the amalgamation of
seniority lists. I call on the management of Air Canada and Mr.
Milton to give serious thought to giving the new Bombardier
regional jets, 50-seaters, to the unified regional carrier that
will be born of the amalgamation of Air Ontario, Air British
Columbia and Air Nova. Mr. Randell said before the committee
that there would be a new amalgamated unit with a new name. I
would like Air Canada management to give serious thought to
allocating the RJs to Air Canada's regional pilots.
I realize that Bill C-26 will require Air Canada to provide
independent regional carriers with the same services it provides
its subsidiaries to enable them to serve the regions.
I also recognize, on behalf of my party, that this bill gives
new powers to the competition commissioner and the Canadian
Transport Agency to prevent Air Canada or any other carrier from
using anti-competitive practices or from imposing unfair prices.
This is provided in the law, but we must keep an eye on how the
dominant carrier will apply the law. We wanted an ombudsman, as
the minister said, and the government responded by providing a
complaints commissioner. Let us say that it is a borderline
situation.
I would like to respond to one thing the minister said earlier
in his speech. Perhaps this is the advantage of speaking after
someone else: I can criticize what he said, but he cannot
criticize what I say because there is no questions and comments
period.
1635
The minister said that an ombudsman was too bureaucratic and
complicated a structure. I am disappointed in the minister. He
went through all the problems of the armed forces when he was
the Minister of National Defence, and the government's response
to these numerous problems was to appoint André Marin as armed
forces ombudsman, the person to whom soldiers could take their
complaints. I have never heard members of the armed forces
complaining about the bureaucracy of the ombudsman. On the
contrary, he has a role to play.
If the minister had wished, he could have agreed to what all
members of the committee, except the Liberal majority, agreed—the
creation of an ombudsman.
Once again, I do not wish to criticize for the sake of
criticizing. I wish to be constructive. The minister has
responded by creating a complaints commissioner. This is very
interesting.
In passing, I wish to congratulate Air Canada on appointing an
ombudsman. Air Canada's management probably knew that the
committee was pushing for this. It is interesting to see that
our concerns as parliamentarians were noted by the dominant
carrier. Air Canada decided to appoint an ombudsman.
In conclusion, we will have to keep a close eye on how this
legislation is actually enforced, on a daily basis.
I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of
Bill C-26 at third reading, so that it can be passed quickly and
real competition made possible, so that small local and regional
carriers are protected as quickly as possible.
We realize that we must pass this bill as quickly as possible,
once again in order to protect the regions, regional users and
companies with regional operations.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is
inherent that at least someone takes the time to remind the House
and Canadians why we are in the position today of dealing with
legislation to address a monopoly air carrier in Canada. Quite
frankly we got here as a direct result of deregulation within the
air industry in Canada.
I agreed with numerous witnesses, as was done many times in the
past when deregulation came up, that it was not the answer. I
want to read a couple of statements made by some of those who
appeared before committee. This one is from the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities which stated:
When the air transportation system was deregulated in 1987,
Canadians expected the introduction of new and special service
operators to the marketplace, which would increase competition
and bring better and less expensive services...by 1993 the
industry was dominated by two major airlines competing for market
share on every major route. This cutthroat competition
undermined the financial stability of both airlines—
The Canadian Labour Congress stated:
The unregulated market has hurt Canada's two airlines without
delivering efficiency or higher quality service.
They are two very different groups with the same perspective.
All those great promises of deregulation just did not work.
Deregulation has been a public policy failure for consumers,
shareholders and workers. The consequences of deregulation have
been a crisis in 1992-93, in 1996, in 1999, and now in 2000. We
are still dealing with it. We are dealing with layoffs, job
insecurity. We saw poor working conditions, wage freezes and
cuts, chronic overcapacity in the domestic market and massive
cost increases. The overall cost of flying went up 76% since
1992. Gosh, we have to love that deregulation.
Ticket prices outpaced increases in the consumer price index
even with seat sales factored in, declining levels of services
particularly in small communities and poor investment returns for
both the airlines.
Competition at any cost without modern regulations was not the
answer.
1640
Deregulation was the root cause of the crisis in the airline
industry. The solution could have been effective modern
regulation, not overregulation and too many price controls, aimed
at protecting the public interest and ensuring that Canada's
airlines could coexist and compete effectively in the global
market. Modern regulations could have seen a flexible approach
and the use of government powers selectively to ensure that
airlines compete fairly and live up to the public trust.
Profitable high traffic routes such as Toronto, Montreal and
Ottawa will naturally attract competition among carriers. These
routes do not need government regulation to ensure adequate
service. The government needs to play the role of referee to
ensure fair competition and prevent damaging anti-competitive
behaviour such as the predatory pricing in excessive capacity.
On the other hand, low traffic routes between smaller
communities are not guaranteed to attract service. In these
cases effective regulations would have been essential because
reasonable and affordable service is a social and economic
necessity. The government has many tools at its disposal to
address this point. Will the bill accomplish that? I do not
think so.
Deregulation and unhealthy competition have led to the monopoly
situation. What do we do to make sure the monopoly air carrier
does not go crazy on us? What can we do? First, we need to
recognize that the bill can only work in areas where it does not
contravene the agreement made between Air Canada and the
competition commissioner and okayed by the transport minister. In
essence, it will not address all the difficulties and all the
problems that numerous people have talked about and brought
before committee.
The bill gives the force of law to Air Canada's commitment in
this agreement. However, everybody has acknowledged that Air
Canada has been acting irresponsibly and is worried sick over
what Air Canada will do. Were there any efforts by the
government or the official opposition party to put anything
concrete in the bill? Heavens no. We do not want to interfere
with the entrepreneurial spirit. We do not want to interfere
with the opportunity for Air Canada to make a buck.
Meanwhile the comments made by my colleague from the alliance
party shocked me. I think it is the first time she said it. I
listened to her talk about protecting workers, protecting small
communities and maintaining service, but she supported nothing in
the legislation that would have done those things. I actually
heard that colleague make a statement that will probably go down
in Canada's history. She said that we have to deal with more
than the economic issue. Quite frankly, I think she said it just
for the sake of saying it because she wants to put it in a
householder or a ten percenter that will head out west where they
will lose a pile of jobs and where Canadian regional employees
will not get the same benefits as other employees.
The bottom line is that Canada's airline industry is vital to
the economic and social well-being of hundreds of communities
across Canada. That reality goes beyond the concerns of airline
shareholders who focus mainly on the bottom line.
There certainly are some things in the bill with which I agree.
There is no question. There is no question that we need to have
legislation in place, especially in the situation with a monopoly
carrier.
I have one area of concern with regard to new carriers coming
into business. We extended the length of time that carriers
would have to give notice. We okayed it as a committee to go to
120 days. There was concern that it would hinder new entrants.
Nobody argued with the fact that we did not want to hinder new
entrants. The NDP does not want to hinder new entrants coming
in. We recognize that when we want to try out markets we need
some time. The additional changes that went into the legislation
now before us such as the 120 day extension to apply to new
carriers is an excellent move. It will give some opportunity for
competition.
1645
I was pleased to see something happen in the area of an
ombudsman; however, I am not thrilled with the fact that it is
termed a temporary complaints commissioner. For the benefit of
the minister, I have to admit that I am pleased the position will
fall under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
However, I wonder about the credibility of how that person will
be seen when it is termed a temporary complaints commissioner.
The complaints we were hearing were not minor little complaints;
people had serious concerns about the way they were being treated
within the airline industry in Canada. I do not consider them to
be temporary little complaints. Quite frankly, it would be great
if the complaints would end and we had a system that operated
smoothly. My guess is that we will probably just leave it all to
the monopoly carrier appointed ombudsman to look after all of the
little complaints and we will shuffle them off.
The bottom line is that it would be great if it were operating
so efficiently that the temporary airlines commissioner would not
be needed. That would be wonderful. However, I am not convinced
that the complaints will end, especially if the indication we
have as to how things will operate is what Mr. Milton has been
indicating.
My committee colleagues are great. To the benefit of them all,
the majority of them spent a lot of time on committee matters.
They listened to witnesses. They asked good questions of the
witnesses. Quite frankly, the comments I heard from my
colleagues were not the same as the bottom line that came down on
paper. There were concerns about the labour issues, the
ombudsman and price gouging. What was the final result? Let us
give it six months and see if we need to review it.
There was this horrible person we have been dealing with. Let
us face it, there is one thing we can credit Mr. Milton for. A
survey was done a number of years ago that asked Canadians who
they least trusted. Lawyers and politicians were at the top of
the list. The only one who is probably least trusted now is
Robert Milton, so we should give him credit for that at least.
Through all the discussion on the airline merger he made promises
that no workers would lose their jobs. I heard him promise
Canadian Airlines employees that everything would come together
and there would be a smooth transition. Everything would be done
for them. What we have listened to is nothing but problems with
Robert Milton.
What will we do with this legislation? We will hit him with a
wet noodle. That is all this legislation will do to Robert
Milton. If I am wrong, so be it. I hope I am. I hope and pray
that something in this legislation, between the CTA and the
Competition Bureau, will come together, but it does not appear
that way.
We were worried about price gouging. Everybody complained. We
heard of a situation on the Hamilton-Moncton route. It was just
horrible what he had done. My goodness, the legislation is not
even there yet. He does not even have the full rein and already
he is doing these things. Will nobody bother to put in place
something to stop him? We will wait six months and review it.
That is disappointing.
I honestly had hoped that my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona
would be around to hear this. Prior to question period we were
having a discussion on some of the amendments, one of which
concerned the 25% foreign ownership limit. We agreed that we did
not want to delay the bill. We were not necessarily happy as a
caucus allowing things to pass on division, but we accepted the
reasonableness. We did not want to delay the bill. We want to
get things moving.
My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona said that the Minister of
Transport really is committed to the 25% foreign ownership limit.
The minister stood here and said that absolutely we are not going
to increase it. Had my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona been
able just a short while after question period to listen to the
minister's comments, he would have heard him say that if we do
not get competition we will raise it.
It did not take all of two hours before it happened.
1650
I am not convinced that there is a real commitment not to raise
the foreign ownership regulation. Again, this would be one of
those times when I would be happy to say “This is great. It
worked. It is not going to happen”, but I am not totally
convinced.
It is important to note the things that are not in the
legislation. As I mentioned, the legislation deals only with
particular things and not necessarily everything that came up as
a concern. The committee heard the concerns of the labour force.
The legislation was not able to address any of the labour
related issues. The legislation does not deal with how to bring
the two working groups together. Again, we had thought that Mr.
Milton would be very magnanimous. Quite frankly, we know that is
not the case. I would hope that we would go beyond all the talk
in committee and make sure that something is put in place so that
we see the swift resolve of the labour issues. Otherwise we will
be dealing with an airline industry in constant crisis.
If the labour issue is related to seniority, which everyone
recognizes is the key issue to be dealt with, that is not being
dealt with. Even if agreements have been reached, the issue of
seniority has not been dealt with. It will be left to
negotiations a couple of years down the road. As far as I am
concerned, that does not address the problem, which is a result
of this legislation and a result of a monopoly. It is being
delayed for someone else. That is what is happening with that
issue.
I would hope that we could assure the employees of Canadian
Airlines and Air Canada, and any others who might be affected,
that if there are issues as a result of this merger they will be
given consideration and that there are persons within the
Canadian Industrial Relations Board designated to deal with this
swiftly so that it does not become a continuing crisis in the
airline industry.
There is nothing in the bill to address the very serious issue
related to this monopoly carrier and the merger; that is, the
issue related to employees. None of us wanted to see either
side, whether it be Canadian Airlines or Air Canada, lose out. I
would hope that no one on the committee saw one side or the other
as having enough, even though Air Canada ended up being the
owner. I would hope no one saw that. It certainly was not what
was indicated to us by Mr. Milton or any other parties involved.
There was an acceptance that these two companies would come
together and the workers would be protected on equal terms.
I do not think the bill gives protection to small and medium
size communities. There will be rules in place for a couple of
years, which could be extended, but I do not plan to leave my
small community in three years. I do not know how many other
Canadians do. There are a lot of Canadians who want to know that
they will have service for quite a long time. They want there to
be some obligation for a carrier which is given a monopoly route,
or other companies which have advantages to fly within Canada, to
provide services to those communities. The bill certainly falls
short of doing that.
The other area which is notably missing concerns a passengers
bill of rights. I recognize that falls outside the scope of the
bill and would probably be best dealt with another way, but I
want to make a point of mentioning it because it was an issue put
forward by witnesses at committee on numerous occasions. The key
players in our airline industry, the passengers, are the
forgotten ones. It is like the airlines are saying “We just
want your money. Go ahead and complain, but we do not
necessarily want you to have the right to some of these things”.
The key things which passengers had concerns about were flights
being cancelled without notice; people getting to the airport
only to find they were on a totally different plane; or getting
on the plane after waiting an hour, perhaps due to a delay, which
we can all accept happens due to mechanical reasons or the
weather.
Passengers can accept that, but they want to know as soon as
possible how long the delay will be and when they will be able to
get going. Often they want to know what the delay is for, for
their own comfort.
1655
How many times have members of the House boarded a plane after
waiting an hour or an hour and a half and no sooner does the
plane back away from the gate we are left waiting another hour on
the tarmac? We are hostages on the plane. We cannot go back.
That is a serious concern for passengers. Those are just some of
the issues that come up.
Even though it seems as if this should be something we could
deal with in the bill, I want Canadians to know that I recognize
it is outside the scope of the bill. We have had discussions
with the people who wrote the legislation. We have to look at
other ways of addressing those concerns and go at it from a
different angle.
We should have ensured that there would be protection for all
regions of Canada and that service would be provided. I am not
convinced that will happen. Again, this may play out one way or
the other in the end.
I felt that Air Canada having to divest itself of Canadian
Regional was not a good thing. I know that in a lot of those
smaller and medium size communities Canadian Regional was often
the other carrier, but Canadian Regional was often the only jet.
I am not convinced that any carrier buying in will be able to
continue service. I am greatly concerned that those communities
will have no jet service.
The Minister of Transport reflected on the fact that small and
medium size communities do not have the best choice of service.
He mentioned the Churchill area. I would hate to think that air
carriers in my riding are giving the perception that there is no
service.
I live in Thompson and I know that we have better opportunities
than some other areas. We are one of the larger centres in the
Churchill riding. The carriers that go into that area, Canadian
and Conair, as well as a lot of smaller carriers, have been
excellent. Those carriers are not making huge profits. I would
not want to risk that service simply because something cannot be
worked out with another carrier.
On that note I will end. Again, I am not convinced that the
bill will do the job.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill has
made a very thought provoking presentation. There is no doubt
that we could continue for a very lengthy period of time helping
her to have a better understanding of many of the issues she
presented.
For the clarification of the listening public, there are a lot
of problems that we have to deal with in this transition period.
We have a major airline dealing with over 2,000 flights per day.
Naturally, it will meet and have to deal with a great number of
problems.
The latest news is that there was a 30% jump in the number of
people travelling by air in the month of April. That kind of
sudden increase or surge in the number of passengers normally
happens in June, which is another problem that this new dominant
carrier has to deal with.
It is really puzzling. We have a representative in the House of
Commons who strongly believes in supporting the labour factor in
our country. The government, with its agencies, did everything
in its power and did the right things to save 16,000 jobs at one
of the major carriers, but not once has a word been mentioned
about the salvation of those jobs by the measures which this
government implemented.
1700
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is
any question that jobs were not supposed to be lost. Promises
were made that no jobs would be lost. Nobody would lose their
job for two years. Everything would be hunky dory. However, we
have not seen this all play out yet. If they do not lose their
jobs that is great.
I also want to point out that had there been some regulation in
the area of capacity some time ago, we would not have gone
through crisis after crisis in the airline industry. It happened
because we were afraid of the word regulation.
I will be the first to admit that nobody wants over-regulation.
We recognize that we have capacity regulations on international
routes. We have a very profitable international service. Why
would we not think that by having some regulation in the area of
capacity we would not have saved these jobs anyway? The hon.
member will have to forgive me for not thanking him for saving
the jobs that would probably have been lost as a direct result of
the deregulation that the government put in place.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I want to say that this has been ongoing now for some months. I
really feel fortunate to have been involved with this because it
has been an extremely interesting process.
We were thrown into the middle of this airline merger when
Canadian Airlines was presented a proposal to be bought out and
then merged with another airline. It was an interesting process
and we met some incredibly interesting people. We dealt with some
complex issues. As a committee we went into the process truly
amateurs with very little knowledge about the background of the
industry, the participants or the issues. However, we were
educated by dozens and dozens of people from corporations and
groups who made presentations to our committee. Every
presentation was beneficial and taught us something. By the
time the committee process was done we actually had a pretty good
handle on it. We were able to participate and add something to
the debate and to the legislation.
The dynamics of the committee were really interesting in that I
do not think I have ever been on a committee where, although
there was some partisanship, everybody took a sincere interest in
trying to find answers to the problems. The government committee
members were just as aggressive as anybody in grilling the
witnesses. The chair was certainly aggressive in his treatment
of the issue. He knew what he was talking about. He took the
time to understand it.
Although the member for Hamilton West is very humble and would
be embarrassed to hear me say this, he actually did a good job in
running the committee. I do not think we could call him a good
friend to anyone on the committee, but he ran the committee hard.
He kept it focused, on track and did a good job, which is what
the chairman is supposed to do.
I will take a little interpretive licence here. The minister
was caught off guard when this whole issue unfolded and evolved
before his very eyes. A lot of us were watching to see how he
would handle it and to see if he could find a way out of the mess
that really was not of his doing. He had limited tools to work
with because there are only certain things the government, a
minister or the department can do. If the companies at the
centre of this issue were not prepared to invest money or make
these decisions, and if the shareholders would not back up the
decisions, then the minister was limited in what he could do. It
was interesting to watch those dynamics.
It was interesting to meet Kevin Benson, Robert Milton and even
Gerry Schwartz who came before the committee. They all did a
great job considering that their job was to represent their
shareholders. Their job was not to represent the public
interest. That was our job. I learned a lot from each and every
one of them. I will never forget the experience as we went
through this process.
We had a puzzle to deal with, at least I found it to be a
puzzle.
Where does the Canadian Transportation Agency fit? Where does
the Transportation Safety Board fit? Where does the Department
of Transport fit? Where does the Competition Bureau fit? We
had to learn about all these issues and try to fit each one into
a slot where they could be effective and produce the desired
results. Of course, there were surprises because every day
something would change. It was almost like the politics in our
party, it changes every day.
1705
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Always for the better.
Mr. Bill Casey: Absolutely always for the better. There
is still ongoing changes. There are some fundamentally profound
changes even as we speak.
If I remember correctly, just a short time ago both Air Canada
and the minister were opposed to the idea of an ombudsman. Now
the minister has come back with a very strong ombudsman, a
complaints commissioner, which, in my interpretation of it, has
teeth. Last week Air Canada announced it was going to have an
ombudsman. Two weeks ago it wrote me saying that it was not in
favour of that. We can see how this whole process is still
changing as we speak and will continue to change as problems
develop and challenges arise.
There is no question that we are in a transition period which
has caused a lot of problems for consumers and for all of us when
we travel. I understand that we are in a transition. I know
that the Air Canada and Canadian Airlines merger is faced with
problems. I can only imagine the problems Air Canada has to deal
with in trying to reorganize and reschedule 2,000 flights a day,
negotiate contracts with its unions, negotiate the sale of the
Canadian regionals, arrange for all new schedules and accommodate
the communities and politicians.
There is no question that Air Canada has underestimated the
impact this would have on consumers. I think it is getting that
message very clearly, as evidenced by the announcement late last
week that it was going to establish an ombudsman in addition to
the Canadian Transportation Agency complaints commissioner.
We have all seen and heard about the overbooking, the delays in
scheduling, the line-ups and all that sort of thing. We have all
experienced them ourselves. I am hopeful that these are
transition issues that will soon be resolved. I believe Air
Canada has the will to resolve them.
Our job, the minister's job and the department's job, was to
come up with legislation to manage this merger even though we
could not really tell the shareholders of Air Canada or Canadian
Airlines what they had to do. We could not tell them to invest
money here. We could not tell them to do certain things, nor
could the Department of Transport.
I believe this bill is the best reflection of what we can do. We
have all had a crack at making amendments in order to improve or
change it. It is not exactly what I wanted but overall it is not
a bad compromise. I think we have all had a chance to influence
it. Even then, it has to remain flexible because of the ongoing
changes and the fact that it is a work in progress that will
continue to change.
The Conservative Party's view is that the government's role
should be to create an atmosphere that will encourage competition
and encourage the incredible entrepreneurial instinct that we saw
at committee from so many people who were anxious to get into
aviation business and expand it. If there was one thing that
surprised me, it was the number of small aviation companies in
Canada that wanted to become big ones. Our job was to create an
atmosphere where they could develop and grow and not be squashed
by the dominant carrier before they even had chance to start. I
think we have done that. We have given the appropriate agencies
the power to protect those new companies and the existing
companies in expanding into new routes and regions.
At the same time as encouraging competition and the
entrepreneurs in the industry, we also had to protect consumers.
Consumers have no protection if they have no place to go. If the
line-up is too long and the dominant carrier does not want to do
anything about it, too bad. If there is overbooking and the
dominant carrier does not want to do anything about it, too bad.
We cannot go to plan B or another airline until some of those
smaller airlines are big enough to really present themselves as
competitors. So, we have this legislation.
I believe the job of the government—and the committee saw it as
a responsibility—is to create protection for consumers. We have
done that. A dominant carrier left unleashed could do a lot of
damage to consumers, competitors and regional airports if it
wanted to.
Without the legislation that we have before us today, a lot of
the things we have come to take for granted in the aviation
industry would be trampled and disappear very quickly.
1710
Even the travel agents who made presentations to our committee
made a good case in pointing out how powerful the dominant
carrier is. They sell something like 80% of the tickets. If
there is only one airline, that airline could determine how it
will treat the independent travel agents. We have addressed that
in the bill and it is a good way to address it. Their problems
and concerns have been met and they will find themselves in a
good position to deal with many of their issues. They have to do
it but we have given them the infrastructure and the tools to get
there.
One concern I had, coming from the Atlantic region, was the
future of small regional airports. We have a convergence of two
government policies. One is the divestiture process and the
other is the merger process of the airlines. They have come
together to create some problems for small airports.
Some of the smaller regional airports have an extremely hard
time making ends meet simply because they do not have access to
alternative revenues. The major airports with hundreds of
thousands or millions of passengers travelling through the
airports every year can have all kinds of alternative sources for
revenue, such as liquor stores, lobster shops, rent-a-cars, you
name it. They can have an entire business community and shopping
mall with a captive market. The small airports with 200,000
passengers or less do not have the traffic to sustain those shops
and businesses that would generate alternative revenue.
Regional airports are already having a hard time making ends
meet. What will happen when we merge the airlines and the number
of flights are reduced? The smaller airports depend entirely on
landing fees and terminal fees for their revenue. They were
having a hard time even with revenues from two airlines. When the
two airlines merged, the number of flights in some airports were
reduced dramatically and their revenue was reduced dramatically.
We have the divestiture process, where the airports were turned
over to the communities, and we have the merger process which has
made their situation even more difficult. I believe the
Department of Transport and the minister at committee
acknowledged that smaller airports were having a hard time making
ends meet and that this problem would have to be revisited.
Our challenge was to arrive at a balance between regulation or
re-regulation and private enterprise and protecting consumers. I
think we have done that with a minimum of re-regulation and a
maximum of flexibility in the system.
The Canadian Transportation Agency, the minister and the
department have put some flexibility into the situation so that
we can address the work in progress as it unfolds and as we get
more surprises, which we will continue to get. I believe we have
the right balance and I am well pleased with it.
As new issues come up, these departments have to be able to
address them. By locking them in too tightly and not knowing
what the future holds would be a mistake at this time because we
are all still learning and it is an evolving situation.
I am also quite excited about competition. From my view I see a
lot of exciting competition in the business. I do not think Air
Canada will have a cakewalk. I think it will face competition
faster than it thinks, faster from the chartered airlines, the
WestJets, the CanJets that will be starting up and the smaller
airlines that are already in the planning stages. There may be
start-ups that we do not even know about it yet.
I believe there will be competition, especially on the main
lines. The challenge will be on the regional routes and the
feeder routes. Even on those, I believe competition will filter
down and Air Canada will have more competition than it has
bargained for. Eventually I do not think it will have the
monopoly that it thought it would have or that some of us thought
in the beginning it would have.
I sense a tremendous entrepreneurial spirit out there that is
anxious to get into the business, to take a crack at this and to
provide service to the regions and the main lines. This looks
very promising to me.
1715
One of the controls the dominant carrier will have is access,
access to airports, access to slots, access to counters and
things like that. That had to be addressed because it is
definitely a problem which already has raised its ugly head since
the airline merger. Some new airlines have been stalled, delayed
or redirected because the dominant carrier perhaps used more
powers than it should have. We have put protection for that into
the legislation. We have also put into the legislation new powers
for the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Transportation
Agency. All of these issues can be dealt with on an ongoing
basis.
Recently Air Canada lowered its rates; as soon as WestJet
started flying from Moncton to Hamilton, Air Canada reduced its
rates from Moncton to Toronto. Right away the process was put in
place to object to that. Hopefully that will be resolved in a
satisfactory way for everybody. We could not outline every
single possible permutation and combination in the initial
legislation. The flexibility is there to adapt as things change.
We have come up with many avenues for consumers to file
complaints. I do not recall the exact number but the Canadian
Transportation Agency had something like 70 or 80 complaints last
year. My office has received 70 or 80 complaints in the last
month, so there is something wrong with the access people have to
complain about airline service.
If the minister's complaint commissioner under the CTA is well
publicized and if people are made aware of the process, that will
be the answer. People need access to a complaint system and a
conflict resolution system and that will be the complaints
commissioner.
Also Air Canada has committed to establishing an ombudsman and
working with members and the public to make sure it deals with
the complaints as fast as it can. In my experience, when there is
a complaint at the senior level at least, it is dealt with and
the problem is solved in a sincere manner. However, when there
is a 1-800 line with 10 recordings and people have to push two
for this and four for that, they get so frustrated they do not
file a complaint. I am confident that will be resolved and people
will have a way to make sure their complaints are filed.
Consumers have the CTA. The transport department will deal with
certain issues. There is the complaints commissioner, the Air
Canada ombudsman and the Competition Bureau. Among those avenues
surely consumer complaints will be dealt with in a timely
fashion. If not, we can bring this back to committee and take
another crack at it. I do believe consumers now will have the
tools they need to work with.
As far as ownership rules go, I agree with the legislation. In
the former legislation the maximum amount of Air Canada that
could be held was 10%. The committee recommended 20%. I
recommended 15% and the minister went with my recommendation, for
which I am honoured and flattered. He did go with 15% which is a
good compromise and a balance that satisfies most everybody.
The foreign ownership limit is to remain at 25%. Again,
flexibility is built into the system. If things change and
evolve and if change is necessary, there is flexibility for the
minister and the government to change the 25% maximum foreign
ownership. That is appropriate. It should not be locked in at
any amount. The flexibility should be there and as things
change, it can be addressed.
In all, the Conservative Party will be supporting the bill. We
are grateful for the opportunity to participate in it actually.
It has been a very interesting experience for me. I very much
appreciate the opportunities I have had to meet the people
involved and hear the problems and issues.
I believe we have come up with a balance for consumer protection
and incentives for competition to provide the entrepreneurial
instinct with lots of nourishment. Certainly things will
continue to evolve and we will continue to have to adapt but all
in all, it is a fair resolution considering we do not have all
the tools. The minister and the department probably do not have
all the tools they would like to have to control this.
The bill provides a guideline for the companies involved to
follow.
It also provides penalties if they do not follow the rules. It
provides lots of rules which the airline industry has to follow
to protect consumers.
1720
I appreciated being at the committee on this issue. It was
extremely interesting, very industrious, serious and focused. We
will be voting in favour of this bill as it stands.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the member and members of the committee seemed to
put a lot of confidence in the airline ombudsman who will deal
with the difficulties and questions that arise as a result of the
consolidation that has taken place in the airline industry in
Canada.
A while back the official opposition tried to institute another
ombudsman, the first nations ombudsman, to try to bring some
accountability to first nations undertakings. The House deemed
that such an officer would not really be effective or necessary
in relation to aboriginal affairs.
I note that the office of ombudsman for the airlines was not a
creation of the airline executives or I am sure we never would
have had it. Yet the minister of Indian affairs seems to think it
has to be the chiefs who create an office of ombudsman if ever
there were to be such a thing with Indian affairs. It occurred
to me that there was quite a bit of hypocrisy evident in such a
position.
Moving on, I would like my hon. colleague's comments on another
aspect of competition. It concerns not prices, not frequency or
anything like that but that little word innovation which often
comes to light when people are in competition with one another.
In other words, how can we attract customers? How can we best
serve customers? How can we make things happen?
One of the things I was interested in as a business traveller
was that Canadian Airlines made provision for computer plug-ins.
It seems a small thing but when we are on a long flight and we
want to do some work we end up doing work somewhere between
Toronto and Winnipeg. That is not necessarily the full extent of
a lot of our trips. That is just one small example of
innovation.
Despite the Competition Act, I wonder what my hon. colleague
thinks is now going to drive innovation. We know that business
class subsidizes seat sales and will continue to do so, but how
is that going to work with respect to innovation in airline
travel? Will we see many changes in the future or are we going
to be stuck with what we have?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
intervention. There are going to be two ombudsmen. One is the
Canadian Transportation Agency's complaints commissioner. That
is a unique position because he has the power to demand
documents, demand testimony and hear witnesses. It is almost a
quasi-judicial body. He has the power to get the information
which is probably more than most ombudsmen have. He also has the
power to make his reports public. He will report to parliament
through the minister and he also has the ability to go public.
In this case the airlines are consumer driven companies. Bad PR
from an ombudsman is not something they will want to get. If the
ombudsman is successful and effective and he makes a report in
the media that an airline is not doing something right, I am of
the opinion the airline will act very fast to correct it.
Air Canada announced last week that it is going to establish its
own ombudsman. I believe it is going to try to intervene even
before consumers get to the official government complaints
commissioner. It is going to try to get the complaints first so
it can deal with them. I am confident that one or other of those
programs is going to work.
1725
I believe we are going to see more innovation than ever. The
best example is WestJet, one of the newcomers to the industry.
WestJet has an innovative pay plan. It has innovative policies
as far as its employees are concerned. It has a uniform airplane
plan which is simple but really works. This makes WestJet one of
the most profitable airlines in North America based on its
capacity.
Instead of having two giant airlines that are struggling, we are
going to have many smaller airlines doing exactly what the member
is asking about. They will be using their entrepreneurial
instincts to innovate, to come up with new ideas and ways to get
a market share from the dominant carrier. We are going to see a
lot more innovation than we ever did before. I am optimistic that
the small companies and entrepreneurs are going to come alive
under this umbrella.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester spoke very eloquently to
the legislation, almost to the point that I did not know whether
he was sitting on this side of the House or the other side. He is
taking a lot of credit from the committee's perspective and I
really appreciate that. I not only appreciate it but I have a
lot of good things to say about the competency of my colleague
and I will follow his lead on this issue.
I have one question on something which was not touched on during
his speech but may well have been touched on at committee. I am
talking about cabotage. The minister talked about it. There is a
possibility that cabotage may well drive the necessary
competition to ensure that airlines treat their customers
properly and fairly with respect to airfares and service.
Could my colleague tell me if cabotage was discussed? That
would be reciprocal cabotage, not only cabotage within Canada
with American airlines but reciprocal cabotage with Canadian
airlines being able to service multiple points in the United
States. Was that ever discussed? Was it ever an option? It is
obviously not in the legislation. Could it be put in the
legislation at a future date if the ombudsman as well as other
areas of control do not work?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I often wonder what side
of the House I am sitting on too, because last week the media had
me over on that side for about three or four days and then they
had me over here for a few days. Now I am back over there for a
day or two but I am not going anywhere because I like it right
here.
The member's question about cabotage is a good one. Cabotage is
a control a government has to prevent other airlines from
operating in its country. It is a common regulation. Countries
do not allow airlines from other countries to operate in their
countries. It is a kind of tariff. I would not support Canada
lowering its tariffs on our airline industry without other
countries reciprocating and allowing us access to their markets
as well. I would not support lowering tariffs for Americans to
ship products into Canada if we could not ship exactly the same
product into the U.S. My point is that I do not think we should
allow cabotage unless it is reciprocal.
We should not do that yet because from what I have seen, I
believe there is a tremendous entrepreneurial instinct and effort
in Canada in the aviation industry. It is extremely exhilarating
and exciting when I listen to the new aviation companies that are
on the frontier of the whole industry. They are exciting and
aggressive people who are anxious to compete.
Let us see how good Canadians do before we start talking about
cabotage. I would not consider cabotage unless it was
reciprocal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to point out today the effort that has been made by a
number of critics, in particular our member for
Cumberland—Colchester. He has proven that he does his homework
on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of our party. He is
the best transport critic on the hill.
I would also like to point out that the Minister of Transport
has been here all day listening to the debate. That is a
testament of how all ministers should treat bills when they are
brought forth in the House.
1730
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I will comment on the job
that I do. I enjoy my job. I hope to keep it for a little while
longer. This has been a very interesting process. The
committee was excellent and it was a learning curve for all of
us. I appreciated the chance to participate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain on debate.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I understand there have been consultations among
the parties for one speaker per party. Therefore it would take
consent to open the debate. I know there is another bill to be
called this afternoon and therefore I would ask that we put the
question on third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair is not
aware of any understanding to that effect. I feel that I have no
choice but to recognize a member who wants to speak to the
particular bill.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I was not too well
informed in that regard. If indeed that is the case, I will not
submit to speak.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I regret that
the Chair was not informed of this arrangement between the
parties. I have no problem hearing my friend from the other side
in the Reform Party, but then other members may wish to speak and
that will upset the apple cart, so to speak, at this late stage.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have to give the
hon. minister the same answer. Nothing about an agreement to
that effect has been discussed in the House today. Therefore the
only thing I can do is to recognize the hon. member.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Perhaps we could ask for unanimous consent of the House
to deem third reading complete at this point. If there was an
understanding to that effect, the House does have the capacity to
control its own destiny on that point. I would ask you, Madam
Speaker, to ask the House for its unanimous consent for third
reading to be completed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): My answer has to be
the same at this point. I have to recognize any member who wants
to speak to the particular bill.
Mr. Stan Dromisky: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same
point of order. I was the one who went around to all
transportation critics and we did come up with the understanding
that there would be one member from each party represented in the
House speaking to the bill today.
I apologize if the message did not get to you, Madam Speaker, in
particular. I thought that message would be passed on.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I will
ask the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain if he still wants
to speak or if he would be in agreement to proceed.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wish to agree with the hon. gentleman. I was not aware
that we were clear cut in this regard. I had a five minute point
that I wanted to make. However, if it is the wish of the House,
that does not bother me at all and I will agree not to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is the choice of
the hon. member not to speak at this point. Therefore, is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1735
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to
speak to Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada.
I must say that when I first heard that legislation dealing with
species at risk was to be tabled in the House, I thought that it
was a particular bill aimed at protecting hon. members on the
government side. With the creation of the new Canadian Alliance,
the real species at risk in this place will be Liberal members of
the House. Of course I was later told that it was actually to
protect species at risk concerning wildlife, so I was happy to
modify my speech slightly to be able to deal with that.
The Canadian Alliance knows that all Canadians care about
protecting species at risk and indeed about protecting and
preserving the environment as a whole. A majority of Canadians
agree that the fragile balance of our ecosystems must be
protected and preserved.
Today I want to talk about the path to protecting species at
risk. In doing so I should like to focus my discussion on what
caring for species at risk should look like, because there are
different views held by many Canadians on how this can best be
achieved.
In my remarks today I will address the deficiencies which the
Canadian Alliance sees within the government's approach in Bill
C-33, as well as some of the measures we support. In doing so I
will highlight the credibility gap from which the Liberals suffer
on protecting species at risk. I will also outline some of the
Canadian Alliance solutions for protecting species at risk and
demonstrate how our plan to protect species at risk is balanced
and accommodating, as well as practical and workable.
The purposes of Bill C-33 are the following: to prevent species
indigenous to Canada from becoming exterminated or extinct, to
provide for the recovery of endangered species, and to encourage
the management of other species from becoming extinct. These are
noble and worthwhile objectives, but they are ones which the
Canadian Alliance supports just as most Canadians do.
I have already mentioned how much Canadians care about
protecting species at risk. Recent polling confirms this point.
However we know that simply caring is not enough. We know this
from other life experiences as well. Let us consider how loving
parents show their care and love for a sick child. There is no
substitute for proper medical care. In a similar way, simply
loving our unspoiled wilderness and indigenous species is no
substitute for a workable plan to ensure the preservation of the
environment.
I believe it is important to emphasize from the outset that on
the issue of protecting species at risk there is a number of very
concerned and caring stakeholders who, although they may come
from very different perspectives, are equally concerned for the
environment.
This issue should not be about which individuals or groups care
more about protecting and preserving species and their habitats.
Rather, it should be about how various stakeholders, landowners,
conservation groups, governments, and the public at large can
work together to express their care for species at risk through
co-operative efforts in a way that will allow for species and
their habitats to truly be protected.
What is the role of government? It is to build bridges rather
than walls between stakeholders.
1740
The role of government in protecting species at risk is a very
important one. I must say that I believe the role of government
fundamentally is to empower stakeholders to work together.
Within the next few minutes I will discuss how I believe this can
happen.
However, first let me say what I believe the role of government
is not. It is not to wield power over stakeholders. Government
is only one of many stakeholders and we must not lose sight of
this fact throughout the debate. The House would do well to
recognize that the vast amount of resources, knowledge, energy
and will to protect species at risk actually lies outside the
government within and among stakeholders, landowners, scientists,
conservationists and the public. Regrettably, I believe that the
government and the minister have seriously confused what their
real role should be in creating a workable plan to protect
species at risk.
The government has not yet realized that its real role is to
build bridges between stakeholders, not walls. This is the real
task of government on the issue of species at risk, one which the
government has left undone. In the species at risk act the
Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that will do more
to polarize and divide stakeholders rather than to bring them
together. In the next few minutes I will expand on a number of
problematic areas the Canadian Alliance sees with the species at
risk act and what our solutions to these problems are.
First I should like to turn the attention of members to the most
critical element that must appear within any workable species at
risk legislation which the government has virtually ignored. What
should our caring for species at risk look like? Why is respect
for property rights central to this legislation?
I affirm that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting
and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered
species and to sustainable development of our abundant natural
resources for the use of current and future generations.
Furthermore, we maintain that for any endangered species
legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental
rights of private property owners.
We believe that any action plan to protect species at risk must
be based on respect for the species who inhabit our waters and
lands and respect for those who own those waters and lands. I
will return to this point in a moment when I highlight the major
flaws within the legislation.
The problem of enabling legislation to protect species at risk
is that in recent days we have been hearing common complaints on
a number of bills about a disturbing trend in the way the
government is enacting legislation. I am referring to the kinds
of enabling legislation the government has become known for
introducing. It is the kind of legislation that allows for
regulations to be developed after legislation has been passed.
The problem is that these regulations are never scrutinized by
members of parliament or by committees. Instead, it is a way for
the government to slip an agenda through the back door. This
kind of approach to legislation is a disgrace to democracy
because issues that ought to be dealt with and which could be
improved are never properly dealt with. Yet this is exactly the
approach which has been taken within the legislation.
The framework for recovery and action plans are outlined along
with the broad and sweeping powers the federal government will
have to protect endangered species or habitat throughout
subsequent order in council regulations. The real nuts and bolts
will appear only after the legislation has been passed.
Subsection 1(4) reads:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister...make regulations defining any term or expression for
the purpose of this Act or the regulations—
How is the House to know what we are passing when the government
essentially has a blank slate upon which to write in whatever it
wants after the fact?
A second issue is that of compensation. The implications of
this style of legislation and governance are becoming
increasingly more troublesome, particularly in dealing with such
fundamental issues as property rights to which I alluded a few
moments ago.
1745
It is painfully obvious that the government has missed this
point altogether. How is this obvious? This government has
devoted only minor sections of the entire bill to issues of
utmost importance to landowners, namely, compensation for land
expropriated for the purpose of species or habitat protection or
recovery and voluntary stewardship initiatives.
The minister has offered no clear formula for compensation
within this bill. Compensation, like the majority of other
important issues in the bill, will be dealt with through order in
council regulations following its passage, as I just mentioned.
The minister has tried to pretend that he is dealing with the
issue by appointing a distinguished resource economics expert to
provide advice regarding compensation for affected landowners.
Still the minister refuses to recognize the centrality of this
one issue to the success of any species at risk legislation. The
minister fails to see that compensation for expropriated land, if
not at fair market value, is simply not fair.
If the minister would only set out the above principle within
the legislation, the appointment of this resource economist would
probably be largely unnecessary. Furthermore, if the government
would commit to a fair market value principle this legislation
would most likely enjoy the support of a majority of landowners.
Instead, by stubbornly ignoring the rights of property owners,
the minister has isolated an entire group of stakeholders.
On this point it was interesting to hear the minister's view on
the issue the other day when the parliamentary secretary spoke to
the bill. She stated:
Where the federal safety net is used to protect critical habitat
on private land there will be provisions to compensate for
unexpected losses caused by unforeseen restrictions on the normal
use of that land. The compensation provisions, however, will not
create perverse incentives to inhibit voluntary habitat
protection measures in hopes of receiving future compensation.
What kind of government would make this kind of outrageous
statement? What is so perverse is that a government would show
this much disdain for the property rights of Canadians; that a
government would show this much disrespect for landowners, who
are already committed as stewards of their lands and whose
families have in many cases been stewards of the lands for
decades and even centuries, in many cases before the birth of
Canada or the provinces.
Landowners have no intention of lining up at the cash register,
as the minister said so arrogantly a few months ago. Does the
minister really think that is what landowners want? On the
contrary, landowners want nothing more than to continue to own,
use and care for their lands. It is this government that is
creating perverse disincentives for landowners.
The message the minister is sending by not providing a fair
market value guarantee is that landowners cannot be sure they can
trust a minister or a government which refuses to guarantee that
their fundamental property rights will be respected.
The minister has this backward. Co-operation among stakeholders
is unlikely unless landowners are assured that any land
expropriated for species or habitat protection or recovery will
be expropriated at fair market value.
We also see that this legislation is virtually silent on the
issue of stewardship initiatives. Bear in mind, this is from a
minister who is very fond of talking of stewardship, agreements
and partnerships in the press conferences he holds. Again, the
parliamentary secretary said in the House:
For this legislation to be effective all affected stakeholders
must be engaged. Reality and experience dictate that to get the
job done we need landowners, conservation groups and other levels
of government working together.
We completely agree.
The question is, how will the government achieve this? The
government is certainly not telling us how in this legislation.
What is its approach? This is a government that talks about
stewardship and voluntary incentives at the same time as it talks
about forcefully taking control of lands. In doing this the
Liberals are sending a clear message that they do not
fundamentally believe in the goodwill of Canadians. There is
nothing in Bill C-33 that builds on voluntary stewardship
initiatives.
1750
This brings me to my fourth point. While the species at risk
act is heavy on punitive measures, search and confiscation,
through the establishment of enforcement officers along with
threats of fines and imprisonment, it is light on doing anything
to promote meaningful voluntary stewardship initiatives, which
have so far been very successful. The majority of producers and
landowners believe that the government could achieve more through
co-operation with farmers and ranchers than through threats of
punishment.
I now turn to an area within this legislation which has become
the subject of considerable controversy. I am referring to the
role of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, COSEWIC. The bill also provides for the establishment of
the Canadian endangered species conservation council, which is to
be comprised of the ministers of the Environment, Fisheries and
Oceans and Canadian Heritage, together with their provincial and
territorial counterparts. The primary role of COSEWIC is to
provide general direction on the activities of the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
The Canadian Alliance believes that the general functions of
COSEWIC in its relationship to parliament are sound and should be
supported. COSEWIC will function as an independent, arm's length
scientific body, will develop reviews and annual assessments on
the status of wildlife species and will report and provide advice
to the minister and the Canadian endangered species conservation
council. While COSEWIC will provide guidance to parliament with
respect to determining species protection priorities, it is
impractical to suggest that COSEWIC should have the final say in
the funding of those priorities.
There are those who would suggest that this view is inconsistent
with the position of policy based on sound science. However,
since COSEWIC has no real taxation powers, it therefore has no
real tax revenue or spending authority. I want to make it clear
that the Canadian Alliance supports an independent scientific
listing body such as COSEWIC to provide guidance to parliament to
determine priorities for protecting specifies at risk. At the
same time we recognize the role of parliament as a spending
authority in recovery planning.
I would like to return for a moment to the concept of
stewardship initiatives to protect species at risk. I have
already mentioned that in its current form Bill C-33 is heavy on
punitive measures, yet very light on doing anything to promote
meaningful voluntary stewardship initiatives, which have so far
been very successful. It is a sad fact that punitive and
aggressive environmental laws have often replaced the commitment
to co-operation with feelings of antagonism and mistrust among
stakeholder groups.
There is no better example of this failed approach to
environmental protection than in the area of species and habitat
protection legislation. The United Stated Endangered Species
Act, 1973, for instance, destroyed the essential relationship
between private landowners and conservation groups. When the
freedom to manage their property was subsequently taken from them
once the conservation objectives had been achieved, no longer
were farmers and ranchers prepared to nurture the survival of
species at risk.
I have said this before, but I must emphasize this point. As a
result of that legislation conservationists lost a valuable
working relationship with private landowners. Landowners often
lost their property and their livelihoods and species at risk
lost the partners they relied up to survive. I believe it is
important that Canada learn from this unfortunate U.S.
experience.
1755
The U.S. endangered species act also places a disproportionate
share of the financial burden of habitat protection on private
landowners and has caused these landowners to lose substantial
portions of economic use of their land. In the face of such
disincentives, U.S. landowners have begun to take measures to
ensure their land is unencumbered by endangered or threatened
species.
In order for any Canadian species at risk act to be effective,
we must recognize that if protection of species and habitat is a
common good then it must also be a common responsibility.
It should be noted that the most remarkable conservation success
stories of this century were achieved through the willing
co-operation of private owners. If voluntary stewardship efforts
are important to the federal government, existing programs in
support of private conservation should be enhanced.
Today I have discussed the path toward protecting species at
risk. As I said at the beginning, this debate over the proposed
species at risk act is not about who cares more about the
environment. Caring is only what motivates us to work together
to find solutions. This is a debate about what policies can best
accommodate the needs of stakeholders involved and provide the
best incentives for all Canadians to become active stewards of
the land.
I am hoping that throughout the process of this debate,
especially as we get into the committee stage where we have the
chance to really address the bill and hear from a number of other
stakeholders that I have addressed throughout my speech, the
government will consider in strengthening the parts of the
legislation to bring all stakeholders together.
It is my hope and it is the hope of the Canadian Alliance that
in general, as was mentioned, the particular legislation on
endangered species is a theme in legislation that can be embraced
by Canadians across the country. It is something that most
Canadians would like to see put in place. As I mentioned, it
becomes an issue of fairness. It should become an issue of
trying to put legislation in the House that brings people
together.
I have said on occasions prior to this debate that we often see
legislation introduced in the House by the government that is
weak and that divides Canadians. Here is another perfect example
of that. Even in talking with conservation groups and talking
with a number of other stakeholders who want to see the
legislation embraced by all parts of society, they all agree the
commitment the government has made not only in its Speech from
the Throne but throughout discussions on environment in the past
comes up very weak, especially when we look at the funds
allocated to the environment in the particular area of endangered
species and in other areas of the environment.
I cannot stress the point enough that when it comes to putting a
balanced approach in the legislation, legislation that can
succeed in including all stakeholders, compensation has to be the
key. It is something that environmental groups want to see,
especially when it comes to building effective recovery plans
that involve private landowners and other groups involved in
dealing with and managing land. It is about putting aside proper
compensation, especially for private landowners who will through
the goodness of their hearts and in the goodness of pushing
forward a successful endangered species recovery agenda, to
ensure that they are compensated effectively in that sort of
equation.
That is the only thing that is missing from the particular
legislation, especially when it comes to bringing those groups
together. I mentioned at the top of my speech and later about
how particular types of legislation are introduced in this place
that divide Canadians and divide stakeholders. I wish the
government would listen and start to make the changes that could
bring all these groups together. When I talk to the various
stakeholders there is no question that they seem to be all on the
same page and they want to see the same things. They want to see
results in protecting endangered species.
As I was mentioning, I hope we get to committee stage and look
at ways that as Canadians in this place we can create legislation
that is good, legislation that can be improved and legislation
that can bring various stakeholders together. I hope we have the
spirit that all stakeholders want, the spirit to bring people
together and through treating people fairly achieve that goal.
1800
Sometimes in committee and even in this place we tend to get our
backs up and revert to partisan politics. But I am confident
there is nothing partisan about endangered species and nothing
partisan about protecting endangered species. As Canadians in
this place especially in showing leadership to the stakeholders
who want to be involved with this process, we can make changes to
this legislation which I am confident will make everyone happy
and have a unified voice in moving forward with endangered
species issues.
On that final note, it is the hope of the Canadian Alliance to
have a plan that truly protects species at risk. I hope that in
this place we will show that leadership and that the minister and
the committee will show that leadership as we get to the stage to
make amendments to this legislation to make it stronger.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak at second reading to Bill C-33, the
Species at Risk Act.
Before starting my remarks, I would like to briefly put the bill
in context. Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the
evolution of the earth over 4.5 billion years. This evolutionary
process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural
environments on our planet. Together they form the ecosystems we
know today, and each one plays a specific role in the food chain
and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.
However, for some years, scientists have been warning about the
disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well
as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or
extremely vulnerable species.
The decrease or degradation of the biological diversity concerns
us all and could have unpredictable consequences for our
environment. Over the past few years, in Canada, as elsewhere in
the world, efforts have been undertaken to try to slow down this
process. Starting in the 1970s, international conventions were
signed limiting the trade of certain animal and vegetal species
in order to protect them from extinction.
Cases in point include the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as a Waterfowl Habitat,
better known as the RAMSAR Convention. The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora, more commonly known as CITES, was signed in 1973. In
1979, there was the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals.
In 1992, at the Rio summit—
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize to the hon. member who was talking, but I understand
that she will be speaking until today's adjournment.
I must interrupt her because I have a notice to give the House.
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
BILL C-25—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, following negotiations earlier
today and previously, an agreement could not be reached under
Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading
stage of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the
House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for
the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Some hon. members: Shame.
* * *
1805
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an
act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, let me
continue from where I was.
In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including
Canada, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and made
the commitment to adopt or maintain the necessary legislative
and regulatory provisions to protect species and distinct
populations at risk.
Soon after that, in their red book, the Liberals promised to
ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet.
In 1995, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, then
Minister of the Environment, introduced a first bill in that
spirit. That bill gave rise to an incredible amount of protest
and criticism, mainly from environmental groups.
One of the main objections to the bill had to do with the fact
that the legislation would only apply to federal territories.
Only four provinces, including Quebec, had a law on endangered
species. Environmental groups argued that it was essential that
the federal government legislate for the whole country.
In 1996, the federal government laid before the provincial and
territorial environment ministers a Canadian Accord for the
Protection of Species at Risk.
In October 1996, the ministers
responsible for wildlife approved the accord in principle. Even
though he signed the agreement, David Cliche, Quebec's Minister
for the Environment, issued an independent press release, in
which he said clearly that he could not remain indifferent to
the fact that this accord opened the door to overlapping between
federal and provincial legislation, and that a close eye would
have to be kept on events.
Just a few weeks later, the federal government, through the then
Minister of the Environment, Sergio Marchi, introduced Bill C-65,
an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada
from extirpation or extinction, which was the forerunner of Bill
C-33 now before the House.
I do not know whether this government is responsible or not, but
I do know that at the time it was criticized by the provinces
for the very broad powers it was assuming for the protection of
wildlife species. Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the Yukon, and the Northwest
Territories expressed deep concerns about the concept of
cross-border species and the powers defined in the bill.
Many criticized the minister's about-face when he introduced his
bill and said the exact opposite of what he had stated a few
weeks earlier—funny how this government keeps doing this—about
wanting to improve harmony between the provinces instead of
imposing standards. The Liberals let Bill C-65 die on the order
paper.
They are now bringing this issue back on the forefront, by
introducing a so-called improved bill. Improved how? Improved
with regard to provincial jurisdictions?
It is important to
indicate that some federal legislation, like the Fisheries Act
or the National Parks Act, allows the federal government to step
in to protect some species, but there is no federal legislation
directly dealing with that specific purpose.
1810
If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal
instrument directly concerned with the protection of endangered
species.
Since pollution and migratory species know no boundaries,
co-operation is required at the international level, as it is
also, on a lower scale, at the national level. Canada federalism
calls for co-operation between the provinces on this issue, since
this is an area of shared jurisdiction in Canada. It is
important to protect endangered species in Canada.
It is estimated that close to 70,000 known species have their
habitat in Canada, many of which are found only in Canada. The
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or
COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species as at risk in
Canada. This organization established in 1978 is composed of
representatives from every government agency, province and
territory, as well as four national conservation agencies. It is
the main player in the protection of species and it is
responsible for establishing an index of the endangered species
in Canada.
The COSEWIC indicated that, of the 340 wildlife species
considered at risk in Canada, 12 are now extinct, 15 are
extirpated species or no longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87
are endangered, 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which
means that there are concerns about these species.
Of the 97 species whose status was reassessed in recent years,
26 are now closer to becoming extinct. This was one of the
findings in a guide to the Species at Risk Act published by the
Government of Canada and released by the Department of
Environment on April 11, 2000.
Needless to say that without appropriate legislation, be it
federal or provincial, without enforcement measures and adequate
resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant and their
impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species
facing extinction, the problem is serious. Consequently, we must
adopt effective measures.
But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the
protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that
are part of them?
I would like to address the issues involved here, according to
the Bloc Quebecois. Despite the summary indication in the
preamble about the shared responsibility for protecting
endangered species, the bill's wording does not reflect this.
It does not reflect reality, i.e. the fact that the main thrust
of habitat protection is provincial.
Everything in fact suggests that the minister holds the power—and
I say power advisedly—to impose his vision of protection on the
provinces when he deems it necessary. In other words, his
legislation will take de facto precedence over existing
provincial legislation, even if the habitats fall solely under
provincial jurisdiction.
Clause 10 stipulates that the minister “may—enter into an
agreement—with respect to the administration of any provision
of this Act”.
1815
More precisely, in the section on general prohibitions, it is
clearly stated in clause 34(2) that:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in
lands in a province that are not federal lands—
What is more, it is indicated that if the minister deems that
the law of a province—clause 34(3)—or of a territory—35(3)—does not
protect the species, he must recommend to the governor in
council that an order be made.
Granted, clauses 34(4)(a) and 35(4)(a) provide that “Before
recommending the Governor in Council make an order under
sub-section 2, the Minister must consult the appropriate
provincial minister”. However, the bill only refers to
consultation. The bill seems to say implicitly that in the case
of disagreement, the opinion of the federal government will
prevail.
As well, through clause 36, the bill forces the provinces who
identify some species as threatened species not listed as
endangered species by COSEWIC to apply the same restrictions to
their own species as those imposed on designated species.
By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to
impose its own way of protecting species. Members of the Bloc
are not convinced that constraints and fines would always be the
avenues privileged by a province.
In terms of the recovery strategy, the terminology chosen also
raises concerns in regard to the jurisdiction of provinces in
that area. Clause 39 reads that “to the extent possible”, the
recovery strategy must be prepared in co-operation with the
provincial minister. I repeat, “to the extent possible”.
Action plans referred to in clauses 47 and 48 raise a similar
concern. More particularly, the whole part of the bill dealing
more directly with the critical habitat, namely clauses 57 to
64, allows the government to establish codes of practice and to
impose national standards or guidelines, even if the federal
government has no control over most of the territories concerned
and no power over the management of resources on those lands.
Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the
Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the
division of powers as stated in the Constitution and as
interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an
area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces
from any real and direct input into the process. Existing
legislation is totally ignored.
It is true that the protection of species can only be effective
if habitats are also protected, but it is the responsibility of
the provinces to manage these issues in co-operation with the
various stakeholders.
Even though the minister supports, theoretically, the shared
responsibility between the federal government and the provinces
with regard to the protection of species, in reality, first, he
disregards the division of powers and the provinces'
responsibility with regard to the management of habitats and the
protection of species; second, he ignores existing legislation;
and, third, he assumes very broad powers with regard to the
protection of species.
1820
By acting this way, the federal government is going against true
environmental harmonization between the various levels of
government.
I will say a few words about the position of environmental
groups and industry. Most environmental groups are opposed to
the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment. Those who
should be his allies in any attempt to improve the protection of
wildlife species find this bill totally useless and even
dangerous.
Indeed, there has been much protest and criticism since the
minister introduced his bill. Most stakeholders find the bill
too weak.
Even organizations representing the industry feel that the bill
will not provide greater protection for species or specify the
appropriate approach to protecting species living on a site under
development.
Representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and
of the Mining Association of Canada indicated that the government
“could have taken a much stronger approach concerning federal
land and natural areas, where constitutional jurisdiction is not
challenged”. It must be noted that, in its present form, Bill
C-33 is a bit scary for the representatives of certain
industries, who believe that the compensation issues are
insufficiently defined, as the representative of the Canadian
Pulp and Paper Association said. As for the representative of the
Mining Association of Canada, he said that the fines and legal
proceedings were excessive in cases where a species was not
deliberately killed.
However, the main problem that seems to be raised by all
environmental groups is the fact that the decisions on the
designation of species will be taken by the minister and his
cabinet, and not by scientists. This has led many activists, such
as the president of the Canadian Campaign for Endangered Species,
to state that Bill C-33 was a “dismal failure” and that it will
not ensure the protection of Canadian species.
Others, like one of the lawyers of the Sierra Club, made more
qualified statements, but still denounced the weakness of the
legislation and described as disgraceful the fact that such a
discretionary power with respect to the designation of species be
granted to politicians.
The minister is being criticized for resorting to a piecemeal
approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a set of gentle
measures promoting negotiation, but supported by compelling
legal measures if an agreement cannot be reached.
Ignoring the issue of the division of responsibilities,
environmentalists maintain that the federal government can and
must get involved to legislate over all the lands, including
provincial lands, to adequately protect migrating species. They
add that only protecting the natural habitat of these species is
not enough and that the whole critical habitat must be
protected.
I will now outline the Government of Quebec's position on Bill
C-33.
As soon as the federal Minister of the Environment introduced
his bill, his Quebec counterpart, Paul Bégin, said that the
proposed legislation was just another example of useless
duplication for Quebec.
1825
Indeed, the Quebec minister indicated that Bill C-33 introduced
by the federal government sought not only to create a safety net
for endangered species and their habitat on federal lands, but
also on the whole Quebec territory.
As mentioned earlier, while it may be appropriate for the
federal government to legislate to protect migrating species,
but this government has no constitutional authority regarding
the management of habitats on provincial lands.
The Quebec government cannot accept that the federal government
infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction and dictate to
Quebec how to protect its ecosystems when Quebec already has its
own legislation protecting endangered species and their habitats.
Mr. Bégin said:
I was quoting from the press release regarding the federal
legislation on wildlife species at risk in Canada released by the
Quebec government on April 11, 2000 and which was issued by the
office of the Minister of the Environment.
The Quebec government believes an act such as Bill C-33 would be
acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial
jurisdiction and applied to a province or territory only if this
province or territory had explicitly asked that it did.
The Quebec government would not need to resort to such a
provision since it passed its own legislation on the issue in the
1980s. Indeed, Quebec passed an act respecting threatened or
vulnerable species in 1989, and it has its own act respecting the
conservation and development of wildlife as well as fishery
regulations.
These three acts give Quebec the means to identify species at
risk, designate them legally as threatened or vulnerable
species, protect their habitat, and implement recovery plans to
adequately protect endangered species and habitats.
I would like to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Since
species are disappearing more rapidly, the problem is serious,
and we must take effective action.
But does Bill-33 really provide additional protection? Will this
bill really improve the protection of ecosystems and of their
endangered species? We think that the answer to these two
questions is no.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but she will have 14 minutes to complete her
remarks the next time the bill is called.
It being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)