37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 106
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Canadian Bankers
Association |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
CIDA |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
National 4-H Week |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Student Employment |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi,
Lib.) |
|
|
Craig Oliver |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ecological Reserves |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.) |
|
|
UNICEF Day |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de la
Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Gilles Cuerrier |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Education |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Persons with
Disabilities |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer,
Lib.) |
|
|
Dick Martin |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Town of Mount Royal |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
UNICEF |
|
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Pyrite |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Solicitor General |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
St. Hubert Technobase |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question
Period |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International
Trade |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Yukon Act |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International
Trade |
|
|
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore,
Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and
Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development
and Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt,
Lib.) |
|
|
Public
Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Procedure and House
Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Gasoline
Additives |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
The Media |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Genetically Modified
Foods |
|
|
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Kidney Disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Air Canada Public Participation
Act |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Library of
Parliament |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Air Canada Public Participation
Act |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill
read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Employee Benefits |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)
|
|
|
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Employment
Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker:
As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national
anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Canadian Bankers
Association
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend a
unique money management seminar for senior high school students that is
organized by the Canadian Bankers Association. This seminar entitled “There's
something about money” focuses on introducing good financial basics to
students.
I had the opportunity to participate in one of these
seminars in my riding at David and Mary Thompson Collegiate. As a result of
these seminars 94% of students felt better equipped to prepare for their
financial future.
Prior to these seminars 46% of the students said they
were not preparing for their financial future. The comments of students
indicated a strong interest in all facets of the program, with particular
emphasis in areas involving compound interest, credit rating and post-secondary
assistance.
The overall content was rated good to excellent by 97%
of the students and teachers. “There's something about money” is an excellent
seminar for our youth. I extend congratulations to the Canadian Bankers
Association for reaching out to our youth, their future clients but more so the
future of our country.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians trust their government to use
CIDA funds for the poor countries of the world, not for pre-election
communication work in the riding of the Minister for International
Cooperation.
It is obvious that the minister tiptoed around treasury
board guidelines to avoid public scrutiny. However the issue is an ethical one
about who was involved, the timing, if work was actually done and what kind. It
is morally wrong for political campaigners to replace public service PR staff
in a minister's riding, particularly just before an election. These actions
would surely benefit the minister's election campaign, not the poor
countries.
This is an hypocritical abuse of public funds by a
minister whose role is to promote good governance in poor countries, which is
why I am calling for an immediate investigation by the ethics counsellor and
for her immediate resignation.
* * *
National 4-H Week
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week is National 4-H Week. The
historical roots of the Canadian 4-H program are solidly grounded in rural
Canada.
The program originated for the purposes of improving
agriculture, increasing and bettering production, and enriching rural life. Its
beginnings were inspired by energetic and idealistic agricultural officials,
dedicated school teachers, and others committed to ensuring that young rural
Canadians learned important skills to succeed on and off the farm.
Today's programs continue to serve primarily rural
communities but they do not have to live on a farm to join. Open to all youths,
male and female between the ages of 8 and 21, 4-H focuses on developing well
rounded responsible and independent citizens.
Members participate in technical skills development
projects as well as other fun activities. There are 2,600 4-H clubs across
Canada with over 35,000 members completing 53,000 projects yearly.
I congratulate 4-H members and their leaders throughout
Canada for all the hard work they do and recognize the importance of their
organization.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Student Employment
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the report on the 2001 edition of the
summer work student exchange program, an initiative which began in my riding of
Brome--Missisquoi, has just been delivered to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
This year over 1,000 young people from just about
everywhere in Canada took part in this program, which often constitutes their
first paying job along with an opportunity to learn a second language in an
immersion setting and to learn about and appreciate the other culture while
visiting another region of their country.
Thousands of young Canadians have taken part in the
past six years. The program's success is in large part due to the involvement
of over 100 MPs from all political parties, and I congratulate them.
I would also like to thank the program's president,
Jocelyn Beaudoin, and director general, René Lemaire, and all the team for
their excellent work.
Let us continue to work together to ensure that
thousands more students are able to experience the marvellous challenge of the
summer work student exchange program.
* * *
[English]
Craig Oliver
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I take this occasion to congratulate Mr.
Craig Oliver for receiving the 2001 CAB gold ribbon award for broadcast
excellence. Mr. Oliver was recognized last night in Ottawa at the annual
convention of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
The gold ribbon award for broadcast excellence is the
most prestigious award of the Canadian private broadcasting industry. It
honours the service to private broadcasting and recognizes exceptional human
qualities and practical, innovative achievements that reflect a genuine concern
for the highest broadcast standards.
Mr. Oliver has been and continues to be an important
part of the Canadian broadcasting system with more than four decades of
broadcasting to his credit. He is a dedicated political journalist and analyst
who viewers across the country have come to know and respect.
Mr. Oliver has received a number of industry awards and
accolades over the years. He has also held several key roles in the
broadcasting industry.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has abandoned four major
Canadian churches and left some of them facing bankruptcy as a result of the
announcement of the Deputy Prime Minister that the federal government would pay
70% of the out of court settlements reached with former Indian residential
school students.
Why has the government turned its back on the Anglican,
United, Presbyterian and Catholic churches of Canada in this desperate attempt
to settle these lawsuits? Why is the government extending the damage it caused
to aboriginal children to Canadian churches that cannot afford to pay these
bills?
The federal government forced aboriginal children to go
to residential schools for over a century. It delayed the settlement of the
Indian residential school claims for many years forcing these people to go to
court. Then the government further delayed the court cases by dragging the
churches into the lawsuits.
The government does not care about the damage it will
cause Canadian churches. The government does not care about the aboriginal
victims who will be unable to receive damages from these churches when they are
forced into bankruptcy.
Why will it not do the right thing as Grand Chief
Matthew Coon Come has suggested: assume 100% liability, pay the damages and
leave the churches alone?
* * *
[Translation]
Ecological Reserves
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a ceremony marking
the opening of a conservation project and the creation of the ecological
reserve of Trois-Monts de Coleraine at St-Joseph de Coleraine. This is a region
of unequalled natural resources containing numerous rare and endangered plant
species.
The purpose of the ceremony was to call attention to
the sustained efforts over the past two years of partners in the private and
public sector, who worked together in solidarity to ensure the preservation of
the largest natural vestiges of Appalachian serpentine outcroppings, the home
of numerous rare plants.
I had the pleasure and honour of announcing a federal
contribution of $100,000 via the Department of the Environment and its
endangered species stewardship program.
Needless to say, the federal government is proud to
have been able to help the community of Coleraine with this project.
* * *
UNICEF Day
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de la
Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, through the eyes of a child we see the
beauty of the world. Unfortunately, at the moment the eyes of children reveal
the misery and suffering they are growing up in.
In order to fight this sad state of affairs, people are
putting their heart and soul into coming to their aid. This is what UNICEF
does. Founded in 1946 and now established in 162 countries, areas and
territories, the organization is mandated by the United Nations General
Assembly to advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help meet
their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full
potential.
On this UNICEF Day, and especially on Halloween when
thousands of children come by with their collection box, we invite everyone to
pay tribute to all the children of the world by giving generously to support
the efforts of UNICEF.
* * *
(1410)
Gilles Cuerrier
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a teenager's activities can affect the
rest of his life.
The proof is Gilles Cuerrier, a resident of Laval West,
who joined the cadets in 1957 and has gone on to become the national president
of the Air Cadet League of Canada.
The fifth Quebecer and the first resident of Laval to
hold high office in the league, Mr. Cuerrier has set himself the task of making
the air cadet movement known to more young people.
It is thanks to people like Gilles Cuerrier that young
people have the opportunity to take part in group activities and to enjoy
themselves in a setting that allows them to learn and to develop their
talents.
* * *
Education
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Action démocratique du Québec has
recently endorsed the concept of education vouchers for Quebec's education
system. The purpose of this initiative is to give parents more freedom of
choice. Parents would receive an education voucher that they could remit to the
public or private school of their choice to defray the tuition
costs.
Rather than promoting an education system that levels
down, ADQ members have dared to think outside the box and have come up with an
original idea that will democratize and diversify our schools.
I would like to commend the ADQ and its leader, Mario
Dumont, for their efforts to improve the quality of teaching through an
education system where it is the parents and students who decide.
* * *
Persons with
Disabilities
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 15 the Fondation Entre Deux
Roues and the Association des bénévoles en fauteuil roulant de l'Outaouais held
their third Roulethon with Mr. Martin Godcher serving as honorary
chair.
The purpose of this annual event is to raise funds for
the Association des bénévoles en fauteuil roulant de l'Outaouais and the
Fondation Entre Deux Roues and to raise awareness regarding persons in
wheelchairs who are often forgotten and marginalized.
I would like to highlight the efforts made by these
organizations and the relentless work they do to improve the quality of life of
those they serve.
I would also like to congratulate Mr. René Séguin, the
chief organizer of the third annual Roulethon, and his entire team on the great
success of their September 15 event which raised $12,162. I wish them all the
best in their future endeavours.
* * *
[English]
Dick Martin
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, earlier today we received the sad news of
the untimely death of Dick Martin, one of the best loved labour leaders in the
country.
Dick was a former secretary treasurer of the Canadian
Labour Congress, a former president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, a
lifelong New Democrat and a true friend to working people in the country and
around the world. Sometimes referred to as a diamond in the rough, he rose
through the ranks from his days as a miner and a member of the United
Steelworkers of America to become president of local 6166 in Thompson,
Manitoba. He then became president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour before
becoming executive vice president of the CLC in 1984.
On behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of my party, I
want to extend our deepest condolences to his wife Cathy, his family Margaret,
Ross and Jack, and to his countless friends in the trade union movement and in
the health, safety and environmental communities.
* * *
[Translation]
Town of Mount Royal
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we were shocked to learn earlier today
that the town of Mount Royal shut the doors of the fence that runs along Acadie
Boulevard to prevent underprivileged children from the Parc-Extension area from
going trick or treating on its territory.
This means that children from low income families will
not be able to knock on doors of the homes of the wealthy in Mount Royal. This
is unacceptable. Halloween is an important event for all children, rich or
poor, regardless of their social standing.
I hope to see children who for weeks have been
anxiously waiting for this event walk around freely, without fear and, above
all, without borders.
As chair of our caucus and on behalf of my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues, I deplore this unfair measure for the children of
underprivileged families. I urge the hon. member for Mount Royal to condemn
this situation since he is always claiming to be a strong advocate of rights
and freedoms.
* * *
(1415)
UNICEF
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, October 31, is national UNICEF Day.
On this occasion the United Nations Children's Fund is taking part in
Halloween.
Since 1955, children have been collecting pennies for
the poor. So far, over $75 million have been collected.
[English]
Last year Canadian children collected more than $3
million. This money makes it possible to improve the living conditions of
children in more than 150 developing countries. It goes to protecting children
from exploitation and provides them with an education, vaccines and safe
drinking water.
Tonight is Halloween. When a princess or a wizard, a
ladybug or an astronaut knocks on the door and holds out an orange and black
piggy bank, be generous.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR):
Speaker, the security of Canada's borders continues to
be of great concern to all of us. We have greatly increased our security at
airports and at our border crossing sites with the United States of America.
However Canada is a country with a long coastline and many harbours. Government
needs to be vigilant of the dangers presented by lax security in this important
area.
For example, the oil refinery at Come by Chance,
Newfoundland receives oil deliveries by tankers from all over the world. Ships
crews are free to come and go while the oil is being off loaded. It is
therefore difficult to understand why the local Canada customs office serving
the area has been de-staffed. There is nobody minding the ship.
Surely this is a glaring gap in our security perimeter
and government would do well to plug such gaps immediately.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, for weeks we have asked the solicitor
general for information related to people arrested and possible terrorist
activity in Canada and in the United States. We have asked this to protect
Canadian citizens. For weeks the solicitor general has scorned us and has said
that he cannot talk publicly about this because it could put people at
risk.
Yesterday, in front of the entire world, he announced
that CSIS has given important information to the United States. There is no
problem with it giving the U.S. information, but he announced an ongoing
operation publicly.
Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for the
solicitor general to be standing out in public giving public information about
ongoing CSIS operations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general just said that there
is good collaboration between Canada and the United States.
The opposition is always dumping on the federal
institutions of Canada rather than supporting Canadian institutions. The
solicitor general wanted to prove that the Americans appreciate the good work
of the Canadian public service.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have never asked that the solicitor
general to reveal ongoing CSIS operations.
We have a situation now and the reports are clear:
Canada and Afghanistan playing a part in Monday's warning of new terrorist
attack; RCMP seeking al-Qaeda operatives in Toronto; and now the solicitor
general talking about ongoing CSIS operations in public.
Can the Prime Minister really stand and say Canada is
not at all being threatened by this ongoing giving of information and
implication? Are we not at threat at all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat that the warning
given by the attorney general of the United States the day before yesterday was
based on the information he had. The CSIS organization was able to provide him
with very useful information.
What the solicitor general said was that we were
helpful. At the same time, CSIS and the RCMP have informed the government that
this threat was of no relation to Canada at all. Canadians were not under a
special threat the day before yesterday.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear if CSIS operatives
think it is a good idea for that kind of discussion to go on.
Now we have U.S. senators Ted Kennedy and Sam Brownback
introducing the enhanced borders security act that calls on the United States,
Canada and Mexico to set up a North American national security perimeter. The
bill would also impose entry and exit controls on every Canadian entering or
leaving the United States. This is not exactly a confidence builder to
business. Our dollar is sitting at an all time low today.
Will the Prime Minister commit to a signal of
confidence--
(1420)
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we said from the beginning that Canada
will offer security. It is our preoccupation in Canada to make sure that our
borders are well protected and that terrorists are not using Canada as a place
to move.
We are changing our laws. Some laws are in front of the
House of Commons and the Senate at this time. We have legislated on the
Immigration Act. We will have more power to make sure that our borders are
secure, and we will be in a position to tell Americans that they do not have to
worry about Canada.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking about past arrests and
information that may affect the security of Canadians. Repeatedly the solicitor
general has hid behind his briefing books and a series of canned answers. Now
in his drive for headlines, he may have divulged top secret information.
The former solicitor general was fired because of a
slip of the lip during a private conversation. Now we have a solicitor general
publicly broadcasting confidential information.
How can the solicitor general possibly justify his
decision to brag about Canada's role in an ongoing investigation?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague has said, I will
not give any information that is specific to an investigation. I have not and
will not give such information.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot different response than what
we heard when he was parading around like a puffed up peacock in front of the
scrum yesterday.
It was wrong for this solicitor general to brag about
this operation. It was wrong for this solicitor general to compromise the
source and methods of our intelligence gathering efforts. According to a high
ranking CSIS official, revealing such top secret information is clearly a
breach of national security.
Does the Prime Minister support his solicitor general
divulging top secret information?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the solicitor
general because he is doing a good job. When I hear members of the opposition
claiming that the solicitor general tried to get publicity for himself, it is a
funny affirmation.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the fight against terrorism requires that
there be a military response but not that any old weapon be used.
Understandably, Canada cannot be consulted daily on
tactics but it is unacceptable for Canada to say nothing when cluster bombs,
which are similar to anti-personnel mines, are dropped on
Afghanistan.
Will the Prime Minister admit that saying nothing is
consenting to the use of cluster bombs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is quite simply impossible to compare
anti-personnel mines to these bombs.
Anti-personnel mines remain in the ground for 10, 20 or
30 years after a war ends, while the bombs being used—obviously, in all
sincerity, I would prefer that no bombs ever be used.
On September 11 the terrorists did not give any thought
to what would happen to American citizens in New York and
Washington.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Prime Minister's
answer.
These cluster bombs are similar to anti-personnel mines
and there is a treaty about their use, the Ottawa treaty, of which Canada is
quite rightly proud. We cannot go along with the use of such bombs.
The Prime Minister reminds us of what they did in New
York. Are we going to start behaving like them? Are we going to take a page
from their book, when our greatest strength is our difference, which is all
about democracy against barbarity? That is the choice we must make.
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is why this government took the lead
in working to bring about a treaty on anti-personnel mines. We did our job and
we were very successful at it.
There is a war on right now and these bombs are not
illegal under international treaties. We have no reason and no way to protest
at this time because those bombes are part of the arsenal of war.
These bombs will not remain in the ground when the war
is over.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, each one of these cluster bombs contains
about 200 smaller bombs which, when they do not explode, become extremely
dangerous anti-personnel mines.
Worse still, we learned that unexploded bombs look so
much like the food packages dropped by the UN—they are both yellow and their
format is similar—that the United States are sending a message, supposedly to
warn the population.
Will the Prime Minister exert pressure on the U.S.
government to adopt war techniques that spare civilians?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, those cluster bombs are only being used in
connection with the destruction of the military capability of the Taliban. They
are being used in areas where there are tanks, artillery and military
formations.
Canada has been a leader in terms of clearing up
unexploded ordnance after any kind of military campaign. We would want to make
sure those are cleaned up after, but they are a legitimate use if used in a
military fashion against military targets, not against civilians, and that is
exactly what is happening, use only against military targets.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the European parliament
described the use of such bombs in Afghanistan as a human error and a political
mistake.
These civilian casualties, including the victims of
cluster bombs, fuel skepticism, both here and elsewhere, regarding the
bombings. Public opinion everywhere is shifting, and this threatens the
cohesion of the anti-terrorism coalition. We remain supportive of this
coalition and we want it to be strong.
Will the Prime Minister, whose government has worked to
ban anti-personnel landmines, question the use of these bombs?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, they are not being directed at civilians.
It is unfortunate that in a military campaign sometimes civilians are injured
or killed but that is not the intention here at all.
Every effort is being made to maintain that any use of
cluster bombs or any kind of weaponry at all is directed at deteriorating the
military capability of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
After all, those are the people who are responsible for
the terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States. Those are the people
responsible for the deaths of over 5,000 innocent men, women and children. We
cannot give them rest. They in fact must continue to be pursued and that is the
objective of the campaign.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, today there are media reports that Osama
bin Laden was apparently in the American hospital at Dubai last summer. A CIA
member reportedly even met him.
Given the attacks on U.S. embassies and on the USS
Cole, is the Prime Minister concerned that the American government appears
to have let bin Laden go rather than trying him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly, had the Americans had the
opportunity to get their hands on bin Laden last July, they would have done
so.
I see no problem there. If they did not, it was a dumb
mistake on their part.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I think the question that remains is: Why
did they not? Maybe I could direct my supplementary question to the solicitor
general. He was more than willing yesterday to share information on security
matters and maybe he will take some credit on this one too.
What information has the United States shared with
Canada on the whereabouts of bin Laden on July 4 of this past
summer?
(1430)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that it
would be totally inappropriate for me to respond to that question. I will not
divulge any such information.
* * *
National Security
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister responsible for
critical infrastructure told us that his list of Canadian infrastructure that
could be a terrorist target could be, and I quote him, “happening
soon”.
Yesterday the attorney general of the United States
warned of a potential new attack this week on American interests. In the
context of these new threats, is the list of potential Canadian targets ready
yet? Have all the provinces and territories concerned been informed? Has
training begun for the frontline workers in these potential targets?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a list of over 300 critical
infrastructure facilities in this country. It is presently the subject of a
discussion with provincial emergency preparedness organizations and with local
responders as well.
In fact, through Emergency Preparedness Canada, which
was the predecessor organization of the Office of Critical Infrastructure
Protection and Emergency Preparedness, we had built up a very considerable base
of information and training involved in helping to prepare people to deal with
disasters. We have dealt with natural disasters in the past and can deal with
man made disasters as well.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, last March the Minister of National
Defence confirmed that there was a pressing need to increase the number of men
and women in our armed forces reserve. The minister then confirmed that the pay
formula for reservists was, and I quote, “a locked in formula” at 85% of the
regular forces pay rate.
Yet we now know that the minister has approved a 15%
pay cut for some of our reservists and they were informed of it
yesterday.
How can the minister possibly justify these cuts at
time when we must recruit more reservists and when their help is needed more
now than ever?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no approved pay reduction at
all.
Let me tell the House that the 21,000 reservists over
the last three years have had very substantial pay increases, as have those in
the regular force. There is a proposal that will involve some readjustment,
some realignment. Some will get a reduction. Even more than that will get an
increase.
Overall the entire reserve force of some 21,000 is
receiving increases. Reservists will also receive better training and better
equipment and they will play a very meaningful role in terms of the Canadian
forces of the country.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect some information from the
Liberal government on terrorism. Accurate, reliable information would reassure
us all, in regular briefings on issues of importance, non-classified
information of importance.
When will the Prime Minister start giving regular
briefings to the Canadian public on terrorism information, the information that
they deserve?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am in the House every week. The
ministers are in the House all the time. They appear in front of committees.
The members of the opposition can ask all the questions they want.
We are replying. We give all the information we have.
It is why we said yesterday that the threat was not directed against Canada. We
said that in the House of Commons through public television. It is the way that
we operate and it is the way to give information to the Canadian
public.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker. In the U.S. there are
regular briefings. In fact the U.S. public was told that there was an imminent
threat and to be cautious, to be careful.
Today we see CF-18s flying over Ottawa, so maybe this
is the only opportunity for the Prime Minister to do this. Will he give us a
briefing now on just exactly what that means? He should do it
outside.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CF-18s, indeed, the entire Canadian
forces, are here to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The CF-18s
have been redeployed from their usual places in Cold Lake, Alberta and
Bagotville, Quebec to other parts of the country as well so that we can ensure,
in fact, that we have protection of the entire country. This is a precautionary
measure. They do exercises as part of that precautionary measure. There is no
immediate threat to the country, but as low as that possibility is, we must
take precautions. We can never take it for granted.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Finance
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if the economy were to keep growing at the
same rate as it did in the first five months of the year, the surplus would be
close to $20 billion.
Given the downturn, which cannot fail to have an impact
on the economy, we are heading toward a surplus that will likely come in around
$13 billion.
If our figures do not add up, then the Minister of
Finance should tell us why, but in the meantime, will he finally stop trying to
duck the issue, answer our questions and confirm the figures that we have
submitted to him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is not one economist in the country
who will agree with the projections that the member just made.
I just said, and I have said repeatedly in the House,
that there was a downturn prior to September 11. The terrible consequences of
September 11 will most certainly be felt by the end of the year.
That being said, there will be a debate on the budget
tomorrow. If the member would like to explain how she arrived at those figures
she is free to do so.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, despite what the finance minister has
said, I find it hard to believe that he does not have any figures to give
us.
If the minister cannot give us any figures, could he at
least identify the assumptions on which he has based his work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are bringing down a
budget is certainly to give projections and provide full details, which is what
I intend to do.
* * *
[English]
Lumber Industry
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lumber lobby has been harassing
the Canadian forest industry for 20 years using U.S. department of commerce
trade actions.
We had a 19.3% countervail tariff applied in August and
now a 12.6% anti-dumping duty has been tacked on top.
More discussions are scheduled for November 12 in
Washington. Will the minister now finally call a national stakeholders meeting
to get the Canadian forest sector together prior to November 12?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely share the opposition member's
frustration with American behaviour in the softwood lumber dispute. This is a
file that is extremely complex, one in which the Americans have shown a lot of
aggressiveness. They have listened far too narrowly up to now to the American
protectionist producers.
I do very much believe that our narrow consultations
with industry and our work in collaboration with the provinces will bear fruit.
With our two track approach, one of litigation and one of discussions, I think
we are going places.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. The 19.3%
countervail expires on December 16 and the anti-dumping fees imposed today will
be refundable if companies respond.
The minister is continuing to encourage negotiations
with a format lending itself to predictable divide and conquer strategies
employed by the U.S. department of commerce.
The minister has no mandate to do this. Will he display
leadership, call the national stakeholders meeting and reinvigorate the
Canadian position?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the Canadian position
is very strong and very clear, much shared by the stakeholders in the industry
and much shared by the provincial governments that have contributed a great
deal to the discussion track we are on.
We have agreed that we would not embark into
negotiations without having another stakeholders meeting. We are not
negotiating. It is absolutely wrong to say that provinces are negotiating
individual deals. The department of international trade and the government are
co-ordinating and leading these talks, but 90% of the U.S. allegations are on
provincial programs and there is--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Joliette.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the continuing saga of softwood lumber,
the Americans unilaterally imposed countervailing duties of 19.3% last
spring.
Today the U.S. department of commerce added
anti-dumping duties of 12.58% for a total of over 32% penalty
duties.
Now that we know the Americans' response and that
thousand of jobs are at stake, what does the Minister for International Trade
intend to do to help the industry and its workers?
(1440)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we in the
government are extremely frustrated that the American administration has paid
too much attention to protectionist producers and penalized itself and its
economy once again, when it is much more vulnerable, by imposing taxes of 32%
on consumers in a sector of the economy that is still vigorous. The member for
Joliette is absolutely right.
Our government will continue to co-ordinate discussions
and we would greatly appreciate the co-operation of the provinces which have
jurisdiction over natural resources. I would say one thing—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister for
International Trade has said, the representatives of the softwood lumber
industry are furious because they have been left out and there has been no
meeting of all the stakeholders since May.
Why is the minister not calling a meeting of the
stakeholders, especially industry members, and assuming leadership in the
matter of softwood lumber.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with the
industry and have vigorously represented the interests of the Canadian industry
in each of our actions.
The timeframe we are working with accurately reflects
industry demands.
I would suggest the opposition member consult the
industry and not simply listen to a single producer.
We will have the meeting at the appropriate time based
on our present discussions and dialogue which are proving
productive.
* * *
[English]
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, despite the attempt of the Prime Minister
to stop the Liberals from speaking out, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism now have expressed their
concerns over the targeting of minorities by the anti-terrorist legislation
introduced by the Minister of Justice.
Will the minister advise the House why her legislation
targets religious, political and ideological groups?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I made the claim yesterday, the
legislation does not target religious, political or ideological groups. The
legislation targets terrorist activities and terrorist
organizations.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to read her own
legislation and read the definition.
Although our American allies have taken strong measures
against the fight against terrorism, they did not consider it necessary to
target minorities in their anti-terrorist legislation.
Why should the House agree to jeopardize the civil
liberties of Canadians when the minister cannot explain why she wishes to do
that?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the legislation does not target
minorities. In fact, as I have said, the legislation targets terrorist
activities, terrorist organizations and those who would support them.
* * *
[Translation]
Pyrite
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the hon. member
for Brossard--Laprairie, I want to ask the minister responsible for the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to inform this House on the progress of the
negotiations with the province of Quebec regarding the assistance to be
provided to homeowners whose property was damaged by pyrite.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that an agreement
was reached with the Government of Quebec. The government of Canada will make a
financial contribution equivalent to 25% of the total cost of Quebec's program
to provide financial assistance to the owners of residential buildings damaged,
up to an amount of $17.5 million.
The Government of Canada and the government of Quebec
are pleased with this agreement.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Solicitor General
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and
it has to do with the behaviour of the solicitor general yesterday who, as a
maritimer, should perhaps be more familiar with the phrase about loose lips
sinking ships.
Is the Prime Minister not the least bit concerned that
the disclosing of the passing on of information so soon after the passing on of
that information could jeopardize operations or compromise security? Would he
at least assure the House that the solicitor general will not be announcing on
a weekly basis what kind of tips they recently gave to the United States that
were publicized in the United States?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I indicated yesterday is what I have
indicated many times in the House, which is that CSIS shares information with
its American counterparts and will continue to do so.
* * *
Lumber Industry
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government's new tariff on
softwood lumber brings the total tariff to over 31%. Now it looks like the B.C.
government is about to crack under pressure and cave in to U.S. demands to get
the tariff removed.
If one province cuts a side deal with the U.S. it will
undermine all provinces. Lumber industry groups, including the B.C. Lumber
Council, are calling on all levels of government to stand firm and work toward
a long term national solution for Canada.
Does the government agree with the industry that all
provinces should stand together in forming united fronts against the U.S.
attacks? If so, how will it keep a rogue provincial government like the B.C.
Liberals from selling out--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member from
the NDP that what we need is a Canadian approach to this. We have been working
very hard at building a Canadian team. We have had the governments of British
Columbia, Quebec, Alberta and Ontario working together. We have seen our
industries more united than ever on the softwood lumber deal. We will not
accept an individual deal by any province. We have already warned them about
that.
The department of international trade is providing the
leadership and the co-ordination at these discussions and we are going places
with these talks.
* * *
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, recent public comments from certain
cabinet ministers showed a real concern for possible civil liberty
infringements found in Bill C-36. There is reason to fear that excessive party
discipline may stifle contrary opinions from within the Liberal
ranks.
In these uncertain and challenging times, Liberal
members of parliament should be free to speak up without reprisals from the
Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to allowing for
free votes both in the House and in committee on this extremely important
legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have a very solid coalition on this
side of the House and we always have very lively debate in caucus. However when
the decision is made by the party and the government, the people support both
the party and the government.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the current finance minister said
that he would “manage the decline of the Canadian dollar so that it settles at
its true value of 78 cents U.S.” Since 1993, the finance minister has
successfully managed the decline of the Canadian dollar to a record low today
of 62.96 cents.
Is the finance minister's hidden agenda to try to
manage the Canadian dollar right out of existence, to de-value it to a point
where he can justify accepting a North American common currency through
dollarization? Is that why he is passing the buck on the Canadian
dollar?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1990 what I condemned was the total
discord between economic policy, fiscal policy and monetary policy. What we
condemned on that side of the House when we were there was the incredibly high
interest rates that were being imposed on Canadians as a result of the failure
of the then Conservative government to engage in reasonable and acceptable
economic policies. That is what I condemned. What I condemned was an 11.5%
unemployment rate which is what was in existence then. What I condemned was the
absolute failure of the then Conservative government.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 1991, when he was the leader of
the opposition, the present Prime Minister asked Brian Mulroney a question. He
asked:
Here is my question to the Prime
Minister: Does he not think that time has come to abandon the current economic
policies of high dollar-- |
Today we see where this thinking has led us, from the
87 cent dollar at that time to the new low of under 63 cents now.
Will the finance minister acknowledge that the
government's misguided belief in some esoteric advantage in having a low dollar
is wrong?
(1450)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have only to ask the hon. member to read
the answer just given by the Minister of Finance. At the time when the Tories
were in power we had 11.5% unemployment, a $42 billion deficit, 11.5% interest
rates and we were bankrupt. We are in a much better position today than we were
in those days.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has signalled many
times that he believes a low dollar is good for the country, but the esteemed
economist, Dr. Sherry Cooper, has said that the inexorable decline in the
Canadian dollar is both a reflection of our relative decline in economic
prosperity and productivity, as well as the cause of it.
My question is for the finance minister. Does he
support the Prime Minister's position of the low dollar or good common economic
sense?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I support the Prime Minister's position
which is that we will bring down the national debt by $35 billion, which is
what we have done. I support the Prime Minister's position when he says that as
a result of this there will be two and a half billion more dollars in the
Canadian economy.
I support the fact that we have brought down
unemployment rates. I support the Prime Minister's position in increasing
productivity. I support the Prime Minister's position in giving the country
hope for the future. That is what we have done and that is what we will
continue to do.
* * *
[Translation]
St. Hubert Technobase
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in October 1997, the federal government
launched an ambitious project to revitalize the St. Hubert military base, with
an DND investment of $1 million. This revitalization project was to generate in
excess of 1,700 jobs.
Could the minister of National Revenue explain why the
millions invested for development of the Technobase have resulted in very few
real jobs out of the promised 1,700?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the St. Hubert Military Base Corporation
was created in 1997.
Its purpose was to rediversify ensure that an economic
safety net was created to provide sustained employment in the
region.
Two funds were set up, one of $1 million, designed as a
backup fund, and another of $6 million for technological
development.
I must point out that large numbers of jobs were
generated by these funds, particularly the technological development assistance
fund, which created or maintained 600 jobs in the region.
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to the April 30, 2001 financial
report of the Technobase investment fund, most of the companies in which it had
invested no longer exist, have gone bankrupt or simply never located at St.
Hubert.
In light of such a disastrous performance, does the
Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec intend to demand a reckoning from the Technobase president,
hon. Jacques Olivier, and its CEO, Clément Joly?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be glad to have had
the opportunity to have such a dynamic team which has enabled us to create
employment in her riding.
As I said, there were two funds created, a backup fund
with a guarantee in the form of risk capital or loan guarantee and a $6 million
fund for technological development.
As we speak, $3.7 million of the $6 million fund have
been invested, have generated investments of over $27 million and have created
or maintained more than 600 jobs.
Moreover, I should point out that a study by an
independent firm last year recommended that we carry on, and that is what we
will do.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister just said that his
legacy of a falling dollar, a record low for the Canadian dollar, a country
that is heading into recession and unemployment that is on the rise, that there
is hope for the future. I think that is a poor legacy for the finance
minister.
Why is the finance minister and the government refusing
to take the action necessary to give investors the confidence that will be
reflected in a stronger dollar?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two pieces of good news. One of
them is that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are very strong. That is
why the debt repayments and the large tax cuts are so important. That is why
our growth rates are higher than in the United States. That is why when we
compare our economy to those of others in what is a very difficult period,
Canada, unlike previous slowdowns, is coming through this very well.
The second piece of good news is that I would like
welcome the hon. member back to the finance portfolio on his side.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we would really like to see an
intervention from the finance minister on behalf of the economy. Canadians are
concerned. We are in a recession. Unemployment is on the rise. We cannot get
goods and services across the border.
We had business people from across the country in
Ottawa yesterday to form a coalition because they want to get the attention of
the government. When will the government take action that will get the economy
back on its feet again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I simply would refer the hon. member to
the kinds of economic policies that he used to recommend when he was not
speaking from such a far back position.
What he advocated were tax cuts that any economist in
the country would say would take us into deficit. What his party has advocated
in the last three weeks are massive spending increases that would put us into
deficit.
The fact is that the actions of his party belie the
words he is expressing. If we had listened to that party our balance sheet
would be in tatters and the country would be in terrible shape. As it is, our
fundamentals are strong.
* * *
Lumber Industry
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for
International Trade. Softwood lumber is a $10 billion industry in Canada. In my
riding of Tobique--Mactaquac there are 14 sawmills representing some 2,500 jobs
and one in six jobs is dependent upon the softwood lumber industry.
Taking into consideration the decision of the U.S.
department of commerce today to impose a further tariff of 12.58% on all
Canadian softwood lumber heading into the U.S., what is the government doing to
restore unencumbered access to U.S. markets?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in
this very important issue. I do agree with him. I honestly think that the
Americans are hitting themselves over the head with a two by four by imposing
these taxes on our exports to the United States. They are harming their own
economy at a time when it is very vulnerable.
I will continue to work very closely with the provinces
and will consult widely with the industry. I will be meeting with Mr. Racicot
whom President Bush has appointed to deal with this file some time next week. I
will explain to him the damage they are doing to their own economy.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister said recently that
our men and women serving in the Canadian forces are stretched too thin and
cannot meet any new demands. That was before the new commitments in the war
against terrorism. Now we learn that there likely will be a spring offensive in
Afghanistan.
How will the minister meet the requirements for the
next rotation and subsequent rotations without endangering the safety and
security of our serving men and women?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at one time we had over 4,000 people
mainly from the army in foreign operations. We are now down to about 2,000. The
people we have recently sent into the Middle East in the fight against
terrorism are largely navy personnel.
We have been able to balance to ensure the operational
tempo is reasonable so we are not overstretching the limit. However we still
have thousands more who are available in case they are needed in this country
or needed in foreign missions.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, why the contradictory message? The
minister said when we only had the other obligations that we could not meet our
commitments, that it was stretching our men and women too thin.
The government's longstanding lack of commitment to our
military is putting the safety and security of our men and women in jeopardy.
That is the fact. It threatens to tear our military families apart and it
threatens the security in Canada.
Due to the government's total neglect of our military
the minister will either have to pull our troops out of the war against
terrorism or put at risk the safety and security of our men and women serving
in the forces. Which will it be?
(1500)
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. That is not
what I said. That is what he thinks he would like me to have said.
Let me give a couple of instances. When we had the ice
storm here we had 4,000 personnel in overseas missions but we could still put
16,000 troops on the streets of this country to help Canadians
citizens.
On the eve of the millennium when we were concerned
about the millennium bug, we had 3,000 people overseas but we still had 25,000
troops, 11,000 reservists, ready to help their fellow Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Airline Industry
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has decided to
limit his assistance to the major airlines providing service between large
cities and to abandon regional carriers, such as Air Alma which provides
service between Montreal and Alma, once again showing his prejudice against
regional carriers.
Does the minister realize that by helping only the
major airlines, he is giving their regional subsidiaries, such as Air Nova, an
unfair competitive advantage over small regional carriers such as Air
Alma?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this would be the case. Our
intention is merely to help the major carriers, which cover 95% of the market,
and I think that if these companies are healthy, small carriers will be
too.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Question
Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today in the House I had occasion to ask a
number of questions and to receive some answers. My concern is not with the
direct answers that I received although the answers themselves were less than
satisfactory. I am also concerned about some extraneous comments that were
placed on the record afterward. I am very concerned and I think I am in order
to stand to ensure that those remarks are withdrawn from the record.
In further response to the question that I had posed of
the minister, asking her why the House should agree to jeopardize the civil
liberties of religious and political groups in Canada when she could not
explain why those provisions were in the legislation, she provided an answer
and then later she stated words to the effect: since when did you guys care
about civil liberties.
These words will appear in Hansard and they are
unparliamentary. The record will demonstrate that I care very much about civil
liberties and I know that the Canadian Alliance cares very much about civil
liberties. It is not inconsistent to be concerned about security while
all--
The Speaker:
I am sorry but it does not sound like a good point of
order to me. If the words complained of are the ones the hon. member has
quoted, I am afraid I would like to hear his citation for saying these are
unparliamentary. They strike me as not uncommon in debates in this place. It
seems to me I may have heard them before from both sides of the House and did
not rule them unparliamentary.
I am not inclined to intervene in this case on anything
that I have heard. I have great respect of course for the hon. member. I think
we will consider the matter closed under the circumstances.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Committees of the
House
Foreign Affairs and International
Trade
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, entitled “Crossing the Atlantic: Expanding the Economic Relationship
between Canada and Europe”.
* * *
[English]
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the 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
four petitions.
* * *
Yukon Act
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an
act to replace the Yukon Act in order to modernize it and to implement certain
provisions of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement,
and to repeal and make amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Committees of the
House
Foreign Affairs and International
Trade
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade on the issue of the sugar industry.
This represents the third report of the subcommittee on
international trade, trade disputes and investment.
* * *
Fisheries and
Oceans
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans.
Pursuant to section 52 of the Oceans Act the committee
has completed its review of the Oceans Act and we ask the government to respond
within the prescribed timeframe.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development
and Natural Resources
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday,
September 27, 2001, your committee examined Bill C-33, an act respecting the
water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, and has agreed to report it with
amendments.
[English]
I wish to thank all committee members and support staff
for their great work.
* * *
[Translation]
Public
Accounts
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both
official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts on chapter 34 of the Auditor General of Canada's report of December
2000, entitled “Other Audit Observations—Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and
Human Resources Development Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee asks the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
[English]
Procedure and House
Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 35th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
(1510)
Business of the House
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among House
leaders and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding the order of September 26,
2001, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to
report Bill C-15B no later than Thursday, December 6, 2001; and
That the House shall not sit on November 23, 2001,
provided that, if any bill is reported from committee on November 22, 2001, the
report stage of the said bill may be taken up on or after November 26, 2001 and
notices of proposed amendments at the said report stage may be given at any
time before 2 p.m. on November 23, 2001 and shall be duly printed in the
Order Paper and Notice Paper for November 26, 2001; and
That, notwithstanding the calendar tabled by the
Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(b), the sitting weeks between the last
Monday in January and the Monday following Easter Monday in 2002 shall be the
weeks commencing January 28, February 4, February 18, February 25, March 11 and
March 18.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
Petitions
Gasoline
Additives
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am
honoured to present this petition on behalf of constituents living in Grand
Bend and Forest in the riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.
The petitioners call upon parliament to protect the
health of seniors, children and the environment by banning the gas additive
MMT. The use of MMT in gasoline results in significantly higher smog producing
hydrocarbon emissions and enhances global warming.
* * *
The Media
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this petition which is signed by many
concerned constituents of mine urges media outlets and the CRTC to act together
in taking the desires of parents into account and reducing the amount of sexual
and violent content in the media.
* * *
Genetically Modified
Foods
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like
to present a petition on behalf of a number of signators who are concerned
about foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified
material.
* * *
Human Rights
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to
present at this time. The first comes from many people throughout the province
of Ontario who appeal to the House of Commons with respect to the human rights
violations taking place in China.
The petitioners urge us to take immediate action to
urge China to free Canadian Shenli Lin and all Falun Gong practitioners, and to
stop the persecution and mass killing of Falun Gong practitioners.
* * *
(1515)
Terrorism
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have the pleasure of
presenting comes from my own constituency. It is a result of the great tragedy
that has befallen our world with the destruction of the World Trade Center in
New York City and the destruction of a portion of the Pentagon.
They say Canadians are peace loving people. There is a
considerable preamble which I do not have time to read. However the petitioners
encourage parliament to reject senseless acts of retaliation as they would not
repair the damage or bring back those who are lost. Massive retaliation would
only perpetuate a violent barbaric cycle fuelled by hatred and ignorance.
The petitioners encourage us to explore peaceful means
of assisting the United States and to explore ways we can prevent the
harbouring of terrorists in our great country.
* * *
Human Rights
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present to the
House pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition has just over 100 names and
encourages the Canadian government to take immediate action to urge China to
release Falun Gong practitioners who are being persecuted and to stop the
persecution immediately.
It also urges the establishment of Canada's SOS rescue
team to travel to China for an international investigation to help stop the
persecution.
* * *
Kidney Disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to present two quite
different petitions which relate to the same topic. The petitions relate to end
stage kidney disease. They have been developed in the Peterborough area by Ken
Sharp, a person who has been on kidney dialysis his entire adult
life.
The first petition deals with support for research
regarding the bioartificial kidney. As we know, the bioartificial kidney is an
experimental implant device which would greatly improve the situation of those
who have end stage kidney disease.
The petitioners call on parliament to support the
bioartificial kidney which would eventually eliminate the need for both
dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
My second petition, as I said, is related but is quite
different. It concerns the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its
Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes which does wonderful work for
kidney research.
Many of my constituents believe that work would be more
effective if the name of the institute included the word kidney. They call on
parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to
explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system. They
ask that it be named the Institute of Kidney and Urinary Tract
Diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred
Question No. 71.
[Text]
*Question No. 71--
Mr. Guy
St-Julien:
From 1990 to 2000, for each year and for each province
and territory: (a) what volume of gold was produced and what were the
extraction costs; (b) what was the financial value of the gold produced;
and (c) what quantity of the gold produced was sold by the Bank of
Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, if the answer to
Question No. 71 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled
immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Return tabled)
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed
to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Motions for Papers
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Air Canada Public Participation
Act
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air
Canada Public Participation Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak
to Bill C-38 this afternoon to try to get the sense of the House on furthering
the improvement of airlines in Canada. This is a very short bill and it has one
purpose: to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act to eliminate the 15%
limit on ownership of voting shares in Air Canada by any one person. I hope
there will be speedy passage of the bill.
As most people know because we have been engaged in the
airline file for a number of years Air Canada took on Canadian Airlines a
couple of years ago. Over the last couple of years it has done a remarkably
good job of merging the two airlines together.
There have been problems, not all of them of Air
Canada's making. Some had to do with bad weather in the summer of 2000. Others
had to do with the increase in air traffic when the economy was doing well.
There was also an inability to merge the workforces on time.
All these things came together to create a situation
that combined with high fuel prices and a declining economy in the last year
caused problems for Air Canada before the events of September 11. Air Canada
had publicly stated its need to get its house in order to attain more equity
before September 11. The events of September 11 have compounded the problem and
there is no question that Air Canada, as other airlines, requires a new
infusion of equity.
Because of the constraints parliament imposed when Air
Canada was privatized, it was impossible for the normal kinds of investment to
occur in Air Canada that occur in other public corporations in the country.
Investors who wanted a say in the direction of the company were stymied because
of the legislation and the restriction on voting shares.
If we are asking the House to eliminate the limit on
individual ownership it would be useful to give a bit of the history as to why
the limit was imposed in the first place.
Air Canada was privatized in 1988 and 1989 under the
enabling legislation which is before us and which would be amended by this
bill. At the time the act contained a section that limited individual ownership
of voting shares to 10%. The justification for the 10% limit was to ensure that
voting shares would be as widely held as possible by Canadians.
Most people do not realize that the 10% limit was
accompanied by a prohibition on association between persons who hold voting
shares. This was designed to ensure these persons could not act together and
take control thereby nullifying the concept of a widely held company. At the
time no one thought much about that and the bill was passed. The 10%
restriction remained in place until the year 2000 when we raised it to 15% by
way of Bill C-26.
Members may remember that leading up to that bill there
was an initiative by the government in the fall of 1999 to find a private
sector solution to the woes that were bedeviling Canadian airlines. As a result
of actions we took we precipitated a private sector solution. Two offers were
before Air Canada at the time. One was from Onex Corporation. The other was a
proposal that originated with the management of Air Canada.
I will not go into all the details, but people know
that Onex withdrew and subsequently Air Canada's management made good on its
promise to take over Canadian Airlines subject to certain restrictions. At the
time in December 1999 there were intense negotiations between the government
and Air Canada because with the demise of Canadian Airlines there would be one
large carrier with 82% of the capacity in the country.
(1520)
As a result of those negotiations, Air Canada decided
on certain guarantees with respect to no involuntary layoffs and service to
small communities. It has made good on its promises. I emphasize that during
those discussions at any time the Air Canada board of directors was free to
walk away from that initiative. It made a conscientious business decision which
it had to live with in good times and in bad.
Of course the times right now are not as good. That is
why the original objection by Air Canada management to changing the 10% and
having single shareholders potentially own the company has changed. It has
publicly stated its willingness to agree to this kind of a change. It is in
agreement with it. Therefore I cannot see any great controversy.
The decision to move to the 15% limit was one we felt
was at least in keeping with other crown corporations such as Canadian National
Railways. We cannot take that particular comparison too far because the
ownership limits on former crown corporations have been tailored to the
specific industry sector. CN and Petro-Canada for example have a 15% limit but
no limits on non-residents. Nordion for example has no individual share
ownership limits except for the 25% for non-residents. Major Canadian banks
will allow 20% but there is a fitness test. What we are proposing for Air
Canada is appropriate to the Canadian air services sector at this time in our
history.
As I said there has been some degree of support for
this from Air Canada. In coming to the decision to remove the limit, I have
been told by a number of people that any limit in the past has been a
disincentive to an investor with serious intentions when investing to have a
say in the company. That is why we have decided to re-examine the entire
operation and to ensure that there is an equity infusion into Air
Canada.
We have been fully engaged with all of the airlines
since September 11 to look at their finances and ascertain their financial
health. Obviously they have been adversely affected, as have airlines around
the world. What we see in Canada is not unique to us; it is something that is
being played out elsewhere.
We know what the United States government has done in
the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. It came forward with a $15 billion
package for the airlines, $5 billion for immediate compensation, $10 billion
for loan guarantees. There was another $3 billion included in the $40 billion
appropriations bill for reconstruction specifically for security measures. As I
have said publicly, we are examining the efficacy of the Government of Canada
taking on more of those security costs.
We have watched with some concern as airlines have
faced difficulty. They have all reduced capacity and made many adjustments.
Just last week I announced a loan guarantee package for
Canada 3000. That airline met certain objectives such as equity infusion by
investors, reduction in capacity, the paring of workforces and most important,
a business plan that would restore Canada 3000 to profitability.
What I said publicly last Thursday night is that kind
of program will be available for the five principal airlines in the country
that cover 95% of the market. I realize from questions in question period there
are other smaller carriers that would like to avail themselves of a similar
loan guarantee program, but they were covered in the initial compensation
program. They were covered, as were all the airlines and airports, by our
agreement to pick up the war risk liability for 90 days, the third party
liability that was terminated by insurance companies which affected not only
Canada's air industry but air industries around the world. We did this for the
air carriers, the airports and Nav Canada. Everyone has benefited.
(1525)
One has to draw the line somewhere in how far one goes
in terms of loan guarantees. That is why we have said the five largest carriers
that cover 95% of the market that are national in scope, they being Air Canada,
Air Transat, Canada 3000, WestJet and Sky Service, would be eligible for the
loan guarantee initiative. I am not sure that all of them will require
it.
There is no question that air traffic has come back to
some degree in the last number of weeks. It is gradually coming back to
approximate pre-September 11 levels. However, that is not the case certainly on
transborder traffic where there is still a significant reduction as compared to
the period prior to September 11.
In looking at Air Canada in particular, we have said
that perhaps by eliminating the single ownership limit the company would become
more attractive to investors. It would allow more of an infusion of equity. It
certainly would facilitate with the overall restructuring of the
company.
We come with the message that we are preoccupied with
the health of the transportation sector in general, but in particular the
airline industry. We have made a number of changes to security regulations and
safety regulations on board aircraft with the locking of cockpit doors and the
strengthening of cockpit doors. In fact last Friday after I boarded the plane
and before it left the gate, I was asked by an Air Canada pilot to see the new
measures that had been put in place. I was quite impressed with how quickly
that had been done and it had been done with the co-operation of Transport
Canada. This is being done not only here but in the U.S. and elsewhere around
the world. We are facilitating extra security on planes with the new
regulations.
I hear my friend from the Alliance who is preoccupied
with Americana and wants the provision of armed security personnel to be
blanketed on Canadian aircraft. We have said yes for those flights to Reagan
national airport, specifically because the American government has said that is
a condition for Air Canada to go back to that airport. I think everyone in the
House understands that. Anyone who has flown into that airport knows its
proximity to the downtown core. It is not just any downtown core; it has the
seat of government of one of the largest nations, arguably the most powerful
nation in the world. Obviously there have to be some extra security provisions.
We have agreed to that because Air Canada is unique on the open skies treaty in
being able to use that airport. We did not want to inhibit Air Canada in any
way, so we have agreed that the RCMP, Canada's national police, will be on
those flights. I have said that we would consider it elsewhere.
However, our preoccupation has been to ensure that
airport security be made more stringent and that those rules be put in place
quickly and be enforced. Yes, there is some inconsistency across the country,
but we are getting to that. We are dealing with that through
inspections.
I was on the CBC town hall meeting last night. The
Leader of the Opposition was on the panel. I was very happy when he agreed that
the security regime has improved and that lineups at airports are diminishing
as people get through the new rules.
Of course the one disagreement, in terms of substance,
was the question of whether the government should go along with armed security
personnel. As I have said publicly, we have that under advisement.
We have done much to help the airline industry and the
airports. There are new regulations, new security regulations. I have no doubt
that the security regime at Canadian airports, in the skies generally, and in
other parts of the world is much better than it was before. I thought it was
good before September 11 but it is much more stringent now. Canadians should
feel very comfortable in flying. Indeed gradually people are going back. Even
business class passengers who stayed away in droves following September 11 are
starting to travel again, even some of them to the United States.
Our decision to amend the Air Canada Public
Participation Act at this time is to provide another kind of assistance to
Canada's largest carrier in its attempts to return to financial
stability.
(1530)
Air Canada is the world's 11th largest airline. It is
an airline of which we can be proud. It has not been easy for Air Canada in the
last couple of years with some of the problems that it has undergone. However,
the quality of the professionals that work at Air Canada both in the air and on
the ground is unparalleled. The quality of service we get on Air Canada is
among the best in the world. It has been adjudged as such by international
bodies.
We have an airline of which we can be proud. It is an
airline that is having some problems, but it is an airline which I think has
the ability to get over those problems. It is incumbent upon us as politicians
and upon the House in general to facilitate solutions, certainly private sector
solutions, on the part of our airlines, particularly Air Canada.
I am confident that if we enact the bill it will
provide the private sector greater opportunities for investing in Air Canada
which will contribute to a successful restructuring of the company. With the
enactment of the bill, Air Canada will find itself on the same footing as all
of the other airlines. No one else has a single ownership limit. We are not at
this time proposing to raise the 25% foreign ownership limit. We do not think
that is necessary. We are being consistent with many other countries around the
world, including the United States, which keep that 25% limit. They believe
inherently that an industry so fundamental to the economy, the fibre and the
being of the country should indeed not only be operated by Canadians but
controlled in effect by Canadians. If we need to change that we would not need
legislation because current legislation allows that change to occur, at least
the raising of the limit from 25% to 49%, by order in council. However we do
not think that would be necessary.
We believe that the passage of the bill would be
timely. It would give Air Canada the investment. As I said before, it is a very
simple bill. It has three sections. The first removes the 15% limit and the
prohibition on association. The second renders as null and void any other
corporate documents that address the 15% limit. The third deals with when the
changes will come into force.
I would hope that my colleagues would agree that this
is just another step in the government's response and parliament's response to
the tragic events of September 11. But in particular, it is also a response to
the ongoing restructuring and realignment of the Canadian air industry which
predated September 11. I hope that my colleagues would ensure speedy passage of
the bill. Certainly at committee if there are any detailed questions members
would like to ask, I am fully prepared to be there with my officials.
This is a bill that is in the national interests. It is
certainly in the interests of airline passengers and all of those who believe
that our national air carrier, Air Canada, should continue to be the great
carrier that it is.
(1535)
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in favour of
Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This change
is long overdue. It finally puts Air Canada on a level playing field with other
Canadian air carriers with respect to the sale of its shares.
For the first time in Canadian history Canadians can
buy, sell and trade as many Air Canada shares as they want, just as if they
were shares of any other Canadian company. Bill C-38 represents a marked
departure from the traditional thinking of Liberal governments.
Air Canada was created by an act of parliament in 1937
as Trans-Canada Airlines. It has been the subject of much discussion in the
House since that time. For the first 40 years of the company's existence it was
seen as an agent of the crown and as the federal government's principal policy
instrument in the field of aviation.
That changed with the passage of the original Air
Canada Act in 1977. For the first time Air Canada was required to borrow in its
own name and was declared to be no longer an agent of the crown. It remained a
crown corporation and cabinet retained the power to appoint its
directors.
In 1987 the Progressive Conservative government passed
the National Transportation Act. It fundamentally changed the rules of the game
and attempted to introduce competition rather than regulation as the primary
arbiter within Canada's domestic airline industry.
Within a year the Progressive Conservatives had
correctly realized that in a competitive situation the government had no
business owning one of the competitors, so the parliament of the day quickly
passed the Air Canada Public Participation Act essentially privatizing Air
Canada and turning it from a crown corporation into a regular company whose
operations were subject to the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Air Canada Public
Participation Act limited the number of shares that could be owned by a single
shareholder to 10%. This was done to ensure that Air Canada stocks would be
broadly held by as many Canadians as possible. The section also put Air Canada
on a level playing field with its principal domestic competitor, Canadian
Airlines International.
Members must not forget that the Air Canada Public
Participation Act was first read in the House on May 19, 1988. This was nearly
five months after the January 1, 1988, birth of Canadian Airlines International
from the fusion of all Air Canada's pre-1980 domestic competitors, Pacific
Western Airlines, Transair, Nordair, Quebec Air, Eastern Provincial Airways and
Canadian Pacific Airlines, into a single entity.
In 1988 Canadian Airlines parent company was governed
by Alberta's Pacific western airlines act which set a 4% limit on the number
shares any one group could control. In fact the 10% share limit set in the
original Air Canada Public Participation Act was actually more liberal than the
4% limit set in the act governing Canadian Airlines.
Bill C-26 raised to 15% the number of shares that could
be held in Air Canada following the takeover by Air Canada of Canadian Airlines
in 2000. We are finally discussing whether to give Air Canada some of the same
rights as other companies some 64 years after parliament first created a
national airline.
If we were to believe government members, Bill C-38
would put Air Canada on a level playing field by striking down paragraph
6(1)(a) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Bill C-38 ostensibly puts
Air Canada on that level playing field with all other airlines with respect to
the way its shares can be bought, sold and traded by Canadian citizens. On that
basis alone it should be supported, and the official opposition supports this
legislation.
Bill C-38 does little to address the short term
financial woes of Air Canada that led to thousands of layoffs at Air Canada,
including the laying off today of 500 to 700 pilots. I will explain.
First, Air Canada does not obtain money when its shares
are acquired by a new buyer unless Air Canada is the seller. Second, no single
shareholder is currently restricted by the present 15% limit, that is no
current shareholder owns 15% and has publicly expressed a desire to purchase
more but cannot as a result of this section. Third, if people were not inclined
to buy Air Canada stock before the legislation the fact that they can buy more
of it is simply not an incentive.
There are only two ways that Bill C-38 would
financially benefit Air Canada. First, some of the debt which the Caisse de
dépôt et placement holds would have to be converted into shares. The caisse
currently owns roughly 9% of Air Canada stock and converting its debt into
shares would give the caisse roughly 18%.
First, this move, based on a $2.50 price for shares at
the date of the transport minister's announcement of his intention to introduce
this legislation, would allow the company to convert roughly $17.789 million
worth of caisse debt into 9% of Air Canada voting shares. Second, an individual
or group would have to take control of Air Canada with a clear plan to
restructure the company. This would not be enough unless the restructuring plan
were to meet the approval of the transport minister and be acceptable to Air
Canada unions.
(1540)
The bill is essentially political posturing. It lets
the government claim to be addressing Air Canada's concerns while ignoring the
company's plea for bigger and bolder policy moves such as the implementation of
permanent new security regimes on the ground that are not only better but
faster and more streamlined, placing air marshals on planes, and putting the
issue of airline industry restructuring before the Standing Committee on
Transport and Government Operations for immediate consideration and
redeliberation.
Bill C-38 requires us to examine the Air Canada Public
Participation Act. While I am in favour of striking down paragraph 6(1)(a) of
the act we should not stop there. We should ask ourselves a basic philosophical
question. As we enter the third millennium should the government continue to
regulate the internal affairs of a publicly traded corporation whose shares it
no longer owns?
Why should paragraphs 6(1)(d) and (e) of the Air Canada
Public Participation Act require Air Canada to maintain facilities and/or
offices in certain cities? Surely these decisions are the responsibility of the
company's shareholders and board of directors.
Why should section 10 of the Air Canada Public
Participation Act make the Official Languages Act applicable to Air Canada and
no other Canadian airline? If the Official Languages Act applies to Canada's
airline industry it should do so in the Official Languages Act and not in the
Air Canada Public Participation Act.
It hardly seems fair to hold Air Canada to a higher
standard than Toronto based Canada 3000, Calgary based WestJet or Montreal
based Air Transat.
Why should paragraphs 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Air Canada
Public Participation Act restrict foreign share ownership in Air Canada when a
more equitable regime would see similar limits placed on all Canadian carriers?
Paragraphs 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act are
wholly unnecessary. The transportation minister should know that there is
already a prohibition against foreigners owning more than 25% of a Canadian air
carrier in the Canada Transportation Act. Section 55 of that act defines a
Canadian carrier as:
A corporation or other entity that is
incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or a province, that is
controlled in fact by Canadians and of which at least 75% , or such lesser
percentage as the Governor in Council may by regulation specify, of the voting
interests are owned and controlled by Canadians. |
Section 56(3) of that act gives the Canadian
Transportation Agency the power to review all mergers and acquisitions in the
airline industry and determine whether such activities would affect an
airline's status as being Canadian. Paragraph 61(a)(i) requires a carrier to be
Canadian in order to have a licence to operate domestic air service.
Section 69 only allows two types of carriers to operate
international air service: Canadian air carriers and non-Canadian air carriers
which have been designated by a foreign government or an agent of a foreign
government to operate an air service under the terms of an agreement or
arrangement between that government and the Government of Canada.
Under the Canada Transportation Act, if WestJet, Canada
3000 and Air Transat were to allow foreigners to acquire more than 25% of their
voting shares they would no longer be Canadian. They would lose both their
ability to serve domestic routes within Canada as well as international routes
between Canada and another country. In essence, they would lose the value of
any potential buyer. This restriction is utterly redundant.
Given the restrictions against foreign ownership
already present in the Canada Transportation Act, paragraphs 6(1)(b) and (c) of
the Air Canada Public Participation Act are wholly unnecessary. Even if there
were no prohibitions in the Canada Transportation Act, Air Canada's board of
directors would undoubtedly take actions to ensure that control of the firm
remained in Canadian hands because of the convention on international civil
aviation, more commonly referred to as the Chicago convention. It sets out the
basis of international commercial aviation.
Internationally scheduled commercial air traffic is
made possible through bilateral agreements in which governments exchange air
rights for the benefit of their respective carriers. Each country can designate
a national carrier on any international route.
Air Canada and Air France fly between Montreal and
Paris. Air Canada and Korean Air Lines fly between Vancouver and Seoul. Air
Canada and Cubana Airlines fly between Canada and Cuba. Only in the most
exceptional cases will we find an airline flying between two cities where
neither is in the airline's home country.
(1545)
In virtually every case where a foreign airline flies
between two foreign destinations it is only as an extension of a flight that
started in the airline's home base. Air Canada flies between Sao Paulo, Brazil,
and Buenos Aires, Argentina, but only as part of a Toronto, Sao Paulo, Buenos
Aires service and only with the approval of the governments of Canada, Brazil
and Argentina.
If Americans or people of any other nationality were to
acquire a majority of Air Canada's voting stock, foreign governments might
refuse to recognize Air Canada as a Canadian company and thereby deny it the
ability to continue serving routes in those countries even without the
safeguards of the Canada Transportation Act. Thus, if United Airlines and
Lufthansa were to buy 51% of Air Canada's voting stock, the British, French and
Chinese governments would have the right to deny Air Canada permission to fly
to London, Paris and Shanghai.
Air Canada as an airline would cease to hold value for
the investors who just purchased it without the ability to serve international
routes. For this reason alone its board of directors would never allow
foreigners to own a majority of Air Canada's stock.
We only need to look at the arrangement that American
Airlines had with Canadian Airlines in 1999. Passengers were flown from the
U.S. to Vancouver and then from Vancouver to Asia on Canadian Airlines jets.
The reason for this was that American Airlines had only been granted routes to
Japan from the U.S. and needed access to Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Thailand and
the Philippines. The Asian service provided by Canadian Airlines was based on
bilateral agreements between Canada and the Asian countries concerned. American
Airlines would have literally killed the goose that laid the golden egg had it
taken control of Canadian Airlines.
I agree with repealing paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Air
Canada Public Participation Act. The official opposition will support Bill
C-38. However, having carefully examined the Air Canada Public Participation
Act, we see no reason not to repeal the entire act itself.
It has at least four irrelevant sections. Section 4
deals with the transfer of shares to the Minister of Transport. Air Canada
tells me these shares have since been sold. Section 5 deals with continuance.
Presumably this has been achieved in the past 12 years since the act has been
passed. Section 11 deals with the continued appointment of Air Canada directors
past the privatization date. Presumably the terms of these directors have long
since expired. Section 14 repeals the Air Canada Act. This section has also
been spent.
The act also discriminates against Air Canada in four
specific areas. Paragraph 6(1)(a) limits share ownership of an individual or
group to 15%. Paragraphs 6(1)(d) and (e) make Air Canada maintain facilities
and/or offices in defined cities. That is mandated by the government and is not
a decision of the company. That is mandated against Air Canada and not levied
against other businesses. This is a government regulation that retards the
economy.
Paragraphs 6(1)(b) and (c) restrict foreign share
ownership in Air Canada. Section 10 makes the Official Languages Act applicable
only to Air Canada and not other carriers.
The transport minister says that because the head
office is mandated to be in Montreal it somehow adds virtue to a discriminatory
policy which handcuffs Air Canada but does not handcuff other carriers. He says
that it is in the national interest. It is in the national interest if it is in
Montreal but not if it is in Calgary or Vancouver. That is not in the national
interest; Montreal is the national interest.
It is a rather perverted approach to public policy. Why
does the government not just leave companies alone to compete on an equal and
level playing field in the free market? It might try it once. It does wonders.
If the government is intent on putting Air Canada on a
level playing field with its domestic competitors it can do this not only by
removing the share limitation in paragraph 6(1)(a) of the act but by repealing
the entire act itself. This is what the official opposition believes the
government should do.
I intend to call witnesses before the standing
committee to examine the practicalities of repealing the entire act and the
best ways to put Air Canada on an equal footing with its domestic competitors
while respecting the other priorities now contained in the act.
If the transport minister would like to come before the
committee and tell us why Montreal is more a Canadian city than Calgary,
Hamilton, Toronto or Edmonton, he is free to do so. I encourage him to do so.
It would be the death of the government if he did that.
The legitimate policy aims which are contained in the
act should apply equally to all Canadian carriers. Aviation law should apply to
all Canadian carriers equally, not just to Air Canada.
The Air Canada Public Participation Act discriminates
against Air Canada in ways that are utterly counterproductive and which retard
the marketplace. Just because Air Canada is a corporation does not mean that
the thousands of Air Canada employees should be held to a higher standard than
their colleagues at other companies. Either we believe in fairness as a nation
or we believe in double standards. The official opposition believes in fairness
and competition. I hope the government's opinion of the air industry will one
day be the same.
(1550)
Since 1937 the federal government has regulated Air
Canada mercilessly. It is time to throw off the shackles and let Air Canada be
held to the same high standards and only the same high standards as every other
Canadian carrier. It is time to repeal the Air Canada Public Participation Act
and finally create the level playing field that people on both sides of the
House keep saying they want.
I will be supporting Bill C-38, but I will also be
introducing at committee amendments aimed at doing what Bill C-38 should be
doing, which is putting Air Canada on a level playing field with its domestic
competitors for the first time in its 64 year history; transport minister be
damned.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sure the hon. member would like to correct the
last part of his speech. Would he like to correct it?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I think it
would be much more prudent to withdraw?
Mr. James Moore:
Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ):
Madam Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-38 is in
connection with Air Canada's demands for a review of the ceiling on individual
ownership of shares.
The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38.
Of greatest concern are the speeches by the Minister of
Transport and the representative of the official opposition on the future of
Air Canada and airlines in Canada.
Bill C-38, a simple bill with only three pages, repeals
section 6 of the act. I will read it for the men and women of Quebec. The Air
Canada employees watching us surely understand it. The act contained, and I
quote:
6. (1) provisions imposing
constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership, including joint ownership, of
voting shares...to prevent any one person, together with the associates of that
person, from holding, beneficially owning or controlling, directly or
indirectly...voting shares to which are attached more than 15% of the votes
that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of the Corporation— |
What the Minister of Transport is proposing in Bill
C-38 seems thoroughly harmless. It would, however, allow a single shareholder
to hold more than 15% of shares. It would be this shareholder other
shareholders or entities who would hold the shares. They would thus have the
right to take over control or to take part in the control of Air Canada's board
of directors.
Is this desirable? It is what Air Canada is asking for.
It is thought that investors could be interested. Citizens and companies across
Canada will probably want to buy Air Canada shares, ensuring with colleagues,
friends or related corporations that they have a certain degree of control over
the board of directors so as to be able to play a greater role in the company's
decisions, to perhaps be able to run it better and turn a profit. This would
surely allow them to make some sort of return on their investment.
What this means is giving Canada's business community a
free hand to control, to continue to control and to increasingly control this
national company, Air Canada.
This is cause for concern, because the minister has
told us quite candidly what our neighbours to the south have done. He has told
us in all sincerity that the Americans provided massive assistance to the
airline industry, over $15 billion he tells us, and that was the figure. Five
billion dollars in direct aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. A choice was
made. In the wake of the sad events of September 11, the Americans decided to
invest heavily. The minister was quite open about this. The Americans invested
heavily, he told us, and that is so. The figure mentioned was $15 billion to
revive the airline industry.
Other countries in the world suffered, such as
Switzerland's Swissair, which sought bankruptcy protection. Switzerland decided
to invest heavily in a company called Crossair, a regional airline in
Switzerland. This company will soon buy up Swissair's shares and revive the
airline industry. Switzerland has made a choice. It decided to invest heavily
in Crossair, which will soon take over the defunct Swissair. This is a choice
as a society.
What is saddening to hear today is that Canada has
decided to give the market free rein and not to make any massive investments to
kick start the airline industry. Anything it does do is on a bit by bit basis.
Canada's approach is a piecemeal one. At the outset, the minister announced
investments to meet high insurance costs.
(1555)
As a result of the sad events of September 11, the
airlines were faced with astronomical hikes in insurance costs. Some carriers
were no longer even able to insure themselves. The government therefore decided
to compensate them for the astronomically high premiums they were being charged
for insurance.
It then reimbursed expenses. Since the air space was
totally closed down, all companies' equipment was grounded. The Government of
Canada decided, still within its piecemeal approach, to announce one week later
that it would offer compensation and assistance, reimbursing the airlines'
losses that were the result of the six day closing of Canadian air space.
This assistance was in dribs and drabs. After that a
loan guarantee program was announced, followed last week by another loan
guarantee to Canada 3000 of $74 million.
The minister refers to a business restructuring. He
spoke of massive staff reductions. Once again the minister helped out Canada
3000 once it had restructured and, in particular, made massive staff cuts.
The minister has told us very candidly that the
government can help the five major carriers in Canada, including Air Canada,
Air Transat, WestJet and Canada 3000. He said very candidly “once they have
restructured”. Downsizing is an important part of the restructuring of any
company.
This is a message to the employees of all these
airlines in Canada and Quebec, saying “In the end, you are the ones who will
pay for the September 11 events. We will help—as was the case with Canada
3000—once your company has restructured financially”. And the minister adds
“once your company has reduced its staff”.
In order to get help from the federal government,
airlines must absolutely restructure. They must submit a restructuring plan
that includes staff reductions. This is very hard to accept for airline
industry workers, because what happened on September 11 was not their fault. It
is not their fault if their industry suffered such setbacks but they are the
ones who are paying for this.
Again, this applies to four airlines at the exclusion
of Air Canada. In the agreement and in the various acts, very important
guarantees were demanded for Air Canada. Such guarantees were demanded by the
Bloc Quebecois, which questioned the government in debates on the various acts
establishing Air Canada as we know it today, and by others. Why? To protect the
rights of workers.
Air Canada is the largest airline, with 80% of Canada's
air traffic. Therefore, it is important that it be afforded some protection.
When Canadian was integrated with Air Canada, we made sure that workers would
not lose. As the minister said, we made sure that small municipalities would be
served. This has always been a requirement in the original legislation that is
now being amended. These requirements have not changed. Protecting the rights
of workers and serving small municipalities are still requirements under the
acts that established Air Canada and French in the skies.
It is sad to hear speeches such as that of the Alliance
member in a country where there are two founding peoples, anglophones and
francophones. Members will understand why, with such speeches, that sovereignty
is not dead in Quebec. If we were to hear speeches like that of the Alliance
member every day, I am sure sovereignty would take off for the pure and simple
reason that francophone rights must be protected.
(1600)
And the law provides for the protection of French in
the air.
What is harder to accept is the fact that 136
complaints are before the commissioner of official languages. They were lodged
against Air Canada because French is not respected in the air. This is the
harsh reality.
It is hard to hear the representatives of the Canadian
Alliance say, today, that it is time to stop protecting French in the air, a
practice established by one of the two founding peoples, thanks to
representations by the Bloc Quebecois, among others. Air Canada is Canada's
largest airline, carrying 82% of the volume.
Obviously we must carry on and make sure that the
rights of travellers are protected. As regards service to small
municipalities—I am using the minister's expression—it must be protected. That
is what the minister said earlier.
There are no large or small municipalities. Canada was
built from communities that diversified their approaches. Communities were
established around natural resources. Cities—this is the term we should use and
not small and large municipalities—were established across Canada.
No law makes a distinction between towns and cities in
Quebec. They are cities. There are no large and small cities in the Quebec Loi
des cités et villes. There are cities. Obviously, there are cities in the
regions and there are cities near major urban centres, and the law must protect
and continue to protect service to cities in the regions.
Canada owes its existence to its natural resources and
continues to be very much a country of natural resources. The future is very
important for all regions of Canada. Such is the diversity of Canada, what
makes it great. We are one of the largest countries in the world in which the
decision has been made to allow the market to operate freely.
That is where the problem lies. In such a vast country,
a country of such diversity, the strength of which depends in large part on the
natural resources located in distant regions, the government has a duty to
intervene in order to ensure that transportation services are maintained,
including the most rapid means of transportation, air service, so that regional
cities are connected with the major urban centres.
That is why it was hard to swallow today the statement
in the minister's speech saying that, with Bill C-36 which merged Air Canada
and Canadian, we obtained and included protection for service to small
municipalities.
I hope he will rethink his choice of words. Cities in
the regions have as much right to air service as major urban centres. That is
reality. Just as Canada's francophone air travellers have as much right to
service in their own language as anglophones.
I am proud that the act which created Air Canada
protects the use of French in the air. I hope the rumours that Air Canada wants
to abandon Air Canada Regional precisely because the use of French in the air
is a constraint on the expansion of all the businesses that make up Air Canada
Regional, are not true.
Apparently they want to abandon these businesses, sell
them or transfer a part of their routes. That is the current rumour. This is an
attempt to improve the bottom line and to avoid having to respond to the 136
complaints received by the official languages commissioner against Air Canada
regarding the use of French in the air.
It is difficult and it is a hard fight but we must
continue to fight to protect the rights of workers under the statutes that
created Air Canada as we know it today. We must continue to protect service to
cities in the regions, and not small municipalities as the minister said, and
protect the use of French in the air.
This bill only changes the percentage of individual or
group participation in the share capital of Air Canada. It only amends this
clause.
The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38 for the
simple reason that the rights of workers at Air Canada will still be protected,
as will service to cities in the regions, and the use of French in the
air.
We must continue to fight so that cities in the regions
of Canada and Quebec are better served and that the use of French, the language
of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, is better protected in the
air.
(1605)
This is a commitment which the Bloc Quebecois is
determined to defend in the House.
It is sad to see the federal government deciding to put
its faith in the free market in something as important throughout Canada as the
airline industry. This is a position strongly backed by the Canadian Alliance,
which would like to go much further. It would be a disaster for Canada's entire
airline industry for the good and simple reason that this great country of
Canada, and of Quebec, needs flights linking cities in the regions with major
urban centres. They do not all have the same number of inhabitants and are so
diversified that we must support them. In my view, the Government of Canada
would do well to do as Switzerland or the United States have done and provide
massive aid to the airline industry. It is a vital part of our
economy.
Companies such as Bombardier were able to create
markets in aeronautics because we in Canada were heavy users of air services.
The entire aeronautics industry is supported by the airline industry and we
must encourage this industry and its workers. They should not have to pay for
what happened on September 11. They should not bear the brunt of industries'
losses through the loss of their jobs. We are condemning entire families to
poverty just because the government decided to give the market free rein.
I call on the minister to rethink his position on this
issue. I call on the federal Liberal government to start looking at the larger
picture and to send out a clear message. I hope the Minister of Finance will
understand and that in his next budget he will announce heavy investments to
support Canada's airline industry. As in the United States, Switzerland and
other countries, this industry needs significant government support right now,
until business picks up. We all hope that business picks up in the airline
industry. Only time will tell.
Working on security is a good example. I support the
Minister of Finance with respect to the Government of Canada's investments in
security.
The problem is that we did not do enough before
September 11. This is why we now have to invest so massively in security. We
did not do it before. In 1987 the government decided to move the RCMP out of
all Canadian airports. The RCMP was responsible for monitoring and supervising
security at airports. It is not just the Liberal government that made this type
of decision. That decision was made by the Conservative government and was
supported by the current Liberal government. Why? For reasons of economy.
The government delegated to so-called non-profit
organizations the responsibility of managing and administering some of the
duties relating to security at airports.
Today we are seeing some of the results of that
decision. There has not been much investment. Instead, cuts were made. The
government tried to transfer the burden of security to airline companies which,
over the past 20 years, have undergone major changes, including bankruptcies
and the merging of Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada. Meanwhile,
it was asking airlines to pay for security.
It did so by investing as little as possible. Since
1987 Transport Canada has been responsible for security at airports. This is a
civilian agency which over the past 15 years has been much busier dealing with
disputes about the costs to airline companies compared to the services provided
by non-profit organizations set up by the Government of Canada to transfer its
responsibility. They tried to make it as inexpensive as possible and now we can
see the results.
(1610)
Today we are being forced to make massive investments
and the Liberal government is now afraid that it will not have enough money,
for the simple reason that we do not know exactly how much the security bill
will cost. In the meantime, we are not investing in the airline industry, we
are saving our pennies to invest in security and protect passengers, users and
all Canadian.
This is a choice we as a society made, and today the
airline industry is paying the price. The federal Liberal government does not
want to invest like the Americans have done. Once again, I thought the
minister's statement was quite frank when he said that the Americans had
provided massive support for the airline industry, $5 billion in direct
assistance, $10 billion in loan guarantees; $15 billion in all.
Switzerland made a choice, following Swissair's filing
for protection under the bankruptcy act, when it decided to invest massively,
with the purchase of 38% of the shares of Crossair, which will take over from
Swissair in January. So, it is a societal choice.
In Canada, all that is being promised, all that is
being offered to employees in the airline industry, which supports the aviation
industry, airplane manufacturers, et cetera, is Bill C-38. The world's leading
companies in aviation and aeronautics are here, there are manufacturers and
companies that produce parts, and all that we can promise them today is Bill
C-38.
We agree that individuals should be able to have more
than a 15% control of shares if they want to. If this finally allowed a major
investor to control Air Canada's board of directors and try to jump start the
company and get it on track, this is a societal choice that the government of
Canada has made.
We must think about the workers in the airline
industry, in all the companies, and not just the five major ones. There are
regional companies as well. This afternoon, Air Alma was mentioned. There is
Air Inuit and all the other regional carriers, which were hit with the
reduction in air traffic across Canada and around the world. They are not being
helped by the measures the minister announced yesterday.
This afternoon in oral question period, the minister
told us candidly that revitalizing the major companies was likely to give the
smaller regional carriers a boost. This represents a choice not to support the
regional companies, which are often family operations, and letting them go
adrift. When they hit really hard times and are within inches of seeking
bankruptcy protection the government might agree to guarantee loans for them,
if things are really going bad.
No plan is in place to help the airline industry. They
will deal with things piecemeal, day by day. They put out fires. That is how
security was dealt with. When problems arise, they deal with them. Otherwise,
they try to save as much as possible in security. This is the way they have
operated since 1987.
They are making massive investments because there is a
security problem but the passengers on the airlines are paying the cost in
Canada. Today they have nothing more to sink their teeth into. They have a bill
that will enable private investors to participate more in Air Canada in an
attempt to revive it.
I hope and we will demand that the context in which
today's Air Canada was established will be maintained. In other words, Canada
and Quebec need a strong airline that respects travellers' rights, that serves
the cities and the regions and that uses French in the air, for both founding
peoples.
(1615)
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on
behalf of the New Democratic Party at second reading of Bill C-38, an act to
amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
It was not that long ago, in fact just about 18 months,
that we last debated a bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
That was the last parliament's Bill C-26 which, among other things, approved
Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines. I think it is important that as we
debate the bill before us today we remember this context. It has been about a
year and a half since the government passed Bill C-26 to approve the merger of
the two national airlines and I think it is now pretty safe to say it has been
a disaster. The government completely dropped the ball with the merger.
One of the minister's stated objectives in Bill C-26
was to foster competition in the domestic market. He said so repeatedly in the
House. What has happened? Eighteen months later we have even less competition
than we had before. Royal Airlines and CanJet are no more. They have been
swallowed up by Canada 3000. Two entire airlines are gone. So much for
fostering competition.
The minister also said that Bill C-26 was supposed to
prevent Air Canada from using predatory pricing to drive its competitors out of
business. As we on the House of Commons transport committee have heard
repeatedly over these months, this part of that bill has been a failure as
well. The small airlines that are trying to compete with Air Canada and offer
Canadian travellers some choice in the market have repeatedly been saying what
we in the New Democratic Party were already saying while Bill C-26 was still
before the House: that the anti-predatory pricing measures contained in that
bill were toothless and completely ineffective.
This should not be surprising to the government. The
commissioner of the competition bureau came before the transport committee
while we were reviewing Bill C-26 and told us straight out that the bill did
not give him the powers he needed to stop predatory pricing, but the Liberals
ignored him. So did the Alliance and the Tories. I do not know why that
happened. Maybe they just had their ideological blinders on and would not even
think about the possibility that maybe a little regulation was necessary to
prevent Air Canada from abusing its monopoly.
The competition commissioner said the bill would not
give him the power to stop predatory pricing. My party's response was to try to
do something about it. At report stage I introduced amendments to strengthen
the competition bureau's ability to fight predatory pricing. The Liberals, the
Alliance and the Tories opposed it and now we see the results.
The bill before us today, Bill C-38, would repeal
paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This would remove
the 15% cap on ownership of shares by an individual or a group of individuals
working in concert. This is a thoroughly underwhelming response to the current
crisis in the airline industry. If the minister thinks that this is going to
solve either the short term or the long term problems facing Air Canada and the
overall airline industry, he is fooling himself.
The government argues that removing the shareholder cap
will allow large investors to come in, buy the company, recapitalize it and
restructure it. There are two problems with this reasoning.
First, industry and market analysts tell us that there
is virtually no interest out there from investors in making any kind of major
investment in failing airlines like Air Canada. This was the case before
September 11 and it is even more so now given the world decline in travel and
tourism since the terrorist attacks. Who does the government think is going to
come along and invest all this money in Air Canada? Unless it knows something
that it is not telling us, the bill would not do even a little bit of
good.
The second problem with the government's reasoning is
that even if removing the cap were to solve Air Canada's short term problems,
which I do not believe it will, it opens up the airline to an even more long
term problem down the road.
Why has the minister flip flopped from 18 months ago
when arguing against the elimination of the cap? Is it simply because he sees
no other way to address Air Canada's short term cash crunch? There are much
better ways to address the short term necessity of keeping Air Canada in the
air, which do not carry the long term costs that the bill carries. In the past
few weeks, as the New Democratic transport critic I have suggested numerous
alternative ways that the government could help Air Canada make it through the
short term cash crunch, like tax deferrals, interest free loans, lower airport
lease fees and initiating negotiations with Nav Canada to find a way to reduce
the air navigation fees.
New Democrats do not want to see a direct government
handout of taxpayer dollars to Air Canada, but if it is necessary we have said
it should come with strings attached and should give the government a say in
how the airline is restructured.
(1620)
The bill addresses only the immediate short term
problem facing Air Canada and it does not even do a credible job at
that.
We have to look at the long term issues facing the
industry. In the long term it is crucial that the government break the airline
industry out of the destructive cycle it has been in for the last decade. The
cycle repeats itself over and over again in every country that, like Canada,
has an unregulated airline industry. First, capacity rises to unsustainable
levels. This leads to massive financial losses. Then the weakest companies go
under. They collapse and are downsized or the airline reduces capacity. Then
the cycle repeats itself.
This is a ridiculous way for the government to let an
industry as important as the airline industry operate. The uncertainty we get
from going from crisis to crisis undermines the entire national economy. We can
ill afford this with our economy on the verge of recession.
If the government ever wants to end this cycle it has
to drop the passive, minimalistic approach the transport minister is
suggesting. It has to stop responding on a crisis by crisis, patchwork and
piecemeal basis and look at some modern regulation to limit the growth of
capacity. I am not talking about the old fashioned regulation of every route
and every fare. I am talking about limited, targeted regulation to control the
growth of capacity: a modern regulatory regime.
For the good of our airline industry the minister needs
to take off the ideological blinders telling him that all regulation is bad and
realize that total deregulation is just as bad as total regulation. There is a
middle way and that is what he should be aiming for.
Although I do not believe this extinction of the
shareholder limit will be the saviour of Air Canada or do the job of
stabilizing industry, my party will not delay the bill going to committee. The
transport committee needs to review the situation and, quite frankly, I hope we
will see investors come forward. However, more must be done to stabilize our
entire airline industry. Had one or two shareholders owned Air Canada, where
would they be today? Would they have survived the huge losses of the past six
weeks? Will these present changes ensure service to all regions of Canada? I
think not.
My colleague from the Bloc has rightfully criticized
the government for its approach to offering loan assistance. The government has
said that if the airline restructures and lays off workers it will get
assistance. The government has abandoned smaller rural and northern communities
by not holding Air Canada to the merger agreement.
I also want to join my colleague from the Bloc in the
disappointment I feel that the Alliance Party refuses to accept our bilingual
nation.
Much more needs to be done to stabilize the airline
industry. It is time to realize that the strategy of the last decade has not
worked. We need to look at alternative methods. I look forward to having
witnesses appear before transport committee and to coming up with a resolution
that I hope will truly, once and for all, give some stability to our airline
industry.
(1625)
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be debating the second
reading of Bill C-38. It is with a degree of astonishment that we find
ourselves addressing the issue 18 months after the fact.
The issue of public ownership and domestic ownership in
Air Canada did come up when we were reviewing the restructuring of the airline
industry 18 months ago. One of the dissenting opinions of the Canadian Alliance
Party and myself was that this limitation of 15% was not a good thing and
should not be in the legislation. We said at that time, and I repeat it now,
that the 15% limitation in ownership hindered Air Canada from dealing with the
issues rather than helping it. The government was urged at that time to remove
the controls on ownership to give Air Canada the ability to raise capital in
order for it to be able to afford the debt it was taking on with the
acquisition of Canadian Airlines.
At that time the government said, as the minister did
today, that it was not necessary to remove the limitations, that it was all
fine and well and Air Canada could move ahead without it. Today I heard the
minister say the same thing about foreign ownership, that it is not important
at this time to remove the limit or raise the limit from 25% to 49% because all
is well and Air Canada, with this amendment to the legislation, would be able
to garner the capital that is necessary.
I would suggest that now it is time for the government
to look seriously at the issue of Air Canada, at its financial position, the
issues and the problems it has to deal with, and the government should realize
that now is not the time for government to put on restrictions. Air Canada has
an enormous debt load. Airlines cost big dollars, not small dollars. Air Canada
will require a large amount of money, not a small amount of money, in order to
remain afloat.
I would suggest that today the government is showing
the lack of foresight that it showed 18 months ago when it would not remove the
government restrictions to ownership in a way that would have allowed Air
Canada to reach the maximum possibilities of getting fresh capital into its
company.
It is interesting to see that Air Canada is now in
favour of these changes, that Air Canada is now willing to look at removing
this 15% control of domestic ownership and raising the foreign ownership limits
from 25% to 49%. It is interesting because 18 months to two years ago it was
this restriction on domestic ownership that caused the other bidder, Onex, to
remove itself from the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. It was this
limitation on domestic ownership that forced the government to deal with the
bid that Air Canada had put on the table. This control on domestic ownership
allowed Air Canada, I would suggest, to perhaps make an unwise decision to
fight the takeover bid that Onex had put on the table.
Having said that, let me say that the problems Air
Canada is facing are not due to September 11. September 11 did not help, but
certainly the problems did not originate with the horrific events of September
11. The problems that Air Canada is facing have been ongoing.
There was an article in The Economist of July 7,
2001, obviously before September 11, that outlined in great detail the problems
in the airline industry, the problems with the downturns in the economy, the
fact that air travel fell in the United States and Europe for the first time in
decades in May, and the fact that on any given day, at that time, four million
people around the world were taking to the air and that at any one moment in
time a quarter of a million people were in flight. However, bad weather,
congestion on the runways, hamstrung air traffic control, computer failure and
the late arrival of incoming flights all turn air travel into a
lottery.
(1630)
It was quite apparent before September 11 that there
were major problems in the airline industry. Air Canada is one of the larger
players. I understand it is the 11th largest airline in the world but that just
means that its problems are perhaps larger than some of the smaller airlines.
Air Canada has been having difficulties, to say the least, in merging the two
workforces and cultures of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. It is because of
these problems that it ended up in a dire situation that preceded September
11.
We cannot deny that the events of September 11 had an
impact on the airlines but I suggest that the government's decision to remove
the domestic controls on ownership is a sorry response to the issue Air Canada
is facing. The government has shown a complete lack of vision as to where the
airline industry should be going. Had it had some vision of how Canada could
have a strong national airline with support from other airlines and that all
those pieces could work together, perhaps a lot of this angst would have been
sorted out before now. Unfortunately, the government has not shown that kind of
vision. It had a knee-jerk reaction to emergency situations that arose at the
time.
The government had a knee-jerk reaction when Canadian
Airlines was going under. Now that Air Canada finds itself in financial
difficulty, again it has a knee-jerk reaction. Canada 3000 found itself in
financial difficulties and there was yet another knee-jerk reaction. I think
Canadians would like to know that their government has given some thought to
the future of the airline industry and how their expectations will be met. We
have not seen that from the government.
I would argue that there is surely room for one
national carrier in Canada. Surely there is enough business. I know in this
room alone there are 301 people who end up flying somewhere. Surely there is
enough business to support one national carrier, but it should not be at the
exclusion of all regional carriers. We should not allow this one national
carrier to put every other carrier out of business.
When Air Canada was given some support, as were other
airlines, the federal government gave it $160 million to supplement or
compensate it for its direct costs of September 11. What was Air Canada's
response to that? It immediately started Tango. What is Tango? Tango is another
lower cost airline that is in direct competition to Canada 3000. When the
federal government guaranteed a loan of $75 million to Canada 3000, what did
Canada 3000 do? It immediately lodged a complaint with the competition
commissioner against Air Canada.
I would like to think and I think Canadians would like
to think that there is a long term plan, that the government does not just give
money to airlines to get into a fight with the other competing airlines. That
seems to be what is happening. Even though Air Canada is financially vulnerable
right now, it is planning to create another subsidiary airline to go into
direct competition with WestJet.
Why is the government not encouraging through measures
one strong national airline that has a role to play and encouraging regional
airlines and low cost airlines which also have roles to play? Why would we
encourage or allow a dominant air carrier to take out its
competition?
(1635)
Let me get back to Air Canada and the amendment to the
Air Canada Public Participation Act which removes the controls on domestic
ownership.
Air Canada's board of managers own less than 3% of the
company's shares. They are very small shareholders. When we are talking about
running a big corporation, being a small shareholder creates a problem because
the decisions that are being made need to consider the shareholders' that the
board represents. If the board of managers own a very small share of the
corporate shares, perhaps the decisions being made are not being made in the
best interests of the shareholders, looking at the bottom line.
My colleague from the NDP would probably say that it is
time to stop worrying about the bottom line, that it is time for the government
to support Air Canada and perhaps take over ownership again, but I do not think
that is what Canadians want.
I think Canadians are looking for an airline that has
the capacity to operate without government interference and one that has the
capacity to restructure its debt and move it into equities. I think they want a
company that can take advantage of opportunities and operate in the private
sector without looking for taxpayers to bail it out. I think that is possible.
If there were a larger group of shareholders with more say and who had higher
investments in the company, perhaps decisions would be made in such a way that
the company could move forward.
I was a little concerned when Air Canada's largest
shareholder, la Caisse de dépôt et placement, made a huge profit by selling
short on Air Canada's stock during the downturn and post-September 11 when
share value was dropping like a rock. In other words, it was profiting by the
decline in value of Air Canada.This company then wanted Canadian taxpayers to
bail it out. How can anyone explain to taxpayers that the largest shareholder
is making a profit on the devaluation of the stock and yet turn around and
expect Canadian taxpayers to bail it out?
I think Canadians would like to see the federal
government remove the restrictions on domestic ownership and raise foreign
ownership restrictions from 25% to 49%. This would allow Air Canada to
restructure in such a way that its debt would be put into equity. Perhaps the
largest shareholders, maybe la Caisse de dépôt et placement, would buy more
shares and show their interest in making this company work. Perhaps some
foreign investment could be brought in to get new capital to make it work. This
is not a question of losing control. If ownership remains under 50% then the
ownership is still Canadian. This would allow Air Canada to get the necessary
influx of capital to function in the real world without constantly going to
Canadian taxpayers for subsidies. I think it is possible for Air Canada to
compete given a fresh approach and new capital.
We in the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the
legislation. It is 18 months overdue which just shows that the government is,
as always, slow in doing the right thing.
(1640)
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, in my hon. colleague's presentation she
referred to regional carriers. Since September 11 we have seen many changes
with regard to regional carrier service. It has been cut dramatically. We need
that regional service in smaller areas if we expect municipalities to grow. How
can we guarantee that the municipalities will be able to keep their people and
the companies that employ the people if there is no regional carrier?
I will give one example. Because of the changes since
September 11, next week I will have to fly from Saint John, the largest city in
the province of New Brunswick, to Fredericton, then back from Fredericton over
Saint John to Halifax, then from Halifax back over Saint John and Fredericton
to get up to Ottawa. That is absolutely ridiculous.
I ask my colleague, what can we do to protect the
regional carriers and the municipalities and make sure the quality of life the
people have had is there for them and that it will continue to grow?
Ms. Val Meredith:
Madam Speaker, if regional carriers and smaller
carriers had the freedom to grow and expand their market then local businesses
could expand and service areas that may not now be serviced.
I take one example of a small local airline that
started up in Terrace, B.C., a very small community in northern B.C. with about
15,000 people. It has one or two Dash 8s and provides a two-way service twice a
day from Vancouver to Terrace. Because it is local, it offers good service and
it originates out of Terrace, it is now bringing in another plane to service
the surrounding communities. However, if we allow a dominant carrier to come
in, interrupt and interfere with that local airline's potential growth
perspective and the travelling public's access to that airline, then it will
not maintain its ability to remain in the business.
We need to free up and encourage Air Canada, as the
dominant carrier, to concentrate on being the national carrier and to stop
trying to drive out the WestJets, the CanJets and other airlines that can
provide regional carriage and do it well and service the communities well. If
we allow the dominant carrier to replace them, the time will come when they
will remove the service as they have done now.
What we want to do is encourage the smaller airlines to
fulfill that role in our society. They can do it and they can do it very
well.
(1645)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak on our
transportation industry. This is the second time I will have spoken on this
subject.
When my colleague who just spoke was the Alliance
critic, I spoke to her about this. She is now the DRC critic and many of the
points she mentioned today were what I was going to mention. Nevertheless, I
will re-emphasize many of those points.
Before I go to that, I would like to set the record
straight. The Bloc and NDP members who spoke alluded to the fact that the
Canadian Alliance was opposed to bilingualism. I would like to make the record
very clear for them, especially the Bloc member who brought the separatism
issue into this.
My colleague, the transport critic, did not say that we
opposed bilingualism. He said that only Air Canada was forced to speak in two
languages while the other carriers were exempt from that. He said that the
rules should be equal for everybody, which would mean that the other carriers
should also speak in both languages. He was trying to say that this restriction
tied the hands of Air Canada. Let us not twist the facts.
I listened to what the Minister of Transport had to
say. I was extremely stunned when he said that parliament put the 15% per cent
restriction of ownership on Air Canada . As my colleague from the DRC said,
both she and I stood 18 months ago and said free up the ownership rule and let
Air Canada fly on its own. At that time, he stood up and said that it was not
possible and gave all the usual excuses. Eighteen months later he is proposing
a bill removing that ownership.
This indicates that the mess the Canadian airline
industry is in is partly the responsibility of inaction and not well thought
out plans by the government. We also know that this mess was also created by
Air Canada itself. Everybody knows Air Canada's management has been disastrous
at times.
Some of the management decisions have made me shake
head and wonder if they have been made by supposedly qualified managers. Many
times I have asked questions about the operations of Air Canada.
Let me go back to mismanagement by the government.
Regulations have tied Air Canada's hands. However the government is untying
them slowly. It wants Air Canada to act as a private company. Then it does not
want that. Then it wants to put in restrictions. Nobody has the foggiest idea
where this is going. Who is aware of what is going on? I am sure even the
management of Air Canada is at times wondering what it has to do.
Let us talk about restrictions the government wants to
remove. We have the foreign ownership restriction but, as my friend said, that
is immaterial.
We want Air Canada to be a viable institution. By
removing the 15% restriction, it will be able to trade. It will be a private
company.
(1650)
Government has no ownership. If the government has no
ownership, why is it poking its nose in Air Canada? It claims and says that the
smaller communities do not have services and that we have to provide them with
these services. My colleague from DRC articulated one point very well. WestJest
provides services.
One of the reasons WestJet came into existence was
simply because Air Canada was charging too much. It was ridiculous. Hence
WestJet came out with a sound business plan and look where it is stands today.
Even after the disaster of the September 11 attack, WestJet said it did not
need much money.
Members of parliament, who have travelled over the last
three and a half years or four years, know that Air Canada and Canadian
Airlines were trying to kill each other. It was not good for the airline
industry. We had planes departing at the same time. What were they trying to
do? I do not understand. They were routed to the same place, which was absolute
nonsense. These planes were half full.
We now have Air Canada doing the same thing with Tango
airline. Their experts say Tango is a great name. I guess we will have to get
used to it.
My colleagues just advised me that Air Canada picks
them up and pushes them over to Tango. Air Canada is using its bigger monopoly
for this discount airline in competition with the other regional airlines.
What is the intent of Air Canada? It has more than 70%
of the market. It has all the international routes. If it concentrated on its
core business to provide good service, it could do well. However, it is more
interested in opening up Tango and trying to run other people out of the
business, which has fallen off from since they were dealing with Air Canada.
There is absolutely no change in the mentality of the management of Air
Canada.
As a matter of fact, when I travel and talk to Air
Canada and Canadian Airline employees at the Ottawa airport, the Calgary
airport and in some other place, I do not see happy employees. They are, of
course, worried about jobs, but in general their morale is down. As a former
businessman, I do not know how people can run a company with unhappy employees.
It will eventually translate into frustration and bad service. I have had bad
service on many occasions. Who has not had this bad service?
We need to make Air Canada what it is supposed to be: a
business that is an expert in transportation. That can only be done if we
remove the regulations.
The NDP members said they liked competition but they
wanted regulation. The Bloc wants to protect the employees. We all want to
protect the employees. However, in the long run, if Air Canada's hands were
untied and it had the ability to make sound management decisions with happier
employees and a happier public, that would benefit Canadians.
Canadians would like to see that maple leaf flying all
over the world. It is a great sight to see but not at the expense of
Canadians.
After the September 11 attack, a statement made by the
CEO of Air Canada stunned everybody. He said he wanted $3 billion to $4 billion
of Canadian taxpayer money. This airline has a monopoly. It is an airline that,
through its predatory practices, killed Canadian Airlines. It has all the
international market, yet it wants money and blames it on September 11.
(1655)
Everybody knows that previous to that it was having
severe financial difficulties. Obviously, if we really looked at it, the
restrictions put on Air Canada by the government has had an impact on it. It
has not been able to work as an efficient business entity.
People keep saying they want Air Canada. Then they say
they will let Air Canada go like they did to CN. Look what happened to CN.
There are two railway lines, the CN and CP. That is all right. When CN was let
go, CN's performance improved and now we have two viable railways.
What happened was people did not want to let Air Canada
go. There was this fear, especially with the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal
government that services would not be delivered to small communities and to
others. Canadians are very entrepreneurial. Canadians will seize the
opportunity.
I can say that, if the opportunity is there, lots of
regional airlines and other airlines will come in. Right now with all the
restrictions, Air Canada is in a dominant position and will not let anybody
come in. It is running these operations at a loss, but it still wants to
maintain its market share.
The pricing structure of Air Canada right now makes me
shake my heard. Air Canada charges $3,000 from Calgary to Ottawa. That is
pretty expensive. I flew from Vancouver to Shanghai for $4,000. If a person
flies last minute economy it is over $2,000. Is it going to let discount air
carriers come and let them take the traffic?
It is obviously a stupid business decision as far as I
am concerned. No wonder the other airlines woke up. Now Air Canada has Tango,
the no frills service. The bottom line is simple, most people travelling on Air
Canada are travelling at half the price.
There is a need to allow Air Canada management to be
let go. There is a need for an infusion of capital, and it should get it. There
is a need for sound management practices by Air Canada
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I apologize to the hon. member, but it is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon member for
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, Employment Insurance;
the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas, Terrorism.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
Madam Speaker, I am bringing to the attention of
government that its regulations have brought this mess to the airline industry.
Let us talk about this. Members should talk to the public and the airline
employees. We have unhappy customers and unhappy employees.
The government has to unshackle Air Canada and that is
why we are supporting the bill. It is time that we have a real look at Air
Canada and the airline operation. We cannot let it go and hope like the
Minister of Transport does. With all his policies he hopes this will happen or
that will happen. We do not need hopes. We need a concrete plan.
The minister hopes competition will come. Create the
situation so competition will come. There are thousands of Canadian business
people who would invest in small regional airlines that could feed into main
feeder routes. We have an excellent infrastructure for the transportation
industry. We just want to make effective use of it.
(1700)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the
member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.
This debate is an extremely important one. Perhaps it
is no more important to anybody else in this whole House than it is to the
members who represent the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Should members
from any other province decide they want to walk or drive home, they can do it.
We cannot. We have to fly, swim or take the ferry. We are more dependent on the
airlines, especially our business people, our everyday travellers, people going
on vacations, many students who are at universities on the mainland, and I
could go on. Practically every family is affected by the service to our
province by the airline. Basically, we are talking about Air Canada.
Fortunately, over the last while we have seen Canada
3000 coming in to the province and providing a bit of competition and some
extra service. This certainly is looked upon by many as being one of the
factors that kept the rates down somewhat. However, to a large degree Air
Canada still has a monopoly. That is one of the concerns we have when we talk
about this bill.
As we look at protecting and preserving our national
airline, which we favour tremendously, we also have to make sure that the
service that is eventually settled upon is provided at a reasonable price.
Regardless of whether it is completely operated by the private sector, whether
there is government involvement, or whether involvement by foreign companies is
much greater than at present, whatever the case may be, that service must be
provided to Canadians from British Columbia to Newfoundland at a reasonable
price.
We are getting more letters than ever before from
people who have no choice but to use the airline but cannot afford to do so.
The prices to fly out of many of our smaller areas are extremely high.
Consequently this has a very negative effect on many ordinary people throughout
the country.
It is great if someone is travelling for a wealthy
company that is paying the bill or travelling on behalf of the government,
realizing of course that if the government is paying the bill, it is coming out
of the taxpayers' pockets anyway. However, for the average family on medium or
low income who have to travel because of sickness, educational needs or work,
whatever the case may be, it is extremely difficult for them to get on and off
the island of Newfoundland at the present rates that are being charged by the
airline. We must keep that in mind. It is not just in Newfoundland; the service
provided has to be reasonable enough to be used by all the people of the
country.
The private sector, God love it, keeps the economy
going. However, the bottom line for everybody involved in business is to make
money. In order to make money they provide a service. In providing that
service, any company worth its salt will try to make as much money as it can.
When we are talking about providing an essential service to the people of this
country, then companies have to be regulated to some extent so that they cannot
charge people whatever they wish, or just pick lucrative routes into the larger
areas.
Everybody wants to fly out of Toronto. Everybody wants
to fly out of Vancouver. Everybody wants to fly out of Montreal. However, not
everybody wants to fly out of Stephenville, Deer Lake, Goose Bay or even St.
John's and many other small towns and cities throughout this great
country.
(1705)
People in the lucrative areas usually earn much higher
incomes than those in the rural areas. If they can fly for fairly reasonable
rates, why should people who are in areas where the going is tough economically
have to pay two to six times more per mile than the people in the larger
centres? It is entirely unfair. The government has to do something about it.
The problems first started a couple of years ago with
the closure of Canadian Airlines. That was when the government should have
stepped in and made the right decision. It certainly did not. The private
sector had the opportunity to move in and solve the problems that we face today
and by refusing to do what the government is now asking with the share
restriction, we could have solved that problem two years ago.
Instead, the government basically forced the then
lucrative Air Canada to take on the complete debt of Canadian Airlines.
Canadian Airlines, with all kinds of employees, was going down the tubes. The
government said to Air Canada, a company that was doing very well, that it
could merge with Canadian Airlines and take it over but it would have to take
all the debt and carry all the baggage, pardon the pun, with it.
It just cannot work that way. Rearranging the company
so it would be a viable option was not allowed. Instead Air Canada was saddled
by government regulations with a company that has now put it under.
Now that we are revisiting this whole situation,
hopefully common sense will prevail. Whatever the resolution is, by the time we
pass the present legislation and deal with the Air Canada situation in total,
hopefully we will have a decision that will enable Air Canada, whoever the
owners may be, to operate viably and to provide a reasonably priced service to
everyone in the country.
Air Canada was viable before government asserted its
authority and tried to tell it how to run the company. When we look at the
experiences of this government in particular, when it asserts itself to try to
do anything, we know the result is not successful. The records are there to
prove it.
In all of this process the group of people we all must
be concerned with is the employees of Air Canada itself. From coast to coast we
have a tremendous number of hardworking dedicated Air Canada employees, some of
whom have been with Air Canada for quite some time. Some of their jobs were
jeopardized when Canadian Airlines was taken over by Air Canada. The type of
deal the government set up was entirely unfair to the employees who had been
with that company for quite some time.
Regardless of that, an employee is an employee. We
certainly do not want to make choices as to who should be laid off and who
should not. Hopefully a properly structured regulated airline can be busy
enough and the profits lucrative enough for it to ensure that all the
employees, regardless of whether they were with Air Canada for 30 years or
whether they came with the Canadian Airlines merger, can find good, solid jobs
within the airline.
In view of September 11, we must instill some
confidence in people to get back in the airplanes and fly. As many of us know,
in many cases it is much safer to fly than it is to drive or walk. Hopefully,
we can get back to creating a good economy around our airlines.
(1710)
However, profits are made around numbers. I mentioned
this before. I know I am repeating myself to some degree, but I cannot
overemphasize the fact that we are pricing ourselves out of business. It is
great to say that we made a profit because we can charge $2,000 for a trip from
point A to point B. If we charge $1,000, three times as many people may take
the trip and then the profits would be even greater.
We have to make sure that an airline, especially where
it is serving areas of the country which depend entirely upon that mode of
travel, charges prices that are within reason. We are getting away from that.
From Newfoundland to Ottawa the round trip costs anywhere from $1,800 to
$2,000. Not many people can afford that. To fly from Newfoundland to Halifax
quite often costs in the range of $700 to $800 and sometimes even more. Just a
few years ago it cost in the range of $200 to $300. How many average people can
afford to fly when they are paying three times more than they paid just a few
years ago? Why should they have to pay that?
It is interesting to compare fares, as I mentioned
earlier, in areas of British Columbia. I should not say British Columbia
because it has the same problem in certain parts of the province that we have.
However, quite often the fares from Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are quite
reasonable.
The member for Saint John who has been flying for some
time will tell us that the prices paid to get from New Brunswick to here are
much greater today than they were even two or three years ago. It does not make
a difference for us; I have to come to work and the government pays my way.
However, the taxpayers are paying for it. It is affecting our bottom line. If
the person next door to me has a job in Ottawa and wants to go home, or his
family wants to come to visit, they usually cannot afford to do so because the
costs are so exorbitant.
There are a few things we have to keep in mind. If
government is asserting itself by bringing forward and approving legislation,
let us make sure it is good legislation. If we are to interfere with the
operation of a company, let us make sure that we have some say. If government
money is going into a company, the government has to have some say in its
operation, not telling it how to run the company, let us stay out of that, but
making sure that the consumer is protected.
We have to make sure that a private company can operate
viably. Quite often the best way to do that is to get out of its way, cut the
red tape and bureaucracy and let it do the job.
If we had let Air Canada do that two years ago or the
private sector we would not be here today worrying about how to straighten out
our national airline. If we had not stuck our nose in and interfered with Air
Canada as it took over Canadian Airlines we would not be here today. It would
undoubtedly still be a profitable operation.
We all know that Air Canada, Canada 3000, West Jet and
all the other airlines were affected by the events of September 11. It is right
and proper, because of actions taken by governments around the world, that the
government compensate them for the direct losses they incurred during that
process. We have no problem with that. However we cannot let inefficient
companies or companies that are operating under such government restraints that
they become inefficient piggyback on September 11. However, if it is the
government's fault, as I would suggest it is with the present situation as it
relates to Air Canada, then the onus is on the government to correct the
mistakes of the past.
(1715)
We should have learned from what happened a couple of
years ago. Let us not make the same mistake again. Let us not make our cuts and
changes on the backs of employees of the company. Nor should we make our
decisions and cuts on the backs of people who live in certain areas. We should
not sock it to them, as the saying goes, and say that if they want to travel
they must pay the price.
Confederation is about looking after all the people and
provinces that fall within this great dominion. We are supposed to be brothers
and sisters who share and share alike. Some of us have advantages because we
live in larger regions. Many have advantages because we live in small ones,
whether it be greater resources, the types of freedoms we have or whatever.
When it comes to movement throughout this country, we
should not be penalized because we live in remote areas. We should not be
disadvantaged when it comes to educational or employment opportunities because
we live in small communities or because our accent or skin colour is different.
That is not what Confederation is about. That is not what Canada is
about.
We have a chance here to do something right. Let us use
a bit of common sense, as I said before, and make sure we do it right this
time.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come back to the House after
my speech and clarify some things that were said about my speech within the
context of the debate on Bill C-38.
It was said by the hon. Bloc member that I was somehow
anti-French and anti-Quebec because I dared say that the Air Canada Public
Participation Act is not the most efficient means by which to enforce official
bilingualism in Canada.
By mandating that only Air Canada must enforce the
Official Languages Act and not the other carriers, we are doing a disservice to
the principle of official bilingualism rather than a service to it. That is the
only point I was trying to make. The member dared to stand in this place and
say I am anti-Quebec and anti-francophone because I dared to point out that
principle and enforce the view that official bilingualism is an appropriate
principle for Canada.
I would inform the hon. member that my mom taught
French immersion in British Columbia. My sister teaches French immersion in
British Columbia. I am a product of French immersion. When I was 12 years old I
lived in Quebec for a month in a community that was totally francophone. I did
so because I wanted to learn the language and understand the country better by
being exposed to literature in both official languages.
I would say to the Bloc member that there are a lot of
British Columbians who want to learn both official languages to understand the
country better. However enrolment in French immersion classes is way down
because of the Bloc Quebecois and separatist movements.
My family has done more for the country by advancing
official bilingualism and the French fact than the Bloc Quebecois has ever
done. For the hon. member to dare stand in this place and say I am opposed to
official bilingualism is absolutely offensive.
I would encourage the hon. member to withdraw the
remarks because the official opposition and I are in favour of official
bilingualism. That sort of smear is totally inappropriate and undignified for
the French language in Canada.
(1720)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
That was more a point of order than a question or
comment. I do not know if the hon. member for St. John's West wishes to respond
to it or not. He is indicating that he does not.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his
presentation but I want to ask a question. In Saint John, New Brunswick, as I
was leaving to fly to Ottawa this week, one of the men who had been working at
Air Canada for 23 years received his notice that he was being laid off. He
needed a little more time to get his retirement pension.
When we are bringing in legislation and talking about
things like this we must somehow have protection for people like him. That must
be part and parcel of the legislation.
I then went to the ticket agent who had been there long
before I started flying to Ottawa. She got her notice that day.
This is what is happening. Many people are being hurt
right now. We gave the airline $160 million and it went out and bought another
carrier instead of looking after those employees. How does my hon. colleague
feel about this?
Mr. Loyola Hearn:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is dead on in what she
says. I think all of us who have gone through airports recently have run across
employees in a similar situation. A while ago Air Canada tried to lay off a
number of employees who had come from the Canadian Airlines system. Because of
an agreement they have been asked to put it all on hold.
Because of the transition that has taken place I would
suggest to the government that Air Canada not be allowed to tamper with its
employees until the mess is straightened out. I hope we can deal with them by
keeping them on. If not, we should still proceed in the right and proper
fashion and try to get the company back on solid footing so we can continue for
many years to provide the type of employment we need so badly in
Canada.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Library of
Parliament
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the
following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order
106(1), the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be permitted
to meet on Thursday, November 1, 2001 at 1.00 p.m. for the purposes of Standing
Order 106(2). |
This is to forgo the usual 48 hour notice for a
committee to meet. It is simply to establish a meeting to select the chair and
vice-chair. The opposition House leader has agreed with the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Does the government whip have unanimous consent to move
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House has
heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Air Canada Public Participation
Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-38 in which the
government is finally acknowledging that it is willing to raise the foreign
ownership restriction from 15% to 45%. I compliment the member for South
Surrey--White Rock--Langley. She has been a leader on the issue and has fought
for these changes ever since I was a member of parliament.
If the government had taken leadership on the issue
years ago the airline industry may not be in the mess it is in right now. It is
important to emphasize that. Canada's airline industry is in a disastrous
state. The government is scrambling and grasping at straws to make the changes
that will somehow pull it out of the ground.
The government must take responsibility for the mess we
are in today. It was directly involved with the Canadian Airlines and Air
Canada deal. Who knows to what level it was involved? It is important that this
be stated here in the House.
We in my party support the bill. I cannot overemphasize
the amount of work my colleague the member for South Surrey--White
Rock--Langley has done on the issue. She has been a leader. She saw the problem
when the airline industry was first in trouble. She did virtually everything in
her power to get them to come to their senses.
It is important to emphasize that this is not a result
of the events on September 11. There is no question that the attacks had a
compounding effect, but the industry was in dire straits prior to that. Air
Canada was losing something like $1.5 million a day and the government refused
to move. I wish the government had done something sooner.
I am not convinced the bill would save Air Canada. Air
Canada has huge problems. I have spoken to people directly involved in the
industry who are not convinced Air Canada can survive. Technically it should be
bankrupt now.
I have stated before on the record that I do not
believe bailouts at the cost of the taxpayer are the solution. It is one thing
to provide Air Canada with direct compensation as a result of September 11.
However to start bailing it out with the billions of dollars it is asking for
is not the answer. There must be changes to Air Canada. There must be changes
to the way the airline is managed. It is a disaster.
We in the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the
bill. I am pleased to stand and support legislation that the member for South
Surrey--White Rock--Langley might well have drafted herself. She is the one who
brought the issue to the forefront. She is the one who has advocated it for so
long.
It is a pity the government would not listen to her. It
is a pity the government would not listen to the good ideas of a member of
parliament who knows the industry inside and out, who has many airline workers
in her riding and who has followed the issue. It is a pity the government would
not put the future of airline industry employees who face losing their jobs
ahead of politics. Unfortunately the government only started listening at the
24th hour. It is now uncertain whether this can be saved.
We in my party will be supporting the legislation. It
is about time the government woke up.
(1725)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is
on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the
motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Transport and Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill
read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The House will now proceed to consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1730)
[English]
Employee Benefits
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)
moved:
|
That,
in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or
employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive
property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of
retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees |
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to
what we believe to be a very important issue, an issue of broad national
interest, an issue that deals with our nation's pension plans and our
retirement savings plans.
I believe all of us as members of parliament hear from
our constituents on a regular basis with some degree of concern as to the
well-being of their employment benefit plans, the management of those plans and
their ultimate retirement plan issues.
My motion is quite self-evident in the very brief
motion that it is. It makes the argument that whenever an employee benefit plan
or a pension plan shows a surplus, that surplus got there by an
over-contribution. It is an actuarial surplus. It should be viewed as the
property of the employees, not to be used for anything else. In other words,
the employer should not be able to view this actuarial surplus as something
that he could in fact dip into and use for any other reason, for any purpose
other than improving the benefits of the beneficiaries of the plan or, and we
also contemplate another acceptable usage, to give a contribution holiday to
the employee if in fact it is a joint contribution plan.
This raises a whole debate right across the country
because of the sheer size and volume of these plans today. Members in the House
would be interested to know that employee benefit plans constitute the largest
single block of capital in the world today. Over 50% of all the trading going
on in the stock exchange is employee benefit plans moving their money around.
It is huge. My own union is a very small union on an international level and
our union pension plan is $40 billion. It really is staggering to look at the
scope and size of these plans.
We can understand the temptation of the employers as
they view this actuarial surplus to say either that they are in a pinch and can
use that money or that they could use that money to expand the company or for
any number of reasons.
I first took note of this back when Conrad Black owned
Dominion Stores. There was quite a national court battle over the idea. I think
there was an $80 million surplus at that time. He believed that he made the
contribution to the plan and it was a defined benefit plan. There was an
actuarial surplus, ergo he should be able to use whatever surplus there was. In
other words, anything above and beyond the stated obligation should be his to
use for any other purpose. The employees balked at that and took it to court.
Ultimately, when all the dust settled, a split was negotiated.
There has been an absolutely overwhelming number of
similar cases since then, which was what made me interested in putting forward
a motion. We believe that the courts could use the guidance or at least that
this debate over these plans could use the guidance of members of parliament.
Some direction is needed because, frankly, the rulings of the courts or of
third party arbitrators, whatever the case may be, have been all over the map.
They have gone from ruling that yes, it is the exclusive deferred wages being
held in trust for the employees, to no, it was the employer that made the
contribution, ergo it is the employer's money, to any combination halfway down
the middle, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50. Judgments have been all over the
place.
There is no comfort level for Canadians. There are many
pensioners or people of middle age or beneficiaries of pension plans who are
nervous about this. It really came to a peak in my mind, and it was about the
time when I drafted this motion, when the government, as an employer, the
largest public sector employer in the country, did the exact same thing. It
could not help but notice a $30 billion actuarial surplus in the public service
employees' pension plan. As he left Canadian politics it was the last action of
Marcel Masse, the former president of the Treasury Board, to pass legislation
in the House to take every penny of that $30 billion.
(1735)
There was no negotiation. There must have been a
question in the government's mind as to who rightfully owned it, because if
there was not a question it would not have had to put forth the enabling
legislation to enable it to take it all. However, by its actions the government
weighted this otherwise legitimate debate that is going on in the
country.
That $30 billion should have been seen as the property
of the employees on whose behalf the contributions were made. When we think
about that particular case it is worthwhile to point out what a difference it
would have made had the government shared even a portion of the $30 billion
with the beneficiaries of the plan. We did some research. The average
beneficiary from the public service pension plan collects $9,000 per year. It
is not exactly a generous pension. Had the government shared even a portion of
that $30 billion, and we calculated it at one-third, I believe, it could have
doubled each beneficiary's yearly pension to $18,000 a year. It would have made
a huge difference in the lives of many senior citizens in the country and there
still would have been a surplus for the Government of Canada to use.
When I raise this issue I think I can say without any
fear of contradiction that most Canadians want to know the status of any kind
of surplus in a pension plan to which they might belong.
I should go further to point out another thing that may
come up during the debate. To me it does not matter whether the contribution
was made by the employer or by the employee. Many pension plans are joint
contribution plans. The employee puts in $5 a month and the employer matches it
with $5 a month. It is all the employee's money. Let me state that very
clearly. I am sure we will hear contrary opinions today. From my point of view
and the point of the view of the labour movement in the country, it is all the
money of the employees because it is part of their negotiated wage package.
Let us think about how employers end up putting in
contributions to pension plans. A wage increase is negotiated at the bargaining
table, at least in the unionized sector. Let us say that it is a 1% raise. Then
the employers and employees talk about how the 1% will be given to the employee
and usually it is some combination of wages and benefits. In other words,
employees take their negotiated wage increase and say they want 25 cents an
hour in their pockets and 25 cents an hour put into their pension plan on their
behalf. That is how we get the view that it is employees' deferred wages being
held for them in trust until they are needed.
In our view, to use the money for anything other than
the understood use is a breach of trust. Employers take money off employees'
pay packets and put it on hold for them for a specific reason. To seek to take
it out and use it for some completely different reason is a breach of trust, a
breach of faith. That is what is happening right across the country, or at
least employers are seeking to do that right across the country.
I brought with me an absolute stack of recent cases. I
will not bore the House with all the details. We can hardly open a newspaper to
the financial pages without finding an example, whether it is OMERS, of the
Ontario municipal employees' union, which is currently fighting the same fight
with CUPE leading the struggle on the employees' behalf, or Moore's of Canada,
the garment retailers. Royal Bank employees are having a similar battle. Bank
of Canada employees are having a similar battle.
All across the country seniors' groups, groups of
retirees and groups of pensioners are coming together to ask this very
important and pressing question, which raises the point of why the House of
Commons did not deem the issue votable. I really think we are doing a
disservice to the many retirees, pensioners and members of pension plans who
really do want some direction. They want a legal opinion.
They are many conflicting legal opinions, but they want
a legal opinion from this authority, maybe not the highest authority in the
land, but certainly this House of representatives should have an opinion to
share, to give some direction and to add to this very pressing
debate.
(1740)
As I have said, I was part of a union pension plan
myself, the carpenters' union. I served as a trustee to manage that fund and I
do know something about the issue. Another point I would make is that in our
unionized setting these plans were jointly trusteed. Had I had room within this
motion I would have also advocated that there be a mandated joint trusteeship
in any trust document forming an employee benefit plan. We believe it is only
logical that the interests of those who ultimately would benefit from the plan
should be represented at the trustee level. I do not think we would be having
the same court challenges or clogging up the legal system with these many
challenges were we able to deal with that at the most elementary level, whereby
the board of trustees would make the choice as to how it would allocate any
kind of surplus in one of these employee benefit plans.
I have had meetings with Canadian union retirees, with
members of the Manitoba association of seniors and with other seniors' groups
and organizations and activist groups that deal with employee benefit plans.
They are seriously in need and desirous of somebody coming forward and ruling
once and for all on how these surpluses should be invested or dealt
with.
There was a school of thought in the recent Bell Canada
pension surplus issue, where the surplus was divided up in roughly the same
percentage as the contributions were made. It was a 40% employee contribution
matched by a 60% employer contribution. That was the way the surplus was
divvied up. That happened at exactly the same time we were debating Bill C-78
and we in the House were making the ruling that the government would take all
of the $30 billion and not put one penny into the pockets of either the
employees or the beneficiaries of the plan, the retirees.
It is not hard to see where the government found the
$100 billion that it gave in tax cuts. It took $30 billion from arguably the
most needy people in the country, senior citizens and pensioners living on
$9,000 a year from the public service pension plan. It took another $30 billion
from the surplus in the EI fund. That is no secret either. Therefore, of the
$100 billion, $60 billion came from unemployed people and pensioners. That is
nothing to be very proud of.
However it is not my intention to berate the federal
government over water under the bridge. Bill C-78 was passed and is now law. In
that context it does not give guidance to other private sector pension plans or
even to other public sector pension plans as to how they might treat their
surpluses. This was a special act of parliament that gave parliament a one time
right to take the $30 billion actuarial surplus out of an employee pension
plan. The same question still arises right across the country in both the
private and public sectors.
It is not just the trade union movement that believes
pension plans are a form of deferred compensation for employees. There are
legal opinions to that effect. Many people use the test that if costs are
bargained in the negotiation of a pension plan the amounts which are agreed on
to be put toward pensions are in fact deferred wages. If benefits are bargained
and not costs, it would follow that it is the promised pension benefit that is
the deferred wage rather than the contributions which pay into the benefits. I
believe that is the distinction. If it is the benefit that is bargained and not
the contribution, then in a defined benefit package there would be no question.
Employees would have satisfaction without going to the courts. They could just
look at the jurisprudence.
If it is in fact the defined costs, or in other words,
if we are dividing up who would pay into the plan, if that is part of the
negotiating process, at least in some legal opinions there is no question that
it is the deferred wages of the employees that are being held in trust for the
employees and they should be considered the exclusive property of the
employees, to be used only in two ways: to sweeten the benefits upon retirement
or to give the employees a contribution holiday for a period of
time.
(1745)
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised some interesting
ideas, but I cannot support the motion. I will give the main reason I cannot
support the motion first, then give some background and come back in more
detail on why I cannot support it.
The basic reason is that the member's motion is a good
example of what might be called the law of unintended consequences. The intent
is to benefit workers in pension plans over employers, but the effect would be
otherwise because the critical point that the motion fails to recognize is that
pension plans are voluntary.
If this motion were to succeed and become the law of
the land, the primary impact would be that we would have far fewer companies
willing to set up or continue with pension plans and workers would be forced to
make their own contributions to RRSPs or defined contribution plans. That is
more or less what the Alliance was arguing for when we had the debate some time
ago dealing with Canada pension plan reform.
We would have a retreat from the stability and the
security arising from defined benefit plans which currently exist today. We
would go to the much less secure world of employee directed plans where the
security of the employees would be reduced. The unintended consequence of this
motion would be to reduce the security for employees in their older years
rather than to increase their wealth which is the intent of the
motion.
I will give a bit of the background provided by the
department on how the current system works. One would not want all the
department's work to be of no avail. The Pension Benefits Standards Act, PBSA,
is the main federal act that regulates pension plans in federally chartered
enterprises. This includes banking, interprovincial transportation and
telecommunications. Other private pensions are regulated by the
province.
The PBSA is administered on behalf of the government by
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, and covers
some 1,100 pension plans. OSFI clearly makes every effort to protect the rights
of pension plan members having due regard for the voluntary nature of pension
plan sponsorship. If we ignore the fact that pension plans are voluntary we do
so at our extreme peril, which is the critical deficiency of the
motion.
Bill S-3 which was introduced in 1998 is another bill
that is relevant to this debate. Major changes in the bill included enhancing
planned governance measures by placing more emphasis on the importance of the
responsibilities of plan administrators. It required administrators to provide
more information to plan members and former members on the financial condition
of the plan and a means to facilitate agreements between employers and plan
beneficiaries on the distribution of surpluses.
The bill specified the manner in which employers who
sponsor pension plans with surpluses could withdraw a portion of the surplus.
That should be of particular interest in today's debate. In June the government
announced specific regulations which relate to the mechanisms for an employer
to establish claims to a surplus.
The measures in Bill S-3 and the subsequent regulations
provided for an explicit process for the determination of surplus ownership of
pension plans. These changes created an environment where employers and
employees have the opportunity to work together in dealing with pension plan
surpluses.
So much for the status quo and the system under which
we work today. I will now return to the law of unintended consequences. The
hon. member's motion would have precisely the contrary effect to what he
intends. To illustrate and explain that point more clearly we should make the
key distinction between defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution
pension plans.
(1750)
Under defined benefit pension plans the employer
guarantees to the employee a certain fixed sum of money when that employee
retires and therefore is required to build up the capital to fund that future
contribution. The risk is borne by the employer and that is the setting in
which surpluses arise. There may be excess surpluses and the debate is about
who will control them.
Under defined contribution pension plans there are
really no surpluses because each employee makes a defined contribution every
month or every year. The stock market and the bond market would determine the
amount of money that an employee would receive in retirement.
When everybody thought that the stock market never went
anywhere but up, until recently that is, defined contribution plans were
becoming more popular. A lot of companies are shifting away from defined
benefit where the employee has the security of knowing what his or her future
pension would be and the risk is borne by the company to define contribution
and where the employee gets whatever the market delivers on his or her
investment.
It is too early to tell but I suspect this enthusiasm
for defined contribution waned a bit in the last several months. People have
learned that the stock market does not go exclusively up but sometimes goes
down. The risk for the individual whose life savings are in the stock market is
now perceived to be greater than it used to be.
This comes back to the Alliance's love affair with
defined contribution self-directed pension plans when we were dealing with
Canada pension plan reform. Thankfully we did not do this and we preserved the
security of the pensions of Canadians through the Canada pension plan rather
than subjecting each individual to the whims of the market. It might have
looked good back then but it looks a lot less favourable and more risky today.
If companies were sole contributors and were required
to say that the surplus belonged to the workers entirely, even if it were the
company that put in 100% of the contributions, we can bet our bottom dollar
that companies would not want that. Companies would not agree to it if this
motion were to pass. Pension plans are voluntary and they would get out of
it.
The trend that we have been observing from defined
benefit toward defined contribution would accelerate. The unintended
consequence of the member's motion would accelerate the shift away from defined
benefit pension plans and toward defined contribution. The net effect would
reduce the security and the income of today's employees rather than increase
their wealth. That is a more than adequate reason to oppose the motion.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am speechless. The parliamentary
secretary has put forth a position with which I, unfortunately, have to agree.
The motion put forth by my colleague is a very well intentioned motion. The
intent is there to protect workers and ensure that all Canadians, of whatever
background, have a solid nest egg, something to retire on.
When my father came over from Italy he was part of the
union movement. He started out as a carpenter and a painter. He was a member of
local 1080, the painters and allied trades in Toronto. The pension plan was a
very important one for him. He moved on and started his own business but he
does receive a pension plan.
The important thing for me in the Alliance Party in
Canada is that there is choice. In our constitutional parliamentary system we
have the judiciary and the parliamentary system. With the bringing into effect
of the charter of rights, the distinction or the relationship between those two
bodies, it is not that it is being blurred but it is in the process of being
figured out.
In looking at the motion, I do not believe it is
balanced enough. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, it takes an approach
that removes a lot of the individual's freedom for decision making. When my
father was a drywaller and a painter, he had companies and subcontractors that
were willing to participate in a type of pension system. That was very
important.
I was going to talk about the flaws in my colleague's
motion but I would be redundant because the six points I would have mentioned
have been gone through by my colleague from the government side. However we can
always trust a Liberal to put a partisan edge on a debate that deals with the
well-being of Canadians. That is the key point here.
I am sure all members in the House want to make sure
workers are taken care of. We have a process. It may not be the final word on
determining surpluses but it is a process and for the House to support the
motion I think would tie the hands not only of the courts but of
parliamentarians in this sitting and in the future.
For that reason, I and the official opposition cannot
support the motion even though we support the intent of the motion to provide a
solid pension system for the hardworking men and women of Canada.
(1755)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to
intervene in connection with Motion No. 401 by the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House,
any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be
considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and
should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a
contribution holiday for employees. |
I would like to take a few moments to dissect the
motion, starting with the first part calling for the sums paid into pension
plans or employee benefit plans to be considered deferred wages.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are naturally in favour of the
motion. We are not at all bothered by considering the employee portion of
pension plans or benefit plans deferred salaries.
In professional sport, that is how the multimillionaire
players get deferred salaries years after retirement. These people are, it must
be kept in mind, earning millions of dollars a year. They are not our average
wage earners.
Another part of the motion I think it important to
address is the part about these pension plans remaining the exclusive property
of employees. If the motion had been law, I think it would have prevented
certain unscrupulous governments from dipping into pension plans and EI
funds.
I am sure the member for
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques, who is the Bloc Quebecois' EI critic, would agree that
employers and employees own Canada's EI fund.
As the member for Winnipeg Centre explained so clearly,
this would resolve many decades long legal disputes. One particular case that
comes to mind is that of Singer, an American company which manufactured sewing
machines.
One fine day it decided to shut down its Saint-Jean
plant, cross the border and leave for the United States, taking with it the
employees' pension fund. It took years to resolve the problem in the courts, so
many years that most of those entitled to draw pensions under the plan had died
by the time the case was settled. The majority of them had died and those still
living were 80 or 85 years old and had only a few more years left to benefit
from the pension fund to which they themselves had contributed.
Clearly, we agree completely with the motion put
forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre.
In conclusion, however, I find it unfortunate that the
motion is not votable. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to
make the motion votable.
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent of the House to make this
motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to
speak to the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I commend him for
bringing it forward. It harkens back to when the government, through Bill C-78,
raided $30 billion out of the federal superannuates' pension and did so while
breaking its own guidelines set forth in Bill S-3 which was originally
introduced in the House in 1997.
While I do not support the member's motion completely,
I do believe the government ought to follow its own rules as set forth in Bill
S-3, which did provide at least a framework to ensure that the interests of
employers were balanced with the interests of employees and the third group,
the people who had already retired and stood to benefit.
Clearly the government was in violation of the
principle of Bill S-3 and in fact broke its own rules by arbitrarily taking $30
billion out of the superannuates' pension fund without actually following some
type of rules based methodology which would have ensured fairness to all
parties involved at that time.
Bill S-3 actually put forth some level of guidelines.
It outlined that the surplus could be accessed if two-thirds of the current
members to the plan and two-thirds of the former members, retired employees,
agreed. If they could achieve 50% but not necessarily 65% then the employer
could go to arbitration. This again would help to ensure that all shareholders'
interests were looked after and met in a rules based way.
The hon. member for Markham made a good point. Given
the current tumultuous times in the capital markets, it would be of significant
benefit to an employee or a retired individual receiving a pension to have that
level of defined benefit. There would certainly be a tremendous peace of mind
in that regard. I think even the Canada pension plan fund lost 15% of its value
this year. I wish my portfolio had done that well. A 15% loss sounds pretty
good at this juncture. The fact is that there is a benefit.
Going back over the last several years of bull markets,
people started to forget that sometimes markets actually go down as opposed to
going up all the time. I believe that had the hon. member for Markham still
been an economist he would have foreseen this and would have demonstrated his
impressions and foresight in the world of private sector bank
economists.
Mr. John O'Reilly: His portfolio went
up.
Mr. Scott Brison: That is good because his
income went down when he was elected.
The fact is that there is a significant exposure for
employers when they manage these funds. They have the downside risk of ensuring
the funds are there for the employees and retirees. That being the case, the
employees have the risk of employers taking funds from the pension and going
bankrupt. We need to understand that there are significant risks on both sides
which is why there needs to be an enforceable rules based system by which we
can ensure fairness to all parties.
What disappointed me most about the government's
arbitrary and unfair treatment of superannuates was when it chose to ignore the
rules based system as put forth in Bill S-3 and to pursue a policy that was
short-sighted, unfair and consistent with the government raiding the EI fund
and using funds designed for specific interests and to meet general revenue
needs. I have seen a few public policy initiatives by the government that have
disillusioned me but the treatment of superannuates' pensions at that point was
something that united all opposition parties.
(1805)
A good many members opposite agreed privately but of
course they had to be whipped into shape at the appropriate times. Many of them
were appalled even with their own government's heavy-handed approach to
superannuates, people like RCMP officers and retirees, and people in the
military. They served their country and were treated shabbily by the government
in ignoring its own guidelines in the brief. I understand exactly why the hon.
member would move the motion. I am sure he can remember the government's unfair
and heavy-handed approach at that time.
It is very difficult for the government to expect
private sector employers to follow guidelines set forth by legislation passed
in the House, or as introduced in the Senate in the case of Bill S-3. How can
we expect private sector employers to follow those guidelines the government
ignores those guidelines when it is convenient? I think that would be a
principle upon which all members in the House could agree. Certainly all
opposition members would agree that the government ought to follow its own
guidelines.
That trust was broken between the government and public
sector employees at the time of its arbitrary theft of the funds from the
superannuates pension. It was absolutely unacceptable and disillusioning. Every
member of the House at that time heard countless appeals from superannuates,
from people who had served this country. For the government to have turned its
back on those people speaks of the unprecedented and near toxic levels of
arrogance that emanate from government benches. It is only getting worse as
members of the natural governing party feel increasingly ensconced in their
feudal chairs.
Those issues can be dealt with through some of the work
that is being achieved by the PC/DR Coalition and other opposition parties. As
we bring together like-minded intelligent Canadians seeking better government
in the interests of all Canadians, by the time the next election occurs there
will be a competitiveness--
An hon. member: Take an Aspirin.
Mr. Scott Brison: The hon. member opposite
suggested that I take an Aspirin. He should suggest that because his government
has created nothing but headaches for Canadians, and nowhere are those
headaches more pronounced than here on the opposition benches.
An hon. member: I would have suggested
acetylsalicylic acid instead of Bayer Aspirin.
Mr. Scott Brison: There was a suggestion that I
not take an Aspirin. My friend from the New Democratic Party suggested I take a
generic brand, which brings me to our health minister who is everyone's
favourite generic leadership candidate, but that is a different issue for
another day.
There is so much to criticize about the government that
it is difficult to maintain some level of attention. Perhaps we need generic
Ritalin so that opposition members can focus.
We have to ensure that all governments follow rules
based methodologies that are already in existence. Only then can we ensure that
private firms follow those rules. Until the government is willing to play by
those rules, I think the hon. member is quite right. I disagree with the
specific notion that in an arbitrary sense all these surpluses should go back
to the employees. However, we do need to ensure that governments are held
accountable when they break their own rules in not ensuring fairness among the
players, the employers, the employees and the retirees.
(1810)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues across the way
have lost sight of what we are talking about or the public has forgotten,
because sometimes when a debate goes on other things come into it, I want to
reinforce the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre:
That, in the opinion of this House,
any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be
considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and
should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a
contribution holiday for employees. |
A lot of Canadians believe this already happens. We
have heard horror stories over the years where different employers raped the
pension plans or went bankrupt and used the pension plans and the employees
were left out in the wilderness in the snow. They were left going into their
senior years with nothing.
Canadians think that governments addressed this issue
and put in strong regulations to make sure this did not happen. A lot of people
out there believe this has already happened. It is surprising that sometimes
private members have to bring forward good motions and good pieces of
legislation to address the downfall and the lacking of the government of the
day and certainly, that is the case here.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been involved
with employees for a number of years. I am sure over time he has seen a number
of cases where this has happened and the employer has utilized the
funds.
I think of the situation of the Giant mine workers in
Yellowknife and what they went through with their severance packages and
pension plans when that mine went under. The government, and I believe it was
under the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, took over the mine and literally gave nothing back to those
employees. They were left out in the cold, which again is no surprise with the
government.
It is crucial that we as private members bring these
motions forward and remind the government of what is important. Canadians want
to see values. They want to know that when they make investments in their
pension plans, they will reap the benefits of those pension plans.
It is not just those employees that reap those
benefits. Each and every one of us knows retirees in our communities. Often
employees leave their employment with a pension that gives them $10,000 a
month. Mostly they are minimal pensions that give a person a living to some
degree. Those people are interspersed in every small community, village and
town in the country. Those are the people who keep our local economies going.
The more we can put into their pockets in their retirement, the better off we
are as a country. That is what sustains our local economies and builds the
country we know and we want to be proud of.
I am extremely pleased that my colleague has brought
forward this motion. I want to support his motion. It has certainly been good
listening to some of the members who have supported it. Obviously there are
those who had some rather lacking comments about it for what I consider invalid
reasons, but so be it. That happens in the House.
I reflected on some things as my colleague from the
PC/DR Coalition was speaking. He talked about the need for the government to
follow through on what it does so that the private sector will also follow
through. It is tough ensure that the private sector will follow through on
rules if the government does not do it.
Pay equity was the prime example. For 14 years public
servants had to fight the government year after year after year. Literally
hundreds of thousands, actually millions of dollars went to legal fees to fight
the employees who were claiming rightful equity within the public service.
(1815)
Finally the government was forced to come through with
it. There were 14 years of legal fees and fighting. Through that whole process
that was the example it was setting for private industry in Canada. It said
that pay equity was not important, not worth diddly-squat. It made that fight
in the private sector that much tougher.
It is crucially important that the government practice
what it preaches. Otherwise it does not get the support and does not have the
trust of the public.
There is another situation. I almost do not want to
bring it up but I do so because it happened this afternoon and it bothered me
that the government would take this stance. We talked about the cluster bombing
in Afghanistan. Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is renowned
internationally for his efforts to ban landmines. Canada sings its praises
about banning landmines. We could not get the U.S. on side and never could, but
Canada went out there and sang its own praises. All the Liberal members I am
sure jumped up at numerous times and clapped and cheered because they were
opposed to landmines.
Today we heard about cluster bombs. They will land and
not explode, but they will explode later. They act just like landmines. We
heard that we have to do that sometimes. No, we do not do it ever. If we do not
believe there should be landmines, then we follow through all the time. It is
absolutely inhumane to leave bombs sitting around for children to walk over.
The small children are the ones who suffer the most.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member has somewhat
strayed from the subject we are debating now.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points to make in
support of my colleague's private member's motion.
This brings home the point of the need for this type of
legislation. I recently had a conversation with one of my legal colleagues. He
was telling me about a current situation. I will change the facts a little so
it is not clear about the specific case we were talking about. I do not wish to
divulge any of the information he specifically gave me.
An hon. member: He is not the solicitor
general.
Mr. Joe Comartin: That is right. I have to be
careful of disclosing confidential information.
The situation is going to lead to a tragedy. We can see
it coming. There was a financial difficulty in the corporate setting. The
workforce was gradually reduced, leaving at the end of the day about 15 or 16
workers, long term employees who, when the administration of the company was
about to close, entered into an agreement on the pension. In effect it was a
severance package that allowed those people to retire somewhat earlier. It did
not disclose that there was a substantial surplus.
The company over a period of several sales always
allowed for the surplus to be an asset, in fact the only asset that was being
traded. All of this was unbeknownst to the workers and the people who were
receiving pension benefits on a monthly basis. That matter was sitting there
until very recently. The company has applied to have the surplus paid out. This
is going to provoke a major lawsuit. Those employees are going to insist that
they somehow participate in this fund, which they fully expected they were
going to be able to do.
This situation is multiplied across the country
numerous times. All sorts of situations and incidents either are occurring now
or are going to explode at some point in the future. There is a crying need for
legislation to take care of this situation as soon as possible. Again I
congratulate my colleague on the work he has done on this private members'
motion. I encourage the government to take it into account.
(1820)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to participate very briefly in this
debate to fully support the very important motion which my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre has put before the House.
Over the years I have had a number of instances in my
own constituency in which working people have had their pension surplus
stripped away from them.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that those
surpluses, which in effect are a kind of deferred wage, should accrue to those
who are entitled to them, that is, the working men and women in that particular
place of employment.
I will not make a lengthy speech but I am pleased to
rise in the House today to commend my colleague and to indicate that I fully
support this very important motion.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank all the hon. members who saw fit
to join in the debate and share their views with me.
I am disappointed that the views that I hold on the
subject are not more widespread, but I am interested in the fact that the
debate at least has been held here tonight. It is information that we can use.
It is information that we will benefit from.
I have to restate our original position: in the event
of an actuarial surplus where the assets of a fund exceed the liabilities of a
fund, those reserves should be used only to benefit the beneficiaries in the
monthly amount or benefits they receive.
It is a straightforward issue. We view contributions to
a pension plan as part of the employee's wage packet. Employees get their
hourly wage or monthly salary and their pension contribution. Whether it comes
out of the employee's pocket or comes directly from the employer, it is part of
the employee's wage. It is being held in trust for the employee for a specific
purpose.
To take that money and use it for anything other than
the understood purpose is a breach of trust. There have been too many cases.
Recently there has been an overwhelming number of cases. The courts are clogged
with these cases, which is exactly the reason why the House of Commons should
give some guidance to the arbitrators or the courts or at least say to
Canadians that we have thought about this and it is our opinion that this money
should be viewed as the employees'.
I want to thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois who
pointed out a very important recent ruling in that province. I sometimes envy
the members of the Bloc and the residents of Quebec for their attitudes on
these social issues. Judge Guy Arsenault recently ruled in the Singer case,
which is called Chateauneuf v TSCO of Canada Ltd., formerly known as Singer
Sewing Machine, and directed that the surplus assets of the plan must be
returned to the plan members. He went back retroactively from 1966 to 1984,
when a private company used to say that any time a plan showed a surplus it
used that for its own purposes.
That was wrong. The judge in Quebec ruled that it was
wrong and was backed up further in that province by the social solidarity
minister. How I wish we had a social solidarity minister. The social solidarity
minister of Quebec, André Boisclair, said that the government will amend bill
102, the law which addresses the way private pension plans are to be
administered, because it flirted with the idea of giving employers the right to
dip into private sector pension plan surpluses. Partly because of this court
ruling, they have now been convinced to back off and get their hands off
private sector pension plan surpluses.
We had a glaring example in the House of Commons. As a
union leader I have seen glaring examples all across the country. We had the
ultimate example in Bill C-78, when the federal government knew it was on shaky
ground. It knew this was a debatable issue. It was not black and white. It was
a grey area as to who really had the claim on the $30 billion surplus of the
public service pension plan.
It therefore introduced a bill and by act of parliament
said that it was the exclusive owner of all of that $30 billion, that it was
not negotiable, that it was not something the government was willing to share,
that it was the government's, 100%. The government knew it was not absolutely
right in that argument or it would not have had to introduce a special bill to
do it. It would not have had to sacrifice Marcel Masse's career to make it his
last act in parliament. The government could have done it legally.
We know it is a moral issue. It is a legal issue. It is
an ethical issue. It is an issue of basic trust. When money is deducted from a
person's paycheque for a specific purpose and is held in trust for them, even
if it does grow it is still the exclusive property of the person on whose
behalf it is being held. It should be used for nothing else but employee
benefits. In our minds, it is a simple case.
(1825)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a
votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment
Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on October 3, I put a
question to the Minister of Finance.
I asked him for an action plan to allow those who were
affected by the events of September 11, those who lost their jobs and employees
of small and medium size businesses, to be exempted, for example, from having
to contribute for a month, in order to promote economic recovery by giving more
money to small and medium size businesses and to workers so they could buy
goods and services and get the economy going.
I also asked the minister to extend EI benefits by 10
weeks in the case of those workers who lost their jobs following the events of
September 11.
That question was put on the day that U.S. President
Bush made the same proposal to Americans, but with 13 weeks compared to the
additional 10 weeks that we asked for.
The Minister of Finance replied the following about the
surplus in the EI fund and I am quoting him because this is somewhat
impressive:
|
—as
the hon. member is well aware, the surplus in the EI fund is being used for
health, for infrastructure programs, and for job creation. |
The minister thus confirmed that, since workers only
contribute to the employment insurance program up to an income of $39,000,
those who earn more than that amount did not do their fair share for health,
infrastructure programs and job creation.
The minister confirmed the unfair nature of the
employment insurance program when seen as a payroll tax instead of what it
should be, which is a true employment insurance program.
On October 3 we also asked the minister to bring down a
budget. In the end, the government agreed with us on this score.
However, with regard to employment insurance, we had a
real cold shower. The human resources development minister had in her hands the
unanimous report of the human resources development committee containing 17
recommendations to improve the employment insurance plan and ensure it would
act as a real social safety net.
The recommendations would have enabled people to enjoy
reasonable living conditions while out of a job and have a decent income during
an acceptable number of weeks. It would have been easier for young people to
qualify and, at the end of the day, it would have ensured that older workers
who lost their jobs and could not re-enter the workforce had access to a fund
that would have allowed them a decent living while waiting for their old age
security cheques or Quebec pensions. However, the minister said no and stated
emphatically that the current plan was adequate.
I believe that today, as we are facing an economic
downturn, we have the proof that this plan will not be an adequate social
security net. A lot of people are all losing their jobs at the same
time.
The minister said that when the economy is thriving,
only one out of five people receives benefits during the maximum number of
weeks they are entitled to. I am sure that in the current context, it will not
be one out of five but two out of five.
While the number of unemployed workers is increasing,
the government is sitting on a few hundreds of millions of dollars it could
give the provinces for manpower training. The federal government has control
over this money and will not put it in the system.
Could the government not be swayed by our arguments and
at long last take concrete steps without delay? I hope it will do so in the
budget. But there are things it could do right away, tomorrow morning, in view
of the surplus that has been accumulating this year again in the employment
insurance fund, even with the economic downturn, to the tune of $6 billion,
which will be used for purposes other than what it was intended for.
I will conclude on that note and ask if in fact the
government will accept our suggestions now that the downturn in the economy has
unfortunately been confirmed.
(1830)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, answering the question from the member
opposite would take more than the four minutes allotted me because of its many
sub-questions. However, I will try to give a more general answer.
The first important thing to remember is that the
Government of Canada has looked out for all Canadian workers and is still doing
so. It keeps a careful eye on the EI system in order to ensure that it always
meets their needs.
It is particularly important to take a prudent approach
during an economic downturn such as the one we are now experiencing.
It must be recalled that during the course of its
existence the EI fund has varied from deficit to surplus. During the last
recession the surplus of $2 billion in the EI fund at the end of 1990 quickly
turned into a deficit of $6 billion at the end of 1993. We do not wish to
return to this state of affairs.
Over the last seven years the Canadian population has
benefited from premium reductions. We have gone from $3.07 in 1994 to $2.25 in
2001. Increasing premiums, as was done during the last recession would, in our
view, be the worst solution from an employment point of view.
In order to assess the current situation, the
government has announced that it will review the methods used for setting
premiums; changes deriving from that review will be implemented in
2004.
The Government of Canada is always worried when workers
lose their jobs. In order to help Canadians who are laid off, the government
has taken a balanced approach by providing income benefits and by encouraging
people to work. We will use our programs to help workers take advantage of new
job opportunities. As always, our goal is to help Canadian workers get back
into the workforce.
I will also add that I am surprised that my colleague
opposite would ask the government to apply the same standards as the United
States with regard to social programs when we know that historically our social
programs have always been a lot better than what the Americans have done. And
it is still the case today.
For that reason, Human Resources Development Canada
offers several types of support measures to employees and employers in cases of
massive layoffs. That is what we have been doing since the events of September
11.
For example, we go to the premises of the employers or
to mutually agreed upon places to help employees fill out their applications
for benefits. Since we are on site, we can gather all the required information
and process the applications more quickly.
I want to point out a very important aspect of our
plan. Each month we correct the variable entrance requirement according to the
latest unemployment figures. When the unemployment rate increases, Canadians
need less hours to qualify for employment insurance and can receive benefits
for a longer period.
Employment insurance benefits give Canadians who are
laid off the time and resources they need to find another job that is
appropriate for them.
Our follow up and evaluation process shows that the
employment insurance plan produces the desired results.
(1835)
Mr. Paul Crête:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government controls
the plan. It controls it to such an extent that it has accumulated $34 billion
in surpluses since 1993.
Today there is $34 billion in the government coffers
and there will be a further $6 billion this year. With such an increase, and
even being very cautious, it would take close to a decade to wipe out the
surpluses. I would like the government to be aware of that and stop misleading
us.
My question is straightforward. I understand that
assessments are conducted every month. How is it then that in my area where the
unemployment rate is on the rise, having reached 15.1% on October 8, recipients
have seen their benefits cut by two weeks?
Claimants who used to be eligible for the minimum
number of weeks, 32, are now only eligible for 30 weeks. Those who were
eligible for 40 weeks are now down to 38 weeks. Is it not a blatant
contradiction and an obvious example of the government's bad faith in this
matter?
Ms. Raymonde Folco:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer with regard to the
particular situation that exists in my colleague's region. However, to say that
we are misleading Canadians seems to be a gross exaggeration.
First of all, I would like to point out the fact that
the required number of hours to qualify for employment insurance is adjusted
each month, in each of the 58 employment insurance regions, according to the
local unemployment rate.
I will say again to my colleague opposite that during
the last election campaign, in November, we promised Canadians that we would
eliminate the intensity rule. That was the second bill that we passed, Bill
C-2, when we came back to the House.
I would also remind my colleague that, with the
employment insurance plan, Canadians who lose their jobs receive 55% of their
insurable earnings and low income families can receive up to 80% of their
insurable earnings.
I do not have enough time to answer this question in
the way I would like but those were a few of the points that could be
discussed.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a
question I asked the Prime Minister last month following the terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center in New York, on the Pentagon and on the plane that
went down over Pennsylvania on September 11.
At that time and since, we have condemned, in the
strongest possible terms, these terrorist attacks as crimes against humanity
and have called for those who were responsible to be brought to justice within
the framework of international law and under the framework of the United
Nations.
Today in following up on this question, I want to point
out that since October 7 we have witnessed in Afghanistan an illegal, immoral
and profoundly destructive war. I rise this evening to plead with our
government to end its support for this war and to end Canadian participation in
it. This is a war which is creating many new innocent victims, innocent Afghani
civilians. How many hundreds have already died as a result of this destructive
war?
As well, we know that UN deminers have been killed. We
know that Red Cross and the United Nations' warehouses have been bombed and
destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Afghani people are fleeing the terror of
the bombing and the terror of the Taliban regime. Canada's response to those
refugees has fallen far short.
I was particularly concerned to learn that Canada is
involved in the military coalition with respect to the use of cluster bombs.
The United States is dropping cluster bombs from B-52 bombers on Afghanistan.
The shameful response of our Prime Minister to this is that we have to let
American generals fight this war. He said that Canada would let American
generals decide on the appropriate weapons.
As New Democrats, we are not prepared to agree with the
use of cluster bombs, which have been condemned by the Red Cross. In fact, the
Red Cross has called for cluster bombs to be banned. We are not prepared to say
that Canada should be part of a military coalition that allows and sanctions
the use of cluster bombs. In many cases they do not explode directly on impact
and are like hundreds of little landmines.
Canada has led internationally in the campaign against
landmines and yet this is a blatant contradiction when we are prepared to
support the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. What is even worse is that
cluster bombs, which are yellow in colour, are the same colour as the food
packages. Now the Americans are warning Afghani civilians that they had better
be careful because they might be picking up a cluster bomb instead of food.
For Heaven's sake, what has happened to Canada's
historic role? Why will we not speak out for the rule of law and for bringing
this under the umbrella of the United Nations, even at this late date, to end
the suffering and the creation of more innocent civilian deaths? As the parents
of one of those young men who died in the World Trade Center said during a
memorial service, “Why on earth would we bomb Afghanistan and create even more
innocent civilian victims? That doesn't bring back the life of my
son”.
I appeal for a peaceful solution; a solution of peace
and justice.
(1840)
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all join with the member in
sympathizing with the innocent victims of the war, however we did not start
this. Here I am on Halloween night doing a late show with the member for
Burnaby--Douglas, so that in itself is worrisome to some people.
There seems to be a misconception in the House that
supporting the United States and our allies in this campaign against terrorism
means that we are failing to support international law and the United Nations.
This is simply not the case.
All states have the right to individual and collective
self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter. The United Nations
Security Council has stated very clearly that the horrific attacks of September
11 constitute a threat to international peace and security.
With specific reference to the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, the individual and collective right of self-defence was
expressly reaffirmed by the security council of the United Nations on September
12 and September 28 through security council resolutions 1368 and 1373
respectively.
Consequently, rather than acting outside the UN
framework and international law, the United States, Canada and its other allies
are taking action with the support of international law, the United Nations and
the United Nations charter.
Canada has informed the security council that it is
acting militarily in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter. One of the
ways in which Canada is working together with its allies in this effort is by
committing 2,000 Canadian forces personnel to the campaign against
terrorism.
Our contribution includes one Airbus, two Aurora
maritime patrol, three Hercules transport aircraft, a component of our Joint
Task Force Two special forces and a naval task force group consisting of four
of Her Majesty's Canadian ships, plus another ship in a U.S. formation, all
told over 1,000 sailors.
These deployed forces could be tasked and are capable
of performing a wide range of missions, including surveillance, transportation,
humanitarian aid, maritime operations and security and escort
duties.
The international military coalition, to which Canada
belongs, has a simple, clear and just mandate to defend ourselves against
terrorism. Within this mandate, we are working to identify the terrorist
threat, disrupt and destroy its networks and bring its organizations to
justice.
The minister has made it very clear that terrorists and
the Taliban regime are targets of the current campaign and that the Afghan
people most certainly are not. The government is committed to helping the
Afghan people and to this end has already allocated $16 million in humanitarian
aid.
While the military contribution is an important aspect
of the campaign against terrorism, it is by no means the only aspect. We are
also contributing diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, political and military
aid with the single objective of creating a safer more secure world, safe from
terrorist attacks like those we witnessed on September 11.
We are acting with the sanctions of the UN and within
international law so that we can continue to be a country and a world that is a
safe place in which to bring up our children and our children's
children.
(1845)
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, I wish the United States in particular had
thought a bit more about the safety of the world when it financed and supported
the Mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. We are now, unfortunately,
reaping some of the consequences of those decisions.
I note as well that the member talked about not
targeting Afghani civilians. The fact is that we have once again that terrible
concept of collateral damage. We saw it in Kosovo and in Iraq where we continue
to see it.
I ask the parliamentary secretary very specifically to
respond to the fact that the Red Cross has called for the banning of cluster
bombs. Canada has contributed men and women to the coalition, and we certainly
wish them a safe return, but what role are we playing with respect to the
decisions around the deployment of cluster bombs in Afghanistan?
Mr. John O'Reilly:
Mr. Speaker, Canada is acting strictly in accordance
with article 51 of the United Nations charter and article 5 of the North
Atlantic treaty and collectively exercising the right of
self-defence.
The international military coalition, to which Canada
belongs, has a simple, clear and just mandate to defend ourselves against
terrorism. Within this mandate, we are working to identify the terrorist
threat, disrupt and destroy its networks and bring its organizations to justice
for the good of the free world.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)