Debates of March 1st, 2002

The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001 as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

There are 29 motions in amendment on the notice paper in connection with the report stage of Bill C-49.

Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been proposed in committee.

Motion No. 21 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a royal recommendation.

Motions Nos. 3 to 9, 11 to 16, 19 and 23 to 28 will not be selected by the Chair as they are similar or identical to motions defeated in committee.

The remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motion No. 2.

Group No. 2: Motion No. 22.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 to the House.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand your ruling is that Motions Nos. 10 and 17 are not to be heard because they could have been put at committee. Unfortunately I was not able to attend that committee because I was at the procedure and House affairs committee which is dealing with the matter related to the minister of defence.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has been going virtually non-stop. I simply did not have an opportunity to introduce Motions Nos. 10 and 17 at the finance committee. Had I not been tied up in a motion that I think has precedence because of the extremely sensitive nature of that matter, I could have attended the finance committee and introduced these motions.

Therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your ruling in that respect and allow both Motions Nos. 10 and 17.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order in this regard. I submitted three motions yesterday because I am not a regular member of that standing committee. As well, the official opposition had all its spots filled on that committee at the time so it would have been difficult for me to sidle up to the table. I was also busy at the time that committee was meeting. I am a regular member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and, as a result, had other committee responsibilities simultaneously.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is that the committee jammed the bill through so quickly that even the witnesses who were supposed to be called had only a day's notice or less. As a result, many people refused to appear because it was simply unreasonable to ask senior executives of airlines and whatnot to appear with less than a day's notice. The government whip in this case was also very heavy-handed in terms of forcing the bill through.

I think all these things need to be taken into account, as well as the fact that the witnesses, including Mr. Clifford Mackay with the Air Transport Association of Canada, basically said that the tax was too complex and needed a grace period.

On top of that, when the vice-president of WestJet, Mark Hill, made his presentation before the finance committee he said that he was shocked that the committee had not done an analysis of the impact it would have on the airline industry. He said that it would not have been difficult to do the analysis but that it was all a question of time.

Perhaps the question is not on the timing but unfortunately in this place we have been led to believe that government business does not have precedence over opposition business in terms of the drafting of some of these types of amendments and motions. Nonetheless, that does not appear to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take all those things into consideration because frankly these are central and key amendments to the consideration of the bill.

[The Speaker]

Perhaps the member for Calgary West could enlighten the Chair by indicating which amendments he is speaking about. He did not give me the numbers.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the first motion I am referring to is Motion No. 18 which I believe deals with a 90 day grace period.

The next one is Motion No. 20 which has to do with a postponement of the legislation specifically because no impact studies were conducted with regard to the industry and consultation was not adequately rendered.

The third motion is Motion No. 1 which I believe has to do with the consultation issue.

[The Speaker]

To clarify for the Chair, the two points of order that have been raised concern Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20. Is that correct?

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief intervention on Motions Nos. 10 and 17.

I was present at the finance committee during its ostensible consideration of these motions. I would like to report to the Chair that while I understand that committee proceedings are the business of committee, I think it is important when the Chair considers this that he review the blues of the committee as well as published reports of the meeting where permanent members of the committee on the part of the government who had participated in witness testimony were removed from the committee by the whip's office and were not there to vote on these amendments and therefore were unable to exercise proper discretion.

Furthermore, the chair herself attempted to actually retroactively undo--

[The Speaker]

I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is trying to be very helpful to the Chair. I have read some of the published reports of the goings on in the finance committee. Of course I have no opinion whatsoever on anything that transpired there. It is not the concern of the Chair directly. I know in raising this the hon. member was not trying to draw the Chair into this kind of disagreement, not at all I am sure.

I am also aware, and the hon. member has just reminded me, how he could have moved these amendments in the committee had he received them from his colleagues. Of course the whole purpose of committee proceedings is to allow for these things to be put in the committee and dealt with there. I stressed that in my earlier ruling on this subject with which I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is very familiar. I understand he reads it on a regular basis.

Having said that, I am also satisfied that in this case I note that the bill was referred to the committee on February 18, it got second reading that day, and was reported on February 27, so obviously the committee moved with some alacrity on the matter. I know that during that time members have been involved in other committees and, in the circumstances, I am prepared in this case to exercise some leniency and allow these five motions in because this bill was reported on Wednesday and has only come up today. Had there been a little more time, maybe I would have been a little less generous.

However, in the circumstances I will put the five motions that we have heard about in, Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20. They will be lumped into Group No. 1.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that after consultation among all parties there is unanimous consent to allow all remaining motions standing in the name of the member for St. Albert to stand in the name of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. They are Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed that the motions will all stand in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

However, none of the motion numbers I have heard have been selected for debate.

I will now put to the House the motions in Group No. 1.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:

“(6) The Authority must, before December 31 of each year following the Authority's first full year of operations, submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year to the Minister, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.

(7) The report referred to in subsection (6) must include:

(a) national, provincial and regional data on the effect of the air travellers security surcharge on passenger travel and economic development; and

(b) a review of the impact of all the other surcharges levied on air travel.”

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing subsection 10(2) with the following:

“(2) Two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representatives of the airline industry designated under section 11 whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors, and two must be nominees submitted by the representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors.”

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 16 with the following:

“schedule and a prescribed airport except if it is

(a) an aerodrome north of the 55th parallel of north latitude that is not served at least five times per week by non-stop round-trip jet service to an airport south of the 55th parallel of north latitude, or

(b) an aerodrome where the population of the adjoining city is less than 3,000 persons.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 23 the following:

“(6) Despite any other provision of this Act, no charge shall be collected with respect to departure from a terminal at a listed airport unless screening was operational at that terminal as of September 10, 2001.”

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 24 the following:

“15.1 No person who collects an amount as or on account of a charge within 90 days after the day on which this Part comes into force, shall be liable for any deficiency in the amount collected if the deficiency is the result of a reasonable error due to unfamiliarity with any aspect of the collection process.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-49, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 76 with the following:

“11. This Part comes into force on July 1, 2002.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill which is particularly important for the airline industry. I know there has been some controversy and I want to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 2 since debate has been permitted on Motion No. 1 moved by the member for Calgary West. First I would like to make some preliminary remarks.

This is a budgetary measure because of the charge that has been imposed to provide for the financing of all the various improvements under the air security authority. The Minister of Finance and his officials, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have all had carriage of the bill in the House. I thank them for their hard work. In particular, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions have come in for some rather unwarranted and unjust criticism in the House during question period in defending the charge.

Perhaps I can give a little of the background. The events of September 11 were such that we had to act quickly. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister agreed there should be a security based budget. As a result a lot of work was done under incredible time pressure.

Transport officials and I as minister talked to the Minister of Finance in November. Traffic flows were still uncertain. We had good reason to believe that Canadians would go back to travelling in large numbers and that is indeed happening. However at the time of the preparation of the budget we were not in possession of firm figures to denote that. As a result, the Minister of Finance had no other alternative but to be prudent and judicious with the taxpayers' money. We are talking about a $2.2 billion expenditure over five years. It was crucial that he have the revenue to cover the expenditures.

I believe the criticism he has come under is unwarranted and unjust. Perhaps there is some unevenness in the application as has been described by some of the aviation groups and the airlines, but the Minister of Finance has been categorical that he will review the charge in September.

He has also been categorical that this will not be a revenue grab by the government. These moneys will not be applied for other uses. This is not a revenue generating mechanism. That is why we are not calling it a tax, because it is not a tax. It is a user charge like other user charges, specifically to cover the expenditures related to the airlines.

I do hope members understand that whatever unevenness and few bumps we may have in the next six months, it is my hope that with traffic coming back, the Minister of Finance will be in a position in September after a review of the charge to make adjustments. He has given that undertaking. He is a man of his word and all hon. members should accept that.

With respect to two motions at hand, the hon. member for Calgary West put forward a motion, and I understand why, that clause 2 be amended by adding a couple of clauses but one in particular, that an annual report be tabled and that the annual report must include national, provincial and regional data on the effect of the air travellers security surcharge on passenger travel and economic development and a review of the impact of all other surcharges levied on air travel.

The Minister of Finance will be addressing those issues when he makes the determination as to whether or not the charge in its present form should continue. That will be in the month of September.

However, on the issue of the annual report, as a crown corporation the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is subject to the Financial Administration Act and part I of schedule III of the FAA is amended accordingly by Bill C-49.

Section 150 of the FAA already provides that each crown corporation submits an annual report to the appropriate minister and the President of Treasury Board as soon as possible and in any case within three months after the termination of each financial year. The minister then tables the report before the House on any of the first 15 sitting days.

Section 150 of the FAA also species the information that must be included in the annual report: the financial statements; the auditor's annual report; a statement on the extent to which the corporation has met its objectives for the financial year; quantitative information respecting the performance of the corporation; and such other information as is required by the FAA or any other act of parliament, or by the appropriate minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance.

I would respectfully say to the hon. member for Calgary West that the FAA already has provisions which achieve the objectives of his motion which therefore make his motion redundant.

On Motion No. 2, which is to amend clause 2 of Bill C-49, we are providing for the appointment by the governor in council of the board of directors of the authority. The board is to be composed of 11 directors, including the chair.

The board's composition was amended by the Standing Committee on Finance to include two directors nominated by the bargaining agent that represents the greatest number of screening officers employed at aerodromes in Canada. At first glance this seems like a reasonable approach, but only if it fairly reflects the composition of the workforce. In fact, this is not the case for the air transport security industry.

There are 13 different companies providing passenger screening at airports. About half, approximately 2,500 screening officers, are represented by as many as six different unions. These include the United Steelworkers of America, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Hotel, Restaurant and Bartenders' Union and the Labourers International Union of North America.

We debated this at length. We debated it at the department. We debated it at cabinet and in committee clause by clause. We understood that there would be pressure from labour for dedicated labour representatives among the representatives on the board.

However, there are other parties who are affected by the operations of the security authority and it is really not possible to put a seat on the board of directors to represent each stakeholder group. We think it is important to balance the benefits of representation on the board of directors with the need to establish a manageable sized board to facilitate effective decision making. Clause 10 as previously drafted at second reading does just that.

There is nothing in the legislation which would preclude the governor in council from appointing a labour representative or representative from any other stakeholder group to the board of directors, provided that those individuals met the requirements set out in the legislation. The board of directors would be composed of 11 directors of which only four seats would be designated for the two stakeholders most affected by operations, that is, the airlines and the aerodrome operators. This means there would remain seven seats on the board which would be available to represent an appropriate cross-section of the Canadian public.

If we were not to revert to the original wording in the bill, as proposed by the motion, in effect the largest union now offering the services, the United Steelworkers of America, would have permanent representation on the board and the union dynamic may change after the authority gets up and running. We cannot encumber an authority with the fact that it can only deal with security companies with one bargaining agent, i.e., the United Steelworkers of America.

I have met on two occasions with United Steelworkers of America officials. My officials have met with them a number of times. I have to say they have been extremely helpful in designing the bill. I think the rapport has been good. I do not blame them for having a last kick at the can in the House and in committee to try to get their point across. However, it has to be seen from their own particular interest as one union rather than from the perspective of labour as a whole.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

The committee supported it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

It was the committee.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The hon. member from Saskatchewan has been in the House a long time and should know he should give courtesy to hon. members trying to explain a very germane point.

I will give an undertaking to the House that there will be among the seven government representatives a person or persons who will be sensitive to organized labour's goals and ideals. In the same way, we will do it for the tourist industry and other affected stakeholder groups.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

How about the amendment? It is contempt for the committee.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this has come from the NDP. I have been in the House a long, long time. The NDP's basic ethos in life is to promote the interests of organized labour. The Liberal Party is not opposed in any way to organized labour. In fact, most union members voted for the Liberals in recent elections. The fact is that we speak for all labour and not just one trade union.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. minister will surely know that it is out of order to impute motives. It is very clear that the amendment the government is overturning was supported by the committee. The government is showing total contempt for the work of the committee itself.