James Moore

[Airport Security, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, a man walked through Chicago's O'Hare airport security checkpoint with seven knives, a stun gun and a can of mace. He made it past airport security.

He was caught by a random second security check by airline personnel in the boarding area.

This is a level of security at airports that Americans have implemented since September 11 that Canada has not.

Do Canadians not deserve the same level of airport security that the United States has? In fact, do Canadians not deserve the very best rather than the second best, which is what is in place?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. Not only has the left misrepresented the issue. It has done so in literature and books to the extent of raising money. It has been saying things that are absolutely untrue.

The government of the day said it was illegal to possess MMT that had been imported by another country. If the government of the day were wise it would have banned possession of MMT across the board regardless of where one got it.

Ethyl Corporation took the government to court and won, rightly. If the government had written the laws appropriately and made it illegal to possess MMT for the sake of all the environmental concerns on the table it would have been entirely under the auspices of a fair, appropriate and level playing field. It would have been consistent with rules based trade. Unfortunately the NDP, as with a lot of other things, saw conspiracy and black helicopters where effective rules based trade was in place.

The MMT decision proves that government decisions affect trade deals, not transnational corporations or supernational corporations. Decisions by government affect the way businesses make deals. That debunks the whole argument the NDP has been pirating.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to say yes and sit down. I do not know if there is enough thread in the world to sew up all the cuts in that bleeding heart, but I will do my best.

The hon. member talks about the principles of equality and fairness. We believe in the principles of equality and fairness too, but they also extend to businesses. The idea that the World Trade Organization is somehow undemocratic because the specific delegates of every country in it are not elected by Canadians is nonsensical.

The Minister for International Trade is democratic and he is elected. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is democratic and he is elected. The standing committee is composed of people elected by Canadians and their views are put into the process. It is entirely democratic.

I never hear the member condoning or advocating the sort of civil society stuff we saw in Quebec City whereby people were breaking the law to make a political point. I found those demonstrations offensive when they got violent.

People can agree to disagree. At the same time people do not stand up and down and beat on doors and demand that negotiations between unions and management stop because they are happening behind closed doors. They do not say these things must stop because they are driving up the cost of labour, the cost of products and the cost of business. That is a valid argument but nobody does that.

We respect the principle that two institutions or groups of people have the right to get together and decide whether or not they want to have business relations. The same principle is true between countries and corporations.

The NDP and the left like to throw out the words multinational corporation. The words are focus group tested to elicit seedy responses. Canadians think multilateral corporations are a bunch of Gordon Gekko types who do not care about anyone except themselves.

That is not true. They are businesses. They are people. Talking about unplugging free trade because somehow Gordon Gekko and the Wall Street and Bay Street set will benefit from it is a total misrepresentation. It is not fair.

One in three Canadian jobs is dependent on trade. It is irresponsible for any member to start talking about taking trade apart since companies are involved that he or she may not like because they happen to be big or because they can be stigmatized with the cliché of multilateral corporation. It is doing a disservice to the thousands if not millions of Canadians who happen to work for them and thereby boost our standard of living and quality of life.

The hon. member raised the concept of Afghanistan. She said the NDP likes to promote fairness, equality and all those good principles in the arena of the war on terrorism. That is fair enough. So do we. However we want terrorism to stop.

We do not stop terrorism by handing it over to the courts. We stop terrorism by stopping the terrorists. We stop it by stopping those who want to kill innocent people. We cannot plug people into a legal process they do not respect or acknowledge or that, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said repeatedly, in this instance frankly does not exist.

Pollyanna oasis type solutions to real world problems and real world evils is not a practical common sense or responsible thing for a member of this place to be advocating.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise in the debate on the World Trade Organization.

I want to comment on the last presentation that was made. The member should have taken the opportunity to plug his own government in the passage of Bill C-32, the Costa Rican free trade bill. I know that it will bring great benefit to the member from P.E.I. in the expansion of potato trading down to Central America. In that approach I think the entire House can take credit because I believe that all the pro free trade parties, pro growth parties supported that and it is something for which we should all be proud.

Let me begin by saying few activities are as worthwhile as Canada's participation in the World Trade Organization. Just as most members of the House see the United Nations as having a role in maintaining and promoting world peace, it is certain that the agreements concluded under the framework of the World Trade Organization have helped to promote a stable trading regime and the prosperity which that brings.

Just as it would be unthinkable for Canada not to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly, it should be inconceivable for us not to attend a WTO ministerial conference. Quite simply, our attendance at the upcoming WTO talks in Doha is vital. It is vital to Canada to defend and promote our interests at the table. It is vital that Canada be present so as to be able to participate and partake in all discussions which may occur.

The NDP and its supporters remain adamantly opposed to the World Trade Organization. The NDP's parliamentary website has a page called “NDP on Trade” and it features the following quote which is attributed to the party leader:

The WTO has been called “the mother of all backroom deals”—the greatest transfer of economic and political power in history...from communities and nation states into the hands of a small number of global corporations.

The same page alleges as fact that:

The WTO and related trade agreements are intended to be an economic constitution for the planet, yet they are written by, and almost entirely for, the world's largest corporations.

At the very same time as the NDP staunchly denounces the World Trade Organization, it calls on the United Nations to solve the world's problems including dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

On September 17 in the first question period after those horrific attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and the skies over Pennsylvania, the NDP leader rose in question period to say:

The Statute of Rome must be amended to ensure that terrorism is defined as a specific crime against humanity and that terrorists are tried before the International Criminal Court.

She then called upon the Prime Minister to:

—assure the House that Canada will lead the way in fighting terrorism through multilateral democratic institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

Later that same day in her first speech she made in the House after the attacks, the NDP leader said:

This response must be carried out in accordance with the principle of the rule of law...This is a crime against humanity and an international court should mete out the punishment. No country should be called upon to be the judge, the jury and the executioner, least of all the country that has suffered the greatest loss.

The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. There are 189 members of the general assembly. Canada currently is not a member of the security council.

Our permanent representative at the United Nations is Mr. Paul Heinbecker. I have never met Mr. Heinbecker but I am sure that he is an honourable man. I presume that he represents Canada well and that he follows the instructions given to him by the government.

I must say that Mr. Heinbecker's name is perhaps less well known to most Canadians than that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, than that of the Minister for International Trade, than that of the Prime Minister, and that of the Minister of Finance. There is a very simple reason for this. Cabinet ministers are directly accountable to parliament. They are elected members of the House. They attend our debates and question period. They testify before standing committees. Even more important, they are responsible for implementing reports of standing committees.

Before Canada sent a ministerial delegation to the last WTO round in Seattle in 1999, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade travelled across Canada hearing from hundreds of witnesses. Various parties made submissions. Then in June 1999 the standing committee tabled both majority and minority reports. Truly every point of view was heard. Those views were reported to the minister and the government. I have every reason to believe that those views influenced the government's position.

Let me put it another way. The government listened to Canadians when devising its position before the Seattle WTO round in 1999. However the government went further. It also invited a whole bunch of non-elected civil society types to go along.

Not only did the Council of Canadians get to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at various sessions across Canada and similar sessions held by the Senate committee advising the government, it also sent delegates as part of our government's delegation to Seattle.

The delegates had their say. Their point of view was heard and considered countless times. However, when a majority of Canadians did not agree with their position, they called the WTO anti-democratic and the mother of all backroom deals. I must admit that the NDP's opposition to the WTO baffles me and the official opposition.

At all WTO ministerial rounds, including the 1999 session in Seattle and the current session in Doha, Canada is represented by the minister of trade who, as I said earlier, is an elected member of the House and a member of the cabinet. The minister goes to these ministerial sessions armed with government positions that have been devised through broad, inclusive, nationwide consultations. This process is then described by the NDP and its supporters as “backroom” and “written entirely for the benefit of the world's largest corporations”.

Yet the NDP supports the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. I do not know who Canada supported as a nominee in the International Court of Justice or even when that nomination battle was. I do not recall any broad national consultation or report prepared by a standing committee of either the House or the Senate with a view to guiding the government's position.

In fact, even if this had occurred, Canada would have been just one of 189 member countries voting in the process. Yet when one considers that a justice of the court sits for nine years and might influence all kinds of cases, it is conceivable that the election of such individuals might rightly draw some scrutiny.

I have never heard members of the NDP decry the lack of scrutiny of the appointment of judges to the international court. Instead, they will applaud the United Nations and the International Court of Justice as allies in promoting the “principle of the rule of law”.

All Canadians believe in the rule of law. All Canadians also want fair, rules based trade. That is precisely what the WTO is all about. It is a forum in which elected Canadian cabinet ministers, after consulting Canadians, get to influence the rules which affect world trade. If every other nation had a similar process, it would be the most democratic setting of rules that is possible to imagine.

Because we are talking about ground rules rather than UN General Assembly resolutions, our participation in setting those rules gets a much higher level of scrutiny than might otherwise be possible. In spite of this, the NDP says:

The WTO operates behind closed doors, and has the power to strike down national laws, and enforce its decisions or impose sanctions.

Presumably then the NDP is opposed to collective bargaining. After all, it usually occurs behind closed doors and once a collective agreement has been agreed to, it does limit the rights of both parties. The employer cannot pay less than the agreed to wage and the employee cannot refuse to work without a valid reason.

Yet most Canadians, including myself, are in favour of collective bargaining, even though it happens behind closed doors. That is because the union and management generally go into these meetings after having consulted with various stakeholders. Collective bargaining may be behind closed doors, but very few people would describe it as anti-democratic in the way that the NDP describes the WTO.

It is shrill that members of the NDP continue to cite the now famous Ethyl Corporation case and yet they fail to point out that Canada's supreme court probably would have reached the same decision. Consider point 13 from the Ethyl Corporation's statement of claim:

The MMT Act does not prohibit the manufacture or use of MMT in Canada, it only requires that all MMT sold in Canadian unleaded gasoline be 100% Canadian. A domestic manufacturer of MMT can manufacture and distribute MMT for use in unleaded gasoline entirely within a province and not violate the MMT Act. If Ethyl wanted to maintain its presence in the Canadian octane enhancement market, it would be required to build a MMT manufacturing, blending and storage facility in each Canadian province.

The left would have us believe that the Ethyl case proves that chapter 11 prevents us from protecting the environment. Not true. If the federal government had outright banned the use of MMT in Canada regardless of where it was made, Ethyl would not have been able to prove the discrimination which was the centre point of winning its case.

If anyone is in doubt of this, just read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in T1T2 Limited Partnership v Canada. That case was where the government, acting on an election promise, cancelled a questionable deal in which the Mulroney government had sold Pearson Airport terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium. When the government cancelled the deal, the investor sued for breach of contract and lost profits. The investor won and that is the Canadian way.

For Canadians, the WTO is not an imposition of foreign rules; it is a chance for us to influence the rules by which the world will trade. It will trade. It is a chance for us to export our standards of democracy, political accountability and integrity. It is an opportunity for us to use our considerable legal and technical expertise and not inconsiderable political sway to help deal with complex matters like the definition of subsidy in agriculture.

We owe it to the world to be there and to participate fully and with vigour. Much more important, given the power of trade to boost our standard of living, we owe it to all Canadians to participate and to be there with bells on.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

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.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Trade, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, minister on the run. Borealis Capital owns 50% of the rail tunnel. Among the senior executives at Borealis Capital are the chief fundraiser for the industry minister's leadership campaign, Steve Hudson and his campaign chair, David MacInnes.

Will the minister admit the obvious; that his support for this project put him in a clear and ugly conflict of interest?

[Trade, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Minister of Industry showed a sudden interest in clearing up border lineups. Perhaps jealous of the spotlight other Liberal leadership candidates are getting, the minister weighed in in favour of transforming the Windsor-Detroit train tunnel into a truck route.

While we certainly support investments in infrastructure, I would ask the Minister of Industry if he has plans to improve spending at all border crossings or only the ones where Borealis Capital has an interest?

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to address Bill C-264, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, whose purpose is to enable marriage between persons of the same sex.

The bill as proposed would add the following text to the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada. It would add subclause 4.1:

A marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

I will be opposing the bill on two grounds. First, it is not necessary to modify the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada to permit same sex marriage. Second, marriage is principally a provincial and not a federal concern.

It must be noted that the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act does not deal in any way with same sex marriage and/or the broader definition of marriage itself. The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada, an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriages between related persons, states:

1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), persons related by consanguinity, affinity or adoption are not prohibited from marrying each other by reason only of their relationship.

(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related

(a) lineally by consanguinity or adoption;

(b) as brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by the half-blood; or

(c) as brother and sister by adoption.

1. This Act contains all of the prohibitions in law in Canada against marriage by reason of the parties being related.

The amendment by the member for Burnaby--Douglas would add the following text:

4.1 A marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

The member's amendment is totally and wholly unnecessary. At no point does the current act prohibit same sex unions. It only mentions the types of marriage which are not legally valid. Same sex unions do not appear on that list. It is based solely on common law consanguinity concerns. These exist purely for the purpose of minimizing the chance of genetic problems in the offspring of a marriage.

History has taught us that siblings should not marry. It has also taught us that parents should not marry their children. These are the types of relationships prohibited in the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. These prohibitions are based on genetics. Given that same sex couples cannot reproduce, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act does not address them in any way whatsoever.

At the same time it must be noted that the act does not discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental disability or physical disability.

Given that the act does not affect same sex couples and that no one has suggested it discriminates on the grounds covered in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proposed amendment is wholly unnecessary.

The second reason for opposing the amendment is that marriage is principally a provincial and not a federal concern. In the EGALE case, Mr. Justice Pitfield of the British Columbia Supreme Court wrote at paragraph 122 that same sex relationships were:

--a matter of civil rights of persons within British Columbia. That being the case, the provincial legislature may provide for their formalization and recognition should it wish to do so.

B.C.'s marriage act relies on common law to define “qualification of persons about to marry”. The relevant portion of the act, in chapter 282, reads:

In matters not provided for law of England prevails

6 Subject to this Act and any Act of Canada in force in British Columbia, the law of England as it existed on November 19, 1858 prevails in all matters relating to the following:

(a) the mode of solemnizing marriages;

(b) the validity of marriages;

(c) the qualification of parties about to marry;

(d) the consent of guardians or parents, or any person whose consent is necessary to the validity of a marriage.

The ability to amend the B.C. marriage act lies only with the provincial government of British Columbia. The previous NDP government chose not to make those amendments. It had nine years in absolute power with a majority government in the provincial legislature and it chose not to do so.

Two of British Columbia's former premiers, Mr. Glen Clark and Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, happen to live in the same community as the member for Burnaby--Douglas who is sponsoring the legislation. Had he really wanted to amend B.C.'s marriage act the member would have taken up his cause with either of the two former premiers. They live in his riding. They are members of his party. They led a government of his own party and he presumably knows them on a first name basis. One of them, if not both of them, are constituents of his and vice versa.

The member had a golden opportunity to raise the issue with a sympathetic provincial government that had the jurisdiction to make the changes he seeks. He missed his chance to do so.

I respectfully submit that the legislation fails on the two grounds I have mentioned in my speech. If the hon. member really wanted to impact on whether people of the same sex have the right to unify in the institution of marriage, he should have taken his fight to the appropriate legislature. That would have been the provincial legislature and not the federal one. Frankly I am surprised that a lawyer does not know the difference.