Rob Nicholson

[Air Transportation Security, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government said that the security tax would be revenue neutral but that was never the case. It was a tax grab from day one.

The Minister of Transport knows the Canadian airline industry is struggling to get back on its feet and this tax is one of the reasons passenger traffic is down.

Will the minister urge the finance minister to do the right thing, start helping the Canadian airline industry and scrap this tax?

[Air Transportation Security, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance department released the audited statements for the air travellers security charge.

It shows the government made an incredible $234 million profit on the backs of air travellers. The best part is that the finance department could not figure out how much security would cost. It certainly figured out how to make money. This is just another tax grab by the Liberal government.

Will the government immediately announce an end to this tax and start paying for our security out of the money the government has already over-collected from Canadians?

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is called an act to implement the convention on international interests in mobile equipment and the protocol to the convention on international interests in mobile equipment on matters specific to aircraft equipment. That is quite a mouthful. Bill C-4 would establish an international registry whereby creditors and debtors could register interests in what is referred to as mobile equipment. Mobile equipment is more specific than that generic term. It includes aircraft, helicopters, and could even include satellites.

What can be reasonably said about this is that there has been unanimous consent and support for this legislation, and I think that is appropriate. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport after a reasonably short debate in the House and it was interesting to me that we did not have one objection to this piece of legislation. We had, on one afternoon, representatives of the aircraft industry and they made generally very supportive comments. I was a little surprised that right at the final minute of the testimony it was suggested to us that a couple of minor amendments could be made to the implementing legislation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, you ruled earlier today that those amendments will not be entertained. The Senate has a role in our parliamentary system, and part of that role is to have another look at those things that are done by this chamber. I would hope that the Senate would have a look at those amendments.

I believe that they are technical in nature. Indeed, one of them is very technical. One of the amendments is to remove one of the zeds that describes one of the subparagraphs. I am sure there will be many controversial matters before the 38th Parliament. Removing one z from the English translation of this is not something that will be objected to, I am quite sure. I hope that the Senate would have a look at that.

The representatives of the industry also pointed out a number of things in relation to the definition of a creditor. They indicated that the definition of a creditor in English common law is somewhat dissimilar to that for instance in the civil code. They were concerned that any definitions that were used in the bill would coincide with the different types of law so that there would be some certainty. Indeed, that is what this bill is all about, it is to establish some certainty in this particular area.

That is a good thing, and not something that is unusual. We have a couple of different systems of law in the world. When Canada drafts legislation, we must be cognizant of the fact that one of the provinces of Canada has a civil code and nine of the provinces have English common law. Throughout the world, it is split basically between the two systems of law.

I always remember a colleague of mine who was trying to get some evidence entered into a court case in Sweden. He had his client prepare what we refer to as an affidavit in common law. The affidavit is a statement by an individual that is then sworn out by a notary public or a commissioner of oaths and affidavits. My colleague sent this to Sweden with the appropriate translation. I asked him some time later how it went and he said that the authorities had no knowledge of what we were talking about in regard to affidavits. Because one swears to a statement as being true does not make it any more or less true within the system of law as it is applied in Sweden. So, again we see the two systems of law coming together.

When it was brought to our attention in this particular legislation that we should have another look at the definition of creditor, and that we should clarify the provisions with respect to bankruptcy, one of the areas of federal jurisdiction, it seemed to me to make sense.

I am hoping that those matters will be taken up by the other chamber. If they are brought back here as an amendment, I think we can be reasonably certain that the House will accept them.

Again, the bill itself went through very smoothly. I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party who have taken an interest in the bill. They all had a part in ensuring and satisfying themselves that this was good legislation. I particularly want to thank my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He realizes that a healthy airline industry in this country is not only good for his province but good for Canada. I appreciate his support in this as I do indeed of all my colleagues. I congratulate the members from the other parties as well.

I think this is a great step forward. In the debate on second reading I pointed out to the House that for a couple of centuries there has been a great deal of certainty in the shipping industry when it comes to security interests. Indeed, the laws as they pertain to all sea going transportation have been relied upon by most of the countries of the world because people want certainty above all else.

I saw an article that talked about some transactions between Japan and Chile. Those two countries, for the purposes of their transactions, adapted certain elements of British admiralty law. Why? It was not because they had to. It was because it made sense that if there was one law, one set of rules governing the shipping industry in the world, then they were better off because it was easier to do business.

It seems to me that this too is a step forward in the right direction. If we have an international registry where creditors, lenders and debtors can look to one place and see whether there is a security interest then we are all better off. This is why it is not a surprise to me that everyone in the airline industry supports this, as well as the lenders. If people are in the position of lenders and trying to finance an airplane, they want to have some certainty that if something goes wrong with the transaction, they will be able to reclaim their security item.

If people are asked if this is a problem, it certainly can be a problem. In the testimony that the committee heard we were told of one example of a plane that a Canadian lender was trying to repossess because of non-payment and he ended up paying off everyone. Apparently everyone had a claim on this plane that was in Mexico. I believe the last person to be paid off was the wife of the airport manager.

This is exactly what we do not want to happen. We are all better off if there is some certainty because the airline industry then can obtain financing at a lower cost and a lower interest because of the security it is able to give. Lenders are more willing to invest in the industry knowing that they can realize on their security if that becomes necessary.

Bill C-4 is a step in the right direction. I have indicated to the parliamentary secretary in my question to him that this is not the end of the debate. Even if the bill is amended by the Senate and it comes back to the House and those amendments are concurred in, work has to be done with the provinces and the sooner the better. Other countries will have a look at what is being done by Canada. If these countries see that Canada has passed this legislation and implemented this protocol and convention, it seems to me it is an encouragement for them as well.

The sooner we have one system in place in the world, one registry where these security interests are registered, the better off Canada will be. I think that will be a tremendous step forward for the airline industry. Members of the official opposition support this because it is good legislation. The sooner it is implemented the better.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary indicated quite correctly to the House that it was going to take more provincial governments signing on and implementing this protocol before it takes effect. He pointed out that both Ontario and Nova Scotia have already signed on.

Earlier in his speech he indicated that the department is in continuous consultation with the provinces with regard to this matter, along with other branches of the federal government. Toward the end of his comments he urged hon. members to contact their provincial counterparts. However, I think he would agree with me, as important as it is to contact our provincial counterparts regarding this important piece of legislation, that leadership will still have to come from the department and the government.

In that regard, is the parliamentary secretary aware of how far down the road we are on this? Can he give us some sort of prediction that we could rely on as to when this is going to be fully implemented? In as much as his department and the Government of Canada are in constant communication with the provinces, how soon is this going to be implemented?

[Canada-U.S. Border, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister visited Niagara. While there, I urged him to investigate the difficulties we are facing at the border crossings in Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie.

The Canada-U.S. trading relationship is the largest in the world and it is absolutely essential that our borders remain open to the efficient flow of goods and services. One would have had to have been asleep for the last three years not to have noticed the continued slowdowns and tie-ups at our Canadian borders. There are problems with border capacity, labour issues with customs officers and security concerns, all of which require the immediate attention of the Government of Canada.

The government's response has been the same for years. It is consulting with our American allies and it has plans to fix the situation.

Plans are a beautiful thing but plans alone will not solve the problem. I urge the government to get going and get the job done now because the health of the Canadian economy depends on it.

[Air Transportation Security, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure they checked on that when they brought in the legislation. We need that list now. The minister himself has asked, “What happens if bin Laden shows up at the counter?” That is a very good question. When is the government going to get serious about security and provide that list now to help Canadians?

[Air Transportation Security, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after 9/11 the government brought in legislation that would allow it to create a no-fly list for passengers that would strengthen security at Canada's airports.

Despite that, it has done nothing in this regard. It still has not produced a no-fly list that will protect Canadians. Why has the government not acted to ensure that this protection is in place at Canada's airports?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I was talking about Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act and the role that aboriginal Canadians have played in the history of the country. They certainly had a major role to play in the settlement of western Canada. There are dozens of treaties that were concluded by the colonial authorities and they had a beneficial effect for the country. It allowed us to establish our sovereignty over areas that we would have been in direct competition with the United States. It was very valuable.

However, today we have to recognize those treaties. We have to come to some conclusion on some of the vague terms that are contained therein. I see the particular act before Parliament as a continuation of the process, the process of fairness. However, I did not hear answers to some of the legitimate concerns that were raised by the member for Calgary Centre-North and by other members on this side of the House. Contrary to comments we have heard, this is the time and the place to discuss some of these things.

The second reading debate is when a bill is either accepted or rejected on principle, so it is legitimate that we raise some of these concerns. If the matter moves on to the committee, as I expect it probably will, I hope then finally some of the legitimate questions that have been raised will get answered. I hope they include, among other things, the question of finality.

We have heard testimony in the House that the agreement is not final, but that it will be opened up when any other land claim or self-government treaties are concluded. That means this process could go on ad infinitum. I believe there are about 70 land claim treaties in the mix right now and there are hundreds of other potential ones. It means that after each and every one of them, this one would be measured to see if some other group land claim treaty included more and therefore the Tlicho people would be included within that. As a result we do not attain any finality with this. I would like to see that matter addressed in the committee. I think it is a reasonable one.

As well, we heard comments with respect to Canada's obligations in the area of international treaties. If Canada concludes an international treaty, that treaty will be measured against the provisions of this agreement. There are provisions, I guess, for consultation and mediation.

What we could possibly have, and again it is one of those issues that should be addressed by the committee, is that Canada may very well be put in the position some day where it will be impossible for us to conclude international treaties because no future land claim agreement will have any less than this agreement. This would be the base for all future agreements.

Presumably the other 70 land claim agreements and self-government claims that are in the mix now will all want to be consulted when Canada gets into the business of international treaties. One could just imagine how difficult that would be to conclude if the federal government were under an obligation to go through a process of consultation, which is fair enough. For the process of mediation, I just want to know where that ends. What happens if the mediation is unsuccessful? I look forward to that being answered.

As well, I did not hear a complete answer to the question of what is supreme, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or this act? Is it a constitutional document? There is no question about that. Is it subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I have seen wording in the agreement that says that whatever happens within this agreement, it should be “consistent with”. That is not quite the same as being subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These are all important, vital questions because the government of the country has to be able to work and we have to be fair to all Canadians. I hope that process will have complete examination after the second reading stage in the committee.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, this is Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

There have been a couple of important pieces of legislation that have been introduced into the 38th Parliament. One of them deals with the subject of child pornography, which I think is very important to Canadians. This too I believe is very important legislation, one that will have profound effects on Canadian society for many years to come. I am very pleased to speak to it, but I am somewhat concerned about matters that were raised in the debate by the member for Calgary Centre-North. Members will remember he raised a number of issues with respect to this agreement.

This is an agreement that comes before this chamber. We have every right to debate it, look at it and ensure that it is in the best interests of Canada, as well as in the best interests of the Tlicho people. I agree with the concept of native self-government. It is a good idea and it something that we should pursue. I believe, for a couple of reasons.

Members will remember that in the British North America Act, the federal government was given special responsibility with respect to Canada's natives. In the last 137 years it is fair to say that we have not done a good job of running the lives of Canada's aboriginal peoples. That alone commends the idea of native self-government to all Canadians. It is a good idea because it is fair and it is the right thing to do. Coupled with that is the fact that I do not believe as a society we have done a very good job trying to run their lives, nor should we have tried. That is the way the Constitution was originally written, so we must deal with it as we find it.

As well, I agree with the concept of native self-government because it is the fair thing to do if we look at the sweep of Canadian history. I appreciate the fact that there are many different first nation communities across the country. However, if we look at the history of modern Canada, we will see that at every stage of history of Canada the natives have played a vital part in the development of this half of the continent.

As we know, Canada occupies two million square miles of the northern half of North America. We are very fortunate people to have many natural resources and to have this land. It would not have been possible if we had not built up allies. As European settlements moved across the northern half of the continent, the allies we had with native communities were absolutely vital.

Members will remember the French regime. If we look at the history of Samuel de Champlain and the governors who followed him, it was absolutely vital for them to have their own community and society by building those allies with the natives who preceded them in Canada. The English colonies to the south were much more populace. They had more money and more resources at their disposal. Yet for several hundred years the French regime continued and prospered in Quebec and outside of Quebec, in part, because of the determination of the people themselves, their French allies and their native allies.

So, too, with the British regime. The British people found it expedient and to their best interests in a lightly populated country to make allies with native Canadians. Therefore, they are very much a part of the history.

For my own area of Niagara Falls, Major General Sir Isaac Brock reported back to then equivalent of the British war office, I suppose, as to what had happened in the war of 1812. He said that the victory of the British and the Canadians at Detroit had helped ensure that we would continue our independence in this part of the world. He said that it was absolutely essential and could not have been done without the support of his native allies.

In those instances in the history of Canada, our native allies were absolutely critical to the success of us being able to be a separate community on this part of the continent.

Also, if we look at the development of western Canada, British Columbia and the western provinces, we will find that all the way through, in a lightly populated part of the country, treaties were made with the local native groups to ensure that the Americans did not move into the Prairies, or into British Columbia or did not further expand Alaska--

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That member kept referring to us as the Canadian Alliance Party. He knows the name of the party is the Conservative Party.