Bill C-49 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001

Question No.100—

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the public has unanimously heard the loud cry for democracy from the opposition. What we and the public have heard is a violation not only of the rights of the members of the House but the rights of the public at large.

The public should be aware that the members in the House work hard to put forth fair and reasonable legislation. However, the process, which has been adhered to by the members of the House to put forth amendments to Bill C-49, has been violated and disabused by the minister and the Prime Minister's Office. There seems to be an unholy kobold going on between senior bureaucrats and the Prime Minister's Office and between unelected, invisible, unaccountable members on both sides to squeeze members of the government and force them to do things that they would not otherwise not do. This violates the basic rights of members of the House and, by doing so, violates the basic democratic rights of members of the public.

I will deal with three major parts of Bill C-49: first, accountability and parliamentary authority; second, the Canada fund for Africa; and third, the Canada fund for infrastructure.

On the issue of the motions presented today by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, we have some serious problems with the domestic surcharge. It will gut and severely compromise the ability of people to fly and thereby the economies, not only of large and medium cities but also small towns. It will also compromise the ability of airline workers, who often do not live in the cities in which they work, to get from their home to their workplace. It will cost them $24 for each round trip they take.

It will cost flight attendants, people who do not make a lot of money, $25 every time they go to work. This is ridiculous. This will force many of these people to quit work. This is a hidden consequence that I am sure the minister has not taken into consideration but one of great concern to the people who work in the airline industry. If we were to add up this amount of money over the course of a year it could have a huge impact on these people who do not make a great deal of money?

The security fee would also be applied unevenly between cities and even between carriers. If one were to fly Air Canada from Victoria to Vancouver, a surcharge would have to be paid. If one were to fly Harbour Air there would be no extra charge. We are not suggesting for a moment that this fee be charged to Harbour Air. We are only demonstrating the unevenness and unfairness of the tax.

No one should pay taxes for services not received. Many people from small towns who will be paying this tax will not have the privilege of having access to the security arrangements the fee will be applied to.

I will speak now about parliamentary accountability and authority. Day after day we hear tales of woe about what is taking place in committees. Committees are supposed to be a place where the public can make intelligent interventions that will be listened to by the government. Committees have the ability to put forth good documents with good ideas and good solutions to address big problems that affect Canadians but the opposite is taking place.

What we have is a situation where the Prime Minister's Office, through the minister, is tightly controlling the committees' activities. Committee members do not have the flexibility nor the power to do their jobs. Therefore the efforts of all those well-meaning Canadians who come in front of committees to put forth meaningful interventions, I am sad to say, are wasted.

I cannot think of a democratic country in the world where committee structures are so hamstrung and so neutered that members simply cannot do their jobs.

It was not like that when many of us were elected in 1993. The government made good promises to reform the committee structure because it made sense. It made sense to liberate members of parliament from all sides so they could do their work, use their skills, put forth constructive solutions and have those solutions listened to. However that has not been taking place. We have an utter violation of the meaning and the spirit of the committees. We have seen egregious attempts at hijacking those committees, such as the one mentioned by my colleague from Elk Island, the finance committee which is one of the most important committees in the House of Commons.

I will now talk about the Canada fund for infrastructure, which is part six in Bill C-49. We know infrastructure can be a good thing. In fact my party supports infrastructure where it is used for the betterment of the people. However the current situation is anything but that. When the former auditor general audited infrastructure grants, he found that infrastructure did not do what it was supposed to do. I will give some facts.

The auditor general's 1999 report found that the treasury board claimed that in 98% of cases, short term job creation occurred. The actual number was 3%. The treasury board also claimed that 34% of the infrastructure programs funded would result in increased economic competitiveness. The auditor general found that the actual number was 5%. Treasury board claimed that economic stability would improve by 40% but the actual number turned out to be 12%.

Infrastructure programs have often been used to fund bowling alleys, hockey players and their rinks, and to upgrade bocce ball courts. Taxpayer money should not be used for those things. Taxpayer money should be used for infrastructure development that will improve competitiveness, create jobs and improve the economic situation within communities. It cannot be used as a political pork barrel.

The last thing I will talk about is the Canada fund for Africa, a half billion dollar fund proposed by the Prime Minister. We are all for funding programs that work but we want transparency and accountability in the program. We want full access to all aspects of the fund, including access to information and privacy.

If the government wants this fund, it should consider it in this fashion. A civilian in Africa should be at the centre of the program. Around the wheel there needs to be five components: the environment, good governance, primary health, primary education and a good economic environment that includes good monitoring of fiscal policy, the protection of foreign and domestic investors, and anti-corruption laws.

There also has to be a quid pro quo. The moneys that are spent have to be spent at the sharp edge of aid. They cannot be spent domestically. The public would be very interested to find that when we analyze where a lot of aid money goes, more than half of it is actually spent on health here in Canada. It does not go to the sharp edge where people are in need.

It is important that the government look at all five of those components. If any of those components are missing, the structure will actually fall apart. Primary health, primary education, good governance, anti-corruption laws, good monitoring of fiscal policy and a commitment by the receiving country that it will actually engage and be a full partner in this is essential. If we do not have the commitment of the receiving countries then this fund will go down as a waste of money. We will only be able to spend this money profitably in the long term if the moneys that are spent have long term effects, and we will only have that if the recipient country is prepared to have the measures I mentioned: good governance, good monitoring of fiscal policy, investment in primary health and education, and strong anti-corruption laws.

I would like the government and the public to listen very closely to what my colleagues and my party have said about the bill. The bill has been railroaded by the government. The government has violated the democratic rights of the members of the House and the public by actually throwing out our good ideas for its own political gain.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during parental leave, employment insurance benefits cease immediately following the death of the baby. In Canada, one thousand mothers a year experience this tragedy, and on top of that, they lose their benefits as well. This is inhumane and unacceptable.

The report on Bill C-49 contains a proposed amendment to continue benefits for two additional weeks following the death of a child.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show her human side and support this amendment?

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-49, with which the Minister of Finance, in his last budget, applies an additional tax.

When we want people to stop smoking, all we can do is impose a tax. The higher the tax, the more cigarettes will cost, and the more likely the consumer is to decide to stop smoking.

Someone who can afford to fly to Florida can probably afford the $24 air security tax, but where the problem lies is that the tax the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget, which will be applicable starting March 31, 2002, applies to domestic flights in the regions. Through the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance, the federal government has just hammered the last nail in the coffin of the regional airports.

This is nothing new. Since the Liberals came to office in 1994, they have busied themselves with collecting money and then no longer distributing it to the regions.

Yesterday the NDP moved a motion that listed 12 good reasons to stay in Canada and conduct reforms. This morning, if we were to draw up a list, those of us from Quebec could provide 100 good reasons to withdraw from Canada. One of these good reasons is that the federal government has withdrawn from regional development and its own infrastructure in the regions. This started right away in 1994.

Will closing control towers in airports and eliminating air traffic controllers reassure passengers? In an airport such as the one in Baie-Comeau, there are control towers, and there used to be air traffic controllers. They were not there for fun, they were there to ensure safety. There have been accidents; an Air Satellite plane had an accident. It was not the airport security service that found the plane that had crashed, nor was it the RCMP, it was the volunteer firefighters from the town of Baie-Comeau.

Fire prevention services have also been eliminated in regional airports. This is important in the unfortunate event of an accident at an airport. The federal government had decided, through equipment and personnel, to provide an adequate fire fighting service, if there was a plane crash at an airport. This was eliminated. It no longer exists at regional airports.

The federal government will assign a category to an airport, based on use. Airports will now be classified as either important, intermediate or, just because of a lack of use, as airports that the federal government no longer considers in its air transportation action plans because of a drop in activity. I will explain later why this leads to a drop in airport use.

In the last ten years, the federal government has not invested a cent in regional airports. These are white elephants with deteriorating equipment. Besides, the federal government has a policy of airport divestiture. Today, it plans to sell to local corporations those white elephants with obsolete equipment and infrastructure that is inadequate , and unsafe in some regards.

Following the extensive consultations on airports carried out by the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, together with the transport critic and member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, I have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable for the federal government to remain the owner of its airports and to let local authorities administer them. It would be better for the federal government to remain responsible for its infrastructure, in order to be able to set its own standards. If airports were transferred to local corporations, there is a risk that the federal government could change its legislation, regulations and standards, which would result in a reduction in the profitability of airports.

On the other hand, if airports end up closing, the federal government will wash its hands of it, saying “We are not to blame for the Baie-Comeau closing, as for the one of Saint-Irénée, in Charlevoix”.

I believe that the Competition Bureau has not done what it should have to increase the level of movement and improve customer service in the regions. The bureau, which is under federal jurisdiction, has not done its job. Let me explain.

In Baie-Comeau, Air Canada had a subsidiary company called Air Alliance or Air Nova, which competed fiercely to get to service the North Shore region. I have always seen Air Canada as a predator. Today, this company has a monopoly and no longer provides services to its customers. Now that it has forced InterCanadien into bankruptcy, it fixes schedules as it pleases. InterCanadien was a subsidiary of Canadian Airlines.

Profits were being made and there was a competitive environment. Two aircraft would arrive at 15 minute intervals. Air Canada's white and red aircraft would arrive at 7.30 a.m., while Canadian Airlines' white and blue aircraft would land 15 minutes later. Travellers had a choice of schedules and airfares. That allowed people from Charlevoix and north shore to come to major urban centres such as Quebec City and Montreal. All this has disappeared because of Air Canada's tactics.

Air Alma is no longer in the picture. In western Canada, I am convinced that Air Canada will succeed in eliminating WestJet. The situation there will be the same as in Baie-Comeau, with only Air Canada, mediocre services, airfares going up and inadequate schedules. Again, there will be fewer flights, with the result that one day airports will be closed.

Prices are on the rise and we know that the government just imposed a new tax that will come into effect on March 31. That tax is $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a return trip. A passenger who makes a return trip between Baie-Comeau and Quebec City already has to pay $460 for his airfare and will now have to shell out an additional $24, which means that his return trip, often completed on the same day, will cost close to $500.

One can fly from Montreal to Florida or Mexico for the same cost. In the regions, we have no choice but to fly, for reasons such as our schedules, availability, the weather and various other factors.

There is a lack of services in the regions. We only have one carrier. If it decides to stop flying between Baie-Comeau, Quebec City and Montreal, and instead flies only between Baie-Comeau and Montreal, what are we going to do if we have a meeting in Quebec City at 9 a.m.? We will have to leave the day before and fly from Baie-Comeau to Montreal, then from Montreal to Quebec City, and stay overnight in Quebec City to attend the 9 a.m. meeting the next morning. If that meeting ends at 5 p.m., we will have to fly back to Montreal, stay overnight and, the next morning, make the trip between Montreal and Baie-Comeau.

What will happen? Business people, who cannot afford to take three days just to attend a meeting in Quebec City, will decide to drive the 450 kilometres to get there and the 450 kilometres to get back. Again, the number of passengers will go down, which means that profits will also go down and that, some day, there will no longer be any airline serving the regions. They will say that it is no longer profitable, that it does not work, that there is no longer any business. And then the airport will close.

This is unacceptable, in a region such as the north shore—whether it is Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau or Saint-Irénée, in the riding of Charlevoix—for the federal government to levy a $12 tax on a one way ticket and $24 on a return ticket.

The Liberal government is really hindering regional development. We have to get professional services. We have to import professional services into the regions, and there are professionals in the regions who have to go to other institutions.

This is the case in health services. A person living in Baie-Comeau and having to consult a specialist in Quebec City or Montreal has to travel by plane. Unfortunately, flight schedules do not always allow this and the costs are very high.

For example, a student going to a university in Quebec City or Montreal cannot afford to travel by air. He or she must travel by bus. This too leads to a drop in the number of passengers.

In concluding, I must say that the Liberal government will once again wash its hands and say, “I am not the one who closed the airports; it is the local authorities who did”.

The federal Liberal government rakes in billions of dollars to the detriment of the regions. This is an excellent reason for demanding our sovereignty. I say to Quebecers, particularly those in the regions, let us wake up and, at the next referendum, let us vote yes for Quebec's sovereignty.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will take up report stage of Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001. Next week is constituency week.

When we return on March 11 we will resume consideration of Bill C-49 dealing with budget implementation. I would note that in the week we return, Tuesday, March 12 and Thursday, March 14 shall be allotted days for the opposition.

With respect to the specific question raised by the House leader for the opposition party, I will of course consult with the solicitor general and provide what information I can.

Committees of the House

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, February 18, the committee has considered Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001 and reports the bill with amendment.

Species at Risk Act

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have serious concerns about Bill C-5. Our critic, the hon. member for Red Deer, has been working diligently to point out to the government the shortcomings of the bill. Unfortunately there does not appear to be much attention on the government side to what is being said. I hope the government realizes it is not only the opposition that is saying these things. We are speaking on behalf of a large number of Canadians. Canadians in rural Canada would be the ones most affected by the bill. It would in many cases trample and trash their individual rights.

One of the rights it would trash is provincial rights. We have a constitution in Canada that says there are two sovereign parts. The federal government is sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction and provincial governments are sovereign in their areas of responsibility. It is clearly spelled out in the constitution. As far as I can tell, Bill C-5 is another attempt by the federal government to steamroll over areas of responsibility that belong to the provinces as their sovereign right under the constitution. The federal government is saying “Step aside, we are taking over”.

Species at risk do not always respect political boundaries. They may cross into Saskatchewan, Alberta or somewhere else and we may not even notice. Since they do not vote I do not think the Liberal government would notice either.

However that is not the point. The point is that we cannot ignore and trash provincial responsibilities and sovereignty. It is a thing we have debated for many years in Canada. We have gone through painful wranglings, first ministers meetings, constitutional rounds, referenda and so on about provincial sovereignty, rights and responsibilities. The government thinks separatism in the province of Quebec is waning and that it can go back to the old trick of saying “Who cares what they think, we will do what we want to do”. I hope the government realizes this is not the way of co-operative federalism. It should sit and negotiate these things with the provinces to get them onside.

The provinces have a heart as well as the federal government. I am not sure about a Liberal heart, but the federal government has a heart. It cares not just for the people but for species at risk. I think all Canadians care about species at risk. The question is, how will we do it? Will we trash people's rights to preserve the rights of species at risk? These are the things that should be debated.

I will go back to Bill C-49. It does not have much to do much with species at risk but I always like to quote a paragraph because it demonstrates the attitude of the government. I will show how the attitude pervades Bill C-5 as well. Subclause 36(3) of Bill C-49 deals with the federal government taking ownership of items currently owned by the private sector. It states:

The Governor in Council may require air carriers to transfer to the Authority, on such terms as the Governor in Council considers appropriate, their rights, titles, interests or obligations under any contract respecting screening specified by the Minister--

This is the important part:

--despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of those rights, titles, interests or obligations.

The whole body of jurisprudence and legislation we have built into contract law, civil law and everything else that guarantees a contract is a contract is refuted in one simple clause of Bill C-49. Not one of them is worth the paper they were written on because the governor in council says “On our terms you will transfer it to us”. What an attitude that is.

Let us look at what the government would do to Canadians under Bill C-5. On page 51, subclause 87(2) deals with seizing things. If the government could not figure out what it was seizing it would call it a thing. Whatever the government seized it would call a thing.

Under Bill C-5 the government could take people's property. If the owners could not prove within 30 days that it was their property the government could destroy it and that would be the end of it. Thirty days is all people would have. They may not even be in the country to know the government has taken something off their land. They would have 30 days to prove it was theirs. If they could not, that is too bad. It would be gone.

Bill C-5 is a fairly simple, draconian and arrogant piece of legislation that should not be tolerated by Canadians. Subclause 87(3) of the bill talks about perishable things seized by the government:

If the seized thing is perishable, the enforcement officer may dispose of it or destroy it, and any proceeds of its disposition must be paid to the lawful owner--

The government could seize goods that were perishable, notice they were starting to smell and decide to destroy them. How much would it pay the rightful owner? It would pay absolutely nothing because it destroyed the goods and did not sell them. It would have no responsibility to compensate the person who owned the stuff. That is a draconian, arrogant and wilful trashing of people's rights.

Clause 89 deals with investigation. In the world of criminal prosecution we have the police. It costs us millions of dollars a year to pay for the police. They go in, investigate crimes and lay charges. The cases end up in court, people may be found guilty, judges levy fines which are sometimes just a slap on the wrist, and that is the end of it.

For some reason or other under the species at risk act we would not only get fines of up to $1 million, which is more than a slap on the wrist. One would have to pay the costs of inspection, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture or disposition of the stuff seized. Not only would one get a fine. One would have to pay for the investigation.

Murderers, bank robbers and people who take property, trash it, destroy it, steal it and sell it do not have to pay a dime for the investigation. However there is something special about species at risk. As well as paying a fine people would have to pay for the investigation, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture and disposition. Perhaps hon. members would agree it is lopsided. These are the types of things that are in the bill.

Clause 90 deals with people walking all over private property. It says enforcement officers could go onto anyone's property when they liked, as they liked and so on with no right of objection whatsoever by the owner.

Let us say that is okay. Not only would property owners have to let enforcement officers on their property. They would have to give enforcement officers all reasonable assistance to enable them to carry out their duties. Bill C-5 would deputize property owners as law enforcement officers.

When someone is committing a bank robbery or whatever crime the police tell us to phone them and they will look after it. They say not to worry. If someone is running around with a gun they tell us not to get involved. They tell us to stay out of trouble and they will look after it. Under Bill C-5 if people were running around the countryside with guns shooting endangered species, whatever those may be, one would have a legal obligation to help enforcement officers even one did not have a gun. On and on it goes.

I have only spoken about two or three clauses of the bill. There are many more. I would like to go through the rest but surely I have given an idea of why we in my party object to the bill.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Tomorrow we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the courts administration legislation, and return to third reading of Bill C-27 respecting nuclear safety. Bill C-48, the copyright bill, will be our backup work for tomorrow afternoon if we have time.

Next week, we will return to Bill C-5. We are now in the third day of the report stage of that bill and I should think that the House would want to complete consideration of this bill without much further delay. As early as we can, depending on when Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001, is reported from committee, we will want to try to deal with it at the report and third reading stages.

Thursday of next week, February 28, will be an allotted day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 7, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Species at Risk Act

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his comments because here we have a government member speaking out against the government's bill. It is heartwarming for the opposition, not in a partisan way but because the member has read the bill and has taken exception to some of the clauses and this whole notion of discretion. The government has become far, far too heavy handed.

I will read to the House one clause from Bill C-49, which is the budget implementation act. Members may ask what has this to do with the environmental bill, but this is an example of the government's heavy handedness. It refers to the creation of the Canadian air transport security authority.

How much authority will this authority get? Let me refer members to subclause 36(3) on page 11, and I will quote. This is the authority that the government will give itself if the bill passes, and the governor council is the cabinet:

The Governor in Council may require air carriers to transfer to the Authority, on such terms as the Governor in Council considers appropriate, their rights, titles, interests or obligations under any contract respecting screening specified by the Minister, despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of those rights, titles, interests or obligations.

What could be more heavy handed than that? Despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of rights, titles, interests or obligations, if the government says they will be transferred to the government they will be transferred.

Here we have on this environmental bill the government saying “On our discretion we may, if we feel it appropriate, pay compensation”. The government has an obligation to parliament to explain what it actually means. If it is going to write some regulations from here on in explaining what its discretion is, then I think it has an obligation to table these regulations right here in this place before we vote on the bill.

It seems only appropriate, but then of course this is not the first time the government has treated the House with contempt. The government will again treat the House with contempt on the bill, as it is treating with contempt not only the House but the private sector and anybody who has anything to do with air transport security. The government will say that despite whatever protection there is in law it is irrelevant and “you will do what we say” because the House will pass a law saying “we will give the government whatever it wants”.

Now, of course, there is this discretion. We heard the member for Red Deer talking earlier today about how the bill on the environment says a person is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. This trashing of the whole system of democracy that has been built up over a thousand years shows up time and time again and it has to come to a stop.

I live in the country. I am sure there are more members than I who live in the country and enjoy the country, but unless there is an environmental impact assessment certifying that there are no endangered species on the property, people cannot walk around on their own property with the freedom to enjoy it. They might step on something and kill it, and that is against the law.

I cannot overemphasize my disgust at the way the government brings in legislation through the House, expecting a rubber stamp after one day or two days of debate. If there are more than three days of debate it brings in closure and says “Enough of that, we have to get on with the work”.

It is not so. We read in the Hill Times today about a motion that is coming up for a vote, maybe next week. The former Clerk of the House of Commons is saying, and we have the title, “Parliament 'abandoned' constitutional responsibility”. This is in the Hill Times of February 18.

The government treats this place with disrespect. We are trying to stand up in an open forum and say on behalf of all Canadians that they need to know what the government is doing. If government is passing a piece of legislation it has to be exact and specific, but compensation at its discretion, if it is of the mind to do so, cannot be approved. I hope the House will reject the bill and reject these particular clauses. We must recognize that if we are to earn the respect of Canadians for being here, then we had better start exercising the authority they have given us. We had better start telling the government it cannot have this authority and amend this legislation before it gets approved.