House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vessels.

Topics

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Chairman, this is my first Committee of the Whole. We are talking about clause 5, on page 4, with reference to section 8.1 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, right? There was something I wanted to know. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. When section 8.1 was amended, the Cabinet was to provide definitions in the regulations. I wanted to know what the meaning of "disable" was and how far that could go.

Do the minister and his officials have a definition ready for Cabinet now or can I get one later when it is ready?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Madam Chairman, I would be glad to give an answer.

Clearly the intent of the Government of Canada is to use the least amount in the event that Canada decides to seize, arrest or inspect a vessel. We use the minimum amount of force required to conduct an inspection. In other words, it is clearly Canada's intention at every stage of the game to avoid injury or worse to any vessel on the high seas, our own or other vessels.

That is what is intended. We are signalling here that we want to proceed in a manner that is the most peaceful possible in the circumstance. That is what is intended by the wording in the clause.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will accept that definition for the time being, but whenever something is put out in writing, I would like to get a copy.

While I have the floor, I have to say that I am unfamiliar with the procedure in committee of the whole. Would the minister or the House allow me to go back to page 2, clause 2 regarding section 5.2? I have another question on the meaning of certain words. It refers to a vessel of a prescribed class preparing to fish.

Can the minister define the expression "prepare to fish" for me, in general terms to begin with? I would also like to get any written definition his officials can provide me with, if at all possible.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman

Do we have unanimous consent to return to clause 2?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Chairman, I will refer to what is meant by section 5.2. Essentially the bill gives the government the enabling power, by amending the current Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to act outside 200 miles in a manner consistent with how we act inside 200 miles.

Generally when this kind of enabling legislation is proposed and passed by Parliament it gives legislation legal effect. Regulations will be published exactly as occurs with respect to any other piece of legislation. When those regulations are published they will be made public and will be available for the scrutiny of the member and all members of the fisheries standing committee.

With respect to the specific question as to what is meant by vessels of a prescribed class, it is simply a reference that allows the government to prescribe or designate a class, a type or kind of vessel we have determined is fishing in a manner inconsistent with conservation rules and therefore against which conservation measures could be taken.

For example, we could prescribe stateless vessels. Another example is that we could prescribe flags of convenience. That is all that is meant. Those regulations will be available to the member, to his party, and to the fisheries committee.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Chairman, I have a slight problem with the expression "prepare to fish".

What is the meaning of "to prepare to fish"? Are we to cross the sea with our gear behind us or should our gear be in the water? What is the meaning of that?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Chairman, if I am wrong, the officials will jump up, leap on me and drag me out of the House kicking and screaming to be re-educated. The purpose of those words is to make clear that in cases where we believe a vessel is fishing in a manner contrary to proper conservation rules we do not put ourselves in a position where we actually have to get the boat when it has its gear in the water.

In other words, we know a vessel is fishing an endangered species. The vessel becomes aware it is under aerial surveillance or through the means of radar it is aware that Canadian enforcement vessels are in the vicinity and pulls up its gear. We are saying that we should not set a standard whereby we can only arrest the vessel when we actually catch it with its gear in the water.

As the member knows, we are able to do aerial surveillance and to record the fishing activities of vessels. We want a clear piece of legislation so that the regulations can be published in such a way as to allow us, once we have designated a class of vessels fishing in a zone where endangered species exist, to move those vessels out of that zone and not be caught up in the details of whether or not the gear is actually up or down.

(Clause 5 agreed to.)

(Clauses 6 to 9 inclusively agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Madam Speaker, if I may, I simply want to thank you for the manner in which you have conducted the business of the House with respect to Bill C-29.

On behalf of the only players that do not have a voice, the fish, I deeply thank all members of the House for their expeditious passage of this important bill today.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this House for the second time on Bill C-22. The privatization of Pearson Airport has one important element that I think has not yet been addressed in this House, namely pilot training.

I have the honour to have in my riding Chicoutimi CEGEP, which trains pilots. The original idea of establishing a French-language public school to train aircraft pilots comes from Canon Jean-Paul Laliberté, then director of Chicoutimi College, Germain Hallé, then director of educational services, and Pierre Rivest, then aviation inspector for the federal Department of Transport. The first 36 student pilots registered in the fall of 1968. The goal was to give francophones a place in the aeronautical community.

Some 400 to 450 airline pilots have graduated from the school since it was founded. Fifty per cent of students choose this career option while the others become bush or helicopter pilots. A quarter century later, Chicoutimi CEGEP still offers this training through the Quebec aeronautical training centre. This centre is the only public school in Quebec that trains pilots. It is the only institution in North America that gives this training in French. Among its exclusive characteristics is the fact that the courses are free.

So, we have developed in Quebec a public education centre which provides adequate training for francophones.

The training of a pilot requires about 260 hours of flying and 900 hours of theory. It costs Quebec taxpayers some $80,000 to train a pilot. The school has an annual budget of $3.5 million. So, this Quebec centre built a solid reputation for itself. It has expertise in a high tech field and it has made a name for itself.

We have shown that we can train pilots in French, away from major centres and still be successful. We have proven that we can do it. We have been able to provide specialized training for these students. We have established our structure and we provide skilled pilots to the industry. It is only normal to have a return on our investment.

Let us not forget that Montreal has played a predominant role in the development of the air carrier industry. Indeed, in the early seventies, Montreal was the hub of air transportation in Canada. Today, it comes in third place, behind Toronto and Vancouver.

The globalization of aeronautics has triggered a streamlining exercise, as well as a transfer of operations from Montreal to Toronto. Between 1976 and 1984, increases in passenger traffic occurred mostly in Toronto, which registered gains of close to 45 per cent, compared to a mere two per cent for Montreal over the last nine years.

In 1981, 7.5 million passengers were processed at Dorval and Mirabel airports, compared to 14.5 million in Toronto. In 1991, passenger traffic at Dorval and Mirabel airports was 8 million, whereas it was 18.5 million in Toronto. This results in a loss of jobs for Quebec, while elsewhere in Canada there was growth until 1989.

A study by the École des hautes études commerciales in Montreal, done in the late 1980s, estimates the contribution of the Montreal airports to the gross domestic product in terms of value added for the year 1992 at $1.3 billion, taking only the direct impact into account, and at $2.2 billion, if indirect effects are taken into account. According to the same study, the contribution of the Montreal airports to the employment sector is also very significant. In 1992, 24,000 jobs are related to the total direct production of the Montreal airports. Adding indirect and induced jobs results in a total of 48,500 jobs. This indicates the economic importance of airport activity.

In Toronto, the addition of a runway would increase the region's income over the next 15 years by $3.5 billion and would enrich the province by over $9 billion. The impact on employment would also be very large. Locally, adding runways would create 3,300 jobs annually, and 3,700 additional jobs elsewhere in Ontario. This would mean, for the entire province, an increase of more than 7,000 jobs. For comparison purposes, in 1969, Air Canada had 461 pilots in Montreal and 451 in Toronto. In 1992, there were 301 pilots in Montreal and 781 in Toronto, a negative balance of 480 pilots for Quebec. This is not a narrow gap, but rather an abyss.

In 1988, Air Canada transferred all its pilot training operations from Montreal to Toronto, which was extremely significant. As of April 1, 1993, the status of the pilot training graduates from the 1992 program was as follows: 62.5 per cent of the graduates had jobs in their field, whereas 18 per cent did not. Their annual salary was only $24,600.

Young pilots who enter the workforce start in small regional companies known as third-level carriers and build up their flying time. We are therefore training in Quebec, and especially in my constituency, workers whom we would like to see advance

here, since they have the opportunity to pursue their careers with all types of carriers. The concentration of operations at Pearson to the detriment of the airports in Montreal results in pilots leaving. After investing in training, our pilots will go elsewhere and pay taxes.

In conclusion, we want Quebec pilots to have a future. The airports in Montreal, as we have seen, are regressing compared to Toronto. We have invested collectively in the training of our pilots, and we have fashioned a development tool. We should also invest in Montreal.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak again to Bill C-22, which concerns the privatization of the airport in Toronto. Pearson Airport is the largest in Canada. It employs 15,000 people and is used by 20 million passengers annually. It adds an estimated $4 billion to the economy of the province of Ontario each year.

The government was right to cancel the contract signed by the previous Conservative government during the last election campaign. However, the real question we must ask about Bill C-22 is this: Why does the Liberal government want to pay compensation to parties who feel their rights have been violated as a result of the present government's decision to cancel the contract awarded by the previous Conservative government to privatize Pearson Airport?

In my opinion, a government has no right to consider paying compensation to individuals who took the risk of signing a controversial contract in the middle of an election campaign and who are all in good financial shape, at a time when this government is cutting or intends to cut social programs. Or else it should apply the same principle to the cancellation of the helicopter contract or to any business or individual penalized by the coming into effect of new legislation.

For instance, there is a small business in my riding to which the government might consider paying compensation. This particular business packaged cigarettes.

Bill C-11, which was recently tabled and debated in the House, will prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. This particular business, whose headquarters are in my riding, was the only one in Quebec that manufactured packages containing five cigarettes. It will have to close down as soon as this legislation comes into effect, since it is strictly engaged in the manufacture and sales of packages of five cigarettes.

I am not saying that I am against legislation to limit tobacco sales to young people. That is not what I am saying. My point is just that all of a sudden, a business operating legally and in good faith sees its existence jeopardized by the implementation of a new act. Yet, no compensation is provided for in this case.

This start-up company cannot afford lobbyists. Does this mean that there is a double standard with regard to financial compensation granted by the government?

Many more examples could be provided; in fact, my colleagues have mentioned several already in this debate.

It seems clear and obvious that the affluent members of this society stand to gain more from their dealings with the government than the rest of the population. While the Pearson Airport contract appeared to favour mainly Conservative Party backers, many of these also contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada fund.

The most influential lobbyists are often former high-ranking officials in the federal system. They have established excellent relationships with officials in various departments, senior officials in particular. This means they have easy access to government policy makers and can thus position themselves faster and have an advantage over other firms. Lobbyists work for the most affluent members of our society. They care very little for ordinary people and even less for the unemployed and welfare recipients. They would rather reap the benefits at the expense of the less fortunate segment of our society.

People who attend the $1,000-a-plate dinners still organized by the old parties are often lobbyists. Who else would pay $1,000 without hoping to gain some favour in the short term? Ordinary citizens cannot afford to attend such meetings.

Despite the change in government, it appears that nothing has really changed. Today's government seems as much in the pay of big corporations and their lobbyists as the former government.

Will they have the courage to prove otherwise by refusing to pay any compensation to those who hoped to get richer in the Pearson Airport privatization project?

The best way to change this would be to pass a law to prohibit financing of political parties by businesses or interest groups. This government should draw inspiration from the provisions of the Quebec electoral law that deal with political party financing. The hon. member for Richelieu's motion to restrict political party financing in Canada should move this government to pass a new law. The hon. member for Richelieu moved that the government legislate to give only private citizens the right to finance political parties and to limit contributions to $5,000 a year. The main objective of this motion is to ban corporate financing, which puts political parties at the mercy of lobbyists for powerful companies that donate several thousands of dollars and expect favours in return.

The same principle applies to individuals.

Wealthy individuals give a lot to some political parties, always for the purpose of getting something in return. The reason for such a motion as this is to make the relations between individuals and political parties more fair and equitable, because someone earning less than $30,000 a year cannot afford to contribute $10,000 to a political party, whereas someone else whose annual income is over $100,000 can of course give more.

Besides, big companies which can afford to give thousands and thousands of dollars to political parties also can afford to hire lobbyists who work to get something for the money which their bosses invested in the political parties.

Values like honesty, integrity and openness should guide political and democratic life. Well, in the Pearson Airport affair, there is a glaring lack of openness. We are faced with a shady deal that is a disgrace to the democratic spirit which should guide politics in this country.

The citizens and voters who sent us here to sit in this House must wonder whose interests we really serve when they see how our governments act. Men and women vote, not banks, unions or companies. Therefore, it is time that political parties stop being at the mercy of their financial backers.

Let me give you the example of the Bloc Quebecois, which won 75 per cent of the seats in Quebec, yet only accepted contributions from individuals. The Bloc has shown to other federal political parties that the important thing is not to get corporate financing but to defend legitimate ideas. The other parties will not go bankrupt if the motion tabled by the hon. member for Richelieu is passed. In fact, it will give them an opportunity to get closer to their constituents.

One thing is certain: The House must implement measures to avoid a repeat of the Pearson Airport scandal.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question!

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.