Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2001

The Acadians

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since I first stood in the House two weeks ago today to ask the Minister of Transport about the problems facing Canada's airlines, a number of things have happened.

In answering my question, the minister said that neither the Bush administration nor the American congress had decided on any measure to help the U.S. airline industry. Yet two days later both the U.S. house of representatives and the senate passed identical legislation to assist the American airline industry. The president signed the legislation into law the following day.

Contrast that with the response of the government which only yesterday announced its compensation package to Canada's airlines for the direct losses they incurred as a result of the closure of Canada's airspace. It took the government an additional week and a half to address the obvious, which is that Canada should compensate the airlines for these losses. That was a no-brainer. Canadians support that. There was overwhelming support from every party in the House for that concept.

However the American legislation went further than direct compensation. It was also designed to offset the loss of passenger revenue between September 11 and December 21, 2001. Whether one agrees with that kind of an action or not, the result is that American air carriers flying transborder routes in direct competition with Canadian airlines will be subsidized while the Canadian air carriers that compete with American air carriers will not. What does the government do about that discrepancy? Nothing.

With regard to security, the Americans have again acted quickly. The U.S. government has taken control of airport security. It has reintroduced the use of air marshals and has developed tough new policies. What has the Government of Canada done? It told Canadian pilots to lock the cockpit door and keep it closed. That is just one more example of the government reacting with too little too late.

While I agree that we cannot always compare ourselves to the Americans, in this instance we cannot afford not to reach a certain level of security or to be any less diligent in providing security for Canadian travellers or any travellers on Canadian airlines.

What does the government do now? I will agree that there are no easy fixes. It will not be easy for the government to resolve the issues that are before the airline industry.

For one thing, not all the airlines in Canada are in the same shape. It is well documented. When the market closed today, Air Canada's shares were listed at $2.48, down from a 12 month high of $17.50 last November and a pre-September 11 value of $6. WestJet's shares, on the other hand, at today's close, were at $19, down from its 12 month high but up from its pre-September 11 value of $17.

It is quite clear that not all Canadian airlines are in the same shape. The only way the government can help Air Canada to resolve its problems is to eliminate the 15% limit on domestic ownership of Air Canada's shares.

Is the government prepared to eliminate the 15% ownership restriction and allow the private sector to save Air Canada?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate her on her interest in a matter of extreme importance and timeliness. Transport Canada acknowledges that the implementation of enhanced security measures is putting enormous pressure on airports and air carriers.

The shutting down of airports for a number of days obviously led to marked decreases in revenue. I would, however, point out that the government's contribution of $160 million is connected to the closing down of air space for a number of days, which obviously had significant impact on the carriers.

This is an arrangement that compensates airlines for the Government of Canada's decision to close down Canadian air space. It provides airlines and operators of specialized air services with the funds they have been so anxiously awaiting, which will enable them to recover from the abrupt interruption of their activities.

An examination of the financial data was carried out with executives directly involved in this sector. The Air Transport Association was also involved in assessing the costs.

Those who will be directly concerned and will benefit from that allocation of funds are obviously air carriers and service operators.

With this compensation package, Transport Canada and the federal government continue to monitor the situation very closely. Our main concern is of course the security and safety of the travelling public.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important opportunity during what we commonly call the late show to discuss harbour bottoms.

The government has not only made a conscious decision through Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to divest itself of wharves and wharf infrastructure, but now it has gone a step further and fully intends to divest itself of the very bottoms of the harbours. That is extremely problematic for the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which is a very important player in the fishing industry. A number of wharves have been divested already.

[An hon. member]

Digby was divested.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

My colleague mentioned Digby wharf.

There is a real concern on behalf of the mayors, the MLAs in the provincial legislature and the provincial government that the federal government is divesting itself of harbour bottoms.

I raised a question in the House regarding the actual selling of the harbour bottoms because that is exactly what is going to happen.

In several of these harbours, in particular the harbour of Bridgewater, which goes several kilometres up the LaHave River, and the harbour of Shelbourne, which is several kilometres long, if the government actually sold the bottoms of those harbours to a private individual, then what would happen to them?

Who would be responsible for any environmental assessment or environmental cleanup? Would that person own all the rights to the harbour? Could we set lobster gear on the bottom of the harbour? Could we set nets on the harbour? Would the person put the navigational aids in that harbour? Would he or she be responsible for the moorings not only for the commercial fishery but for the recreational boaters? Would he or she be responsible for harbours in front of the yacht clubs and sheltered coves where recreational boaters would be?

On June 8, as a supplementary to my question, my colleague from St. John's West asked the Minister of the Environment whether or not this was perhaps some attempt to avoid the responsibility for environmental cleanup in ports such as Liverpool or Lunenburg which have been shipbuilding centres for hundreds of years. There are perhaps things in the mud that are secure there, lead and other toxic chemicals or substances, that would be the responsibility of the federal government. As long as that bottom is not disturbed, that bottom is perfectly safe. If that bottom were disturbed, would there be a problem?

There are way too many unanswered questions.

It should be noted that the mayors of the towns on the South Shore, the wardens of the municipalities, the municipal councillors, the MLAs and the provincial government are all against the federal government divesting itself of the harbour bottoms.

It is inconceivable that the federal government would want to sell the harbour bottoms. It should maintain authority over them. If an individual wants to build a wharf or wants to put moorings in for recreational boating or for a commercial fishery venture, then he or she could go to the federal government and get the appropriate permits. However, the federal government absolutely must maintain control and ownership of what is under the salt water.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in 1995 the government put in place the national marine policy, which has allowed for the commercialization of the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the creation of 19 Canada port authorities and the divestiture of many public harbours under which came the divestiture of the harbour bottoms.

The divestiture of harbour bottoms is part of the national marine policy. Transport Canada owns 43 of them. Obviously they were first offered to federal departments and then to the various provinces.

In Nova Scotia, negotiations started up with top officials. Transport Canada manages 15 harbour bottoms in Nova Scotia. Discussions are going on and these are things that must not be done hastily.

Obviously there are also benefits related to harbour dues, since in Nova Scotia alone there might be potential savings of $900,000.

When a harbour bottom is divested, it is important to remember that the federal government will continue to enforce federal laws, including the Canada Shipping Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In short, and I want to reassure my hon. colleague, absolutely no final decision has been made with regard to the divestiture of Transport Canada harbour bottoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, I put the following question to the Minister of Human Resources Development:

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Human Resources Development received a copy of the additional report on the employment insurance program tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Last November, the Liberal government admitted that the program was too rigid and required changes.

Is the minister going to give serious consideration to the recommendations contained in this report, and will she commit to making significant changes to the employment insurance program, to at last correct the errors of the past?

I am talking about the errors of the past because they hurt people. It is beyond me that we have an employment insurance plan subsidized by workers when the government has accumulated a $40 billion surplus in the EI fund. Workers and newcomers on the labour market are discriminated against because they have to work 910 hours before qualifying for benefits.

Today, with all the layoffs we hear about across the country, people who work in seasonal industries will not be able to qualify for EI. It is most unfortunate.

On behalf of Canadian workers, I sincerely hope that the federal Minister of Human Resources Development will carefully examine the report tabled in parliament by hon. members from all parties, Liberals, members from the Alliance, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, as well as Conservatives. They unanimously asked the minister to bring in amendments that would be effective immediately, amendments that are needed.

For example it is recommended to go from 910 hours worked to 700 hours. I do not necessarily agree with this recommendation but this is what is recommended, and I am satisfied with that. It makes more sense because more people would qualify.

The minister already recognized that even 700 hours was too long for parental leave; she reduced that to 600 hours.

In regions like ours, and our region is not the only one, the situation is the same all over the country, there are seasonal jobs. It is not because of the workers. The situation is controlled by employers and local economy. These people can no longer qualify for EI.

We can say that 85% of those who should qualify for employment insurance do so. However, that is not the problem here. The problem is that nobody has access to the employment insurance program any more. We are not talking about people who are no longer eligible; we are not talking about people who worked for eight, ten or even fifteen or twenty weeks, for example in the tourism industry. We are not talking about these people who no longer qualify for EI.

Given the number of layoffs announced, it is high time the minister proposed a plan to change the employment insurance program for the good of all workers in our country. I am sure they would be pleased and they would greatly appreciate such a gesture on the part of the minister, if ever she or the federal government decided to make those changes.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague opposite that the government and the minister in particular are in the process of drafting their response to the recommendations of the House standing committee that looked at the EI issue. We will respond to the committee report within the timeframe prescribed by the act.

I can assure my colleague and all members of the House that this concern about a certain clientele that is not covered under the employment insurance plan is shared by government members as well.

That is why, over the last few years, we made changes to the plan to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadians and is better adapted to the changing labour market.

Most recently under Bill C-2, the bill on employment insurance which the House passed, we eliminated the intensity rule because it did not improve workforce attachment. We adjusted the clawback provision which no longer applies to Canadians who seek temporary income support for the first time or those who receive special benefits.

Under Bill C-2 parents coming back to work after taking care of young children qualify for regular EI benefits with the same number of hours required of other workers.

Each year we assess the impact of the plan on Canadians across the country. We will continue to ensure that it is well adapted to the changing labour market and to the needs of Canadians. Our plan is flexible and it meets the needs of Canada's labour force.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the adjournment motion I would like to talk about a matter I have raised in this House and the answer given to it last Thursday. I asked the following question to the Minister of Industry:

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Industry told Davie Industries officials that he could not do anything to help their company until the proposals made to the government are accepted.

I was referring to an action plan that the minister had prepared and tabled in June.

Could the government pledge to quickly adopt the proposals of the Minister of Industry regarding the shipbuilding industry, so as to avoid the closure of another company and, more importantly, the loss of jobs?

The parliamentary secretary is the one who answered, and I see that he has been asked to answer again today. I will let him give his answer, but what he was saying was that the Minister of Industry had met with the officials but agreed with the decision made by Investissement Québec to reject Davie's request. He therefore said that he agreed and answered that the federal government would not do anything.

I would like to point out that shipbuilding, under the constitution as it stands, is first and foremost a federal responsibility. People from Davie Industries approached Investissement Québec because they were fed up with nothing happening on the federal side. Yet, the Minister of Industry did present a plan of action in June, the week after the House rose.

Week in and week out, day in and day out, we are told that soon there will be announcements of funding. Meanwhile, not only in Lévis but elsewhere in Canada shipyards are closing. We are losing a whole infrastructure that was important to us.

Today I hope the government and the parliamentary secretary, who has former shipyard workers living in his riding and who long chaired his regional caucus and is aware of the situation, given that the matter is up for discussion at Treasury Board and in cabinet in the coming weeks, will seize the opportunity I am offering them today to announce that the government will do something to help Davie Industries.

I warn him that I will not be very happy if he says, as usual, that they can do nothing for shipbuilding.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to talk about government assistance to Davie Industries.

The government sympathizes with the workers and the management of Davie Industries, whose future is uncertain.

Numerous factors are at the root of the difficulties of that industry, including a lack of investment and innovation, and also foreign trade practices.

It is in light of these difficulties that the government took some measures to implement a new shipbuilding policy. In October 2000, the Minister of Industry established a new partnership project on shipbuilding. The project was co-chaired by officials representing the owners and the union. The partnership held broad consultations across Canada and it submitted its report to the minister in March.

In response to this report, the minister adopted a new policy framework with over 20 realistic and affordable measures, including: a new competitive financing mechanism for foreign and domestic buyers of Canadian built vessels; improved export financing through the Export Development Corporation; increased benefits for the Canadian industry from the development of offshore oil and natural gas; access by the shipbuilding and industrial marine industries to Technology Partnerships Canada for the development of innovating technologies; and the creation of a new energy and marine branch at Industry Canada for the effective implementation of the department's policy framework.

We worked very hard to develop a shipbuilding and marine industries policy that is competitive and efficient. We will help the industry, including Davie Industries, to take advantage of all the opportunities that it is entitled to under the new policy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)