Debates of March 1st, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not imputing motives. I am just trying to understand the logic of the NDP and let other members who are unaware of the way the NDP thinks in these matters know why we are reverting back to the original language.

Therefore, notwithstanding the good points made in the committee, I would hope that the House understands the government's position and understands its commitment with respect to labour representation and the labour point of view and will support this motion to revert back to the original language as introduced.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very instructive that the Minister of Transport has finally risen on the bill when he has refused to answer a single question in question period with respect to this new policy--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Transport on a point of order.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is unwarranted imputation here. The fact is that this is a financial matter. The Minister of Finance is the lead because it is part of a budget bill. I would love to answer all these questions and I have shown that I have done it today.

[The Speaker]

I think the statement shows that we are really in a debate here, not on a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has the floor.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I am afraid the transport minister has disappointed us, Mr. Speaker, in not answering our questions.

I find it very peculiar that a policy which will very seriously impact the airline industry, the ostensible purview of the hon. Minister of Transport, should have been invented, implemented and defended by the Minister of Finance with virtually no reference to the transport department, which is responsible for this. We even sought to have the Minister of Transport appear before the committee, but the new whip-appointed chair of that committee, who has turned what was a normally thoughtful and businesslike committee into a partisan gong show, refused to allow us to call the Minister of Transport to ask him some very serious questions.

However, I did have an opportunity at committee to ask one of the minister's senior officials whether the Ministry of Transport had conducted any impact studies on the consequences of this $24 round trip air security tax. Lo and behold, the transport department, apparently responsible for airline policy, has not even, according to that witness, done a single study on the potential impact on the airline industry in Canada. This is unbelievable and doubly unbelievable because Department of Finance officials admitted at committee that it had not engaged in any economic studies about the impact of this enormous $24 tax.

I also found it instructive that the Minister of Transport began by essentially saying that the finance minister had no choice at budget time but to introduce this $24 tax, that he had no alternative but to be prudent with tax dollars. I do not know how it is prudent with tax dollars to collect an additional 2.2 billion of them. If the finance minister wanted to be prudent he could have and would have reduced spending in low and falling priority areas and in wasteful government spending, areas that have been identified by this opposition, by the auditor general and by many external critics, and he could have reallocated those resources to finance new security measures, including new airport security measures.

Instead, the finance minister could not and did not identify a single red cent of reallocated public spending in his budget, so I find the transport minister's argument of budgetary prudence just a little hard to take. I am glad he has admitted that the bill is pretty seriously flawed, because for a minister to say that there may be some unevenness with the application of this new tax is so serious that he is basically saying they will try to change this in six months. He is basically saying “trust me, I am going to lobby the finance minister in the next six months not to completely crater the Canadian airline industry, just wait, be patient”. Anybody with objections, including the hon. member for Hillsborough in P.E.I. who was prepared to vote for one of our motions to cut the transport tax in half, is pulled out of committee and read the riot act by the finance minister and the whip. The non-commitment he was given was that in six months the government will take a look at it. In six months it may be too late. It may not be a review; it may be a post-mortem.

That I draw from the testimony of every industry witness who appeared before committee even though a number of witnesses were not permitted to appear as the whip's representative in the chair attempted to jam the bill through with absurd and undue haste.

The Canadian Airports Council said that the “current fee structure will create disproportionate price increases on short haul and regional flights--unfairly penalizing smaller carriers who provide these services”, e.g. WestJet. The council also said:

--the proposed $24 charge is a significant disincentive to air travel at a time when the price of an air ticket is already significantly inflated by an array of fees and charges for air navigation, fuel taxes, federal and provincial sales tax, and self-financed airport improvements.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce as well was not given an opportunity to appear before us with live witnesses for questioning because of the way in which the whip ran these hearings, but it stated in a written submission that:

The one-way cost of the Air Travellers Security Charge of $12, represents almost six per cent of the average price of a one-way domestic ticket sold in Canada in 1999.

It went on to state that “If a one per cent increase in ticket prices represents a one per cent decrease in passenger travel”, an estimate which it attributes to the Air Transport Association of Canada, “then the average air traveller security charge of six per cent will have a significant effect in terms of the number of air passengers”.

Captain Kent Hardisty from the Air Line Pilots Association stated:

The proposed legislation does little but create an expensive bureaucracy that will be unresponsive to the insights and interests of the people on the front lines of aviation security.

He also stated that the $24 surcharge:

--will be particularly crippling to short-haul domestic carriers such as Air Canada Regional and WestJet. We find it ironic, to say the least, that legislation intending to improve security of air travel in Canada could assist its very demise...We therefore recommend that the entire security charge scheme should be abandoned in its entirety.

Randall Williams of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated:

This tax will hurt an industry still recovering from the September 11 terrorist activities and the economic slowdown...The traveling public does not support this tax. Combine this with the major administrative and logistical difficulties this tax will create for the air industry, travel agents...it is clear that a user-pay system to offset costs for security and policing is inefficient and a terrible precedent.

Finally, under questioning I put it to Clifford Mackay of the Air Transport Association of Canada that the government says it will not try to run a surplus with the new $2.2 billion tax. The government claims that it will reduce the fee at some indefinite point in the future if it finds that expenditures have not expanded to consume the combined revenues. However, Mr. Mackay, a former senior official in this government, knew as well as I did that this was complete nonsense. He stated:

The problem with the model we have is...it's unlikely--and I spent 20 years as a senior government official--that you will get the response, “No, reduce our revenues because we don't need any more money”. I'm not saying this to be derogatory to federal public servants. Frankly, they try to do their job well, but it's not a normal occurrence around this town...The implementation of this new tax or charge...is frankly extremely complex. We've spent hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to do this. It's not going to be easy.

There were two hours of testimony and many more witnesses before the committee, including those from WestJet. WestJet, being the only profitable airline in Canada and which is the only hope for competition in this monopolistic environment, told the committee that its business will be severely jeopardized. Why? Because of, as the minister puts it, the uneven application of this tax.

A passenger who has a $100 fare ticket from Kelowna to Vancouver or Edmonton to Calgary with WestJet, on a discount, low cost, short haul flight, will end up paying the $24 round trip tax, but someone who is flying on a business expense account on Air Canada, a full service carrier, from Halifax to Vancouver, on a $4,500 J class fare will pay a $24 round trip tax. In other words, this tax, I believe, has been surreptitiously designed to benefit the monopoly airline in the country and drive out of business the successful element of competition which is the only hope for a competitive airline industry in this country.

We know that the government is planning to bring in more revenues from its tax this year than it plans to expend in security fees, so why is it going to take a six month review? The transport minister already has admitted that this approach is flawed. Members of his government were willing to vote against it at committee, were willing to cut the fee in half in one of our amendments and were seriously willing to consider other opposition amendments until removed from the room. We had one case on that committee where the member for Hillsborough announced his intention to support and therefore pass our amendment to cut the security charge in half. When the question on that motion was called and on the floor, about to pass, the whip's representative in the chair gaveled the meeting to a close and we had a missing person's case on our hands which turned out to be a mugging, because he came back and had been given his marching orders.

These are modest amendments which would undo the damage of the bill and they ought to be passed. Government members should vote freely on this as its members were unwilling to in committee.

[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.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Motion No. 2 that was moved by the minister. I submit that the minister showed real contempt for the democratic committee process of the House of Commons.

In committee last Tuesday members accepted an amendment that I proposed that there be two representatives of the labour movement on the board of directors of the authority. The authority would have 11 directors, two coming from the airline industry, two coming from the aerodromes and the others to be chosen by the minister or by order in council.

I moved a motion to have two representatives of the labour unions who represent workers at security points throughout the country. That motion passed in the House of Commons finance committee. What we have today is a motion by the minister totally reversing the expression of the House of Commons finance committee. What is the purpose of committees if a minister is able to overrule what a committee recommends?

To make it even worse, over the last couple of days we were told by a member of the government that someone from the Prime Minister's Office, or the powers that be, had indicated that the government did not want two labour representatives but was willing to accept one representative on the new board of directors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is an honourable man and acts in good faith. He was with me yesterday at a meeting with Dennis Deveau, a representative of the united steelworkers. He assured Mr. Deveau that there would be one labour representative on the board of directors. He said that the Prime Minister's Office did not want two representatives and would move an amendment to reduce this to one.

The parliamentary secretary was acting in good faith. I received a call at about 6 o'clock last night stating that the Minister of Finance had pulled the rug out from under us and the expression of the finance committee of the House of Commons. That is absolutely shameful. He owes an explanation to the trade movement and to the individuals who are screening people at airports right across the country. What utter contempt for the democratic process of this House of Commons.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? This committee accepted to amend the legislation and the Minister of Transport pulled the rug out from the democratic process here in the House of Commons.

I know it is getting worse as the years go on with regard to the government running the entire show. The show is being dictated by the minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office. In this case the Prime Minister's Office sent a clear signal that it would accept one labour representative on the board of directors and the Minister of Finance vetoed that.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is a longstanding member in the House. He should know that ministers, in this case the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, determine what the government's policy will be with respect to a bill, not a nameless official in the Prime Minister's Office.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the House we operate in good faith. As the minister said, we take people at their word. We took people at their word. The United Steelworkers were told that. There is such a thing as good faith and trusting what people say. This can put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in a bad position.

The minister over there says he determines what goes into legislation. It is the Parliament of Canada that decides the laws of the country, not the Minister of Transport. We have parliamentary committees to examine the bills that go before the House of Commons. If the finance committee amends bills surely the Government of Canada and the minister across the way can show respect for its decisions.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? We have Liberal government members operating in good faith. An amendment was passed. They gave us assurances that they did not want two labour representatives but would accept one. All of a sudden the minister came to the House today and said no, they did not want any at all.

Why is that? It is because there is more than one union representing workers at security checkpoints across the country. My God, there is more than one airline yet the airlines would get two seats on the board of directors. Who would occupy the seats? Would it be someone from Air Canada? Who would occupy the other one? What would happen if the other one went bankrupt? Where is the logic in the minister's argument?

The airport authority or the aerodromes would get two representatives on the board of directors. Who would they be? Would they be from Pearson airport in Toronto? Would they be from a small airport? Would they be from a small airport that might go under because of the new airport tax? We do not know.

What does the minister have against the trade union movement? The United Steelworkers of America gave a reasonable presentation that the committee respected. The union is co-operating with the government with respect to the bill. It is co-operating with the Minister of Finance, the parliamentary security, Liberal members and all committee members.

The union made the argument that workers should have representation. It did not even say two. It would prefer two but it only asked for some representation. The committee said two because there would be two from the airlines and two from the airports. This was overruled by the Minister of Finance, a little tin pot dictator sitting across the way who does not listen to the expression of a parliamentary committee where members of his own party are in the majority.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle will have five minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when debate on the motion is resumed, which I expect will be a little later today according to what we are now seeing.

International Women's Day

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day. It is a day when women around the world, despite divisions of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic and political issues, come together and celebrate. They celebrate women as makers of history and their achievements for women's equality worldwide.

Women who are single mothers, women who have chosen non-traditional careers, and women who inspire young girls to break gender stereotypes are being honoured. Theatre productions, art shows and musical presentations will showcase female Canadian talent from coast to coast to coast.

Many Canadians will celebrate International Women's Week at these and other unique and exciting venues. They will be showing how proud we are of women's achievements both present and past.

I strongly encourage my fellow hon. members to seek out and participate in these activities. We should take pride in the diversity of accomplishments big and small, national and international, that Canadian women have attained.

Health

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are more than two million diabetics in Canada. Ten per cent are insulin dependent.

Since the introduction of synthetic insulin in Canada animal based products have been rapidly phased out, but not everyone tolerates the new synthetic insulin. I have heard from two very concerned endocrinologists and recently met with three parents carrying photos of their deceased children.

Katherine Ferguson of Vancouver described the untimely death of her son Christopher who died at age 17, three years after switching to synthetic insulin. He suffered from distress signals such as blackouts, comas, seizures and no warning signs for rapid onset low blood sugar.

Health Canada has over 460 reports of adverse reactions to synthetic insulin. There used to be more than 27 insulin based products to match with difficult patients. Now there are only four. Health Canada needs to do more to alert doctors and patients to adverse reactions and to ensure that animal based insulin alternatives are readily available to those who need them.

International Co-operation

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently hosting a very important visit of senior officials from the Hong Kong Correctional Services Department including the commissioner of corrections, his assistant commissioner, the principal of the staff training institute and the chief officer of the Correctional Services Department of Hong Kong.

The visit is part of a joint collaboration to enhance our respective correctional services through the sharing of best practices, values and experiences. It is but one component of the work being achieved under the memorandum of understanding signed in March last year between our two jurisdictions.

The visit also supports Canada's international agenda to build strong and safe communities by creating and sharing opportunities globally. It is another indication of how the Government of Canada is committed to working with its international partners to promote international peace and security and to strengthen democracy, justice and social stability worldwide.

Canada is indeed strengthening its place in the world, and we look forward to future visits and collaborative efforts of this kind.

International Women's Day

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day. This year's theme, “Working in Solidarity: Women, Human Rights and Peace”, recognizes the crucial role played by women in seeking social justice on the local, regional, national and international scenes.

It reinforces the need to work in solidarity to address the abuse of women's human rights and to replace the global culture of violence with a culture of peace.

The situation of Afghan women now in the news since the tragic events of September 11 is unfortunately just one example of the sad reality of the millions of women and girls around the world who live daily with the threat of war, terrorism or violation of their human rights.

On this International Women's Day, I urge Canadians and the other peoples of the world to take the time to reflect on the difficulties encountered by many women and to look for ways of improving their quality of life.

Together, we can build a world of peace.

Paralympic Winter Games

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to the paralympic team representing Canada at the Paralympic Winter Games, which begin on March 7 in Salt Lake City.

All Canadians can be proud of our paralympic team, made up of 29 exceptional men and women who have put years of intense effort into attaining the ultimate goal in sport, the Paralympics.

I also wish to congratulate and thank the thirty or so trainers, specialists and volunteers who provide our athletes with top notch assistance. Their devotion and expertise mean that our athletes can train in the best possible conditions and aim for the highest peaks.

I pay tribute to event co-ordinators, training personnel, volunteers and parents, who have supported our team for many years, and especially in preparation for the Salt Lake City Paralympics.

We are proud of all our athletes, and I urge all my distinguished colleagues to join with me in congratulating the 2002 Canadian paralympic team and wishing them good luck.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's report by the auditor general on the Canadian Wheat Board, Ms. Fraser stated that she could not look into the mandate of the wheat board or its monopolistic single desk selling system.

These glaring omissions in this audit are the things that farmers want to know about. The Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly with no transparent operations, so in light of this an audit needs to be done to find out whether the board is maximizing the return to farmers.

The questions the auditor general should have answered are: Do farmers get a good deal in comparison to producers in competing countries? Are taxpayers being well served by the board's handling of its own operations? Would farmers benefit more if they could bypass the board and add value to their product by processing grain and marketing it independently? Would organic producers of quality wheat and barley benefit if they could market their own product?

Finally, farmers want to know how they benefit in a monopolistic situation when they are forced to buy expensive television advertising during the winter olympics through the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these subjects must be looked at immediately.

Multiculturalism

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago Vincent Massey became the first Canadian appointed as Governor General of Canada. Massey visited every part of Canada to promote Canadian unity and identity. His speeches often praised Canada's cultural diversity, and what a diverse and multi-ethnic nation we have become in these 50 years.

Since Massey's time over eight million immigrants have come to make their homes in Canada, changing the face of our country. These immigrants, now citizens of Canada, work in all trades and professions and serve their communities in every part of Canada.

I commend one such immigrant, our present Governor General, the Right Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, an immigrant from China. Her Excellency follows in the footsteps of Vincent Massey in educating people about our diverse cultural heritage as she travels to all parts of Canada.

International Women's Week

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, March 3 to March 9 will be International Women's Week. This year's theme, “Working in Solidarity: Women, Human Rights and Peace” focuses more than ever on the importance of recognizing and making a significant contribution to universal social justice for all women.

To accomplish this, we need solidarity. Let us no longer tolerate suffering and war; let us speak out on every possible occasion against injustice and the abuse of rights, of which women far too often still fall victim.

Celebrating the significant progress we have made over the years must not cause us to lose sight of the fact that a great deal remains to be done if women's fundamental rights are to be fully recognized.

If women decided today to finally assume the space to which they are entitled in society, perhaps we would be witnesses all over this planet to the blossoming of flowers of peace and solidarity.

My best wishes to women here and elsewhere. Have a good week.

Landmines

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are celebrating the 5th anniversary of the Ottawa convention banning landmines.

Mines Action Canada is organizing a number of activities across the country to mark Canadian Landmine Awareness Week. These activities are aimed at informing the public on the importance of this issue. The week also celebrates the central role played by Canada in eliminating these terrible weapons from the surface of our planet.

Landmines continue to wreak havoc long after conflicts are ended. Towns and villages become the battleground when the war is over. They kill or maim innocent people going about their day to day activities, including children.

The Ottawa Treaty is evidence that individuals joining together toward a shared goal can make a difference. I invite my colleagues to take part in these celebrations.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Elk Island.

Standing Committee on Finance

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad today. For a number of years I have served, I would add with considerable enthusiasm, on the finance committee. It has been very interesting and very challenging, and I like to think that the work of our committee had considerable influence on the fiscal policies of the government, and I think that we were doing some good work. However in the last few weeks that has really evaporated and I am very discouraged.

Can members imagine? We heard witnesses. The witnesses give us unanimous testimony that the new air security tax was going to kill their industry, and yet the finance committee when it came time to vote on the clause by clause moved all of the members out who heard the testimony and replaced them with sign-ins who would simply vote the way they were told to do.

We might as well tell the members of the committee that they can go home, that they serve no function there. We might as well tell the witnesses “Stay home, it does not matter”.

Police Services

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are jobs that require courage because they are performed under dangerous conditions. Female and male police officers must sometimes work under enormous pressure. Unfortunately, some of them pay the ultimate price in ensuring that justice is respected. Every day, female and male police officers show their dedication to society.

In recent days, police officers have lost their lives in Canada. Others have been injured. This happens all too often. I want to condemn this situation. These demonstrations of violence have disastrous consequences.

My colleagues join me in extending our sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those police officers who were killed in the line of duty.

Railways

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of Canada's railways continues to concern both railroaders and the general public. Longer trains block roads for longer periods of time. Many of these same larger trains are not inspected by rail workers performing pull-by inspections any more, and the electronic sensors being replied upon do not pick up a myriad of other safety hazards. Improper documentation of trains is also a growing problem.

On top of this CN in particular has become a Canadian railway in name only, increasingly run by American managers only here for a short career move. Jobs are being funnelled into the United States. The next casualty may well be Symington Yards in Winnipeg with CN proposing to move a portion of its marshalling to Wisconsin.

When will government act to stop this tragic gutting of a once proud Canadian institution, a gutting I might add that it started with its ridiculous, treacherous and traitorous privatization of the CNR?

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no less than 20% of retired people who are eligible to the guaranteed income supplement are not getting it, simply because Ottawa is not making efforts to contact them and inform them. This is not a myth, it is a fact.

This is a real scandal, particularly considering that this government has known since 1993 that its guaranteed income supplement program does not cover all those who are eligible for it and who are often poor elderly people for whom this supplement is a necessity.

In its editorial, yesterday, Trois-Rivières' daily Le Nouvelliste supports the Bloc Quebecois spokesperson on this issue, the hon. member for Champlain, and says that Ottawa's attitude is truly out of line, because the federal government is changing the rules at the expense of the elderly, who are often the poorest people in our society.

Instead of merely looking into this issue, the Bloc Quebecois will soon organize an awareness and information session to reach all seniors in the Frontenac—Mégantic region.