Debates of Nov. 25th, 2004

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I should advise the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

It has been an interesting day as members of the House have stood and asked the government to do the right thing, which seems to have been the message throughout the day.

Today we are talking about Mirabel airport. I have listened to the minister on the other side. On the one hand he tells us that they may need the land for future industrial development. On the other hand, and more so, I have heard him talk about contracts that were signed by a former Progressive Conservative government dealing with the leasing of the land.

We accept that those do exist. However it is not a big stretch of the imagination and somewhat farcical that the government would use that argument. When the Liberals took power back in 1993 they had no problems in tearing up some contracts with suppliers of helicopters and an agreement that was going to take place with respect to another airport in Toronto. Breaking contracts is not new to them. We are not asking the government to break a contract. Contracts can be negotiated and changes made.

Interestingly, on this particular issue I would like to draw the government's attention to a quote from the current Minister of Public Works who said back in September, “The truth is that being a landlord is not a core business of government, nor should it be”.

We agree with that with respect to this land.

The former prime minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, used to speak of his desire to create a just society in Canada. If the expropriation of land around Mirabel airport and the accompanying blatant disregard for the population of this region is representative of that idea of justice, then it is unfortunate that Dorval airport and not the Mirabel airport was named after him.

Mirabel airport, which is located about 55 kilometres northeast of Montreal, is a prime example of the incompetence of the Liberal government spending spree this country has had to endure over the years. It is a white elephant that must be laid to rest. It remains nothing more than a testament to Liberal arrogance, waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money.

Of the 97,000 acres, and that is a huge expanse of land, that were expropriated, only 5% has been used for the actual airport. Eleven thousand acres sit unused. Six thousand acres are fenced in and this part alone could accommodate two airports the size of the current Dorval airport. Current forecasts show that it may not come to anyone's use until the year 2030-35.

In 1969 the Liberal government demonstrated a callous disregard for the population of this region when it failed to properly inform them of the decision to expropriate their lands. This was a first in a series of draconian measures initiated by that Liberal government, which included the unnecessary destruction of property and the maintenance of land which was not being used for the airport and probably never will be used by the airport.

What is truly astonishing is the fact the government paid the land occupants a mere $210 an acre in 1969.

Then in 1970, only a year later, the same government offered to pay $2,000 per acre to expropriate land for the airport they were planning to construct in Pickering, Ontario. I ask the House: Is that equality?

We sit here today as parliamentarians and wonder why our relationship with Quebec is in trouble. Over 3,000 families were affected by the initial expropriation. That is a truly astounding number of families to be expropriated in one region of our country.

Even worse, these families found out by a news flash on the radio. Can anyone Imagine hearing on the radio that one's property has been expropriated. Many of these families saw their houses needlessly destroyed, along with most of the area's infrastructure. During the moving period many people were victims of looting or saw their family homes set on fire so that local firefighters could practise their firefighting skills. Compensation was not only inadequate but it was often involuntarily accepted. Little compensation was offered for the upheaval this created in people's lives.

As a result, many people in the area suffered from depression, alcohol abuse and suicides were not uncommon. Most of this land, however, was never used by the airport.

Despite all the suffering this community endured in the early 1970s, it is now showing signs of population growth. People are returning. Hope is growing that farming families will get ownership of their land back.

I come from a riding of considerable rural farmland. I can fully appreciate the passion farmers have for their land. Farmland in my riding is passed down through the generations. This is no different for the people of Mirabel. They take pride in their land and work it with their blood, sweat and tears.

In my riding farmers are the best stewards of the land. It would be incomprehensible to imagine politicians expropriating them from their land and then lease it back to them so they can continue to earn a livelihood.

Why should the people affected by the Mirabel airport be expected to feel any different?

Unfortunately, despite the unnecessary sacrifice of these people, it was not until Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government that any of the excess expropriations were returned.

Rather than admit it had made a mistake in taking so much land, the Liberal government has needlessly insisted on holding on to this land, thereby perpetuating its mistreatment of these people. The Liberal-Bloc-Liberal Minister of Transport has demonstrated his particular version of support for the people of Mirabel this morning. He has failed to demonstrate why he wants to hold onto this land. He prefers to be a landlord and collect the lease payments many farmers are paying today.

Pearson airport in Toronto, we have heard, operates a world class facility on a mere 4,200 acres. Heathrow in London, England operates on 2,700. Los Angeles operates with 3,500. Yet the Minister of Transport feels the need to hang on to 11,000 acres for a cargo facility.

The agricultural value of this region of Quebec is at risk. It is time to stop leasing the land to farmers and give them their rightful ownership of the land.

My party continues to fight for the rights of rural Canadians on many different fronts. In a time of such sensitivity to equal rights for all Canadians, I am saddened to see such a stubborn attitude being shown by the party opposite.

Perhaps it is time that I turn our attention to another minister. I have already indicated the Minister of Public Works who, in his own words, supports our party's position. On September 21, as I have already said, the Minister of Public Works stated:

The truth is, being a landlord is not a core business of government, nor should it be.

The Minister of Public Works clearly supports what we are saying today, as he has always agreed with us in the past. His Conservative values occasionally shine through the rainbow of despair found on the government side of the House. He fully understands the dignity and value of property rights; at times it is as though he never really left.

At a time when we are asking Canadian farmers not to give up on farming, it is downright pitiful to watch a tired old Liberal government hold onto its dreams of the past. If there is anything the government should recognize, it is that farmers are always in need of prosperous land. Here is an opportunity to do the right thing.

Perhaps reluctance to do the right thing in this particular situation and return ownership of the land to the people of Mirabel is a form of punishment for the less than favourable election results the Liberals received last summer.

The bottom line is that the Government of Canada should not be a landlord. If the government supports Canadian farmers as it claims, it should return the land to the farmers of the Mirabel region. After all, this land is not being used by the airport and has never been used by the airport. Because the government has no future plan for the land, it does make one speculate as to what it wants this land for in the future.

What do the Liberals hope to do with it? Use it as a landfill site for Montreal or Toronto? Who knows? We on this side of the House know the land is better off in the hands of farmers who have fought for this land and worked this land for generations and continue to hold out hope that ownership will be returned to them and their children.

Selling this land back to these families does not make up for over 30 years of psychological trauma and the Liberal Party's inability to admit to its errors. It does not restore valued possessions and souvenirs to these families. It does not make up for the years of mistreatment and abuse. It is, however, the least the government can do to rectify its abominable treatment of these Canadian citizens.

It is a sad spectacle for Canadians to again watch their government fail to demonstrate leadership and instead have to be shamed into doing the right thing. As I stand here today before the House, the Government of Canada is leasing land to the farmers it took it from. If the Government of Canada is not in the landlord business, it should demonstrate that by making the return of ownership of this farmland a priority.

From what the House has heard today from the government, it is clearly in denial. Mirabel is closed to passenger traffic. It will never expand. However, it can become a vital benchmark in reversing the mistakes of governments past. Land rights are something that all Canadians accept as a basic right.

We should assure Canadians of the future that we can never make these types of mistakes again. I therefore call upon all members of the House to do the right thing and support the motion.

Ukraine Elections

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with all parties and if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion forward. I move:

That, in the opinion of this House and based on the observations of several thousand international observers, including observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, NATO, and the United States, as well as the observations of approximately 100 Canadian observers and two Canadian Parliamentary delegations; a concerted, systemic and massive fraud has been committed by the current regime and the Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine against the will of the people of Ukraine;

That, based on the above mentioned observations, the electoral commission does not have a legitimate basis for declaring Mr. Yanukovich the winner of the presidential election;

That, in the event that President Kuchma and the Government of Ukraine do not ensure that the democratic will of the Ukrainian people is respected, the Government of Canada shall consider the introduction of appropriate and effective measures, mindful of the impact on the people of Ukraine and will seek the cooperation on such measures with the international community.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the member have the consent of the House to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague for his speech, but there was some mention of previous prime ministers and previous ministers. For the record, I want to go back and look at the long term lease and how the Conservatives handled it.

We cannot forget what happened during the 1980s when the Mulroney government decided to cede large portions of the Mirabel land. I know my colleague was not here at that time, but I was. The Tories started by appointing a minister's cousin to sell the land and then a Conservative organizer was able to buy some of the expropriated land at 30% of the market value and sold it one day later for an overall profit of $252,000, it was reported.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member appears to be reading from a document and he is saying that he is stating facts. Is it in order to ask the member to table the document from which he is getting that information?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is presenting a case. He is making an occasional quote, but I do not think he is reading or quoting from a particular document. He is just posing his question. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to continue.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the hon. member's colleagues said, these are the new improved Tories. I am wondering if my hon. colleague was there in April to witness what their leader said, “My idol, Brian Mulroney”. I am not sure, but that is fine.

[An hon. member]

Who is this guy? I have never seen him in the House before. What is he doing here?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

My question is, does the member remember the deal that was flipped? Does he remember how the Canadian public was swindled? Does he realize that the cost to the government, the cost to the Canadian taxpayers, was over $100 million? Does he realize that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for whatever the question was, dealing with some time in the past. I appreciate that he has been here a long time and has a lot more experience than I do, and I give him a lot of credit for that, again for whatever that means.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The fact of the matter is, if he would pay attention, we are asking him to do the right thing today. We are not talking about 20 years ago. We are talking about 2004. We are asking him to do the right thing now because wrong things may or may not have been done, and it is not for me to judge whether they were. It does not really matter: do the right thing now. That is no reason to hold on to the property now to keep it out of the hands of the people who rightfully own it. Give it back to those people. They will buy it. They want it back. They are farmers.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to ask a question of my Conservative colleague. He is well aware that the Liberal government was maintaining the ownership over 11,000 acres of land that were not used for the operation of the airport. There is a whole industrial complex close to the Mirabel airport that represents 6,000 acres of land. There are currently 2,140 acres that are still available for industrial development. This is the reality.

Consequently, I ask my Conservative colleague to tell me how the government should act. In 1992, the lease that was signed was for the operation of a major industrial airport. Since then, the Liberals changed the operation plan twice, precisely so that it would no longer become a major industrial airport, as it was supposed to be in 1992.

Thus, they changed the nature of the lease. It is high time today that the Liberals correct the situation and give the 11,000 acres back to farmers.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc friend from Mirabel. He certainly understands the situation far better than the government side does. There are agreements that have been signed for purposes--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Are you in agreement with that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It is not being used for that purpose. You did not expropriate the land for that purpose.

My friend from the Bloc is absolutely right. I would say in answer to the question from my friend from the Bloc that the leases are for a certain purpose. If they are not being used for that certain purpose, then the lease is not being fulfilled. He is absolutely right.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this issue as the public works critic for the official opposition and the former transport critic for the official opposition. I support the motion which states:

That the House call on the government to take the appropriate measures to sell the 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel Airport.

The simple fact that this issue is being discussed in the House of Commons should concern all of us. We are talking about a decision to return surplus land to the farmers from whom it was expropriated nearly 30 years ago. Various Canadians might well propose other topics for us to discuss today, but few issues have Mirabel's power to confirm Liberal arrogance, Liberal mismanagement, and the Liberal's continuing inability to plan for the future.

The municipality of Mirabel was created in 1971 by the amalgamation of 14 municipalities. It was a consequence, mainly, of the decision by Prime Minister Trudeau, on March 28, 1969, to build an international airport in Sainte-Scholastique.

Montreal was booming. Two years earlier, it had hosted Expo 67 and it was to host the 1976 Olympic Games. The Mirabel airport was to be the symbol of the future of this region.

An announcement which Transport ran in an issue of the Forces magazine proclaimed that Mirabel would be “the gateway to America” and was “the airport of the future today”.

In 1967, air traffic was growing at an annual rate of 19%, and Mirabel was supposed to undergo a phenomenal expansion to be able to accommodate 40 million travellers annually by 2000. Mirabel was supposed to become a North American hub.

Planning was almost perfect. There was to be a rapid rail link, two autoroutes worthy of the name, autoroutes 13 and 15, and a third one to link the airport with Hull and Ottawa.

In order to avoid the noise problems that spelled trouble for the operation of the Concorde at JFK airport in New York, and that were soon to be a problem for night flights in Dorval, they suggested a site that was 60 kilometres away from downtown Montreal.

The Liberal government of the time was planning to spend $1.5 billion to build a state of the art airport in a rural setting, far from residential areas, modeled on the new Dallas-Fort Worth airport in the US, which today is one of the main hubs of air traffic in that country.

Claiming it wanted to reduce the risk of prosecution as a result of noise by taking over a territory nearly as big as the city of Montreal, the federal Liberal government forced 3,200 families out of their homes. Some 12,000 people were directly affected.

Initially 97,000 acres were expropriated, a territory bigger than Laval island, to built Mirabel airport on the most productive arable lands in Quebec. Officials at the department of Transport virtually destroyed the economic life of a score of villages. Worse yet, Mirabel never really got off the ground.

At the official opening, on October 14, 1975, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it was the project of the century. The Mirabel airport facilities include a one million square foot terminal, a 350 room hotel, an eight storey office building and a multi-level parking garage for 5,000 cars. Mirabel was used by airlines from Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, Ireland, India, Italy, Morocco, Scandinavia and Switzerland as well as England, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Unfortunately the latter are the only countries with airlines still flying to Montreal.

Of course, Mirabel was affected by the oil crisis of the 1970s, the first hijackings and the recession. That contributed to the slowing down of the airline industry. Political instability in Quebec in the 1980s did not help either. In fact, during its busiest year ever, in 1990, Mirabel only handled 2.5 million passengers, a far cry from the more than 25 million planned in 1967. When studying the situation at Mirabel, it is very easy to blame political and economic factors such as the oil crisis, terrorism or Quebec separatists.

And yet, the other major airports of the world faced similar problems and despite the challenges of the IRA in London, Heathrow airport continued to grow.

All things considered, I believe that Mirabel's failure comes as a direct result of the federal Liberal government's policies. The original project never was completed. The high-speed rail shuttle between Mirabel and downtown Montreal never made it off the planner's drawing board and highway 13 was never completed. These links would have been justified had it been decided to concentrate in Mirabel all passenger fights, domestic, transborder and international.

In fact, the federal government proposed an incredibly stupid solution. Montreal was to have two airports. Mirabel airport would be used for international flights and Dorval airport, renamed Pierre Elliott Trudeau, would handle transborder and international flights.

I am not an airline manager, but I know the “hub” concept because I live near Vancouver. Passengers arrive on a nonstop flight from Boston and connect with a nonstop flight to Osaka. Other passengers arrive from Kelowna and take off for Sydney, Australia. A high percentage of the passengers in Vancouver airport are on a longer trip and Vancouver airport is only a connection point on their trip. The term “hub” applies to Vancouver airport.

The situation in Montreal, however, discouraged the local airports from becoming a hub.Travellers flying from Calgary to Europe had to land at Dorval, claim their luggage, take a taxi to Mirabel, check their bags in again, and then fly from there to Europe. Neither Mirabel nor Dorval was a hub, and the existence of two limited-use airports in one city prevented Montreal from becoming a hub.

As for the situation in other parts of the world, Amsterdam, with a population of 1.5 million, has an international airport, Schipol, and close to 40 million passengers fly through it annually. Paris, however, with a population of 10.5 million, handles 48 million passengers in a year through Charles de Gaulle, its main airport. While Paris has seven times the population of Amsterdam, its main airport handles only 20% more passenger traffic.

Very few international travellers will not recognize Amsterdam as one of the major European hubs. The impressive statistics for Charles de Gaulle reflect the status of the city of light as a tourist destination, as well as the importance of the French capital within the European Union, the Francophonie and a major jumping off point for the Maghreb.

Similarly, Montreal, while the headquarters of Air Canada, Air Transat and Jetsgo, is not really a hub. These three airlines have selected Toronto as their main base and hub.

Quite simply, the federal policy of maintaining two major airports in Montreal is the main reason for the failure of Mirabel. This is why we are here today discussing Mirabel.

I will end with two statements of principle. First of all, the Conservative Party is in favour of having a Canadian airline industry that is strong, competitive in every part of the globe, capable of carrying Canadians to any destination within a system that is efficient and serves the interests of both travellers and taxpayers.

Second, we are on the side of those who are now on Mirabel property. They chose to purchase land that had been expropriated by the government, which has not assumed its responsibilities toward them. We respect their right to their property.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I served with the member on the transport committee and I know he is very knowledgeable about transport issues.

This particular debate has twigged a lot of interest because there are a lot of facts that many Canadians, in fact many parliamentarians, were not aware of. It has a long history and has been placed on the table for all to bring themselves up to speed about some of the decisions that were taken.

What is not terribly clear to me, and maybe the member can help, is the rationale. One person does not make such decisions. The member knows how complex it is for long term planning for air traffic and the conditions that existed back then, and how they have changed enormously now. Even the expansion at Pearson has been a complex issue.

At the time that the Mirabel concept was being put forward and the details became public, was there anybody who said there might be a problem? The second question is with regard to the 11,000 acres that remain. In terms of the future viability of Mirabel, if there is a future viability, will those 11,000 acres be necessary for future expansion?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Pearson airport is near Mississauga, my colleague's constituency, so he takes a great interest in these things. He was also very constructive on the transport committee.

The province of British Columbia is preparing for the 2010 Olympic Games and there are some grand ideas, grand schemes, and grand projects with regard to transportation. We see it in British Columbia on the land side. There were some rumblings and some concerns.

Ultimately, the choice of the federal government to have two airports with no proper distinguishing features between the two, or to choose one as an international airport and one as a domestic airport with the proper international certification under the Chicago convention, caused a lot of problems in the expansion of Mirabel Airport in a way that was conducive to the situation there.

There were voices on the ground at the time. There were some people who are still members of the Liberal Party and of course Otto Lang was involved in discussions at the time. There was fierce debate but not a lot of it was spoken in public. There were no public discussions about it partly because people were wrapped up in the spirit of 1967 and the spirit of 1976.

My colleague's second question was with regard to the motives of bringing up this issue and what we do now. There is a concern about this. I have concern about this. The transport minister has said that this land may be used in the future for testing by Bombardier, for example, of certain jets and rocket engines that need vast stretches of land.

I had dinner with some representatives from Bombardier last night and I posed this question to them directly. I asked them if selling the land at Mirabel would pose any problems for them and they said, and I do not think they would have any problem with me saying this publicly, that they have more land than they need right now. They have more opportunity for research and development. They have more capacity than they can fill with what Bombardier is trying to fulfill right now.

The selling of these lands is not only the right thing to do, but it makes sense from the industry side, from the compassionate side, and from the side of the people who live near Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall ask a brief question.

The hon. member recognizes the fact that the Liberal Party decided to build an airport right in the middle of agricultural land, right in the fields, and that it decided not to go ahead with highway 13, highway 50 or the fast train.

Would he agree with me that after September 11, 2001, the opposite decision should have been made, namely keeping Mirabel open and closing Dorval? That should have been the solution as early as 1985, because that was the date at which the government was to make the decision. However, in 1982 the Liberals decided otherwise. Would it not have been the proper solution to close Dorval and concentrate on developing Mirabel to the maximum?