Betty Hinton

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with the remarks the member quoted today. It is a very serious problem and one size does not fit all. It might work for pantyhose but it does not work for airports.

We have to be considerate when we make these kinds of changes to legislation. We actually have to look at what the economic impact might be to a particular area if something like this is put through. I do not believe that has happened and I think e a number of changes need to be made before this is even palatable, let alone decent legislation.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed act is federal government at its worst. It is centrist, an Ottawa empire builder's dream and a nightmare for the rest of the country. This is an ill-advised attempt to codify the status quo and apply a one size fits all regulatory regime to Canada's airports. It is doomed to failure while dooming some airports to potential bankruptcy.

It will fail massively on two counts. First, one size fits all is not the way to deal with airports ranging in size from Gander, for instance, which handled 86,000 passengers in 2000, to Toronto which served over 28 million passengers. Are the Liberals saying that the airport in my city of Kamloops is the same as Toronto? If they are, I have news for them. Kamloops is not Toronto, nor does Kamloops want to be Toronto. There is no room in our valley for an airport or population of that size. A Liberal may not appreciate or even care about that kind of thinking when drafting legislation but the values that rural-urban populations appreciate should not exclude them from equality and equal consideration when it comes to transportation needs.

The second problem with the bill is that some parts of the it would apply only to former Transport Canada facilities. The legislation would apply standards to Thunder Bay that do not apply to, for instance, Hamilton, even though both of those airports served roughly 550,000 passengers in the year 2001.

We do not have to wait for the weather to create fog because the legislation is as foggy as anything we are ever likely to see. The Liberals declare that the legislation would create a national airports policy. Perhaps, but at what cost and who benefits?

There are four glaring weaknesses readily apparent in the legislation. First, it fails to deal with the unfounded mandate which holds small airports to higher response time standards than when they received the airports from Transport Canada. Does this mean there are two sets of rules, one set when the government manages and another for non-government management? Or should I say that when Liberals manage, expectations are lowered but when others manage expectations are raised? Is that the philosophy at work here?

Is the legislation saying that when federal bureaucrats manage we should not expect high standards but when we turn it over to somebody else to manage we should demand the highest possible standards?

Second, the legislation also ignores an airport rent policy that lets the federal Liberal government gouge the life out of airport operators who improve their facilities. This is not fair. I will give an example. When Winnipeg International Airport was handed over to the Winnipeg airport authority in 1997 the annual rent was $900,000. That seemed a reasonable amount at the time. After the Winnipeg airport authority made vast improvements, the federal Liberal government demanded that as of 2007 the annual rent would be raised--and I hope everyone is listening because this is a huge jump--to $7 million. That is outrageous.

That is like tenants painting a wall in their apartment and then the landlord demanding a huge increase in rent because the tenants made an apparent improvement in the apartment and made it more attractive.

The Liberals are reaping unconscionable profits from airports across the country, much as they are from the security tax they imposed after 9/11. It should be obvious by now to even the doziest Canadian that the Liberals live for only one thing, revenue, and the more of it the better because it can be doled out in exchange for votes.

Why is there nothing in here to allow airlines to influence terminal design to reduce operating costs? Is it because lower costs bring lower GST revenues? That is the third weakness in the legislation but there are many more.

Fourth, why is there nothing in the legislation to allow the Minister of Transport to intervene in situations like the dispute last year between the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Canada's wireless telephone companies? The GTAA unilaterally disconnected cellular phone company antennas on airport property leaving thousands of cellphone users without service.

Perhaps we should look at both sides in the dispute. The airport authorities are being gouged by the Liberals in Ottawa and have to look at every possible source of revenue to meet Liberal demands. To stay afloat they look at every possible source of income. It is Liberal greed and lust for revenue that creates these kinds of problems. How could it be otherwise when rents jump from under $1 million a year to $7 million in a few short years?

Is there a secret bonus plan for Liberals or bureaucrats who come up with ways to gouge even more cash out of taxpayers?

If people like big brother they will love the way the Liberals plan to wave the maple leaf. Every airport will be required to prominently display the flag of Canada:

at every terminal building and at other places...to which the public has access; and

erect signs in prominent places at the entrance to the airport and to every terminal building, proclaiming that the airport is owned by the Government of Canada

What that would do is lull travellers into thinking that Ottawa's contribution is much bigger than it actually is. Airport improvement fees are blamed on the local authority while Ottawa takes credit for something other than being a mere landlord, gouging for every possible dollar.

Every Canadian flies our flag with pride so the question must be asked, why do the Liberals insist that the flag must be displayed at airports? One of the few clauses in the legislation that applies to all airports is the requirement that the flag must be flown. Why did the government go to such lengths over such a simple thing and leave out such important detail?

Will the government next insist that portraits of the member for LaSalle—Émard be displayed on every wall at every airport from coast to coast? Is that how Canada Steamship Lines does it?

Another concern is that while the Liberals see large urban airports as cash cows to finance such boondoggles as the gun registry, it has orphaned regional airports. The smaller airports, perhaps my own local airport in Kamloops, have been left to struggle to maintain services with little or no support from Ottawa. Is that what the Liberals call a national airports policy?

The legislation would have a huge negative impact on Vancouver International's long term planning and growth. Any downturn or economic hardship suffered by this major entry point could seriously affect 26,000 jobs directly related to the operation of Vancouver International. That could have dire consequences for my province's bid for the 2010 Olympic Games and impact the national economic indicator.

As Vancouver International faces a struggle coping with the new legislation, there are potential calamities for Kamloops. Vancouver International manages Kamloops Fulton Field. If national airports are hit with tough legislation and rules of operation, w can bet that it will trickle down to the operations they manage, including Kamloops Fulton Field. That airport is an economic lifeline that we need for economic development, tourism, medical evacuation, firefighting and the list goes on and on.

Can it be that nobody in the bureaucracy has stopped to think about the cause and effect of their one size fits all formula? How can the Liberals call this a national plan when it does not address the concerns of the smaller and medium size airports, many of which service populations that are dependent upon them remaining open?

Liberals and their bureaucrats do not seem to realize that in British Columbia there are communities that are 10 hours apart by motor vehicle. The legislation shows utter disregard and lack of concern for people who live more than two hours away from the hub of their very cloistered world.

Another problem with the bill is that it would limit an airport authority's to invest in another corporation to 2% of gross revenue per year. The Vancouver airport authority, called YVR, owns the very profitable YVR Airport Services. YVR's concern in this legislation limits its ability to invest in projects in Chile, Jamaica or Hamilton, yet clause 57 does not put the same limits or restriction on airports such as the one in Kelowna or Abbotsford. Why the Liberal double standard?

We know the Liberals embrace double standards. They have always said that Canadians should never do as Liberals do but do what Liberals tell them to do.

Canadians are tired of double standards and doublespeak. They are tired of Liberals saying that only they know what is best for every nook and cranny in Canada and for every individual Canadian and every Canadian airport.

The legislation is flawed from the get-go. It is a guarantee of future confusion, of future rancour and conflict. We should think about this: nearly every session the House is called upon to pass amendments to the Criminal Code and other legislation. Most of the time those amendments are approved by all parties and allowed to pass. It does underline the fact that even Liberals admit that sometimes mistakes are made and need to be corrected by legislative amendment. However it begs the question, if the Liberals have to do this annually with insignificant matters, how many big mistakes do they ignore rather than admit they were wrong?

The legislation, if passed, will be back before Parliament in the not too distant future. This has the potential to be as great a boondoggle as the gun registry. It has the potential for extremely negative economic impacts on airports from coast to coast to coast. It is a demonstration of the unfortunate philosophy that pervades Ottawa, and that is that Ottawa knows best.

The fact is that Ottawa does not know best. Ottawa never did and never will know what is best for every region and every individual in Canada. The sooner the Liberals rid themselves of that belief the better off Canada will be.

The sooner the Liberals and their bureaucrats admit that this is flawed legislation, the better off we will be and the better the future will look for all Canadian airports. The legislation is not worthy of the support of even the most disciplined Liberal backbencher.

[Criminal Code, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague from across the way would care to answer a couple of questions.

Last year when my colleague from Surrey put forward Motion No. 376 the member's party thought it was bad legislation. I would like to know how it could have been bad legislation a year ago and good legislation today?

The second question I would like to ask is this. Does the hon. member believe, as I do, that when an offender is given a life sentence for committing a crime that it should indeed be a life sentence and the offender should not be out of jail in eight to ten years?

[Criminal Code, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this particular bill, Bill C-32. At the outset I want to say that the opposition intends to support the legislation. There might be changes suggested when the legislation goes to committee for study and we will rely upon our justice committee critics to search out weaknesses and recommend changes before final approval.

One proposal here is, I believe, an amendment to the Criminal Code for which all Canadians would approve. The proposal would make it a criminal offence to set a deadly trap that could kill or seriously injure another person such as a firefighter or law enforcement officer. This would protect first responders, as they are often called, meaning firefighters or police officers, and is a response to calls from the International Association of Fire Fighters. These brave men and women have enough on their hands when they are doing their jobs without having to worry whether some criminal has planted booby traps that might endanger their lives.

One only has to monitor the news to know that manufacturers and dealers of illegal drugs often plant traps to deter other criminals from raiding their illicit goods.

We have heard rumours in my home province of British Columbia and from bordering American states of booby traps being set along trails that lead to high mountain marijuana crops. Stories have been told of fish hooks being suspended at eye level along trails to deter raiders. Whether these stories are true or are rumours started by those who cultivate such crops as a deterrent is not certain but the fact is that we know from news reports that those who deal in these illegal cash crops will do anything to protect their profits.

The same is true where illegal chemicals are manufactured. We hear and read in the news of the enormous profits to be reaped by those who manufacture amphetamines. It would not be a stretch to presume booby traps are set in these buildings to deter raiders as well.

Our brave firefighters and police officers deserve at least the comfort of knowing that this Parliament will single out and punish those who would set such traps.

The maximum sentence, generally, has been 10 years depending upon the outcome. If injury occurs, whether it is to criminals, firefighters or police officers, the sentence can be increased to 14 years. If death occurs, the penalty maximum would be life.

I would digress slightly here and say that under the Liberal government, a life sentence does not mean very much. It certainly does not mean life. More often than not, a life sentence means living the good life in some comfy prison where all the comforts of home are available to the inmates and that includes the right to vote in general elections.

What Canadians want is for life to mean life. If a life sentence for murder is handed down, Canadians want to know that prisoner will not be out on the streets again, but that is not the Liberal way. The Liberal way is to sentence them to life and then let them out in 10 or 12 years, maybe more, maybe less.

We salute the International Association of Fire Fighters and the law enforcement people and, through this legislation, recognize the dangers they face daily. We are forever grateful to them for the jobs they do for all Canadians. We hope the legislation will serve to deter those criminals who would put the lives and safety of good people in jeopardy.

Another amendment we are considering here today will address a problem raised in R. v. Hurrell where the court found weaknesses in the warrant provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to firearms search and seizure. The court ruled those provisions were unconstitutional because the warrant application section did not include enough protection of individual rights. The court said that it was not clear that a peace officer had to have reasonable grounds to make an application for the warrant. The court generously gave Parliament time to react and address its decision, and the legislation before us is the result.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code to require that an officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in possession of a weapon and that it is not in the interests of that person to possess that weapon. Only after the officer is convinced personally and in turn convinces the court, will a warrant be issued. This appears to be a reasonable response to the court's earlier ruling. It seems to safeguard individual rights and satisfy the constitutional concerns of the court in the R. v. Hurrell case.

The meatiest part of the legislation before us is an amendment to the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that everyone on board any aircraft in Canadian airspace is justified in using reasonable force where he or she believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime aboard the aircraft. In essence, it allows civilian use of force to save lives. This essentially is the right of self-defence. It is what those brave souls did on September 11 when their aircraft was hijacked. They attempted to save lives by trying to overpower the hijackers. In some cases they were very successful, and all of us are grateful for the sacrifices they made.

The legislation also clarifies that this justification also applies on board any Canadian registered aircraft in flight outside Canadian airspace. That means any brave soul who attempts to thwart a hijacking or any crime aboard any Canadian airplane will have the protection of the courts no matter what the outcome.

Canadians would probably feel a lot more confident and comfortable if they knew that armed and trained air marshals were aboard select flights, but that is a debate for another day. Members should rest assured that it will come up again. At least this recognizes that innocent civilian passengers have a right to defend themselves and to use whatever force they deem necessary to do so.

The bill also contains amendments that could be very controversial due to perceived infringements on individual privacy. Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act would allow both the government and the private sector to disclose the contents of private communications intercepted by intrusion detection systems in certain circumstances.

The Criminal Code amendments would allow for the disclosure of intercepted private communications if the disclosure were necessary for the protection of a computer system and if the disclosure were made appropriately. This will require further study and I trust our very knowledgeable members on the justice committee will give it the due diligence it deserves.

We know the Criminal Code already provides for several exceptions where private communications can be intercepted and disclosed. We do have to protect our computer systems because we know the economic devastation hackers, for instance, can cause. The protection of computer systems is an important objective for both government and industry, so incidental disclosure of private communications for this purpose may be tolerable. We in the opposition will rely on our members who serve on the justice committee to ponder the ramifications and to propose amendments if necessary.

The provisions of the bill relating to setting traps, use of force on an airplane and civil enforcement of restitution orders are all worthy of our support. We will accept the amendment regarding warrants for firearms searches as nothing more than a response to a court decision. That is in fact what put this in place. We believe an intended consequence of this will be to offer more protection to firearms owners from unreasonable search under this section. Perhaps when the Liberals discover that it might offer firearms owners more protection than it has in the past, they themselves will move to make an amendment. I hope that does not happen. We know how much contempt Liberals have for innocent and law-abiding firearms owners. It has been displayed over and over for years under the registry.

The safety and security of Canadians and their property is the stated objective of the Canadian Alliance criminal justice policy. The bill is largely in keeping with our philosophy. The Canadian Alliance policy number 29 states:

--We recognize the rights of victims of crime and will introduce programs of financial restitution from the offender to the victim as a component of sentencing and parole.

Therefore the Official Opposition is prepared to support the legislation knowing that it will be subject to further study and scrutiny.

In my closing remarks I would like to mention that if the House had adopted the motion that was put forward by my own colleague from Surrey a year ago, we might already have seen this put in place and we might have seen it working today. Whether or not that happened was in the hands of the House and it was voted down. We do have something in place now and we will work with it. That was a good start. We will begin again.

We have only had a brief time to look at the piece of legislation that is before us. If further study and scrutiny reveal weaknesses not evident to us now, we will return with our own amendments some time in the future. In the meantime, I am pleased to support this proposed legislation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the budget of February 18 has been described here in the House and elsewhere as the most socialist budget to be tabled in this place since the Trudeau era. I was not here then and I am not prepared to take issue with that statement. However without question, it is a spending budget, much to the great disappointment of Canadians who have been hoping for a budget of restraint and tax relief.

What the budget did was the opposite of what taxpayers wanted. Instead of fiscal prudence, taxpayers got an astounding 20% increase in federal spending over the next three years.

It was called a legacy budget by some at the time of the tabling. If the Prime Minister and the Liberals clustered around him consider a 20% increase in spending a legacy, perhaps Canadians should start thinking about changing this regime government into a democratic government.

The expression “nickel and dimer” comes to mind. It is used to describe individuals or operations which think and act small. Another expression, “chump change”, comes to mind. Both have application here when it comes to the Liberal government and its budget. The Liberals are nickel and dimers and dealers in chump change as far as the budget is concerned.

It was chump change when they set the EI premium at $1.98 in 2004. Why wait until 2004? Why not lower the rate by much more and do it much more quickly?

I will answer my own question. The Liberals will not lower it by any more or any quicker because they want that money. They need that money to continue funding hare-brained schemes like the gun registry, to make up for losses from GST fraud or for new hare-brained schemes that they have yet to come up with.

It would never occur to a Liberal that surpluses are not for spending. No, a Liberal believes that once a taxpayer has sent that money to Ottawa, it belongs to big daddy.

We on this side believe that surpluses belong to the people and that the people deserve some of their money back. We know as well that Canadians will agree to some of it being used to reduce the debt. That should not be a difficult thing for anyone to understand. Even a Liberal should be able to grasp it.

The money belongs to the people who sent it here to fund the programs that they want. Anything left over, oftentimes referred to by the government as surplus but is in fact gouging, is not to be used to fund new programs about which the Canadian people have not been consulted. However the Liberals refuse to acknowledge that.

Liberals believe in the divine right of kings and little guys from Shawinigan to do whatever it is they want to do with the public purse. They will vigorously defend the concept of the divine right to spend however much they want, whenever they want, on whatever they want, as long as it reaps them votes at election time.

What Canadians want, on top of fiscal responsibility, is creation of an economic climate in which businesses and individuals can thrive and grow and, with their success, create an even more receptive climate for others to do the same. Tragically, the Liberals believe government is the engine of success.

On this side, we favour deep and broad based tax relief, a stable monetary policy, funding for essential national infrastructure and stimulating medical and scientific research.

Over here, we lament the millions being stolen from Canadians through GST fraud. We lament even more the attitude of the Liberals, as personified by the member for Mississauga West. He said recently at committee on GST fraud that he actually contemplated moving that the meeting be adjourned. Why would he do that? Because the percentage being stolen was so insignificant.

Over $150 million stolen out of taxes is not insignificant to Canadians. Only a Liberal, or perhaps a New Democrat, would consider the theft of over $150 million an insignificant matter. Is it any wonder Canadians are in despair?

Of course Liberals also consider tax fairness for families to be too insignificant for consideration. We in the Alliance disagree. We believe that it is essential that there be greater tax fairness for families and we provide that by eliminating inequities between single and dual income families. We believe that there should be equity in choices regarding child care arrangements, including child care at home.

The Alliance believes as well that there should be integration of the tax system and social programs to better meet the needs of low income families and individuals.

When it comes to equity and equal treatment, Liberals have a philosophy, believe it or not. Liberals believe that every hard-working Canadian or Canadian family should be gouged to the max. Spare the rod and spoil the taxpayer is the Liberal mantra.

Another question Canadians have is why the high cost of vehicle and heating fuels was not addressed in the budget. There is something the Liberals do not want Canadians to know about and that is the huge windfall that comes from increasing crude oil and natural gas prices. If high wellhead prices continue, and there is every reason to believe that they will, the Liberals will have additional hundreds of millions of dollars to use to buy votes.

For every litre of fuel purchased, the Liberals gain millions through the GST that they once so despised. They get it because they put the GST, the goods and services tax, on a commodity that is already taxed. In other words, Liberals simply do not get it. They believe in sucking every last penny they can from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They believe in taxing the taxes that Canadians already pay. It is the Liberal way: take as much as one can get and do not worry if it creates hardship for lower income Canadians.

Why was there no consideration from either the present finance minister or his predecessor for lower income hard-working Canadians in terms of the tax on gas? They are too busy fighting. One prepares to be the emperor and the other is busy squandering what he believes to be the rest of his money.

Unlike those two, we in the Alliance believe that taxes imposed for a specific purpose should actually be spent on that purpose. Is that not a funny concept? Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Canadians believes that too. Like the Canadian Alliance, the majority of Canadians believes that when a specific tax for a specific purpose is no longer needed, that tax should be cancelled.

Liberals shiver in horror at that suggestion. “Cancel a tax”, they ask in disbelief? They say that we must be insane for wanting to cancel a tax and ask if we do not realize that it is not the Liberal way. They say, “No, never. We need that money. We need that money to buy votes”.

If too many Canadians complain, the Liberals have a solution. They suggest that the complainers join a special interest group and apply for a federal grant. Canadians are ahead of the Liberals on that one. They already have joined a special interest group, under the endangered species category. They believe it is the only way taxpayers can seek and get protection from the Liberals.

They are also thinking about joining another special interest group called the tumbrel troop. These are people who believe the tumbrels should be rolling down Wellington Street in front of Parliament, bearing as passengers those responsible for the billion dollar firearms registry scandal or the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle. If there are some elected Liberals among the passengers on those two-wheeled wagons, Canadian taxpayers will applaud and cheer and happily do their knitting while they wait for the blade to fall.

Enough is enough. The government does not address the needs of Canadians. It addresses the needs of the Government of Canada. That is not the way this is supposed to work.

[Correctional Service of Canada, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Fern Fetterly, an 81 year old constituent of mine, is living on less than $1,000 a month and barely getting by. She is not the only senior facing this problem.

It was tempting to suggest that she commit a felony so that she could be incarcerated in one of Canada's club fed resorts complete with bungalows, three squares a day and tennis courts, but I controlled myself.

Why are prisoners in federal prisons in Canada treated better than Canadian seniors?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as opposing this motion as well.

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to assume that was a yes. I am not quite sure. If it was a yes, I am happy to see that the government has finally found some backbone.

The question then is, where will Saddam Hussein be tried? Would he be tried in the Hague or in Iraq, where the people of Iraq would actually be able to bear witness and see the results of justice?

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House fervently hope that the war to liberate the people of Iraq ends soon. The people of Iraq yearn for the freedoms they have been denied by their brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. It can be safely estimated that he has been responsible for the deaths of an average of 137 people per day during his 20 year regime.

The foreign affairs minister has stated that Saddam Hussein and his regime should be brought to justice in accordance with the rule of law. My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he support efforts at the United Nations to indict Saddam and his henchmen for crimes against humanity?

[Firearms Registry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would not be very proud of that. I certainly would not be shouting it from the rooftops.

It is apparent to Canadians that the uptown Liberals across the way have never been in a rural area where firearms are actually a day to day part of everyone's life and it is painfully obvious to Canadian taxpayers that the Liberals have absolutely no regard for Canadian tax dollars.

Does the minister deny the firearms registration will cost an additional billion dollars for enforcement?