Gurmant Grewal

[Petitions, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is signed by people from the Surrey area.

The petitioners request that Parliament affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and ensure that Parliament will take all necessary steps within its jurisdiction to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada, and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Petitions, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the residents of Surrey Central to present two petitions.

First, the petitioners are concerned that Bill C-250 seeks to censor many religious books, including the bible, and criminalizes the personal opinions of Canadians on the subject of sexual orientation.

The petitioners therefore appeal to Parliament to reject the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the opportunity to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-269, which of course will be sent to the committee. This is an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to firefighters. It was initially introduced as Bill C-419 in the last session. The stated purpose of Bill C-269 is to amend the Criminal Code and to give greater protection to firefighters by creating two new offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the course of his or her duties.

I wish to congratulate the member for Nepean--Carleton for bringing forward this issue as a private member's bill. The protection of firefighters is an issue that has also been high on my agenda. As I mentioned, two years ago I introduced a motion in the House which called upon the government to take a tough stand in regard to those responsible for firefighters killed in the line of duty. Motion No. 376 read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Section 231(4) of the Criminal Code to expand the definition of first-degree murder to include the death of a firefighter acting in the line of duty and amend Section 433 of the Criminal Code dealing with the crime of arson by adding language that addresses the death or injury of a firefighter engaged in combating a fire or explosion that is deliberately set.

Although we went about it in a slightly different manner, both the member for Nepean--Carleton and I have sought changes to the Criminal Code that would have a similar effect, but as I said in the question, and I am not talking about the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton, I would like to reiterate that the Liberals generally oppose any good idea coming from the official opposition. They criticize it and sometimes even ridicule an idea, but then they steal the ideas of the official opposition. The Liberal government has stolen many ideas from the official opposition, as hon. members know.

Let me give another example. The Liberals defeated my motion calling for legislation to recognize foreign academic credentials. They opposed it, but then they stole the idea and put it into their next Speech from the Throne. I always say that we in the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition of Canada, carry the flashlight to show the Liberals their darkness.

I took up the cause of firefighter protection at the urging of the Surrey Firefighters Association, which has been lobbying to change the law since 1995. There were about 14,000 arson fires in Canada last year. I was alarmed to learn that over one-third of the fires in Surrey are the result of arson and a very high percentage of them contain booby traps. It is very disturbing.

The Surrey Firefighters Association president, Mr. Lorne West, moved the issue of Criminal Code protection for firefighters on behalf of his 350 members. He took it from being a local Surrey issue to the national stage by raising the matter with the International Association of Fire Fighters. Later, the International Association of Fire Fighters, along with the Surrey Firefighters Association and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, went on to warmly endorse my motion. They sent letters in support of my motion.

Firefighters want to classify as first degree murder the act of an arsonist whose mischief leads to the death of a firefighter. As well, they want every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage to property by fire or explosion, whether or not that person owns the property, to be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where the fire or explosion causes bodily harm to a firefighter acting in the line of duty. They request life imprisonment as a minimum penalty.

As public safety officers who risk their lives in the course of protecting the lives and property of the public, firefighters are deserving of specific protection and measures under the law that will reduce the incidence of exposure to situations that could cause serious injury or death.

Firefighters, who command the highest trust of any professionals, face an on the job mortality and injury rate four times higher than that of other occupations but they should never have to accept criminal acts that are intended to injure or kill them.

No one would say that a firefighter's life is worth less than a police officer's, but that is precisely what our Criminal Code says. When police or firefighters are called to enter drug labs or illegal marijuana grow operations, firefighters go in first. Firefighters are our first line of defence but they are not afforded the same Criminal Code protection as our law enforcement officers. Regrettably, too often fires are deliberately set, often with the sinister intention of covering up illegal activities like marijuana grow operations or methamphetamine labs.

At other times, firefighters respond to calls only to find the premises booby trapped with crossbows, propane canisters ready to explode, cut away floor boards, or other intentional hazards. These malicious devices are intended to kill or injure anyone who interferes with a drug operation, including firefighters.

Firefighters in Surrey are especially at risk considering the increasing number of marijuana grow operations that plague the city. An RCMP report recently announced that there are 4,500 marijuana grow operations in the city of Surrey. That represents about 6% of the households. In a cul-de-sac, 9 out of 12 new homes have been linked to the illegal marijuana growing trade. But this Liberal government has done nothing to control the illegal marijuana grow operations except to talk about decriminalizing its simple possession.

Eight U.S. states have already moved to protect their firefighters under criminal law. Since no one would say that a Canadian firefighter's life is worth less than that of a U.S. firefighter, we obviously need to take steps to improve the Criminal Code.

As the member for Nepean—Carleton is undoubtedly aware, the government is already moving toward providing firefighters with added Criminal Code protection. Two weeks ago we debated Bill C-32 at second reading. I was particularly pleased to see that the bill creates a Criminal Code offence of setting a deadly trap in a place used for criminal purposes. This is to protect first responders such as firefighters and police, et cetera, whose lives could be endangered by entering such a place in the performance of their duties.

The maximum sentence for this offence depends on the outcome of the situation. It is generally 10 years. If injury occurs, the maximum sentence increases to 14 years. If death occurs, then the maximum sentence is life. Currently, section 247 of the Criminal Code provides for the offence of setting a trap with a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment only.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank the member for Nepean--Carleton for bringing forward this private member's bill. As well, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Lorne West and all Surrey firefighters who, through great perseverance, brought this issue to the national forefront.

Hopefully we will soon have changes to the Criminal Code in place that will provide a greater deterrent to those who deliberately set fires or booby trap buildings. Firefighters deserve this much at least. We need to protect the protectors. This should have been done a long time ago.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the House was asked for consent to refer the bill it to committee, the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton got the consent from the House, but he was allowed to continue his speech after that. I think the same privilege should be given to me, as the next speaker on this issue. I am also very passionate about the issue and I think I should be allowed to speak on this bill.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Nepean—Carleton for bringing forward this important issue through a private member's bill.

As he mentioned, I introduced a similar motion in the House sometime ago. Approximately in March of last year we had a debate on the issue. During that debate, the Liberal members who spoke on the issue opposed the motion. I wonder why the Liberal members at that time, not this hon. member, chose to vote against making my motion votable. The million dollar question is this. If this was a bad idea a year ago, why has it suddenly become a good idea, and has been incorporated into Bill C-32 as well?

Does hon. member have any comments as to why some of the ideas brought forward by opposition members are rejected, or ridiculed or opposed but after some time the government steals them? Why does it happen that way?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to address Motion No. 6 at report stage consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention in order to enhance public safety, otherwise also known as the public safety act.

Like its predecessors, Bills C-42 and C-55 of the last session, Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill that amends or introduces nearly two dozen acts within the jurisdiction of nearly a dozen federal departments or agencies.

Motion No. 6 is very interesting. It takes the interim orders philosophy in Bill C-17 and ensures that will be included in the Pest Control Products Act in the event of that act getting royal assent before Bill C-17 does. Let us think about this. The Pest Control Products Act was written without interim orders and now the government is so concerned that it has modified Bill C-17 to apply to a bill to be passed in the future. It is fascinating.

In many cases, in the place of specific provisions designed to reassure the travelling public and the public in general, the bill gives four ministers the authority to issue interim orders. A very significant portion of Bill C-17 deals with interim orders. Ten parts of the bill amend various statutes to provide a new or expanded power permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action is required. Essentially, the thinking from the government behind interim orders is “trust me”. In other words, it is saying, “Give me various undefined powers and when there's an emergency, trust me to do the right thing”. That is what the minister will say.

First, we cannot forget that the very same government that has taken over 19 months to react to September 11 is the one now saying “trust me”. Second, we should not overlook the fact that if the government really knew what it was doing, it would have clearly defined both its responsibilities and its powers. In the United States, the U.S. aviation and transportation security act was drafted just 10 days after September 11. However, even then, while a shocked America pondered the unthinkable crisis that had just happened, American legislators knew that “trust me” was not going to cut it with the American public.

The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is specific. It delegates powers but it also assigns responsibilities. It contains deadlines. It specifies the amount of money that may be spent on particular initiatives. It sets management objectives and requires regular evaluations as well as audits. It is very specific, not vague like the legislation that we are debating.

There is a clear understanding of who does what why, when, and with what authority. Checks and balances are present. The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is a planned, strategic response by a superpower to a defined threat.

In Canada Bill C-17 uses interim orders while the U.S. uses specifics. The interim orders all follow a similar pattern. They allow a minister, under certain circumstances, to make an order that would normally have to be made by the governor in council. Thus, when the chips are down and cabinet cannot meet, an interim order lets a cabinet minister take actions that would normally need cabinet approval.

In most cases in Bill C-17 the interim order must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, must be approved by cabinet within 14 days, and expire at the end of the year. Similarly, an interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 days after it has been made.

Members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, and the NDP tried to propose constructive amendments to Bill C-17 regarding interim orders when it was referred to the special legislative committee. In the case of 14 Canadian Alliance amendments put forward by our transportation critic, who has done a very good job, each was motivated by the spirit of the Emergencies Act. Its preamble reads, in part:

WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;

AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;

We therefore thought the standard of parliamentary scrutiny, laid down in the Emergencies Act, might be applicable to the type of situations in which interim orders might be made under Bill C-17. Subsection 61(1) of the Emergencies Act reads:

Subject to subsection (2), every order or regulation made by the Governor in Council pursuant to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within two sitting days after it is made.

Subsection 61(2) reads:

Where an order or regulation made pursuant to this Act is exempted from publication in the Canada Gazette by regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, the order or regulation, in lieu of being laid before each House of Parliament as required by subsection (1), shall be referred to the Parliamentary Review Committee within two days after it is made or, if the Committee is not then designated or established, within the first two days after it is designated or established.

Each of the 14 amendments was motivated by the same philosophy: if during an emergency, the government can subject orders and regulations to parliamentary scrutiny within two sitting days after they are made, there is no reason why a lower standard should apply to Bill C-17. The Canadian Alliance was not alone in this thinking. A similar philosophy was advanced by the NDP and the Bloc.

It is my hope that the three parties might be able to agree on a common approach so that a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny may be offered to interim orders made by a government that wants us to trust it 20 months after September 11. However, the Liberal desire to escape parliamentary scrutiny appears intractable. Rather than agree to any new restrictions on interim orders, the only interim orders amendment that the Liberal members proposed in committee was the addition of clause 111.1 so that the interim orders would be included in the Pest Control Products Act.

In conclusion, the widespread use of interim orders is troubling. The government's reliance on interim orders shows that even 20 months after September 11 the Liberals are still unable to provide Canadians with the legislation to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Delegating broad powers into the hands of single ministers is a dangerous trend. The committee stage version of Bill C-17 is an improvement over Bill C-42 as first presented 17 months ago, but more changes, particularly in the area of increased parliamentary scrutiny, are required.

Canadians were prepared to sacrifice their liberties for the promise of increased scrutiny and security in the aftermath of September 11. That feeling has faded in the intervening year and a half. For this reason, the government would be wise to carefully consider increased parliamentary scrutiny on the same level as the Emergencies Act if it wants opposition parties to support Bill C-17.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003.

The theme of this year's budget is “money for everyone”. In fact it gives every appearance of being an election budget, with its focus on spending and its attempt to please every possible constituency. I call it an “ice cream budget”. There is something for everyone but by the time they taste it, it melts away before their eyes.

The budget announced $14 billion in new spending and a $25 billion increase in program spending by the year 2005. This year's budget increases federal spending by 11.5%, coming on the heels of 7% and 18% increases in the previous two budgets. By the year 2005-06, spending will have increased 46% from 1996-97 levels.

Government spending is growing three times faster than the economy. It can be said that for this government, the days of fiscal prudence are a distant memory.

Adjusting for inflation and population growth, this is the largest single year spending increase since the 1970s. The spending cuts introduced in the 1995 budget have now been entirely reversed.

While visiting Calgary during his prebudget consultations/leadership tour, the finance minister told his audience that Canadians did not want a laundry list of new spending. Canadians certainly did not want a grocery list either.

After all, these are Liberals. How can they ignore the urge to spend? The result is the worst of both worlds, spending too much, while at the same time spreading their money so thin, over so many areas, that it will have little positive impact.

We are now considering Motions Nos. 13 through 19, except Motion No. 16. Motion No. 13 was put forward by the member for Drummond. It seeks to amend Bill C-28 by deleting clause 64. The motion deals with the issue of GST on school buses.

While the Canadian Alliance opposes this bias against contracting out and privatization of services inherent in the GST rebate system for public service bodies such as school boards, the courts should not and cannot decide Canadian tax policy. That is the prerogative of the government and the House of Commons. Therefore I cannot support the motion.

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 are proposed by the member for Dartmouth. Motion No. 14 seeks to amend Bill C-28 by deleting clause 74, while Motion No. 15 seeks to delete clause 75. When speaking of the disabled, we are talking about the most vulnerable people in Canadian society.

It was an embarrassment last year when the government attempted to reduce its spending by removing resources from those most in need. This was yet another example of the misplaced priorities of the Liberals. We believe that 40% of Canadians with disabilities live in poverty and one-third of them are unemployed.

The Department of Finance announced amendments to the Income Tax Act that would make 30,000 Canadians ineligible for the disability tax credit. The Minister of Finance proposed limiting the tax credit to only those who cannot feed themselves. I strongly opposed these changes when I spoke in this place last November. The Canadian Alliance supports easing the definition of disability from feeding and dressing to feeding or dressing.

Motion No. 17 has been put forward by the member for Vancouver East. It proposes the deletion of clause 84. I am opposed to this proposed amendment.

The Canadian Alliance supports increasing the RRSP dollar limit more than the baby steps taken by the weak Liberal government. Increasing the allowable limit for RRSP contributions from $13,500 to $18,000 by 2006 would go a long way to securing the future of countless Canadians.

More and more Canadians are self-employed and do not have a company pension plan. Since they do not have pension plans, it is necessary for them to save for their own retirement. Needless to say, it would be foolish of them to rely on the Canadian pension plan for their retirement.

To understand the need for increasing the RRSP contribution limit, we should think of the situation facing realtors. Realtors are one professional group who rely mainly on RRSPs for their retirement incomes. Realtor incomes typically fluctuate from year to year. RRSP contribution levels are tied to income. If their income is low one year, their contribution level will be geared to that low level the following year. If their income rises substantially, their contribution is capped at $13,500 under the current system. This simply is not fair. I have spoken to many realtors and they tell me it is not fair to them.

The final two motions under consideration, Motions Nos. 18 and 19, are also proposed by the member for Vancouver East. Motion No. 18 seeks to amend Bill C-28 by deleting clause 85, while Motion No. 19 would delete clause 86. I support neither of these proposed changes. The Canadian Alliance wants to eliminate the capital tax. Reducing it does not go far enough, but it is a first step. The Canadian Alliance will oppose these amendments because they will do more harm than good to the bill.

The finance minister claims Canadians do not want lower taxes, so it should come as no surprise that his budget contains little in the way of tax cuts. There is no significant tax relief in the 2003 budget. The costs of the budget's tax cuts represent 12% of the total budget.

A Canadian Alliance government would create an economic climate in which businesses could thrive and grow, and with their success create quality job opportunities for Canadians. The Canadian Alliance would do so by providing deep, broad-based tax relief, ensuring a stable monetary policy, supporting essential national infrastructure in a non-partisan manner, and encouraging medical and scientific research.

The Canadian Alliance would create greater tax fairness for families by eliminating inequities between single and dual income families. The Canadian Alliance would move to more equitable treatment of choices in child care arrangements, including child care at home. We would integrate the tax system and social programs to better meet the needs of low income individuals and families.

We would ensure that taxes which are imposed for a specific purpose would be used for that specific purpose alone and would be removed once no longer required and not be allowed to be put toward general revenue, as in the case of the deficit financing tax of $1.50 per litre on gasoline. Once the deficit is eliminated, that tax should also be gone.

The government laid out its vision in the throne speech and then implemented that vision in the budget. The throne speech suffered from an old, tired vision. The budget suffered from that same flaw. If the vision is not right, naturally the implementation of the budget cannot be fair. The budget is yet further evidence that the government lacks vision and foresight.

The former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard and heir apparent to the Prime Minister, made it clear last week that, as head of the government, he would not implement any bills that he did not like. With that knowledge, it is legitimate to ask whether or not the budget implementation act that we are debating today has the approval of the former finance minister? If it does not, then the government may simply be wasting our time.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to that prepared question, my only answer would be that security is a very important issue with regard to smaller airports. When passengers transfer from smaller airports to bigger airports, they are left to go into the secure terminals where they are taking their connecting flights. That issue alone justifies what I am trying to say.

I have given a long list of issues which the bill ignores. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will keep away from those prepared questions and focus on the real issues as well as the recommendations made by the transport committee. Those recommendations were unanimous by the Liberal dominated committee of the House.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister has prepared questions by bureaucrats and he is asking those questions, so his approach is naturally biased.

However let me put it like this. Bill C-27 overestimates or exaggerates problems which do not exist in the industry. We do not hear from the transport industry, the airport authorities or the stakeholders in the industry. It tries to solve those problems which do not exist and it does not do anything to solve those problems which already exist, like the problems I mentioned: the CARs 308 issue; the airport rent policy; the collecting of the airport improvement fee, which will be in trust and the bill does not do anything about that; the question of overly opulent terminals; the security issue; and the tax that smaller airports face in Canada.

How can the parliamentary secretary stand in the House and tell the House that the smaller airports can be governed and ruled by the same issues as the bigger airports? The smaller airports have different problems. One size fits all cannot be applied, regardless of the location or the size of the airport, it cannot be applied.

I urge the minister to look into those issues rather than having an arrogant approach to dealing with the airport authorities within Canada and having that tax grab which is a cash cow for the government continue.

At least the minister should look into the unanimous recommendations from the Standing Committee on Transport. which is a Liberal dominated committee. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary is aware of those recommendations and that he will look into them and apply them.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-27.

Before I begin, let me compliment the hard work done by our senior transportation critic on this issue in highlighting the problems related to this bill. Also, we will have a wonderful speech from the hon. member for Blackstrap with whom I will be sharing my time.

Bill C-27 is an act respecting airport authorities and other airport operators and amending the Canada Airports Act. Let me state that it is a combination of missed opportunities and attempts to solve problems that do not even exist.

When one looks at the state of Canada's airline industry and realizes that the Standing Committee on Transport is looking into the continued viability of the airline industry, one has to wonder why the government chose this time to introduce this legislation dealing with airports.

If we compare Canadian airports, both large and small, with similarly sized airports in other countries, the Canadian airports stand up rather well. At least there is no urgency or emergency to fix them. If something is not broken, why fix it? The real problem facing Canada's airline sector is not the way airports are run, but the way airport rent is charged by the federal government and passed on to the airlines.

This issue was raised and dealt with in the transportation committee hearings over the past few weeks. As a result, in an April 11 report this year the committee unanimously recommended that:

The federal government suspend rental payments by airports for a two-year period and the airports shall pass the rental savings to air carriers.

Further study is not needed. It is time to act. No one will find any discussion of airport rents in the Canada Airports Act.

In fact the Standing Committee on Transport made another unanimous recommendation to eliminate the air travellers security charge. This was connected to transferring responsibility for airport security to multi-modal agency that would be fully publicly funded. Here again an understanding of the nature of threats and security at small airports is helpful. Large airports have better security than smaller airports. The problem of course is that if the security is reduced at small airports but connecting passengers are allowed to proceed directly into the sterile or secure areas at big airports, the security of those large airports is compromised.

In Europe passengers arriving at places like Frankfurt, Paris or London from smaller centres are screened just like folks coming in off the street. They have to be screened before they enter the secure area of the airport to catch connecting flights. There is absolutely no mention of this idea in Bill C-27, even though it would offer better security at lower cost.

We are considering an airports act that applies to places as small as Gander with just 86,000 passengers and would also apply to any airport that has over 200,000 passengers annually. For most managers of small airports, the biggest single issue facing them is something call CARs 308. This is a recently imposed five minute emergency response time at smaller airports that has dramatically increased their operating costs. The federal government has not offered a dime in operating assistance and this unfunded federal government requirement is the biggest single issue facing many small airports.

The Regional Community Airports Coalition of Canada is calling on Transport Canada to suspend the introduction of CARs 308 indefinitely or to agree to pay for this regulation in its entirety to avoid the airports having to pass these increased operating costs on to the airlines. The coalition points out that these increased costs, applied in the form of a regulatory recovery fee, could increase airline fees at affected airports by up to 30% or higher. This will again affect the competitiveness and viability of the regional and community airports and therefore the communities they serve.

Other than the air security tax, the CARs 308 is the most important airport related issue missing in Bill C-27.

Part 6 of the Canada airports act deals with the issue of airport improvement fees. Essentially it subjects AIF to the same kind of accountability and appeal procedures that currently apply to Nav Canada fees. For airports just reaching the 200,000 passenger threshold, this will be a new level of bureaucracy, but I think that Canadians deserve to know how such fees are being spent.

If we held the Liberal government to the same standard, taxes like 1.5¢ per litre fuel tax that was aimed at cutting the deficit or the $24 air security tax would have to be much more accurately tailored to reasonable expenses, rather than a need to finance future Liberal spending or even the wasting of the money.

However even if one agrees with the general philosophy of the AIFs, the headlines that are dealing with this issue are not focusing on accountability but on the fact that the Air Canada restructuring has left many airport authorities in the red.

It seems that for many airports the AIF is included in the airline ticket prices and collected by the airlines and then handed over to the airport authority. Air Canada's financial problems are affecting many airports that trusted Air Canada to collect the AIF on their behalf. As of April 4, Canada's largest airports were owed a total $80 million in unpaid landing fees and airport improvement charges by Air Canada and that money is now tied up in the CCRA hearings.

However the air travellers security charge is not similarly affected, because Bill C-49 from last session required airlines to hold this money in trust. It does not require airlines, that collect the AIFs on behalf of many airports, to hold that money in trust as is done with the air travellers security charge.

Part 6, devoted to the question of AIF, we would think that the idea of any airline holding AIF money in trust so that airports would be paid even if the airline has a financial problem as in the case of Air Canada would have been included in Bill C-27, but it is not. This is another opportunity missed by this weak, arrogant Liberal government.

When we look at a list of priority airport issues facing the aviation industry, Bill C-27 misses virtually every opportunity to solve an existing problem. The government is trying to solve the problems that do not exist but it is not solving the problems that exist in the industry.

Bill C-27 is an attempt to codify the status quo in Canada's airline industry. This approach has two big problems.

The first is that there is no one out there calling for the status quo to be codified. No airline, airport authority or stakeholder is calling for legislation that would write down in one place the way Canada's various airports are run. It is an attempt to solve the problem that does not exist. Most of the language contained in Bill C-27 already exists in most of the leases that NAS airports have with Transport Canada. In many ways Bill C-27 is a complete waste of time.

The second big problem is that Bill C-27 would treat different airports similarly and similar airports differently causing true discrimination and causing far more problems than any codification of the status quo could potentially solve.

Since my time is almost over, let me conclude that a one size fits all solution, regardless of size and location, will not work.

Bill C-27 also fails to address major issues confronting airports, the CARs 308 issue, as I mentioned, the airport rental policy, the question of overly opulent terminals, the need for air industry representation and the need for the minister to get an arrogant airport authority to live within its mandate.

Bill C-27 is also introduced by the Minister of Transport who has repeatedly turned his back on unanimous recommendations by the committee to adopt the committee's recommendations as the department's priorities. The House should reject the legislation especially when, in cases such as this, it created more problems than it solves.