House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2006, with 17% of the vote.
Competition Act December 10th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I think the days of the gladiators in Rome are gone. Competition is not always a good thing if one is fighting to the death and there is no balance.
There is no question that competition can be beneficial to the consumer. However, at some point, when competition becomes the only goal and all we want to do is give a cheaper product at a cheaper price--
Competition Act December 10th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments to the bill are a move in the right direction.
I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for attending the committee meetings on my behalf as industry critic because I was tied up dealing with a number of transportation issues relating to security within the transportation industry and specifically the airline issue. I would also like to thank him for representing us quite well.
The amendments go a long way toward addressing a number of concerns. Bill C-23 reflects the wishes of a number of private members' bills and issues that have come forth over the last year or so. When a large number of private members brings into question a number of issues relating to industry, it is time for the government to deal with them rather than wait for each and every private member's business to come before the House and be voted on. To all those private members who brought forth private members' business to deal with these issues, I congratulate them for their efforts. All of us need to continue doing that if we want to see some of these issues addressed because the government will not deal with them unless that does happen.
I was very pleased to see the amendments in the area of private access to the Competition Tribunal. This was an area greatly criticized by a number of people in larger industries in the business world, but it was also felt by small business. This was an opportunity for business as well as individuals to question the tactics used by a dominant provider. I am pleased that the amendment has been made to allow some private access. It is not fully what people want to see, but there is no question it is a step in the right direction and will go a long way to empowering individuals to question some anti-competitive acts that take place.
There have been many questions in the last few years with regard to anti-competitive acts. The airline industry comes to light in view of what we have seen over the last few years with one carrier after another going under. Almost always in those instances we heard about the anti-competitive action of Air Canada, and we hear about that even to this date.
The competition commissioner suggested a lot of changes giving him more authority to react sooner and authority to order costs if a loss is related to the anti-competitive act. This legislation responded to a need that was out there. We still hear of Air Canada's anti-competitive acts at a time when our airline industry is in a crucial state.
Although the bill goes a long way toward addressing concerns over anti-competitive behaviour, I still do not believe that this is going to be the answer within the airline industry. More needs to be done in the area of regulating capacity if we truly want to provide a stable airline industry that will meet the needs of communities within Canada and not just the larger cities. We have to look beyond that.
Competition is not always the answer. There has to be balance. When providers are forced to compete to the lowest common denominator, we do not always get the best service or the safest service and the service maintained to areas where the cost can be higher. It is important that we look not just at the competition aspect.
The competition commissioner felt these changes were needed. He felt they would give him more opportunity.
I look forward to these changes possibly resulting in more stability, specifically in the airline industry. There is a need for the anti-competition issue to be addressed in other areas as well.
There is another area the bill has dealt with which I want to key into. Although it does not seem to be a very big issue to some, it is a big issue to the most vulnerable people who are often seniors and people who are not well. The issue is deceptive prize notices.
I am sure all of us at some point or another have received those wonderful envelopes in the mail that say we have won $1 million, that we will get a prize just by doing a specific thing and it will not cost us anything. Quite frankly, when I say the most vulnerable people in society, I qualify that by saying nurses and other professional people have contacted me with regard to deceptive prize notices. They have been caught up in these deceptive prize notices and it has ended up costing them thousands of dollars. The ones I have spoken to were embarrassed because they were caught up in it.
The bottom line is that deceptive prize notices are very misleading. It is hard to get a handle on the wording let alone the fine print. No one should feel embarrassed, ashamed or anything of the kind if they get caught up in this practice. These scams are put forth by people or companies that fully intend to catch us in one little phrase or one little note. That is their job. That is how they make their living. It is certainly unethical. A lot of us think it is immoral and unscrupulous. However, some people will do just about anything for the sake of making a buck. We need to recognize that and ensure that we have protections in place for consumers and the public.
If people who are involved in the day to day workforce, who constantly have to deal with forms and issues that have to be written down and formulated and know how things are done, if they can be misled, we have to wonder how we should allow these deceptive practices to take place for those who are most vulnerable, such as our seniors and perhaps people whose eyesight is not perfect. Where there is an intent to deceive people, we need to put laws in place to protect individuals. I am glad to see this has been incorporated.
The bill is an incorporation of a private member's initiative to address this particular practice. We hope to see an end to some of those deceptive prize notices that come in the mail. Quite frankly, when the member initially introduced his private member's business, I made a point of gathering up all those types of notices that were coming to my own house. Over a period of a couple of months some 20 deceptive prize notice envelopes had come to my house.
It is great to throw those deceptive prize notices in the garbage. Quite frankly, that is where they deserve to go. As it is, I normally get a pile of mail. However, some people do not normally get much mail and tend to believe the notices. It was an eye opener for me. I did not realize the problem was so bad. I am extremely pleased that the bill deals with that issue.
A number of areas have been addressed. The commissioner will be in a position to address a lot of the particular problems that were there. The bill, as has been stated, will weed out some of what were considered frivolous proceedings. The next logical step is to have a greater form of private access to deal with the anti-competition rules.
The NDP will be supporting the bill. It has been a long time coming. I am pleased to see that it appears to have support within the House. It will be one good thing that we will get done before the break. I hope the next really wonderful thing will be the budget we hear this afternoon, which I hope will address a lot of the concerns out there.
Aeronautics Act December 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. As has been mentioned earlier by my colleagues from other parties, the bill was the result of significant co-operation by opposition parties in the House.
It would enable the government to remove a section of Bill C-42 and bring it forth as an urgent piece of legislation to address the concerns of the United States regarding access to information with respect to passenger lists on flights within Canada.
As I indicated, there was great co-operation on behalf of the opposition parties in allowing this to take place. We all recognize in the House that there is urgency in a number of areas to address the problems that have come forth as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. There has been great co-operation in trying to address those concerns.
Bill C-44 would give airlines the right to release information to the government of the United States in regard to passenger lists. I will read a descriptive note we got in committee regarding section 4.83 which would be included in the Aeronautics Act:
It relieves air carriers from certain requirements of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and allows them to provide passenger information to foreign authorities, where foreign law requires such information.
Subsection 4.83(2) authorizes the making of regulations generally for the purposes of carrying out section 4.83, including regulations respecting the type of information that may be provided to the foreign authority, as well as the foreign authorities to which the information may be provided.
At committee we are given a rationale. For Canadians and others listening to this, here is the rationale:
This section is necessary to allow air carriers to pass on passenger information to foreign authorities, but only in circumstances where foreign law requires such information as a pre-condition to landing in that country.
At first blush this does not seem to be a big issue. Canadians have recognized as have people throughout the world that times have changed. We are willing to accept that there may be some infringements on our privacy rights and civil liberties. Canadians recognize this and we in the House have recognized it. We have been open to it.
The concern is that the government is not as forthright about the type of information it would include. My colleague from the Bloc stressed this point and it is important to stress it. The legislation does not specify what the information would be.
As we met in committee and wanted to know what type of information would be requested we were given only the intent of the regulations. We were told the intent of the information the government would include. The reason we could only get the intent of the regulations was that the government does not know what will be requested. That is a scary point.
The Government of Canada is putting in place legislation but will not include in it the specific information that is required because it does not yet know. It has said that. The Americans have not told the government exactly what they need.
As a citizen of Canada, a sovereign nation, I have a real problem with agreeing to put in whatever information on the basis of the request of another country.
I recognize the need to address the problem of terrorism and to identify terrorists. However I have a real problem with a government that would leave a blanket opening in a bill to put in whatever regulations it likes and decide whatever information can be released without allowing it to be debated in the House of Commons so that members who represent all Canadians can have a say.
There was concern at committee. Concerns were raised and not only by opposition members. There was concern from a few Liberal members on the committee. There was concern about the type of information the government would then release.
The reason that concern is there is that there is not a lot of faith in the government. There is not a lot of faith on the part of opposition members or Canadians that the government will act respectfully on behalf of Canadian citizens first and not buckle down to what the Americans say. Quite frankly, I am not against Americans and the U.S. The bottom line is that my priority and what we are here for is to represent Canadians first. That is not happening. It is not happening in a number of areas, but specifically the government is not putting the respect and the privacy of Canadians first. As my colleague from the Bloc has mentioned as well, the U.S. legislation specifies exactly what information will be required. This does not happen here.
At committee we did attempt to at least have this intensive schedule of the type of information that would be requested. We tried to have it put within the legislation but were unable to have it passed at committee.
My party thinks the way the government is intending to deal with this, although we do not really know for sure yet, is to have schedules. Schedule I would be the type of information that the foreign states will receive on absolutely all passengers. They would receive some information on everyone. Should they then request information on specific passengers there would be schedule II, which would be the type of information that will be asked for on those passengers. The bottom line is that they could request the schedule II information on every single passenger. There is nothing to restrict that from happening. Schedule III, in section 1, lists the countries that the government has agreed to give this information to. Again, it is only in schedule, in regulation, and is not part of the legislation, so the government at its whim can change it. The government can add on one, two, three or fifty countries and release the information within their schedules, and we do not know what they will be yet. The government could release that information to those countries.
I have a concern about this. I will give members an idea of what the schedule I information is. Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner did not have a big issue with schedule I. The privacy commissioner thought, under specific reasons, schedule II was not a problem either. However even the privacy commissioner felt it would be much better if these schedules were incorporated into the legislation.
There is one thing that we are very clear about after listening to the privacy commissioner. He is in place to respect Canadians and to act on their behalf. It says a lot when we must have a separate commissioner to act on behalf of the privacy of Canadians because we cannot trust the government to do it. This is a crucial point.
Schedule I is the information that would be given to a foreign state on all passengers:
The surname, first name and initial or initials, if any, of each passenger or crew member.
The date of birth of each passenger or crew member.
The citizenship or nationality, or failing either of these, the country that issued travel documents for the flight, of each passenger or crew member.
The gender of each passenger or crew member.
The passport number or, if the person does not have a passport, the number on the travel document that identifies the person, of each passenger or crew member.
At first blush, it is basic information. I think a lot of us who travel tend to think that information pretty much is available to a lot of people anyway because we book through our travel agent, through other charter companies, through the airlines and we know we are all tied to reservation systems. I think there are a lot of us out there who do not really believe that any information on the computer is private anyway because we know a lot of people seem to be able to access that information. At first blush it is not a big issue.
Where it gets a little touchy is in schedule II. Schedule II mentions things such as:
A notation that the passenger's ticket for a flight is a one-way ticket.
A notation that a passenger's ticket for the flight is a ticket that is valid for one year and that is issued in travel between specified points with no dates or flight numbers--
It goes on. There are actually 29 notations as to the type of information, but again, this could change. There could be numerous other bits of information that the government at its whim could add to the regulations at any given point.
Schedule II continues:
The phone numbers of the passenger and, if applicable, the phone number of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.
The passenger name record number.
The address of the passenger and, if applicable, of the travel agency that made the travel arrangements.
A notation that the ticket was paid for by a person other than the passenger.
Also there is one that was of considerable concern to a number of members:
- The manner in which the ticket was paid for.
Again there was a concern. It would be fine here if it just requested to know whether it is by cheque, cash or credit card, but there was a concern that the credit card numbers might be included in the information. One of the concerns the airlines have raised is the amount of the costs that would be incurred if they had to input a whole lot more information or if the information requested had to be disseminated from the information they already have. In other words, areas would have to be blanked out so there would be increased costs to the airlines.
A number of us recognized that at this time there is a need for increased security and without question the safety and security of passengers in the air and on the ground has to be the priority, but we do not want to put the airlines in any greater financial difficulty than they are already. There was concern that the credit card information the airlines have would end up flowing if they just hand over whatever information they have.
As well, there was concern that when the information is handed over to those receiving the information, whatever government departments it might be, they might then pass on information, whether to different bits of industry or possibly back to the country from which it came. I was pleased that the amendment the privacy commissioner suggested to the committee and to the government was agreed to unanimously by the committee. It was put forth at report stage and accepted.
The amendment put forth by the privacy commissioner states:
That Bill C-44, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:
Restriction--government institutions
(2) No information provided under subsection (1) to a competent authority in a foreign state may be collected from that foreign state by a government institution, within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless it is collected for the purpose of protecting national security or public safety or for the purpose of defence, and any such information collected by the government institution may be used or disclosed by it only for one or more of those purposes.
It is crucial to note that up until that amendment came in there was no safeguard as to what would happen with the information. It is definitely an improvement to the bill.
I also note that there is no reciprocal agreement between the United States and Canada or, for that matter, between any other foreign state and Canada so that foreign states would have to give that information to our security services within Canada.
The reason we had to make these changes within our legislation and allow the airlines to give that information is that we do have a Privacy Act that represents the rights of Canadians. There is no such act in the U.S. That information can already be given if the airlines decide to do it, but the bottom line is that they do not have to. Our government has not ensured that there will be a reciprocal agreement because it was not there saying it would stand up for the rights of Canadians. It was in there jumping when the U.S. said “Give this to us right now or you're not flying into our country”. That is what it was about.
Quite frankly, the privacy commissioner commented on that as well. He commented on how it was unjust. I will not use his exact words, because there were some who were not happy with his words. I did not have a problem with them. He thought it was somewhat unjust that the U.S. would demand the information right now and not give Canadians and the Parliament of Canada a reasonable period of time in which to have input and debate. Normally we would get a bill, take it to committee and witnesses would be able to come to committee. Citizens of Canada who had objections would be able to possibly appear before committee, but because the U.S. wanted the information immediately or it would disallow or restrict flights into the U.S., no opportunity was given to have the legislation to go through the normal process within the Parliament of Canada.
That is not just unjust but is really a show of disrespect and disregard, I believe, for the relationship that Canada has with the U.S. We have not been a confrontational northern neighbour. We have been a willing, caring, approachable neighbour. Canada has worked well with countries throughout the world, not just with the U.S. It is not acceptable that at the whim of the Americans, at the snap of their fingers, the government jumps to the tune of the U.S. government. We are here to represent Canadians. We are not here to jump.
The minister responsible for the issues relating to softwood lumber is in the House. Frankly, the softwood lumber issue has been quite an annoyance for me simply because I am greatly concerned that this government is going to buckle under and sell out our forestry workers in B.C. and throughout Canada. I am concerned that the government will sell out workers in general who have fought to maintain raw logs within Canada for value added jobs within the country. I am concerned that U.S. officials are going to snap their fingers and demand that raw logs head down to the U.S. so its sawmills and plants can operate and to heck with Canadian workers.
Quite frankly, I see this government buckling under and I think that is what we are going to see over the holidays. Merry Christmas, forestry workers in Canada, and from the Government of Canada, no jobs, as we send the present of raw logs down to the U.S. Merry Christmas. It has been disappointing to see this from our government.
I also want to comment on Bill C-42, the public safety act, from which this legislation was taken so it could be rushed through to address the concerns of the Americans. We expected a lot more decisive action on the part of the government with respect to that bill. Bill C-42 gives a lot of power to a lot of ministers but there is not a whole lot of oversight to ensure they act responsibly. Again, the government does not have the respect of Canadians for its actions. It is becoming very clear that Canadians do not expect the government to act on their behalf.
That became quite clear last week when Bill C-36 was before us. I wish to say again that I believe opposition parties in the House have been very willing to co-operate with the government to try to move legislation forward to address the issues that came up as a result of September 11. What we saw last week was a show of absolute disregard for the voices of Canadians, with closure implemented on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, which is one of the most crucial pieces of legislation to come before the House and one of the most crucial pieces of legislation infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians. The government invoked closure. Was there any need for it? Was there a big rush for it? Was somebody running off to a Christmas party so that legislation concerning the civil liberties of Canadians had to be rushed through? Was there some other absolutely urgent piece of legislation that we had to get before the House? Did we have to make sure all of this was done before the Christmas break? Was that more important than listening to the comments parliamentarians were hearing from citizens in their ridings?
We are still hearing comments about this. I would wager that the greatest number of comments coming through on everybody's e-mail were telling us to get rid of Bill C-36 because it does not have to be like this. We do not have to go to the great length of infringing on the civil liberties of Canadians in order to address terrorist concerns and we can fight terrorism without all the infringements within Bill C-36.
What is crucially important is to recognize that this government invoked closure and then had no business to deal with. Talk about a slap in the face for the rights of Canadians. The government did not want to hear any more debate on Bill C-36 because it wanted this legislation and would not listen to anybody else. That is what it appears to be and it is not acceptable.
At some point I expect that Canadians will let the government know what they think about it, whether it be before the next election or at the time of the next election. I do not think we will see the arrogant kind of approach to the views of Canadians and parliamentarians that we have been seeing over the last while.
I hope the government recognizes that Canadians are not happy with that, will take it to heart and will not continue with this type of approach in the House.
Agriculture December 4th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal agriculture minister has not been upfront with residents of the Carrot River valley.
Before the last election, the minister agreed to work with the provincial and municipal governments on the Carrot River water pipeline project. This would bring water to residents of the Rural Municipality of Kelsey, the Opaskwayak Cree Nation and local farmers who need it to diversify.
Agriculture Canada assured the province and the rural municipality that it would share the cost of the pipeline, but once the federal election was over it left the community high and dry with a half finished pipeline.
A letter the agriculture minister sent to the reeve on September 4 states:
--resources are not available beyond what has already been committed to the project.
We have since learned that this was not the case. Agriculture Canada has at least $75 million in farm aid funds it made inaccessible to farmers.
With millions in his kitty, the minister cannot say resources are not available. The truth is that he is hoarding this money while farm after farm goes under. Farmers in the Carrot River valley have started diversifying like the minister said they should, only to find the federal Liberal government will not cover its one-third share.
On behalf of my constituents, I call on the agriculture minister to honour his commitment and help finish the Carrot River water pipeline.
The Acadians November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite pleased with the way today has worked out. I have the opportunity to speak to the motion from my hon. colleague for the Bloc. As someone who has had the opportunity to have three private members' motions before the House and to actually have a couple that were votable, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to the motion and recognize that private members bring specific issues, motions and bills to the House that never come from the government unless it is real push to do so. Government members bring them in as well because they know that is the only way some issues will ever be addressed.
When I was growing up and attending school, and I did finish high school, I was an excellent history student because I loved learning about Canada and Britain. I have to tell members that most of the history I learned about was Britain and a little bit about the U.S. Our books contained very little Canadian history. We learned mostly about colonial governments.
Although some Canadian history came into play, I found that as an adult with children in school that the Canadian history I had been taught was not accurate. My children were receiving the accurate history on events such as the Northwest Rebellion and Louis Riel. I had never been taught that Louis Riel was an elected legislative representative that the Government of Canada just did not like.
Having talked to my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst, I now know that the Acadians had their land taken away from them in much the same way as the land was taken away from the people in the Red River Valley and in areas of Saskatchewan. The government wanted the properties because it wanted the best lands. I do not think there is any question that there was a degree of racial motivation. It was a different culture, the languages were different and the English-French thing was going on even then. However the bottom line was that the government wanted the land and whatever it wanted it took. It felt it could treat that group of citizens badly because it could do anything it wanted to do.
However we cannot change history no matter how much my hon. colleague from across the way would like to. The hon. member who brought forth the motion wants the government to recognize that Louis Riel was mistreated and unfairly tried and convicted of treason, and he wants Louis Riel exonerated.
I know we cannot change history but we can recognize that wrongs were done and officially recognize them as such so that the people who were affected have the opportunity to heal. When one family or a group of people are treated badly and severely hurt, as were the Acadians, it is passed down from generation to generation. Many Acadians died and many never saw their families again. We might not hear about it every day, every month or every week but it is passed down from generation to generation. It is never allowed any healing or forgiveness.
When the Government of Canada refuses to officially recognize that the Acadian people were wronged what does that say about us? My colleague from across the way knows that it is important that Louis Riel be exonerated. He knows that.
How can he not see that it is extremely important that the Acadian people be officially recognized as having been wronged? Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind?
We do not all in our lives have time to read everything, see everything on the Internet or study every subject. We try to learn as much as we can but always in our lives we can continue learning. In a matter of minutes today numerous bits of information were pulled off the Internet for additional background on the subject. I urge Canadians to make a point of going online and finding information on le grand dérangement, the Acadian expulsion and deportation.
It was recorded in one of the newspapers of the time that:
We are now upon a great and noble scheme of sending the neutral French out of the Province who have always been secret enemies and have encouraged our savages to cut our throats. If we effect their expulsion it will be one of the greatest things that ever did the English in America.
The article went on to say “for by all accounts that part of the country they possess is as good a land as any in the world. We could get some for good English farmers”.
Is there no shame on the other side of the House that a whole group of citizens of Canada were treated badly? Do those members have no shame at all? What they should do is officially recognize that they were wrong.
I will touch on comments that have been made in the last week or so by ministers from the government. People have seen the comments as indicating that maybe the church was responsible or did not do much and should have done more. They suggest that if families really wanted to maintain their Acadian culture they should have been responsible for doing so.
I represent a riding with 32 first nations and have been to all those communities. No one knows more than I do, except for the people themselves, the suffering aboriginal people have gone through because of their treatment by the Government of Canada.
I refer specifically to the Dene people. The government decided, my gosh, not in 1745 but in 1955, to move a whole group of people and leave them to live off a garbage dump in Churchill, Manitoba. Is there any shame from the government about it? There is not a chance. Those people are struggling today to find their way.
The government has a history of doing things wrong. We cannot change history but we can acknowledge the mistakes and apologize for them. We must recognize officially that the way the Acadian people were treated was wrong. It was wrong to treat the Dene people like that. It was wrong to treat aboriginal people the way they have been treated over the years.
This is private member's business. It is not government legislation that would put the government under should it happen to pass. I encourage members in the House to take a stand and say that this needs to be acknowledged. It is absolutely unacceptable that the government would put pressure on members in the House to vote against this simply because the government has something against Quebec and the Bloc. This is not a Bloc issue. It is an issue of justice for a group of citizens within Canada. It is totally unacceptable to make it an issue between the Bloc and the Liberals. I hope members in the House do not fall into that trap.
Points of Order November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point today. On behalf of our party I want to support the position that this is much too important a bill, where there has been great questioning of civil liberties for Canadians, for the Canadian public not to have an opportunity to respond.
Could we have assurances, if that information is not ready by 4 o'clock and is not available to Canadians, that there will be a delay in allowing the bill to proceed?
Public Safety November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it was with some expectation and thanks that we saw a bill come before us regarding public safety. After the tragic events of September 11 many of us were left uneasy as to how to approach the issue. We want our citizens to still have the right to travel and the right to privacy. We do not want them to have their civil liberties totally stripped away. I am happy to say a number of the committees within the House of Commons have been working on the issue from the time they got back in September.
There is no question, as the minister stated, about the immediate response on September 11 by airports, airline officials and the communities that took in huge numbers of people who were left stranded. They did it gallantly. We all owe them great thanks because in spite of everything that happened after September 11 it came off rather smoothly in Canada.
It is disappointing that after the minister's hype about how the bill would show us where public safety is he has tabled a bill this morning with no meat and potatoes in it.
As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, the bill would give a lot more powers to ministers and their directed officials. Does it tell us what the government would do for airport security? No, it does not. It mentions that the government would do something about cockpit doors and make sure there are charges for people if there is air rage and those kind of things.
There are some things in the bill. There is no question that the bill would affect a number of acts within parliament, and rightfully so. We recognize that it had to do that. We had to have something that would address bioterrorism and be able to stop terrorists from proceeding in this manner. There is no question we had to do it.
However the bill does not tell Canadians what would happen. I am disappointed because despite all the minister's hype in the last few days that is not there. That is what Canadians want to see. They want to know exactly what would happen.
The transport committee has been hearing numerous witnesses over the past while. Almost every witness has said the key to fighting terrorism and stopping incidents like this from happening is profiling. What did we hear this morning? That is not even one of the major issues the government is dealing with. It was stated at the committee that the government does not understand or know enough about it. The minister will therefore dedicate $750,000 to look at the security measures that are needed.
The security of our airports or other areas should not be left to the Minister of Transport or the Department of Transport. It is crucially important that the people who know the business of security, such as the justice department and the solicitor general's office, are should be dealing with security.
We heard time and again at the transport committee that there was not a working relationship between different jurisdictional officers at airports. There are security guards operating under the airlines. Airports hire security for their perimeters. Some places have RCMP and some have provincial police. Nobody seems to be in charge of the picture.
Does the bill do anything to address that? Does it tell Canadians what would happen? Does it ensure their confidence in the security of our airline industry? There is not a chance that it does. The people who know about security, profiling and how to fight terrorism should be looking after the security of our airports. That is the crucial point.
Air Canada Public Participation Act November 19th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not know if I should say I am pleased to speak again to the bill. Over the last couple of years everyone has had the opportunity to rehash what is happening in our airline industry and the obvious fact that the government's strategy for the airline industry is not working.
We stood here 18 months ago and went through numerous hours of committee discussions about the airline industry in Canada. We heard about the government's plan to stabilize the industry and make sure we maintain service to a number of small areas in Canada. As my colleague from the Bloc has indicated, Air Canada is reneging on its commitments to provide that service.
We in the New Democratic Party and a number of Canadians are starting to realize that the government's plan is not working. The plan for deregulation and privatization which was started in the late eighties is not working. Members of the House who believe it is need to give their heads a good shake. Fear of the word regulation has brought us from one crisis to the next. We felt we have had to deregulate industries or they could not make it.
For how many years must Canadians see our airline industry flounder before the government realizes the answer is not solely in privatization or deregulation? Regulation is good at times and until there is some reregulation within the airline industry we will be back here time and time again.
The bill relating to the removal of the 15% shareholder limit would not do the trick. Every witness who appeared before the committee said the bill would not do the job. They said the 15% shareholder limit would not make a difference for Air Canada but that other things need to be happening as well.
The sad part is that the government is still out there grasping at the need for more foreign ownership. It believes that will save us. The bottom line is that will not. There are those of us who know that increased foreign ownership would only mean that cream of the crop routes would be taken over by other airlines. We must go in a different direction. We will not survive and have a stable airline industry in Canada until the government recognizes this.
Something as simple as regulating domestic capacity would ensure we do not end up with little fights about competition rules. I am calling them little fights because the underdog never seems to get anything out of them. Air Canada moved in on CanJet out east and put CanJet out of the picture. They are now introducing a new airline that will compete with WestJet.
Competition is not all bad. There is no question of that. However competition for the sake of competition means we will be constantly putting airlines out of business. That is not the answer. If we regulated domestic capacity in certain areas we would make sure the airline industries could make a go of it. It would give the industry a chance to stabilize. That is what we need to see.
The parliamentary secretary spoke this morning rather than the transport minister. Perhaps that says something. Perhaps he realizes the bill is no big deal. Perhaps he knows it would have no astounding effect except for the fact that there would be an increased shareholder limit for someone.
I bring this point to the floor again. Where would Air Canada be now if it had a 40% or 50% shareholder after September 11? Would that shareholder have stuck around taking the losses? I do not think so. We would have been in an even worse position.
Under the watch of the transportation minister six airlines have folded in Canada. What is he doing? He is grasping at straws. He says we will try a little piece of this legislation and a piece of this legislation. What we really need is a transportation policy or strategy within the airline industry and other transportation industries. I will not dwell over and over on the same thing. We in the NDP will not be supporting the bill.
The most recent of the airlines, Canada 3000, is going under at a time when there is a need to provide stability and give assistance to the airlines. We in the NDP did not say to give it a blank cheque. We said that if we are to give it government dollars we should tie it to alleviating job loss and maintaining service. It is not a blank cheque. Interest free loans are not unreasonable at this time.
The government could do something to assist the airlines and alleviate job loss. What did the minister do? He almost came right out and said if the airlines did not cut jobs the government would not give them any money. If someone then came along and said they would buy it back at 50% of the value it was at before, the government loan would be off.
Once again the government has no strategy for stabilizing our airline industry, supporting airlines in Canada and making sure service is provided throughout the country. The government is making a whimsical grab at whatever might work for this period of time. It has no vision for the country.
Airline Industry November 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the government has offered Canada 3000 $75 million in loan guarantees, conditional upon a 30% reduction of capacity and costs. Its attempts to reduce costs by shutting down Royal Airlines and laying off workers have been rejected by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.
Could the Minister of Transport tell the House if, along with reducing costs, he will also make it a condition that Canada 3000 applies to the job sharing program of Human Resources Development Canada to minimize job losses?
Softwood Lumber November 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again on behalf of the New Democratic Party and Canadians everywhere who have a stake and an interest in our forestry industry. I call on the Liberal government to start standing up to the bullying U.S. tariffs that are devastating companies, communities and families that depend on the forest industry.
It gives me a slight feeling of déjà vu to be taking part in yet another emergency debate on the issue in the House of Commons. It was exactly one month and two days ago that we last had an emergency debate in the form of an opposition day motion on the issue. It is disappointing that in the month since the Liberal government has continued to do what it has done all along: sit on its hands and do nothing.
So little has changed that I could take a copy of the Hansard from last month's debate, read back my comments word for word, and they would still be relevant and timely. What an indictment of members of the Liberal government. Despite this they continue to insist they are working hard on the file, as though if they repeat it enough people will start to believe it.
We in the New Democratic Party are not fooled by the Liberal government's empty talk. Neither are Canadians who work in the forestry industry and have to deal with the fallout of the government's inaction.
While the Liberal government has been sitting on its hands the U.S. government has been very busy. Last week it slapped yet another massive tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, bringing the total tariff on our forest products to over 30%.
It is outrageous when we think about it. Canadian softwood products entering the U.S. are slapped with this huge tax and then supposed to compete on the shelves next to U.S. products. Obviously that is almost impossible. That is why many Canadian forestry companies are facing huge losses and we are seeing thousands of layoffs in the sector. It is something our economy can ill afford as we slide into a recession.
The Liberal government's passive laissez-faire attitude is stunningly irresponsible. Days before the U.S. slapped on the new tariff last week we had reports that it would happen. We knew it was coming. The day before it was announced by the U.S. government I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade in question period if the government would put an income support plan in place to help people whose jobs would be affected. The parliamentary secretary dismissed my question as hypothetical. The next day of course the hammer dropped.
What are we supposed to take from that? Was the government so clueless that it did not see this coming? Did the parliamentary secretary think I was asking a hypothetical question, or did he see it coming and not want to deal with the issue of assistance for the people losing their jobs? Either way it is of little comfort to the people wondering how they will pay their mortgages because the Liberal government is not standing up for them.
The government says it is pursuing a two track approach to the dispute with the United States. First, its lawyers are challenging the U.S. tariffs in a World Trade Organization tribunal. Second, it says it and the provinces are negotiating with the United States.
This is something but it is clearly not enough. The provincial governments which the Minister for International Trade claims are his negotiating partners are expressing a distinct lack of confidence in the federal government's handling of the issue.
The government of British Columbia has so little confidence in the federal Liberal government that it is exploring the possibility of making a side deal with the United States. This is something none of us want to see. It is crucial that the federal and provincial governments stand together and show a united front to the U.S.
I asked the Minister for International Trade about this last week in question period. He agreed about the need for a united front. What the minister apparently does not understand is that for the federal government to maintain a united front it must inspire confidence in the provincial governments. The provincial governments must be convinced the federal government is handling the crisis competently or they will be tempted to go off and cut deals.
The cracks that are starting to show in the federal-provincial coalition are a clear signal that the federal Liberal government is dropping the ball. Its provincial negotiating partners are not confident in its ability to reach an appropriate solution. The federal government is thus having big trouble holding the coalition together.
The people and companies affected by the dispute do not have confidence in the Liberal government's handling of the crisis either. People with families to feed and mortgages to pay who find themselves out of work are the real losers in this regard.
I would like to read from a letter that was sent to one of our national newspapers by Val George of Terrace, B.C. because it speaks volume about how the people affected by this view the Liberal government's response so far. The letter mentions one of our colleagues in the House of Commons by name so where it does that I will just substitute the member's title. The letter in the November 5 National Post states:
[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade's] calling some B.C. lumber executives “nervous nellies” for being concerned about the softwood lumber issue is despicable. Would he like to come out to British Columbia and tell the more than 10,000 laid-off workers in the forest products industry that those who are defending their interests are being overly concerned? If he were to come out here, he would discover that it is attitudes like his toward western Canada's issues that are the reason for this government being held in contempt in the region of the country that generates a large proportion of the country's wealth.
Instead of making such insensitive comments, [the parliamentary secretary] should be urging his bosses, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade, to give this matter the priority it deserves. Come to think of it, perhaps he should tell them that they should have been giving the softwood lumber issue some priority four or five years ago, in which case we might not now be faced with this devastating situation.
That pretty much says it all because that is exactly what has been coming out for the last while. The Liberal government has left this so long, instead of dealing with the issue ahead of time. Now we are in a situation of absolute crisis within the industry.
I would like to talk about solutions in my last couple of minutes. I talked about the need for long term solutions in the last emergency debate so I will not use up my time repeating them. The New Democratic Party is on the record about this but one of the things the letter mentioned was the number of laid off workers in B.C. alone.
For months my fellow New Democrat MPs and I have been calling on the Liberal government to provide some assistance to those people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The government has slashed EI so much in the past few years that people who get laid off cannot rely on it to get them through the hard times anymore. That is the case not just in the forestry industry, but in all industries. We have brought this up time and time again over the last number of years with little results from the government. It would much rather use the dollars going into the EI fund as a general revenue slush fund for the finance minister to make it look like there is a huge surplus when in reality there is a huge social deficit within Canada to laid off and unemployed workers.
The Liberal government should take some responsibility for the fact that it was its failure to deal effectively with the U.S. that resulted in these layoffs. Instead it just says that people should be patient. It is hard for them to be patient when they do not know how they will pay their bills next month.
If the government would provide some temporary income support to these people until the dispute is resolved at least it would look like it cared. That is what Canadians need from the government right now, they need it to care. They do not need the patronizing comments on how they just need to plug on through, how they need to be patient and how they are overly concerned. No one needs that.
We need some absolute effort from the government to support the industry. There are a number of ways of doing that. I will not mention the amount of business we have in exports to the U.S. However now is an absolute crucial time for the government to come forward with a national housing strategy to support our industry. We could pour more dollars than we have into housing. Just over $1 billion per year for ten years would address the total housing concerns in our country nationwide, in our aboriginal communities and in our urban communities. This is the time for the government to do that and show that it is supporting the industry as well as supporting Canadians.