Stan Keyes

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, at first blush it worries my considerably that the Canadian Alliance Party thanks and congratulates me on the work I am doing. That troubles me somewhat.

The member spoke about the management at Hamilton airport and said that it was really the business of WestJet. If it were not for TradePort and the management at the airport, they would not be out in the marketplace luring companies like WestJet to use Hamilton as its eastern hub. They went out and made their case for Hamilton demonstrating to WestJet that Hamilton was the place for it to locate.

Quite frankly, it is not just that passenger loads have gone from some 23,000 in 1999 to last year in 2002, 385,000 passengers at Hamilton. Hamilton is an extremely important and busy centre for cargo. Hamilton airport between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. becomes a city onto itself, with the activity going on at Purolator, UPS and all the other carriers that transport cargo.

The hon. member's direct question was whether I would stand and vote against the bill if nothing was done to it. I am going to see the glass half full. When the bill goes to the Standing Committee on Transport and we hear from witnesses and the cases they make on Bill C-27, I have every confidence that the amendments will be put to the bill that will drastically improve the bill and continue down the path that we began many years ago; that is to allow businesses to continue to do business and not let government interfere with that business.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I started to say in my remarks late yesterday before the House adjourned its regular business, there is extreme concern in the airport community that Bill C-27, if not amended, would cripple an airport's ability to continue to work in what is clearly a very competitive international market.

Yesterday I spoke about how the air transportation industry has had an enormous impact on the Canadian economy. I pointed out that the viability of Canada's air transportation system is threatened and the consequences for Canada are enormous. I also gave reasons why the industry is in crisis today. I said that airports must adjust to the new realities of air travel, reduced frequency and the withdrawal of service. This means airports will have to reduce costs in order to minimize impacts on airlines and air travellers.

I stressed that the federal government too must act to cut costs to airports so these may be passed along to airlines in the form of lower fees and charges, and to air travellers in the form of lower air fares.

Ironically, at a time when the federal government should be reducing the operating costs of airports, the proposed Canada airports act, Bill C-27, does just the opposite. The proposed act, which would effectively re-regulate an economic sector that the government effectively and successfully deregulated eight years ago, piles one administrative redundancy upon another and introduces over 40 areas in which the minister may pass regulations, adding to the administrative burden of Canada's small airports.

The government is introducing these drastic measures without a single, overarching public demand for change and without having conducted a single regulatory impact or cost benefit analysis. In fact, a number of independent and government commissioned studies recommended a course of action substantially different from the government's proposed legislation.

I declared my bias and it is called John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. I quoted from a letter to me from Mr. Tony Battaglia, president and CEO of TradePort International Corporation, operator of Hamilton airport. I read from his letter which said:

The act will have a profound impact on the growth of John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. The act's one size fits all approach to airport government conflicts with Hamilton's unique and award winning public private partnership between the city of Hamilton and TradePort International, a private company operating the airport under terms of a 40 year lease. The act impedes the ability of the private operator to innovate and adapt to changing market conditions and customer needs in order to improve service and reduce costs. The act significantly erodes local control by the community—a founding principle of the Canada Airports Policy (1995).

Those are the concerns of a smaller airport like Hamilton, but what about larger airports like the Vancouver International Airport authority?

YVR is concerned that Bill C-27 would diminish Canada's reputation as a well respected source for excellent foreign international airport operators such as the Vancouver International Airport authority and its subsidiary YVR Airport Services Limited. It says that the bill would cripple or kill the ability of progressive airport managers, such as YVRAS, to compete in the international arena and provide much needed management and operator expertise to small and medium sized domestic airports. It also would negatively impact on small airports that need the type of management and operational expertise that larger airports can provide through consultant or management services in the manner that YVRAA provides through its subsidiary, YVRAS airports, to places like Kamloops, Cranbrook, Fort St. John and to more medium sized airports such as Moncton and my home town of Hamilton.

YVR says that the bill would reduce or eliminate opportunities and employment for Canadian architects, engineers, lawyers, professional advisors, designers and project managers in the field of overseas management and development of foreign airports.

Foreign governments are particularly attracted to the management skills of well run airports such as Vancouver. The fact that YVRAS has developed to the point that it should be able to stand on its own reputation is clouded by the views of foreign governments. They want the reputation, expertise and backup like an airport like Vancouver International can provide.

Realistically the development of these types of businesses and positive effects that it has on the Canadian economy is based on well run large Canadian airport authorities exporting reputation, expertise, technology and technical services through subsidiary airport operator management corporations and/or joint ventures.

The market for foreign airport privatization is huge. Today, while less than 5% of the world's airports are privatized, the World Bank forecasts that the operation of 150 airports will be transferred from government to the private sector within just the next few years. Several leading companies have identified airport privatization as a new strategic industry for the 21st century. This creates huge opportunities for Canadians that should not be stifled. That is the view of an airport such as Vancouver.

Devolution of airports to local control has been instrumental in the evolution of Canadian airports from money losing government run entities into full cost recovery operations under the principle of user pay. The government's vision document “Straight Ahead” says:

Transportation policy must provide market frameworks that allow carriers and infrastructure providers to adapt, innovate, remain competitive and serve the public.

Yet Bill C-27 creates a static, inflexible governance regime. The devolution of the Hamilton airport, for example, to local ownership and management has been an overwhelming success. By 2002 the local operator, TradePort, had invested over $25 million and attracted another $48 million in private sector investment at our airport.

Hamilton International Airport's economic impact study completed in 2002 found that there were 1,550 direct jobs at the airport, up over 116% since TradePort took over its management.

Hamilton International Airport's direct contribution to GDP is $170 million and that is up 129% since 1996. Its total economic output is $410 million, up 224% over the same period. Taxes paid to three levels of government by the airport community exceed $32 million.

In spite of all these successes, the Canada airports act includes 210 sections to micromanage the country's airports. By way of comparison, the entire Canada Transportation Act, which as we know governs rail, transit, marine and airlines, has only 280 sections.

My fear is that Bill C-27 embeds in legislation that which is normally dealt with through regulation. The bill will go before the Standing Committee on Transport shortly and I for one will be keeping an eye on this legislation.

It is quite obvious that we have a success story since deregulation. According to the airports and the airport authorities that have contacted many of us here in the House, and my particular concern is for Hamilton airport, I think demonstrates that a return from a deregulated industry of the mid-1990s to a re-regulated industry serves no useful purpose.

Again, I look forward to seeing the bill at committee stage when we conclude our second reading debate. I think it will be very important to go clause by clause through the bill and have these witnesses come before us to demonstrate to us why the government should proceed in the way it is proceeding and why we should not do everything we can possible to help the industry, not through re-regulating the industry but through those administrative practices that can encourage them to grow, to continue to grow in the fashion they are growing.

[Canada Airports Act, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my colleagues from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore and Saint John who are giving me this opportunity to speak. I rise on behalf of my constituents in Hamilton West to address second reading of Bill C-27, the Canada airports act.

There is extreme concern in the airports community that Bill C-27, if not amended, would cripple an airport's ability to continue to work in what is clearly a very competitive international market. It is no secret that the air transportation industry has an enormous impact on the Canadian economy. It creates over 300,000 jobs, accounts for over $34 billion in economic outputs, and provides nearly $4 billion in tax benefits to all levels of government.

Today, the viability of Canada's air transportation system is threatened and the consequences for Canada are enormous. It is a well known fact that the airline industry is in crisis. The impacts of 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and SARS have led to a 20% reduction in air traffic. Air Canada's restructuring will have a dramatic impact on smaller airport communities where Air Canada is the dominant and/or sole air carrier.

Airports must adjust to the new realities of air travel. Reduced frequency and withdrawal of service mean airports will have to reduce costs in order to minimize impacts on airlines and of course air travellers.

The federal government too must act to cut costs to airports so that these may be passed along to airlines in the form of lower fees and charges, and to air travellers in the form of lower airfares. Ironically, at a time when the federal government should be reducing the operating costs of airports the proposed Canada airports act does just the opposite. The act, which effectively re-regulates an economic sector which the government effectively and successfully de-regulated eight years ago, piles one administrative redundancy upon another and introduces over 40 areas in which the minister may pass regulations adding to the administrative burden of Canada's smaller airports.

The government is introducing these drastic measures without a single overarching public demand for change and without having conducted a single regulatory impact or cost benefit analysis. In fact, a number of independent and government commissioned studies have recommended a course of action substantially different from the government's proposed legislation. These include: first, a moratorium leading to a reduction and eventual elimination of airport rents; second, removal of industry specific security surcharges--no other type of traveller is required to pay directly for security and policing services--third, full funding for ACAP and making these capital funds available to all level two airports; and fourth, substantial reduction of regulatory burdens.

I declare my bias and it is called John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. According to Mr. Tony F. Battaglia, President and CEO of TradePort International Corporation, and operator of the Hamilton airport:

The act will have a profound impact on the growth of John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. The act's one size fits all approach to airport government conflicts with Hamilton's unique and award winning public private partnership between the city of Hamilton and TradePort International, a private company operating the airport under terms of a 40 year lease. The act impedes the ability of the private operator to innovate and adapt to changing market conditions and customer needs in order to improve service and reduce costs. The act significantly erodes local control by the community--a founding principle of the Canada Airports Policy (1995).

The John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport is unique in Canada; between 1999 and 2002 passenger volumes have grown exponentially--from 23,000 in 1999 to 846,000 in 2002. In the next five years passenger volumes will grow sixfold--to about five million passengers annually--and HIA will become the fifth or sixth largest airport in Canada. Under the act, the ability of HIA to attain this growth is substantially impaired. Growth of this magnitude requires a significant investment in airport infrastructure--over $100 million must be raised in the capital markets.

By adding to the airport's cost structure and impeding its ability to set fees and charges to match revenues with expenses, the act imposes an element of risk that private sector lenders may be unwilling to accept. Blindly advancing this gratuitous legislation may bring irreparable harm to Canada's smaller airports; there are other alternatives. We suggest the following:

Phased implementation of the act with Canada's Schedule II airports exempt from its provisions until three years after its proclamation.

Schedule II airports would have three years to file with the Minister of Transport an operating model that satisfies the act's governing principles of transparency and accountability.

As operators of the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, we stand willing to work with the federal government and parliamentarians to find solutions that meet the needs of the government, the aviation industry, and air travellers.

It is signed by Tony F. Battaglia, President and CEO.

I could go on because the problem also impacts larger airports such as Vancouver airport. I do not know if it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, but given the time, may I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to complete my remarks which would take no more than five minutes?

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

Today, we are celebrating the political career of a man who won the hearts of his constituents of Mauricie eleven times. We are paying tribute to a man who has devoted his entire life to serving the people of Canada, a man who has been in charge of all the major federal departments, a man who has been a member of cabinet longer than anyone else in Canadian history.

We celebrate the work of a Prime Minister who has supervised Canada's return to a firm financial footing, who brought about a resurgence in the vitality and vigour of our economy, who allowed us to renew and modernize our social policies, and who renewed the confidence of Canadians in the future of their country.

Above all, we celebrate a Canadian of immense skill, wisdom and vision, whose no-nonsense style and down to earth approach has time and time again rallied the Canadian people and our caucus to meet and overcome truly immense challenges. The skeptics got it wrong. We were up to and accomplished the tasks.

It is a phenomenal record to be sure, which has been rewarded with the ultimate compliment of the people of Canada: three straight majority governments.

However, dwelling on his record for too long would miss the point that his career teaches all of us which is that the key to earning the confidence of the Canadian people can and must be found not in savouring a glorious past but in preparing for a brighter future.

Indeed, today the Prime Minister will be travelling to an event where university leaders will pay tribute to his immense contribution in an area that is fundamental to a brighter, more prosperous Canadian future: massive investments in science, research and development. Consistent with the Prime Minister's approach to almost every task he has set out for our government, this has come about without a lot of fanfare or headlines. It has been done quietly, step by step, out of an abiding conviction that it was simply the right thing to do, and the right thing for the future.

As we celebrate this special day I would like to depart for a moment from parliamentary decorum and address the Prime Minister directly on behalf of our caucus. Your confidence is contagious, your integrity secure. You have the love of, and from, family. That is obvious and endearing. We still have a lot of work to do together and your caucus will be with you doing that job together.

Happy 40th anniversary, Mr. Prime Minister.

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the national Liberal caucus to join in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the election of a member of the House, a man whose love of country is unparalleled, a respected world leader, the right hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister.

[Canadian Shipowners Association, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations to the Canadian Shipowners Association, a truly Canadian association that celebrates its 100th anniversary today.

On this very day 100 years ago, April 7, 1903, a group of senior Canadian businessmen and shipowners met to discuss the future of the marine industry in Canada. Their deliberations resulted in the creation of the Dominion Marine Association, the predecessor of the Canadian Shipowners Association.

Together they set a course to steer marine and shipping activities in Canada and set an agenda to work with government to strengthen Canada's growing marine sector.

We are all proud of the CSA and its members as they continue to build a more competitive Canada through innovation, reliability, the use of advanced navigational technology, an outstanding safety record and a true sense of environmental stewardship.

Our best wishes to the Canadian Shipowners Association and its members, who are embarking on their second century.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, permit me to begin my remarks by saying that four elections and 14 years ago today, on November 21, 1988, I was first elected member of Parliament for Hamilton West. I want to thank my hometown and my constituents for this honour and privilege and I want to thank my family and friends for their love and support. Happy anniversary, including you, Mr. Speaker, who were elected in 1988, to all my colleagues in the school of 1988.

Now on to today's take note debate on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons. Quite frankly, more needs to be done to modernize and meet the needs of parliamentarians and all Canadians. Some of the ideas we will hear in this take note debate will challenge the status quo and that is a good thing.

I want to present to the House just a few of the simple yet significant ways we can reform the Standing Orders of this place and the procedures that we can follow.

Before I do that, let me thank the House leaders of all parties for including the caucus chairs on the 2002 modernization committee. I was privileged to be elected by my colleagues as the national caucus chair for the Liberal caucus, the government caucus. I very much look forward to participating with my fellow members of Parliament, but also ensuring that my colleagues and those members in the opposition have unfettered access to the committee to put forward their ideas to be heard. I will have more to say about that more specifically in just a moment.

Page 800 of Marleau's and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedures and Practice portrays the development of the rules respecting committees as “the perpetual struggle to alter the balance of power between the legislature and the executive”.

Since the Liberal Party of Canada came to power in 1993, some steps have been taken to enhance the profile and effectiveness of committees for backbenchers. As indicated on page 804 of M and M let us call it, in 1994 the Standing Orders were amended to allow bills to be referred to committee before second reading in order to permit members greater flexibility to propose amendments to bills since the House had not yet voted on the principle of the bill, at second reading as we call it. Some members feel however the government has not used this mechanism often enough. Members do feel restricted in the scope of amendments or improvements that they do propose.

Let us move to party discipline. Party discipline needs to be relaxed to allow members of Parliament to have greater leeway to exercise their own judgment on legislative matters. Today's practice of whipped votes on almost every issue is not a standard of the parliamentary system.

In British practice, whips inform their members about forthcoming House business, indicating when their attendance is requested, a one-line whip; when it is expected as there is to be a vote, a two-line whip; and when their attendance is required on vital business, especially those issues of confidence in the government, a three-line whip. That reference is in footnote 281 on page 489 of Marleau and Montpetit, House of Commons Procedures and Practice .

When it comes to membership of committees, footnote 177 on page 820 of M and M explains that prior to 1991 parliamentary secretaries were prohibited from being members of standing committees in the area of their responsibility.

I had some taste of that when I was elected in 1988 to serve on the Standing Committee on Transport. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport was often at the committee to guide the committee, to inform the government members on the then Conservative side of the committee of exactly what was the government policy on a particular issue or where the understandings of the Minister of Transport were on any given issue. Maybe we should look again at whether or not parliamentary secretaries to ministers should be permitted to sit as a voting member of a particular committee.

When it comes to the conduct of committee meetings, on page 855 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:

As there is no limit in committee to the number of times of speaking or the length of speeches, committees may, if they choose, place limits on their own deliberations.

According to some members, I being one, this allows one member of a committee to filibuster a meeting without restriction against the wishes of all the other members of the committee.

It is true that the committee can place limits on deliberations, something that is not usually addressed when the rules of the committee are first formulated before we begin meeting as a committee, and are permitted more flexibility in deliberations in order to study issues and bills in greater depth. However, some members believe that if we can impose time limits on speeches here in the House at second reading, report stage and third reading of a bill, then why can we not impose such a limit at committee stage. I think this would be a positive opportunity for the committee.

I can remember when the transport committee brought forward legislation back in the early 1990s. I happened to be privileged to be chair of the committee at that time. The issue was either the privatization of CN, the air navigation system or whatever, but the point is that a single member of the committee, a member of the Bloc, decided that the Bloc was not getting exactly what it wanted when it came to consideration of amendments at the committee stage. What resulted, of course, was that committee member started to talk and filibustered the committee. Nothing could happen essentially until that committee member stopped talking.

If there are 17 members on a standing committee, the other 16 members are handcuffed from proceeding with anything further on that bill at amendment stage until that member either decides that he has achieved his mission through some kind of a negotiation or, of course, the member continues to talk until he gets what he wants.

Is this the way we really want to do business? I do not think so. Maybe we should have a look at whether or not there should be restrictions on the amount of time a member can make his or her deliberations at a committee.

There are so many opportunities here to change and improve, I would suggest, the procedures and rules of the House.

On the matter of private members' bills, we have heard this issue ad nauseam in the House. Most certainly this is one of the issues that we will be dealing with at the 2002 modernization committee.

Under the present system, as has been outlined before, under House of Commons Standing Order 86(1) through (5), it is ineffectual at best in its current state. An all party committee meets each session in secret and selects 10 bills by lottery from dozens tabled. Each bill is then subjected to three hours of debate and a vote. Successful bills are brought forward to committee and only a few make any progress. Only a fraction reappear in the House of Commons.

Imagine how much work a member of Parliament has done. I do not know how many private members' bills I have brought forward and they still wait in the drum because I was not lucky enough to have my ticket pulled out of a hat. What kind of business is that for members of Parliament, who are here to represent their constituents, if their constituents are of a mind that we are here as their member of Parliament to do the job? How can we be hamstrung from doing our job because our name is not being pulled out of a hat? It is outrageous and it has to change. We have to allow members to be more relevant in what they do as a member of Parliament.

The proposed procedure follows the reasoning of the proposed practice of referrals after first reading and treating private members' business in the same way.

I have at least a dozen more points that I would like to bring forward, including Friday sittings. Some members have expressed an interest in modifying Friday sittings. That is a good idea. Let us make Fridays a day when we do not discuss government bills. We can move those two and a quarter hours for government procedure into the earlier part of the week by adding a half-hour or 45 minutes to each day, leaving Friday for only private members' bills. That is another solid suggestion.

In conclusion, I believe that the 2002 modernization committee should be an committee open to all members, including even the Clerk of the House of Commons and others, to make suggestions. This process should be transparent and should allow as many ideas as possible to be heard from all members on all sides of this place in order that we can make the best and most well informed decisions as a committee.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour and privilege to present to the House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It is signed by Canadians living in Burlington, Waterdown, Dundas, Hamilton and Niagara Falls. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Colin David Gibson, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were saddened to learn of the passing on July 3, 2002, of a true Canadian renaissance man who, much like his father before him, held a deep sense of civic duty and an uncompromising work ethic.

Colin David Gibson was a decorated veteran of World War II who served in Normandy with honour and distinction as an officer of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. His dedication to his profession as a respected lawyer later led him to serve as the member of Parliament for Hamilton--Wentworth from 1968 to 1972.

Colin Gibson's devotion to his community and country was rivalled only by his deep love for his family and his unwavering support for his hometown Hamilton Tiger Cats.

I ask the House to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, friends and indeed all Canadians who remember him with affection.

[Health, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a recent article in Maclean's magazine reads:

Thirty-three years ago, upstart McMaster University in Hamilton sparked a revolution in the training of doctors that eventually spread to all the big medical schools in North America. Now it wants to start another. Its plan is bold, courageous and designed to combat some of the ills of today's health-care system.

McMaster University in my riding of Hamilton West is once again leading the entire country in medical innovation. Its efforts to move doctors in training into remote areas will bring cutting edge research to those areas and will help retain qualified medical staff in parts of Canada that are traditionally underserved. I commend McMaster University and its health care researchers and staff for showing the foresight and courage to take the risks necessary to reap big benefits for the health care system in the country.

I firmly believe that the solutions needed to sustain public health care in the country lie with our teaching and research personnel. The recent research infrastructure payments to our universities were a strong start but we need to continue to show our commitment to these sources of innovation.