Val Meredith

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the coalition supports the amendments that the bill would bring to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. We feel it is important enough that it should be voted on. We should have more than just an hour of debate on a bill of this importance. It should be votable and it should be moved on.

We are against any form of discrimination. We find that words used in the act are discriminatory against children who were born outside of marriage. The legislation has very objectionable language in it and this private member's bill, Bill C-408, would deal with that.

Section 241 says that “child” includes an adopted child and an illegitimate child. Bill C-408 would change that wording, which is very important. From personal experience, I know children sometimes carry burdens because of things outside their control. The least we can do in the House is try to undo the damage that words can place on a child.

In today's modern society to treat children who through no fault of their own find themselves born in an unmarried relationship is just a sign of the times. We can lay judgment on whether it is right or wrong. We can lay judgment on whether or not the state should support it. However to lay judgment on children who have had no opportunity to change the circumstances is not fair and not right. Whether we like it or not, we have many different forms of families. Not all families have a father and not all families have a mother. That we in this House would discriminate against children who find themselves in a family that does not meet the tradition is not appropriate.

We will be supporting the bill and hope that it actually finds its way into changing legislation, albeit it will not be voted on in the House. Young people have a hard enough time in today's world without the stigma that words can impose upon them. We would just hope that this private member's bill does not stop at this point. The intent of the bill should carry the weight of government and the government should be sensitive.

There are many bills that in Canadian tradition have words that are inappropriate in today's modern society. This is one instance where we need to be considerate of the changes and ensure that the language in today's legislation is appropriate and reflects the changes we see around us.

The coalition is very supportive. We wish the member well in taking this through the system. We hope the government uncharacteristically takes note of the debate and the support this has and puts some meaningful change in.

[Foreign Affairs, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear that the Canadian military is doing a fantastic job, in spite of the defence minister, not because of him.

The Deputy Prime Minister really does not know when the Clerk of the Privy Council was told about this military incident. Will he find out if the Clerk of the Privy Council knew before Tuesday morning that prisoners had been captured and report back to the House?

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the response of the parliamentary secretary but he is still not dealing with the issue that this is not just any company. A major portion of an airline ticket is federal taxes and fees, Nav Can fees and all kinds of other fees that are incorporated in the taxes added on to the purchase price of the ticket.

It is one thing for a consumer to try to get money from a company that has gone bankrupt, and I appreciate there are methods of getting that through bankruptcy acts and whatnot. However we are talking about people who paid taxes or fees to the federal government for services they did not receive. They paid taxes when they should not have. The federal government has a responsibility to reimburse consumers and travellers who have paid considerable dollars for taxes and fees on their airline tickets.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary if the government or the Minister of Transport has looked at--

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, when Canada 3000 ceased operation suddenly last November a number of people were caught off guard and quite honestly I think the transport minister was one of them.

When Canada 3000's financial problems became common knowledge two months earlier, the minister attempted to maintain a level of confidence in that airline, including the $75 million loan guarantee. I do not think the minister was wrong to offer the loan guarantee to Canada 3000, nor was he wrong to encourage Canadians to keep flying on Canada 3000.

However, the minister kept telling Canadians that everything was okay until 12 hours before the airline shut down. The government must accept some of the responsibility for the losses that some Canadians incurred and suffered from. When a company goes bankrupt there is a legislative pecking order in which creditors have access to the company's assets. The government and the banks are at the top of that pecking order and consumers and customers are on the bottom.

When I asked this question back in November, the minister said that most consumers were protected, including people who had booked with travel agents or who had used credit cards, because travel agents in most of the provinces offered some protection to those individuals, particularly those who did use credit cards.

The minister did acknowledge at that time that there would be some individuals who might be out of pocket, but not too many. I think the minister misunderstood or underestimated the number of Canadians who would be affected by the loss of the value of their tickets and who ended up out of pocket for the money they had spent for the travel. This is especially true of thousands of individuals who ended up travelling and flew Canada 3000 on the outbound portion of the ticket but ended up stranded and had to find other means to get home.

In order to assist those individuals who found themselves unable to recoup any of their losses, I asked the minister if the government would reimburse those individuals for the taxes and fees that were included on the tickets for which they never received any of the services. It is one thing to have a private company go bankrupt without being able to recoup losses. It is quite another not to be reimbursed by the government for the taxes and fees that were part of the ticket when the customer not provided with the service. When I asked this question in November the Minister of Transport did not address the issue of reimbursing federal taxes and fees to those individuals who received no other compensation.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to address this issue. Will the government reimburse the federal taxes and fees for those passengers who were left holding worthless Canada 3000 tickets?

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to Canadians that the commitment the federal government has put into border security is not enough. It is clear that the Americans are putting national security at the top of their agenda. The president made that clear in his state of the union address last night. They will be putting billions of dollars into border security.

Americans have always been willing to co-operate with Canadians when we put initiatives on the table. They have shown this in the past with the free trade agreements and many other agreements like the Great Lakes Agreement. When Canadians put initiatives on the table the Americans are more than willing to consider co-operating with us.

Can the minister's representative tell us if the government will be proactive? The government has not shown that it will be proactive. Will it be proactive and put something on the table so the Americans have something on which they can co-operate with us, or will we be led into a program by the Americans without participating or being part of the planning?

Will the government consider the proposal put on the table by the coalition on November 1, a proposal which is proactive and would set up a program for getting pre-cleared travellers freely into the United States without having to sit in four, five or ten hour lineups?

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11 the Canada-U.S. border has undergone a significant transition. Immediately after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington the U.S. customs service went into to its alert level 1, the highest level of security concern, and has remained there ever since.

This level of alert has resulted in lengthy lineups at border crossings across the continent. The two crossings in my constituency have been hit particularly hard. Southbound delays at the Peace Arch crossing have reached four hours, which had been previously the maximum delay during the peak summer hours.

The only reason these delays have not been even longer is that the level of cross-border traffic has been significantly reduced. In addition, the delays were shortened because American border agencies transferred personnel from the southern border to the northern border to add additional personnel. However in late December the United States customs service moved these people back to the southern border before they could be replaced by new employees or the national guard.

Things have not been any easier for the commercial traffic which is responsible for transporting all our exports down to the United States on which 80% of our economy is dependent.

With lengthy lineups at peak times they have missed deadlines, have had delayed deliveries and the occasional auto plant has shut down when the just in time deliveries have not made it at the necessary time.

While things have stabilized this has been in part due to two negative factors: the economic slowdown and the softwood lumber industry dispute which have resulted in significantly reduced traffic crossing the borders at the west coast.

Over the past four months various members of the government opposite have participated in numerous photo ops, signed a number of agreements and made countless proclamations about co-operation at the border. However there has not been one significant tangible result at the border as far as the lineups are concerned.

In its December budget the government announced a total of $1.2 billion in border initiatives, split almost equally between border security and facilitation and border infrastructure. It sounds great but when it is realized that this amount is over five years the actual annual increase is only $240 million a year.

Even prior to September 11 there was a need for massive infrastructure improvements at our border crossings. The government talks about expediting low risk travellers, but unless these individuals are provided with dedicated commuter lanes which allow them to forgo the long four hour lineups the program is useless, especially at the busiest crossings in Ontario that have bridges.

When we talk of the money that is to be allocated, what is needed is for one initiative that will separate low risk, pre-cleared travellers from cargo and others that need to be looked at more carefully.

I ask the parliamentary secretary when the government will have an initiative in place to expedite the cross-border travel of low risk, pre-cleared travellers.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is the government does not have a viable aviation plan.

Last week the Canadian Transportation Agency exempted British owned Air 2000 from many of the regulations prohibiting foreign airlines from flying Canadian passengers to a third country. It is expected that this charter company will be granted access to our charter business soon. Instead of permitting Canada-only carriers, which would use Canadian crews, Canadian supplies and pay Canadian taxes, the government will be giving a foreign company the right to use foreign crews to fly Canadians to a third country.

Will the parliamentary secretary please explain to thousands of Canadian aviation employees, who have recently lost their jobs, how this is a good thing?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in December 1999 the transport committee tabled its report, Restructuring Canada's Airline Industry, which recommended a number of measures to ensure competition. The following spring when the government introduced its airline restructuring legislation, Bill C-26, it chose to ignore most of the committee's recommendations, especially those concerning competition in the industry.

Since Bill C-26 was introduced, four major airlines, Canadian Airlines International, Royal Aviation, CanJet and last month the number two airline, Canada 3000, have disappeared from the country's aviation scene.

There is even worse news. Our national carrier, Air Canada, which controls almost 80% of the market is in financial difficulty and there are fears that it may not survive without a government bailout.

The Minister of Transport on the other hand believes that Air Canada controls too much of this industry and is prepared to regulate the industry to reduce Air Canada's share of the market.

The government believes that Air Canada has participated in anti-competitive behaviour and has introduced amendments to the Competition Act that would severely punish predatory behaviour in the airline industry.

However this is not the end of the soap opera in Canada's aviation industry. On Monday the finance minister introduced a new tax on air travellers under the guise of user fees for aviation security. Under the government's plan, every domestic air traveller will have to pay a $24 security fee for a round trip. For international travellers the round trip cost will be $48.

For some travellers, for example passengers travelling on WestJet between Edmonton and Calgary or Vancouver and Kelowna, the $24 security fee will increase the cost of the ticket by 22%. When people fly from Vancouver to Seattle they can get a one-way ticket for as low as $110, but they will now have to pay an additional $24 for security; again a 22% increase in the total cost of the ticket. If those individuals fly from Seattle to Vancouver, they will have to pay an American security fee as well. That fee will be $2.50. That is correct. Under the American legislation, the aviation and transportation security act, the security fee is $5 for a round trip flight.

Why are Americans charged $5 for a round trip flight and Canadians charged $24 for a round trip flight? It is certainly not because Canada will receive a higher level of aviation security than the United States. No, it is because this government has never met a tax that it does not like and if it can be hidden as a stealth tax, so much the better.

What are these high security fees going to do to the struggling airline industry? The transport minister says that these fees will increase traffic flow because people will feel more secure.

I think it is clear that Canadians would have felt far more secure with a fee in the American range of $2.50 per flight; not $12. This fee is just another example of how the government and the minister have missed the boat on bringing real competition to the airline.

The minister quickly rejected Air Canada's suggestion of modified sixth freedom, instead claiming that he would regulate the industry. That should kill off the entire industry right away.

Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary this. Why has the government ignored such committee recommendations as higher foreign ownership limits and Canada only carriers, and instead is planning to reregulate the industry?

[Competition Act, December 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand during second reading of Bill C-23, the amendment to the Competition Act, and speak not only to the amendment of the member for Laval Centre but to the entire bill.

As mentioned by the Minister of Industry, the amendments were proposed to make it easier for the government to co-operate with foreign competition tribunals. In the global economy it is important that governments have the ability to co-operate with each other when dealing with multinational organizations.

The bill was also introduced to prohibit deceptive notices of prizes. The member for the Canadian Alliance mentioned that it was the responsibility of the individuals receiving such notices to know there was a scam and that they were being set up. A lot of the people who respond tend to be elderly people who are lonely, who are by themselves, who do not get much mail and who in many cases are not completely aware of what is happening in the world and have no reason to suspect a it may be a sham.

For a lot of our older generation that is not part of the culture it grew up in or is one of which it is aware. It seems to be a relatively new phenomenon that letters go out telling people they have won a prize but must put money into it to collect. It is important that we have measures to limit and legislate against that kind of deception through the mail.

Bill C-23 was also introduced to streamline the Competition Tribunal process. Lord knows that any process dealing with quasi-judicial bodies needs to be streamlined. It was interesting to hear the minister's comments about not wanting to establish a culture of unnecessary litigation. His government seems to think it is quite all right to take Canadians to court and get into the litigation process. It will be interesting to see whether the government will take note of the amendments it has put into the Competition Act to limit unnecessary litigation.

The bill was also introduced to broaden the tribunal's ability to issue temporary orders. I know from my days as transportation critic that the competition commissioner and tribunal need to be able to react immediately to situations, even if the actions are temporary, to put cease and desist orders in place and allow some kind of remediation to occur.

Bill C-23 has already been to committee. It was dealt with at the committee level. Witnesses from the business community and elsewhere appeared at the committee to give their impressions of how the amendments might affect them. Two additional amendments were recommended at committee so we now have two amendments to the legislation that was originally put before committee.

One of these concerns is the private right to access. We have heard how important it is for companies, corporations, small business people and individuals to have the ability to advance their causes even though the Competition Tribunal may not think they are as important as other issues. As in many cases, once something is put on the back burner the damage is already done before it can be dealt with. It is important that private right to access be added to the legislation.

There are also tough new measures to deal with anti-competitive practices in the airline industry. Canadians across the country know the difficult times the airline industry has been through. We have recently seen the demise of the second largest air carrier in Canada, Canada 3000. Although the competition commissioner was prepared to put a cease and desist order, the process of applying for the order and having it put in place is often not quick enough to stop the damage that takes place through predatory or overtly anti-competitive practices.

The private right to access is extremely important. It allows private parties to apply directly to the Competition Tribunal for remedies concerning refusal to deal, tied selling, market restriction and exclusive dealing.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important for people to be able to challenge what is considered to be unfair practices by a competitor trying to put out a smaller competitor simply through the use of these kinds of tactics. It is very important to the well-being of members of the small business community to be able to fight back. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity to challenge larger businesses that are trying to put them out of business. It is a very healthy thing in the bill.

Private access also means that if the competition commissioner feels that something is not as important as, say, airline restructuring, it can still go through the process and it is not be tied up for years.

The legislation will create additional case law that will provide the business community with a better understanding of what the laws of the land are and how they might fall under the practices considered not to be in the best interests of competition. It will develop case law that can be used for the furtherance of fair business practices.

The amendments will allow for new penalties, including fines of up to $15 million for an airline acting in an anti-competitive manner. One of the concerns we heard in reaction to Canada 3000 going under and other complaints before the commission, was that the legislation had no teeth to allow the competition commissioner to respond in a way that would stop predatory behaviour. It is nice to see that the legislation will finally contain teeth so the competition commissioner will have some meaningful input into keeping anti-competitive behaviour at bay.

The ability of the competition commissioner to extend cease and desist orders beyond the current 80 days is very important. Because of the time it takes to prepare a case and to bring the complaint against a competitor, it is very timely and sometimes the application has not been processed before the cease and desist order expires. We are very pleased to see this extension because it will make the process more meaningful.

I want to bring up the fact that Air Canada is objecting to the amendments. It feels that it is not right that the competition commissioner or Competition Act would single out one industry, it being the industry being singled out.

Letters were sent from one of its bankers to members of the transport and industry committees claiming that this amendment will prevent the issuance of new equity shares to assist the airline in raising new funds. It should be noted that this would appear to have been very poorly handled by the company seeing as it was the Prime Minister's former chief communications officer who forwarded the letter to members of parliament. The letter which was forwarded to members and both the transport and industry critics was seen by some to have the appearance of a threat. From my discussions with many government MPs, it would appear that there is not a great deal of fondness for the message from the Prime Minister's former chief spin doctor.

The airline is concerned that these amendments were tabled after its appearance at the industry committee. I would think that is a legitimate complaint.

Some have sympathy for the airline because it was not given an opportunity to respond in kind to the industry committee after the fact. The industry committee would probably be wise to allow Air Canada to appear before it and have its case heard.

This is important legislation. We must make sure there is competition, particularly in the airline industry. The coalition will be supporting Bill C-23 at second reading.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 2001]

Who gets the devices?