Val Meredith

[Bill C-42, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become masters of combining the good, the bad and the ugly into massive omnibus bills, forcing members to accept flawed legislation in order to pass needed amendments. They did this with Bill C-36 and they appear to pushing the boundaries even further with Bill C-42.

Tagged with the misnomer the Public Safety Act, the bill should be more accurately called the ministerial power grab act as most of the bill would give ministers broad authoritative powers with no parliamentary accountability. Bill C-42 would give the Minister of Transport and bureaucrats a blank cheque to develop an aviation security process as they see fit.

Let us contrast this to the American aviation and transportation security act where it was elected representatives and senators who determined what the security measures would be.

When will the Liberal backbenchers finally realize that all bills like Bill C-42 do is strip them of whatever little power they still have left?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hart's study, which was funded by the Department of Industry, clearly shows that the government has failed to provide strong leadership.

The Liberals were wrong on free trade, wrong on NAFTA and they are wrong to ignore Canadians' economic security with the two security bills before parliament.

Will the government negotiate a proper border agreement before the Americans lose patience and unilaterally implement tough security measures that decimate our export industry?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Michael Hart, from Carleton University, stated that Canada had six months to resolve border issues with the Americans or it would face dire consequences.

The Americans have already taken unilateral action at the border with additional legislation currently before congress that could further jeopardize our exports to the United States.

Why is the government risking Canada's economic security by ignoring comprehensive border management policy?

[Bill C-42, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while there are a few long overdue changes in Bill C-42 they are overshadowed by the continuation of the government's disturbing trend of making parliament irrelevant.

Much of the bill gives government ministers carte blanche to implement by regulation instead of passing legislation through parliament. For example, not only does the bill give the transport minister sole authority to decide what type of airport screening system there will be in Canada. He will decide how it is to be paid for.

For eight years the Liberal government has transferred one legislative authority after another to the executive branch of government. However if the Liberals plan on delegating parliament's authority to impose taxes we might as well just close the doors and go home.

While the coalition has put forth proposals to increase parliamentary oversight, why do the Liberals continue to weaken the authority of the House?

[Public Safety, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking the departmental officials who gave us a briefing this morning. I think they did their best to give us an indepth briefing of the aspects of the bill they thought were important. They did a good job.

This is a reactive piece of legislation. The government feels it must have something on the books so it has put this legislation before us. It is a number of half measures. It does not deal with the serious issues about which Canadians have expressed concern and with which the committee has been dealing over the last number of weeks.

The bill has 96 pages and 125 clauses. It deals with 19 current acts and would introduce one new act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act.

Most of the major amendments would apply to only a couple of acts. The first one, the Aeronautics Act, has a number of half measures dealing with public security. As my colleagues stated previously, the bill does not deal with the issues Canadians were expecting it to deal with. It would give a lot of regulation making abilities to the government and the minister without being specific as to what they are. The bill seems to be another step toward removing parliament from the mix.

The bill would not create a new agency to take over airport security. It would give the minister the ability to take these measures. It seems to be another bill that transfers a lot of responsibilities and decision making power to the minister and bureaucrats while taking it away from parliament and the committees.

The thing that stood out when I was reviewing and listening to the presentation is that the bill would take away the authority of the House to tax. It would give the minister the authority to appropriate who would pay for the measures that would be taken.

Although the explanation by the department was that the bill was intended to apply only to airports and airlines and not to the public, it would apply to the public. It does not state that the public is not included. In essence the bill would give the minister the ability to lay taxation on the Canadian public. It was my understanding that was parliament's role, not the role of the minister or the executive branch.

The bill would allow the transfer of information to the passenger lists of foreign countries. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned, it would not allow Canada to participate in the CAPPS program, which is, as we heard in the committee, an important part of intelligence sharing to prevent terrorists from accessing Canadian planes.

Although CAPPS is in the development stage it concerns me that in coming up with a new piece of legislation Canada is not in the forefront of the issue. It concerns me that we are not an active participant in this international passenger pre-clearance profiling system that can be effective if everyone participates. I am disappointed there was not more of an effort to make sure legislation was there to allow Canada to be in the forefront of the process.

Not only does the bill deal with the Aeronautics Act, it deals with an awful lot of other acts, 19 in total. Some of what the bill would do is good. For the first time under the National Defence Act, and I am sure my colleague who is defence critic will be interested in this point, the government is taking measures to protect reservists and make sure they are able to maintain their jobs if called for duty. That has been a long time in coming. It is nice to see the government addressing that.

I am concerned about the looseness with which it deals with the military being able to establish military security zones to protect personnel, property or things that the military protects. There was some concern that this would allow the military or the government to use the military in this instance for G-8 and G-20 meetings. Parliamentary oversight is definitely lacking in this piece of legislation.

We must be careful when we start talking about giving the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence or ministers of other departments certain authorities to react quickly to emergency situations. There is always a need to have a parliamentary oversight ability to ensure that when decisions are made there is some recourse. There should be some followup to ensure that if a decision is made, which in many cases is good for a year, parliament can challenge the government on how it handled the situation.

There is a lack of parliamentary oversight in the legislation which gives some outstanding authority to various ministers. I wish that the government would have seen the need to include parliamentary oversight. The coalition addressed that issue when it tabled a long term proposal that addressed this need. It called for the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee. The government would be well advised to consider that not only in this legislation but in Bill C-36 as well.

[Canada 3000, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when Canada 3000 ceased operations, thousands of Canadians were left with no hope of recouping the money they paid for now worthless tickets. Included in the price of these tickets was a number of federal taxes and fees. These individuals paid taxes for services they never received.

I ask the transport minister, is the government prepared to reimburse the federal taxes and fees for those passengers who are now holding worthless Canada 3000 tickets?

[Carriage By Air Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to follow all my colleagues who have mentioned the details of the bill, but I will repeat them just to put it on the record.

The bill actually came through the Senate. It is interesting that the government chose to use the Senate to bring it forth.

The bill implements the convention for unification of certain rules for international carriage by air which was signed in Montreal in 1999. I know my colleague thinks that is quite recent, but it was almost three years ago when Canada and other countries signed it with the commitment to bring in legislation to put the different convention provisions into law.

The Montreal convention consolidates and modernizes the rules of the Warsaw convention, an associated document. The convention provides for unlimited liability for damages in the case of death or injury to passengers arising out of accidents during international air carriage. It simplifies ticketing requirements, provides for electronic documentation and establishes a new jurisdiction that will allow most passengers to bring actions in the place of their domicile.

As I mentioned, this convention was signed in 1999, almost three years ago. Although I would agree that it is important to bring international standards into the airline industry that deal with certain aspects of international air travel, one wonders whether they foresaw, and one would assume they did not, the tragic events of September 11 which have changed the way all of us, not only governments but passengers and airlines, look at air travel.

In this age of globalization, there is definitely a need to develop consistent rules. That is why the United Nations set up the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is more commonly known as ICAO and headquartered in Montreal, to develop standardized rules. This legislation was developed at the tri-annual general assembly of the ICAO in Montreal in May of 1999. Now three years later parliament is trying to deal with this convention and to put in the necessary legislation.

Having signed this document two years prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, individuals who dealt with the issue obviously did not foresee the terrorist attacks where they would use airliners filled with passengers as instruments of major destruction. The legal ramifications of what happened on September 11 are yet to be addressed and are an ongoing concern.

One has to question who will be responsible for the billions of dollars of damages caused by those incidents.

This legislation talks in terms of liabilities the airlines have to pick up and the extent to which airlines have to pick them up. One has to question whether or not there is an appropriateness that has to be challenged with the legislation at this time.

I think the governments rose to the occasion. When the insurance companies, and there are few around the world that insure airlines, withdrew their protection and their insurance liabilities for terrorist attacks, governments around the world were very quick to react. It is yet to be known whether that is a short term issue or whether it will be a long term concern for governments in having to provide that kind of liability insurance.

Having said that, the question is still on the table. Not having foreseen what was going to happen with the airline industry and not having foreseen that airplanes might be used as a weapon of major destruction, the liability factor that this convention is committing airlines to may not be realistic.

Although the coalition is supporting this legislation at second reading, our concern is that at committee not only should the airlines be present but insurance companies should be as well. We have to really look at what it is that this convention will hold the airlines to and whether it is realistic with the new realities post September 11.

The second question that has to be asked is why it took three years for the government of the day to address the convention. My colleague from the NDP sees it as a recent issue. Three years for a government to react to an international concern shows perhaps a lack of concern for ICAO as an agency and a lack of respect for where it fits on the international scene in trying to bring some kind of consensus among nations on how to deal with issues on airline travel.

If there is any industry that is global, it is airline travel, and three years is far too long for the government to have taken to react and respond to the incident. Now that it has responded three years after the fact, one has to question whether or not it is appropriate.

I look forward to the bill getting to committee and having some very serious questions asked, not only of the insurance companies and airlines, but also of the government on its handling of the issue of liability and insurance, which is part of the bill.

As far as sharing information internationally on ticketing procedures, that is something we are all looking forward to from a security point of view. It is about time that all countries, including Canada, talk to one another on who is buying airline tickets, where they are going, and having that kind of intelligence in the system. I hope this legislation will allow that process to not only happen but will be supported by the government, the airline industry and any other parties involved. We look forward to the bill going to the committee and hope that improvements can be made.

[Airline Industry, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's claims to the contrary, competition in the airline industry is sadly lacking, but it did not have to be this way.

Two years ago the transport committee put together an excellent report on restructuring Canada's airline industry, a report that had multi-party support. The transport committee had a number of recommendations that could have increased competition in Canada's airlines and benefited the travelling public.

While the committee recommended initiatives like Canada-only carriers, a modified sixth freedom, reciprocal cabotage and an increase in the foreign ownership level from 25% to 49%, the minister refused to implement them in his legislation.

With the recent demise of Canada's second largest airline, will the minister explain to Canadians why he chose to ignore these recommendations that would have increased competition in Canada's airlines?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I lived in the north of Canada for 15 years. I lived in a community where we thought we would have scheduled airline service but no one would take it. It was not profitable for a company to keep a service there.

If people want airline service they must use it. When an airline like Air Canada has a monopoly it tends to drive the little airlines out of business. The little airlines can offer that service in the north. I will use the example of Hawk Air in British Columbia that started out with one plane, a Dash 8. It flies from Terrace to Vancouver and I think Terrace to Prince George as well. It runs a couple of trips a day providing good service and undercutting Air Canada. Hawk Air has since bought a second airplane to service other communities.

If we allow those smaller airlines to grow they will provide the service but when there are dominant air carriers that go out of their way to undercut these smaller air carriers and drive them out of business, the smaller carriers are not allowed the opportunity to grow.

When we handle the restructuring of the airline industries in Canada, we must ensure that the Hawk Airs in Canada are given the opportunity to grow, to expand and to have control over and be able to function in their marketplace without the fear of having a big carrier come in and chase them out because they built the business, which then becomes viable for a bigger carrier which comes in and drives them out. We have seen that in the country more than enough.

The time has come for us to recognize and support smaller operators who may have half a dozen planes but who serve the north and isolated areas better than the bigger carriers will in the long run. We have to make sure they can survive.

I think the government must look at this from a bigger perspective and in a broader scope by being creative and supportive to the small business guy who is willing to serve those markets given half a chance.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a publicly traded company so the employees can buy shares in Air Canada any time they want. I think what has to happen is that Air Canada needs to be more inclusive in its decision making process. It should also have closer talks with the unions and the employees as to the reality and in what direction it would like to go. It should have more communication of that kind happening.

I have often wondered why big union funds are not being invested in these kinds of things. Why do the unions always go to the taxpayer when the unions themselves are not prepared to invest the large sums of money they have in their bank accounts to support the companies that they seem to want the Canadian taxpayers to support?

Certainly the issue with Skeena Cellulose, I do not understand why the unions did not invest in Skeena Cellulose in order to keep it operating for the employees for whom they were concerned.

Employees have to be encouraged. I know it has worked well for WestJet. The captains with WestJet help clean up the airplane after the passengers have left because they own part of the company. They know that is the kind of good service that gets customers back into the planes, which means their company, of which they feel a part, does much better.

Certainly there are companies that do it and do it well, and it has had a very positive effect on the companies and on the service they provide. There is nothing stopping the employees of Air Canada now from buying shares and getting involved in the running of their company.