Val Meredith

[Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Bill C-34 on behalf of the coalition. It is interesting that the government is introducing the legislation. There are many important issues concerning transportation in the country. This is not one of them. Airline security, the state of Canada's airlines, and commercial transportation at the borders are all far more important to the average Canadian than the housekeeping bill the government has put before us today.

As is frequently heard from all parties in the House, September 11 has changed everything. It has changed the way the world operates. If there is any doubt, particularly from a transportation point of view, I need only point to the events of yesterday when a passenger slit the throat of a Greyhound bus driver in Tennessee. This caused an accident in which six people were killed. It was a tragic event.

Greyhound's response was to immediately shut down its whole U.S. transportation network. That is the kind of response we are seeing when something like this happens. Prior to September 11 it would have been treated as an isolated incident and dealt with by local authorities.

In the wake of September 11 with these kinds of situations happening it is interesting that the Liberal government feels we need to debate a housekeeping bill to create the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada. The purpose of Bill C-34 is to create the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada, an independent quasi-judicial body which would act as a mechanism for administrative and enforcement actions taken under various transportation acts governing the marine, rail and aviation sectors.

The new appeal tribunal would replace the Civil Aviation Tribunal which was established in 1986. The Civil Aviation Tribunal is a functioning body. It has been in existence since 1986. The changes being introduced by the legislation would expand it into a transportation tribunal as opposed to mere aviation tribunal. It would carry out the same basic functions as the Civil Aviation Tribunal but its responsibilities would be expanded to the marine and rail transportation networks.

Reviews of decisions affecting the marine and rail sectors are currently conducted by senior departmental officials and the minister. I think Canadians feel it is wise to move these kinds of reviews to an independent body as is done in the aviation industry. They feel it is better to get these kinds of appeals out of bureaucratic hands. There is no question that would be good.

The real issue with this housekeeping bill is that the Liberal government has had plenty of time during its nine years in office to have made the necessary changes. The aviation tribunal has been around since 1986. Why has the government chosen this time to bring the legislation on to the floor of the House?

It is quite clear that this is not a main concern to many Canadians. We did a computer search of Canada's major newspapers for the last three months. We turned up exactly zero articles that mentioned the Civil Aviation Tribunal or the proposed transportation appeal tribunal. It is not on the agenda of the ordinary Canadian or for that matter any political party. It has not been on anyone's agenda.

As a former member of the transportation committee I can say that the committee never dealt with any issues regarding the tribunal although the processes were mentioned in passing and whatnot. If people and government committees have not been talking about the need for it, why does the government see it as the most important transportation issue for the House to be addressing?

This housekeeping bill concerns the makeup and legislative authority of this new tribunal. The Civil Aviation Tribunal currently consists of a chair, a vice-chair and six other full time members in Ottawa. There are 26 part time members around the country who are supposed to be chosen on their knowledge and experience in aeronautics.

Bill C-34 states that the new tribunal, which would bring in marine and rail component industries, would consist of members who collectively have expertise in transportation sectors in respect of which the federal government has jurisdiction. One has to assume that the makeup would be of individuals who have knowledge of the marine, rail and aviation industries. We do not know how many additional members would be appointed or what the expansion of the budget would be.

Last year the budget of the Civil Aviation Tribunal was $1.2 million. To the ordinary Canadian that may sound like a lot of money, but to a government agency it is a very small amount. Unlike many other government agencies, the tribunal did not use its full budget. It only used $1.12 million.

This is not an issue of a grand haven for patronage appointments. It is not a tribunal that will expand to a size that Canadians should be concerned about. It is a housekeeping issue of changing the parameters of how the tribunal operates to include other modes of transportation outside aviation.

I urge individuals who have concerns about where the tribunal is going, its makeup or its mandate, to contact a transportation critic member or a member of the transportation committee to raise their concerns because it has not been a topic of high interest to people in the transportation industries or to members of the transport committee. To date we have not heard from anybody with concerns.

The coalition will be supporting this housekeeping legislation. We are concerned that this has been considered a priority of the government and has been put on the House agenda before other very important transportation issues. We urge the government to move quickly on the transportation concerns that have been identified as a result of the tragic events of September 11.

The U.S. congress passed legislation for airlines just 10 days after the terrorist attacks. The American senate is holding hearings about its concerns regarding the Canada-U.S. border.

While the U.S. congress is talking about the important issues confronting its country and the world, we are talking about housekeeping changes that could have been done any time in the last nine years.

The coalition's concern is that the greatest failing of the government is not what is in the bill but that the bill is what it feels is its priority on transportation issues.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since I first stood in the House two weeks ago today to ask the Minister of Transport about the problems facing Canada's airlines, a number of things have happened.

In answering my question, the minister said that neither the Bush administration nor the American congress had decided on any measure to help the U.S. airline industry. Yet two days later both the U.S. house of representatives and the senate passed identical legislation to assist the American airline industry. The president signed the legislation into law the following day.

Contrast that with the response of the government which only yesterday announced its compensation package to Canada's airlines for the direct losses they incurred as a result of the closure of Canada's airspace. It took the government an additional week and a half to address the obvious, which is that Canada should compensate the airlines for these losses. That was a no-brainer. Canadians support that. There was overwhelming support from every party in the House for that concept.

However the American legislation went further than direct compensation. It was also designed to offset the loss of passenger revenue between September 11 and December 21, 2001. Whether one agrees with that kind of an action or not, the result is that American air carriers flying transborder routes in direct competition with Canadian airlines will be subsidized while the Canadian air carriers that compete with American air carriers will not. What does the government do about that discrepancy? Nothing.

With regard to security, the Americans have again acted quickly. The U.S. government has taken control of airport security. It has reintroduced the use of air marshals and has developed tough new policies. What has the Government of Canada done? It told Canadian pilots to lock the cockpit door and keep it closed. That is just one more example of the government reacting with too little too late.

While I agree that we cannot always compare ourselves to the Americans, in this instance we cannot afford not to reach a certain level of security or to be any less diligent in providing security for Canadian travellers or any travellers on Canadian airlines.

What does the government do now? I will agree that there are no easy fixes. It will not be easy for the government to resolve the issues that are before the airline industry.

For one thing, not all the airlines in Canada are in the same shape. It is well documented. When the market closed today, Air Canada's shares were listed at $2.48, down from a 12 month high of $17.50 last November and a pre-September 11 value of $6. WestJet's shares, on the other hand, at today's close, were at $19, down from its 12 month high but up from its pre-September 11 value of $17.

It is quite clear that not all Canadian airlines are in the same shape. The only way the government can help Air Canada to resolve its problems is to eliminate the 15% limit on domestic ownership of Air Canada's shares.

Is the government prepared to eliminate the 15% ownership restriction and allow the private sector to save Air Canada?

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I will begin by complimenting the minister on his attending and giving us an opportunity to share with him some of our thoughts on where the government should be going with regard to the crisis in which the airline industry finds itself.

There is no question that the world of aviation changed on September 11 but not all the problems that are being faced, particularly by Air Canada, began September 11.

Some of the problems, quite frankly, are decisions that the government made in responding to the last crisis in the airline industry. I think Canadians would agree, some more so than others, that there is a financial responsibility that the Government of Canada has in regard to the airline industry.

It is quite clear that Canadians accept the fact that the Canadian government should be responsible for the direct costs that Canada's airlines have incurred since September 11. There might be different ways of dealing with that direct cost. It could be money up front and then, after audited statements, additional support given months down the road. It could also be credit assurances or whatever. Canadians will accept the fact that the direct costs incurred should be covered.

Many of my colleagues this evening have spoken about the security issues. I think Canadians want the federal government to take back control of security at all airports in Canada.

There are only three countries in the world that the government does not control airport security: Canada, the United States and Bermuda. Canadians want the security of knowing that it is the Canadian government that is looking after the security at airports and making sure that the security agents are well trained and paid well so they do not end up rotating because of cheap labour.

I think Canadians are comfortable with that but what September 11 showed us is that it is not just airline pilots that have to be concerned. Those airplanes were used as a tool of destruction. Many innocent people who merely went to work in an office building ended up losing their lives. So it is not just airline passengers for whom security is required.

I think Canadians would also acknowledge that the government has a role to play in insuring airports and airlines for terrorist activities if that insurance cannot be found at a reasonable cost in the private sector. I believe Canadians would be comfortable with the government making sure that airlines and airports are properly insured for events such as the one that occurred.

Where we get into greater concern is when we start talking about the loss of revenue that airline companies may be looking forward to or not looking forward to. This is more of a controversial subject.

Air Canada has made its claims based strictly on the numbers used in the American legislation. The American legislation does permit subsidizing the loss of business but it is very specific. It is for a period of time from September 11 to December 31. It is not for the ongoing loss of revenue for days, months or years ahead. The response from government has to keep that in mind.

The question we must ask is whether Canada is obligated to follow the U.S. numbers. We certainly do not in the agricultural industry. We do not subsidize our agricultural industry to the degree that the Americans subsidize their agricultural industry. One has to question the premise that because the U.S. government is subsidizing to this tune that Canada must do the same.

If Air Canada is competing with an American airline for a flight from say Toronto to New York and the American airline is being subsidized for that flight, would it be fair that Air Canada or the other Canadian airline is not subsidized? There is an argument that there is some support that would be required. The question is how we give that support. If it is given through insurance, through direct costs, through taking away the security measures and other things, then there are ways of helping the airlines to compete.

I certainly think that Air Canada and all officials who are concerned about this issue must have the right to appear before the transport committee to give their case so that all the evidence and all the information is done in a public way. If decisions are being made and having to be supported by the Canadian people then they have the right to have exposure to the information that is being laid on the table.

If the government does decide to subsidize--and I am not convinced that is the decision it should come to other than the direct costs and other measures that I have put on the table--conditions need to be placed on the table at the same time. The unions have to agree to waive the no layoff provision. Every airline company around the world is dealing with restructuring. It is not right that a Canadian airline feels it does not have to deal with that whole restructuring as well.

I sympathize with all the employees. I would wager that there is not any other constituency in the House that has as many airline employees as my constituency. A lot of people will be directly affected by any kind of layoffs. However I have to ask the government how it could possibly pick out one industry and protect that one industry from layoffs when it would have to consider the trucking industry, automotive industry and every other industry that has been or would be affected by the events of September 11.

Fourteen thousand British Columbians have been laid off from their jobs because of the duties placed on softwood lumber. Communities have been devastated because of these layoffs. Do these 14,000 British Columbians not deserve the same consideration that the government might be giving to the airline workers?

The other concern I have, which I have raised before, is how the government could subsidize an air carrier that is in direct competition with another existing air carrier in Canada. That would be subsidizing one business to provide competition to another. It is very hard to find any rationale to support that. I do not see any indication on the part of Air Canada to change its direction on that issue.

Limitations would have to be placed on compensating high income employees or officers of the company if the government decided to subsidize the company. The government would need to examine the recent stock market dealings of major Air Canada shareholders, including its largest shareholder, Caisse de Dépot et Placement which apparently made a large profit for selling short on Air Canada stocks. In other words, profiting from the decline of Air Canada stocks.

In looking at the comparison between Air Canada's quoted market value and WestJet's quoted market value, I cannot understand how the major airline in Canada, the flagship in Canada with almost a monopoly on a lot of air travel, is worth one-third of what a small, low cost carrier can be. The management issues there have to be questioned if the government is planning on any kind of subsidization.

I mentioned earlier that not all of Air Canada's problems relate to September 11. From a high of $17.50 in November 2000, Air Canada shares had dropped to $6 before September 11. After September 11 they dropped an additional $2.50, just a small portion of that initial $11.50 drop.

Air Canada's current market valuation is $270 million. I would suggest to the government that puts Air Canada in a position where the private sector could very easily manage to adjust the management of the company. The private sector is in a position where it could come in and take over the company and do a restructuring.

When we contrast that with WestJet, we really have to wonder if that is not what needs to happen here.

In conclusion, the federal government should not take an equity position in Air Canada, but rather should eliminate the restrictions on private, domestic ownership to allow more capital into the company. The private sector solution is the best solution and it is available.

I am a little concerned that we should not even be having this debate. Had we allowed the private sector more ability without that limitation, perhaps it would have looked after itself over the years. However that was a decision that was made a couple of years ago and now we need to make sure that we do not make another decision that prevents Air Canada and all Canadian airlines from being viable, well run airlines that compete and are solvent companies that give good, solid, long term employment to their employees whom they treat fairly. I think that can happen with private sector involvement. I would urge the government not to get involved in any kind of equity share in Air Canada.

[Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government rejected my recommendation of eliminating all restrictions on domestic ownership of Air Canada. Instead, it only raised the limit from 10% to 15%. We now have Air Canada seeking billions of taxpayer dollars. Canadian investors are interested in acquiring Air Canada if the 15% limit of domestic ownership is eliminated.

Has the government considered eliminating the 15% limit on domestic ownership and saving the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars?

[Airline Industry, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is widespread support to compensate Canada's airlines for their direct losses stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks. However, Air Canada is also seeking government assistance to offset its anticipated decline in passenger revenue which would allow it to proceed with the creation of a new discount carrier.

Will the minister assure the employees, the shareholders and the loyal passengers of WestJet Airlines that their tax dollars will not be used to allow Air Canada to create a government subsidized low cost carrier?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today the transport minister was asked about box cutters found on a flight out of Pearson airport. His only response was to admonish the member for asking such a question.

After question period yesterday I spoke to an Air Canada employee who was outraged at the minister's flippant response.

It was confirmed that the box cutters were indeed found on an aborted Air Canada flight destined for New York on September 11. How is it that the American government can be open and honest with its citizens while this government hides behind a cloak of denial?

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks this evening.

I want to start by saying that I hope it is not too late for the Prime Minister to change the message that he has probably already decided that he will take to President Bush because, quite frankly, I feel that we are and have let down our greatest friends.

Somebody mentioned earlier this evening that in the president's address he did not even mention Canada as one of the countries that he considers to be a friend that stands up beside him. He used Great Britain on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean as his example of a great friend standing beside the United States. Quite frankly, I am embarrassed that has come to pass.

The message the Prime Minister must take to President Bush when he visits is that we are as committed to eradicating terrorism as is the United States of America. If people in the House honestly think that terrorism will disappear without a strong commitment, a strong, forceful action and the resolve to follow it through, they are daydreaming.

Terrorism has been with us for many years. It has gotten worse, not better, through negotiations and peaceful dialogue. Unless it is attacked with some force and some commitment it will continue to grow and permeate our society. The Prime Minister has to take to President Bush the strong commitment to go along the road to eradicate terrorism.

We have heard this weak resolve for perimeter security provisions, this weak resolve from the government to make any kind of commitment to work with the United States of America to protect the North American continent. This weak resolve, this lack of commitment will cost Canadians down the road because the Americans will shut us out. They will build a stronger and taller wall on the 49th parallel and Canada will be on the other side. Why? Because we have a government that thinks it can sit on the fence. We have a government that thinks it can play both sides against the middle. It cannot.

Canada has to decide whether to be in the game or to be left out of the game. It will be a decision that will impact upon the generations to come in our country. If the Americans cannot count on their neighbours to the north to be there every step of the way alongside them instead of trailing along behind, then they will move ahead without us.

I want to describe to the House my constituency. It lies on the 49th parallel. There is a big, wide arch that straddles the border. Canadians and Americans meet there several times a year. We meet January 1 to toast the new year. We meet on either July 1 or July 4 to remember the days when our countries came into being and to share the experience of free societies, of democratic countries. We share in that. On one side of the arch it says “Children of a common mother”, and on the other side it says “Brethren dwelling together in unity”. What that symbolizes is that we are more than neighbours and more than friends. We are a family, and it is time we started acting like a member of that family.

Being part of a family is unconditional. It is being there supporting the family when the times are good and when the times are bad. When family runs into trouble, we do not turn and walk in the other direction. We do not say that we are going out to the backyard for a smoke to decide which way we will support our family. That is the feeling I get from our government in the debate that we are having tonight, which is not even a debate.

I am insulted, quite frankly, that the executive branch of our government has not shown enough concern and taken more serious the event that happened in the United States, the effect it has had worldwide and the effect it has had on our country, that parliament would be excluded and we would have a committee of the whole to debate the issue in the wee hours of the night.

I find it insulting that we were not faced with a strong, open debate immediately following the event instead of almost a week later. I am horrified that Canada is showing such weak resolve in supporting our family south of the border.

The message I would like the Prime Minister to take is that Canada is family and that Canada will be there supporting the United States in every move it makes. I even think an apology is in order for the fact that we have allowed our defence and our national security organizations to be in such disorder and disarray that they do not have the ability to help out in any meaningful way.

We should just be grateful that this event did not happen on Canadian soil. Where would we be going for support if it had happened here in Canada? We can only hope that they would have been a little more gracious in coming alongside and supporting us immediately instead of wavering and taking their time in trying to decide in what manner they were going to help and to what degree.

I would like the Prime Minister to go to Washington, to President Bush and give him our wholehearted commitment without any conditions.

[Airline Industry, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks on the United States, the airline industry around the world has been devastated. Any new security arrangements are going to carry a cost. Is the government considering compensating the airline industry for its direct losses and costs as a result of last Tuesday's events?

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yes to the motion.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

“Senate or of the House of Commons who has been elected by (other”