Bill Casey

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I did not submit a question to the hon. parliamentary secretary for him to answer. This question relates to NavCan. It relates to the cutbacks. It relates to aircraft safety. I really would ask that the parliamentary secretary answer the question.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It relates to airport safety as related to the divestiture processes going on across the country with cutbacks to NavCan and to other aspects of airport facilities.

Today the minister announced an independent review of firefighting issues. We are very pleased to hear that this review will take place, especially in consideration of the events that have taken place in Fredericton, Quebec, Sydney and Manitoba lately.

My main concern today is the divestiture of the Halifax International Airport and whether it will be equipped with adequate firefighting facilities after the divestiture. I believe I have reason to be concerned because other areas of Halifax International Airport have been left with substandard operational facilities.

I would like to compare Halifax with a couple of other airports around the country that have exactly the same airport volume of traffic, that is about 2.7 million passengers a year.

Halifax has clearly been shortchanged because it has only 44% of the hold room space that an equivalent volume airport like Ottawa has. Halifax has 69% less in baggage space and capacity than the airport at Winnipeg. Halifax has 50% less out baggage space than the airport at Ottawa. Halifax has 69% less check in space than the airport at Ottawa. Again, these are all equivalent capacity airports.

The overall worst statistic that really is kind of discomforting is the fact that Halifax handles 750,000 more passengers than its rated capacity. That fact alone raises safety questions that I think should be addressed.

However, on November 18, the Minister of Transport unequivocally guaranteed me in the House that Halifax would be treated the same way as all other equivalent airports in these negotiations. I ask today whether the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, will confirm that this commitment would not only address the issues I have listed but would also ensure that equivalent safety facilities to those of other airports with the same capacity such as Ottawa and Winnipeg are available for Halifax International Airport.

[Highways, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer and the minister's concern that he knows that something is wrong. By allowing the $32 million to stay in the deal just reduces the capital cost to Doug Young's company, Maritime Road Development Corporation. It makes it even worse. We know this is wrong. He knows it is wrong. The people know it is wrong. The minister has the power to stop this ongoing multimillion dollar highway robbery. Will he act now and cancel this deal?

[Highways, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

In September 1995 Doug Young as Minister of Transport signed a government cheque for $25 million to pay for the cost of a highway from Moncton to River Glade. Now Doug Young has switched sides and runs a company that will be charging tolls on the very same stretch of highway. The minister has stated in the media that he is upset with this and he has instructed his deputy minister to make sure it does not happen again. If it will be wrong in the future, it is wrong now. Will the minister act now to stop this deal?

[Nav Canada, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that NavCan said it justifies an air traffic control tower but it did not have the staff.

Regarding the crash last night at Little Grand Rapids, we understand the pilot depended on private weather observers. Obviously the crash last night was weather related.

Could the minister tell us what these private weather observers have for qualifications and standards and did they meet those standards at Little Grand Rapids?

[Nav Canada, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Transport about a reported shortage of air traffic controllers in NavCan's operation. Since then we all know of two tragic accidents.

One was in Mascouche, Quebec where only 24 months ago NavCan closed a temporary air traffic control tower, giving as the reason a shortage of staff.

Considering this very dangerous and critical situation, will the minister move today to instruct NavCan to restore that air traffic control tower at Mascouche, Quebec.

[Division No. 64, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-17. I feel like I am in a time warp. Perhaps it is deja vu all over again, only backwards. I remember sitting here years ago when the government members formed the opposition. They opposed measures like this. Now that they are in government they are supporting them.

Many of these measures were originally proposed and instigated by the Progressive Conservative government 10 years ago. At that time Liberals were vehemently opposed to them. The Teleglobe divestiture bill was introduced in March 1987 and the Liberals voted against it. They said it was an awful thing, it would hurt Canada, it was bad for Canada, we cannot have free trade of this sort of thing.

In December 1991 a bill was introduced to privatize Telesat Canada. Again the Liberals voted against it. They said it was a terrible thing, we need all this protection.

The telecommunications bill was introduced in 1993 and again the Liberals opposed it.

All the aspects of the bill we are debating today enhance and endorse the proposals we made in 1987, 1991 and 1993. They go even further than we went. It is another example of a flip-flop, a change of direction on behalf of the Liberals who opposed the GST so strongly and then all of a sudden adopted it as their own. They love it. They want it. They have tried to expand it and they have tried to foist it on the provinces.

We all know the Liberals stood in the House hour after hour, night after night, pounding the table against free trade. Now they have enhanced, endorsed and expanded it. They want to expand it even further.

The next thing we will see happen, I predict, is the EH-101 helicopter position which we adopted. We ordered the helicopters and the Liberals cancelled them. It will be really interesting to see what decision they come up with. Certainly the search and rescue people and the people in our military want the EH-101 helicopters. That was a decision made by us and changed by the Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the Liberals again follow the Conservative lead. They have certainly established a consistent pattern of following that lead. They can say what they like, but actions speak louder than words, and their actions truly say we endorse Conservative policies and love them and think they are great.

I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-17. From the outset I would like to say that because it was our idea in the first place and because we support the general thrust of it and the fact that it makes the business much more competitive and viable, we are going to support the bill. The Conservative Party will be voting in favour of it.

Bill C-17 implements many of the commitments made by Canada under the agreement on basic telecommunications to the general agreement on trade and services, which again is a form of free trade that was opposed by the Liberals when in opposition. When we are back there in a few more years we will probably be doing the same thing again.

This agreement was negotiated among 68 nations. It liberalizes international trade in basic telecommunications. It enhances freer trade in the telecommunications sector and it opens opportunities for Canadian businesses. It makes it more competitive which will bring down the price for consumers. Everyone wins with this bill.

Under the terms of the agreement, Canada is committed to end the carrier monopolies and to remove certain restrictions on foreign ownership. In return, the other signatory countries will open up their markets to us. Our companies, which have proven to be very competitive in this field, will be able to compete in other countries which they are now locked out of.

Obviously this is good for Canada. That is why Progressive Conservatives support the bill.

There were a few concerns which we had. Fortunately the Minister of Industry made some amendments after hearing testimony from the users and the people in the industry. Appropriate amendments were made, and we even supported them.

The first amendment which we were really concerned with dealt with licensing only for international carriers. Bill C-17 originally proposed licensing for all carriers.

However, the committee had many witnesses argue that this is an additional and unnecessary burden placed on a national industry which was already functioning well without it and contradicts the whole bill. We believe this will continue to be the case even under the terms of this new bill and, therefore, licensing for national carriers would be unnecessary.

The second major amendment put forward deals with clause 46.1(b) where the governor in council may prescribe changes in any area that is related to the provision of telecommunication services by Canadian carriers. Witnesses again came before the committee and argued that this would provide the commission with powers well beyond the intent of the legislation and far beyond what they needed.

The amendment now in place deletes that clause altogether and it proposes a more specific description of the powers of the commission to be placed in the preamble to limit their power and leave the decision making up to the users and the people affected.

These major amendments were primarily industry driven and we support them. We believe they offer a greater degree of freedom for the industry to compete and there is now much less regulatory burden than originally proposed, while maintaining adequate protection for consumers.

We have also believed this industry would thrive under a framework we established when we were the Progressive Conservative government and authorized the Telecommunications Act and privatized Telesat and Teleglobe in the first place. The proof today is in the success we have witnessed in this growth industry. Certainly Canada is one of the major leaders in the whole world in this sector and has been able to access these markets and foreign markets through these approaches. Our industry has already taken on the telecommunications world.

We are confident they will succeed and consumers will benefit from the competitive pricing in both national and international services.

When the Minister of Industry spoke on this bill during second reading on November 4, 1997 he said “The purpose of Bill C-17 is to pursue the liberalization of Canadian telecommunications which started more than 10 years ago and has already benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies”. That was really nice praise from the Liberal Minister of Industry for the Progressive Conservatives who initiated this whole process in the first place. Certainly it is encouraging for us to see the Liberal government adopt and proceed with them and even take them further than we did.

That ends my remarks. We will be supporting this bill. We approve of it in principle and we approve of it in particular.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and discuss a couple of the amendments in this debate that really are of concern to us as Progressive Conservatives. I will speak later at length on the bill but I want to address the two amendments in particular that we are concerned about. The first one was addressed by the previous speaker. We share the same concerns about power given to the CRTC and other regulatory bodies and also to the governor in council.

Our concern about the first amendment we were to deal with was the proposed licensing for all carriers. The committee heard many witnesses who argued that this was an additional and unnecessary burden placed on the national industry which was already functioning well without it. Again, more burden, more paperwork, and it contradicts the whole purpose of the bill which is to privatize, commercialize and decentralize.

We will now move on to the second amendment about the governor in council which in the original bill was allowed to prescribe changes in any area as it relates to the provision of telecommunication services—

[Canada Marine Act, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Is there anyone else who wants to interrupt me? I do not want to miss anybody.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on and I will be brief. Our main concern with this whole bill is the fact that regional ports were not allowed to make presentations at committee. They are going to be the ones that are most impacted by these decisions and most of them have no idea of what is going to happen. I hope that we, as members, will help them through this process.

It is going to have a profound effect on many of these ports. I mentioned Shelburne. The hon. parliamentary secretary has agreed to meet with me and officials from Shelburne and also the member for South Shore to discuss Shelburne and to make sure they can take advantage of any programs available through that transition. I make that offer to any port, any community that will be impacted by this legislation to contact us and we will help them with it.

Several problems we see with the bill have been mentioned by previous speakers. One is that ports police have been eliminated. It is not so much that they have been eliminated but there has been no strategic plan to replace them and no strategic plan to look after the people who are involved. Again, these are people.

My colleague from Saint John who spoke very eloquently on this issue on behalf of the ports police and defended their position is not here today. I would like to recognize her efforts on that because she is an untiring spokesperson for people who have a problem no matter what it is. The ports police were going through a tough time and she did everything she could to help.

On the piloting regulations, it is, as I heard other speaker say earlier, a closed shop. There is not competition. It is very tightly controlled. It completely contradicts the rest of the bill which is to make the process more efficient, more commercialized, free it up, local decisions, but still the pilotage problem exists. It is a very closed shop and there is no competition.

Another issue is superannuation for the employees who are affected. Under these legislation we put an amendment forth, as other members did, asking for superannuation to be extended to employees who lost their jobs and who had always had superannuation benefits.

The government made a commitment to provide that extension in some kind of bridge process. However, when the amendment was presented, it was only for the viable ports people who were going to Canada ports authorities. Again, the regional ports people have no superannuation benefits. We will still be pushing for that and hope the hon. members, the hon. minister and parliamentary secretary will help us with that.

Another amendment we had put in was to put the port of Hamilton back on the same playing field with every other port in Canada. Although our amendment was retracted, another amendment came right back in again from the government side and addressed the issue.

For the third time I say that our biggest concern is the impact on regional ports which by definition are not viable. The government has said, “These ports are not viable any more, therefore we do not want to have anything to do with them any more. We will turn them over to the user groups. We will turn them over to the municipalities or to the provinces”. It will have a big impact on small ports.

In closing, we are going to support the Canada Marine Act. I am pleased to do so.

I would like to compliment the staff of Transport Canada who have done a fantastic job in negotiating the agreements that have already been negotiated with the ports. I am truly awed by their ability. They have made profound changes in communities. They have been able to work with communities, work with the governments and the local people and have done a great job at having transferred these over.

Our part as a Conservative caucus will be to help those regional ports change. Of those ports that I contacted, some knew nothing about this legislation. They knew nothing about what was happening to them. Some misunderstood the process completely. Some had it in reverse. Some were resigned to the change, but did not know they could access assistance programs from the government to help them over.

On behalf of the Conservative Party members I would like to extend an invitation to any port that has a problem, that does not understand the process, that does not understand the details or how to access programs, to contact us. We will be glad to help them through the system.

[Canada Marine Act, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the process of going through the Canada marine act and the changes which will come about as a result of Bill C-9 has been very interesting. I have really enjoyed it. It was a little short for me because in the last Parliament the same bill was studied for three years. Our deliberations lasted only a few weeks. I am sorry it was only a few weeks because we did not have the chance to hear all the people we would have liked to hear. Nevertheless it was an interesting process. It was very refreshing for me.

We are going to support the bill in principle although, like all bills, it is not perfect.

There are four major parts of the bill. First, it designates all ports into one of three categories. Second, it addresses new management for the St. Lawrence Seaway, which will have a huge impact. Third, it will change piloting. There are minimal changes to piloting, but not nearly enough. Fourth, it will eliminate port police.

With respect to port designations, all ports in Canada will have one of three designations. One of the designations will be for viable ports. These are the ports which make a profit. They can stand on their own two feet and are able to survive. They are put into one category.

Then there are regional ports. They are not viable, by definition. They are to be divested by the federal government and turned over to user groups, the province, municipalities or whomever. It is a very interesting approach because there is no formula for this category. They will all be negotiated separately.

The third designation is for remote ports, for which the federal government maintains responsibility.

Our biggest concern with the bill is the designation of regional ports. They will face an awful lot of problems. Examples of these ports are Pugwash, Parrsboro, and Shelburne in Nova Scotia.

Shelburne, for instance, suffered through the collapse of the fishery. Its people are making extremely effective efforts to replace the fishery to make their port viable. When I called the mayor of Shelburne, Mayor Comeau, he was in Massachusetts trying to arrange for a ferry between Massachusetts and Shelburne.

They have also arranged to bring cruise lines to Shelburne. They have come up with a lot of different commercial uses for the port. However, it is not enough to make the port viable.

They are going to need some help through this change from the present structure where they are owned by the federal government to being a regional port.

When I went to see the mayor of Parrsboro to see how the changes were going to affect his port, he did not know anything about the changes. He did not even know that there was a process. He had never even heard of the Canada marine act. They are going to be faced with a lot of decisions and I am going to help them through those decision as much as I can.

Pugwash is another port in my riding. It is going through the process right now.

As helpful as Department of Transport people are, the ports, the communities and the people involved do not understand the process. I hope that the government will take the time as this process unfolds and impacts on communities, that it will take the time to help people and help the communities establish the proper set-up. A wrong decision now could cause huge grief in the future. There are funds—