Bill Casey

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this has been ongoing now for some months. I really feel fortunate to have been involved with this because it has been an extremely interesting process.

We were thrown into the middle of this airline merger when Canadian Airlines was presented a proposal to be bought out and then merged with another airline. It was an interesting process and we met some incredibly interesting people. We dealt with some complex issues. As a committee we went into the process truly amateurs with very little knowledge about the background of the industry, the participants or the issues. However, we were educated by dozens and dozens of people from corporations and groups who made presentations to our committee. Every presentation was beneficial and taught us something. By the time the committee process was done we actually had a pretty good handle on it. We were able to participate and add something to the debate and to the legislation.

The dynamics of the committee were really interesting in that I do not think I have ever been on a committee where, although there was some partisanship, everybody took a sincere interest in trying to find answers to the problems. The government committee members were just as aggressive as anybody in grilling the witnesses. The chair was certainly aggressive in his treatment of the issue. He knew what he was talking about. He took the time to understand it.

Although the member for Hamilton West is very humble and would be embarrassed to hear me say this, he actually did a good job in running the committee. I do not think we could call him a good friend to anyone on the committee, but he ran the committee hard. He kept it focused, on track and did a good job, which is what the chairman is supposed to do.

I will take a little interpretive licence here. The minister was caught off guard when this whole issue unfolded and evolved before his very eyes. A lot of us were watching to see how he would handle it and to see if he could find a way out of the mess that really was not of his doing. He had limited tools to work with because there are only certain things the government, a minister or the department can do. If the companies at the centre of this issue were not prepared to invest money or make these decisions, and if the shareholders would not back up the decisions, then the minister was limited in what he could do. It was interesting to watch those dynamics.

It was interesting to meet Kevin Benson, Robert Milton and even Gerry Schwartz who came before the committee. They all did a great job considering that their job was to represent their shareholders. Their job was not to represent the public interest. That was our job. I learned a lot from each and every one of them. I will never forget the experience as we went through this process.

We had a puzzle to deal with, at least I found it to be a puzzle. Where does the Canadian Transportation Agency fit? Where does the Transportation Safety Board fit? Where does the Department of Transport fit? Where does the Competition Bureau fit? We had to learn about all these issues and try to fit each one into a slot where they could be effective and produce the desired results. Of course, there were surprises because every day something would change. It was almost like the politics in our party, it changes every day.

[Transportation, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the very first meeting of the council of Atlantic premiers held today, the premiers called for a federal highway funding program.

Last week the minister announced a $175 million program for rural roads in western Canada completely separate from any infrastructure program. Will the minister announce an equal program for Atlantic Canada of $175 million for highways in Atlantic Canada, completely separate from any infrastructure program, as he did for the western provinces?

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these amendments. As I said earlier, this has been a very interesting debate all the way through the several months we have been involved with it. We have seen many changes and a lot of transition. We are seeing transition every day. This is a work in progress.

Our party believes that the flexibility must be left in the system to change direction as things change. We have seen dramatic changes and surprises all the way through the debate, especially since the airline merger itself. Some of us thought that this would put a lot of the problems to bed. Instead it has initiated all kinds of new changes, new challenges, new airlines, new proposals, new entrepreneurs, new routes.

Again, flexibility is very much a part of our position on the bill. It has to be in there for the Department of Transport to make changes as things unfold and as situations change.

On Motion No. 5 to change the Air Canada public participation act, if I remember correctly the committee passed a motion to increase the ownership limit to 20%. Then the government rolled it back to 15%. The NDP motion now is to roll it back even further to 10%. As luck would have it during the debate in committee on the most practical and appropriate percentage, I proposed 15% and the Minister of Transport took my advice and put in 15% exactly what I recommended. He is to be credited with his good judgment and his good consultation powers in consideration of others.

I would be hard-pressed to support the amendment if I had proposed it in the first place. Even though it was defeated at committee, the minister in his wisdom saw fit to bring it back, so I am afraid I have to stick with the 15%.

On the foreign ownership limit of 25% in Motion No. 6, I also agree that the power should be left to the governor in council. Again it is flexibility in the system. The government has the power to change that if at some time in the future it feels it is necessary. It does not have to come back to the legislature. It can be changed after consultation with the industry and as things unfold. This is a work in progress. The government has to have the flexibility to change because we are all getting surprises as this merger takes hold and things evolve.

We are going to support the bill as it was originally put forward. We will not be voting in favour of the amendment.

[Canada Transportation Act, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this subject as we near the end of the great debate about the airline mergers and the changes to the Canada Transportation Act and the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I want to compliment the member for Churchill for her amendments proposed in Group No. 1, which include Motions Nos. 1 through 4. Certainly she has been a very attentive and effective critic and member of our committee.

Having said that, we are going through a really interesting transition as these two airlines come together and we see other airlines either starting up or expanding. Obviously we have a work in progress. Everything we do as a government and all the legislation we pass must be flexible to allow these things to happen. Even we have been surprised, and certainly Air Canada has been surprised I believe, by some of the new proposals that are on the table for regional airlines, discount airlines and expansions. There is a lot of entrepreneurial interest in the aviation industry, which certainly surprised me.

Since the effective merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines we have seen a lot inconvenience to consumers, confusion, overbooking, delays, scheduling problems and all those sorts of things, which I think were a surprised to Air Canada and certainly have been a surprise to consumers.

Although Air Canada is dealing with so many issues, such as scheduling aircraft, union negotiations and slots at airports, I believe that it underestimated the impact on consumers. I believe this is a transitional issue. I believe Air Canada will fix it. I believe the will is there and that Air Canada really understands how serious it is and how big the problem is. Again, I detect the will to fix it and I am confident it will be corrected.

In the future perhaps a dominant carrier would not recognize the effect on consumers, so we need Bill C-26 to protect those consumers from a dominant carrier or monopoly situation that would not address or care about consumers. That is what we are here to talk about today in the amendments put forth by the hon. member for Churchill.

I believe and our party believes that the government's position should be one that encourages competition in every way possible, one that encourages the entrepreneurial instincts which we see are alive and well in the industry. If there is one thing that impressed me throughout the debate and throughout the discussions and the presentations by so many organizations, it was the entrepreneurial instinct in the aviation industry.

There are airlines in Canada that I had never heard of, and I was really impressed with them. I think the government should encourage these new companies. It should encourage new routes and it should encourage new ventures. That should be part of everything it does, to create the infrastructure and the framework to encourage the entrepreneurial instinct to provide competition for the dominant carrier.

In the meantime, we have to provide protection for consumers in a monopoly situation because without competition they are without protection. There is no choice. If people are unhappy with the airline and they are travelling back and forth from Atlantic Canada, if they are unhappy with the flights, with the treatment, with overbookings or delays, there is no place to go. We cannot go to airline B any more. There is no competition. I believe that Air Canada is striving as quickly as it can. I think a big indication of its will to fix the problems is the recent announcement that it will appoint an ombudsman, a proposal which it flatly turned down about two weeks ago. It did not think it was necessary. It did not think there should be an ombudsman. However, it announced last week that it will appoint one.

The minister has put in place a complaints commissioner through the CTA, which was an excellent move. I had proposed an amendment to the bill to bring in an ombudsman. The minister's amendment, as much as I hate to say it, was better than my amendment. It had more teeth in it. I applaud him for it.

Today we are dealing with the amendments put forth by the member for Churchill, which I will summarize briefly.

Motion No. 1 establishes penalties in the event that an airline does an early pullout on a route. It sets the penalties between $25,000 and $50,000 maximum, depending on the circumstances. I see the point and the argument of that but my position and my approach would be to encourage entrepreneurs and competition. I believe this motion does a little more than is necessary. I do not believe the CTA needs these powers. It takes away some flexibility. It sounds like re-regulation. We in this party want to stay away from that as much as we can, while at the same time protect consumers.

Motion No. 2 seems to define the terms of monopoly. It appears to deny a dominant or monopoly carrier the right to defend itself in the designation of the Canada Transportation Agency of a monopoly. I do not think that is right. It should have the right to defend itself or at least express its opinions or concerns about any decision the CTA makes.

Motion No. 3 takes away the time limit provided in the bill to two years, plus an optional extension on that. Again, I do not think we need that. The bill provides enough time and flexibility by the CTA to deal with this issue. I would think that a four year period would give plenty of time to deal with that.

If I understand Motion No. 4 correctly, it defines the thresholds where CTA would act. It kind of ties down the CTA. This is a work in progress that is changing day by day. We see fundamental changes on behalf of the dominant carrier. Air Canada is now changing the rules and adapting as fast as it can to many things.

There is a fundamental change of direction on the ombudsman point of view. Two weeks ago it said that it did not want an ombudsman, that it was unnecessary. Last week it announced that it would have its own ombudsman.

This is a work in progress. I think it is important to leave the flexibility in this for the airlines and for the Canada Transportation Agency and the Department of Transport.

Although there are some motions that we could support, and I can see the arguments back and forth, overall, because of the way they are grouped, we will be voting no on this group of amendments. I do respect the member for all the good work she has done on her amendments here today.

[Natural Gas, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak and I appreciate your help in arranging this time for me.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 298, put forward by the hon. member for Churchill River. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

The motion is extremely important to an area such as my riding in northern Nova Scotia. There are all kinds of small communities like Advocate Harbour, Parrsboro, Tatamagouche, Pugwash and Stewiacke which are not in the mainstream and will not get the benefits of natural gas as pipelines pass through our area. If this initiative were successful, these small communities would have access to natural gas and would be treated equally, which is very important.

The PC Party and I support this motion for a number of reasons. First, if natural gas is supplied to unserviced areas, then it will spur regional economic development, always a challenge in my region. Second, natural gas is considered to be one of the cleanest energy sources widely available for public use.

Increased use of natural gas could help Canada meet its Kyoto targets. In Nova Scotia, we have a very pristine environment. It is very clean. We are very proud of it and we want to maintain that environment.

Canada signed a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2010. However, according to what I have been hearing, many of the industrialized nations of the world are uncertain about their abilities to meet these commitments, and Canada is one of those countries. Those commitments may have been made in good faith, but, by all accounts, Canada is nowhere near its targets. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are now rising in the country.

The dramatic rise in gasoline prices over the past few months has shown consumers that dependence on a single energy source places people in a very vulnerable position, forcing them to either pay the price or forgo the service. Many people do not have any options, however, since they may be dependent on gasoline to travel to work or heat their homes.

There are a number of energy sources available, ranging from fuel oil and diesel fuel to hydro-electricity, coal-fired electricity and various other sources of energy, all of which can be fairly expensive. If another energy source can help reduce costs for industries or consumers, then I would support the initiative to help make that source widely available, which is exactly what we are talking about here today.

On the east coast there are some exciting projects that are developing, supplying natural gas to the area and to the United States, and there may be potential for many further developments. Only a few months ago the Sable offshore energy project, through the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, began supplying natural gas to buyers in the New England states. This pipeline goes through my riding, from one end to the other. A natural gas distribution franchise has now been awarded to Sempra Atlantic Gas and the construction of a natural gas pipeline will allow gas to flow to households in the maritime provinces.

By coincidence, I talked to officials from Sempra Gas this morning about routes for natural gas and the best way to get it to the smaller communities to see if there is some way to address those needs.

The pipeline is expected to service up to 300,000 households and 25,000 industrial, commercial and institutional customers.

There is also potential natural gas development in other parts of Canada, including the far north, Alberta and British Columbia. Recent newspaper articles have discussed the exciting prospect of natural gas development in the Northwest Territories after a 10 year moratorium which shut down operations near the Beaufort Sea.

The prospect of a 1,500 kilometre pipeline to link the Northwest Territories with markets in the United States is again under consideration. Future revenue from the $4 billion project makes that project attractive to the Northwest Territories government, which is willing to provide $100 million of the initial investment. Federal assistance is being sought to provide the additional $230 million needed over a four year period to see the project established.

Like all natural gas projects, the potential for spinoffs to the local economy could be great. Employment, infrastructure, training and other benefits would all be a part of the larger picture that would see the pipeline become a reality.

In my riding last year we experienced those spinoffs and benefits. The pipeline company and workers literally brought millions of dollars to our area and boosted our economy dramatically.

There is an estimated six trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta region and the co-operation of the aboriginal groups in the area who have given their approval for development of these reserves means that oil companies are again exploring options in the area. It will be very interesting to see how this project develops and the economic spinoffs it will provide to the northern region.

It is clear that natural gas delivery to unserviced regions would assist regional economic development and improve the overall economic well-being of Canadian communities. The Progressive Conservative Party supports this motion because of the need to help remote or rural areas develop economically and also assist Canada in working toward meeting its Kyoto targets for lower greenhouse gases.

[National Defence Act, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when Government Orders was interrupted I was talking about the amendments that address the taking of DNA samples in the DNA Identification Act, which contains a list of designated offences which provide that DNA samples may be taken from any individual convicted of any one of those offences that I was talking about for forensic analysis.

The list was divided into two types of offences, primary and secondary. In the case of primary offences, it is mandatory for samples to be taken at the time of conviction, except in exceptional circumstances. These offences consist mainly of the most serious and violent offences, as well as sex offences, which are the offences where DNA evidence may be of the most assistance. The list includes offences such as incest, murder, manslaughter, assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm, sexual assault, et cetera.

For a secondary offence case it is not mandatory to take a sample, so the crown must satisfy the judge that it is in the interests of the public safety to take such a sample. These are less serious offences in which DNA analysis cannot always be used to solve a crime or prevent other crimes. They include such offences as using explosives, breaking and entering with intent, arson, assaulting a peace officer, robbery and hostage taking, among others.

Under Bill S-10 this list, which limits the situations in which DNA samples may be taken, now applies to members of the military who have been convicted of these offences. The amendments made by Bill S-10 do not change the key elements of the DNA Identification Act, but rather their objective is to strengthen certain principles of the act and to remedy some major failings identified by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The provisions of the new act include, first, that the DNA profiles of offenders convicted of a designated offence who are subject to the Code of Service Discipline will now be included in the national DNA data bank. Second, within five years after the act comes into force, a review of the provisions and operation of the act will be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons, or of both Houses of Parliament.

Third, a report on the operations of the data bank will then be submitted each year by the commissioner of the RCMP.

Fourth, there will be a clear statement that DNA profiles and samples of bodily substances taken in order to establish DNA profiles may be used only for the purposes of the administration of the act.

With the implementation of Bill S-10, Bill C-3 will now become more effective, as the two pieces of legislation will work together harmoniously to improve management of the national DNA data bank and ensure a greater respect for Canadians' privacy. The DNA data bank is an extremely powerful tool with important repercussions for our justice system and our society.

The provisions of Bill S-10 will ensure greater respect for the privacy of Canadians by setting very clear guidelines for police and the courts regarding the use of DNA profiles in criminal investigations.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports this bill, as it will help bring our society ever closer to achieving a sense of public safety.

[Grain Transportation, May 12th, 2000]

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

Further to the $175 million announcement for western provinces' rural roads, what provinces qualify for this money? Will they be required to cost share in the money and who will distribute the $175 million?

[Highways, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, he says he wants to help the western provinces adjust to the new economy. The eastern provinces have to as well.

Perhaps he could explain to me the thought processes when he is deciding how to spend the $175 million. There is a highway in Nova Scotia on which 50 people have died in the last six or seven years, mostly young people. We could put the money in that or we could put the money in rural highways in western Canada to help grain transportation. How does the minister make the decision to put grain transportation over saving lives?

[Highways, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister recently announced a $175 million program to address rural roads in western Canada.

Will the minister extend that $175 million program to rural highways in eastern Canada which also suffers from bad highways and has to compete as well as the western provinces?

[National Defence Act, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-10. This is an important bill which amends the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code.

The purpose of the bill is to include in the DNA data bank created in December 1998 the genetic profiles of offenders convicted under the military justice system. At present the DNA Identification Act affects only offenders who are convicted by the civilian court system and not the military. It also makes a number of minor changes to the existing act.

For us it only makes sense that this happen. It brings the military rules more in line with civilian rules and the circumstances with which civilians must deal. It is somewhat in line with the recent court decision which determined that military officers have the right to refuse questionable medication in the same way that civilians do. The military is going to have to treat the DNA process the same way as civilians do and we certainly support that. We support the total merging of the two systems into one.

In recent years the courts have seen high profile convictions, such as that of Paul Bernardo, and eventual acquittals, such as that of Guy Paul Morin, due to the use of DNA evidence. It is but the latest tool for law enforcement to use in the protection of Canadian society.

Bill S-10 allows for a more broad, equal use of the DNA data bank while being careful not to trample on an individual's privacy rights. It is a good piece of legislation brought about by the hard work of the hon. senators. The PC Party would like to commend their efforts by stating that we will be supporting Bill S-10 when it comes to voting time.

The DNA tool is a powerful tool in conducting criminal investigations. It began as a result of the warrant for taking DNA samples, the 1995 criminal code amendment to allow for DNA samples to be taken under a warrant to facilitate the conduct of certain police investigations and identification of suspects. The second stage was Bill C-3, a 1997 bill on DNA identification which set the structure and administration for a national DNA data bank containing the DNA profiles of those convicted of serious criminal offences and of the DNA samples found at the scenes of unsolved crimes.

The data bank should be operational by June 2000 and will be administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which at present administers six forensic laboratories in the country. We can only hope that the federal government will come through with adequate funding for the DNA data bank.

The solicitor general proudly stated recently that public safety would continue to be the Liberals' number one concern as he announced funding of $115 million for the data bank. Sadly, many RCMP experts who will have to use this technology stated they needed $280 million for the data bank to combat crime in the 21st century. Once again the Liberal actions were nowhere near the Liberal rhetoric and law enforcement has been given short shrift.

In 1998 during the Senate meetings dealing with Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act which was to reform the military justice system, the then defence minister and his staff were enlightened to the fact that members of the military who were charged or convicted under the new National Defence Act enforced by the military police would not be subject to the provisions of Bill C-3 because it was enforced by the RCMP. For cases of sex offences involving members of the military, the RCMP would not have the jurisdiction needed to do the job of taking and storing DNA samples. By law it was supposed to do so but in cases of offences only involving the military, it could not.

Along with this apparent problem, a 1998 Senate report concerning the DNA data bank said that such access might affect the privacy of Canadians in an unprecedented and unintentional way. In addition the committee believed that the nature of the information contained in the proposed data bank necessitated the strict monitoring of any process that would allow for the release of this information to governments or agencies outside Canada. The report recommended that the government strengthen the legislation concerning the administration of the DNA data bank and the security of the information in that bank.

To ensure the passage of Bill C-3 the solicitor general committed to draft a new bill which is the bill we are talking about today. The bill would allow for, first, the jurisdiction of the DNA data bank to be extended to offenders convicted in the military justice system.

Second, the commissioner of the RCMP would be required to report on the operation of the DNA data bank as part of his annual report to the minister and then it would be tabled in parliament.

Third, a provision would be included in the new bill for parliamentary review every five years to address the concerns of members of the committee about the highly sensitive nature of the information contained within the data bank and the rapidity of technological change in this field.

Fourth and finally, the Senate and the House of Commons committees would have the same power to do a five year review as provided for in the new bill.

The solicitor general then asked that the bill be introduced in the Senate before being tabled in the House of Commons so that the senators could ensure that all of the points of concern had been properly addressed.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-10 include under the National Defence Act that the DNA profiles of offenders subject to the code of service discipline who are convicted for serious and violent offences will be included in the DNA data bank for the first time. The code would apply to military personnel, the reserves and some civilians who accompany military personnel abroad. As in the case of the existing provisions of the DNA Identification Act, Bill S-10 provides that both samples and the results of analyses must be transmitted to the commissioner of the RCMP and stored in the data bank.

The new bill also provides that the provisions to be included in the National Defence Act concerning authorization for taking DNA samples, the handling and storage of samples, the results of the DNA analyses and the respective privacy will be identical to the provisions set out in Bill C-3.