James Moore

[Airline Industry, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Natural Resources and as the senior minister from Saskatchewan.

As Saskatchewan's only member of the federal cabinet I am wondering what steps he is taking to ensure that WestJet, which provides the only jet competitor to Air Canada, does not suffer the same fate as Canada 3000. What steps is he taking at the cabinet table to ensure that WestJet does not die and that air competition does not die in his province for which he is responsible?

[Airline Industry, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is therefore clear. He will let Air Canada use the $100 million to drive WestJet out of business.

The minister should have put into law a mandate against using the $100 million to destroy Canada 3000.

I know the transport minister clearly does not care about the death of airline competition in Toronto. Canada 3000 is dead. Maybe the Prime Minister does not care about the death of air competition in Montreal with the death of Canada 3000. However the official opposition and in fact the House should care about the death of WestJet in western Canada because it will kill air competition in the entire country.

What will the transport minister do to prevent the death of WestJet and the creation of an absolute monopoly with Air Canada?

[Airline Industry, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not interested in corporate welfare that destroys competition in Canada's air industry.

The transport minister gave $100 million to Air Canada for its out of pocket costs for the September 11 shutdown without the caveat that it could not use the $100 million to launch Air Canada Tango. Air Canada Tango pushed Canada 3000 out of business.

Will the transport minister now send a clear message to Air Canada that if it uses that $100 million to launch another discount carrier to destroy WestJet in western Canada that he will repeal the $100 million?

[Privilege, November 22nd, 2001]

That is not the Globe and Mail story.

[Privilege, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are in fact two stories. There is one story on the front page of the Globe and Mail above the fold written by Campbell Clark and Steven Chase and another article in the National Post written by Ian Jack, both of which quote government sources.

[Privilege, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-42, a bill that was tabled earlier today and debated during question period.

Like Bill C-36, Bill C-42 was drafted to address the security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. Once again the security of the very bills designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached. The government indicated that the bill was not ready to be tabled in the House yesterday, yet its contents were leaked to the media.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark which reports “the legislation will include stopgap immigration enforcement measures similar to ones contained in immigration Bill C-11, that will not be in effect until late spring 2002, government sources said”. The article goes on with details of the bill, quoting government sources.

This is also within the context of the fact that yesterday in question period we asked substantive questions of the government about the contents of the security bill. The government said it could not answer the questions and that it was going to be tabled tomorrow. At the same time that it was not answering our questions, it was answering questions from the Globe and Mail on the phone to meet its four o'clock deadline.

As with the cases of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36, the media received an extensive briefing before members were and before the bill was tabled. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and her department were held in contempt of the House for leaking the contents of Bill C-15. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently looking into the leak of Bill C-36. The deputy clerk of the privy council appeared before the committee this morning and reported on his investigation into the Bill C-36 case.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-15 you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

Not the Globe and Mail , the House.

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to the media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation...was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

The committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to state:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

Finally, the committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem, in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way.... The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

Despite this warning, the government proceeded to leak the contents of Bill C-36 and yesterday it leaked the contents of Bill C-42.

On the privy council website it describes ministerial responsibility as:

Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the constitution.... This responsibility is honed by the ever present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer loss of prestige weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public enquiry possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.

We have already embarrassed the government with the Bill C-36 and Bill C-15 cases.

We have had a public inquiry through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had a minister censured and charged with contempt. The only thing left to do is to call for the minister's resignation.

It is time for action, not more studies and not more warnings. The minister should take responsibility for this action. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to that effect.

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if Canadians already have the list of regulations and requirements that I listed, the country will be really surprised to know that we have a comprehensive air marshals program in this country. We do not. The United States does. It has had it since 1968.

It is interesting to note, about three weeks ago the president of the United States asked if the transport minister would put air marshals on routes into Washington, D.C.'s Reagan airport and he said sure. Then over 80% of Canadians said that they want air marshals and he said no. Who is his master? Is he writing legislation for the president of the United States or is he writing it for Canadians?

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker--

[Airline Security, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if we had the best security in the world, we would not need this legislation.

The United States introduced eight weeks ago comprehensive security for airlines. In eight weeks it introduced, debated, amended and finally signed into law this past Tuesday comprehensive airline security legislation.

It took the government 11 weeks just to introduce this weak, bare bones, wimpy legislation that does next to nothing for airport security. Why did it take the government and the transport minister so long to deliver to Canadians so little?

[Public Safety, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that the transport minister is ready and willing to accept constructive criticism because he will receive a great deal of it.

In the United States, Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina introduced back in September comprehensive airport and air security legislation. Inside of eight weeks that legislation was introduced in the senate, passed through the house of representatives, passed the United States senate, was signed by President Bush on Tuesday of this week and is now law in the United States.

It has been over 10 weeks since the terrorist attacks and this government is just now tabling airport security legislation in the House. The actual launch, frankly, was done rather poorly. The legislation will be noted more for what it does not have in it than what it does have. If we look at a comparison of what the Americans did relative to what the Canadian government has now proposed, it is astonishing how weak and hollow the legislation is.

The American legislation is broken down into four categories: security on flight decks; air marshals; airport security; and other provisions that are a hodgepodge of a whole bunch of regulatory changes that it thought to put in place. It should be noted that almost none of the changes that took place in the United States, which were done on a bipartisan basis and which were widely and well received by the air security industry on this continent, find themselves anywhere in this legislation.

The Americans have strengthened cockpit doors and prohibited access. The government has regulated but not mandated that. The Americans have allowed less than lethal weapons to be available to flight crews, but that is nowhere in this legislation. They have created the opportunity so that pilots may carry firearms. While the government may not support that, that provision is in law so that down the road, should things continue to escalate in the war on terrorism, it is prepared for that.

In the United States, qualified persons may help in the case of a crisis on a plane. It has given them the legal authority to do so. We do not have that power. It is not in this legislation. The United States has allowed for specific training for flight and cabin crews to deal with hijackers. It is not in this legislation.

The U.S. is putting air marshals on all high risk flights. That is not seen anywhere in this legislation. The government continues to drag its feet on the issue of air marshals even though more than 80% of Canadians support the idea. It has created a provision to expand the air marshal program to fly on more flights. Again, it is not in this legislation.

With regard to airport security, all passengers, property, baggage, mail and cargo will now be screened in the United States. That provision is not in this legislation. All persons with access to aircraft, including foreign aircraft, must get security clearance unless they already have one. That is in the American legislation but not in this legislation.

The Americans have penalties for interfering with airport security screeners but it is not in this legislation. They have an aviation security co-ordination council that co-ordinates intelligence, security and criminal enforcement activities. That is now a law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.

The Americans have computer assisted passenger pre-screening system calls CAPPS, a comprehensive databank to allow for the screening of passengers and people who are potential threats, which is to say profiling of people who have been engaged in criminal activity in Canada and other countries. That is now law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.

Also now in law in the United States is that foreigners cannot learn to fly jets unless background checks are done first. That is not in Canada's legislation. Foreigners cannot buy, lease or charter an aircraft unless the background check is done. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation.

The federal government is obliged to test security and evaluate new and emerging technologies. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's legislation. The United States also has a computer reservation system that has now secured new regulations to protect the software from any kind of hacking. That is law in the United States but is not in Canada's regulation.

The United States has comprehensive legislation which is very well thought out. When people travel to the United States now, as the transport minister and Canadians know, it is visible and obvious to the naked eye that comprehensive security measures have been taken at airports. As such, the ancillary benefit is that there is a boost in consumer confidence in the United States. It made a clear note to pass the legislation before today, which is the American Thanksgiving, so that people would have the confidence to fly.

We are approaching the Christmas season but this legislation will not be passed until well into 2002. That is not leadership on behalf of the transport minister. We need real measures.

This morning we had a briefing. It should be noted specifically in the legislation that a lot of the powers outlined by the transport minister are interim measures. The legislation is riddled with words like the minister may administer this, the minister may provide this and the minister may restrict this. These are not real powers given to the minister. These are not real new legislative tools that would implemented.

“The government has responded quickly” was the quote the transport minister used. The fact is that over 10 weeks after the incident happened, we are just now getting legislation, legislation that is wimpy and legislation that will not encourage Canadians to fly more. These measures are half measures.

The government has failed to respond quickly. It has failed to act decisively. The legislation will go to the transport committee. I am looking forward to participating at committee to make sure there are real provisions for airport security, that we have comprehensive tools that are real, visible and permanently entrenched facets of airport security and that they are then put in power so Canadians will have confidence to fly again.

If the legislation passes as is, it will be seen for what it is; a wimpy piece of legislation that fails to do what Canadians want, which is to have the best security regime possible in this country.