House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Airline Industry November 9th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canada 3000 has been the only domestic competition and the only domestic alternative to Air Canada in Halifax, St. John's, Montreal and Toronto. Competition in those cities may now be dead. Thousands of jobs have been lost because of failed government policy.
What does the transport minister have to say to countless stranded passengers, thousands of people who are now out of jobs and the death of airline competition in some of Canada's largest cities?
Airline Security November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I think the transport minister is coming dangerously close to setting an indoor record for missing the point. The fact is that airport security in this country is not good enough. There are stories all over the place and on the front page of the Globe and Mail today.
The member for Mississauga South has said that the transport security system is not good enough. Senator Colin Kenny has said it is not good enough.
When will the transport minister table legislation and show leadership on this issue rather than deferring it to his bureaucrats and give Canadians the confidence they need to return to the skies? When will he table legislation?
Airline Security November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday will mark two months since the tragic attacks in the United States where commercial airliners were used as weapons.
In the past two months the House and Senate transport committees have studied three transport related bills: Bill C-34 to create a transportation tribunal, Bill C-38 to amend the Air Canada Act and Bill S-23 to update an airline liability convention passed in 1929.
Airport security is the top priority of the industry right now. Yet no legislation at all has come forward from the transport minister. When will the transport minister show leadership and table legislation to get people flying again so we can have first tier security in our skies?
Airline Industry November 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yet Canada 3000 is waiting for a decision on its case against Air Canada for predatory pricing. It needs to appeal today's CIRB decision to the federal court. Also, the launch of Air Canada's fighting brand Tango is aimed at driving Canada 3000 out of business.
This transport minister has not stood up to Air Canada in favour of strong competition in the past, but now is the time for him to do exactly that.
What steps will the minister take to ensure that Canada 3000 and therefore broad competition in the air industry will be alive and well on Monday morning for Canadians?
Airline Industry November 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, on October 25 the Minister of Transport announced a $75 million loan guarantee to Canada 3000. In exchange for the loan, it was mandated that Canada 3000 implement broad restructuring. This morning the Canadian Industrial Relations Board blocked the implementation of that restructuring plan. The president of the airline has said that the airline will run out of cash within 48 hours unless it has access to that loan guarantee.
Why has the Minister of Transport approved a loan guarantee for Canada 3000 that it cannot access knowing that this decision was coming?
Airport Security November 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, while the transport minister may be proud of his record, let me tell him what Liberal senator Colin Kenny said yesterday. He said that despite September 11, airport ground personnel, aircraft cleaners, mechanics, baggage handlers, janitorial staff and sales clerks are still not scrutinized for proper security clearance and low cost, poorly trained employees are still at the helm of security checks.
While the trained seals in the House may applaud him, his colleagues in the other House are saying that he is not doing his job.
When will the transport minister bring to the House real legislation, not directives to his employees, to improve security permanently, not temporarily, like Canadians deserve?
Airport Security November 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, a man walked through Chicago's O'Hare airport security checkpoint with seven knives, a stun gun and a can of mace. He made it past airport security.
He was caught by a random second security check by airline personnel in the boarding area.
This is a level of security at airports that Americans have implemented since September 11 that Canada has not.
Do Canadians not deserve the same level of airport security that the United States has? In fact, do Canadians not deserve the very best rather than the second best, which is what is in place?
World Trade Organization November 5th, 2001
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. Not only has the left misrepresented the issue. It has done so in literature and books to the extent of raising money. It has been saying things that are absolutely untrue.
The government of the day said it was illegal to possess MMT that had been imported by another country. If the government of the day were wise it would have banned possession of MMT across the board regardless of where one got it.
Ethyl Corporation took the government to court and won, rightly. If the government had written the laws appropriately and made it illegal to possess MMT for the sake of all the environmental concerns on the table it would have been entirely under the auspices of a fair, appropriate and level playing field. It would have been consistent with rules based trade. Unfortunately the NDP, as with a lot of other things, saw conspiracy and black helicopters where effective rules based trade was in place.
The MMT decision proves that government decisions affect trade deals, not transnational corporations or supernational corporations. Decisions by government affect the way businesses make deals. That debunks the whole argument the NDP has been pirating.
World Trade Organization November 5th, 2001
Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to say yes and sit down. I do not know if there is enough thread in the world to sew up all the cuts in that bleeding heart, but I will do my best.
The hon. member talks about the principles of equality and fairness. We believe in the principles of equality and fairness too, but they also extend to businesses. The idea that the World Trade Organization is somehow undemocratic because the specific delegates of every country in it are not elected by Canadians is nonsensical.
The Minister for International Trade is democratic and he is elected. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is democratic and he is elected. The standing committee is composed of people elected by Canadians and their views are put into the process. It is entirely democratic.
I never hear the member condoning or advocating the sort of civil society stuff we saw in Quebec City whereby people were breaking the law to make a political point. I found those demonstrations offensive when they got violent.
People can agree to disagree. At the same time people do not stand up and down and beat on doors and demand that negotiations between unions and management stop because they are happening behind closed doors. They do not say these things must stop because they are driving up the cost of labour, the cost of products and the cost of business. That is a valid argument but nobody does that.
We respect the principle that two institutions or groups of people have the right to get together and decide whether or not they want to have business relations. The same principle is true between countries and corporations.
The NDP and the left like to throw out the words multinational corporation. The words are focus group tested to elicit seedy responses. Canadians think multilateral corporations are a bunch of Gordon Gekko types who do not care about anyone except themselves.
That is not true. They are businesses. They are people. Talking about unplugging free trade because somehow Gordon Gekko and the Wall Street and Bay Street set will benefit from it is a total misrepresentation. It is not fair.
One in three Canadian jobs is dependent on trade. It is irresponsible for any member to start talking about taking trade apart since companies are involved that he or she may not like because they happen to be big or because they can be stigmatized with the cliché of multilateral corporation. It is doing a disservice to the thousands if not millions of Canadians who happen to work for them and thereby boost our standard of living and quality of life.
The hon. member raised the concept of Afghanistan. She said the NDP likes to promote fairness, equality and all those good principles in the arena of the war on terrorism. That is fair enough. So do we. However we want terrorism to stop.
We do not stop terrorism by handing it over to the courts. We stop terrorism by stopping the terrorists. We stop it by stopping those who want to kill innocent people. We cannot plug people into a legal process they do not respect or acknowledge or that, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said repeatedly, in this instance frankly does not exist.
Pollyanna oasis type solutions to real world problems and real world evils is not a practical common sense or responsible thing for a member of this place to be advocating.
World Trade Organization November 5th, 2001
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise in the debate on the World Trade Organization.
I want to comment on the last presentation that was made. The member should have taken the opportunity to plug his own government in the passage of Bill C-32, the Costa Rican free trade bill. I know that it will bring great benefit to the member from P.E.I. in the expansion of potato trading down to Central America. In that approach I think the entire House can take credit because I believe that all the pro free trade parties, pro growth parties supported that and it is something for which we should all be proud.
Let me begin by saying few activities are as worthwhile as Canada's participation in the World Trade Organization. Just as most members of the House see the United Nations as having a role in maintaining and promoting world peace, it is certain that the agreements concluded under the framework of the World Trade Organization have helped to promote a stable trading regime and the prosperity which that brings.
Just as it would be unthinkable for Canada not to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly, it should be inconceivable for us not to attend a WTO ministerial conference. Quite simply, our attendance at the upcoming WTO talks in Doha is vital. It is vital to Canada to defend and promote our interests at the table. It is vital that Canada be present so as to be able to participate and partake in all discussions which may occur.
The NDP and its supporters remain adamantly opposed to the World Trade Organization. The NDP's parliamentary website has a page called “NDP on Trade” and it features the following quote which is attributed to the party leader:
The WTO has been called “the mother of all backroom deals”—the greatest transfer of economic and political power in history...from communities and nation states into the hands of a small number of global corporations.
The same page alleges as fact that:
The WTO and related trade agreements are intended to be an economic constitution for the planet, yet they are written by, and almost entirely for, the world's largest corporations.
At the very same time as the NDP staunchly denounces the World Trade Organization, it calls on the United Nations to solve the world's problems including dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United States.
On September 17 in the first question period after those horrific attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and the skies over Pennsylvania, the NDP leader rose in question period to say:
The Statute of Rome must be amended to ensure that terrorism is defined as a specific crime against humanity and that terrorists are tried before the International Criminal Court.
She then called upon the Prime Minister to:
—assure the House that Canada will lead the way in fighting terrorism through multilateral democratic institutions such as the International Criminal Court.
Later that same day in her first speech she made in the House after the attacks, the NDP leader said:
This response must be carried out in accordance with the principle of the rule of law...This is a crime against humanity and an international court should mete out the punishment. No country should be called upon to be the judge, the jury and the executioner, least of all the country that has suffered the greatest loss.
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. There are 189 members of the general assembly. Canada currently is not a member of the security council.
Our permanent representative at the United Nations is Mr. Paul Heinbecker. I have never met Mr. Heinbecker but I am sure that he is an honourable man. I presume that he represents Canada well and that he follows the instructions given to him by the government.
I must say that Mr. Heinbecker's name is perhaps less well known to most Canadians than that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, than that of the Minister for International Trade, than that of the Prime Minister, and that of the Minister of Finance. There is a very simple reason for this. Cabinet ministers are directly accountable to parliament. They are elected members of the House. They attend our debates and question period. They testify before standing committees. Even more important, they are responsible for implementing reports of standing committees.
Before Canada sent a ministerial delegation to the last WTO round in Seattle in 1999, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade travelled across Canada hearing from hundreds of witnesses. Various parties made submissions. Then in June 1999 the standing committee tabled both majority and minority reports. Truly every point of view was heard. Those views were reported to the minister and the government. I have every reason to believe that those views influenced the government's position.
Let me put it another way. The government listened to Canadians when devising its position before the Seattle WTO round in 1999. However the government went further. It also invited a whole bunch of non-elected civil society types to go along.
Not only did the Council of Canadians get to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at various sessions across Canada and similar sessions held by the Senate committee advising the government, it also sent delegates as part of our government's delegation to Seattle.
The delegates had their say. Their point of view was heard and considered countless times. However, when a majority of Canadians did not agree with their position, they called the WTO anti-democratic and the mother of all backroom deals. I must admit that the NDP's opposition to the WTO baffles me and the official opposition.
At all WTO ministerial rounds, including the 1999 session in Seattle and the current session in Doha, Canada is represented by the minister of trade who, as I said earlier, is an elected member of the House and a member of the cabinet. The minister goes to these ministerial sessions armed with government positions that have been devised through broad, inclusive, nationwide consultations. This process is then described by the NDP and its supporters as “backroom” and “written entirely for the benefit of the world's largest corporations”.
Yet the NDP supports the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. I do not know who Canada supported as a nominee in the International Court of Justice or even when that nomination battle was. I do not recall any broad national consultation or report prepared by a standing committee of either the House or the Senate with a view to guiding the government's position.
In fact, even if this had occurred, Canada would have been just one of 189 member countries voting in the process. Yet when one considers that a justice of the court sits for nine years and might influence all kinds of cases, it is conceivable that the election of such individuals might rightly draw some scrutiny.
I have never heard members of the NDP decry the lack of scrutiny of the appointment of judges to the international court. Instead, they will applaud the United Nations and the International Court of Justice as allies in promoting the “principle of the rule of law”.
All Canadians believe in the rule of law. All Canadians also want fair, rules based trade. That is precisely what the WTO is all about. It is a forum in which elected Canadian cabinet ministers, after consulting Canadians, get to influence the rules which affect world trade. If every other nation had a similar process, it would be the most democratic setting of rules that is possible to imagine.
Because we are talking about ground rules rather than UN General Assembly resolutions, our participation in setting those rules gets a much higher level of scrutiny than might otherwise be possible. In spite of this, the NDP says:
The WTO operates behind closed doors, and has the power to strike down national laws, and enforce its decisions or impose sanctions.
Presumably then the NDP is opposed to collective bargaining. After all, it usually occurs behind closed doors and once a collective agreement has been agreed to, it does limit the rights of both parties. The employer cannot pay less than the agreed to wage and the employee cannot refuse to work without a valid reason.
Yet most Canadians, including myself, are in favour of collective bargaining, even though it happens behind closed doors. That is because the union and management generally go into these meetings after having consulted with various stakeholders. Collective bargaining may be behind closed doors, but very few people would describe it as anti-democratic in the way that the NDP describes the WTO.
It is shrill that members of the NDP continue to cite the now famous Ethyl Corporation case and yet they fail to point out that Canada's supreme court probably would have reached the same decision. Consider point 13 from the Ethyl Corporation's statement of claim:
The MMT Act does not prohibit the manufacture or use of MMT in Canada, it only requires that all MMT sold in Canadian unleaded gasoline be 100% Canadian. A domestic manufacturer of MMT can manufacture and distribute MMT for use in unleaded gasoline entirely within a province and not violate the MMT Act. If Ethyl wanted to maintain its presence in the Canadian octane enhancement market, it would be required to build a MMT manufacturing, blending and storage facility in each Canadian province.
The left would have us believe that the Ethyl case proves that chapter 11 prevents us from protecting the environment. Not true. If the federal government had outright banned the use of MMT in Canada regardless of where it was made, Ethyl would not have been able to prove the discrimination which was the centre point of winning its case.
If anyone is in doubt of this, just read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in T1T2 Limited Partnership v Canada. That case was where the government, acting on an election promise, cancelled a questionable deal in which the Mulroney government had sold Pearson Airport terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium. When the government cancelled the deal, the investor sued for breach of contract and lost profits. The investor won and that is the Canadian way.
For Canadians, the WTO is not an imposition of foreign rules; it is a chance for us to influence the rules by which the world will trade. It will trade. It is a chance for us to export our standards of democracy, political accountability and integrity. It is an opportunity for us to use our considerable legal and technical expertise and not inconsiderable political sway to help deal with complex matters like the definition of subsidy in agriculture.
We owe it to the world to be there and to participate fully and with vigour. Much more important, given the power of trade to boost our standard of living, we owe it to all Canadians to participate and to be there with bells on.