Joe Volpe

[Charles Caccia, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to honour Charles Caccia.

[Member spoke in Italian and provided the following translation:]

He was an accomplished Parliamentarian and former Minister of Labour and the Environment. My heartfelt condolences are extended to his family, his friends, but above all to the community.

As a student, I involved myself in his first federal campaigns. At the time, he, like no other, succeeded in personally expressing the collective character and personality of the people he represented, people from other countries, with abundant energy and resources adaptable to the creation of a new and “just society”; as it was defined by the new Prime Minister of the period.

We, Italian Canadians, saw him as a vehicle for change, and integration into a society that emphasized civic responsibility and concerns for one’s neighbours.

In Davenport, his dedication became iconic and for new arrivals, a role model. Thanks Charles.

[Canada Marine Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I live in the city but I live closer to the Pearson airport. Not many people have spoken about the quality of air around where I come from, especially when planes start descending. He knows that any planes approaching the Toronto city airport are actually doing it from over the water.

However, I want to stay true to what I said earlier on, which is that people's views all need to be respected. The city of Toronto, or the GTA that is served by the Toronto city island airport, has about 5.5 million people. The number of people who have complained about the island airport are numbered in the thousands, not even the tens of thousands.

The member is probably right when he says that it is okay to have this airport as long as it is not in his backyard. When I moved to Toronto I knew the airport was there but it was okay. I bought where I did because it was a great location. However, right now I do not think I want to be here. I am hoping the city, the province or the federal government will put up barriers so my property will be evaluated upward. That is what happens around virtually all ports.

However, that takes away from the argument that the member asked me to comment on. He asked whether municipal concerns were represented on these port authorities and, in particular, on the Port Authority of Toronto. The answer is, yes. The city of Toronto gets to put forward names that it wants represented on that port authority so that, like all other port authorities, the local community has its say, there is no steamroller going over issues that are purely local and all development plans are vetted through the cities, through the provinces and through any other conservation authorities that might be in the area and that all the appropriate environmental assessments are done.

In other words, they need to fit into a municipal plan. That happens. It is logical to put in a good governance structure that takes that into consideration. We do it by having people who are associated with municipalities, with the provinces, with the federal government and, I dare say, even with the conservation authorities. That has been done already and it is seen in this legislation.

Just to close, the Toronto Port Authority is listed, as I indicated, on its revenues as a port, exclusive of all other revenues associated with the Toronto city centre airport. It is functioning as a marine port and all other considerations are extraneous to this bill.

[Canada Marine Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I started off by saying I respect everybody's point of view. We are in a political environment. Views can be supported by data or not, but they are points of view and as valid as the next ones.

I wanted to make a distinction between that and a position that emanates from someone who has worked to do something. I can like a house. I can have a view that it might be an ugly building or a good building, but if I am the one who put it together, I can speak about its structural viability and its utility. I can talk mechanically about whether it is something that deserves the appreciation of those who are engaged in the business of that construction.

I do not hold it against anyone to have a different point of view. However, in terms of governance, I did not think there was great merit in cascading a series of criticisms upon a bill that emanated from a perception that municipalities: (a) would not be represented on port authorities; and (b) would be left, if I might quote the member, “holding the bag” because funds would be removed from one area and put into this area. I do not think either one of them are substantive. I took pains to point out that all these port authorities already had representatives from the municipal area. Therefore, that should be taken as a consideration.

In terms of accessing government funds made available for infrastructure and other programs, I do not think they are mutually exclusive. If someone thinks the federal government should put more funds into programs, that the provincial governments ought to put more funds into building infrastructure, nobody is depriving them of an opportunity to make that case down the road. Whether it is in this program or another program, there is nothing exclusive about these types of programs or the government's disposition to expend in those areas.

In fact, it is probably what distinguishes one party from another, whether one thinks that a government should be more hands off, more stand back, more laissez-faire, to use a more classical term, or whether it should be much more strategic and interventionist. That is what distinguishes one group of elected members from another.

From my perspective, we would do wanton damage if we did not continue to build. As someone said, “If you build, they will come”. That might be true. All I know is if we do not build, they will not come. If we do not pass this bill, it will not happen.

[Canada Marine Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, having worked on the committee to ensure that the bill would provide the detail and implementable advantages that it purported to do when it was first presented. As a member of Parliament one has to assume a certain sense of responsibility. One has to examine the intent of the legislation, question the minister, probe the bureaucracy, and then go out into the field and consult with those who are going to be first and foremost impacted by the legislation. Without undue modesty, I did all three.

As a concession to a new member of the NDP, we asked at the very last meeting dealing with Bill C-23 if we could have more detail for that new member, and I see that the member is paying attention so that is good. That member was invited to bring forward new witnesses with proposed amendments. The only people he was able to come up with were the ones we have talked about, such as people involved with Community Air who came as individuals, and a councillor who came as an individual. As for amendments, I know that listeners cannot see, but when I put my index finger and my thumb together, it forms a zero. There were none. When the member says that there are people who rejected amendments, I am still at a loss to understand which amendments were presented that were rejected. There were none.

I come back to the concept of what the legislation was intended to do.

I have great respect for all members of Parliament who come here to represent the views of their citizens. They come here to address the issues that are germane to the growth of Canada. A parliamentarian of great note thanked his constituents for voting him in as their representative but he also said that he was now a member of the Parliament of Canada.

As a member of the Parliament of Canada, each and every one of the members on that committee looked at all the port authorities to see what they needed in order to become viable commercial entities capable of meeting the challenges of the economies of tomorrow.

As a member of the former government, I said that at least from its intent the legislation was worthy of consideration. We will see if it is worthy of support. I said it and I might have been selfish, but indulge me for a moment. When I was in government with my cabinet colleagues and my caucus colleagues, we fashioned a policy that we thought would enhance the future of Canada and all Canadians. Whether they lived in downtown Toronto, Yukon or Atlantic Canada, it did not matter. The policy was designed to ensure that we would have gateways of access and success in the west, in central Canada and in Atlantic Canada. We thought we were all-encompassing.

We had provisions in place for all of those ports that some might say are northern ports, those which the coastal areas of Atlantic Canada and British Columbia might think of as secondary ports, but they are very important ports. More important for all of Canada, we wanted to position the port authorities such that they would be able to meet the challenges of the economies that were beginning to develop everywhere around the world.

At the very first instance we asked if these ports were commercially viable. Some ports are bigger than others. We divided them into two tiers. It is no secret that the first three are Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax. We put in a cutoff of $25 million. Those ports do that amount of business. They are the ports that will be the fulcrum for transportation around the world.

There are other ports, tier two, which are equally significant,perhaps locally, but they are not the hubs around which spokes will be developed. We recognize that. However, that does not mean they should not be prepared to take advantage of the vagaries of commerce. We could dispense with them, move them over to one side, eliminate them, say they have no value, and then watch as their communities languish while commerce takes a look someplace else. We thought that would not be responsible for Canadians and so we said that we needed to make sure that some of these ports can amalgamate.

Quite frankly, the ports in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia needed to have one authority for efficiency and effectiveness purposes. They needed to be able to make the investments in their infrastructure so that they could receive commerce from the interior of Canada, the interior of the continent, and make sure that it could be expeditiously shipped to those ports and those markets in the Orient and southeast Asia and along the western coast of Canada and down along, I guess we would call it, the eastern Pacific rim.

In order to do that, we had to give those ports the legislative authority to amalgamate; to ensure that they could borrow on the open market commensurate with their commercial ability; and to be like other corporate entities, capable of accessing government advantages through infrastructure programs as an example, or through other programs that would give them the advantage that all Canadians would expect of any of their organizations that would be directed to enhancing the Canadian livelihood, the standard of living and the quality of life. That is what we all intended to do.

We sought witnesses from all sectors of the economy and society, and indeed governments, as my colleague from Yukon said, from all orders of government, one might say from all levels of government, but all governments interested. We sought their advice. We sought the advice of those in the industry and the businesses, the port authorities that came before us. We asked them where the deficiencies were in the legislation, what they needed to do. We invited everyone. It may be that others might not have heeded the call. It is rather unfortunate. But we took that extra step; we went out and sought the advice of those who would be impacted.

It is interesting. For example, the former speaker concentrated everything on Toronto. I am a citizen of Toronto. I have lived all of my life there. I am a specialist. I went there and got all of my education over and over again so that I could say, yes, I am from Toronto. I hold no place higher than anyone else, but I will not take a second position to anyone else about how my city has developed, should develop and what is important for its citizens whom I have been proud to represent for these last almost 20 years. I have learned in those 20 years that somebody can make a distinction between the spin indicated for a particular purpose and good sound public policy.

Here I am as the transport critic for the official opposition supporting a piece of government legislation that has gone through all of the appropriate filters, examinations and critiques. As I indicated, I avowed very early it is because it was generated by the former government of which I was a member.

This is a happy confluence of two different parties, two different governments, recognizing the import of this bill for all of Canada. In fact, even the Bloc Québécois on that committee said that this bill was good for transportation policy, irrespective of the colour of the party in power. Surely that has to be the test of good legislation. I do not think the government can take full credit for it. Nor am I reaching back into the past to say that it is ours and that is why we are doing it. Nor do our colleagues in the Bloc say that it is their legislation and they will put their brand on it.

This is something where, collectively, members of Parliament came from the various regions of the country. As I indicated at the beginning of my discussion, they were elected as representatives of their people, but they came here to become members of Parliament. That meant they assumed the obligation to see everything from the prism of the public good.

Three of the four parties in the House support this legislation, wholeheartedly, after having gone through the appropriate examination and underscoring the fact that we were talking about strengthening the commercial viability, the ability to borrow and the governance models of all these ports. I hearken to point out that each and every one of these ports has representatives from the communities in which they are located, representatives who are suggested and recommended by the municipalities in which they are located.

Yes, they must finally receive the stamp of approval of the then minister of transport, but even in my own city, that port authority has representatives from the municipality, the province and the federal authority. All three orders of government are represented in a port authority, which number one objective must be to ensure that if there are advantages to be gained from commerce to be shipped through the Great Lakes, some of it be resident in the area of Toronto.

One might ask how big a port is it. Despite all the criticisms, it ranks, according to Transport Canada and according to the volume of operating revenue, number eight in the country. It is not bad for a port that is not supposed to be doing anything. Only 10 other significant ports rank below it. What we have seen over the course of this last little while is the ebb and flow of commerce, the value of commodities that are shipped from the interior of our great country to other parts of the world, is making its way through a transportation system in which various ports are key.

For example, I think of the great port of Thunder Bay, which at one time was the second most important inland port in all of Canada, second only to Montreal. It has suffered some decline partly because a lot of the materials, a lot of the commodities, minerals as well as lumber has been shipped out west through the port of Vancouver, now Prince Rupert.

This does not mean that all the investment Canadian governments before us made in building a seaway to ensure all the products were produced in the centre of Canada, my province being most significant in this regard, would come through a St. Lawrence Seaway system, of which the port of Toronto is a very important element. However, it is not the only port in the Great Lakes Seaway system. We have seen more and more investments in the port of Montreal. It has begun to flourish in a way that people had not anticipated.

One can be morose, critical or shortsighted and say that we should forget all those 19 major ports throughout the country because those people in one port city of the country might be interested only in the land development side of the port authority. Therefore, we should forget about the flow of commerce, transportation and goods from the markets, which are particularly Canadian, out to an export environment where they will enhance the standard of living of all Canadians.

Happily, the majority of members of Parliament in the House do not have that same disposition. Happily, members of Parliament recognize their obligation to the Canadian common weal. Happily, we have saner minds in the House that are prepared to take a look at what must be done.

What must be done includes not only those gateways to central and western Canada, but to all those ports that provide the world with an avenue into Canada, coming from the Atlantic ports, of which Halifax is the largest and is the most commercially viable. However, it is not the only one.

We have a tendency to focus on all those that are of great interest to us. I have a particular soft spot in my heart for the port of Halifax. It is the port which received me when I first came to this country. It is a wonderful place. I am surprised we have not made much more of Halifax than it currently is, but it ranks as either the best or the second best. It is among the top three natural ports, natural harbours in the entire world.

The port of Halifax is a gateway for everything that could come from Europe and Africa. The most logical place for all that commerce to come in through is either Halifax or Saint John. In fact, there are others, but Halifax is by far the biggest. Through it, we could build that kind of an infrastructure, that kind of a network, which would enhance the economic viabilities of so many communities throughout all of Canada.

Bill C-23 speaks to the importance of marine ports. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and you know this better than others because of where you come from, all those marine ports are tied to a road and rail infrastructure that spreads out in a network through the rest of the marketplace, which is North America. There are none that are better positioned to do that, in my view, than Halifax or mainland Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Fraser River Valley and Montreal.

There are other ports, but those hubs ought to give Canada the advantage that other countries naturally cannot enjoy. Therefore, we have been gifted by the bounty of geography and the good Lord, some might say, and we should take advantage of it.

I come from a city that is one of the most advantaged in the world. I am not anxious to see us lose one of those elements that give us this great advantage, even if, over the course of the last several years, we have allowed it to slip into an inferior position relative to others. However, such is the competition among Canadians that the competition among these port cities and port societies all enhance the livelihood of the citizens they serve. They might serve most directly those with which they are adjacent, but they serve the larger Canadian advantage that all of us share and advocate when we run for office.

Members in the House sometimes might put partisan advantage and partisan diatribe ahead of our obligation as members of Parliament. While I am capable of engaging in that kind of dialogue and would reserve it for fun moments, for serious moments like this one, I call on all members of Parliament to do what I know my caucus will do, and that is support a bill that is absolutely focused on ensuring the Canadian advantage is maintained by giving port authorities good governance and access to loans and an opportunity to enhance the infrastructure for greater commercial viability down the road.

My colleagues on the committee all felt that way. Those who did the work, appreciate this most. Those who appreciate this most, will support it. Those who support it, know that its intent is good. This is what the Liberal Party will do and it will vote for it.

[Canada Marine Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one, I listened courteously to what I can only describe was a diatribe against all members of Parliament who represent the city of Toronto but are not of the member's stripe.

Two, there was a series of misrepresentations about what actually transpired. The invitation was sent out to everyone who appeared before the committee. The parliamentary secretary speaks for the government side and mentioned everybody who attended.

Of the people who were there and sided with the member, one of them was a local councillor who in fact said, “I am coming here as an individual. I don't represent the city of Toronto. I represent my own views”. The other two individuals who came forward were, as the member has described them, friends of hers, who are part of Community Air and who proceeded to issue forth the same type of venom that the member has indicated a capacity to engage in. It was the kind of venom that prompted a court to order them to apologize or submit to a $3 million lawsuit. I do not have to read from this document but I can table it. A news item on CBC pointed out that Community Air was compelled not only to apologize but to promise to cease and desist in the kind of language they were using about the port authority. Representatives of Community Air came before the committee and engaged in exactly the same thing.

I would like to know whether the member thinks that all legislation in this House needs to address singly and exclusively the issues of her former ward, or whether, when we talk about marine and port policy for all of Canada, we are going to engage in policy that applies to all Canadians. Does she think if it does not have something to do with Trinity—Spadina then it is not Canadian, if it does not have to do with her ward then it is not legitimate, and if it does not emanate from the former harbour commission, which was identified as one of the most corrupt agencies ever, then it is not legitimate?

As a former councillor in Toronto, would she cease and desist--

[Canada Marine Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of other people who might wish to comment on the lucid approach that my colleague from Yukon employed when speaking to this particular bill, I will ask him to elaborate a little bit, if he would not mind, on this perception that there is one limited pot and that everything is a zero sum game.

I know this is a position that the NDP has verbalized on many an occasion, but given that municipalities are, shall I say in the main, corporate entities, and as corporate entities, that have a particular jurisdiction and authority that derives from the people's trust, they access infrastructure funds in order to maintain a particular level of service and goods, et cetera, that are important for the maintenance of a good, lively, commercial enterprise. Does he not see that this might be equally valid for another corporation, another corporate entity, an authority whose authority is derived through legislation, and that this authority, in order to maintain its livelihood and its commercial viability, would also have access to some of those public funds that are designed to maintain the infrastructure of commercial viability everywhere around the country?

If he were to agree with me, and I am obviously waiting with bated anticipation that he would, would he not think then that this argument that is proposed often by the NDP actually takes us off the mark and distracts us from what we are trying to accomplish, and that is to ensure that entities like port authorities, which he has so eloquently advanced as being physically and financially viable in order to meet the challenges of the new commerce of tomorrow? I wonder what his thoughts might be.

[Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will be equal to the task of demonstrating the degree of respect you have observed.

I want to compliment my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte because I think he presented his motion in a most precise, persuasive and, I might say, compelling fashion.

I note that in part of our discussion we highlighted some of the points by focusing on what happened in the beginning of March. However, I remind all colleagues who have made some very thorough and thoughtful presentations that the motion was actually presented before the events of the beginning of March which underscored the need for this motion.

I think that the motion has stimulated good debate. I want to focus on a couple of points, if I might, first, before I carry on.

This is a debate that has been long overdue. We have, from Canada's four major airports, at least 60 million passengers utilizing plane service every year. That is twice the population of Canada. So, as my colleague in his motion indicated this is not a service for the elite; it is for everybody. We have come to point where we need to address the specifics about good service. It is time, as my colleague from Windsor West said, that Canada got with the program.

The Europeans have gone through this kind of turmoil. They continue to go through turmoil, but they have recognized that what needs to be put in place is a rules-based system to which both the service provider and the client can point to for an appropriate level of service.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says more or less the same thing. He says what we need to do is point the finger at all of those who have a responsibility but the responsibility, first and foremost, rests with the regulator.

My colleague from Abbotsford pointed out that perhaps we might be moving a little too quickly on this, and perhaps unnecessarily so, because we have already passed Bill C-11 in this House after some thorough discussion in committee and that provides the bases for a bill of rights, that is, a series of services to be provided by the carrier to its clients whether they be passengers or material that needs to be transported. So, we are dealing with a system that is not only a transport system but it is a transportation system.

I dare say, if I might, that we can add that this is no longer just a service; it is in fact an experience with real live individuals. Roughly 60 million of them a year in Canada are engaged in just those four major airports.

Back to what my hon. colleague from Abbotsford indicated in Bill C-11. There is a clause, clause 27, that calls on the government to help put in place what we might refer to in this motion as a bill of rights, to work with the industry, to consult with all the stakeholders, and to come forward with a basic standard of service criteria to which everybody can point. The government has not acted on that, yet.

Furthermore, there is another clause in Bill C-11, and I know my colleague knows this for sure because he, along with me and the member for Windsor West and the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel worked on this in committee, clause 64, that imposes on the cabinet an obligation to ensure that clause 27 is enacted. In other words, that those consultations take place and that the criteria, the regulatory framework, be put in place.

Not only has been clause 27 not been acted upon, clause 64 has virtually been ignored and so, one should not be surprised that my colleague would present Motion No. 465 in order to address these issues.

It is important for us to get a handle on that relationship between carriers, for example, one of them, Air Canada, who last year reported operating revenues in excess of $10.5 billion, and its vast clientele. There has to be a relationship where the clients, the passengers, can accede to a rules-based system that says this is what we contract to receive. I pointed out Air Canada perhaps unfairly. It is all carriers.

I point to Air Canada because my colleague from Windsor West and I both were part of the panel. I see that he pointed to it again today, that in response to the activities to the events of last March, instead of looking at how to enact some of these rules voluntarily, Air Canada came forward with a package that said “pay $25 or $35 and you can enhance your service”.

Now we are talking about increasing prices for a level of service that everyone expected would be part of the ticket price initially. I do not know whether that was good public relations or not. The people who we deal with at Air Canada are always wonderful people, but certainly the company in this instance made an error.

However, this motion is not in response to that error. It is in response to a genuine need, a get with the program need for Canada to join such other countries like those in the EU and the United States in coming forward with a bill of rights that says that passengers are entitled to this kind of service.

It cannot simply be case of caveat emptor. It has to be a case where there is a reciprocal obligation implied, understood and accepted by the carrier that receives the money as its part of the contract.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says we should include as well all the other service providers. He points to the fact that the Air Transport Association of Canada says it accepts this concept in principle. It does accept it, but we should bring into the equation all those other associations, many of which operate thanks to the regulator's authority, for example, Transport Canada, and that is fine.

However, my colleague's motion is very specific about what should be included. It does not necessarily point to what CBSA and CATSA and what anyone else might do. They have their responsibilities under a different set of regulations and they are held accountable for them. They should be held accountable for the service that they must provide not only to the airport authorities or to the carriers but to the passengers as well.

The most important thing is for this House to be seized with the thrust of the motion. The thrust of the motion says there are already models for us to follow. People have already gone to court to ensure that some of these be enacted, witness the example in the United States that my colleague so rightly pointed out.

However, there are also examples in Europe and 27 European countries are getting together and accepting it. All 27 countries and jurisdictions are in a position to adopt a bill of rights that addresses specific items. My colleague from Abbotsford said yes, but there are three specific areas. Three specific areas no doubt, but there are an addition 12 others that indicate the kinds of elements that must be addressed in this bill of rights.

We have models. We have American models and we have European models. There is no reason why we cannot adopt both. As the mover says, if everyone else can provide that service and constrain our carriers to provide that service when they fly over foreign airspace, why can those same carriers not be constrained, compelled and encouraged to provide a bill of rights for those same passengers over Canadian airspace?

That is the essence of this motion. Let Canadian passengers be treated on a par with Canadian passengers flying other carriers in other jurisdictions. We should offer no less and I encourage this House to adopt my colleague's motion.

[Privilege, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point because my colleague from Richmond is not here to comment.

I know that he would have liked to thank the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity for his perspicacity, but he probably would have asked that it be indicated that the vote would have been required at any rate. The NDP motion could not possibly split the bill. What my colleague would have said is he would have voted against the measure when it came at third reading.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008--Bill C-50, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to watch this lover's spat on the issue of immigration. On one side the NDP wants to separate a portion of a finance bill which has nothing to do with immigration, and on the other the government is trying to justify what it is doing because it thinks it wants to do something about immigration.

Does the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina truly believe in increasing the number of student visas in this country? Does she truly believe in fixing the system? Does she truly believe in family reunification? Does she believe in increasing the numbers? If so, then why did she and her party vote against the positive Liberal plan that was associated with dollars?

Both her party and the Conservative Party voted down a Liberal plan that would have put $1.2 billion toward integration and settlement of those who are here and those who would come here in the future. It would have provided $700 million to increase the efficiency and operation of the system to ensure that we could accommodate those who had come here under plans which might not have been recognized. This plan would have provided another $88 million for foreign credentials recognition and ensure that people with qualifications would be matched to the available jobs. Our plan would have provided an additional $10 million in order to encourage an increase in the number of student visas from 66,000 to 100,000.

Why did her party vote against that?

[Women for African Grandmothers, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise a constituent who is leading the Toronto chapter of Women for African Grandmothers. Beverly Britz is spearheading the effort to ensure that affordable drugs reach the developing world for the treatment of HIV-AIDS. Right now in Africa more than 11 million orphans are being raised by their grandmothers.

This group is currently working to have Canadian law allow the free flow of affordable drugs to developing countries by pursuing legislative changes to Canada's Access to Medicines Regime in the House of Commons. Parliamentarians must come together with the political will to save lives and eliminate suffering. Legislative measures should be taken now by the Minister of Industry to improve access to medicines for the developing world.

Beverly Britz and her group are doing their part. I urge all members of Parliament to support Women for African Grandmothers in this noble cause to help those suffering and dying from HIV-AIDS in Africa.