Rob Nicholson

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

The minister says it was public interest. What about the interests of those 12,000 people? That is what I ask him. What about their interests? Who was worried about them? Certainly not the government of the time.

I remember when the move was made in the 1980s to try to rectify this. Let us guess who was up on their feet in the House of Commons fighting it every step of the way. It was the members of the Liberal Party. We would have to have seen the debates to believe it. They threw up every roadblock and every argument about getting into that area. Why? Because they had to confront the mistakes of their own past. That was what the problem was.

That is what the problem is today. They do not want to talk about it. I listened to the Minister of Transport and I am sure we will hear other members of the government. They want to talk about everything, everything else except the thousands of people who lost their property.

They do not want to talk about all those individuals who might get their properties back today because they do not want to have to confront that. If one asks members of the Liberal Party about the expropriation at Mirabel, they will want to talk about the price of coffee in Mexico or they will reach in their pockets and want to show pictures of their grandchildren, anything to get off the subject of those thousands of people who lost their properties.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

The transport minister says it was the NDP. That is quite correct. The NDP did not want property rights in at the time but that does not absolve the government of the time. The Progressive Conservatives were in support of it and the federal Liberals should have gone ahead with it but they did not.

Nonetheless, people wherever they come from in the world always tell me the same thing. Many of those individuals have come from communist countries. We can talk about the blight of communism. We can talk about how communism ruined every economy in which it took hold and how one of the things that is consistent about people from that was their loss of private property. It touches people deeply.

Indeed, we do not have to come from a communist country. I remember a colleague of mine, a man by the name of Kevin Mulvey, whom I went to school with at the University of Windsor and who told me that when he graduated from Windsor he bought a home in the Windsor area. I congratulated him on that. He told me he believed that he was the first member of his family to ever own land. He was an emigrant from England and his family had never owned land. This was something that touched him very deeply.

Indeed, my own ancestors came from Scotland as a result of property problems. Members may be aware of something in history known as the Highland clearances in the 1800s, in which Scottish citizens, including members of my own family, were evicted. They had lived there since the beginning of recorded time, but through government policy or government complicity they were evicted in the 1850s and they immigrated to Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Over the years I have been in touch with many generations of my own family as I knew them. We have never received an apology for that. Nonetheless they came to other countries and indeed they have tried, but that is what drove them out of Scotland.

Indeed, when I was there on my honeymoon I could not help but reflect on that when we drove through the empty valleys. I wondered if anyone had any second thoughts about clearing out the population of the Highlands in Scotland.

Nonetheless this is something that is very deep in all human beings. I thought about those thousands of people who were evicted from their expropriated land. We saw the heartbreak and the heartache that accompanied it. It seems to me that there are many Canadians who could identify with this.

For some of those individuals, it is not even as if today the Government of Canada was going to expropriate the city of Niagara Falls. I have lived in my home for 16 years. I could live with it. If my home was taken away, I could go somewhere else although I would never want to leave the area of Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

It seems to me that the people who were the victims of this aspect of the Trudeau legacy were not people who just lived there or had just moved into the neighbourhood. These people and their ancestors had been there for over 300 years. Talk about deep roots in an area: for over 300 years those individuals and their families had lived there and raised their children and these were the individuals who found out on an afternoon on the radio that their land was going to be expropriated for the new Mirabel airport.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Here is what I say to them. They can have their coffee klatch, get a few people together, keep dialling up the phones and vote for Mr. Trudeau. I do not have a problem with that. They should go ahead on that. It is not going to change the facts of this country or how this country was put together, but one does not have to be blinded by the fact that huge mistakes were made, and this was one of the biggest ones.

The mistake was those 10,000 to 12,000 people who were displaced, the people who had their property ownership taken away. I first became involved with this as an observer before I became a member of Parliament. Later, when I became a member of Parliament, when this issue was raised the part that touched me most deeply was the people whose properties were being arbitrarily taken away by the government. I believe that property rights are something that touches Canadians. I think that touches all human beings very deeply.

In my years of living in Niagara Falls and representing that area, one of the things that has impressed me is that people who have come to this country from other parts of the world invariably tell me many things but one of the things that is very consistent about people who have come to this country is their love of private property. Quite frankly, I was disappointed that when the Constitution of this country was amended there were not some provisions for property rights--

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

They are never at fault. They spoke with one voice all those years.

When there was trouble getting airlines to locate at Mirabel, the airlines were to blame. If there were passengers who did not want to use the airport for whatever reason, it was the passengers who were to blame. There was always somebody else to blame except themselves. This has been a pattern within the Liberal Party. I guess Liberals feel it is their duty, which I do not quite understand, to defend everything in the Trudeau legacy. I do not really understand it.

The greatest Canadian who ever lived was Sir John A. Macdonald. There is no question about that--

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this motion by the Conservative Party, which asks that the 11,000 unused acres of land outside the perimeter of Mirabel airport be returned and made available to the farmers and individuals who owned this property.

There are a couple of reasons why I am very pleased that my party has brought forward this motion. One of them is that it puts a spotlight on one of the sorriest chapters of the Trudeau legacy in this country.

In the early 1970s the government made an announcement that it was going to expropriate approximately 97,000 acres of land for a new airport in Montreal. To put this in perspective, it is as if the people in my riding of Niagara Falls on their way home this afternoon heard that the Government of Canada was going to expropriate the Town of Fort Erie, all of the City of Niagara Falls and displace every resident in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Those are the proportions that we are talking about.

To put further into context the 97,000 acres of land, Heathrow Airport, which I believe may be the busiest airport in the world, has 2,700 acres of land, Los Angeles has 3,500, and Toronto has 4,200. Even with this motion, another 1,000 acres are available to Mirabel airport over and above that which is allocated to Toronto, despite the fact that passenger service now is discontinued at Mirabel airport and we have no idea from the government when it is going to reopen again, although we hear it will be some time in the future.

Nonetheless, that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about those 5,200 acres. We are talking about the 11,000 acres that are unused and unneeded. That is what we are talking about. I believe it was one of the saddest chapters in the Trudeau legacy. I put it to the Minister of Transport and his friend, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, what is in it for them to defend what so clearly was a mistake on behalf of their party? Neither of them were ministers in Mr. Trudeau's government. They were ministers under subsequent Liberal prime ministers. What is it about them and their colleagues that they cannot admit this obvious mistake?

The mistakes were compounded at that particular site. They grew and grew and never once did the government ever take responsibility for it when there were hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of cost overruns. Members may remember what the government said. It said it was the contractors who were to blame. The local authorities were to blame. At one point the Province of Quebec was to blame. Everybody was to blame except the federal Liberals.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting exchange between the leader of the official opposition and the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport, quite correctly, pointed out that he was a member and not a minister in the Trudeau government. He was a minister in the government of Mr. Turner.

Why does the Minister of Transport feel that he is under an obligation to defend the Trudeau legacy? He was not a minister during that period of time. He knows in his heart that a terrible mistake was made in the late sixties and the early seventies when 10,000 people were dispossessed of their property. He was not a minister in that government so what is in it for him? He does not have to answer for them. We heard it from him and we heard it from the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

Those members cannot divorce themselves from the mistakes of the past but they know in their hearts that those mistakes were made, which is why they do not want to talk about anything else. If we were to check the record of those members we would see that over the years they have talked about everything except the 10,000 people who lost their land, and they still do not want to talk about that today. They want to talk about everything else under the sun except those human tragedies.

I would like to hear the member address that. I have not heard him yet but I have heard him talk about everything else. He told us to talk to the cargo handlers and the companies who want to use Mirabel. I say that he should talk to the farmers who lost their land. What are they going to do about them? That is what the minister should be talking about.

[Air Transportation Security, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that the Liberal government made a $234 million profit taxing air travellers for security. At the same time we know that Transport Canada charged our airports $256 million for rent. This is outrageous. This hurts airports. It hurts airlines. It is bad for business and it is bad for tourism. The worst part is that the Canadian air traveller has to pick up the tab for everything.

When are the Liberals going to learn that every service is not an opportunity for the Liberal government to make money? When will they stop gouging taxpayers and reduce airport rents?

[Air Transportation Security, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government said that the security tax would be revenue neutral but that was never the case. It was a tax grab from day one.

The Minister of Transport knows the Canadian airline industry is struggling to get back on its feet and this tax is one of the reasons passenger traffic is down.

Will the minister urge the finance minister to do the right thing, start helping the Canadian airline industry and scrap this tax?

[Air Transportation Security, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance department released the audited statements for the air travellers security charge.

It shows the government made an incredible $234 million profit on the backs of air travellers. The best part is that the finance department could not figure out how much security would cost. It certainly figured out how to make money. This is just another tax grab by the Liberal government.

Will the government immediately announce an end to this tax and start paying for our security out of the money the government has already over-collected from Canadians?

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is called an act to implement the convention on international interests in mobile equipment and the protocol to the convention on international interests in mobile equipment on matters specific to aircraft equipment. That is quite a mouthful. Bill C-4 would establish an international registry whereby creditors and debtors could register interests in what is referred to as mobile equipment. Mobile equipment is more specific than that generic term. It includes aircraft, helicopters, and could even include satellites.

What can be reasonably said about this is that there has been unanimous consent and support for this legislation, and I think that is appropriate. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport after a reasonably short debate in the House and it was interesting to me that we did not have one objection to this piece of legislation. We had, on one afternoon, representatives of the aircraft industry and they made generally very supportive comments. I was a little surprised that right at the final minute of the testimony it was suggested to us that a couple of minor amendments could be made to the implementing legislation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, you ruled earlier today that those amendments will not be entertained. The Senate has a role in our parliamentary system, and part of that role is to have another look at those things that are done by this chamber. I would hope that the Senate would have a look at those amendments.

I believe that they are technical in nature. Indeed, one of them is very technical. One of the amendments is to remove one of the zeds that describes one of the subparagraphs. I am sure there will be many controversial matters before the 38th Parliament. Removing one z from the English translation of this is not something that will be objected to, I am quite sure. I hope that the Senate would have a look at that.

The representatives of the industry also pointed out a number of things in relation to the definition of a creditor. They indicated that the definition of a creditor in English common law is somewhat dissimilar to that for instance in the civil code. They were concerned that any definitions that were used in the bill would coincide with the different types of law so that there would be some certainty. Indeed, that is what this bill is all about, it is to establish some certainty in this particular area.

That is a good thing, and not something that is unusual. We have a couple of different systems of law in the world. When Canada drafts legislation, we must be cognizant of the fact that one of the provinces of Canada has a civil code and nine of the provinces have English common law. Throughout the world, it is split basically between the two systems of law.

I always remember a colleague of mine who was trying to get some evidence entered into a court case in Sweden. He had his client prepare what we refer to as an affidavit in common law. The affidavit is a statement by an individual that is then sworn out by a notary public or a commissioner of oaths and affidavits. My colleague sent this to Sweden with the appropriate translation. I asked him some time later how it went and he said that the authorities had no knowledge of what we were talking about in regard to affidavits. Because one swears to a statement as being true does not make it any more or less true within the system of law as it is applied in Sweden. So, again we see the two systems of law coming together.

When it was brought to our attention in this particular legislation that we should have another look at the definition of creditor, and that we should clarify the provisions with respect to bankruptcy, one of the areas of federal jurisdiction, it seemed to me to make sense.

I am hoping that those matters will be taken up by the other chamber. If they are brought back here as an amendment, I think we can be reasonably certain that the House will accept them.

Again, the bill itself went through very smoothly. I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party who have taken an interest in the bill. They all had a part in ensuring and satisfying themselves that this was good legislation. I particularly want to thank my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He realizes that a healthy airline industry in this country is not only good for his province but good for Canada. I appreciate his support in this as I do indeed of all my colleagues. I congratulate the members from the other parties as well.

I think this is a great step forward. In the debate on second reading I pointed out to the House that for a couple of centuries there has been a great deal of certainty in the shipping industry when it comes to security interests. Indeed, the laws as they pertain to all sea going transportation have been relied upon by most of the countries of the world because people want certainty above all else.

I saw an article that talked about some transactions between Japan and Chile. Those two countries, for the purposes of their transactions, adapted certain elements of British admiralty law. Why? It was not because they had to. It was because it made sense that if there was one law, one set of rules governing the shipping industry in the world, then they were better off because it was easier to do business.

It seems to me that this too is a step forward in the right direction. If we have an international registry where creditors, lenders and debtors can look to one place and see whether there is a security interest then we are all better off. This is why it is not a surprise to me that everyone in the airline industry supports this, as well as the lenders. If people are in the position of lenders and trying to finance an airplane, they want to have some certainty that if something goes wrong with the transaction, they will be able to reclaim their security item.

If people are asked if this is a problem, it certainly can be a problem. In the testimony that the committee heard we were told of one example of a plane that a Canadian lender was trying to repossess because of non-payment and he ended up paying off everyone. Apparently everyone had a claim on this plane that was in Mexico. I believe the last person to be paid off was the wife of the airport manager.

This is exactly what we do not want to happen. We are all better off if there is some certainty because the airline industry then can obtain financing at a lower cost and a lower interest because of the security it is able to give. Lenders are more willing to invest in the industry knowing that they can realize on their security if that becomes necessary.

Bill C-4 is a step in the right direction. I have indicated to the parliamentary secretary in my question to him that this is not the end of the debate. Even if the bill is amended by the Senate and it comes back to the House and those amendments are concurred in, work has to be done with the provinces and the sooner the better. Other countries will have a look at what is being done by Canada. If these countries see that Canada has passed this legislation and implemented this protocol and convention, it seems to me it is an encouragement for them as well.

The sooner we have one system in place in the world, one registry where these security interests are registered, the better off Canada will be. I think that will be a tremendous step forward for the airline industry. Members of the official opposition support this because it is good legislation. The sooner it is implemented the better.