David Anderson

[Fisheries, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are again hearing questioning by Reform members who obviously have not read the throne speech or listened to it.

The fact is that in the throne speech there is a clear commitment to continue to deal with the issue of foreign overfishing.

If the fisheries critic of the official opposition knew something about the problem of the Pacific salmon treaty, he would know that it began because the Alaskans overfished Canadian bound sockeye salmon in northern British Columbia going to the Nass and Skeena Rivers, to the tune of three times what they had done previously under the treaty.

That is what he has not understood and he has not understood that the throne speech addresses it directly.

[Fisheries, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is incorrect.

The issue, however, of the salmon treaty is an important one. I am disappointed the fisheries critic of the official opposition would choose for his first question such a trivial, irrelevant and inaccurate comment as the one he has made.

[Via Rail, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question the first time around by saying that I, as minister responsible for reporting to the House for VIA, do not take every decision of $50,000 or more for the railroad, nor in fact does the Prime Minister.

We have a crown corporation operating at arm's length from the government whose annual plan is reported through me to the House. We do not follow every decision prior to it being made.

I will repeat what I have agreed to do, for the hon. member. I will ask VIA for the details surrounding the assertion of the hon. member to find out whether it is correct. Most assertions from his party are incorrect. If it is correct, I will bring information to him about it and whether there is justification for it.

I cannot expect to answer every $50,000 decision of a corporation, which he admits has at least a $600,000 daily support from the state.

[Via Rail, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is a crown corporation for which I am responsible for reporting to the House. I do not have a day to day responsibility for vetting every decision taken by VIA Rail. The hon. member has made an assertion which may or may not be correct, I do not know. I am quite willing to look into it for him, find out and report back to him.

I would suggest that a party which constantly has supported the private sector and the concept of government getting out of active involvement in commercial operations should think twice before it encourages ministers to take day to day control of crown corporations or private companies.

[Canadian Airlines, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, this is a private offer of a Canadian company to the market generally. It is not a question of taxpayers' money being involved.

The hon. member seems to be under the misapprehension that Canadian is owned by the Canadian government. It is not. Canadian Airlines is a private corporation.

[Canadian Airlines, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the regional subsidiary of Canadian Airlines is fairly straightforward. The company has proposed selling the airline. This happened only a few days ago. There is, I believe, at least a 16-week period before there would be developments that would involve the government.

At the present time it is simply a private company offering to sell a company which has frequently been sold. It was once known as Quebec Air. It has frequently been purchased by other companies.

It appears to be a normal readjustment within the airline industry where one company might move from ownership of one group to ownership of another. At the present time there is no cause for the government to step in.

[Pearson Airport, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, I should point out that the local airport authority, ADM in Montreal, received over $100 million for special capital expenditures and another $20 million for a special fund. ADM received $120 million, and Montreal got $185 million.

That is why it was clear that in Toronto they needed more funds to pay three things: the north-south runway, the de-icing area and the fire station. That is what we paid for with the $185 million.

[Pearson Airport, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat for the hon. member, who apparently was not listening to the earlier question, that the settlement in the case of Pearson airport is $45 million for the legitimate expenses which were determined by an outside firm of experts in this area, plus the $15 million for legal fees and expenses since the time of the original contract. That is the cost of settling.

When this government entered power in 1993 we had a choice. We looked at the Pearson airport deal and we determined that it was not in the public interest, and it is not today in the public interest. We had the choice of simply going along with the previous deal which was not in the public interest or terminating it. We knew there would be costs to terminating it. We were willing to bear those costs and we did. They are $45 million plus $15 million.

[Pearson International Airport, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I just do not know where that party comes from.

We have the one member of that party from Ontario who complains. Does he mention that in Vancouver we have made rent reduction of $46 million, that in Edmonton the figure was $127 million and in Calgary it was $117 million? No, he focuses only on the $185 million in Toronto.

It was part of a pattern across the country which included $120 million to the airports of Montreal. It was a program to make sure our airports could benefit from the open skies agreement and position themselves as the leading gateways to both Europe and Asia.

[Pearson International Airport, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the government has tried to settle the legal matter which led to the lawsuit. We tried by legislation and by negotiation. We tried by litigation. We wanted it settled from December 3, 1993.

The figures put forward by the hon. member are simply false. I might add that when we tried to get that same settlement figure through legislation his party refused to vote for it, preferring instead to leave the taxpayer on the hook. Nevertheless we will leave that aside.

The figure is $45 million for the expenses of the consortium and $15 million for other expenses that have taken place since and for legal fees. That is the cost of settling the lawsuit.

With respect to the legal fees the government had to spend, we had a $663 million possible liability which they seem to be so enthusiastic about encouraging. Obviously we had to spend money to prevent that liability.

The third point is the $185 million for specifically the construction and completion of the north-south runway, for the two firehalls at either end of the airport and for the new de-icing facility.