David Anderson

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party still fail to understand the present situation. The complainants are more interested in obtaining compensation for what they see as foregone profits. Their demands are unreasonable.

The government twice introduced legislation to provide for an acceptable settlement, legislation that was defeated in the Senate with its Conservative majority.

I repeat that we do not intend to pay compensation for so-called profits that did not materialize and which are totally hypothetical.

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this question and others from the Bloc Quebecois indicate that Bloc members fail to understand what the Pearson case is all about.

The previous government negotiated a less than perfect agreement on Pearson with a private company. As soon as it came to power, our government tried to repair the damage that was done by cancelling the agreement. We have just ceded Pearson to a non-profit airport authority, like the ones in Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and other locations.

We have never stopped saying we will accept only a fair agreement between the complainants and the taxpayers.

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Bloc which up to now has had a much more precise and specific approach to this question should now be adopting Reform Party tactics.

The assumption that there are hundreds of millions of dollars out there which are simply going to be picked up by this consortium is false. Were it true that the company is losing all this money it would obviously mean at the same time that the contract that was originally signed was not one in good faith, not one that should have been signed. The government in declaring that was against the public interest is entirely correct.

[Pearson Airport, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on a number premises which in fact are totally speculative and in many cases wrong.

I can assure him that I have absolutely no knowledge of any negotiations currently taking place with Pearson airport's T1 and T2 corporation.

Obviously in any legal dispute there is the possibility of a settlement. As a general rule it is in the best interest of parties to arrange for settlement out of court. But I have absolutely no knowledge of any such discussions taking place at the present time. The question simply is based on false information and is inaccurate.

[Pearson International Airport, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government cancelled the Pearson contract after it was found that it was not in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers.

We prefer the airport to be in the hands of a not for profit corporation which is similar to that in Vancouver, in Edmonton, in Calgary and indeed in Montreal as well.

Obviously, we are open to any reasonable settlement offers that come forward. However I have to say that I cannot understand why the hon. member and his party consistently sidle up to the Mulroney appointed senators to try to guarantee for the developers, including the former president of the Conservative Party, $600 million in unearned profits which could so well be put toward other programs. Why they want to do this-

[Pearson International Airport, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when I rise to answer a question from the Reform Party, I am perhaps a little more nervous than I am with the Bloc because I do not know whether I will be met with fisticuffs or with lawyers outside the House.

[Ferry Service, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably unaware that at this time of the year every year there is no ferry service from P.E.I. to the islands.

I would point out to him this is a condition that is not the result of any decision of the Canadian government. I would suggest to him that we will have a ferry available just as it has been every year for the past 20 years. It will be available on schedule. The service will be protected between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-70, in Clause 204, be amended by a ) adding after line 32 on page 233 the following:

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to property brought into the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area by a person unless the property is brought into the area for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity." b ) adding after line 4 on page 235 the following:

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a supply of property that is delivered or made available to the recipient in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area, or that is sent to the recipient at an address in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area, unless the property is acquired by the recipient for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity." c ) adding after line 18 on page 236 the following:

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to goods brought into the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area by a person unless the goods are brought into the area for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity." d ) adding after line 15 on page 237 the following:

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a supply of property or a service made to a person who is resident in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area unless the property or service is acquired for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity or the person is also resident in a participating province that is not an offshore area.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person that acquires property or a service for consumption, use or supply in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area is deemed to acquire the property or service for consumption, use or supply in that area only to the extent that it is acquired for consumption, use or supply in that area in the course of an offshore activity."

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-70, in Clause 204, be amended by a ) replacing lines 6 to 13 on page 234 with the following: a ) where the supply of the property was made'' b ) replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 234 with the following: b ) notwithstanding paragraph ( a ), in the case of prescribed property'' c ) replacing line 26 on page 234 with the following: c ) in any other case, the fair market'' d ) replacing lines 31 to 40 on page 234 with the following:

"province becomes payable on the day the property is delivered or made available to the person in the province." e ) replacing line 3 on page 235 with the following: c ) the property is a specified motor vehicle that is required to be registered under the laws of a participating province relating to the registration of motor vehicles or the property is included in Part I of''

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-70, in Clause 203, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 231 the following:

"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ) an imported taxable supply of intangible personal property or a service made to a person who is resident in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area unless the property or service is acquired by the person for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity or the person is also resident in a participating province that is not an offshore area; or b ) an imported taxable supply of tangible personal property the physical possession of which is transferred, or that is delivered or made available, to the recipient of the supply in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area unless the property is acquired by the recipient for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person that acquires property or a service for consumption, use or supply in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area is deemed to acquire the property or service for consumption, use or supply in that area only to the extent that it is acquired for consumption, use or supply in that area in the course of an offshore activity."

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-70, in Clause 198, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 228 the following:

"(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to goods imported by or on behalf of a person who is resident in the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area unless the goods are imported for consumption, use or supply in the course of an offshore activity or the person is also resident in a participating province that is not an offshore area."