David Anderson

[Canadian Airlines International, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the earlier questions from the Bloc asked for very specific information. Now we have another question which is much more general.

Yes, there will be a loss to the treasury and to various airlines from the reduction in tax. But there would be a much greater loss to the federal treasury if the second carrier in Canada, the one which provides competition and is one of the fundamental components of our competitive air transport policy, was allowed to go down for want of a relatively small amount of tax.

The fact is, if Canadian got into more serious trouble, we would not be collecting those taxes in any event.

[Canadian Airlines International, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members should co-ordinate their questioning a little better. On the one hand, they say that we are trying to favour Canadian Airlines and, on the other hand, their official critic on transport is saying that it would in fact be even-handed.

The hon. member is more or less correct. It is even-handed. It will apply to all airlines and is not specific to Canadian Airlines.

[Canadian Airlines International, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was clear all along. We believe that the restructuring proposal of a private company which requires not only the agreement of management but of its unions should be put in place before there is any government response.

It was, in large measure, put in place by Wednesday of last week. We then responded to the proposal put forward by the management of Canadian and four of the unions. Two unions were outside the proposal. One has since joined. We are now waiting-five unions, one company management and three governments-for the response of the final union.

[Points Of Order, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be mixing up the questions put and the responses given.

The fact is that any member of the opposition can address any question to any member of the government. However, the Prime Minister may answer any question himself or some other minister might answer any question, depending on the decision of the government.

The actual response to a question from the other side of the House is from the government. The government speaks as one voice and, therefore, the principle of the solidarity of cabinet is preserved.

I will be happy to discuss this more fully with the hon. House leader of the opposition because really there is no issue of privilege whatsoever or a point of order.

If the member wishes to have lunch with me sometime and chat about this a bit more, we might even invite the Speaker to come along.

[Lucy Maud Montgomery Ferry, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that he injects into the preamble to his question references to documents which I do not have in front of me and do not have the details of. He simply cannot expect a responsible answer from any minister unless we have examined the document.

If their questions were precise in terms of issues instead of being filled with preambles which refer to so many other things, it might be a little easier for us to reply in the House in a direct manner to a direct question.

[Lucy Maud Montgomery Ferry, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately yesterday I was in western Canada and I did not receive a copy of the letter to which the hon. member has made reference. I will certainly look at it and when I have the details I will provide him with a response to his inquiry.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I really can add little to the reply that I made earlier, other than to remind the hon. member, who is new to the House, that questions are addressed to the government as a whole and while an individual member may address a question to an individual minister, it is the government that responds, and any government member can reply to such a question.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, government policy with respect to air travel is to try to encourage competition so that the Canadian consumer can receive the benefit of lower fares and more frequent flights.

We do not have before us a serious proposal from anyone, including the Bloc, to merge the two airlines. What we have instead is a situation where one of the two major airlines in Canada is facing restructuring so that it can occupy a more profitable niche of the air travel market and where it can be turned from a company that has been losing substantial amounts of money into a company that is profitable.

I should remind the hon. member that Air Canada too over the last 10 years has lost substantial amounts of money, approximately $600 million.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have received no requests from the company to intervene. That is where the Bloc has been in error frequently in its questioning. We have not been requested to intervene.

Now what might happen in the future and the speculative nature of the member's questions are impossible for me to answer under the rules of the House.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction, except in the mind of the hon. member.

The situation is straightforward. This is the restructuring of a private company. It requires the employees to take part. It requires suppliers to take part. It requires American Airlines' parent company, AMR, to take part and it requires substantial change to change it from a company in the red, a company which is losing money, to a profitable company which is in the black.

That cannot be done by the government. It cannot be done by the injection of government money. It requires restructuring. That is the government's straightforward position and it has been the same from the beginning of the problem.