House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Rail Transportation October 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, railways throughout Quebec are in the same situation as those in the rest of Canada. If there are doubts about safety, we cannot let passengers continue to use these lines.
If the problem is a lack of proper maintenance or if an accident creates a hazard, then, as is the case in other parts of the country, they will have to resort interrupting service. It is impossible to do otherwise and at the same time protect Canadian travellers.
Air Transport October 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, it is not a question of reviewing the matter or making a decision. It is automatic. If the route is not established in 365 days, it goes to the other airline. It is very clear. Air Canada is aware of this rule.
Yes, they put out a press release saying that they were in the process of setting up an office, and it is too bad, but they did not clearly indicate that they were selling tickets long before the automatic application of the policy established by my predecessor, the former transport minister.
Air Transport October 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. There is an almost automatic policy in place for cities such as Prague. If the first airline does not use the route, and Air Canada did not, it goes to the other airline. It is almost automatic. I made no decision. That is how it works.
Air Canada knew this, as my colleague, the former transport minister, sent them a letter last year, when they indicated that the Hong Kong routes would also be available for Canadian International.
Railway Safety October 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, certainly not. The situation is not related, as the hon. member suggests.
This is not the easiest question to deal with when one is analysing statistics, but I would suggest that the hon. member compare the enormously successful Canadian system with others.
If the member compares the record of both CN and CP to those lines across the border, he will find that we have a very safe system. However, inevitably in a country with the amount of rail traffic that we have there will be some accidents. I certainly welcome his concern and interest in the subject because it is, as I said earlier, the most important priority of my department.
Railway Safety October 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the subject is a very serious one and safety is in fact Transport Canada's preoccupation in all its activities.
I point out to the hon. member that it is certainly correct, there has been an increase in mainline accidents. I would suggest, however, the figures should be looked at rather carefully to see what level those accidents are on. In fact, in terms of the more serious accidents there is a very slight change.
I can also assure the member that only an hour ago I was meeting with the presidents of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to discuss this very issue and I certainly welcome his concern on this account.
Air Transportation October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has conveniently forgotten that this big expansion in air traffic, generated by the government over the last three years, directly results in jobs throughout the country, particularly in Quebec with Air Canada's head office in Montreal and where Bombardier makes the RJ jet, for which there is, I believe, some 60 orders outstanding at the present time.
The hon. member forgets that our policy of expansion of air travel dramatically improves the situation. I have to assure him that we want to maintain the policy of choice for the Canadian public. In addition, we do not want to give in to the demands of the Bloc Quebecois and Air Canada to destroy a system that we have set up so carefully over the years and which is so much to the advantage of the Canadian travelling public.
Air Transportation October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the one who is somewhat mixed up. He forgets that both Canadian International and Air Canada are in competition with Cathay Pacific. He quotes a Cathay Pacific spokesman who was quite happy to give that information because of course he knows full well it serves his interest and not the interest of the Canadian airlines.
Asking Cathay Pacific what to do with the Canadian airlines on the Pacific is bit like asking a crocodile where to go swimming in the river. It is not a very bright move.
With respect to the issue of jobs, we are not trying to reduce the number of flights. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois who think this is a zero sum game, what one must gain the other must lose, we are trying to expand air traffic.
The new air traffic routes that have been established, including open skies with the United States, incidentally the world's largest international market, have created 1,000 jobs for Air Canada, 700 for Canadian International and in addition, there is-
Supply September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not know quite where to start.
Let us start with half of the Reformers voting for the veto and half voting against it. The hon. member explains why half voted against it, but he does not explain why half of his colleagues voted the other way. That is as mixed up as the Reform Party usually is on most important issues affecting British Columbia.
With respect to the debt and deficit, let me explain again to the member that revenues are up. Why? Because the economic situation is better and revenues go up at times like that. This is a lesson in economics which apparently has missed the hon. member and indeed the whole Reform Party.
Had we adopted Reform's policies, we would not have had that increase in economic activity. We would not have had that increase in revenue and we would not have been able to cut the deficit as this government has done. It is perfectly clear that he had better understand a little better what the issue is with respect to deficits and how one can tackle it effectively without creating a recessionary situation which would put millions more Canadians out of work, which was their policy.
With respect to softwood lumber, I am glad to hear what he has said about his party being in favour of what happened because we did not hear it when it counted, which was before the decision was made. Now he has corrected the record. We say: "Fine. Thank you for joining with us in making sure that we got that particular matter dealt with".
The basic problem, if I may point this out to the House at this time, is that in the Reform Party, British Columbia members simply do not get a fair shake. They have four times as many members in this House as the Liberal caucus which has six from British Columbia, but Reform's Alberta members are constantly dominating what goes on in that party.
An article in the Edmonton Journal talks about the B.C. members being left out in the cold in the assignment of duties. It talks about a specific member, the chairman of the B.C. caucus, who said that finance, criminal justice matters and the future of social programs are the most important items on the national agenda for the next few years. They are key issues where Reform hopes to score points and Alberta Reformers were awarded all of these prestige critic positions by the hon. member from Calgary, the leader of that party.
The chairman of the B.C. caucus went on to say that it is needed to make the hon. member from Calgary, the leader of his party, realize the need for more regional balance. "We do not want to be run by one province. Appearances in politics is everything".
This is one of the basic problems that we from British Columbia, all 32 of us, as a group face in the House of Commons. There are six on the government side and 26 on the opposition side, 24 of whom are in the Reform Party, the third party. Those Reform members do not get a look in when the Alberta people are dividing the critic's positions or the opportunities for questioning in this House. I have here all the information on issue after issue affecting British Columbians where they have sat silent because the Alberta members dominate their caucus.
Supply September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Mitchell's hotline program, the hon. member is apparently unaware in his innocence of these matters that it is the host who determines how many questions go on the air, not the guest. That deals with that issue.
With respect to Mr. Mair, for whom he appears to be the agent, I have been on that program at least twice. I do not object to going on
there again, but there is a certain predictability of that program. There is a certain predictability of the audience which makes me feel that I am not truly speaking to ordinary, average British Columbians when I am on his program.
The Reform Party, which is sinking so rapidly in the public opinion of British Columbia, should begin to understand the message I am giving it. Wake up. Find out where the real majority of British Columbians stand. They are not restricted to the audience of one or another hotline radio program.
With respect to Barbara Yaffe, I have not read her column. I do not recollect receiving a call from her on Friday. I will check my file. There may be dozens of calls a day from the press at particular times when there are issues such a WestJet and others which take the time of a minister. However, I will check. The normal course of events for Barbara Yaffe as a columnist in Vancouver is that the calls are all returned to her.
Supply September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it shows the difference between Reformers on that side and the Liberals on this side. They are concerned with pomp and ceremonies. We are concerned with actual concrete results to achieve an improved economy for British Columbia. It is a simple example of the difference between our two parties. They go for show, we go for substance on this side of the House.