Stan Keyes

[Ellen Portch, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Hamilton and area political family lost a very special woman last night. Ellen Portch passed away in her sleep. She was 86, but we would not have known it. She led the life of a woman half her age.

Ellen was a Liberal. She was committed to the democratic process. She was always trying to help someone else. Municipally, provincially, federally, Ellen was an invaluable asset to any campaign.

In my four federal election campaigns she was the first at election headquarters and I was always greeted with the mandatory hug. Ellen was always there when I needed her. She worked hard. She had fun. I am privileged to have had her as a friend.

Outside of the political world, she associated herself with the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Arthritis Society.

The proud mother of two, grandmother of six, great-grandmother of fourteen, on behalf of all who knew and loved her, we send our deepest sympathies. We will miss her. We ask God to bless Ellen.

[Main Estimates, 2003-04, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As it was made clear, I had abstained from the last vote. I want to make it clear that I will be voting with my government on these particular motions.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Health, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we learned that Canada's Special Olympics team may not be allowed to travel to Dublin, Ireland to compete in the World Special Olympics this summer because of concerns over SARS. Could the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport inform the House of any new developments that may have occurred to ensure that our proud Special Olympians will travel to Dublin to pursue their dreams?

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

The right hon. member for the Conservative Party asks if he will be allowed to speak. Yes, he will be allowed to speak. Last weekend a resolution was passed at the party level. The first part of that serious resolution reads:

The National Executive of the Liberal Party of Canada affirms its support for the stated objectives of Bill C-24, advancement of transparency and increase in public confidence in the political process.

The president of the party voted for that resolution, in other words, endorsing the principles of Bill C-24. He would be more than happy to come.

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

Maybe members would want to hear this first. As the national caucus chair I am also our caucus representative on the national executive which just met on the weekend.

It was clear in committee that the request was made not to the parties but to the leaders of the parties, specifically the Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties. Those requests went out and those leaders made their decisions on who would represent them in committee.

Subsequent to that, there has been a discussion in committee, which will carry on in short order and be brought back to the table after some careful consideration, some thought, and some phone calls to see if these witnesses are available. Many of the witnesses that the committee had hoped to have are not appearing for one reason or another, and we want to ensure that if the invitations go out that certainly these individuals would be available.

It is my understanding that the president of the Liberal Party of Canada will make himself available at a moment's notice to come before the committee if it so desires.

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

This is a noisy place.

They are taking their information from a newspaper article that was quite incomplete and, in fact, not very well researched.

Let us go back to the committee itself. I have been monitoring the committee with great interest. As the national caucus chair--

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, maybe on a more serious note, because I cannot help but notice some kind of Cheshire cat grins on both the right hon. leader of the Conservative Party and the member from the Alliance, quite obviously they are taking--

[Business of the House, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between the parties and I believe if you would seek it you would find consent for the following motion:

That when the House begins proceedings under the provisions of Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent nor dilatory motions shall be entertained by the Speaker after 9 p.m.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to legislation, the hon. member refers to the government whip and the cracking of the whip, et cetera. I am very fortunate that when I was elected in 1988 in opposition I worked on the transport committee. Pat Nowlan was the chair, as our Speaker would recall. We had a great working relationship.

Then, of course, we became the government in 1993. Very specifically, the Hon. Doug Young as minister of transport worked with me as chair and the then member for London East as the parliamentary secretary. Privatizing CN, commercializing air navigation services, and commercializing our ports and harbours all took place in just a three year period.

Does the member not know that during that those three years, although nothing was perfect, there were many amendments brought forward and we all worked together as a unit and very much was accomplished on all those fronts? We as the government are very proud to have achieved what we achieved in cooperation with the opposition.

When it comes to relationships between YVR and offshore, that is what the business of these airports is. I invite the hon. member to do a little homework, because that is what the airports are saying. They are saying they need that opportunity to export their expertise. They are making money by doing this. It is not costing the YVR or the government a dime. They are making money by making these investments overseas at different airports and selling their technology and expertise.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen a demonstration of how workers understand that when times get tough, as they are with Air Canada, there will be an accommodation by the employees at airlines through their unions. The unions are sitting down with their employers and saying that they understand there is a cash crunch and an overburden of seats available and that they may have to go to smaller planes.

Then of course more specifically, the airports are affected because in many cases, especially on our Atlantic coast, many of these airports are served only by Air Canada and therefore Air Canada will have to make decisions on whether it will go into these smaller communities. It will be up to the private operators at these airports to negotiate with the airlines.

It is a threefold track.

The first is the employees and unions understand where the problems are and they are prepared to make the sacrifice or contribution to the bottom line for the survival of that small airport.

The second is the small airport itself. It too will have to do the business of ensuring that any opportunities that come along to save money are passed along not just to the airport itself but to the all important air traveller through to the airlines.

The third link to this chain of course is the government. The government has to be prepared to do its part in reducing these rents and reducing, for example, the security charge. It is the only form of transportation in this country where the passenger has to pay for security. They do not on the roads. They do not on the railways. They do not in the shipping industry. Yet we are charging air travellers. There is no consistency and that is not fair.

It is incumbent upon the government to make a decision as to whether it will, at the very least, give some kind of a reprieve to the industry, pick up the tab on security for at least a couple of years and understand that if we reduce these costs, the airports remain viable. Then they, as viable airports, can pass along savings to the airlines and the air travelling public.

The government has to play its part, the airport managers have to play their parts and the unions and airport employees play their parts. If we all play ball, we can get through this. If any one of these links in the chain breaks, or decides not to open, then of course we will not do well.

I am very confident that I see this glass as half full. I see the approach of Air Canada and how the employees are working with it to keep it viable and to keep it as our flag carrier. If we all work together, we can make this happen.