David Collenette

[Airline Industry, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the silly rhetoric of the hon. member, but I would like to point out that in the last couple of years the government has made significant investments, in particular, in the air industry, not just passenger rail.

On the war risk liability, we have saved the industry $100 million. There was a $100 million payment after 9/11. There was $35 million for the cockpit doors to be refitted. It was a $72 million saving to the airlines for air screening at airports. We have done a lot for the air industry and other transportation industries, as well we should, but we do not apologize for helping the rail industry.

[Airline Industry, October 24th, 2003]

I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that all these airport authorities entered into negotiations in good faith with the federal government and knew full well that airport rents had to be paid. That is the first point.

The second point is that we have been reviewing the regime because we have been concerned as to whether it has been fair in the long run, and that is now before cabinet. I have some particular concerns with aspects of the rental policy of the national airports policy and I would hope that my colleagues will make some changes.

The significant amount of money involved really would be a budgetary item and would have to be considered by the Minister of Finance in a subsequent budget.

[Transport, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement today and the announcement of a few years ago of $401.2 million flowed from a unanimous report of the transport committee in the House of Commons that called for the revitalization of passenger rail.

I cannot understand why we are being accused of not following Parliament's will. I think Canadians want good passenger rail.

Part of today's announcement will refurbish the western transcontinental fleet that will serve the hon. member's province.

[Transport, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement today follows on the policy of the government for the last five years to revitalize passenger rail. There was general support for this on all sides of the House over the past number of years.

The deliberations on this announcement have gone on for about 18 months. We felt it was only right that a future government make a commitment to such a large expenditure as VIA Fast, but the work that will be done under this program will certainly facilitate VIA Fast at a later date.

I would like to thank my colleagues in my party and in cabinet for all the support they have given on this venture.

[Transport, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly thank all my colleagues for the hard work that they have done on the passenger rail file, going back to the “Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada” report, under the leadership of my colleague, the member for Hamilton West, when he was chairman of the transport committee some years ago. This was followed by the $400 million announced in the budget a couple of years ago. This follows on from a program that the government is committed to and it preserves the option for VIA fast by the next government.

[Transport, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to announce once again that the Canadian government is prepared to invest nearly $700 million in the rail network we share in Canada. This is good news for Canadians from coast to coast. This is a commitment stemming from the work of the Standing Committee on Transport. This is a new era for passenger rail service.

[St. Lawrence Seaway, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered this question, yesterday, in the House of Commons. As I said, we are studying this in cooperation with the U.S. military. These are simply studies to determine if widening the seaway is in the interests not only of Canada, but also the United States.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has questioned what I have just said. I was the minister at the time and I knew what was happening. I knew which bases were on the list. That is why we made the information--

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to sit here on a Monday afternoon and have my colleague across the way subject the House to some misinformation. The fact is the Reform Party at the time was fully in agreement with the major budgetary cuts the government made in 1994-95.

Canadian Forces base Chilliwack was one that was certainly a candidate for closure. She states that because Chilliwack is no longer operational, in the case of disaster this will be awful for British Columbia. We just went through a disaster with the forest fires and the fact is 2,000 defence personnel participated in fighting those fires. They had no problem getting into the interior of British Columbia and many of them came from the naval base at Esquimalt.

Also, there are thousands of troops, as the hon. member from Edmonton just stated, based in Edmonton. The hon. member should know that in this day and age we can quickly transport troops by helicopter or by plane to various parts of Canada when there are dire emergencies. Whether it was the floods in the Saguenay, or the floods in the Red River, or the forest fires this year or, as the Minister of National Defence said this afternoon, in the case of any requirement being made by the government of British Columbia for the current flooding in B.C., the Canadian military is there and will be able to get on the job.

[St. Lawrence Seaway, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are examining the situation. We need to determine whether there will be any environmental problems.