David Collenette

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the screening process operates that way. Transport Canada has the authority to oversee safety on every aspect of our aviation industry. I suppose there could be a debate in the House as to whether or not it is better to return that function from an operational point of view to the public service versus a private company. That is a debate we should have.

However that is not our focus right now because Transport Canada oversees the operations of the security companies and has been introducing tougher evaluation over the last year. It certainly has been much more rigorous in the last week in working with the companies that perform the security for the airlines. After all, the airlines have taken responsibility.

I would not want the hon. member to inadvertently mislead the House that because of the changes in government policy over the last few years that somehow there has been no control or no unity of purpose on airport screening. We have been very vigilant and very tough.

The question is how we proceed from now on. The focus should be on specific ways to improve and enhance security rather than focus on who actually does the job under what auspices in a contractual sense.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.

This has been a very challenging week for all of us in government and Canadians, as well as others around the world. I do believe that the Canadian transportation sector responded vigorously and in time to deal with this most unprecedented of crises. In addition, the communities that received airline passengers performed a remarkable feat, one that went beyond imagination. Transport Canada, Nav Canada, our airports and all those people involved in transportation management and security did an outstanding job. We took this very decisive action without hesitation.

I should first say that I was addressing a conference of 2,000 executives of the worlds' Eleventh Airports Council International World Assembly, exhibition and conference in Montreal when this happened, including many of the chief executive officers of airports in the United States, who were absolutely shocked at what went on. As soon as we understood the severity of the situation, we closed Canadian airspace within the hour. In fact, this was a case of where the action of the government preceded the official communiqué. For those people in the media and others, I apologize, but the action had to be taken immediately and was issued by phone and by fax. The official communiqué got out some considerable time afterward.

The number of flights that were diverted were more than 200. We estimate that about 33,000 passengers were diverted and the majority of those passengers were diverted to east coast airports because as soon as it happened we had to get them out of the sky very quickly. That is why a disproportionate number of planes landed at Gander, Stephenville, Goose Bay, St. John's, Halifax and Moncton. Everyone in the country performed remarkably. Planes landed at Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Hamilton, Toronto and Winnipeg. Vancouver took 33 planes. Planes also landed at Thunder Bay, Dorval, Mirabel, Edmonton and Calgary. However the lion's share of the effort was taken on by the people of Atlantic Canada and they were remarkable in their efforts. They should be congratulated.

Members have to understand how difficult it was on the ground. As my colleagues know, these are airports, especially in the smaller communities of Atlantic Canada, that are not used to taking this number of planes. In Halifax there were 40 planes. Halifax is an international airport but it does not have 40 wide bodied jets on the ground at any one time. The taxiways were jammed. Gander had 38 planes, Stephenville had, I believe, 8, St. John's had 25 planes, Moncton had 10 and Goose Bay had 5. Those communities were absolutely overwhelmed, not just on the technical side but also in looking after passengers, but they performed a remarkable feat.

We wanted to get the planes back into the sky as soon as possible. We worked in conjunction with the FAA in the United States. Once we came to the determination that we could open up Canadian air space we opened it before U.S. air space was opened because we wanted to get Canadians back into the skies. We wanted to get those planes that had been diverted to Canada back to where they were going, largely to the United States but some to Mexico.

We had a lot of logistical problems in doing that. There was overcrowding on the runways. Security, immigration and customs matters, which my colleagues will be talking about later in the debate, and technical matters were also problems. When everything was in order, guess what? The weather took a big hit in Newfoundland as it always does, but the people of Newfoundland know what the weather can do, and it delayed things. However passengers were remarkably cool. We had reports of people sitting on planes for 8 to 10 hours. We could not off load those planes until those people were properly processed. We had to ensure the security of Canadians was paramount in the activities of that particular exercise.

I would like to speak briefly about flight safety, because the Government of Canada has been taking all necessary steps to maintain and improve the safety of our aviation system.

We are working with all other countries and international organizations in order to identify and eliminate the risks that could threaten Canadians.

When it comes to flight safety, Canada's reputation is quite enviable. We are committed to maintaining the highest level of safety. When the transportation system's safety is threatened, we react quickly and effectively.

We did react very quickly on new measures. Before we agreed to put one plane back in the sky, we brought in very strict measures. We worked with the airport community, the airlines, the unions and everybody concerned to ensure that there would be no mistake and that Canadians who then were boarding the aircraft had a greater degree of security.

It was not just those passengers going onto planes from inside security. The events that happened last week caused us to question all aspects of aviation security, not just affecting passengers and the boarding of aircraft, but how they are serviced, who they are serviced by, who has access to the tarmac, who has access to the terminal buildings and who has access to identification of airline workers. All this had to be looked at very quickly, and new measures were introduced.

We will not table a list of all the security measures on the floor of the House of Commons because by their very nature security measures are expected to be held very close at hand. We do not want to tip our hand to any terrorist who may be planning another assault, a second wave.

It is quite obvious that people have to get to the airports earlier. It is quite obvious that they will be subject to greater screening, both on their person and their effects. Any object they may have that could be loosely construed as being dangerous will have to be taken away.

I think people understand that and are prepared for it. In this era of electronic gadgetry, every electronic device that we take on a plane, whether it is a personal computer, or a BlackBerry, or anything that emits a signal or is of a technical nature, we have to be assured that particular device does not have any nefarious objective in the hands of the passenger.

We have enhanced security. I will be announcing further measures later today with respect to security. This is an ongoing file.

Security was under review before September 11. The constant testing of security measures is extremely rigorous and standards are then changed and the bar is raised higher and has been raised higher, but because of the terrible events of last week we are not taking any further chances and new measures will come forward.

Anything my colleagues put forward in debate today will be considered. We have to work together as a group of legislators with one mind and one purpose, and that is to protect the people we represent. The Government of Canada does not have a monopoly on all good ideas with respect to government policies in any field, but certainly in the case of security.

The good thing is that other modes of transport functioned quite well, especially the rail system. A lot of that has to do with the way goods are cleared. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will talk about that. However,the rail system was virtually unscathed.

We had a lot of problems with clearance at the border which he will touch on. However, we were able to be flexible within federal law to allow truckers to get beyond the borders, and the relaxation of rest periods. We did this in concert with all provincial governments, so we could get the goods to and from their destination.

Going back to the airlines. the recovery of airline operations has been rather rapid. I was on the phone this weekend with the chief executive officers of the Canadian carriers and also some of the international carriers. Air Canada was operating at 80% to 90% plus 100% on the international front. Canada 3000 was operating 100% domestically, but with some international delays of a couple of days. WestJet was operating at 100% on domestic flights.

The airline companies are back in the field. Yes, there have been some reductions. Air Canada issued a release this morning reducing capacity, especially transborder, which we think will be most affected in the short run.

People who were planning to go south this winter, to Florida, Hawaii, Europe, should not let terrorists change their plans. Let us not be cowed by these people. If Canadians want a holiday, need a holiday and deserve a holiday, then we will ensure that the air system is safe enough to travel so that their plans can be kept as made.

I would encourage people to go back and travel and take solace in the fact that everyone is watching. All government agencies are taking every precaution necessary to ensure safety.

Obviously there are implications for the viability of the airline industry in particular with what has happened. We think much of this will be borne in the United States, but there will be some challenges in Canada that we will discuss in the days and weeks ahead.

Let us get the facts straight and let us get them right so we can make a proper judgment before we deal with any of the other issues that will arise in the coming weeks.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, since he is from Alberta, that this is a very complex issue, a complex problem. The reason we have had no results in the last little while is that the parties have been seriously negotiating.

We believe they are close to an agreement on the contracting provisions. Once that occurs I think the hon. member will be satisfied that the changes we brought in last year in Bill C-34 will indeed work.

[Air Transport, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the hon. member that Canada's safety standards in aviation are unparalleled in the world. We run the safest aviation system and that is recognized by other countries in the world.

I would caution my friend to not get the wrong impression from one set of newspaper articles which interviewed a number of people. Who knows what the agenda is?

Airline travel in this country is safe. Pilots do their job. I would ask the hon. member to look at the facts and not at the rhetoric in this case.

[Points Of Order, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not purport to have all the references that the hon. member for St. Albert has, but as a parliamentarian of longstanding I can state that if a financial matter comes before the House in the budget and if it is passed, as the 1994 budget was, whether it is a taxation measure or whether it is the measure under discussion, that legitimizes the particular expenditure. It legitimizes the particular use that was called for in the budget.

I would submit that, first, it is entirely appropriate that national defence retain ownership of those lands, and second, that it is entirely appropriate for the government, in the view that those lands are no longer needed in the short term and hopefully in the long term, to make an arrangement with another government agency, in effect a contract, to manage those properties and that revenues be allocated for that purpose.

The hon. member talks about inappropriate transferring of assets to another entity. National defence has not transferred any assets. National defence remains in title in the government and has entered into contractual arrangements with Canada Lands, and a subsidiary of Canada Lands, Parc Downsview Park, is managing this on an ongoing basis.

It was always our intention to try to have other sources of revenue. There was a parcel of land that was subdivided, which has been now taken up by one of the box stores. It was an orphan piece of land, as we say, in the southern portion of the runway. That was severed and the moneys accrued as per the normal procedure of divestiture of the federal government, whereby the land went to Canada Lands and was put on the open market. The proceeds went back into Canada Lands for use for the ongoing maintenance of the park. All of this is appropriate.

I think that this is another case, with great respect, where the former auditor general erred. I have another case in my current department, on Moncton Airport, where the logic he used is not supported by the facts and is creating political expectations about the arrangement that was made for the transferring of the Moncton airport.

I am not attacking the former auditor general, but I am saying that no one is perfect, including auditors general. In the case of Moncton airport, my officials have been looking at that and will continue to look at it as part of the ongoing lease review of the 26 NAS airports on which the government has entered into contractual arrangements with local communities for administration. In that case and on the issue of Downsview Park and the changes of the Canadian forces base there, he was wrong. His logic was wrong.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that I would hope you do not find yourself entitled to strike any vote out of these estimates for reasons that are highly subjective, will not stand up procedurally and will not stand up in terms of parliamentary precedents.

The fact is that nothing could be more germane to the mandate of the House than the voting of money and the spending of money. That is what the 1994 budget has done. That is what all subsequent budgets have done. Therefore I would hope that the hon. member sees the error of his ways and withdraws his point of order.

[Points Of Order, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I had no notice of this coming forward, but I am speaking in the context of being a former minister of national defence who oversaw the dissolution of the Canadian forces base at Downsview and also the minister with geographic responsibility for the greater Toronto area, where I and the current minister of defence sort of share shepherding responsibilities for Downsview Park-Parc Downsview.

I think that the point made by the hon. member is very specious in the main. First, when we closed those bases, in particular Downsview, we said that the land would be retained in perpetuity for future generations, primarily as a unique, open, recreational green space. The reason we put primarily in there is that other ongoing uses would still be permitted, for example, national defence still has housing on that site and there is now an armoury that has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, as well as other activities. It was always intended for that portion of land to remain in the title of national defence so that if, God forbid, we were in an emergency situation whereby that land would be required for emergency defence operations, it would be there.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with further amendments.

[Canadian Airlines, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this is a matter that is between parties. The two unions in question agreed to an arbitrator. They agreed to accept the arbitration award. As such, the Minister of Labour and myself as Minister of Transport have no direct jurisdiction. If there is dissatisfaction with the result of the arbitration award, then there is recourse for the parties to the courts.

[Road Transportation, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is examining on a priority basis the extension of highway 30, which impacts on bridges.

Transport Canada recently commissioned Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance Canada to help it determine how interested the private sector is in this project. As early as July 1, private contractors should be actively involved in the process.

Due diligence must be observed in checking estimates, basic assumptions and forecasts of traffic volume and revenues.

[The Environment, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have announced a blueprint exercise to develop a new transportation policy for the next 10 years. One of the key components of that policy will be to address the question the hon. member has raised: Which is the appropriate mode and in which case should it be supported by government?

The point that he raised with respect to the polluting tendencies of one mode versus another is quite germane and is something that we have to look at and address in our policy.