David Collenette

[Airline Industry, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a viable, strong and stable airline industry, but it is undergoing some very difficult problems, problems that will necessitate some very difficult choices on the part of Canadians and especially members in this House. We want a full debate in the House to elicit the views of hon. members on both sides of the House so we can develop an airline policy that will deal with the difficult matters we have to overcome in order to have a very strong and viable airline system in the 21st century.

[Airline Industry, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is true it now appears that the two airline companies were having discussions earlier this year. In the month of March, Air Canada was the first to raise with my officials the use of section 47. We now know that it was in connection with those discussions, but no action was taken and there was no formal request because the talks fell apart.

In June of this year, first Air Canada, with its proposal for the Canadian Airlines international routes, and then Canadian Airlines came to us and talked about a need to restructure the industry. That is why we used section 47.

[Air Transportation, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in our view, the situation is very serious and I am therefore prepared to answer questions in the House of Commons.

However, if there is a private sector solution, the Canadian government will insist on five principles: consumer protection, service to small communities, employee rights and concerns, competition, and effective Canadian control. And that is very important in this debate.

[Air Transportation, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there were problems with Canada's airline industry, particularly with the weak opposition from Canadian Airlines.

As a government, we have three options: first, we can provide financial assistance for Canadian; second, the company can declare bankruptcy; third, we can seek another solution.

We have chosen the third option, which is to find a private sector solution, and that is why we resorted to section 47 of the National Transportation Act.

[Ferry Service, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Marine Atlantic is assessing its capacity requirements and that could include getting a new ferry. We just do not make knee-jerk decisions based on political requests of the opposition. What we do is thoroughly analyse the demand. We will do that and that may mean a new ferry, but we will do things in an orderly systematic fashion.

[Ferry Service, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a silver lining in this. The fact is the pressure on Marine Atlantic is due to the increase in tourism to Newfoundland as a direct result of the buoyant economy and the policies of this government. However, this does pose quite a challenge as to capacity requirements. We are reviewing it. Over the summer I propose to go to Newfoundland, travel on the ferry, meet with the workers, and learn firsthand what has to be done.

[Air Safety, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the documents in question are in the domain of Nav Canada, it is for Nav Canada to release them. I certainly will look into the matter because we want all hon. members to have as much information as possible to make their jobs easier.

[Air Safety, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is usual courtesy in the House if one wants documents that one approaches the department or minister. This is the first I have heard about so-called missing documents.

If there are documents that are germane to the particular issue of the Kelowna control tower that are available and in the public domain, obviously they will be made available to the hon. member.

[Canada Marine Act, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have now put in place 12 of the 18 ports. The process has gone remarkably smoothly right across the country. We have put people in place who have reflected user concerns. There have been a couple of flaws, one in Vancouver and now in Toronto, which I regret. However, all of the people who were nominated came via the user community route and were fully nominated in consistency with the Canada Marine Act.

[Toronto Port Authority, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has got his facts wrong. In this case the Canada Marine Act provides for the appointment of four nominees, four directors, in consultation with users. To facilitate this process we set up port advisory committees across the country.

By and large the system has worked well. There was a small problem in Vancouver where there were not sufficient names from which I could select. This also happened in the case of Toronto.

The people who were selected are of the highest calibre. Their names were put forward in consultation with the users. I regret that there was some flaw in the process at the port advisory committee, but I think the people of Toronto will be well served by this particular group.