Stan Dromisky

[Highways, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, I point out to the hon. member that the deputy minister of the transportation department has been meeting with counterparts from all the provinces and is working on a national highway policy. The second and most important point is that in the throne speech we indicated our commitment to the enhancement of the infrastructure in the rural and urban areas of the country.

[Railways, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today more than 110 individuals representing Canada's rail industry will be meeting with more than 130 parliamentarians.

The Canadian public should know that the North American railway system has been, and is, the best in the world for shippers and governments by providing the best overall service at the lowest overall price, attracting the most investment and not depending on subsidies.

Canada's railways are safe. They reduce road costs and highway congestion, are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.

However, Canadian rail shippers have the most regulated transportation environment in North America. Therefore, ongoing dynamic policy changes must keep Canadian shippers competitive in domestic and international markets and encourage sustained investment for the delivery of improved services and lower costs.

[Air Transportation, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been providing excellent leadership throughout this entire experience.

[Air Transportation, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clearly point out that the minister did not interfere with the process. He had no part to play within it. The proposals that were presented by both parties will be seriously considered by all the agencies in this government as well as by the government and the transport committee.

[Airline Industry, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the framework was presented by the minister this week. The framework ensured the government bill, preserved Canadian ownership and control of our airlines, fostered domestic competition, ensured there is no price gouging, preserved services to small communities and protected the rights and concerns for employees.

This is all within the realm of the responsibilities of members of parliament and government officials. It is within the framework of government policies that have already been established.

[Airline Industry, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that department officials were informed of the original Onex offer the night before it was made public. That is a common practice and courtesy.

The hon. member should know that Air Canada also informed the department officials of its original offer well in advance, in fact, six weeks in advance of making it public.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the discussion has been exciting and debate during the day has been very interesting.

I will continue to deal with some of the issues that have been presented. I realize that some of the concepts I will present will be repetitive but we all know that if we repeat things often enough it leads to an effective learning experience.

I commend the Minister of Transport for his presentation on this subject before the House and the Senate standing committees on Tuesday and the policy framework document he tabled. He has shed a great deal of light on a topic that has been of consuming interest to members of the House and to Canadians for several months.

The government position is now known. Private sector parties will now be able to act with full knowledge of the government's policy framework and the process announced by the minister that will be used to approve and condition any proposal to restructure the airline industry.

I would particularly like to address two important issues raised last Tuesday by the minister. Those have been the central theme for much of today's debate. The first was the limit on ownership of Air Canada's voting shares established in the Air Canada Public Participation Act at 10%. The second was the limitation on foreign ownership of any Canadian air carrier and the requirement for Canadian control that are established in the Canada Transportation Act.

Those two issues are often confused. They sound so similar but they address different concepts. Both issues are very relevant to airline restructuring and both were addressed by the Minister of Transport in his policy framework and his statements.

I hope that by addressing them together I will not only be able to illuminate two quite technical issues, but also to clear up any confusion that may exist between them in the minds of some members of the House. Some members are quite confused.

The 25% limit on voting shares held by foreign investors applies to all Canadian carriers, including Air Canada. It is an aggregate figure such that it places an upper limit on the ability of non-Canadians acting separately or in concert with others to influence the result of any shareholder vote. This quantitative limit is accompanied in the Canada Transportation Act by a qualitative test of control in fact by Canadians.

Responsibility for applying the ownership limit and the control test lies with the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body that operates at arm's length from the government and the Minister of Transport. Those are very important points.

The other feature to note is that both the 25% test and the requirement for control in fact are ongoing obligations that are assessed before the airline is originally licensed to operate as a Canadian air carrier. That can be reassessed at any time based on developments with the airline that affect its ownership and governance, or on any other new information that may come to the agency's attention at any future time, or on the basis of complaint.

The purpose of these two tests, which together I will refer to as the Canadian ownership and control rules, is straightforward. The purpose is to ensure that all Canadian air carriers are owned and controlled by Canadians, that is, that this industry which is so key to all Canadians remains Canadian in the full sense of the term.

Moving now to a consideration of the 10% rule, this rule applies to Air Canada only as it appears in the Air Canada Public Participation Act, not the Canada Transportation Act or any other federal act of general application. No other airline in Canada is subject to such a rule, although this has not always been the case. Until 18 months ago, Canadian Airlines was subject to a similar restriction left over from the time it was owned by the province of Alberta. The provision was rescinded by the Alberta government in 1997.

The 10% rule is not aimed at non-Canadians per se. It applies to all shareholders, both Canadian and non-Canadian. This rule applies to any individuals as well as to individuals acting together, such that shareholders are expressly forbidden from entering into any agreement that would allow any person, together with the associates of that person, to own or control directly or indirectly voting shares which represent more than 10% of the votes that may be cast to elect members of the board of directors of Air Canada.

The 10% rule was included in the Air Canada Public Participation Act when it was passed in 1988 in order to ensure that Air Canada remained widely held. As I understand it, the idea was that Air Canada was already widely held in that it was a crown corporation owned in equal measure by all Canadians. So when the airline was privatized, parliament was loath to contemplate that this national carrier might some day be owned and controlled by any individual or group, even recognizing that they would be Canadians as provided for by the Canadian ownership and control rules. It appears that this idea was sufficiently persuasive on its face that it received little debate among Canadians in the media or in parliament at that time and became part of the legislation that governs Air Canada to this very day.

The point to be clear on is that the 10% limit is not, and I repeat not—

[National Marine Day, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to welcome Canada's major marine carriers, shippers and port organizations to Ottawa to participate in the inaugural National Marine Day.

For the first time in its long history, port and marine communities across Canada are meeting in the nation's capital to speak with one strong voice.

There are few places in this great country that are not touched by the movement of products by ships. From Vancouver to Corner Brook, Ungava Bay to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, Canadians continue to rely on this competitive and efficient community of industries which links Canada with the global marketplace.

Through ports across this country, such as found in my own community of Thunder Bay, the marine industry is responsible for moving more than half of Canada's international cargo trade while providing direct and indirect employment to tens of thousands of Canadians.

I call upon all members and all Canadians to join with me in celebrating not only our nation's great marine past, but also its vibrant and exciting future.

[Carriage By Air Act, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-23 on the occasion of its third reading in the House.

On May 27 the members of the Standing Committee on Transport examined the proposed legislation in detail and voted unanimously to send it forward for third reading. I thank my colleagues for having dealt with this bill so expeditiously.

Members will recall that the purpose of Bill S-23 is to amend the Carriage by Air Act so Canada can officially ratify and become a party to two international instruments dealing with air carrier liability, those being Montreal protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention. These two documents update and modernize elements of the Warsaw convention which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the carrier, passengers and shippers in relation to international air transportation.

This bill will enhance air carrier liability coverage and requirements.

Montreal protocol No. 4 amends the liability regime as it applies to cargo by providing stricter carrier liability and establishing maximum limits. It also simplifies the cargo documentation requirements and authorizes the electronic transmission of information. This transmission of cargo information usually means other than the traditional multicopy air waybill and will provide significant cost savings to carriers and shippers.

It has become extremely important that Canada act quickly to see to this protocol as it came into effect internationally in June 1998. This means that until Canada has been able to deposit its own ratification documents and have the protocol come into effect in Canada, our carriers and our shippers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their counterparts.

The Guadalajara convention on the other hand clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers for the first part and carriers for the other. This convention is already widely in force. It distinguishes the contracting carrier from the carrier performing the carriage on its behalf and sets out the varying liability of each. This sharing of the liability between contracting and operating carrier when they are not the same has become increasingly important as international carriers, including both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, join together in global commercial alliances and carry each other's passengers.

Both Montreal protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention have the unanimous support of the aviation industry. The industry supports Bill S-23 without reservation and urges parliament to pass the bill as quickly as possible.

I conclude by saying that the intent of Bill S-23 is both timely and non-controversial. It will provide clarity and certainty not only for our Canadian carriers, but for the international carriers with whom they co-operate or compete. It should reduce the potential for litigation and bring improved economies of time and cost to carriers and shippers.

We should move quickly to adopt this short but important bill. To delay would be to increase the length of time our carriers will be at a competitive disadvantage.

[National Transportation Week, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the week of June 6 to 12 marks National Transportation Week. This annual celebration recognizes the important role played by Canada's transportation system in the social and economic life of our nation, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs and moving Canadians and their products throughout the country and to international destinations and markets.

The theme of National Transportation Week '99, “Transportation: Safe, Reliable, Efficient”, draws attention to the ongoing dedication to the safety and reliability demonstrated by Canada's transportation community and to the sector's continued efforts to maximize its use of the latest transportation technology.

The kick-off is in Moncton today, National Transportation Day. Celebrations include a day-long conference and the annual awards dinner. Other events are planned throughout the week and throughout the country.

It is my hope that Canadians will take time this week to reflect on the central role that transportation plays in maintaining our quality of life and to consider how Canadian innovation can help prepare transportation for the challenges of the upcoming millennium.