Douglas Young

[Infrastructure, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member recognizes the allocation of funds for highway construction, even though in part it may come from the federal government, is a provincial responsibility.

I want to assure my hon. colleague the negotiations with the province of Nova Scotia, as is the case with many other provinces across the country, are ongoing and there are reallocations which take place from time to time. However, whatever reallocations are made are always on the basis of those negotiations with the provinces, which are ultimately responsible for not only the spending of the money but also for the route selection.

[Pearson International Airport, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. leader of the fifth party has not seen fit to recognize the fact that the Prime Minister stood in this House and denied categorically that he was involved in any discussions relating to Pearson and that deal. That was substantiated by a lawyer who allegedly had been present when such a discussion was allegedly to have taken place.

With respect to Pearson and in response to the hon. gentleman's question, anybody who does not think there is something wrong with the Pearson deal would have had to be a member of the Mulroney cabinet.

[Buffalo And Fort Erie Public Bridge Company Act, March 31st, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Air Carriers, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple how we rationalize the decisions with respect to all our cross border and international air travel.

If I use the thesis put forward by my hon. friend, we would not have attributed all the rights we were able to negotiate with the United States. My hon. friend will know that Air Canada has orders with major aircraft manufacturers both in Canada and outside the country to be able to service the routes we have been able to negotiate internationally and with the United States.

If it were a question of only attributing routes or making it possible for Air Canada and Canadian to fly to areas where they have the aircraft for it, there would be a lot of things we would not do that we have already done.

We are saying to Air Canada and to Canadian Airlines International: "This is where you can go. This is how we arrived at the decision. This is how you can plan for your future". That is why they can go out now and negotiate for the purchase or the lease of aircraft to be able to fly to routes that were closed to both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International in the United States and around the world.

If the hon. member were to be careful and understand what we have achieved for airports across the country and for employees of both airlines, he would tell us that by the end of 1995 we will have done more to improve the situation for both airlines than was done in the previous 15 or 20 years in the country.

[Air Carriers, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as you can appreciate, the financial situation of any company with publicly traded shares is a very delicate subject matter.

I must, however, tell my hon. colleague that the reason why I say that we have acted as equitably as possible in this whole matter is that, after years of controversy and difficulties in the Canadian air transport industry, the directors of both carriers are telling us and stating publicly that we have acted fairly and efficiently.

My hon. colleague should know, for example, that Air Canada decided the day before yesterday to proceed with a $500 million share issue and that, throughout this process, Air Canada notified Canadians that it had to purchase new planes and hire over 600 people. I think that, if we in the House of Commons want to be fair and equitable, we should realize that great progress has been made. The situation is not perfect, but we think that both carriers are about to experience years of growth that will be much more interesting than what we have seen in the past.

[Marine Transport, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the error committed is one fully admitted to. The difference is who the Bloc Quebecois wants to pay for the error.

The vessel owners understood there were fees to be paid. They paid them. There has been an administrative error. It is not unusual to have the Bloc Quebecois try to have the taxpayers of Canada pay for administrative errors easily corrected by legislation.

[Marine Transport, March 31st, 1995]

No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. It all started with an administrative error, but shipowners knew exactly what they were supposed to pay. A standing joint committee acknowledged that an administrative error had been made. It is nothing new in such situations to correct the error through legislation, without there being any bad intentions on anybody's part.

[National Defence, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to the contract award to Canadian Airlines International by the Department of National Defence, he might want to take into account that at the time the tenders were called for that service to be provided both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International made submissions.

What I thought interesting as a result of that is both airlines, particularly the airline not awarded the contract, Air Canada, stated publicly the process had been absolutely fair and appropriate.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 29th, 1995]

Welcome to Hull.

[Pearson International Airport, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the document the hon. member refers to as being covered up is one that obviously was covered up as far as he was concerned. He has not bothered to take a look at the documents made public in December of last year dealing with the case before the courts.

One thing the hon. member would want to refer to in looking at the documents and the opinions expressed therein is that the people who determined that Paxport was the appropriate offer to

accept on the basis of the privatization plans for Pearson would also have to take into account that only a few months after that recommendation was made, those people were unable because they were financially incompetent to proceed with the deal.