Douglas Young

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Flags Of Convenience, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to make sure we are clear, there is no question this matter has been ongoing. The ships in question have been flying the Bahamian flag. It is true that it has been going on for a long time. I am aware of when the Leader of the Opposition resigned his position and changed his allegiance.

What I do want to make very clear is that the three ships in question were under Bahamian flag throughout the period when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government. We have been here for seven months. I am glad it has been brought to our attention. We will see if we can do something about it.

[Flags Of Convenience, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue again, since I just had the opportunity to review it.

It is true that three ships from Marine Atlantic are registered in the Bahamas, but I should point out to the hon. member that this has been the case for several years. I was not aware of that when the issue was first raised in the House. The hon. member could certainly have discussed it with the Leader of the Opposition, since the situation already existed when he was a cabinet member.

We will review the issue, but it is easy to see how it came about. The measure was taken precisely to avoid costs for the Government of Canada.

[Mil Davie, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the recovery plan, the business plan for the MIL Davie shipyard.

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with the company's president and I then explained to him the Canadian government's position, namely that the business plan, the recovery plan proposed by the company's management has not yet been approved by the employees because we know the results and what happened with the vote taken by the employees at management's request.

We are still at that stage and are waiting to see if we can really help maintain jobs at MIL Davie, either by having a ship built to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery or by other means. We are still waiting for a final plan that has been approved not only by the company's management but also by its employees.

[Rail Transportation, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very well established process for the abandonment of rail lines or passenger services. On the question of CN and CP, it is through the National Transportation Agency. With respect to VIA rail there is a system in place where abandonment can only be achieved through order in council.

There is no imminent decision with respect to the closure of any services that are currently being offered by VIA Rail because as VIA Rail officials are waiting for the results of their negotiations with their employees, so is the Government of Canada. Any rationalization of services with respect to VIA in Canada will only be decided upon after we have seen what the result of these current labour negotiations are.

[Rail Transportation, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the future of Canada's rail system depends primarily on the public's use of this mode of transportation.

My hon. colleague knows full well how important it is to maintain an adequate level of service for all modes of transportation, including passenger rail service. However, the cost of these operations cannot be ignored and we are currently con-

ducting a review of Canada's entire transportation system, including VIA Rail.

I want to assure my colleague that any decisions that will be taken will be in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Privilege, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as a matter of clarification.

Am I to understand that when one raises a point of privilege in this place that a decision will be taken before the point of privilege can be fully made? I think it would be instructive for members on both sides to recognize just how far we can go-

[Social Housing, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this country agrees that there is much to do to help those in need of decent housing. All members in this House as well as people familiar with the subject know that there are urgent needs.

I can assure my hon. colleague that the minister responsible is trying, in co-operation with his provincial counterparts, to find solutions compatible with the fiscal reality in Canada. He understands the problem fully, but we are not hearing much by way of solutions from our colleagues across the floor.

[Social Housing, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday on behalf of the minister, certainly progress was made at the meeting in Bathurst.

The Government of Canada has reintroduced the residential rehabilitation assistance program and that is $100 million over two years to assist low income Canadians.

We have also identified $120 million in savings over the next four years to be retained in the social housing envelope. Yes, indeed, considerable progress was made.

[Transportation Subsidies, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think to continue to cast doubt on the capacity of the Government of Canada to participate in supporting Canadian farmers is not terribly helpful.

What we have said and what we want to confirm is that the Department of Transport in the budget document and elsewhere has indicated that we have to change the way we subsidize transportation in this country. We have made that very clear.

The hon. member in his question asked who should you believe. As I indicated in an answer to a question earlier, in dealing with agriculture in this country I do not think there is any doubt that farmers and people interested in the agriculture industry should listen and believe the minister of agriculture.