Roy Cullen

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, no one asked for the events of September 11. No one invited the terrorists. No one wanted them. People are abhorred with the results and how those actions have basically turned the world upside down. It is a reality that we in Canada and others throughout the world have to deal with the fallout from those terrible events.

Those events have had a huge impact on the airline industry. IATA estimates the economic cost of the current crisis on the airline industry at $15 billion Canadian. In the United States alone 133,000 jobs have already been lost. The Swissair group could be out of business in the next few days.

These are very serious matters that we are dealing with in very difficult times. The question before us is whether or not the federal government should assist Canada's airline industry and, if it does, what form that assistance should take.

In my riding of Etobicoke North, which is very near Lester B. Pearson airport, many of my constituents are very deeply affected, whether they are airline employees, employees of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority or Lester B. Pearson airport, airline taxi or limousine drivers or owners, car rental businesses, airport hotels, airport restaurants or whatever.

Let us refresh ourselves on some of the facts and some of the history. In the year 2000 we effectively named for all intents and purposes Air Canada our national carrier. The alternative was to allow Canadian Airlines to go bankrupt. Maybe in hindsight this would have been the more preferable thing to do. Having lived in western Canada for 12 years I know the attachment and the symbolism of Canadian Airlines, as many of us in the House know.

The government tried to make it work. Overall I believe the integration of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines has been reasonably successful. Granted there are Canadians who have encountered some deficiencies with Air Canada. In fact many of us have encountered them, whether it is cancelled flights, peanuts of the wrong flavour or whatever. We know there have been some service deficiencies.

Today we are not talking about minor service deficiencies. We are talking about the very survival of Canada's airline industry.

I should like to articulate the principles I would use to determine what federal support the government should be responding with for the airline industry. The initial comment by Air Canada's President Milton when he threw out the number of $3 billion to $4 billion unfortunately has tarnished the debate. The number is totally unrealistic given Canada's fiscal positioning. Frankly I think it was a number that was sucked out of the air.

We should be considering the losses that the airlines have incurred as a result of closing down the skies. More important, we should be looking at the challenges facing Canada's airline industry as we move forward.

In fairness and being fiscally responsible we should be limiting it to the airlines themselves. In my riding I know many ancillary industries are affected, but the reality is that if we can get Canadians back into airline seats, if we can get travellers into airline seats, it will begin to have a ripple effect through the ancillary industries we all want.

For us to look at compensating all secondary industries that support the airline industry, we would be having auditors reviewing this for the next 10 years. Frankly at the end of the day I am not sure it would be affordable. We need to keep our eye on the issue of getting passengers back on to airlines. That is a global problem. That is a global challenge.

Canada is responding with measures to make passengers feel more confident about flying in aircraft. Closing the cockpit doors and other security measures at the airport are all helping, but it will take some time for us to get back to that position.

Some argue that the whole world has changed irrevocably as a result of September 11, that we will see businesses teleconferencing and that the demand for air travel will be permanently down.

I am not one who shares that view. Over many months people will start getting into planes. It behooves us all to make sure that our security systems, our border controls and our other ancillary services are done in a way to make sure our security is safe and sound.

If the airlines are up and running again, I think that businesses and individuals who work in that sector directly and indirectly will benefit from that. That is the most realistic approach to take.

In looking at Air Canada and the whole airline industry, although Air Canada seems to be the one with the bigger problem, we need to look at it from the point of view that all stakeholders need to be involved. The federal government alone cannot solve Air Canada's problems moving forward. We have to look at the airline employees, including management. What can they contribute the make Air Canada structurally sound moving forward? What about the debt holders? This has been an impediment to the restructuring of Air Canada. The debt holders of Canadian and other debt holders will have to, as the expression goes, put some water in their wine. Governments at all levels will have to make a contribution.

We need to separate out what happened as a result of September 11 and what issues were impacting the airline industry in Canada before September 11. We do know that Air Canada had some problems. Is that a function of their cost structure? Did it have certain overheads that were disproportionate to what was allowed in the marketplace? Did it have enough flexibility in terms of its union contracts? I know that one of my constituents talked about the concept of in-house scope, which he believes is the largest single impediment to the restructuring of Air Canada.

Was Air Canada in trouble because of increased market share being taken by some of the competitor airlines? If that is the case, that is a problem, because we want to encourage WestJet and the Canada 3000 to create more competition for Air Canada domestically.

We have given to Air Canada an incredible opportunity with a world mandate in terms of the international routes. Yes, granted, there is severe competition on those routes. However, it has an opportunity here, and I know I would like to see it succeed. I think most Canadians would like to see it succeed.

The question is, what is its business plan in moving forward? Does it have a sound business plan? What does that involve? Does that mean restructuring? Does it mean refinancing? Does it mean employees being more flexible with their contracts? Does it mean management taking some salary cuts? Whatever it takes, we have to understand that the federal government alone cannot get Air Canada back into the situation it once was.

Someone asked why does the Government of Canada not purchase treasury shares in Air Canada and maybe deprivatize Air Canada. I am not sure that would be a positive thing to do. I think that would be a retrograde step. Nonetheless, any aid that the Government of Canada gives to Air Canada and Canada's airline companies should have some performance standards, some strings attached to that so that moving forward Canadians feel confident that there is something in it for them, that we have helped Air Canada and the airline industry restructure and because of all that it will become a more responsive and a more customer focused airline industry in Canada.

Although taking treasury shares or maybe deprivatizing Air Canada is tempting in many respects, the question also is why would the Government of Canada want to inherit some of the challenges that Air Canada is facing right now. I am not sure the government can do any better a job than management at Air Canada.

Air Canada is an amazing company and has an amazing opportunity, as do all airlines in Canada. We have to make sure that it is restructured on a sound business footing, that it is sustainable into the future and that whatever Canada does is also matched by some contributions by all the stakeholder groups so that we have a sound airline industry and we can get over the September 11 crisis.

[Export Development Act, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Southeast continues to espouse these simplistic solutions that the market does everything and that governments are not needed to intervene. He glibly states that he understands that companies may need some insurance and financing to deal with the export markets. How kind of him.

In fact, last year $45 billion in exports were done using trade financing services from EDC. The question is, could the private sector do this? The role of the EDC is to move in when the private sector will not move in and provide the kind of financing or insurance that is needed to compete in those markets. I will give an example.

In my riding of Etobicoke North there is a company that is now doing some major work in the United States. It was not able to get bonding in the Canadian markets because we do not have the diversity, the richness, the size, the breadth and the scope of the markets to step up to some of these challenges. It received performance bonding working with EDC and the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That company is growing in leaps and bounds. It now has a presence in the U.S. market and is growing from strength to strength. It was because of EDC and the Canadian Commercial Corporation that it was able to do the deal.

That is not to say that we should not be holding EDC accountable to its mandate and not to be crowding out the private sector. We are talking here at the margin. We are not talking about a vast generalization which the member opposite tries to portray, that EDC should just get out of the market completely and let the market do the business. If we look at the facts, the reality is that the market does not always respond in the way the member would dream that it could. These are called market failures. It is the role of government to move in when the market is not there.

EDC and the Canadian Commercial Corporation serve this country very well. They perform an outstanding service. I for one would like to support them. I will be supporting the bill. I would encourage the member for Calgary Southeast to get off his ideology and look at the facts because this crown corporation helps Canadian business and helps create jobs in Canada.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, however well intentioned the member for Winnipeg Centre might be, I wonder if he has read the bill. Bill S-23 has nothing to do with economic nationalism or grandiose philosophical themes. It has nothing to do with harmonization.

Has the member turned on his television recently and seen the huge lineups of trucks at the border trying to get goods into the U.S. market? We know that many of the trucks and individuals trying to get through are low risk or no risk.

The whole intent of Bill S-23 is to try to streamline those processes and look at pre-approval or self-assessment with sanctions for non-compliance. That is what the bill is all about. That is why it is needed today more than ever.

I know that members on this side of the House met with business people in Sarnia and Windsor not too long ago. This is exactly the kind of thing they need because trucks are getting stuck at the border. If there was ever a time when we needed this bill it is today. It has nothing to do with integration with the United States.

Has the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre read the bill? If he has not, will he undertake to do so?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

Canadians as we know, are very concerned about terrorism and how it is financed. Given that money is the fuel and food for terrorism, will the government be introducing amendments to our recently enacted anti-money laundering legislation to combat terrorism?

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Tobique--Mactaquac.

We all share in the shock, the horror, the revulsion and the sadness as a result of the events that took place in the United States on September 11. This was indeed a senseless and cowardly act committed by a very few fanatics willing to give up their lives for a cause that is difficult to piece together and comprehend. They have really turned the whole world upside down.

Some heroic efforts need to be acknowledged and heralded: the passengers who probably charged the cockpit crew, probably saving countless lives in Pennsylvania; the work of the fire men and women, the police officers and other rescue workers who lost their lives trying to save the victims, and this work continues.

Canadians and people around the world have responded in a remarkable way with messages of condolence, support and sadness; with the giving of blood; with the donations of many kinds and different descriptions; and in many other ways.

There are some who jumped at the alleged Canadian connection and now it appears that 17 of the terrorists spent many years in the United States. However the message is that all nations need to look at their security, look at their approach and look at their responses. We all need to tighten up. We need to be resolute.

We must have measured action in the short term but, more important, in the medium and long term. New approaches to intelligence gathering and infiltration will be part of the longer term solution in my view. The fact that these terrorists were able to stay underneath the radar of the intelligence community is a cause for concern. We need many more rapid responses to aircraft that deviate from approved flight paths and more airport and aircraft security. I was delighted that the Minister of Transport said that the cockpit doors must be sealed.

All Canadians need to remember that this is a fight against terrorists, not against any community or single group. In my riding of Etobicoke North, I have a Muslim community which met last week to show their support for action. They abhor the terrorist action that resulted in the loss of so many lives in the United States.

Does the member for Tobique--Mactaquac have such communities in his riding and, if so, how are they responding? I am sure they are responding in a similar way in that this is something that needs to be dealt with but that we cannot target individual groups. We must all realize that this terrorist action was as a result of a very small number of people who were committed and were fanatics. I hope that message is coming through in his riding as well, although he may not have the diversity that is present in some of the urban ridings in Canada.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has stood in the House before and talked about this very negative option as he sees it, and that is paying down the debt is not a realistic option.

We still have over $550 billion of debt. In 1995-96 the debt to GDP ratio, that is the debt in relation to the size of the economy, was about 71.2%. It is now around 55%. The norm would be somewhere around 40% or thereabouts.

When we look at investing in social programs, the government last September at the premiers conference invested some $21.4 billion in health care, post-secondary education and other social programs, which was the largest single investment the government ever made.

The $15 billion that automatically went toward paying down the debt at the end of the last fiscal year was the surplus. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is a member of the finance committee. I am sure he knows the procedure that whatever the surplus is it goes to paying down the debt. That will save taxpayers $2 billion a year in debt service charges. That will mean more resources are freed up to invest in health care and post-secondary education, to cut taxes and to invest in innovation, training and skills development.

Why has the member such an aversion to paying down the debt? We still have a debt in Canada of about $550 billion which is far too high? Why is he so negative on paying it down?

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know time is of the essence, so I will be very brief. I listened to the comments of the member for New Brunswick Southwest. The bill would bring the Patent Act into compliance with the World Trade Organization. I think most people would accept that.

I think the 20 year patent protection is very appropriate, but there are generic companies in my riding that talk about the notice of compliance regulations which, they say, provide these companies with another three years of patent protection. I know that regulatory issues are not really tied to the legislation, but I am sure the member for New Brunswick Southwest has made a holistic study of the issue.

Does he support the notice of compliance regulations which appear to add more time to the 20 year patent protection? This is a provision that was brought in by his own government in 1993, so I assume that he may support it on that basis alone. I wonder if he has any policy rationale for that.

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the House of Commons, not a seminar in procedure. The Speaker has made—

[The Economy, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, this party and this government believe in a balanced approach. Paying down debt is a good thing because it gives us greater flexibility moving forward. We are able to redeploy resources into social and economic programs, cutting taxes more and a whole host of things.

We are doing everything to the very best of our ability. We are cutting taxes. We are paying down debt. We are investing in important social and economic programs. We will continue this balanced approach.

[Taxation, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the government should be getting management advice from the party across the floor when it cannot even keep its own act together.

Notwithstanding that, all economists are saying that this is the largest tax stimulus in Canadian history and that we need to give it a chance to work its way into the economy. The economists have said almost unanimously that we will not be in deficit, that the economy is working very well and we need to give it a chance to work its way through the system.

The member knows full well that some of the deductions in terms of CCP and EI max out after six months, so we are going to see that come—