Bill Casey

[National Defence, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence.

First, we had a series of weaknesses in the Sea King helicopters that embarrassed the Canadian air force. We then had the Hercules aircraft that took four attempts to get from A to B. Now a private contractor has discovered that our Aurora aircraft are so corroded they can only fly at one-third of their design altitude.

I do not know if there is any point where the government gets so embarrassed that it takes action or not but surely it must at this.

My question is for the minister of defence. What are the exact steps the department of defence will take to address these shortcomings in our aircraft in the Canadian Air Force?

[Airline Industry, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister, but that was not the question. The question was, did he discuss it with the chief of staff?

In general, does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for a business person to go to his office to seek advice and direction on how to deal with two ministers, in this case the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, before he even talks to them? Is this an appropriate action and is it the way the Prime Minister's office works?

[Airline Industry, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Senate transport hearings, Kevin Benson, the president of Canadian Airlines, acknowledged that he was a de facto lobbyist for the Onex proposal and that when he wanted to suspend the Competition Act he went directly to the Prime Minister's office and talked to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. That was before he even talked to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Industry.

Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff discuss any aspect of this with the Prime Minister?

[Airline Industry, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the quote is “prior to launch” it wants those confirmations.

In yet another peacock memo dated July 29, there is a statement that says, “Onex has already been assured that the Government of Canada will grant a special executive order under section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act to suspend merger review under the Competition Act”.

Again, as instructed, this time the Minister of Industry granted a section 47 suspension. Why did the Minister of Industry provide this information to Onex 14 days ahead of everybody else?

[Airline Industry, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in a privileged and confidential Onex memo about project peacock, dated August 16, 1999, Onex laid out the rules. It said that prior to launch Onex would want confirmation of political support, including the removal of the 10% ownership limit from the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

We now know that the Minister of Transport has proposed to change that 10% rule, just as instructed by Onex. Why did the minister tell Onex of his plans to change the 10% rule a full 60 days before he told the rest of the country?

[Airline Industry, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think my question is quite appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister.

On the Onex notes under issues, risks, political, it discusses the need to change legislation in order to remove the 10% voting ownership restriction. It says “Seeking to do so may result in serious political debate in the House of Commons. Our timing of seeking approval during the summer recess will be helpful in curbing that debate”.

Was the reason we came back to help Onex curb the debate in the House of Commons? Was that why we were delayed so long? Was it in order to help that one bid?

[Airline Industry, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me read another line. “Another key player is the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mel Cappe. Mel Cappe will make the final changes at the deputy minister level and knowing our plans may influence his choices”.

I want to know, did the Clerk of the Privy Council become involved in any way? Did he advise Onex or Canadian Airlines? Did he discuss anything and if so, when?

[Airline Industry, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the very troubling statements in Onex confidential memorandums is a reference to a meeting with the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier. It goes on to say because “he could advise us of the best time to approach both the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office”.

I want to know, did the Prime Minister's chief of staff become involved in any way, shape, or form in any discussions, or did he advise anybody at Onex or Canadian Airlines on how to proceed through the Minister of Transport?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the number one issue on people's minds was whether the process was fair. On August 13 the minister announced a 90-day window of negotiation during which he would receive proposals to restructure the industry.

On day one the law of the land was and still is that the maximum that anybody could own of Air Canada was 10%. Two days ago, with only 16 days left in the process, he has announced that he may change that regulation to allow any bid to maybe considerably more of the company.

Considering it is a standard operating procedure for government to call for proposals and give a window of opportunity to receive them, does the member feel it is fair for the minister to change the rules with only 16 days left when obviously nobody else has an opportunity to put together such a comprehensive plan that is required for the issue?

I like the member's referral to the dominant monopoly carrier. It is very appropriate. When the minister asked the Competition Bureau to review the industry, he did not ask it to look at all possible options, he said “Just look at my favourite option,” the dominant monopoly carrier theory”. Does the member feel that was fair?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member. He mentioned in his speech that the entrepreneurial spirit was alive and well, that they were fostering it and all that sort of thing.

When the minister asked the Competition Bureau to investigate the restructuring of the aviation industry, could the member explain why the minister did not restrict it to one narrow vision, the minister's narrow vision of a dominant carrier? Why did he not ask the Competition Bureau to bring back all the options and all the potential possibilities that may include the competition which this one does not? Instead, he just focused on one area and limited the bureau's review to that.

I would like him to comment on another matter. When the government called for proposals on August 13, it said that it would consider proposals for 90 days. Why did the government not then consider or make public its intention to consider changing the 10% rule? Why did it wait until there were only 16 days left in the process when nobody else had a chance to put a proposal on the table?