House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Air Canada March 31st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, here is the opportunity for the transport minister.
Eight air carriers have died on this transport minister's watch in the past six years. I want him to stand up and unequivocally say that he will reject any corporate welfare for Air Canada, and that he will say the buck stops with him. Will he say no to corporate welfare for Air Canada when it comes and that it will not get any money at all from the government.
Will he say that Air Canada will not get a dime from the government?
Air Canada March 31st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the transport minister has not denied that the government, and he himself, is considering giving tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars to Air Canada. Robert Milton, CEO of Air Canada stated in Wings magazine that: “I want to be clear we are not asking for a bail-out or rescue package”.
Why will the Minister of Transport give tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare when the corporation receiving it does not want it?
Airline Industry March 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we believe in airline competition, not unfair regulations against one company that is supposed to be operating in the private sector.
The transport minister imposes regulations singularly on Air Canada. He tells Air Canada where to have its headquarters, where to maintain its fleet, what languages to speak, with whom to interline and with whom to share its aeroplan points. The transport minister spends more time micro-managing Air Canada than does Robert Milton, its CEO.
If the transport minister wants to re-regulate and nationalize Air Canada and turn it back into a crown corporation, why will he not just be honest about it and admit it?
Airline Industry March 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport seems to be sending mixed signals with regard to Air Canada, so I want to ask him a straightforward question.
Does he think that the privatization of Air Canada was a mistake and does he want to nationalize it and turn it back into a crown corporation again?
Question No. 136 March 25th, 2003
Responding with a list in both printed and electronic formats, what are the government's holdings in all its vehicle fleets as of December 31, 2002, including: ( a ) vehicle class; ( b ) model type; ( c ) model year; ( d ) colour; ( e ) size of engine (rating as per number of cylinders); ( f ) department holding the ownership; ( g ) original purchase price and date; ( h ) individual assigned to the vehicle (if applicable); and ( i ) fuel type?
(Return tabled.)
Airline Industry March 24th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in response to all this the transport minister has created a committee to study possible solutions. Just what we need, another committee.
The three things that this government could do today in order to help right the airline industry's problems are: first, eliminate the Air Canada Public Participation Act which puts Air Canada at a competitive regulatory disadvantage; second, eliminate the taxes and fees that are hammering the airline industry; and third, show some leadership in creating an open skies agreement that air carriers in the United States want to see happen.
Why is it that after six years of being transport minister the minister's only response to do anything is to study, study, study and to show zero leadership?
Airline Industry March 24th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport seems to think the problems with the air industry began with the Iraq war. In fact, they began when he became transport minister: air taxes, fuel taxes, no open skies, landing fees, airport improvement fees. The fees, taxes and charges on flying in this country total some $400 million. While the government taxes the air industry into the ground, it subsidizes the rail industry through corporate welfare.
Why are the government and the transport minister surprised that Air Canada and the air industry are having problems when their policy is to tax the air industry and to tax travellers to subsidize alternative forms of travelling, through corporate welfare to rail?
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Madam Speaker, in response to the speaker prior to the member from the Bloc who said that pre-emptive war is a bad idea and that this is a move of unprecedented proportion and without historical precedent, let me say that in fact that is not true.
Israel launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq, and thank God it did because it took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons in the first gulf war, today Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq. That is an example of pre-emptive war working. It led to a more peaceful world. It led to Saddam Hussein not having nuclear weapons and not terrorizing the Middle East. Thank God Israel did it and thank God people have learned that lesson.
I am sorry that the Liberal member opposite has not quite figured that out.
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough said that there is only speculation about why the United Nations would go to war. Here is a theory. Because Iraq has violated United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, the violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 allows the use of force in response. The current Liberal Prime Minister said that in The Guardian in Charlottetown. That is rationale.
Could the minister for Scarborough comment on whether he disagrees with his own leader?
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Madam Speaker, in my first two questions the minister did not answer either of them so I will give him the shortest question to answer. It is a yes or no answer.
In the fight against Saddam Hussein and his history of financing terrorist activities, does he believe that it is part of the fight against terrorism, yes or no?