Peter MacKay

[Airline Industry, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that since February Kevin Benson has been a registered paid lobbyist for Onex and that he met with the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier. He also met with the Minister of Transport to discuss the airline takeover.

Could the Minister of Industry now confirm that Kevin Benson, the Onex lobbyist, also met with his own deputy minister, Kevin Lynch, to discuss the suspension of the Competition Act?

[Airline Industry, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is starting to sound like airbus with evidence. It smacks of political interference. Internal documents show that Onex “would require clear indications of support from the government prior to proceeding with the transaction”. Well, it is proceeding.

I ask the minister again, with the 10% rule suspended and the suspension of the Competition Act checked off Gerry's wish list, when did Onex receive the assurances from political friends that the government would support no burdensome regulations? When did those assurances comes in?

[Airline Industry, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to answers given earlier by the minister, internal documents confirm that assurances were sought to seal the Onex deal.

In an August 11 memo entitled “Project Peacock”, Onex states that it will proceed only if the government supports its initiatives and if the new airline will not be burdened with cumbersome regulatory requirements.

Given the process is obviously in full throttle and even Buzz Hargrove is now on side, it is clear that those assurances were given. Will the minister now tell the House when those assurances were given?

[Privilege, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add fuel to the debate, but I do feel there are a couple of points I would like to make to contribute to what has been put forward on the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, as a member and presiding officer of the Board of Internal Economy, you know that the issue and the facts of the case should not be tried in the House of Commons. We have now heard extensively about what ultimately could become points of contention in a civil trial that is before the courts or pending.

We have heard discussions about what parliamentary privilege may be attached to certain comments that were made in a householder that was sent out to a constituency. We can argue about the merits and the intent of that, but I find that you, Mr. Speaker, are being put in the unenviable position of being asked essentially to be a court of appeal before a court finding has been made on many of these important facts.

I also know that questions of privilege that are brought forward are often brought forward after certain circumstances have arisen. Much of the discussion that we have had before the House today already took place at the Board of Internal Economy. Mr. Speaker, you are being asked in essence not only to be a court of appeal for a civil trial but also for a Board of Internal Economy decision that has been made.

As I am also a member of that board, I know that oftentimes we will revisit decisions if new factual information comes to light. However, this is the first time in my short tenure in this place that I have seen a Board of Internal Economy matter essentially appealed to the Chair.

It is important to state that in the member's remarks—and I take some offence to this fact—he portrays himself as if speaking for the House in this matter. That is perhaps taking a rather broad swipe at what has occurred here. It was an individual member who decided, along political or philosophic lines, and he is entitled to say things. We also know there is privilege that attaches us to this place. However, this is a factually different situation where an individual member, for whatever reason, took it upon himself to make some very provocative and potentially personally offensive remarks about an individual in the other place. This has played itself out in such a way that he now finds himself the target of a civil suit.

I take great sympathy for what he is going through and the personal cost that this may entail. However, there is a degree of fiscal and moral accountability that is playing itself out here. It is one thing to say something in this Chamber and then rely on privilege, but to say things outside the House or to take it one step further and actually publish something about another individual or an institution, one has to be prepared to reap what one sows.

I do not want to prolong this, but I feel it is pre-emptive for the Chair to rule on the appeal at this point, particularly given that this is still the subject of a lawsuit that is pending, and particularly given the fact that we have already dealt with this, I would suggest, in a fairly substantial way at the Board of Internal Economy.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, to a large extent, the minister has fallen on his own sword with that last comment. He deposited his government's policy the other day; 74 days into the situation he deposited his government's policy. In the middle of the game, he suddenly says “Oh, by the way, there has been a rule change and here is where we stand on it”.

That the minister himself has suddenly come up with a policy on this particular point is not the type of leadership nor the solid positioning that those involved in this particular debate should draw any sort of solace or comfort from.

As to whether I have read this particular policy that was deposited the other day, the fact of the matter is no. We have a very competent and able member of the committee, the member for Cumberland—Colchester who, I am quite positive—and he is nodding in agreement—has read it. He has certainly made his views very clear on this and will continue to do so, I might add.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the attendance of the minister and his participation in the debate. I think it is extremely important. As he said, the implications are grave. This is probably the biggest and most complicated file that this ministry has faced in decades.

I want to be very clear on this. I would never want to mislead the House or misrepresent the facts in the debate. My understanding is that the minister has floated the idea of changing the 10% rule. He has not said that he would or he would not.

However, the crux of the matter is that this causes confusion within the industry. This causes the participants in the debate to feel like they are on unstable ground as to what is going to happen next. The lack of policy, the lack of leadership and firm commitment as to what the rules of engagement are, is causing a great deal of misunderstanding, mistrust and confusion among the proponents and among Canadians.

I would encourage the minister to be perhaps more definitive and more diligent in making his position clear to Canadians and making his government's policy or plan clear to Canadians so that we do not have issues swirling out there in the public debate and this furore over what is going to happen and the confusion and consternation. That is not what is needed.

We need firm leadership from this minister and the minister of fisheries on other issues, and many issues that are out there right now. I am certainly glad that we have the ability to debate this in the House.

However, it would have been nice if we had been back here on the start-up date that was initially proposed in September. We would have had a better opportunity to look at all of these issues at an earlier instance.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

I am very pleased to rise to take part in the debate, a debate which I think has caused a great deal of uneasiness. There have obviously been even elements of consternation in the debate today.

As we have seen in a number of instances, it appears that the government is now lapsing into crisis management. We have seen it in the fisheries as a result of the Marshall decision. We have seen it in the debate over the pay equity settlement. Let us hope that this particular situation is not going wind up before the courts. The hon. member who just spoke has indicated, quite rightly, that we as legislators have to deal with situations such as this.

I want to congratulate the Bloc for bringing this motion forward. The timeliness of it is extremely important. It is an issue that is moving along at breakneck pace and one which has not been handled particularly well by the government.

We will be supporting the motion because the motives behind the proposal to increase the ownership limit of Air Canada, the 10% rule, and the 10% public participation rule, are very important and credible and should be considered free of all outside influences. The 10% rule is one of the issues that is at the very crux of this debate, as well as the confidence that Canadians have in the deals which are being proposed and the solutions to this crisis in our airline that are being brought forward and supported, for the most part, by the government.

The current proposal calls for a change to the 10% rule. This is one change that would be completely influenced by one proposal over another on the issue of merger. It shows and smacks of favouritism.

The process itself is one that has been fraught with a great deal of misinformation and a great deal of confusion. The government's timing of the announcement with respect to the suspension of the Competition Act was something else that caused a great deal of concern on the part of all Canadians and a great deal of concern in particular in the business community because it has broad, far-reaching implications for all business practitioners in the country.

The proposal to change the 10% rule at the beginning of the 90 day negotiation period might have been acceptable. It might have been acceptable. It would certainly have been more acceptable than what we have occurring in this instance, which is, 16 days before the end of the 90 day suspension of the Competition Act, we have the government basically moving the goal posts, changing the rules of engagement and allowing, without any doubt, a very undue and unfair advantage to one of the proponents, one of the proposed businesses that looked to engage and take over what is our national airline, or our two national airlines.

To put this in its proper context, with 16 days to go in the 90 day window for negotiation, the government suddenly, out of the blue, announced a plan to change the 10% ownership rule. That left absolutely no time for any serious offer or any serious business to come forward and develop, or at least put into the mix a bid with respect to this offer. The new proposal, if it were to come, would be at an unfair advantage. Even if a proposal could be made within the 16 day period, it would be completely unfair compared to a proposal made by, in this case, one of the proponents in the time period it has had. The timing itself is something that is extremely suspect and extremely tenuous when it comes down to the issue of fairness and competition, which is what is at the very root of this issue.

On the issue of the 10% rule, the proposal to change the 10% rule at this late date strongly demonstrates that the government is flying by the seat of its pants, improvising daily as to how to react or respond to the various businesses that are currently involved. As I said before, the crux of the issue is that there could have been more. In a competitive business world what we would surely want when it comes to our national airline is to have the best proposals and the best options to choose from. It is a very fundamental motherhood issue.

As the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester put it, in terms that Canadians can understand, if we are going out to Canadian Tire to buy a toaster, we are not going to buy one brand of toaster without looking at the various options that are available. Compare that to having national airlines worth billions of dollars and the suggestion that we should simply buy this one because it has been proposed and it is the only option that is available because the government tells us so. Behind the scenes we know that is not the case. This is not a situation where there was fair competition, where the rules that applied to one business applied to all. It is at the very fundamental root of the Competition Act that this is the case.

The Competition Act was suspended. The rules were pulled away and, very curiously, the minister asked that the bureau look at a very narrow part of this deal. He has chosen to take out of the mix the normal scrutiny that would be applied by the bureau and he has, for all intents and purposes, emasculated the Competition Bureau and given it a very specific mandate as to what it should look at in the context of this deal. He has said: “The minister's option is the preferred option and therefore I am going to point you in that direction. I am not going to ask you to look at the entire situation as you normally would if the Competition Act were in full force and effect, but I am going to suggest that you take this particular aspect of your job and you follow it. In the meantime, I will continue to oversee the situation”. It was a very paternalistic and narrow view taken by the minister. The effect at the end of the day is that we may wind up with a dominant carrier approach which will not serve Canadians well.

One of the other fundamental motherhood issues is how this will affect jobs, how it will affect the employment situation in the country. The Canadian aviation industry includes thousands of employees in all regions of the country. Again I congratulate the Bloc for bringing the matter forward, but this is not limited to any one region of the country. It has drastic implications in the west, in the east, in the north and all over the country. More than anything else, this is something the government has to constantly have at the front of its mind and hopefully on its priority list, as to how it examines, manages or mismanages this issue.

What is the effect going to be on jobs in this country? There are dozens of smaller airlines that will obviously be affected as well, and there are hundreds of airports and hundreds of communities, in terms of being isolated in the service that will be provided to them, which will be affected in a profound way if this issue is not resolved in a fair and equitable manner.

This is not a new situation. It is something the government surely should have seen coming down the pike, but again, somehow, for some reason which is beyond me and beyond the understanding of many Canadians, the government is not reacting. It is simply improvising and reacting in a day to day way, as opposed to having some sort of concrete or deliberate path that it is following, giving Canadians the confidence they should have in their national government.

I again hearken back to the issue of employment. The government is proposing to completely restructure and revamp our national airline in 90 days. That is less than the gestation period of a mayfly. Somehow the government wants to completely change our national airline and asks Canadians to have faith in the process, all the while changing the rules of engagement as it goes along.

This is not something that should instil a great deal of confidence in Canadians. It is something we should slow down and something we should look at extremely carefully. We should ensure that those who are in the know are actually making the right decisions.

Part of the problem here is that we do not know who is in the know. We do not know what information is available. We do not know when the information was released that the Competition Act would be suspended. We do not what information was exchanged between the various airlines prior to the suspension of the Competition Act.

We must be extremely diligent in the way we proceed in the next number of days, months and years because the effect is going to be profound and potentially devastating on communities in the country.

I wish Godspeed to the minister and to the transportation committee as they proceed in their deliberations because this is a very serious issue. I am hoping and putting trust in those members of the committee that they are going to hold to account the government on this matter.

[Armenian Parliament, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians were shocked and saddened yesterday when we heard of the terrorism and murder that had taken the lives of the Prime Minister, the Speaker and members of the Armenian assembly. I know that everyone in the House abhors and condemns what has taken place.

On behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Conservative Party of Canada, we also offer our sympathy to the families of those whose lives were taken and to the people of Armenia whose history has been scarred with far too much violence and strife over the years.

In circumstances such as these we can only reflect on the fragility and sanctity of human life and pray that the people of Armenia will soon know better days and experience calm in the aftermath of this horror.

We offer our condolences and our solidarity to all Armenians in this difficult time and pray for peace and justice in that country and around the world.

[Veterans Affairs, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, decades of financial mismanagement of pension benefits of thousands of foreign disabled veterans by veterans affairs has finally been exposed.

Witness the case of Joseph Authorson, a World War II vet unable to manage his pension who trusted the government to properly administer his finances. He and potentially thousands of veterans have been denied millions of dollars in interest owed to them.

The Department of Justice is notorious for lengthy and protracted lawsuits. Is the minister prepared to settle this issue quickly, or will she follow the usual path of denial and delay?

[Jon Sim, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House with extreme pride to congratulate Jon Sim, of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.

As a rookie member of the Dallas Stars of the National Hockey League, Jon accomplished something only few Canadians could dream of: He played for a Stanley Cup winning team.

The people of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough were honoured by his presence this summer, along with the Stanley Cup. It was an extremely exciting and extraordinary day of celebration that brought the entire community together. The citizens of New Glasgow lined the streets in his honour for his homecoming parade.

His family, friends and all Nova Scotians are proud of Jon and his historic feat.

In a fitting tribute, the Glasgow Stadium raised Jon's jersey in recognition of his great accomplishment.

A product of the Pictou county minor hockey system, Jon has gone on to make a name for himself as a tenacious and talented athlete.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the people of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I wish to extend best wises and congratulations to Jon Sim, a Stanley Cup champion.