TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 1, 2001

• 1529

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Good afternoon. I'll call the meeting to order.

We have one item on the agenda. I am prepared to take nominations for the position of chair of the Committee.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): It gives me great pleasure to recommend that Ovid Jackson assume the position of chair of this committee.

• 1530

The Clerk: We have but one nomination, by Mr. Goldring, for the position of chair of the committee. He nominates Mr. Ovid Jackson. Are all in favour? Is anybody opposed?

I proclaim Mr. Ovid Jackson duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take his place here.

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Okay. The next item of business is the two vice-chairs. Do we have nominations from the floor for the vice-chairs?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James-Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): I move that Marcel Proulx be elected Vice-Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien moves that Marcel Proulx be the vice-chair from the Liberal Party, seconded by Mr. Alcock. All those in favour of Mr. Marcel Proulx being the Vice-chair? Opposed? Carried unanimously.

Are there other nominations for vice-chair? Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would like to propose that James Moore be elected as vice-chair.

The Chair: Are there any further nominations?

All those in favour of James being vice-chair? Carried unanimously again.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We're constituted now as a committee. We did have a notice of motion within the requisite 48 hours.

Monsieur Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, there are several new members on the committee since our last meeting. Consequently, current committee members may not have received notice of this motion. I move, therefore, that this motion be considered at our next meeting.

[English]

The Chair: I'm a servant of the committee, so it will be whatever the committee decides.

Yes, Val.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): I would suggest that this committee needs to get on with the agenda we will be discussing. This is an agenda item, and I would suggest that we get moving on it.

The Chair: Bev Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I would concur with my colleague. All of us are members of Parliament and have been here for a fair bit of time now, so I think most are quite aware of the issues surrounding the airline situation in the last couple of years. I think it would be irresponsible of us to delay any further discussion in this area. So I would agree that we should get on with the business ASAP.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Forty-eight hours' notice of motion was given. Is that correct? Is that not in accordance with the rules of this committee?

• 1535

The Clerk: Yes, forty-eight hours' notice is required. The motion was distributed to committee members on September 22, but that was before the list of new members was released.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chair, ordinarily, I would agree with Val, but I'll tell you, Val, why I don't agree today. I think this debate tonight and subsequent activity tomorrow will generate a series of activities that might cause the committee to change the substance of its motion. Tonight is really going to be a debate that will shape the future of how the government, how the House of Commons approaches this industry. So you may, after tomorrow or Wednesday, at the next meeting have a different picture in front of you and you may say, not that person, that person.

The Chair: I have Mr. Alcock, and then we'll go back to Val.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you.

First a question, and then a comment. On other committees, at least on a number of the ones I've been on, there is a 24-hour notice rule on motions. Does this committee have such a rule?

The Clerk: It is 48 hours.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Forty-eight hours. Okay.

Basically, I have no problem supporting this particular motion. I think it's appropriate that the minister appear, given the events that have taken place. I do think, though, out of respect for other members of the committee who weren't aware of this coming or may want.... The purpose of notice is that people have a chance to think a little before they act.

I think Dennis is quite right about what's going to happen tonight. The motion should be passed, it doesn't tie anybody's hands in respect of the timeliness of it. But we may want to have a fuller debate about the whole situation as we look at the work of this committee. Tonight's debate may very well inform that discussion. So I'd be quite content to slip it 24 hours and see how we feel after we've spent the evening at this.

The Chair: Okay.

Val Meredith has the floor, followed by Guy St-Julien.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, with all due respect—and I appreciate, Dennis, what you're suggesting—no matter what the agenda is, all this motion is doing is asking for the Minister of Transport and the president of Air Canada to appear ASAP. I don't care what happens in the debate tonight or what follows that debate, those two individuals would be asked to come to the table to appear before the committee regardless of what happens. This motion may be prior to establishing an agenda, and maybe that will change after the debate tonight, but I don't care what the agenda is, the Minister of Transport always appears to explain the government's position, and the president of Air Canada will have to appear to explain their request for billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

I think this motion is in order. All it's doing is saying, let's call the transport minister, let's call the president of Air Canada immediately. I don't think it matters what happens tonight. This motion is appropriate.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have read the motion. I agree that we should meet with the Minister of Transport, Mr. Collenette. The only other individual mentioned in the motion, however, is the President of Air Canada. We mustn't forget the presidents of the other airlines, notably First Air, the second largest airline in Canada, Air Inuit and Creebec. We shouldn't single out Air Canada. It isn't the only airline in the country. In addition to Air Inuit and Air Creebec, there are other airlines such as WestJet. We can't forget them.

The motion should mention the presidents of the other airlines in Canada. That might be fairer. Therefore, I would like the mover of the motion to rephrase his proposal. I don't have a problem with asking the Transport Minister to appear before the committee, but Air Canada shouldn't be singled out. It is just one of many different airlines in Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll go to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I am the mover of the motion.

The Chair: Would you mind waiting until the end, when we've had some discussion, or do you want to do it right now?

• 1540

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I wanted to get involved in the discussion on the motion itself. The suggestion is that this is premature. I'm not exactly sure it's premature. We're already behind the eight ball on these issues. I think these are urgent matters and we should get at it. I think in a committee meeting where the Minister of Transport and the president of Air Canada came we could define the issues that the committee should be proceeding with. If you call them once to the committee, and then they're sent home, you can't call them again at a later stage, I wouldn't think. We might need to have these folks in here a few times before this thing is all sorted out. So I don't really see what great damage there would be in getting the ball rolling by having these two people in here and defining the issues and figuring out where we're going.

I have just one last point. The other airlines are not asking for a bailout, if I understand things right, with all due respect to my friend there. I think the president of WestJet is quite emphatic on the point that he's not seeking this sort of thing. So it's the Air Canada people who are really pushing the bailout package.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I find it rather amusing. At the last meeting, members wanted to invite Mr. Milton to appear before the committee, but the government wasn't willing to go along with this request.

Had we heard from Mr. Milton, it might have helped us because we had some broad questions about his management of Air Canada, about the problems associated with regional transportation and the use of French in the industry. Had Mr. Milton been invited to appear at the time, it would have given us a better understanding of the situation. However, the committee did not extend an invitation to him. Once again, you caved in to him and let him do whatever he wanted. He meets with shareholders and chairs their meetings, but has always been unwilling to testify before the committee. Now, he's asking us for a substantial bailout package. Again, you're going to sit back and wait before you have him testify.

There's something I don't understand. This is the most prominent person in the airline industry and why the Transport Committee... I'm sorry, Mr. St-Julien, but Air Canada is the biggest airline in the country. It handles 78% of all air traffic. The members of the Transport Committee are well within their rights to ask to meet with the president of this airline, especially when it is requesting such large sums of money. My colleague's motion makes no mention of any date. We're calling on you today to request an appearance by the minister before the committee. You seem to be in agreement on this. The President will likely decide when to testify. If we fail to issue this request today, then the committee isn't doing its job.

It makes no difference to me when he meets with the committee or whether we hold the debate first and then hear from him. However, I think we have to make this request right away, at our first meeting. It's a simple as that.

[English]

The Chair: Reg Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have no disagreement with Mr. Laframboise's intervention at all. I'm struck with one thing, though. One of the problems we have around here is that we spend a lot of time in highly partisan debate in the House, and then we come into forums that allow us to actually get to work, do some things, try to make some decisions and to tackle the big issues. There are some huge issues here, really important issues. I'm just back on this committee. I haven't been on this committee for a while, but the transport committee was always marked as one where we were able to build something of a firewall between what was happening in question period and what was happening over here and work on the issues. Should Milton come before the committee? Absolutely, he should. Should the minister? I would hope so.

But the real question is, if we're going to be deciding the business of the committee, it would be nice if we could get ourselves into a slightly more collegial framework, rather than start off with a battle that just replicates the kind of nonsense that goes on every day between the hours of 2 and 3. Right? I understood that we were forming the committee and that 50% of the membership is new. It might be nice if we were to engage in a discussion on the future business of the committee and try to put it in a framework that allows us to actually achieve something. Then we'll decide who we want to call and when.

I think Dennis' comment about what's going to happen in the House tonight is a good one. I think we should participate in that debate. We are the folks who will carry this debate and provide some creative solutions to this problem, I hope. So to let it go back into who said what first when is just a waste of our time.

• 1545

The Chair: As chair of the committee, I'm the servant of the committee. The meeting today was called mainly to install the executive. I too am seized with this matter, and I certainly would like to get on with it right away—for the record.

I'll ask Mr. Moore to speak, before I go back to Guy.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Fitzpatrick. I also agree with what Mr. Alcock just said. This is not an attempt at partisanship, this is an attempt at speeding things along. In fact, I would suggest that by not fast-tracking things, partisanship is, in fact, what you'll see.

[Translation]

I agree with what Mr. St-Julien said.

[English]

CEOs of other airlines should be brought before the committee, but Air Canada is easily the majority carrier. They're the only air carrier that competes broadly internationally. They're the carrier that will take the bulk of any bailout that will come from taxpayer dollars. They're the people who are saying that in the coming 30 days.... There are rumours and columns about their maybe going into receivership, filing Chapter 11, etc. That's why that name was put on the list. If Mr. St-Julien wants us to add other names to the list, Mr. Beddoe and the heads of other airlines, that's fine, we can do that at a subsequent committee. That should not prevent us from soldiering forward nonetheless.

The Chair: Guy.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that Air Canada was the only airline requesting a bailout package. In my office, I have copies of letters from Albert Diamond of Air Creebec. He has written to me as well as to the Minister. Air Canada may well be the largest airline in the country right now, but First Air is the second largest.

The motion contains a reference to "tragic events". Are you aware of what happened in the Northwest Territories and in some remote regions of Nunavik and Nunavit during that particular week? Some villages did not receive any shipments of food. That is a problem as well. The motion refers to the tragic events of that week. I mentioned First Air, Air Creebec and Air Inuit. I repeat, some northern communities did not receive any shipments of food at all that week. They are just as important as the people who dwell in cities like Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

The residents of Nunavik, Nunavut and the Yukon deserve the same consideration as the residents of urban communities. We need to extend an invitation to them as well to appear before the committee. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. We need to look beyond urban centres. I admit that Air Canada may be the largest airline, but First Air is the second largest.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): I'm new to this committee. If having the President of Air Canada and the Minister of Transport appear ASAP eases some of the pressure and satisfies committee members, then I don't see a problem. However, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to move on and discuss our agenda. There is no shortage of challenges facing us.

I have no objections to the President of Air Canada appearing before us to outline his company's real needs. This is by no means a small problem and I don't think the committee is in a position to resolve it quickly. The Minister has indicated that people are currently assessing the real costs of all of this. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to make a positive contribution to the debate and to do an assessment based on the facts.

Therefore, I'm open to the idea of hearing from a number of people. Guy talked about the importance of providing an adequate level of service to all parts of the country. Residents of far-flung regions merit our serious attention as well. I don't know if having the Transport Minister appear before us tomorrow will help resolve the situation, given that as far as compensation is concerned, the situation is being examined by experts. It will certainly take them some time to do a thorough assessment.

There is no easy solution to this complex problem. I'm open to anything that will enable all committee members to work together in a constructive way, after hearing from several witnesses, on a program that will prove important in the months and years to come. I'm prepared to cooperate.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I don't think there's a single more important issue—well, I guess maybe the whole issue of terrorism, but apart from that—concerning what's happening in Canada right now. Quite frankly, I think as a committee we're going to lose a fair bit of credibility if we sit around for another week or two before we even consider having the Minister of Transport or the CEO of Air Canada come. I think if we are going to maintain some credibility as a committee, we'd better get our butts off the chair and get some work done here. So no matter what happens, I think this is going to be an issue that the majority of us will agree we should get working on. I certainly am not opposed to setting the agenda for whatever else we do or discussing it today, if we can have agreement on that.

• 1550

I have another question, since I've got the floor. The 48-hour rule that's in place, does that have to be renewed with each committee starting up?

The Clerk: No, not in this situation. There hasn't been a suspension or prorogation.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

The Chair: Joe Comuzzi.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Alcock. I don't think the fact that we're asking for.... Yes, we agree. How's that for starting off?

Mr. Reg Alcock: The earth moved, Joe. I feel warm and tingly.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: I knew you would, Reg.

We know what Mr. Milton is going to say. If we've been reading the newspapers, what he needs started off at $5 billion or $4 billion, and now we're down to $1 billion. I don't know how you can fool around with $3 billion like that over a period of ten days. Come on. We know what he's going to say. Why do we want to waste our time?

What I want to do, to be quite truthful with you, is talk to the board of directors of Air Canada, to see if Mr. Milton has its full cooperation, and I want to look at the eyes of the board of directors. It's Milton just giving the message, but the board of directors are going to look you in the eye and tell you. These are the people responsible to the shareholders of Air Canada, which is a private corporation, let me remind you again.

I think what we could do to benefit all airlines in this committee—I agree with Bev—is get an agenda that's going to guarantee the safety of people in Canada in using the airlines once again. I think that is absolutely critical. How do we rebuild the confidence in the Canadian people to go in and use our airports, use our airplanes, and so on? It doesn't matter what we do for WestJet or Canada 3000 or Air Canada, until we build that security. I think it's incumbent on this committee to deal very quickly with how those things can be accomplished in the quickest time. The recommendations could go from this committee and be implemented quickly.

Then we can deal with the other issues, how you help Air Canada, how you're going to make a contribution to Canada 3000, how you're going to make a contribution to WestJet in fairness and equity, because they're all entitled from the four or five days that they were down. But until we get people coming back to the airports in this country, it doesn't matter what we do, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's incumbent on this committee, it is the responsibility of this committee to get people back into the airports and confident with air travel in Canada once again.

The Chair: Thank you, Joe.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Can I propose a slight amendment that will maybe allow us to move on with it and get on? We could separate the motions, so that we amend it to:

Moved that pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Transport Committee request the Minister of Transport to appear before this Committee at the earliest possible opportunity.

Take out Mr. Milton. That allows us to focus on the person who has the prime responsibility, and if we want to bring in Milton and others the next day, that's fine with me, I don't have any objection to either one of them. I'd just like to stop talking about this and get on with doing something.

The Chair: Okay. We've got an amendment.

Mr. James Moore: I would second the motion.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Reg Alcock: Unanimity has arrived.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: There you have it.

• 1555

We'll have the minister as early as we can. We meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and if we can get him on Thursday, we'll start as early as that.

I would ask members to come with some work plans. We did leave some instructions for the clerk of the committee with regard to trucking hours of operation. He can pass that information on to you. I will work with regard to a work plan, but obviously, we have some priorities, and we will arrange them at our next meeting or the meeting after that.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Chairman, when the minister comes, will he be instructed that we want to talk about the security of the airports?

The Chair: Yes, if that is the wish of the committee.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Airline security as well.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just in case there's a problem with new members not knowing what was on the agenda before, they could have those issues circulated to them, since they may not be able to get them without their being circulated.

The Chair: Val.

Ms. Val Meredith: After the minister appears before this committee, will we sit for a few minutes to agree on an agenda, or are we talking about setting an agenda after we get back at the end of the break week?

The Chair: It will be whatever the committee would like to do.

Ms. Val Meredith: I would like to suggest that we be prepared to make decisions on the agenda on Thursday, after the minister is finished, so that we can at least go away from here for the break week saying we know this is what the agenda of the transport committee is.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Reg Alcock: To be formal about it, can we meet tomorrow? We're talking about Thursday as a possibility, but the first meeting is on business of the committee, and we're going to be debating all this stuff tonight. It might be nice to come here, shut the doors, and have a little talk about how we want it. All old agendas are going to pale in comparison with sorting this one out, and then we'll see where we go from there.

And I'll see you all in the House tonight—it's Committee of the Whole.

The Chair: Is it agreed that we meet tomorrow? That will be at the usual time, 11 o'clock, to discuss future business. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is agreed. Anything for the good of the committee.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm looking forward to it.

The Chair: We're adjourned until tomorrow at ll.00 a.m..