The House met at 10 a.m.
In September 1997, following the train derailment near Biggar,
Saskatchewan, the Minister of Transport ensured that a number of
immediate safety actions were taken by the railway.
Subsequently, the department ensured that a Transportation Safety
Board interim recommendation on the derailment was addressed so
that travelling Canadians could benefit from the recommended
safety enhancements.
Shortly after the derailment the minister announced that he was
delaying the reintroduction in the House of Commons of the
amendments to the Railway Safety Act. He directed departmental
officials to examine other possible improvements to the
legislation as well to see whether we could improve the
mechanisms for overseeing safety and regulatory compliance.
A rail safety review committee was immediately established and
was composed of railway safety, risk management and regulatory
experts. The committee was also asked to consult with the rail
industry and other stakeholders and to recommend ways to further
improve rail safety.
Departmental officials reported back to the minister last
January and in March the minister announced that he had accepted
the department's rail safety review committee's recommendations.
At the same time, he made public the committee's report.
At that time the minister asked his officials to proceed quickly
with the committee recommendations that did not require changes
to the legislative framework, such as improvements to rail safety
practices and rules. This work began in the spring of 1998.
Today I am pleased to inform the House that the legislative
changes imposed in this bill include a number of new provisions
recommended by the review committee which will further enhance
safety in Canada's rail industry.
These new amendments to the Railway Safety Act were prepared in
extensive consultation with the railway industry, railway unions,
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Safety
Council, Transport 2000 and provincial officials.
Consultations were held as late as October of this year to
provide stakeholders with an opportunity to reach a consensus on
the intent of the proposed amendments in Bill C-58.
These proposed changes are fully modernized and reflect good
practices used in safety regimes for other modes of
transportation, changes such as: a new policy clarifying the
objective of the act as well as the roles and responsibilities of
all parties relative to railway safety; authority to require
railways to implement safety management systems; authority to
require railways to report safety-critical information for the
purpose of railway system safety performance monitoring; a new
safety compliance order targeted at safety management system
deficiencies; increased authority for rail safety inspectors; and
an improved consultative process.
The legislative framework will allow the department to require
railways under federal jurisdiction to adopt formal safety
management systems. The department would have full authority
under the legislation to ensure that railways comply with this
requirement and to take effective action as required to ensure
full compliance.
This will also respond to earlier recommendations of the
Transportation Safety Board with respect to more effective means
of auditing railway safety.
The inclusion of the safety management systems is expected to
improve railway safety by promoting a safety culture within the
railroads, enabling railways to demonstrate their commitment to
safety and demonstrating that railways are in compliance with
regulatory requirements.
In the consultations with stakeholders it was evident that the
majority of them wished to have a consultative committee on
matters of safety. I am pleased to say, as the minister
previously announced in March 1998, that the department is
committed to the establishment of a permanent consultative
committee of departmental officials and rail safety stakeholders.
The objective of this committee, which will be comprised of all
interested parties, is to ensure that decision making on issues
of railway safety includes effective consultation. This would
involve an active two-way communication to develop a better
understanding of issues and solutions. This committee will
complement the improved consultative requirements contained in
this bill.
It is anticipated that the first meeting will be held early in
the new year.
Every year many Canadians lose their lives at crossings or while
trespassing on railway property. This is the most significant
problem facing rail safety and a major effort has been undertaken
to respond to it. The Department of Transport has a program and
a number of initiatives in place, and this act also contains
provisions to further improve safety at crossings.
The department's program in this regard is covered by the
following four Es: elimination, engineering, enforcement and
education.
The first E stands for elimination. The objective is to
eliminate unnecessary and unsafe crossings so that road users
will be using, wherever possible, those with automated warning
systems or better physical characteristics.
One amendment for crossings would allow the minister to make a
grant as compensation for closures. Another would allow him to
control the opening of new crossings on high speed lines.
The second E stands for engineering. As part of the Transport
Canada crossing monitoring program, the new bill will provide for
safety reviews at crossings in certain circumstances such as
serious accidents.
The third E stands for enforcement. The railway safety
inspector's overall monitoring for compliance can result in a
variety of safety actions being taken for identified
deficiencies.
Finally, the fourth E stands for education. Education is vital
if we are to obtain the full benefits from the other three Es.
For example, the Department of Transport is a full partner in
operation lifesaver which educates Canadians on safety issues.
The proposed changes will also support a national program called
direction 2006 which aims to reduce by 50% the number of
highway/railway grade crossing collisions and trespassing
incidents on railway property by that year. This program has the
ongoing support of all stakeholders.
The government faces a huge challenge to reduce greenhouse gases
and improve the environment. The proposed bill includes an
authority to make regulations restricting emissions from the
operation of railroad equipment. There is at present no such
authority federally and the proposed Canadian Environment
Protection Act excludes railway equipment. This proposed power
will allow for a cleaner environment and will help Canada meet
worldwide quotas for emissions.
The proposed legislative changes will enhance the ability of the
railway safety system to give reasonable assurance of the
continuing state of railway safety in Canada and to contribute to
sustainable transportation.
To conclude, Transport Canada's first priority is and always
will be the safety of the transportation system in Canada. I
believe these amendments to the Railway Safety Act will
strengthen the regulatory framework that governs safety in this
critical mode of transportation. I believe they will provide the
department with the means to ensure that Canada's railways will
continue to improve their safety performance as we head into the
21st century.
Bill C-58 was introduced on November 5. Now a mere 15 days
later, which happens in this case to be only six sitting days, we
are debating it at second reading. The Standing Committee on
Transport may consider this bill as soon as next Tuesday which is
eight sitting days after its first reading. Do I smell a whiff
of prorogation in the air?
When I gave a few stakeholders a heads up as to what was
happening, they were quite astonished and not at all amused. I
understand that some of them are already prepared to appear on
short notice and that they have contacted the committee clerk.
The minister has been sitting on this legislation for several
weeks, like a hen sitting on an egg and now suddenly it is full
speed ahead.
This is reminiscent of what went on a year ago with the marine
act, Bill C-9, essentially a good piece of legislation that was
seriously flawed in a couple of places with regard to financing.
There were stakeholders who were extremely upset about it but
they were not heard. Now, a year later, the flaws in the bill
are already coming back to haunt us, specifically relative to the
port of Halifax.
This is a safety bill. Safety is a relative term. It means
different things to different people. In the transportation
sector the word safety is often used and has been used to promote
some dubious proposals, demands and schemes. There are people
who do not understand that there is no such thing as absolute
safety.
If we wanted absolute transportation safety, I suppose we could
all travel by foot, however we would still run the risk of
breaking a leg. A less drastic but equally unacceptable measure
would be to lower speed limits for all modes of transportation
and make such things as airline tickets and automobiles beyond
the purchasing power of most people. Certainly we would be safer
but modern society with its emphasis on convenience, time and
cost effectiveness would never tolerate such restrictions. The
question then becomes one of what level of safety we are prepared
to accept.
The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation.
Bill C-58 seeks to legislate amendments recommended by the
statutory five year review committee, as has been explained by
the parliamentary secretary.
The review committee's report was tabled in parliament in
February 1995. It recommended 69 amendments to streamline railway
safety and to reduce the bureaucratic burden. The government
introduced Bill C-43 in May 1996 incorporating 60 of the 69
recommendations, but the bill died on the Order Paper when the
election was called in April 1997.
The 1995 report described the railway mode as an extremely safe
means of moving freight and people in this country. Indeed the
report found that Canadian railways have a good safety record
when compared with other modes of transportation and when
compared to other countries' rail operations. The report also
noted that work related safety of railways and the manner in
which their operations are carried out have clearly shown
improvement. The picture painted by the Transportation Safety
Board however is a little murkier.
Main track train derailments increased by 75% over the last nine
years, from 101 in 1988 to 177 in 1997. We seem to be running
tracks along the right of way instead of on the rails in this
country. Occurrences of train collisions on main tracks have
increased by 44%.
There is some good news. Accidents at road crossings have
decreased by 39% over the same period. More good news is the
total personal injury accidents for all types of rail related
incidents have decreased by almost 80% since 1988. The number of
total fatalities is quite low and it has not changed much in the
last nine years.
In response to the 1997 fatal derailment of a VIA passenger
train at Biggar, Saskatchewan, the minister announced that he
would delay reintroduction of these amendments to the Railway
Safety Act in order to further study other possible improvements.
Unlike its predecessor, Bill C-58 will now require railway
companies to draw up and implement safety management systems.
These systems will have to be vetted and approved by the
minister. The minister may also order a railway company to take
necessary corrective measures if he believes that the safety
management system is deficient.
There is unfortunately no avenue to appeal a ministerial order
to an independent tribunal, a tribunal similar perhaps to the
Civil Aviation Tribunal. There is a rumour that Transport Canada
is planning a Canada transportation tribunal for rail, aviation,
marine and pipelines. I sincerely hope that the rumour is true.
One curious change from Bill C-43 was the omission of an
amendment which would have explicitly given railways the right of
way through road crossings. I am not a rail safety expert but it
seems to me to be plain common sense that road crossing users
should yield to a train. Trains are bigger.
Bill C-58 goes further than its predecessor in that it increases
the powers of railway safety inspectors, particularly over road
crossings. This includes broadening the inspectors' access
authority and their authority to obtain documents in order to
enforce the act. There are concerns again that there is no
established independent venue to appeal the decisions of railway
safety inspectors.
Another new amendment will insert a policy statement itemizing
the objectives of the act directly into the legislation. These
objectives include: promotion and provision of safety for the
public and employees; protection of property; stakeholder
collaboration and participation; the recognition that railway
safety is primarily the responsibility of railway companies.
Flexibility, efficiency and modernity are the new catch phrases
for Canada's rail safety regulatory system.
In its 1995 report the review committee recommended that
Canada's rail safety system be made non-prescriptive and industry
driven. It advocated improvements to the overall safety
framework but recommended leaving the details to the appropriate
authorities. Bill C-58 therefore contains a number of technical
amendments to streamline the regulatory process and reduce red
tape.
The streamlined safety regulatory system proposed by Bill C-58
can be summarized as follows: the government continues to set
rail safety standards; the railway companies decide after
consulting with other stakeholders what safety rules are
necessary and how best to meet those standards; and the
government approves the rules, allows for exemptions, monitors
for compliance and when necessary, enforces.
The new regime will also provide temporary regulatory exemptions
to railway companies for the purpose of conducting tests related
to rail transportation. The proposed regulatory regime will also
require that the railways consult interested organizations as
part of their process for creating operational safety rules and
also when applying for exemptions from them.
Bill C-58 seeks to improve the provisions for the security of
railway property. It includes a new designation, screening
officers to screen persons or goods before they are taken on
board a train or into a restricted area such as a freight yard.
The terms of reference for screening are very similar to those
currently practised by airlines and in airports.
With respect to road crossings, most MPs are probably already
very familiar with the whistling issue. Many constituents and
municipalities have sought help from their federal
representatives to shepherd them through the whistling removal
process.
Whistling through road crossings is an important safety tool,
but the noise can torment people living close to a railway line.
The new legislation is still somewhat convoluted, but any
simplification of the removal process will be welcomed by
communities requesting the cessation of whistling through
residential areas, provided of course that other safety
requirements are met.
Bill C-58 will also strengthen and clarify federal regulatory
powers over road crossings, including legislating ministerial
authority over the construction, alteration and maintenance of
such crossings, and making regulations respecting the control of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to crossings.
Cabinet will have the power to require railway companies, road
authorities or persons who have rights to a crossing to conduct a
safety review of that crossing following an accident.
One significant change to existing rules is the section of Bill
C-58 which will authorize road authorities to enter onto any land
in the vicinity of the crossing to cut down overgrown trees or
brush perceived to be a hazard to safe railway operations.
However, the government has neglected to tie up some loose ends
pointed out to it by stakeholders in committee the last time
around. Specifically, municipalities expressed concerns over
potential liability. They also wanted to know who will pay for
brush clearing, the local taxpayers or the railways. Good
question.
In conclusion, although Bill C-58 is necessarily limited in
scope, in fact most of it, if we cut through all the thickets,
seems to apply in one way or another to road crossings and is a
step in the right direction toward greater railway safety.
Although the proposed amendments appear to be good ones, the bill
is highly technical. I want to hear from the stakeholders in
committee before passing judgment. I do hope that we will be
given the time to do that.
A committee of experts was appointed to prepare this new
legislative text, and this is what we are now looking at.
Obviously, it is regrettable that it took an accident and a
fatality to move the government to speed up introduction of a
bill that had been needed for some time. Nevertheless, if it is
a good law, one that improves railway safety, who could be
against it.
There is, however, one point on which we do not agree, and on
which we will be introducing an amendment. I will come to that
later.
I will start with a brief summary of the objectives of this
bill. First of all, to enhance the government's ability to get
the railways to remedy nuisances and hazards relating to safety
and to the environment.
Second, it also improves collaboration between the various
parties involved in railway transportation, namely the
companies, the government, the municipal authorities, the
railway unions, and those who own or lease railroad stock.
Third, the bill is aimed at reducing harmful emissions from
locomotives for the good of the environment.
We fully support the objective of this bill. I am also quite
pleased with clause 18, which should address something that
bothers people in our region and in many other regions too. I am
talking about train whistles. In my region, there is a passenger
train that goes by around 6 a.m., and most people do not
appreciate being woken up so early in the morning, except of
course if it is a matter of safety, which is not always the
case, and municipalities are in the best position to determine
if it is. Therefore, we fully agree with the proposed clause I
am about to read.
Notwithstanding this clause, the train conductor may of course
use the whistle in an emergency. This way, my fellow citizens
will be able to sleep more soundly in the future.
I now come to our concern, which will be addressed in an
amendment we will be introducing.
The existing legislation states:
(f.1) respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of
roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.
Our amendment will ensure that the costs associated with such
alterations imposed on municipalities are borne by the federal
government, and not by the municipalities on which these
alterations are imposed.
These are my remarks on this bill, which we will support, but
only after introducing the amendment I just mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to say a few
words on the Bill C-58 to amend the Railway Safety Act.
The bill is a complex one and the government has asked that we
co-operate with it in moving it quickly through second reading to
committee stage.
1035
I know that our transportation spokesperson, the hon. member for
Churchill, is very keen to review the bill when it goes to the
Standing Committee on Transport and indeed to hear from the
various stakeholders and the many witnesses who will appear
before that committee to deal with the intricacies of that
legislation.
For that reason and because it is important to hear from those
stakeholders we will co-operate with the government's request to
date. However, government members should not take our
congeniality at this stage to mean that we will give them an easy
time of the legislation when it goes to committee.
There are some points in the legislation that are positive but
important questions remain to be answered. When dealing with
bills as intricate and comprehensive as this one, committees have
to review them very carefully and systematically to avoid
unintended consequences or unforeseen results. That is why the
testimony of the witnesses will be particularly important.
The bill does many things. It seeks to update the Railway
Safety Act and it includes some positive measures to strengthen
enforcement of safety regulations. It also addresses concerns
about noise pollution from train whistles which was addressed by
the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois.
Since passenger rail service was abandoned by first the
Conservative government and not reinstated by this government, in
the part of the country I come from in Cape Breton we miss the
sound of the railway whistle. There are others who may miss it.
When I grew up there were those who would complain about the late
night whistles, but there was also a rumour that those who lived
close to the railway line tended to have more children. Maybe we
will hear from witnesses in that regard before the committee.
On a more serious note, one area we will be looking at very
carefully is the clause dealing with the medical fitness of
railway employees designated as critical to railway safety
operation. Admittedly, since these workers are responsible for
the lives and safety of Canadians, it is crucial that they be
medically fit when on the job.
At the same time, however, there is a careful balancing act
here. We must be careful not to go too far to infringe on an
individual's right to work. Workers must not be prevented from
working to support themselves and their families unless there is
good reason. It would be interesting to see—and it could be a
very progressive step—if there was some kind of obligation on
the part of the corporations to assist the workers in ensuring
their fitness for the job.
We know there are problems in terms of fitness. As Canadians
work harder and harder, do more and more work and have less and
less leisure time, those who are fortunate enough to work, their
physical health suffers. It would be an opportunity to see
corporations in the railway business take the lead in this area
and assist in providing their employees with the time and
facilities, with perhaps some financial incentives, to ensure
they are medically fit to do the job, especially if that is a
requirement.
Another area of particular concern is that the bill in its
current form empowers railway companies by requiring the Minister
of Transport to consult with them in certain circumstances. At
the same time the bill does away with the railway safety
consultative committee. This is of particular concern to us.
That committee, composed of representatives from industry,
labour and other stakeholders, advises Transport Canada on
railway safety issues. Bill C-58 will be replacing that by
requiring the Minister of Transport to consult with the
corporations. It does not do the same thing for the other
stakeholders. That is an important distinction and an important
area to explore at the committee level.
The discrepancy perhaps reflects the Liberals' corporatist
ideological bias, not to mention the propensity to reward those
who support them financially. We are however encouraged that the
bill at least recognizes the importance of outside consultation.
It recognizes that government bureaucracy is not infallible and
that there is a place for outside opinions, but simply consulting
with the railway companies alone is not sufficient.
1040
Let us face it. If a railway company is in business its
objective is to meet the bottom line. That is not always
consistent with the public good. This is something that we
understand in the New Democratic Party. The role of government
is to ensure, protect and enhance the public good. That is not
necessarily the role of a private corporation. Therefore only
consulting with railway companies will not give the necessary
balanced picture that is required. We believe it is important
that other stakeholders be consulted.
I mentioned that we miss the sound of the railway whistle on
Cape Breton. We have not given up the fight in that regard. It
is my hope that the bill will have some relevance. Indeed there
is a private railway company in the part of the country I come
from and the riding I represent. It will have significance and
impact on my riding. What is lacking is passenger rail service.
I would take every opportunity in the House to encourage the
Minister of Transport to re-examine the decision of the
government not to reinstate that passenger rail service. At the
time that it was dismantled by the Mulroney government it was
clear that members of the Liberal Party were opposed to it. I
attended the hearings in my own riding and we still await some
remedial action in that regard.
However I will not take any more time in the House on this issue
because it has to go to committee. I have said that we are
complying with the government's request to move the bill to
committee as quickly as possible. Therefore I offer our
conditional support at this stage.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party to speak to second reading of Bill C-58, an
act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act.
The bill is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 which
was introduced during the last parliament. Unfortunately it died
on the order paper at the call of the last election. I would
like to point out our disappointment that the bill was not
introduced earlier. I hope this does not reveal that safety is
not the minister's number one concern.
The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which
came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place
after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43. We
are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place
with the stakeholders involved during the mandatory review and
with their valuable input. It should be noted that this is an
ongoing process. As the minister has repeatedly stated, safety
is his number one concern and we will continue to hold him to
that.
The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant
change in the way we regulate railways and how railways interact
with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and
with the legislation before us today I hope it will become much
better.
The railway system makes up an important part of our national
fabric and is a great economic engine for the country. This great
national work does not come without some unfortunate costs. What
I am speaking about is the many lives which have been lost at
railway crossings every year. The railway companies work very
hard to ensure that we have the most up to date technologies and
warning signals available. I would like to thank them for their
effort, but I think the federal government must play a much
larger role in the safety issue.
At a time when the government is looking at revitalizing our
passenger service we should ensure that the railway network is as
safe as possible. Where road and rail meet many safety concerns
have to be addressed. There are currently too many level
crossing accidents in Canada. I am aware that there are some
innovative ways to prevent these accidents from occurring. The
old mentality of creating more bells and guards may not be the
only way to attack the issue.
My hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who is the
official transportation critic for the Progressive Conservative
Party, will examine the bill in further detail in committee and
if further changes are needed I am sure they will be welcome. As
the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has proven in the
House, he is an able defender of the critic portfolio of
transportation.
1045
Obviously I speak of his involvement with respect to toll
highways in the Atlantic provinces. He has brought that issue to
the House and has dealt with it very effectively.
I would like to deal with rail safety. There are a number of
very good points that are going to come forward in committee with
respect to this piece of legislation. There are a couple of
things I must put forward with respect to rail transportation
particularly in western Canada.
As I said, rail transportation is a vital economic link
particularly in western Canada. In my community of Brandon,
Manitoba we are blessed with having two main lines, the CP and
the CN. One runs through the city and one runs north of the
city. We are pleased to have both main railway lines.
I talked about the economic viability of western Canada with
respect to the railroads. I speak obviously of the
transportation necessity of moving commodities and products
throughout western Canada. The number one commodity without
question is grain. We export the major portion of grain that is
being produced right now. We get it to ports by rail
transportation.
Potash is important to the province of Saskatchewan. It is a
commodity that in most instances is transported to international
markets. There are a number of industrial now being produced in
western Canada that must find their way to globalized markets.
Again, rail transportation is that vital link. Also, coal is
very important to B.C., requiring rail transportation.
The reason I mention those commodities is that there is
substantial traffic on the main lines in western Canada. Unlike
the previous speaker, the hon. member from Cape Breton who not
longer has the opportunity of listening to train whistles, in my
area we hear the whistling of trains on a fairly regular basis.
The reason I mention that is there is a section in this bill that
speaks to train whistles.
I would like to take minute to explain the situation that I have
found myself in with respect to train whistles going through some
communities with controlled crossings. Under the current
regulations the main line railroad continues to blow whistles at
crossings. The municipality has on many occasions tried to
curtail some of that whistling in residential areas. It has
fallen on deaf ears.
I will read the section in the legislation that says the
minister will now have the opportunity of looking at whistling in
municipalities. Also, municipalities will now have some input.
Section 23(1) says that the government of the municipality by
resolution declares that it agrees that such whistles should not
be used in that area, and has before passing the resolution
consulted the railway company that operates the relevant rail
lines, notified each relevant association or organization, and
given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.
What that now does is give the opportunity for some
municipalities to improve their quality of life when main lines
run through their communities.
In this instance the municipality did pass a resolution. It
suggested it would pay any additional insurance costs the railway
might incur. It was a controlled railway crossing with not only
whistles but arms that came down to protect the travelling
public. This legislation would now allow the minister to be
involved and to allow those types of changes to be made. That is
very positive.
There are a couple of other issues that have to deal with rail
transportation that are not dealt with in the safety bill. The
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester from the Progressive
Conservative Party will bring them forward. It has been
mentioned by previous speakers that railroads are doing a
reasonable job with respect to safety. In some cases they have
also abdicated their responsibility in other areas. I
specifically speak of line abandonment and the ability for short
line operators to work in rural communities, particularly in
western Canada.
This legislation, however, is of safety. I compliment the
railroads for attempting to put into place safety measures that
are as good as possible. This legislation will help them do that
with the assistance of the minister's office.
1050
The minister has said that safety is his number one priority. I
accept that. In committee there will be some changes suggested
by members of the opposition. Members of the opposition have a
lot of experience with respect to railroads and rail safety.
I hope the committee and the minister will listen to those
proposals put forward in the form of amendments so that this
legislation can be even better than what is being proposed right
now.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to participate in a debate on a bill where we
seem to have some agreement on all sides of the House. I think it
is fundamentally because of the importance of rail safety.
Members opposite may be aware that this is the 20th anniversary
of the train derailment in my city of Mississauga which resulted
in the largest peace time evacuation in the history of our
country. We moved a quarter of a million people out of our city
in stages in about four or five days and did it quite
successfully actually.
There were no deaths and no serious injuries caused by the train
derailment but the actual derailment and subsequent investigation
and involvement with CP rail and the hearings that went on really
brought out some major improvements led by the municipality.
When that train derailed, I had an almost out of body experience
of laying in my bed and seeing the entire sky light up. I thought
it was Consumers Gas that had exploded or something like that. I
jumped into the car and drove over toward the light, which shows
how bright I was. I arrived at the corner of Dundas Street and
Mavis Road just in time for the second explosion, an explosion
that shot chemicals and chlorine gas into the air.
The proof that was later found, in a somewhat frightening way,
was there were hundreds of dead birds around our city because of
the chlorine in combination with the explosion.
Chlorine is carried in great abundance across this land on our
rail system. A lot of those cars that we see trundling through
our residential communities are not carrying milk. They are
carrying dangerous chemicals. Chlorine is a low seeking gas that
will actually go into the river and sewer systems and wind up in
peoples' homes. It is a very serious safety concern.
What I think saved our community from catastrophe was the fact
that the explosion went straight up and took the chlorine
mushroom cloud straight up into the air. It killed some birds
but fortunately no people.
I was actually the acting mayor, which is a hard thing to be
when Hazel is the mayor, but she was out of town at the time this
accident occurred.
There is apparently no truth to the rumour that Hazel was seen
jumping on the car going through Streetsville in an attempt to
derail it because, as we all know, she has become extremely
famous right across the land.
In all seriousness, that fame is due to the hard nosed efforts
that she, the members of council, the staff, the city and the
residents put forward in demanding improvements to safety.
One of the issues in safety has to do with labelling of the cars
going through. I am sure members would agree that is extremely
important for fire departments. One of the real frightening
aspects of dealing with that train derailment 20 years ago was
that our firefighters had to go into the fire not knowing what
was there. They were completely unaware because there was no
labelling system. They had no idea whether there was another gas
filled car ready to explode as they went in.
Frankly, our firefighters in Mississauga were heroes on that
night and the next day as they fought the fire.
They had tremendous difficulty in putting it out and they did so
in the face of tremendous personal risk.
1055
Rail safety is critical to all of us. We think of it in the
terms the former speaker talked about, the two rail lines going
through Manitoba. We think of it in terms more today of hauling
grain and perhaps freight. But the reality is there is a
proposal that is always kicked around, it seems from election to
election, to put a high speed train in the Windsor to Quebec City
corridor, where we have the population that could justify such a
high speed commuter passenger trail, something that would surpass
the VIA Rail service.
If we are to go this route then safety is clearly a critical
issue and it is the quality of the beds, the quality of the
actual infrastructure these trains go across. If members have
ever had the experience of travelling on the Shinkansen in
Tokyo, they will agree and realize that the nature of the
infrastructure has to be at such a high level to accommodate the
high speed of trains of that nature that frankly I do not think
our infrastructure would suffice today. So we need to address
safety from that point of view.
Whistle blowing is interesting. I have heard members talk about
that. Anyone who might be familiar with my part of the world
would know that the provincial government several years ago built
a major highway right through Mississauga and connecting up at
the 410 in Brampton. It is called Highway 403.
In the acquisition of land to accommodate the road right of way
and all the allowances required, there was one farmer who was a
holdout. For years we could never figure out why a train was
travelling right through the heart of communities like Erin
Mills, Medowvale and Deer Run in my riding. We could never
figure out why the train was blowing its whistle at all hours of
the night and seemingly with some joy. The conductor would sit
right on that horn and the noise of course would result in a
number of rather dramatic phone calls to my office, since I was
the councillor of the day, people complaining about that.
We found out there was an unprotected crossing as a result of
not being able to acquire the land. It was a bit of a lovers
lane apparently and that is all it was used for. Know the
blowing of the whistle is important for safety.
The Speaker: The member still has plenty of time
in his speech and will be the first recognized after
question period. It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
National Child Day, a day to recognize children and their
accomplishments.
Shortly I will have the honour to recognize the accomplishments
of 7 year old Ryan Hreljac of Kempville.
Ryan, with the help of his brothers Jordan and Keegan, worked
tirelessly to get clean water wells for people in a village in
Uganda, Africa. For his efforts Ryan will receive a You Made a
Difference Award.
Here in Ottawa the student volunteer program of the
Queensway-Carleton Hospital will also receive an award for the
work of the 200 grade 10 students who donated over 10,000 hours
annually to the hospital.
Mr. Marc Croteau, the mayor of the city of Aylmer, will also
receive an award in recognition of his efforts to build respect
and confidence among the general population and youth of Aylmer,
Quebec.
On behalf of my colleagues I would like to say congratulations
to Janis Machin and Bernie Muzeen of Our Kids. I would also like
to say congratulations to all individuals involved in improving
the lives of others, especially our children. For those who are
celebrating their birthday today, happy birthday.
* * *
FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is UN Universal Children's Day. On such a day it is a sad
comment that Focus on the Family, an organization devoted to
children and Christian family values, was censured earlier this
year by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The CBSC condemned Focus on the Family and has been the witness,
prosecutor, judge and jury.
I understood that all Canadians had the right to freedom of
religion, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of the press
and communications. I ask the government has this changed?
The CBSC listened to one complaint, made no attempt to contact
the source of the broadcast and ruled against radio station CKRD.
1100
There was no opportunity for the presentation of supporting
documents, opposing views, appeal or even notification of the
decision.
Clearly the broadcast industry's self-regulation process leaves
much to be desired. This judgment is biased and, contrary to the
values of millions of Canadians, this method does not work.
Justice has not been served. The CRTC has entrusted the
broadcast council with a self-regulating procedure, but the
process is flawed.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTERS COMPETITION
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased to rise in the House to congratulate five members of the
Crapaud Fire Department who made Canada proud at the recent
International Firefighters Competition in Orlando, Florida. The
team of Kent Clyke, Mike Craig, Dean Ferguson, Harold Taylor and
Sandy MacQuarrie were the first among all Canadian teams and 17th
overall at the Firefighter Combat Challenge.
Their success is especially significant because they are
strictly a volunteer fire department—real volunteers—from a
small rural community of 400 in P.E.I. What these men lacked in
training facilities they made up for with commitment,
determination and pure heart. The people of Crapaud must also be
congratulated for the overwhelming support they gave their
firefighters. Without this support their efforts would not have
been realized.
Once again, congratulations on a job well done. All of Canada
is proud of them.
* * *
EDUCATION AND ADVANCED RESEARCH
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 1998 federal budget, the first no-deficit federal budget in
27 years, was also an education budget. As a consequence of
federal investment in education and advanced research, a $450,117
contract has been awarded to the University of British Columbia's
Faculty of Education for Applied Research and Evaluation
Services. This will support 12 full time and 36 part time
academic scientific jobs through to the end of March 2000.
In actively sponsoring education and advanced research the
government is building the intellectual infrastructure to lead us
successfully into the next millennium.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my privilege to bring the attention of the House to the
annual observance of National Child Day. As a proud mother of
four sons I know how important the early years of a child's life
are in enabling the child to attain his or her full potential.
National Child Day promotes the awareness of the importance of
these early years. Special activities and events are held across
the country on November 20 to celebrate National Child Day.
Launches of special initiatives, programs to protect children's
rights, workshops and public exhibits are being held to promote
the day.
Our children are our most precious resource. They will
determine the future of this country. The Government of Canada
recognizes this and has made children's issues a clear priority.
One example is the national child benefit which is part and
parcel of a greater effort—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 5 Sun Media Corporation published an article
entitled “Spank your child, go to jail”. Columnist Michael
Coren told the sad story of what happened to Joe Cleary because
he spanked his five-year old son for continuing to kick the
family cat after being told repeatedly not to do so. A month
after he used this totally reasonable measure to correct his
son's behaviour, police came to Mr. Cleary's place of work,
arrested him, handcuffed him in front of co-workers, put him in
jail for two days and charged him with assault.
The Clearys had to go to court seven times and incurred legal
bills totalling $10,000. The judge quite correctly dismissed the
charges under section 43 of the Criminal Code which protects the
fundamental parental right of parents to use reasonable measures
to correct their children's behaviour.
The judge got it right, but how did the police and crown
prosecutors get it so wrong? On National Child Day can the
government please explain how the persecution of good parents by
the state is in the best interests of the child?
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to alert the House to the
annual celebration of National Child Day.
The aim of this day is to make better known and to understand
the factors that contribute to the growth of children,
especially very young children, so we may help them realize
their full potential.
[English]
Several events will take place across Canada to mark National
Child Day. Many communities have organized events for children
and their families.
1105
Our children are our most valuable resource. They will help
determine the future of our country. The government is very
committed to helping children.
I have spent over 30 years of my life working with children in
poverty. We need to continue to provide support and resources at
the community level to ensure that the needs of all children are
met.
[Translation]
I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting
National Child Day and all the activities that will help
Canadian children get a good start in life.
* * *
MICHEL TRUDEAU
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
continue our work in the House today, former Prime Minister
Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his family along with many friends
and Canadians from across the country are gathering at
Saint-Viateur d'Outrement church to honour the tragically
shortened life and the memory of Michel Trudeau.
His most unfortunate death hit us all as Canadians. We, as
members of parliament, have a special place in our thoughts for
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who contributed so much of himself and
his talents to parliament and to the country, a country he
exemplified for many years.
[English]
Words always seem feeble and inadequate comfort in the face of
immense tragedies such as the sudden loss of Michel Trudeau. But
in the measure in which they can bring solace, I know I am
expressing the deep feelings of all parties in offering to Mr.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Mrs. Margaret Kemper and Michel's brothers
Justin and Sacha our most profound sympathy.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I attended the global warming negotiations in Buenos
Aires.
Little progress was made toward meeting the goals set down in
Kyoto last year and one simply has to ask “Why?”
Could it be that many of the delegates to the Kyoto protocol
arrived home in their respective countries last year only to be
beat up because of the unrealistic goals they had agreed to?
The distinct lack of agreement in Buenos Aires on key issues
such as inclusion of developing countries or emissions trading
mechanisms makes it appear that many countries want to push
negotiations well into the next century and then use that as the
excuse for not meeting the global goals.
Why not have the political backbone and admit it up front. The
goals that Canada agreed to in Kyoto are unrealistic and
unachievable—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
[Translation]
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the PQ has a very unusual conception of the referendum debate. A
future referendum would be a winning referendum only for the PQ.
This is a strange way to preserve democracy.
The PQ will use public funds to try once again to catch
Quebeckers like lobster. This is a dangerous approach that
smacks of intellectual fraud, of contempt for Quebeckers.
It is hard to be more biased than the PQ. We are talking here
about the future of a society, not a PQ convention.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1993,
the Canadian government designated November 20 as national child
day, to commemorate two major events in the history of the
United Nations, namely the adoption of the Declaration of the
Rights of the Child, in 1958, and of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, in 1989.
On this day, my thoughts are with the children who suffer from
hardship, violence and hunger. We do not have the right to
betray these fragile human beings, nor do we have the right to
betray their distressed parents, who can no longer meet their
most basic needs.
Yet, this government continues to turn its back on poverty by
contributing, through its political choices, to increasing the
ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Instead of
indexing its tax system, this government prefers to
underhandedly take money from the poor.
Let us hope that this child day will arouse the conscience of a
government more concerned about its visibility than about
putting children and their parents—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today is national child day and sadly there are still
far too many children living in poverty in this country. Despite
a unanimous resolution in this House in 1989 to eliminate child
poverty by the year 2000, there are 1.5 million children living
in poverty.
1110
Each day in Canada millions of children roll out of bed in
substandard housing or shelters with empty stomachs and empty
hopes.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance had a revelation about child
poverty. He finally discovered that there is third world poverty
in the country and called child poverty a national disgrace.
Yet it is this government's cuts to social programs that have
pushed half a million more children into poverty since the
Liberals were elected in 1993. With only 14 months to go until
the year 2000, New Democrats call on the finance minister to
introduce measures to eliminate child poverty come hell or high
water and end the national disgrace of child poverty.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
another twist from Lucien Bouchard: social union comes first,
ahead of the referendum. A bit of an outlandish trick.
I have greater faith in the Quebec Liberal Party's improving the
Canadian federation. The winning condition for Quebec's
economic growth is a vote for the Liberals.
The Quebec government will be paralyzed for the next four years
under the PQ, which wants to hold endless referendums.
Lucien Bouchard does not know what else to do, but hold
referendums.
* * *
[English]
TRANSITION TO EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of the House an important program
in my riding of Kings—Hants. The program is called Transition
to Employment.
The goal of the program is to teach computer and literacy
programs, financial management and basic life skills development
to the aboriginal people in this area. The program is
administered by the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselling
Association which is based in Indian Brook at the Eagle's Nest
treatment centre. The program requires that all of its members
are alcohol and drug free.
The program has been an overwhelming success to date and its
program co-ordinator David Paul and instructor Holly McCulloch
have played a big part in that success. I congratulate all
participants of the Transition to Employment program and I offer
my complete support and assistance to their efforts.
I would hope that this program can represent an opportunity for
the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development to implement it across Canada to ensure that
our native population has an opportunity to participate fully in
the type of economic and social opportunities that Canadians
deserve.
* * *
MICHEL TRUDEAU
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for giving me permission to finish my
statement.
I would like to express the deep feelings of members from all
parties in offering to Mr. Pierre Trudeau, Mrs. Margaret Kemper,
Michel's brothers Justin and Sacha, and all of their family our
most profound sympathy.
If I may, it would not be out of place for us to salute in
passing Michel's amazing and special friend, his dog Misha, who
stayed by his side even when all hope was gone.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence in this special
circumstance to ask that we rise and pause for a symbolic moment
in memory of Michel Trudeau.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case of the
parents of Summerside, who are trying to obtain a French school
in their region under section 23 of the charter of rights and
freedoms.
Right now, the children of Summerside are obliged to spend an
hour on the bus to get to school in the Évangéline region.
This case reveals once again the courage and tenacity of
francophones, who, surrounded by an anglophone majority in
Canada, are forced to fight provincial governments to be able to
exercise their most fundamental right to education.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage should recognize their
strength and give them real support.
She should substantially increase support to francophone groups
across Canada and give effect to the commitment made in this
House to increase the budget for the court challenges program.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the work done by all parents in
all the primarily anglophone provinces who are struggling for
their children's rights—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert.
* * *
1115
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no disputing the historic facts of the residential
school system and the harm it has done to many Indian families.
How was this allowed to happen? Canadian Indians were a people
separated from Canadian society by law. They lacked the
protections due as a right to all other people in the country.
Today many Indian people are reporting instances of
mismanagement on reserves. Poor health, substandard housing and
social dysfunction are endemic. This situation has come to pass
under the Indian Act, the department of Indian affairs, and
separate special status. Today, as in the past, it is anathema
to point these things out without someone levelling charges of
racism.
The minister has a huge bureaucracy with a budget of billions of
dollars and responsibility for the welfare of all aboriginals and
northerners.
We in the Reform Party will continue to point out their failures
and weaknesses and to propose alternatives. Canada's aboriginals
and indeed all Canadians deserve no less.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today,
on behalf of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada, to recognize national child day.
On this very special day, we think about what children need,
what they can teach us and how we can ensure they receive all
the love and support necessary to grow into healthy and
responsible adults.
National child day is a time set aside to listen to children and
marvel at all they have to offer.
It is also a time to delight in the special meaning they give
our lives and the hope they create for the future.
Let us take this opportunity to express our love, respect and
support to all those who are this country's greatest asset, our
children.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, newspapers from coast to coast scream for the solicitor
general to resign. They say he is a dead duck on life support,
that his credibility is in tatters, that it is time to say
goodbye, to relieve him of his cabinet post and for him to
resign.
The only person who finds his behaviour acceptable is the Prime
Minister. When did the Prime Minister's ethics sink this low?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's ethics are certainly a matter of
the highest level. We should be proud of the Prime Minister's
actions. He has said that he continues to support the solicitor
general.
I want to say that I never knew the Reform Party could not think
for itself and had to rely on newspaper editorials for its ideas.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely absurd that the government allows the
situation to continue. The fact is the solicitor general
violated his oath of office by talking about an ongoing sensitive
police investigation. He violated the trust of Canadians by
compromising the APEC inquiry.
The Prime Minister is willing to let his cabinet minister get
away with anything simply to avoid the embarrassment of having to
fire him. Why does the Prime Minister lack the ethics to fire
the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the hon. member showing a lack of ethics by
making these unwarranted insinuations and innuendoes? He is
showing questions about his own ethics in asking this ridiculous
question.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, only the government continues to defend the solicitor
general.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister is defending: a cabinet
minister who ducks journalists, runs from the House and the
truth, stonewalls, covers up, and does not know when to keep his
mouth shut in public.
What does it say about the Prime Minister's own judgment and
character that this is what he holds up as acceptable cabinet
behaviour?
The Speaker: We are bordering when we start judging our
own or anyone's character. I think the language is getting just
a bit too strong.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says it is okay for the solicitor general to
publicly discuss sensitive matters.
We are wondering if the Prime Minister also now thinks it is
okay for perhaps the justice minister to comment on cases before
the court as long as she is not the one who writes the final
judgment.
1120
When did the Prime Minister rewrite these so-called ethical
guidelines to allow this kind of behaviour?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, was this a public discussion or was it made public by an
NDP member who created the unfortunate situation we are
discussing right now?
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it does matter what cabinet ministers say, where they
say it or whom they say it to. It is only the Prime Minister who
does not realize that crystal clear fact.
I have a question for the government. As long as the Prime
Minister continues to hang on to the solicitor general, does he
not know that his historical record will read that he is the
prime minister that had more arrogance than ethics?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member makes a personal attack like that
it shows only one thing. He has a very weak case. He knows it
and the country will know it.
When it comes to the ethics of the Prime Minister they are of
the highest level. He deserves our praise and our support for
the way he carries out his work on behalf of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, except
for the Prime Minister, everybody knows it is high time the
Solicitor General was relieved of his duties. It is the only way
the government will be able to extricate itself from a major
crisis.
In view of the fact that Canadians are unanimous on this issue,
including those in the riding of Fredericton, why has the
Solicitor General not been dismissed yet?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General still has the support of the Prime Minister
and of his colleagues.
I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois does not have other questions
for the government. Of course, it agrees with our position on
social union and on the health transfer. Thanks again for that
vote of confidence.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
demagogy is certainly not the Deputy Prime Minister's strong
suit.
Everybody knows the Prime Minister has the nasty habit of
keeping ministers who are at fault until he can find a useful
excuse to get rid of them, such as a letter to the CRTC or to
the immigration tribunal.
If the Prime Minister has not yet dismissed the Solicitor
General, is it because he has not yet found an excuse to get rid
of him or because he has not yet found someone to replace him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
already have a replacement here, namely the member speaking on
behalf of her party. She may have already replaced everybody on
the front benches in this matter.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general is on the political equivalent of life
support. The Prime Minister's desire to keep him alive
politically is the non-medical equivalent of aggressive
life-support measures.
My question is a very simple one. How much longer is this going
to last?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, during his official trip to China, the Prime Minister
has confirmed that the solicitor general still has his full
confidence, as well as that of his colleagues.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we did
indeed hear the Prime Minister defending the solicitor general
this morning.
If he insists on continuing to focus parliament's attention and
public opinion on the tragicomedy of the solicitor general, is
this not because he clings to this as a diversion from his own
involvement in the events in Vancouver?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not
in the least, absolutely not.
I reject the hon. member's assumptions on this matter. Once
again I repeat, this matter is before the public complaints
commission. So we should let the commission do its job.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister asks whether it was a public
discussion. Indeed it was public discussion about a sensitive
issue in a public place.
Yesterday in a radio interview involving both me and the Liberal
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, even he said he would find
it difficult to defend the solicitor general.
The die is cast. What remains is for the deed to be done. Even
members of the other caucus admit that there are problems. When
will the Prime Minister do the deed and ask for the resignation
of the solicitor general?
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I simply want to repeat that the solicitor general
continues to have the confidence of the Prime Minister.
I also want to point out that the NDP, with all its concern for
social issues, unemployment, poverty and homelessness, has
forgotten all these things. It cannot choose to ask a question
in that regard. Again, it must be a vote of confidence in the
way the government continues to tackle and make progress on
dealing with these serious issues.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
since the Deputy Prime Minister mentions poverty and other
concerns, let us talk about social justice concerns.
Listening to the Deputy Prime Minister defend the solicitor
general is a little like reading the soliloquy of Hamlet,
whether he should be or not to be. It is clear that the
solicitor general has neither the confidence of the people of
Canada or even members of the House.
When will the solicitor general end his agony for himself and
the nation and resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is engaging in a soliloquy when he is
talking to himself about these matters and avoiding important
matters like the economic and social future of the country which
the government is dealing with and making progress on.
The NDP has lost its historic vocation and should be ashamed of
itself.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians sadly observed the first
solicitor general in history to enter the witness protection
program.
The APEC inquiry is mired in conflict, has a limited mandate and
has now proven indiscretions by the solicitor general. The Prime
Minister should simply pick up the phone and call the solicitor
general and fire him. Apparently ministerial responsibility has
also gone missing.
Is the government refusing to fire the solicitor general because
it is afraid of testimony that he might give at the APEC inquiry?
What is more important than ethics?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has already said that it intends to
co-operate fully with the commission.
If the hon. member is so interested in the work of the
commission then let the commission do its work and not try to
derail the commission with the unwarranted insinuations and
innuendoes in his questions before the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's
sympathy for an incompetent solicitor general given his personal
irresponsibility in the Airbus file two years ago.
The fact remains that the solicitor general's word has now been
contradicted. He did in fact discuss sensitive government
business in a public place.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister face the reality of the solicitor
general's breach of office and personally urge for that
minister's resignation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would prefer to start asking for the resignation as
House leader of the hon. member but I guess that would not be my
role.
I want to remind the House that Mr. Toole in his affidavit said
“At no time during our conversation did Mr. Scott suggest to me,
nor have I learned subsequently, that he was a person who had a
role in determining the outcome of the APEC commission. Nothing
in our conversation suggested to me that Mr. Scott knew what the
outcome of the APEC commission would be”.
I urge the hon. member to pay attention to these key paragraphs
in Mr. Toole's affidavit.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Sinclair Stevens was fired from cabinet in 1986 then Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney was abroad in China. After days of
defending the indefensible the prime minister ordered his deputy
to fire Stevens.
Why will the current Prime Minister not match the ethical
standard of Brian Mulroney and fire the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say that the Prime Minister is very much aware
of his responsibilities. The Prime Minister will be back in the
country on Saturday evening.
He has already spoken about this matter in China. He is
following it closely and I am sure he will have more to say about
it when he is back in our country and he can deal with the
unwarranted allegations of the hon. member.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
in the Telegraph Journal, the largest newspaper in the
solicitor general's home province of New Brunswick, an
editorialist wrote: “If the solicitor general truly takes pride
in our policing he knows that he is honour bound to resign”.
Where is the honour of this government? Where are its ethics?
Why will the solicitor general not do the honourable thing and
resign?
1130
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I looked through all the editorials of that same
newspaper, I could probably find a number of editorials taking a
position on other issues directly opposite to what the Reform
Party thinks. I do not know why one would want to pick one
editorial over another. It is their view and of course we have
to give it due attention, but I am sure that we could find other
editorials that would take contrary positions on other important
issues.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning a
coalition representing various groups of young people came here
to ask the federal government to transfer to Quebec all the
money earmarked for youth programs.
Since this request is very much along the same lines as Quebec's
traditional demands and is the logical extension of the transfer
of manpower training, does the minister intend to give it a
favourable reply?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: youth
unemployment is such a serious issue in Canada that all of us
must put our shoulders to the wheel.
A commitment must be made by the private sector and by all
levels of government, including municipalities, the provinces
and the federal government. Under the Canadian government's
youth employment strategy, 12 federal departments are doing their
share to help young people join the labour market. All levels of
government, along with businesses, must help us.
Is the PQ branch telling us that we must stop providing 25,000
internships, that we must stop creating 70,000 summer jobs for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont has the floor.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not the
PQ branch that came here this morning to say that the youth
strategy is not working. It is the consensus among young people
and the minister should realize that.
Instead of trying to convince himself that everything is fine,
could the minister give us just one good reason to keep youth
training programs under federal jurisdiction, considering that
he has already transferred the general manpower training
programs, and that he himself said this was a better solution?
How come what is good for workers in general is not good for
young Quebeckers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the member
would dare talk about a consensus in Quebec, when the PQ branch
here in this House is ignoring the fact that three-quarters of
all Quebeckers do not want a referendum.
They are now saying “we will have a winning referendum”. The
members on that side of the House have the gall to say that
those Quebeckers who prefer interdependence with other Canadians
are losers.
Is the only winning referendum one that is won by the PQ? In
fact, a winning referendum is one in which Quebeckers express
themselves freely, as they have done in the past.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have in this House is a double standard. We now
find out that last year the solicitor general gave specific
orders to the RCMP not to discuss the APEC inquiry.
Does the Prime Minister now support cabinet ministers breaking
their own rules?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that at
no time did the solicitor general give any such instruction to
the RCMP.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general is the top law enforcement officer
in the country. What kind of message is he sending to the police
officers, prison wardens and judges across the country when he
breaks the rules and gets off scot-free? When is he going to
resign?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a few weeks we
have been working on the basis of innuendoes, hearsay and
despicable lack of respect for fundamental justice for people
sitting in this House. I refuse to answer this question in this
fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a question, but
got no response. The minister had obviously put in the wrong
tape.
1135
I would therefore like to ask him the same question again. If
the minister is as great a consensus-producer as he claims to be,
how can he explain that he was not trusted by the Prime Minister
to handle the matter of social union, when it comes under his
mandate? Why was he denied this responsibility?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for showing such an
interest in my political career. I would like to take this
opportunity to explain further what social union is.
Quebeckers' view of it may be an abstract one. I shall define
it very simply. Social union is Canadians helping Canadians, one
of the most admirable forms of mutual assistance ever invented.
We invented it, along with our fellow Canadians.
The difficult situation in which the province of Quebec finds
itself, in large part because of the political uncertainty and
the threat of secession, costs our provincial government $4.5
billion in revenue year after year, according to Georges
Mathews, an economist with close ties to the Bloc Quebecois.
Are we going to give responsibility for this social union to a
premier who wants to destroy Canada, or to a Prime Minister who
wants to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscaminque.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers
will soon be settling that debate.
Yesterday we saw the Minister of Immigration trying to score
some political points for “Le printemps au Québec”, an event
held in Paris, by brandishing the maple leaf on the
international scene, and thus overshadowing Quebec culture.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs plan to continue
to improve Canada by making every effort to eclipse Quebec on
the international scene?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing must be made clear. It is not traditional
for the Government of Canada to send its Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs out to negotiate with the provinces on
anything but strictly constitutional matters.
If the matter is a social one, a minister with a social mandate
is sent. If the matter is economic, a minister with an economic
mandate is sent, because what is of primary importance to us is
to serve the people.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is there simply to
help out his federal and provincial colleagues, and I am
performing my duties to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me quote from page 91 of the Liberal red book:
There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with
government.... some have to do with the behaviour of certain
elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political
leadership.
This is not a headline from today's papers. This is right from
the Liberal red book.
When will the Prime Minister stop the arrogant stonewalling and
fire the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his endorsation of
the Liberal program. I presume in that endorsation he also
includes the entire red book. We will note that when his
colleagues try to attack our efforts based on that red book.
Thanks for the endorsation. We appreciate it.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, not even a Liberal can endorse their own red book these
days. The fact is that the government is caught like a rat in a
trap.
The Speaker: I appeal to members on both sides. Please
cool down the rhetoric a little bit so we can get through this
question period.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, we have two affidavits
swearing that the solicitor general fingered Hughie Stewart to
take the fall on this issue. There are two sets of lawyers who
want the APEC inquiry shut down. Still the government continues
to back its disgraced solicitor general.
Given the affidavits, given the breach of trust, given the
damage done by the solicitor general, how on earth can the APEC
inquiry do its job now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is serious about the public
complaints commission doing its job, then he would not attempt to
derail it through his unwarranted questions in the House.
1140
Why does the member not show some commitment to the process by
not asking these kinds of questions?
* * *
[Translation]
2010 GAMES
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Nagano, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said she could not do
anything to protect francophones, because the Canadian Olympic
Committee is an independent body.
Today, the Canadian Olympic Association claims to have met twice
with the minister, who asked them to consider the impact that
the outcome of the vote to choose the host city for the 2010
Games could have on the Quebec election.
Why did the minister ask the association to postpone until
December 1 the announcement of the Canadian city that will bid
for the 2010 Games, if not because the government fears that the
choice made could have a negative impact on the Liberals in
Quebec, on November 30?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sports Canada and the
Department of Canadian Heritage are partners of the Canadian
Olympic Association.
We had a duty to raise the concerns that had been expressed
regarding that decision.
An hon. member: This is not true.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That being said, we share the opinion of
the Quebec premier and of the leader of the Quebec Liberal
Party. This is a non-political decision.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And this is how the decision will be made.
The Canadian Olympic Association is an independent body and we
respect its decisions.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is national child day. The government has taken a number of
steps to ensure that children in Canada do not live in poverty.
Surely the best way to ensure that children do not live in
poverty is for Canadians to have jobs so they can provide for
their own children.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell this House
what steps he has taken to ensure that all Canadians can work and
provide for their children?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, poverty is indeed an issue
that has tremendously preoccupied this government since we took
office, and child poverty in particular.
This is why with the provinces we have set up a new national
child benefit in which we will invest as of the year 2000 $1.7
billion per year to fight child poverty for families with low
income. We have in Canada a good economic climate that will help
create jobs with the transitional jobs fund. We have implemented
a family income supplement. I could go on and on.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the closing day for voting in the Canadian
Wheat Board election for directors. There are serious concerns
about voting secrecy.
A farming couple from the minister's own riding applied and
received ballots. After voting, they removed the numbers from
the envelope and returned them. They then received a call from
the consulting firm KPMG who questioned their eligibility.
With their ballots lying in front of them, why did KPMG phone
this couple if it is to be a secret ballot? This sounds like
democracy in a banana republic to me.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as in all such processes if somebody has
complaints on the process there is a process to put in action. I
would suggest that the hon. member tell his constituents or those
he is referring to that they use that process.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, only eligible voters should have received a ballot in
the first place. How could KPMG identify a secret mailed in
ballot? This sounds more like a Cuban election where you either
vote one way or you do not vote at all.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if someone has a problem with the ballot,
there is a process in order to address that. That is the process
that should be followed.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says he wants to talk about
social policy. Let me ask him then about the fact that the OECD
has set a standard for all nations that 75% of health spending
should be public spending. Canada used to meet that standard but
not any more.
The president of the Canadian Health Association said “That
seems to be what we had until the cuts started to take place at
the federal and provincial levels. They sort of created a path
towards privatization”.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his wife that
government cuts starting at the federal level pave the way to
privatization of health care in Canada?
1145
The Speaker: Does he agree with his wife? That is
stretching it. If he wants to answer it, go ahead.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member would frame her question
in that way. If she were in the 20th century instead of the 19th
century which appears to be the case in her question, she would
realize that spouses are simply not emanations of each other.
They have independent existences and independent ideas connected
with their jobs.
The hon. member should be ashamed of her antediluvian 19th
century question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am not asking for the Deputy Prime Minister to share
any pillow talk. I am asking if he agrees with his wife, who
happens to be the President of the Canadian Health Care
Association, that this government has contributed to growing
privatization in our health care system today. We have a serious
problem.
For the first time in the history of medicare 30% of spending on
health care is private. When will the government stop
contributing to privatization of Canada's health care system?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she made it even worse in her question by bringing up
the same idea that a spouse is only an emanation of the other
spouse. I will give a direct answer.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have said that the
next budget will be a health care budget, building on what we
have already achieved. We will confirm that when the budget
comes.
I ask my hon. friend to go back and take some training on gender
sensitivity. She needs it and so does her party.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Business Development Bank of Canada has a mandate to assist
in developing small business in Canada. Can the minister
indicate if this bank is subject to any constraints on its
behaviour with regard to its dealings with the business community
in which it operates? More clearly, can the minister indicate if
there is a code of conduct that governs the operations of the
Business Development Bank of Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Business Development Bank of Canada was the first of
the Canadian banks to publish its own code of conduct and to
establish an ombudsman who could deal with complaints as they
arose.
With respect to the administrative responsibility of the
government, the bank operates entirely at arm's length. I do not
tell it what to do or how to do it. We established its mandate
in accordance with an act of parliament. It is doing a very
impressive job at meeting the needs of small business across
Canada.
If we really want to meet the needs of small business across
Canada, we will quickly pass Bill C-53 to ensure that the Canada
small business financing act is there for the use of small
business by April 1 next year.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is aware that I have written him regarding the company
named Eyeland Optical in St. John's, a company that is being
forced to move from a prime storefront location to make room for
the expansion of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
This will probably put Eyeland Optical out of business.
How does the minister square that action with the bank's mandate
to assist small business? Does he not realize that the BDBC in
St. John's is attempting to put a small business out of business?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know there was a tendency in Tory days to direct right
into the bank exactly what to do and how to do it, in particular
transactions. We do not do it that way.
The bank operates as an independent commercial entity. I am
aware of the situation the member has raised. I am informed that
the bank was unaware that this situation would arise when it
entered into an arm's length negotiation with the landlord in a
particular situation. I am sure the bank is doing its best to
deal in a sensitive manner with the situation.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
In a recent television documentary concerns were raised
regarding the increased amount of caffeine that was being added
to soft drinks and bottled water and how this would negatively
impact our youth.
Could the Minister of Health tell the House today why Health
Canada would allow this to happen?
1150
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the TV program that
may have left a misimpression with some people. The fact this
use of caffeine has not been approved by Health Canada and I can
assure the member and everyone in the House that while we are
conducting consultations we will not approve this unless we
determine it is safe. Safety is always a priority for Health
Canada.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in response
to a question asked earlier by one of my colleagues, the
parliamentary secretary declared that the cries for the solicitor
general's resignation are based on innuendo and hearsay.
My question is simple. Is the parliamentary secretary saying
that sworn affidavits by Fred Toole, by the member for Palliser
and from the solicitor general are innuendo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member to take due account of paragraphs
21 and 22 in Mr. Toole's affidavit. They will indicate that Mr.
Toole confirms, as far as he is concerned, he heard nothing that
would indicate that the solicitor general prejudged the matter.
If the parliamentary secretary is referring to innuendo and
insinuation, he is referring to the questions of the hon. member
and his colleagues.
When they ask those kinds of questions it shows they know they
have a very weak case.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING POLICY
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Atlantic groundfish strategy, the federal government has placed
Quebec at a disadvantage compared to Newfoundland.
The government is doing it again on the icebreaking issue.
What does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have to say to
all ferry service users, particularly those in Rivière-du-Loup,
Tadoussac and Baie-Comeau, who will have to bear the brunt of
this new tax?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought that by
this time the member opposite, given all the minister's answers
over the past week, would be standing to congratulate the
Government of Canada for what it does in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member should be praising the Government of Canada for
its support of the fishery, increasing the value of the landings
by 39% as compared to an 18% increase in Atlantic Canada. The
minister already indicated to members opposite that we are
spending $36 million on bridges across the St. Lawrence—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
was pleased to hear the member for Scarborough East and the
Minister of Human Resource Development discuss jobs today. It
bears on a question I asked in the House two weeks ago today to
the Minister of Natural Resources. I asked what plans the
government had for the hundreds of workers who have been laid off
by Devco, a crown corporation in Cape Breton.
The chairman of that federal crown corporation has said it may
not be able to meet its December 1 payroll. What plans if any
does the government have to deal with the payroll commitments of
Devco to the miners who work there?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, production has resumed in that operation.
I commend the United Mine Workers of America for their
constructive participation in that. We will go forward from
there in a positive way to work with everyone to make a greater
success of Devco.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
farmers in Atlantic Canada are also feeling the crunch from the
government.
We have grain in abundance because of a bumper crop and the
market is flooded, which drives prices down. Yet the government
is allowing grain from Europe into the port of Halifax and the
port of Saint John.
If the minister is as much of a Canadian as he feels he is, is
it not time that he took care of Canadian farmers instead of
farmers from Europe?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after the completion of the feed freight
assistance program that was wound down with support to the
producers over the last number of years the producers in Atlantic
Canada wanted the availability to buy their inputs and their
grain where they could buy them the cheapest. They have that
availability.
* * *
1155
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government has announced a tentative agreement with the
Public Service Alliance of Canada on the first collective
bargaining agreement since 1991.
Can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House on the
contents of the collective agreement and tell us when employees
can expect to receive their raises?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very glad to confirm that we have reached an agreement with
90% of our civil servants. It lasted 18 months and it was
difficult, but it is an excellent agreement.
I am also glad to say that in that same agreement we have put
into place now the pay equity for the future, the structure
necessary to implement it, so that there will no further gender
bias against women in our pay scales for the future. This is an
extraordinarily important achievement.
This agreement is to be ratified between December 6 and 16. We
will be able to pay the amounts within a few weeks after the
ratification.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are well aware that politics and perceptions are what people
see. The Canadian perception now is that there is a bad apple in
the Liberal barrel, namely the solicitor general.
Prime Minister Mulroney got rid of Sinclair Stevens, yet this
government does not do anything with the current solicitor
general. How far are the Liberals prepared to let the rot in that
barrel expand? When are they going to get rid of the solicitor
general?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): What a
great country, Mr. Speaker. If you wait long enough you too can
be acting Prime Minister.
The very comparison being drawn indicates an inability on the
part of the Reform Party to make a judgment as to what is in fact
an ethical issue. What is clear in this case, and the affidavits
tabled yesterday make it clear, is that the solicitor general did
not in any way direct or prejudge the inquiry. That is the issue
that really is germane here. That is all.
* * *
[Translation]
AID TO VICTIMS OF HURRICANE MITCH
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, hurricane
Mitch is the worst natural disaster to hit Central America. The
Prime Minister must show compassion in view of this tragedy.
Since the social and economic infrastructures of Honduras,
Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua have been all but destroyed,
will the Prime Minister make a commitment here and now to write
off these countries' debt to Canada and support the Chirac plan
for a reconstruction summit?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already done a lot in response to this devastating storm.
We have announced that $9 million has been set aside for
emergency humanitarian assistance. National Defence has deployed
troops who are providing direct assistance to the people of
Honduras.
Last Sunday, I had the honour and privilege of announcing that
$100 million has been set aside for reconstruction assistance
for Central America. We have declared a moratorium on its debt
and hopefully we will be able to do more for Central America in
the near future.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Alberta legislature is debating a bill as we speak
about allowing for a hospital to operate on a private for profit
basis. This opens the door to American style corporate hospitals
in this country.
At the same time private spending on health is skyrocketing due
to an ailing, hard hit public system covering fewer and fewer
medical needs.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what
specific steps the government is taking to prevent the increasing
privatization of health care in Canada.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, specifically the government and
the minister are very aware of Bill 37 before the Alberta
legislature.
The position has been made very clear that this government
supports absolutely and unequivocally the principles of the
Canada Health Act and will not tolerate a move to two tier
medicine in Canada.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
members of this House recognize, I am a relative newcomer to the
parliamentary system.
1200
I was very pleased with the way the parliamentary process worked
until recently and generally with the solicitor general. When I
came to the House I brought with me the integrity I had learned
before coming here.
Liberal members were quick to call for the resignations of
federal ministers for relatively minor indiscretions when they
were in opposition. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if
his government will do the right thing and ask the solicitor
general for his resignation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the hon. member to review the record of the
last Conservative government and look at the nature of the
incidents that led to scandal after scandal and resignation after
resignation of ministers of that party.
We can well understand the desperate case of scandal envy the
hon. member suffers from as he tries to raise this incident to
that level.
* * *
CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
light of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by hurricane Mitch,
could the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence
tell the House what the contribution of the Canadian forces has
been in bringing relief to the populations of Central America?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada and the Canadian
forces have a long tradition of rendering assistance to
populations in need following natural disasters. We have
deployed to Honduras the disaster assistance response team and
four Griffon helicopters. We are also involved in the transport
of humanitarian aid to the Honduras and Nicaragua.
Approximately 300 Canadian forces personnel are now stationed in
Honduras, including doctors, nurses, engineers and security
personnel. The Minister of National Defence will travel to
Honduras on Sunday. He will visit our personnel in La Ceiba and
Sonaguera and assess the situation in the region where our
Canadian forces are deployed.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday you asked the Deputy Prime Minister to honour the
tradition in the House of not referring to members present or
absent.
Today, he did not answer the second question I put to him, but
alluded to the fact that all the first row seats between you and
me were empty.
It is unfortunate that the Deputy Prime Minister has already
left, I would have liked him to retract—
The Speaker: Yes, I asked him and I ask all members of the House
not to refer to those who are or are not here.
I missed that, I am sorry. I will check the “blues”. I hope
this will not recur this session.
* * *
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICE
The Speaker: I have the honour to table the report of the
chief electoral officer on the byelection in the riding of
Sherbrooke on September 14, 1998.
This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for
1997-98 entitled “Achieving a Critical Mass”.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
petitions signed by residents of Grand Bend, Parkhill and
Dashwood who note that all studies show that the manganese based
MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices,
resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto
climate change commitment.
The petitioners call on parliament to ban the use of the
gasoline additive MMT.
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of
my community who reside in the Spruce Woods Housing Co-operative.
It is a petition that has been taken by the residents of that
co-operative. It deals with the hope that this government will
give serious consideration to the proposal put forward by the
co-operative housing sector to administer the federally assisted
co-operative housing portfolio through a new non-profit,
non-governmental organization established for that purpose.
With great respect, I present this petition to the House on
behalf of those residents.
BILL C-225
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents
who pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225, an act to amend
the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act. I present it on
their behalf.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an
act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House was interrupted for
question period the hon. member for Mississauga West had 13
minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to pick up where I left off which was on the issue
of safety at rail crossings. As members know, at unprotected
crossings there is a requirement for the engineer of an
approaching train to warn, from a certain distance, anyone who
might be at the crossing.
I was telling the House about the example in my own community
where we were experiencing, in the middle of the night, very
extended whistles that were disturbing entire residential
communities. We discovered that there was one dirt or country
road in the heart of the city not far from a landmark that many
members may be familiar with, the Square I shopping centre. This
gives members an idea of the density in the community.
This situation was caused because of an inability to acquire
this particular piece of property when Highway 403 was built. It
was left as an unprotected crossing and, as I mentioned, led to
what is commonly referred to as lover's lane. This crossing was
disturbing an entire neighbourhood.
It highlighted for me the importance of putting in proper
protection at railway crossings.
1210
I come from Mississauga. Recognizing that it is the 20th
anniversary of the train derailment which occurred in our
community which resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in
history, this is an issue which is very near and dear to my
constituents and the people in our city.
I hope there is a vision for improvement to rail services. I
think for example of the debate going on right now as to whether
Union Station should be acquired by the city of Toronto, the
province, the federal government, a private sector developer, or
a combination thereof to ensure that the architectural structure
of Union Station is preserved. While the history and the
architecture is important it is the facility itself which I think
is critical. I can see the day when Union Station would be
connected to Pearson airport hopefully right through the heart of
downtown Mississauga out to the airport. I could see a rail
connection for charter passenger flights from the Hamilton
airport connecting into Union Station and the downtown area of my
community and perhaps even Pearson.
We could see in the future an expansion of rail services with
high quality infrastructure in place which would allow commuters
going to and from work and other people to access facilities such
as Hamilton International Airport, Pearson, Union Station and
everything in between. The future of rail I hope is not dead in
this country. It is very important that we take a serious look
at issues surrounding safety.
Short line railways have started up around the country as a
result of the abandonment of certain sections of rail. We are
winding up with private sector businesses getting together in
some instances almost in the form of a co-op. I think of the
short line that connects Collingwood, Stayner and Barrie in the
south part of northern Ontario. It primarily serves the local
businesses and allows them to interact with one another. It is
vitally important if private sector railway companies are
operating on these short line systems that safety be of prime
concern.
I hope that one day the role of rail service in this country
might be similar to the experience in Europe and in Japan. The
bullet train in Japan, the Shinkansen, operates through the
entire country. As our country grows and the infill of population
occurs in urban communities, large populations are needed to make
passenger service economically feasible, particularly when it is
short line or commuter passenger service.
For example a subway system cannot work in areas where there are
not large concentrations of people who can get on and off that
facility. The same thing could occur in the area of rail. It is
not a vision that exists today but I think it is one that we
should be taking a serious look at.
There is a bit of history to show that this government is
responding to safety in the area of rail services. I believe
opposition parties are supportive of this. The government
response to the report of the railway safety act review committee
was tabled in parliament in June 1995. There were a number of
amendments.
One was to streamline the administrative process, cut down on
red tape, provide greater involvement for interested
organizations in determining the rules which I think is a very
democratic response.
Another was minimized disruption by train noise in communities.
I referred to the unprotected crossings. It is not just the
actual noise of the train that causes concern, but it is more the
whistle as it extends to the broader community.
Another was to strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade
crossings, something municipalities are very concerned about. To
go under or over the tracks at a grade crossing I believe costs
$7 million or $8 million in today's terms for a fundamental,
simple grade separation.
Municipalities are concerned with the interaction of the
automobile and the train and would prefer to have those grades
separated but obviously not at their expense.
1215
The other amendment was to simplify and improve provisions for
ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place and
finally to clarify and strengthen the power of railway safety
inspectors.
Following that, Transport Canada immediately proceeded to make a
number of other modifications which I would like to share with
the House. One is that the new section on testing exemptions be
amended to include immediate exemptions for a limited application
of short duration; second, that the new section on whistle
cessation be amended in order that any relevant association or
organization be advised of the municipality's intention to pass
the anti-whistling resolution. Once again, the importance of an
unprotected grade crossing without a whistle would endanger
public safety and is not something that any of us would like to
see.
The bill came back to the House in 1996 but unfortunately, or
fortunately as some of us would not be here if this had not
occurred, the House was dissolved, there was an election and the
bill died on the order paper.
However, I am pleased to note that amendments in Bill C-58
improve even further on the earlier amendment put forward and
accepted by the government that were originally in Bill C-43. I
will just share those with the House: a new policy statement and
new definitions and, very important, the authority to require
railways to implement safety performance monitoring. I refer the
House to my earlier comments about the identification on the
actual train cars that may be carrying chemicals that could be
dangerous and this will help to improve that; a new safety
compliance order targeted at safety management system
deficiencies and increased authority even further for inspectors.
I think we can all take some pride in this bill because the
reality is the government is recognizing the significance of
safety in the rail system not only in rural Canada in western and
eastern Canada and northern Ontario but indeed in the heart of
our hustling, bustling cities where citizens are impacted both in
terms of noise and in terms of safety. Municipalities can also be
impacted tremendously in terms of their fiscal responsibilities.
I think it is great to have this bill here. It is about time. I
agree with members that it would have been good if we could have
done it quicker, but better now than not at all. I look forward
to this going to committee and coming back to the House for third
and final reading with the support of all members.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the original plan had been that we were going to
put up one speaker, and I am not going to keep hon. members for
very long, but I could not end the day without passing some
comments on Liberal rail safety.
As far as the bill goes, we are supporting it to move to
committee where any bill can be improved. We certainly hope to
discuss it openly with our colleagues on the other side and find
ways to make the bill even better so that Canadians truly have
rail safety.
I thought it appropriate at this time to talk about the other
plan of the Liberals for rail safety. The Liberals are killing
the economy in this country. They are making it so that we
produce fewer goods, we sell fewer goods, we employ fewer people
and we tax and suck the money out of the economy. If they keep
doing that they will have rail safety because there will not be
as many trains running. They are putting more impediments in the
way of business every day, and that includes the railroads. We
will have the ultimate rail safety, we will have the ultimate
highway safety and we will have industrial safety because we will
shut everything down.
I hope the Liberals can come up with a better plan for rail
safety and all the other types of safety than continuing their
chaotic economic forage into taxpayer pockets and come up with
rail safety and other types of safety that work in a thriving,
vibrant economy.
1220
I also find it very ironic that the government would introduce a
bill on rail safety at a time when it is derailing the APEC
inquiry in Vancouver. A cabinet minister, the solicitor general,
made public statements after specifically forbidding the RCMP to
make any type of public statement which would derail the APEC
inquiry. That is an interesting point which I think the Liberals
have overlooked.
Recently in the United States there was a huge scandal, but the
outcome of that scandal was not what the president had done to
initiate that scandal—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt
the hon. member, but this bill is about rail safety. Political
derailment may mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but when
the bill deals with rail safety I am sure the member would want
to address his remarks to something relevant to rail safety
rather than derailment in a political sense.
I know the member would not want to get derailed in his remarks,
so I would invite him to get back on the track and stick to the
bill.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me on
the right track. Being as how you wield such power from your
position, I am sure you also use it to get the Liberals on track
with their national agenda.
When we talk about a government bill, be it rail safety, a tax
bill, a justice bill, any kind of bill, I think it is appropriate
to examine and review the credibility with which the various
ministers bring forward these bills because each bill is brought
forward in the name of a minister.
The rail safety bill was brought forward in the name of the
Minister of Transport. There has to be credibility or those
bills automatically suffer. Right now the Liberal cabinet lacks
credibility because of its failure to take action in one
particular area and that taints everybody. It does not matter
which party. When we have a problem that we ignore or try to
cover up it automatically taints everyone.
We have said, in the case of this rail safety bill, that we will
go along with it. We will help to move it to committee. We will
support this bill. Our critic said that this morning. We will
deal with it openly and honestly when it gets to committee.
But it already has a black mark attached to it because it is
presented in this House at the very time when the government is
lacking credibility because of its failure to act on a real
problem inside cabinet.
I am not going to continue. I am sure that hon. members want to
reconsider their position on how to deal with this particular
minister.
I will end my remarks by saying that we want the government to
bring in good legislation. We want it to be credible and we want
to be able to support it. However, it is hard to support
government cabinet ministers when there is a bad apple in the
barrel.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and
referred to a committee)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could call
it 2.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 2.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 o'clock, this House
stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.25 p.m.)